An Orthodox Perspective on Sola Scriptura (w/ Fr. Josiah Trenham)

Sola Scriptura is at the heart of the Protestant faith. In this clip, Fr. Josiah Trenham explains why the Orthodox church REJECTS Sola Scriptura. Interested in seeing the full interview? Go to: • Fr Josiah Trenham on ...
Buy Fr. Josiah's Book on the Reformation:
amzn.to/3kgWSwN
*This is an affiliate link. I receive a small commission on your purchase
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
Merch: www.teespring.com/stores/gospe...
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
Twitter: / gsplsimplicity
About me:
Hey! My name is Austin, and I'm a 21 year old guy with a passion for people. I believe the good news is that God is better than we could've ever hoped, and I love sharing this message of grace and love with anyone that will listen. I'm the former Digital Marketing and Video Production Coordinator at a large, evangelical church in Frederick, MD, and I'm currently a student at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, IL. When I'm not writing papers or making KZbin videos, I do freelance work as a Wedding Photographer/Videographer and social media consultant. On any given day you can find me with my nose in a book or a guitar in my hands. Want to get to know me more? Follow me and say hi on Instagram at: @austin.suggs
Send Me Books or Other Things if You’d like:
Austin Suggs
820 N. La Salle Dr.
CPO 123
Chicago, IL 60610
Video Stuff:
Camera: Canon 80d
Lens: Sigma 17-50 F2.8
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel

[@PadreFernandoLC]

I'm a Catholic priest liking a video of a protestant interviewing an orthodox priest. I think the Holy Spirit is guiding you.

[@masterchief8179]

Deus te abençoe imensamente, Padre! Um grande abraço de um católico do 🇧🇷 Brasil!

[@arthurolinto6501]

Achei que eu era o único brasileiro aqui kkkkkk

[@masterchief8179]

@@arthurolinto6501 Hahahaha, há brasileiros em toda parte, amigo. Brazilians everywhere! 😄

[@jeremiahong248]

And Asian Catholic convert from Buddhism and Taoism!

[@masterchief8179]

@@jeremiahong248 God bless you, Jeremiah! Our Lord Jesus Christ is great!

[@HudsonFamily7]

I've been Protestant Church of Christ all my life. I have so much more life, love, and understanding since the Lord has lead me to Orthodox. Finally victory over lust. Praise be to The Heavenly Father through the Son.

[@scottellis7024]

Another Church of Christ kid here… God has me a similar but different path than you. I remain in our tribe at the moment prayerfully hoping to be used to bring our heritage back to its roots. A unity movement who calls all believers in Jesus the messiah brothers and sisters. I pray God continues to use you where He lead you. Peace and grace, brother.

[@WhatTruthIs]

You are lost.

[@WhatTruthIs]

@MyNameIs Nope.

[@hestongraves3274]

Been a devout member of the Church of Christ my whole life but orthodoxy has gotten hooks in me the last two years. Still unsure where God is leading me but I pray for peace and grace everyday.

[@WhatTruthIs]

You are all lost. Get saved the easy way. God's way!

[@BibleIllustrated]

Fr. Josiah is terrific! So glad you had him on your channel! 😃

[@wishyouthebest9222]

You are terrific! 😁

[@LivingLambsVeganKitchen]

Look! It's Bojan! ❤

[@GospelSimplicity]

He’s fantastic and nice as can be. I was so grateful he said yes! You almost have to feel bad for him though because he had to follow up THE Bojan Teodosijevic.

[@BibleIllustrated]

@Catmatix Heaven's empty, and all the Orthodox KZbinrs are here :D

[@DarrylWoody]

This thread made me so happy

[@jeremiahong248]

The Orthodox position on Sola Scriptures is exactly the same as the Catholics!! Well explained Fr Josiah!!

[@JJ-cw3nf]

And Orthodox are also Catholics! "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" is the official name

[@jeremiahong248]

@@JJ-cw3nf Yes brother !! And fellow CPA !😁

[@Bashcutter]

@@JJ-cw3nf No, the Orthodox Church schismed from the Roman Catholic Church, There are Eastern Churches which have entered communion with Rome, but they are no longer Orthodox.

[@tynytian]

@@Bashcutter funny way to put that. 4 out of 5 patriachates separating from the last one constitutes a schism, and not rather that Rome schismed from the other 4 🤔

[@jimmu2008]

@@Bashcutter So if the Eastern churches in communion with Rome are no longer Orthodox, then logically they must be heterodox. Just saying...

[@rlpsychology]

As an evangelical Christian I guess, I so appreciate the perspectives of Orthodox and Catholic brethren as clarifying. Thanks so much, brothers.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad to hear that!

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Hold fast to the traditions that you WERE taught" past tense...whatever it was it was given in the 1st century and the RCC can't tell you whats in this supposed oral tradition anyways they just use it as a talking point...so where do you get the justification to anachronistically import doctrines such as infallibility, Marian dogmas, etc that comes hundreds or thousand + years later into that passage?

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Excuse me sir...The Scripture comes from the mouth of God (God breathed) theonoustas” through the apostles...you (he) said "it actually comes from the mouth of the apostles" IT ACTUALLY COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD!

[@Nepthu]

@@Adam-ue2ig That's because not everything the early Christians believed was written down or fully defined. Christianity grew like a tree. By your argument, why was the Trinity later imported? That wasn't fully formulated until hundreds of years later just like the Marian dogmas.

[@briankristensen349]

@@Adam-ue2ig the Trinity you can explain from old and new testament,,, The Marion dogma is explained from christians!?!

[@nbinghi]

As a recent convert to Orthodoxy from decades in Reform churches, all one has to do is look around at all the further splintering into such heresy as Word of Faith, NAR, Prosperity gospels, etc., and realize well, none of these things occur from the Orthodox. I'll stick to the original source of the historical Church.

[@a.kamileon]

FACTS!!!! I’m a current Protestant considering the Orthodox Church and I’ve been so fed up with prosperity gospel, word of faith, and NAR etc.

[@flawlessvic]

May God be with you in your journey. I was a Protestant for over 30 years, but was baptized in the Holy Orthodox church last year. The journey is so worth it.

[@scipioafricanus2195]

Come on over. The water is fine

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@@flawlessvic That is wonderful. Which Local Orthodox Church did you become a member of?

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

​@@flawlessvic I was asking you which Local Orthodox Church you became a member of because there is an ongoing schism within Orthodoxy that started in 2018 and as a result some Local Orthodox Churches fell from Orthodoxy and now are not part of the Church. The Constantinopolitan Patriarchate fell from Orthodoxy in 2018. I will point the arguments why that is so. First, the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate has embraced an eastern form of papism. Here is what he says:,,The beginning of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarchate; “in this is life, and the life is the light of the Churches.” The late Metropolitan Kyrillos of Gortyna and Arcadia, a beloved Hierarch of the Mother Church and personal friend, was right to underline that “Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” (www.uocofusa.org/news_180901_1). This is a indirect claim for infallibility. Second, the decade-lengthy process (starting more severely in the late 1950s) of spreading modernistic theology by some modernistic Orthodox theologians, unfortunately gave bitter fruits to the point that the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate embraced the modernistic claim that the teaching of the penal subsitutionary atonement (which is an Orthodox teaching and a teaching of the ancient Church), is a late Western teaching and today rejects it. (www.goarch.org/-/btb-173?inheritRedirect=true). (There must be noted that modernists recognize the term PSA only in the sense of Christ saving us from death by subsitututing it with His Death on the Cross but reject the term in the sense of Christ saving us from God's wrath and the eternal punishment by substituting with the penalty of the Cross the the penalty awaiting the unrepented sinners.) Third, there are the non-canonical actions of Constantinople in Ukraine. These actions caused an arising internal schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is an English translation of the letter of the Bulgarian Metropolitan Daniil of Vidin to and eparchial metropolitan bishops of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Church of Cyprus, Church of Greece, Albanian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church: new.sliven.net/res/news/292888/___________________.pdf. He explains the issue of the 2018 Moscow-Constantinopolitan schism entirely from a canonical perspective. This is a link to a famous 1995 Letter from Patriarch Bartholomew to Patriarch Alexey of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Ukrainian Diaspora: orthodoxsynaxis.org/2018/10/10/1995-letter-bartholomew-alexey/. In the letter the Patriarch clearly refers to the groups that were later included by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the recently formed Orthodox Church of Ukraine (2018) by issuing of a Tomos of autocephaly, as schismatic groups. The Patriarchate of Constantinople openly entered communion with the newly formed church of Ukraine that consists of those schismatic groups. But the communion with excommunicated persons, leads to excommunication of those who have communed with them:,,And, if any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.'' (canon 2, Council of Antioch, 341). That is why it is argued by some Orthodox theologians and priests that the Patriarchate of Constaninople is no longer a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church since 2018. In other words it fell from the Church like the non-Chalcedonians in 451 and Rome in 1054. Unfortunately there is a danger that the internal schism could grow bigger. The Alexandrian Patriarchate supported the schismatic OCU in 2019 and as a result the Moscow Patriarchate ceased Eucharistic Communion with it like with the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate in 2018. That way the Alexandrian Patriarchate also fell from the Body of the Church. Nowadays the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and the Alexandrian Patriarchate and the Churches which took the side of the schismatics and recognized them are not part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Those other Churches are partially the Churches of Greece and Cyprus - partially because some of the bishops of their holy Synods did not and still do not recognize the new OCU. Things can change if they can become again part of the Orthodox Church but right now they are in a schism, thus being out of the divine grace.

[@marcmarc8524]

What this priest is saying is totally in accordance with what the Catholic Church teaches about sola scriptura.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks

[@Nepthu]

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches were the same organization for nearly 1000 years.

[@paulgauguin7730]

@Phillip Hickman protestantism ofc

[@paulgauguin7730]

@Phillip Hickman heresy.

[@teamjesus1219]

@Phillip Hickman its hard to proof an heretic the truth. you have to pray a lot and search information yourself. we pray for you too GOD bless you and HIS Holy apostolic catholic church 🌹

[@davidus9702]

I am Catholic, so far I watched 2 or 3 of your videos that popped up in my recommendation. I like your approach to all of this, I see that you wish for Christians of all denomination to get a better understanding of one another and in that was grow together towards Christ. God bless you.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad that you're enjoying the channel! God bless

[@bechet12]

This does very little to help that cause! If you understand that the physical foundation of the faith is completely Jewish with as Paul stated resting on the apostles and prophets with Christ as the chief cornerstone that holds it all together through election you would have a more solid understanding of why no true Christian unity could ever happen with the recognition of the pope as the true leader of Christendom. Those who are eternally lost will fall for such a unity!

[@aleksandarstavric2226]

@@bechet12 Pope is a heretic

[@bechet12]

@@aleksandarstavric2226 no doubt.

[@seraphim3TN]

that sounds like ecuminism. we don't want to grow together with protestants and catholics.

[@vesnastihovic7014]

I can't wait for those interviews with Orthodox priests.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Hope you enjoy them!

[@DChristina]

You can find interviews with Orthodox priests on Orthodox channels. They don’t have an agenda to gain views for money.

[@kilemyers784]

@@DChristina Do you go to work with an agenda to make money? Asking for a friend

[@DChristina]

@@kilemyers784 - Check out Fr Syridon Bailey’s channel, also Protecting Veil. God bless💕 In answer to your question - yes I’ve worked many years in Portland and Silicon Valley as a professional drug & alcohol specialist (CADC II BA), helping addicts get into treatment as well as helping them once in treatment. Retired now:-) but volunteer a lot. (I’ve unsubscribed to this channel so won’t see further comments.)

[@kilemyers784]

@@DChristina I've watched his videos on that channel, is him asking people to check out the books he wrote also fall into your category of having an agenda to make money?

[@swenner64]

Thanks for taking us back to this! Excellent!

[@orthodoxiechretiennefrance2487]

Watched it twice or thrice over the past 2 years Fr. Josiah is brilliant Thanks also to Austin for interviewing him Glory be to God

[@trevorwright2]

Wow father Josiah does very well on camera! Lol I wouldn't of known that from his liturgys. Very good humble man and he has a very almost ancient demeanor yet he's very open and inviting. Very kind of both of you to take time to do this interview.

[@GospelSimplicity]

He's a natural on camera!

[@jmorra]

I agree. He is by far the warmest Orthodox leader I have encountered. He even smiles and laughs....something I rarely see.

[@RudyCarrera]

@@jmorra oh, man, come to more churches. We had one who came to the Romanian church who was a former Boston policeman and RC clergyman who converted, and the sermons were hilarious as well as reverent.

[@silenciummortum2193]

I used to study to become a Pentecostal pastor and then read “The Orthodox Church” by Bishop Kallistos Ware and let me tell you.... the host’s face was the same as mine when I read the book then as when Father Trenham was dropping those truth bombs. God bless you for the humility to listen to him with such an open heart and mind. I am on my way to Russian Orthodoxy.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing! I really enjoy Ware’s work

[@saramolina8911]

Hello could you explain a little about this. What do orthodox think about protestants? they can go to Heaven or defenetly will go to hell? And about latin catholics? Heaven or hell? What i want to know is if orthodox think church saves. Another thing is if you think that at the eucharist a sacrifice occurs or not? Does a sacrifice really happens like latin church says? I like orthodoxy better than latin catholisism. But why do you think orthodoxy is better than protestantism. What are we doing wrong

[@bpowell7999]

@@saramolina8911 These are some really great questions, but they are hard to answer fully because protestants and Orthodox sometimes miss each other in a common understanding of terms. Being Orthodox doesn't mean by any means getting to definitively judge the state of another's soul, nor do Orthodox consider all other Orthodox to be saved merely by affiliation. St. John Chrysostom referred to the Church as a hospital for sinners, and that's what it is, just that Orthodox would argue that they have a fuller medicine cabinet to help with the terminal illness of sin, supplied by the Great Physician Himself. The sacrament of the Eucharist is understood similarly in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but with distinction: Orthodox don't feel the need to use human reasoning to understand what is incomprehensible, the turning of simple bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. In Orthodoxy, we humble ourselves to this mystery. I'm going to avoid answering the sacrifice question (I can't do it justice) but I'll link some info for you. Hope you continue to search for answers! God bless- A starting point for your Eucharist question: www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist A book that discusses an Orthodox view on the protestant reformers: Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Theology by Father Josiah Trenham. What Orthodox Christians Believe from the Antiochian Orthodox Church of America: ww1.antiochian.org/whatorthodoxbelieve

[@marybee1594]

May God save you from temptations on your path, beware of Ecumenism trap, try to find truly Ortodox spiritual father, may God be with you, We are happy to see that western people are opening to first apostolic Church, greetings from ancient Serbian Ortodox Church founded by apostol Paul ☦️

[@silenciummortum2193]

@@marybee1594 Thank you so much, Mary. God love you, your family and your parish!

[@AB-yv7oo]

According to canon 19 of the Council of Trullo, the Holy Scripture must be interpreted as the Church teaches. The reason behind this is that the Biblical canon was officially approved by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Excellent interview with Fr. Josiah. Austin, may God lead you to His Church.

[@brunot2481]

Actually the Council of Carthage (397 AD) simply reinforced the Council of Rome (382 AD) formal proclamation about the sacred books, under Pope St Damasus I.

[@saramolina8911]

Neither were binding to all chuch as they were not ecummenical

[@RudyCarrera]

@@saramolina8911 well said. Those are merely local councils.

[@justin_messer]

@@RudyCarrerarullo is ecumenical. It is considered to be an appended portion of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils because neither council has any canons. We even have evidence of early popes ratifying Trullo and considering it part of western canon law.

[@katharinajanousek5040]

You do such great work! And you are so open to other confessions - great ♥️

[@seannyfraze]

Great conversation. Thank you!

[@Unxpekted]

Syriac Orthodox Palestinian tuning in. Interesting stuff

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks!

[@CDAinVA]

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture( JM)

[@LG-bi2ed]

Exactly. In the vid he misunderstands sola scriptura with solo scriptura

[@ri3m4nn]

Correct. That's why Sola Scriptura is more than sufficient; what more do we need than a clear path to salvation with the Creator?

[@ignatiusl.7478]

Once a Protestant sees through Sola Scriptura they are no longer truly Protestant.

[@justchilling704]

Strange sense some Protestants are Prima Scriptura .

[@MattysModernLife]

Unless a Christian accepts the authority of the scripture, they are not actually a Christian.

[@LadyMaria]

@@MattysModernLife We do however we also accept how to interpret them as well. That is Christian.

[@RudyCarrera]

@@justchilling704 Protestants tend to be closer to Islam for practically worshipping the Bible. Their hatred of the Church betrays them.

[@a.brekkan4965]

​@@MattysModernLife All the Scripture is encompassed in the Teaching of the Church but not all the Teaching is encompassed in the Scripture.

[@phillipbingham487]

very good words... may God bless you for what you are doing on here.....

[@MrGb1965]

As my (Orthodox) priest once said, Sola Scriptura is a tradition of man.

[@CherryDreamer96]

I often hear Protestants talk about "man made rules" yet often time, they are very militant about Sola Scriptura (and the other Solas)

[@MrGb1965]

@@CherryDreamer96 Good point. Thanks

[@beautifulspirit7420]

As a Catholic I loved this teaching which is the same for the Catholic Church.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad to hear that

[@Nepthu]

@Phillip Hickman Sola Scriptura is heresy.

[@beautifulspirit7420]

@Phillip Hickman this quotation says nothing about Sola Scriptura. Where does it say Scripture ALONE? Instead the Bible says: "Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

[@noway165]

@Phillip Hickman fasting is prescribed, most solar scriptura ignore fasting. "This is My Body...This is My Blood" seems clear? Pick and choose? Love!

[@renepeterhans6225]

I really love the background music at the end!

[@GospelSimplicity]

I think you're the first person to ever comment on it! Thanks!

[@aditipuri5148]

A lovely interview... Very clear and illuminating Thank you very much

[@GospelSimplicity]

My pleasure

[@yakovmatityahu]

Hello

[@soliscrown1272]

I'm quite new to this channel. Interesting content. This seems like a very honest inquiry into the many facets of Christian faith.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks! Glad to have you here

[@mindfulskills]

Excellent argument, to which I would add that scripture itself is only held to be authoritative BECAUSE of non-scriptural tradition. It was the church fathers of the first three centuries who determined which writings would be accepted as canonical.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing

[@thuscomeguerriero]

The church fathers accepted anything demonstrably apostolic. They did not choose which writings were authoritative.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

That's really misleading in several ways...the Word of God is self authenticating and has several identifying marks and characteristics that make it accessible to know without any council or Canon process (also the inner witness of the Spirit) ...the scriptures were already widely circulating by end of first century before any claims that RCC determined a canon hundreds of years later...also the RCC never officially declared their canon until 16th century...also the Jews laid up in the temple their booKS and the deuterocanonical or apocryphal were not laid up.. It's a long complex discussion in which space does not permit here.

[@jmorra]

Only to a point. The internal content of the canonical gospels is internally consistent, in both theology and form, from, say, pseudo-Christian documents like the gospel of Thomas. It is a no-brainer to see which one does not belong. The authority outside the texts certainly was a factor, but less so than you suggest. Just read those other documents. Not only do they not sound at all like Jesus, they are boring and silly.

[@freeman7055]

2 can play in this game: By denying the authority of the Holy Scriptures, you deny the canonical authority of those Church Fathers themselves.

[@eldermillennial8330]

To be fair, Orthodoxy always encouraged lay reading of scripture EXCEPT for Revelations. Only professionals were allowed to read it in full. Even wealthy Orthodox people who could afford their own Bible could not have The Apocalypse included for private ownership. While going back to that is futile now, I kind of reluctantly agree with the idea behind it. It is clearly the most dangerous scripture to get wrong.

[@GospelSimplicity]

That's really interesting

[@redaquila2891]

Can I get any sources on this? I'd like to learn more.

[@noway165]

@@DChristina in most Orthodox Churches, Revelations is quoted written on the walls or around the dome! Love to you!

[@DChristina]

@@noway165 - Thank you & God bless💕☦️

[@harrykezelian8009]

This is true in the Armenian Orthodox church. Not sure if it was in personal Bibles (though it certainly was included when they switched to printing from manuscripts, in the 1600s). But Revelation is never read aloud in the churches as a daily reading. It isn't discussed in sermons (or it isn't supposed to be). And I agree with the reasoning for it absolutely. I don't know about the Greeks and other Byzantines.

[@jg7923]

Thanks for these videos.

[@GospelSimplicity]

My pleasure!

[@zachdavenport8509]

I agree that oral teaching from the apostles was authoritative, but I question if it could be passed down orally for 2000 years without corruption. Protestants don't argue that scripture contains everything that is true. We just just argue it is the only source of truth that is sure.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Well said

[@gregcoogan8270]

the formation of all of Scripture from the old to the new, was formed precisely on a foundation of oral tradition. The bible didn't fall from the sky bounded together. It took thousands of years for it to be gradually written and only when the Church had a council did the books that we considered Scripture today were labeled as such.

[@zachdavenport8509]

@@gregcoogan8270 That is half true. From the church's inception, the old testament was treated as authoritative scripture. A cursory glance through the new testament will confirm that. Perhaps even the apocrypha, but I have not done much research on that. And, the writings of the apostle Paul are referred to as scripture in Peter's epistles. From this it is fair to assume that the writings of the apostles, or writings approved by them, were understood to be scripture. Its true that an official canon was not established (and still hasn't been universally in the Orthodox Church) but it was understood that the teachings and writings of the apostles were authoritative. For me, a better term than sola scriptura is "sola stuff-we-can-confirm-uncontroversially-that-the apostles-taught...a." But "Sola Scriptura" does have a better ring to it.

[@gregcoogan8270]

@@zachdavenport8509 it's all true

[@zachdavenport8509]

@@gregcoogan8270 What is?

[@Mark-yb1sp]

Sola scriptura has given me my foundation as a Protestant. It helped keep my feet on solid ground and not shifting sand. However, as an Orthodox Catechumen I now see the point they are making.

[@wishyouthebest9222]

In another comment you stated that you are a proud protestant but now a orthodox catechumen?

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing!

[@Mark-yb1sp]

@@wishyouthebest9222 I’m still Protestant until I convert over. I don’t despise my Protestant upbringing because it gave me a foundation. But I now know there is so much more out there that I didn’t know. But I won’t turn on my Protestant brothers. It upsets me when I see people bashing them.

[@wishyouthebest9222]

@@Mark-yb1sp what convinced you to become orthodox?

[@Mark-yb1sp]

@@wishyouthebest9222 Thanks for the question. I’m convinced that Orthodoxy is not something a person seeks after out of the blue. It’s something that DRAWS YOU out of the blue. I have been burned by Pentecostals and Charismatics and bored by the Protestants. In non denominational churches anything goes. It’s a constant emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit and a constant unbiblical abuse. 90% of these preachers don’t even have any credited Bible school and do not know any Greek or Hebrew. That’s a huge missing link! And with Protestantism it starts at the year 1500. There are 1500 years PRIOR to that which needs addressing! In Orthodoxy I find a purpose for everything they do and a pedigree for WHY they do it. And I have never seen so much respect for the Lord, the alter, the Eucharist or the church fathers in ANY church ever. It’s amazing. And there are no threats either. Ie: if you don’t do such and such, your eternal destiny rides on it. I want a factual Christianity. Not made up traditions that evolve with the current trends. I wasted a lot of time in silly churches that feed your emotions which in the long run gives you nothing. Life is too precious and my eternal salvation is too important to play church. I want to BE the church and I have found it in Orthodoxy. It is my privilege to share this with you. Thank you again for asking.

[@balukuroben7458]

The difference between the true church & the counterfeit is that the true church has scripture & Apostolic tradition while the counterfeit claims scripture alone which results into a chain reaction of splinter sects

[@veritasmuy2407]

No, the difference between the true eternal spiritual church of GOD (1Peter 2:5-7) and the counterfeit physical church is that *the true church is comprised of Believers indwelled by GOD Himself and thus gets their spiritual truth directly from GOD and not from some sinful man (1John **2:27**, Matthew 23:9) -- whereas the counterfeit church is all about physical rituals (Matthew 15:17) and physical hierarchy (Matthew 20:25-26, 1Peter 5:3) and false interpretations of Scripture by the church leadership that Paul and Peter warned us about in Acts 20:29-30, 2Peter 2:1-3, 1Timothy 4:1-6, etc.* *There is no such Biblical thing as "apostolic tradition" -- the APOSTLES were traveling PREACHERS of the Gospel to the lost unbelievers -- that was their job description* (Mark 16:15-16, Matthew 10:5-6, Acts 10:38-43, Galatians 2:7-9, etc) -- *the APOSTLES were not "bosses" of the congregation of BELIEVERS.*

[@RudyCarrera]

@@veritasmuy2407 Nonsense. Churches have structure. The cults posing as churches can't agree, and frankly were killing each other at the beginning until the authorities restrained them. You brought shame to the faith, and it is precisely because of the loss of both authenticity and authority that atheism prevailed in Western culture. Nice work.

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@RudyCarrera YOU: The cults posing as churches can't agree, and frankly were killing each other at the beginning until the authorities restrained them. You brought shame to the faith *ME: Doesn't compare to the Roman Vatican spending 1000 YEARS hunting down, torturing, murdering and stealing the assets of anyone in Europe that would not convert to Roman Catholicism -- creating untold numbers of widows and orphans thrown into the streets.* According to JESUS, Rome was doing the work of their father Satan for 1000 YEARS -- John 10:10, John 8:44, etc. Rome has brought MORE SHAME on Christianity than anyone else -- *and their blasphemous abominations are still going on today -- or have you forgotten about the Amazonian Synod,* protecting pedophiles, rampant homosexuality, etc ???

[@veritasmuy2407]

@@RudyCarrera YOU: Nonsense. Churches have structure. *ME: GOD's "ekklesia/congregation/church" is completely different from the structure of worldly kingdoms that have lords/bosses over them -- see Matthew 20:25-26.* BECAUSE God's Church is comprised of Believers that indwelled by GOD HIMSELF -- each individual Believer has the power of GOD indwelling them (2Corinth 6:16, etc) -- each individual Believer has direct access to GOD that indwells them (Ephesians 2:18) -- each individual has the power of GOD to heal, cast out demons, etc (John 14:10,12). -- *and it is when any 2 or 3 of these Believers gather together, that is the "ekklesia/congregation/church" of GOD with power to bind and loose, etc -- see Matthew 18:18-20 -- sometimes its even the least esteemed in the congregation that makes binding decisions for the church/congregation -- see 1Corinth 6:4.* There is no formal hierarchy of leadership in GOD's church (1Peter 5:3) -- *no need for a spiritual "pope/papa/father" who claims to be the one with God's "infallible" truth, because Believers are indwelled by GOD and get GOD's Truth direct from GOD -- see 1John **2:27**, Matthew 23:9.* No need for a formal priesthood to forgive sins -- Jesus' blood on the altar in Heaven 2000 years ago has given Believers ETERNAL, PERPETUAL, NEVER ENDING forgiveness for our sins (Hebrews 9:12,26,28, Leviticus 17:10-11). etc

[@susannarducci3350]

Wow!! I learned so much! I need to watch it 2 more times to fully comprehend what he just explained!! Thank you so much !.

[@GospelSimplicity]

My pleasure!

[@bobymail9383]

U r ignorant! Saul didn't write thessolonians 2. Do not understand the dark ages? The church became God and controlled kings and every aspect of life! Solis scriptura took away their power. Ever heard of the Spanish inquisition that lasted 350 years? This greek slimeball knows better. Also that church was built 1500 years after Saul.

[@ohperry1978]

This was a very solid refutation of Sola Scriptura by Fr. Josiah!

[@nocommentnoname1111]

Very informative and educational.

[@OfftoShambala]

I was born into the catholic faith… my mother who was significantly physically handicapped, stopped taking us to church when I was five… I never understood much but she did but me some children’s illustrated bibles which I read several times, thankfully! But, I never felt like it was clear and straightforward. I eventually became a Christian hating atheist, then began to search for ‘answers’ after I conceded to agnostic thinking. I studied every religion and new age mindset techniques… then I began to look at Christianity with a new appreciation. After a lifetime of mostly signifigant failures in every aspect of my life, and a near death experience… I became fully Christian, highly influenced by the Protestants. I had been planning to find a church, thinking I’d go with the Protestants, but still having an appreciation for Catholicism. I finally began to pray for a Christian husband… and God quickly delivered! I was reunited with an old flame from my early twenties at 52 years old. The first thing he said to me was that he was super catholic. Something he never said to anyone in that manner before, he said. He said he didn’t know why he said that. But, I now feel like it was the hand of God. And so I started to listen and read catholic priests and others on the internet, mostly KZbin. And it’s a whole nuther dimension compared to the Protestant content. I respect their effort to abide by biblical truth, but I agree with the heresy and culty preachings that come about when there is a breakaway from things like apostolic tradition. It’s actually a big topic for me, for years. Been planning to write a book. Still collecting data. Learning about Catholicism has really opened my eyes.

[@christophmahler]

Thanks for engaging in dialogue !

[@GospelSimplicity]

My pleasure!

[@christophmahler]

@@GospelSimplicity I guess, You will soon start a series of reading from *Maximos the Confessor* , together with Father Trenham ? Eh ? ^^

[@thecatholicman]

Great Points! Completely agree with Fr. Josiah.

[@vaska1999]

As a cradle Orthodox, I have great respect and appreciation of the Biblical scholarship done mainly by Protestants over the past two hundred years.

[@RudyCarrera]

The problem, sister in Christ, is that a lot of it leads to confusion, and ultimately, to atheism. However, that also motivated the True Church to raise more seminaries and build our scholarship up.

[@addjoaprekobaah5914]

You are so honest. Protestantism, for all it's faults has helped the church with solid theology. Many Catholics don't know their bible. They rely on what they are told because they believe in an infallible magisterium. The orthodox church is so out of reach that one has to be in it to understand what it teaches. In my country, there is not a single orthodox church. Yet they keep demonising protestants who have largely and currently are radical about evangelism. I will never leave Protestantism because unlike Catholics or Orthodoxs, I believe I'm part of the One True church because scripture tells me so. Case closed. Church fathers and traditions are fine, but Sola scriptura, or prima scriptura

[@BigSoul29]

Honestly props for sitting accross from people who often tell you you believe thr wrong thing... and still being kind & polite. Ive been going to a protestant church for the past 3 years ( was originally greek orthodox) but now questioning returning to Orthodoxy since i found your channel. I feel sad because i love reading and understanding the gospel, snd sad because i love protestant sermons, and sad because i might lose all my friends .. also hoping im nit deceived. But sfter your interview with Dr.Constantinou, it's difficult for me to unhear and unsee how orthodoxy was the founding Christian Church and this topic too... So much on my mind. I sm struggling a lot.

[@jonathanskeet5076]

If your friends are really your friends they won't stop being your friends because you turn to Orthodoxy, especially if they see how it changes your life over time. It becomes slightly tricky, or can do, in certain ways, because you have embarked on a radically different pathway but I still have my Protestant friends. It's just not easy talking about certain things together any more.

[@dannybarsness3850]

Sent up a prayer for you in your journey, God bless

[@jonathanskeet5076]

Good and true Christian friends shouldn’t abandon you for making this step. Some of them may worry about you or think it’s some kind of mistake but if they observe positive changes in you and you are able to emphasise that one big aspect of Orthodoxy is participation more and more in the nature of Jesus Christ, they should start to relax even if it remains a mystery to them. This is my experience anyway.

[@brankabrnica1914]

I could NEVER leave Eastern Orthodox Church, for something else. Our ancestors spilled their blood for Orthodoxy, under 500 years of Ottoman Muslim occupation & judeo-commi dictatorship. EASTERN ORTODOX CHURCH is the ORIGINAL CHURCH. Come back home☦️

[@joelmull]

Great video and so True. Love it.

[@GospelSimplicity]

So glad!

[@carlospaulopaulo8855]

May god bless us all!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Amen

[@carlospaulopaulo8855]

@@GospelSimplicity tt',s amazing to hear the explanations about the ortordoxy church!

[@carlospaulopaulo8855]

Amen! He is among us! Have a nice day!

[@men.276]

In my opinion I think private interpretation of scripture or "God put it on my heart" interpretation is not what Christ wants for His Church. These words again in my opinion have led to more and more division of the body of Christ and hence too many denominations to count. It just makes sense that Christ established One Church with authority to teach. And as scriptures says the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth. Unfortunately that means alot of Pastors may be in rebellion to God and teaching wrong doctrine.

[@beautifulspirit7420]

Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

[@kc_woodsman7504]

As a Protestant, I have learned a lot from Orthodox Christians. My main contention with both Catholicism and Orthodoxy is different than most I would guess. I truly appreciate the reverence in the Cathedrals. I think you can find great wisdom in writings from the Church Fathers when it is consistent with scripture. I recognize the value of tradition. The ability to identify and follow the deeper symbolism in the Scriptures is truly life changing. The main hang up point on me for both is not Icons, Veneration, The Blessed Mother, Apocrypha, etc.. It's their views on Salvation. It appears as an outsider, that my brothers in Christ do not seem to separate Justification (Salvation) from Sanctification. (I understand both have different views with Theosis, Medial vs Venial, etc.). It just seems to me that Jesus was very clear on Justification when speaking about it both directly, and indirectly; I.E. when preforming miracles it's almost always 'your faith has made you well.' It seems throughout both the Old and New Testament there are distinct difference between the two. I am not saying they are entirely separate, as sanctification does happen following your justification, however, I have never found a biblically satisfactory answer in the way I understand the position of both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I am open to correction where I am wrong, but as it stands, these are my thoughts. I am praying for a unified Church that is set up exactly as our Savior, Jesus Christ intended.

[@user-zi2cp4ii6b]

Have no doubt...the only true religion is Orthodoxy! And this is because it was not founded by people (as with sects), but by the Triune God Himself! The one true God!! Read history and you will see that when Christianity prevailed, all of Europe was Orthodox! In the seventh century (I think), Christianity split in the West, because the then Pope of Rome, adopted the filioque arrogantly and changed the doctrine of the church and became a heretic himself and all who followed him! This is how Roman Catholicism arose and later Protestantism, which are HERESIES!!!

[@WillGaylord]

Bless you, and I hope that I can help answer this satisfactorily as I am a convert from being a Baptist. The reason why we don't make a distinction is rooted in how we view the function of humanity. We are the body of Christ, we are the hands and feet of God to bring about his will on this earthly plain. That being said, we can use an analogy of us being like the tools of God. So, say you, the Christian, are like a hammer which is used by God. Is the hammer "justified" by simply being a hammer? Or is it justified by being used by the Carpenter? We don't make the distinction because while it is true that Sanctification follows Justification, they cannot be reasonably separated because they are inseparable parts of the same process of being and becoming the hands and feet of God on earth. That is to say, talk of Justification without Sanctification is meaningless - "faith without works is dead." In other words, justification is also an ongoing process just as much as Sanctification is. We are justified by choosing to be used as tools and servants for God's work and "choosing this day who you will serve" each and every day. Hope this helps, God bless 🙏🏼

[@kc_woodsman7504]

@@WillGaylord Thank you for taking the time to give me a thought out response. I understand this is an incredibly dense topic, and in some ways, I am asking the question in a western sense. I understand it can be very difficult to translate from a western question into a more Orthodox view of understanding/framing. I suppose the view you're described would fall into the different tenses used throughout scripture "have been saved... are being saved... shall be saved". I am going to pray and meditate on your response for a while and ask the Lord for understanding. I ask you pray for me brother. I seek only to serve our Lord God in any, and all ways He wills. I can not wait to be able to praise the Lord for all eternity!! God Bless

[@WillGaylord]

@@kc_woodsman7504 Of course! And, if I may, our eternity of worshipping the Lord has already begun from the moment we enthroned Christ in our hearts 😉

[@dimyoll]

Awesome video!!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@thestudybiblesbiblestudy7047]

Praying toward the east, And I set my face toward the Lord and entreated Him (faced Jerusalem) As did Daniel and Tolbit and others . OT Jewish practise. Sometimes when I pray I actually remember to face the Lord in this manner.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing

[@christodharma]

OT prophets were also prophesying about Christ calling him Prince of the East and that the Host of the Lord is coming from the East. So it is an early christian practice to face towards East when praying, Orthodox churches are even built that way, during liturgy everybody faces towards East.

[@jamespong6588]

As an Orthodox , the only disagreement I had with my Catholic brothers was Pope divinity. Now with heretic Francis making it obvious even Catholics agree with that! With hardcore kjb evangelicals i see no disagreement to the dogma, except that they don't get that Orthodoxy & Catholicism also preserved history

[@GospelSimplicity]

By "pope divinity" do you mean that the papacy is a divinely ordained institution, or are you implying Catholics believe the pope is divine?

[@jamespong6588]

@@GospelSimplicity The Church is a divinely ordained institution, you can read what saint nektarios had to say about having a Pope, he predicted correctly that one man can easily be misguided to change the dogma, Traditional Catholics now see it too..

[@NevetsWC1134]

@@jamespong6588 but what's weird is no pope has changed dogma. They have had opinions. Right and wrong, but when it came to actual papal authority they have never added or changed anything. Even the really bad popes didn't change anything. They used their power inappropriately to get stuff by scuing what was taught but they never actually changed anything themselves. changed

[@patrickpittorino7032]

Beautiful explanation.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@Byzantios1]

3:07 Its a miracle that the Protestant revisers and editors of their so-called scriptures didn't remove that verse.

[@charliegreska5240]

Great vid!!!!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks!

[@jdlee1972]

Hi Austin, I think a dialogue between Fr. Josiah and Dr Gavin on sola scriptura would be so interesting.

[@kylemckinney_22]

@Dustin Neely Why?

[@kylemckinney_22]

@Dustin Neely Why?

[@danielvega1970]

Actually echar the Catholic Church has prohibited is the reading of a wrong Bible translation and also the personal interpretation of scripture.

[@beautifulspirit7420]

Yes the discouragement was only due to causing confusion outside the 2,000 year teaching of the Church. The Protestants show how those fears came to fruition. First, by Luther REMOVING 7 books from the Bible! Secondly by the thousands of Churches and denominations all teaching different things from the same Bible with a huge confusion and disunity. Catholic and Orthodox theology meanwhile is almost identical except for a few theological issues but their roots are the same. They both are from the early Great Church. They are more similar than different. The Catholic Church also translated the Bible into the vernacular before the Protestants.

[@pmcdermott4929]

History would disagree with this. Roman Catholic Church did actually posses an accurate scripture, called the Vulgate in latin

[@MorneaEstel]

@@pmcdermott4929 I believe the Church considers Scripture infallible in the original languages (which were not latin). The accuracy of the translation depends on the translation. I may be mistaken and am happy to be corrected on that.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Unfortunately, the translation the RCC was historically espousing during the time in question was Latin Vulgate which is commonly known to scholars to have more translation error and be less reliable...the RCC sets up a system of authority for herself but when she is wrong she is wrong and no amount of doubling down changes the truth.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

In fact, the Vulgate is considered by many scholars to have significant errors and even Erasmus (a Roman Catholic) is recorded as admitting and finding errors in the Latin Vulgate when he was working on his own translation.

[@techshogun69]

This is so inspiring.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks!

[@gobucs3146]

There’s also letters referenced by the Apostle Paul in his Scriptural Epistles that aren’t in the Scriptures.

[@GospelSimplicity]

This is true

[@freeman7055]

“Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭1:1-4‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

[@gobucs3146]

@@freeman7055 I’m not sure what you’re supposed to be meaning by this quote...

[@davidhall2197]

Wait. What? His Epistles became scripture. smh

[@gobucs3146]

@@davidhall2197 not all his Letters became part of the Scripture Canon. Have you ever read the Epistle to the Laodiceans he mentions in Colossians 4:16....? Shake your head some more.

[@parabola4789]

Eastern Orthodox here. My best friend is Protestant. We both respect each others religion. We believe that all religions should be respected. Let’s spend more time praising God as opposed to arguing

[@SantiagoAaronGarcia]

Are all religions true? Or is it Jesus the one that is the truth?

[@RudyCarrera]

When those who believe in Christ talk with each other civil, so much good can be done.

[@acekoala457]

There is only one True Faith according to Scripture. Protestantism certainly isn't it as they believe in many strange and foreign christs.

[@mcschneiveoutdoors3681]

That……..that was eye opening.

[@3ativity428]

I was just at Meteora and in the pronao of many monasteries, the icon of the Second Coming has a bible on the alter table of judgment. How does that coincide with 2 sources of orthopraxy?(the Bible and Holy Tradition?)

[@stevenokeefe3447]

The illustration he gave of folks deciding to relegate Paul's preaching and only treat the 2 letters as authoritative is really effective. The only response I've seen to that is the assertion that at the time of the last Apostle's death, all apostolic teaching had been enscripturated. Which is an assertion derived from necessity, and not from evidence.

[@GospelSimplicity]

It is a good illustration. I’d say a better response than the one you outline (though perhaps not persuasive) is not that all apostolic teaching had been enscripturated at the their death, but Scripture is the only sure source, meaning we can’t know whether oral tradition is truly apostolic or not

[@ChristopherWentling]

What a sad situation if that is true (sola scriptural) and would speak a lot to the splintering of Christianity. But, I believe the Holy Spirit is in the Church and guides her and has not forsaken her.

[@jeremiahong248]

@@GospelSimplicity You have a valid question as to how do we know which oral teaching is sacred ? The answer is only oral teachings in the 1st 300 years of the Early Church is sacred teaching equivalent to the same standing as the bible. These oral teachings from the Early Church Fathers are from 1. The Apostles 2. The Apostles's disciples 3. The disciples disciples Followers who ate, travelled, were personally taught by Jesus or disciples who know Jesus and the Apostles. These 300 years of oral teachings are exactly and perfect illustrated by Fr Josiah's answer. Remember John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written Scriptures support oral teachings. Fr Josiah's example of the St Paul case is supported by John 21:25 Oral teachings after the Age of the Early Church is not sacred oral teachings. There is no more new divine revelation after this age. So no new dogmas.

[@stevenokeefe3447]

@@GospelSimplicity , a sort of last source standing, I see. Btw, I also comment as the ActApologist fella depending on whether I am at work or home. Your stamina in producing such great videos, replying to comments, and having marvelous hair is miraculous.

[@seanstewart2675]

@@GospelSimplicity Well, scripture tells us where we should go to find trustworthy information - read 1 Tim 3:14-15. Jesus founded a Church for this very reason so that His teachings would be handed down from generation to generation. We can test whether something is apostolic by looking at something that's being taught and looking back in time to see how the earliest Christians viewed the same questions. In fact, when you look at Church councils, this is the very process they follow. Often a question would arise about whether something the Church was teaching was correct (such as questions about particular beliefs of the faith prompted by various heresies). So the Church council would examine the question and look back at the earliest teachings of the Church and determine whether the Church had gone astray or whether it was teaching what had always been taught. On this general point, the Orthodox and Catholics agree but many of our Protestant brothers and sisters have discarded this notion.

[@cassidypiazza4389]

Dude you better be careful.. having these kinds of guests- Orthodox/Catholic- with their strong arguments may cure you of your Protestant beliefs surprisingly fast lol! I am interested to see if a conversion is in your future. I have a feeling it very well may be unfolding publicly through your videos! Praying for you!😊

[@GospelSimplicity]

Haha, thanks. I appreciate your prayers!

[@redfritz3356]

Yes the priest is suggesting the oral tradition is just as good as the written down version. Why then do we have a collection of so many books in the Bible? God gave the stone tablets to Moses and told the Apostle John to write down what he heard and saw. Writing down things seem to be important to God, for peoples won sake.

[@noway165]

@Vine 101 like fasting? Physical Presence in the Gifts? Pick and choose is not Orthodox! Love!

[@mikezeke7041]

🤣🤣🤣

[@fantasia55]

superb analysis

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@watusi1971]

I'm a catholic and I love our orthodox brothers and sisters, praying for unity. God bless our protestant brothers and sisters as well, we love you all.

[@williamjones6971]

I'm not sold, but I do appreciate the reasoning and explanation. Thank you both.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Well said

[@beautifulspirit7420]

"Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

[@kilemyers784]

@@beautifulspirit7420 And what did Paul teach Orally? The same thing he wrote about in His other epistles

[@joseonwalking8666]

@@kilemyers784 paul in scripture references other writings to othee churches...so clearly not all his teachings are in scripture.

[@kilemyers784]

@@joseonwalking8666 Yes they are, anything he taught verbally to thessalonia he taught in previous epistles

[@sharpfamily4938]

You should bring on Father Spyridon from the UK. He has a KZbin channel. Also Father Peter Heers who is in Greece.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Father Peter Heers and I are in discussion currently about an interview. I'd have to look into Fr. Spyridion more

[@fernandoxavier5688]

I'll love to see Fr. Peter Heers here!

[@ourblissfulhaven]

Is there any way that Pastor Gavin Ortlund can meet with this Orthodox priest? 🙏🏼🙏🏼❤️ I don’t see an email for Pastor Ortlund but I believe you moderated his baptism videos. Is there anyway to coordinate that? Sorry to bother you in the comments but I am not sure what other way to do it.

[@calebklingerman7902]

As I understand it, the original (Lutheran) definition of Sola Scriptura is that Scripture is the only infallible authority, but not the only authority. The church has authority, but not infallible authority. When errors or corruptions are found within the church, we do not trust the body that spawned the problem (i.e., the church) to fix itself. We hold it accountable to Scripture. Yes, the Scripture was given by the apostles (a.k.a. church leaders) and affirmed by church councils. We also trust the church’s judgment in this and many other things. But the church’s teachings can change, while Scripture has not.

[@joshhigdon4951]

Im just glad that my redemption doesn't rely on my own works And that even my faith and repentance is a gracious gift from God. Sola Scriptura

[@saenzperspectives]

Sola Fide - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy - written by Stephen Andrew Damick The doctrine of sola fide teaches that justification comes by faith alone. In classical Protestant doctrine, justification is being “declared righteous” by God, receiving “imputed” righteousness. The doctrine of imputed righteousness is in contrast with the Roman Catholic teaching of infused righteousness (that God puts righteousness into the believer and it becomes part of him through merit received in the spiritual life). To have righteousness imputed is to be regarded or seen as righteous by God because He has “put on” (rather than “put into”) or clothed the believer with Christ’s righteousness; yet there is no sense in which the believer is actually righteous in himself. Imputation is a change in legal status, but not in personal holiness, not even a change effected by grace. In this, the doctrine directly descends from late medieval western theology based in a juridical view of sin with its emphasis on legal status (a view which has been de-emphasized in more recent Roman Catholic theology). Especially in Luther, faith alone is specifically contrasted with good works. For him, good works have nothing to do with salvation other than being a sign or result of true faith. True faith will always lead to two things: justification and good works. Luther described sola fide as being the doctrine by which the church stands or collapses. Sola fide finds its clearest formulations in both the Augsburg Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith, which are authoritative doctrinal statements among Lutheran and Presbyterian Christians, respectively: ‘Our churches by common consent . . . teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight.’ (Augsburg Confession, 1530) ‘Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.’ (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647) Sola fide was formulated primarily in response to the Roman Catholic insistence on good works (and the whole system of merit, satisfaction, purgatory, and indulgences), which was interpreted by Luther as trying to earn one’s way to heaven. (That is not what Roman Catholicism officially taught, but it was a popular understanding of Catholic doctrine in the sixteenth century and was likely preached by those who sold indulgences.) From this comes the almost universal Protestant tradition about Roman Catholicism, that it teaches “works righteousness,” that Catholics believe that they “earn” salvation. The Reformers also viewed monasticism in this way, that it is an attempt to earn salvation. We should especially note here, however, that the language of “satisfaction” is retained from Roman Catholicism, continuing its legal emphasis in soteriology. Luther was so insistent on this formulation of salvation coming by faith and not works that, when he was translating Romans 3:28 into German, he added the German word allein (“alone”), so that the verse would read: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone apart from the deeds of the law.” But the word alone is not present in the Greek text nor even suggested by the context. Despite this opposition set up between faith and good works, Luther nevertheless engaged in an extended controversy against the Antinomians, who taught that morality was entirely irrelevant to Christian life. He did not see good works as irrelevant, but rather as the result of faith. Luther was also so vexed by the apparent opposition to his sola fide doctrine in the Epistle of James that he questioned its apostolic authorship because it is “flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, [since] it ascribes righteousness to works, and says that Abraham was justified by his works” (Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude). And so Luther concludes that, compared to other New Testament works, “St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw . . . for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Luther’s Works, 35:362). While Luther initially wanted to omit James from his canon, he eventually chose to leave the epistle in place. He questioned the authority not only of James, but also of Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation-books which had also been questioned much earlier in church history but ultimately accepted by the Church. (In some Lutheran denominations, when a candidate for ordination signs the Oath of Subscription, he can actually opt out of accepting the canonicity of those books.) Ironically, the only place “faith alone” (or sometimes “faith only”) appears as a phrase in the New Testament is in James 2:24: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” James also says, in 2:17: “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” ) In some sectors of Protestantism since the Second Great Awakening in the nineteenth century, sola fide came to be understood as meaning simple belief or agreement with certain doctrinal propositions, such as that salvation depends not on faithfulness but on a one-time assent, usually as part of a conversion experience. Orthodoxy teaches with the Scripture that it is by grace through faith that we are saved, and not of works (Eph. 2:8-9). Where Orthodoxy differs from the doctrine of sola fide is in its understanding of faith, works, and justification. Faith for the Orthodox Christian includes good works, not because they earn salvation, but because they are a form of cooperation with divine grace, which does the work of transformation. Justification for the Orthodox is being made actually righteous, not simply declared so (“imputed”), and is effected by baptism. This is possible because of the presence of God in a person. Furthermore, Orthodoxy has a much broader view of justification (in Greek, dikaisyne), more in line with the use of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), rather than the narrower, juridical notion advanced since the sixteenth century in Roman and Protestant theology. Based on his Law/Gospel dialectic, Luther misunderstands “good works” in the Scripture as being identical to “the works of the law,” that is, the Mosaic Law of the Jews. Yet while St. Paul preaches against the efficacy of the Jewish law for salvation, he nowhere preaches against good works themselves nor opposes them to faith. “The works of the Law” that do not help us are Jewish tradition, but the good “works” without which faith is “dead” (James 2:17-26) constitute the righteous life of the believer. Even then, these good works do not by themselves accomplish anything. It is God’s grace that makes the transformation happen. Good works are just part of opening the door to that transformation. It is our life of faith and good works that is our cooperation with divine grace, the free gift of God. The Orthodox believe in synergy, working together with God for our salvation (1 Cor. 3:9, 2 Cor. 6:1), a concept not entirely absent but misunderstood and effectively ignored in most Protestant theology.

[@saenzperspectives]

Sola Gratia - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy - written by Stephen Andrew Damick The teaching of sola gratia is that it is only God’s grace that accomplishes salvation. No act of man contributes to salvation in any way. This doctrine is closely associated with sola fide, as faith is what activates saving grace. Sola gratia believers usually state their doctrine in terms opposed to Pelagianism (the doctrine that man may achieve salvation without divine help, because he is not subject to original/ancestral sin, i.e., his will remains unimpaired by the Fall). Anyone suggesting that man has any substantial role in his salvation is usually accused of being either Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. The most extreme form of this doctrine is held by classical Predestinarianism (often associated with Calvinism, but with a prior history among Catholic Dominicans), which holds that man has absolutely no role in his salvation, not even assent. That is, God saves you whether you want it or not. He also damns you whether you want it or not. This view is called monergism (“one actor,” i.e., God). These two actions together are called double predestination-both the saved and the damned are predestined to their fates. In this case, both faith and grace are gifts from God and do not involve man’s will in any way. Grace is often termed “irresistible.” Most sola gratia believers are not this extreme, however; they believe that man must at least assent to salvation at some point, even if only once. Some Reformed theologians nuance this view with what is called “compatibilism,” allowing room in God’s irresistible decrees for man’s true assent-an assent he is incapable of giving unless God wills it. (Yes, it does seem like a contradiction.) Orthodox can agree with sola gratia if it is understood to mean that it is God’s grace that does the transforming work of salvation. However, Orthodoxy believes in synergy, that God and man are co-workers (1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 6:1), that man must “work out [his] own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). The episode of the Annunciation actually illustrates quite well the Orthodox view-namely, that God did not impose His will on the Virgin Mary but desired her consent, which she gave in the fiat mihi (“Let it be unto me”). One of the principal problems with sola gratia is that grace is understood as something other than God Himself. In Reformation theology, grace is “unmerited favor,” an attitude in God, often contrasted with His wrath. For Orthodoxy, grace is uncreated-that is, grace is God, His actual presence and activity-His energies. But if grace is merely “favor,” then union with God (theosis) is precluded. The distance from God sometimes found in Roman Catholic theology is retained in Protestantism.

[@ourblissfulhaven]

Amen!! 🙏🏼🙏🏼

[@samueljennings4809]

No one teaches that redemption is in our own power. All church denominations teach that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, but UNTO good works. I’m Protestant and I can even acknowledge that Catholics and Orthodox do not teach that you can earn salvation by your own good works.

[@ourblissfulhaven]

@@samueljennings4809 Hi Samuel! I am also protestant and married to a Greek Orthodox. I have visited monasteries and spoken to a nun and my husband. They do not believe that they are saved by Grace alone. The nun specifically told me that she didn't know if she was saved. That she wouldn't know until she dies what happens. My husband believes the same thing. He says that it all depends on what he does in life. I believe we are saved by Grace and our faith is the fruit of our salvation showing others that we are believers. So, I can only talk from experience what I have heard from those in the Orthodox church.

[@andrewnunez7894]

If this is the argument against sola scripture I’m embarrassed that this is convincing to anyone.

[@anamalecebeyonder1941]

Those Letters Are Greats

[@Shankarees]

I believe that Holy Scripture is not the exclusive word or inspiration of God but that He continues to inspire and teach us through the Holy Spirit as new questions, problems and confusion the believers have. Consequently, when a “wrinkle” appears among us faithful and there is no answer to it in the Bible, the HS inspires you or me to find a response, if we have a solid faith in what Christ is all about and what He would answer. Many so-called preachers and theologians frequently conclude and proclaim un-Christlike responses and scandalize the faith to others.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing. My follow up question would be, how can we confirm that what someone says is coming from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is in fact valid?

[@Shankarees]

@@GospelSimplicity Take me as an example when I was being persecuted by SDA’s for my faith. I believed in the litany of doctrines established by Christ and his apostles; however, they declare my faith and yours Satanic and naught because I didn’t keep their Sabbath am I inspired by the HS or Satan? I was always willing to consider their faith partially Christian but they refused me as apostate, heretic. Who is inspired by whom in this case?

[@richardmcleod5967]

The pick and choose methods so oftentimes used by other various "Christian " churches these days has no appreciation of Sola Scriptura. "I did it my way" is much more popular for churches in the World of today.

[@beautifulspirit7420]

Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

[@nicl8749]

We have to read the scriptures as Almighty God speaking to us personally, not deviating it from left or right.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Amen

[@Nepthu]

That's impossible due to our human fallible minds. Some of us can't even follow a standard recipe to make a Thanksgiving pie correctly.

[@nicl8749]

@@Nepthu no it’s not impossible , just read it and have faith in the book that’s it God speaking to you.

[@eleftheriosmas]

@@nicl8749 so the Book spoke to you but not to Catholics or Orthodox? Well you must be a very holy Calvinist😁

[@nicl8749]

@@eleftheriosmas no I am not a holy Calvinist, what I mean as an example is, the bible says God created the whole universe in six days and rested on the seventh. But other Christians read the bible and say the universe came from a Big Bang, what I am saying is we have to read the bible as it is, that’s why there are so many denominations, they don’t understand the power of God, and don’t believe that God could and how God could create everything in six days, but the bible says that he did.

[@alexandrosmiki]

Perfect!!

[@evanbiter2138]

My suggestion on the by writing or word of mouth would be that the other things Paul mentioned by word of mouth were likely in line with that of the Gospels. He was saying simply these things I have shared with you.

[@An-mei]

If I hit like it won't register. It doesn't happen on every site so I think it has to be youtube

[@annemoulding7215]

I think KZbin is tampering with the "like" button too! I was trying to like other videos yesterday and they didn't change colour..what's going on???

[@jerrypawlak2396]

Question, do the protestants even bealive in sola scriptura today?

[@Lerian_V]

No, they pick and choose which verses they want to believe.

[@ChristopherWentling]

Sola scriptura without a living magisterium leads to each person creating their own tradition to follow. Even a comparatively simple document like the US constitution needs a magisterium for interpretation, the Supreme Court. The Holy Spirit makes no promises in scripture itself to guide the individual but Christ himself created the Church to be his own bride and Christ prayed asking God to make them one and for Peter to guide the sheep. This is the great purposes of the Church. It is a sad state of affairs that Sola Scriptura reduces the Church to a prayer and worship club instead of the Bride of Christ.

[@jeremiahong248]

@@Lerian_V No ! They now believe in Solo Scriptures

[@Mark-yb1sp]

Yes, very much so and proud of it. It keeps us from getting into a cult. If it’s not in the Bible, we don’t accept it.

[@jeremiahong248]

@@Mark-yb1sp I wonder if you read carefully what I wrote above. Secondly I like to share with you John 21 :25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written And 2 Thessolonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you,whether by word of mouth or by letter

[@danielbernardesfalcao2648]

I guess the big deal is that we dont have the oral tradition. By the way, the gnostics were the ones saying they had some secret oral tradition and St Athanasius answer was: "Go back to scriptures".

[@domega7392]

One thing I notices is that Fr. Josiah uses the NIV translation to quote 2 Thessalonians 2:15 lol, this is also one of the verses that was changed from its original meaning from traditions to teachings. This change you find In many of the modern translation to discount the Traditions of the Church as mere traditions of men rather than the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Tradition is a dirty word to protestants.

[@GospelSimplicity]

He talks a bit more about the NIV in the full interview. Needless to say, he's not a fan

[@axelbatalha2830]

There are greek versions, if you want to consult.

[@barbershopboy05]

The major problem with denying Sola Scriptura is actually proving that any tradition outside of scripture is legitimate and has not been adulterated. Further, by Trenham's own citation of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that the apostolic tradition and the scripture were of equal authoritative weight. Both being inspired there should be no deviation or contradiction between "tradition" and scripture (1 Corinthians 14:33). Yet, why is it that we see so many traditions in the Orthodox and Catholic traditions that are not merely extra-scriptural but rather contradict the exact pattern of scripture. To illustrate this in a simple example - The Orthodox church allows for hieromonk bishops and unmarried bishops, this is unscriptural via Paul's clear statements in 1 Timothy 3:1 and Titus 1:6. Trenham's words sound fine, but in practice the rejection of Sola Scriptura just leads to people doing whatever their "tradition" is and slapping the label apostolic on it. That is not biblical nor Christ-like. Christ Himself rejected the traditions of man as authoritative, so should we (Matthew 15:1-9).

[@veritasmuy2407]

YOU: Further, by Trenham's own citation of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that the apostolic tradition and the scripture were of equal authoritative weight *ME: The issue is the translation of the Greek word "paradosis" that Paul used in 2Thes **2:15**. It simply means "transmission, precepts" -- and WITHIN CONTEXT of all of 2Thes 2, Paul is talking about the Thessies standing fast in the "precepts of the GOSPEL that Paul transmitted to them either orally or by letter" so that they will not be DECEIVED like others will.* 2Thes 2:15 is not talking about added traditions no found in Scripture -- its talking about the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ that Paul PREACHED.

[@ntmn8444]

This priest is absolutely correct.

[@GospelSimplicity]

he's definitely bright

[@betsy_l]

Fr. Josiah is well spoken, but I'm not 100% there with him, and that's ok. Faith is a personal thing. Thank you for a video with another perspective different from my own. In Christ 🙏

[@TheGerogero]

>orthodox tradition: theologically sound, historically consistent, pragmatic. >protestant: gRaVeN iMaGe

[@WhiteBraveheart1]

Have you graduated Moody yet? I was in Chicago, and wish I visited there.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I have not. I’m a junior

[@JonathanGrandt]

Well even MANY Protestants who claim Sola Scriptura don’t even hold to that when they make up all sorts of things by twisting scripture. If you twist it or add to it, it isn’t scripture.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Fair enough

[@JonathanVachon777]

And thats the problem of not being sola scriptura. People will say a bunch of non biblical thing. The man in the video of course dont speak about when the disciples spoke to the jews and the jews were verifying in the scriptures to see if the disciples were saying the truth Even Jesus used the scriptures to counter argument the pharisees.

[@nromanov]

@@JonathanVachon777 You are correct that Jesus and the disciples referred to their Scriptures. It would be strange not to. But Jesus also said to His audience; "You've heard them say, but I say to you..." on many occasions, not referring to Scriptures, but speaking about oral traditions/teachings and He Himself did it as well. All teachings of our Lord are oral teachings, considering He didn't write any book Himself.

[@silveriorebelo2920]

all the specific protestant doctrines are ABSENT from Scripture

[@silveriorebelo2920]

@@JonathanVachon777 - you are confusing everything - what you are saying is exactly the orthodox-catholic positiom, not the protestant one - protestants define sola spripture by stating that access to the truth of Scripture is NOT dependant on the authority of someone pointing to what is really taught there, as saint Paul was doing

[@mmore242]

Where can I find more information about the Saint Paul icon roster?

[@Ericviking2019]

Amen Fr

[@Lexthebarbarian]

Fr. Josiah Trenham is one of the coolest priests ever. He is straight up politically incorrect, bona fide red pilled traditional with deep knowledge and wisdom. Lika a humble Wolverine.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Haha, this was such a creative way of putting it

[@mitchellc4]

Hello What do we measure tradition against? You mention when they didn’t want scripture to be read by everyone, you said it’s right to criticize that Ok so how would we have know that during that time? Why wouldn’t the argument that the church teaches the truth work there? I think the problem is putting “tradition” on the same level as scripture What seem to do is say they can trace their authority back to Peter, and since they think they are a succession of that authority, then what is taught from that seat of authority is truth The problem is that’s the same thing the Pharisees did They sat on the seat of Moses They were supposed to be successors of Moses so their tradition would be true But what did Jesus say about their tradition?? And why did he say it was wrong and how did he conclude it? Compared it to scripture If you teach tradition on the same authority level as scripture and it’s not founded in scripture and contradicts it then it’s wrong So saying “we are successors of Peter” doesn’t make your tradition true, let alone the same level as scripture Because it’s the same thing the Pharisees did “We are successors of Moses therefore our tradition is true and authoritative” Now insert Peter for Moses and that’s basically the argument I don’t think it works

[@JayRedding12_12]

"It's just beyond ridiculous. It's not how it works!"- Fr. Josiah Trenham

[@robertcampbell1343]

I would like Josiah to tell us, of those three traditions he named, to tell us which Apostle orally instructed them, where they did it, when and what exactly was the instruction?

[@demontejohnson4102]

Man shall not live by bread alone but every word that proceed from the mouth of God? Is that not an example of solo scriptura. Did our Lord not live life solo scripture? And the thing is word of mouth can be corrupted, and the apostles would never contradict scriptura. Paper to ink doesn't carry sin. We do and we can't be trusted.

[@cabellero1120]

No it isn't God existed before Scripture Certain people heard God's voice before Any of it was written down

[@demontejohnson4102]

@@cabellero1120 yes, and it was written down so we could specifically remember. You ever play a game of telephone and see how distorted the message was when it got to the end? Have those same people playing pass a paper containing the same message. And tell me which is most like the original message given.

[@cabellero1120]

@@demontejohnson4102 Did Noah need "Scripture" to follow,? No. He just heard God's voice commanding him to build the ark Did Jacob or Joseph? Did Abraham or Moses? Moses did not need written instructions He spoke with God directly My point was God existed Before Any Scripture was written down Even with Scripture man cannot think that he can know the mind of God " God is above all of man's works" "If God could be explained and comprehended He would not Be God" The Bible Is Not the ultimate authority God Is Sola Scriptura is like placing a greater value on the gift rather than the one who gave it

[@demontejohnson4102]

@@cabellero1120 My man, Noah was a prophetic person. We don’t hear directly from Him now. All we have is his Words via the Bible. We don’t know what Noah said or Abraham said outside of what? The Bible. We are in the New Covenant since Christ death btw. Christ did spread His ministry via word of mouth, because faith comes through hearing the word of God. However, I will say again review my telephone example. We know exactly what happened only because of written material not oral tradition. Also Moses wrote the first 4 books potentially the 5 as well? Why did he do that if oral worked so good. I literally forget what someone tells me 30 minutes after they say it. How much more would I forget and as a sinful man not hold Gods words close to my heart. Our minds need constant reminders and her for y hat by washing our minds with the word of God via the book

[@cabellero1120]

@@demontejohnson4102 I still believe in Oral tradition and Written tradition together As regarding the ancient Hebrew texts... If Moses did write the Pentateuch, Where did he get information about the Creation narrative, Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood? These things took place almost 2 thousand years before he lived. I believe that a sense of Tradition is important for faith and worship. "If we can learn about where we came from, We can see where we're going." God not only set up a Kingdom, but also appointed stewards and leaders to keep it together. That's why church communities have Bishops and Presbyters.. Moses vested Joshua to succeed him Jesus gave his apostles authority to continue His work. The Protestant Reformation was a break away from Church authority. And yet each church has leadership....

[@kellyanna94]

The book that really helped me understand this concept was "Know the Faith" by Michael Shanbour. Once that fell, and the historicity was clear, there was no turning back. After a 10 year long journey, I'm now a catechumen in the Orthodox Western Rite :)

[@vladodobleja748]

I am a Romanian Orthodox Christian since birth as our Romanian forefathers always were. Catholic and Orthodox Churches are just as old the only difference being that Catholics abandoned the ancient Christian teachings while us Orthodox Christians kept and still keep the old traditions of the early Church.We do not seek to gain new adepts to our faith,prefering them to come by their own free will and neither do we seek Union with Catholics and Protestant.We did not forget the 8th Crusade when the Catholic armies attacked and plundered Constantinopole,the Holy Capital of Orthodox Christianity,you were wondering why the Eastern Church has a strong stance against Western Christianity,because the Catholic Church persecuted Orthodox Christians throughout the centuries!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing these thoughts

[@GrGal]

There was definitely a lot more going beyond what was written, but it is what was written that sums and builds the whole biblical narrative you need to grasp as the divine message. The scripture eventually comes many times to the same point but from a little bit [or not so little] different angle, it’s not like it is some kind of an ever-going plot story. The biggest angle you should eventually focus on is your own life experience from within, the deepest within you can grasp where you are in relationship with Him, listening to Him in silence and contemplation, these in parallel to what was written. Not looking [the religious way] for what was written first, as a source to what you should experience or know, because that what man-made indoctrination is, and a mis-use of the divine message.

[@qitzpaquitojr.reston2337]

I was a protestant for many years and I’m fully convinced that Sola Scriptura is not even biblical. Jesus Christ didn’t leave a bible, but a Church. Sola Scriptura resulted to thousands of denomination such as JW, mormonism, Black Hebrew Israelites, Seventh day adventist/ baptist etc. These people created their own church because they believe in Sola Scriptura. If you ask them about why you believe this and that and so on, they will get the bible a quote a very vague passages which seem to support their claims or belief. The Christian faith must be according to the Traditions which was pass down by Jesus Christ, the apostles to the apostles’ disciples to the apostles’ desciples’ disciples and so on. Not all was written in the Holy Scripture. As a Catholic, revere the Bible as Sacred but the fact is not all was written by hand. Scripture and Tradition will make a person a true Christian.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and some of your story!

[@wesleysimelane3423]

If traditions do not go hand in hand with scripture then its false and not of God, like the mariology gospel. Your traditions say Mary was forever a virgin, the bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters, so you dispute the bible to support your traditions and say they were His cousins. The bible says all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Your traditions dispute the bible and say Mary was sinless. The bible says, of those born of men, there is none greater than John but yet he will be the least in the kingdom of heaven. Your traditions say no, Mary was the greatest human and she is queen of heaven. The bible says do not make ANY graven images. Traditions say keep statues, they are just reminders, even God once commanded to built idols. So you built idols of wood, ceramic & stone so you can pray through them. Rosary, scapulars, medals etc. Non-sola scriptura allows men to add and add to the word of God as they so wish and call those inventions traditions

[@bobdinkytown]

Isn't it unfair to inculde JW and mormonism in these "thousands of denominations" when those cults either blatantly mistranslate the Bible or add whole new books to the Bible? These denominations wouldn't be following the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, now, would they?

[@wesleysimelane3423]

@@GS-cj7rf There is no scriptural evidence, or even a subtle suggestion, that Joseph was married to anyone but Mary. Catholic tradition in an effort to explain away the existence of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” (Matthew 13:55), Some of Jesus’ siblings are even named in the Bible: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Catholic tradition has long asserted that these individuals might actually be cousins of Jesus or children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. Catholics, with the help of some pseudepigraphical books, have constructed an entirely fictional account of Joseph, saying he was an older man who had been married and had many other children before courting Mary. This theory is crucial to Catholic theology in order to substantiate their doctrine that Mary remained a virgin, even after giving birth to Jesus. It is often tempting to try to make Scripture say something it does not say in order to create a theology we like. But we should remember a basic principle of scriptural interpretation: “Whenever possible, let Scripture interpret Scripture.” We get into trouble when we try to make God’s Word fit our preconceived ideas or a doctrine we find comforting. The notion of Joseph’s previous marriage is such an idea and has no foundation in God’s Word.

[@wesleysimelane3423]

@@GS-cj7rf You are wrong in saying the Church wrote and compiled the bible, & do you know that the belifes and doctrines held by the RCC today and the early church fathers are way different and far apart, let alone the apostles of Christ. The "traditions" of the RCC have evolved over the centuries to include pagan beliefs and add heaps upon heaps of lies to present them as religious dogma. Mary was Joseph's wife. Marriage, sex within the marriage was personally instituted by God. The problem is you view Mary as above human but she was not. She did God's will and that was that. She was still a human being. A wife to somebody. Matthew 1:24-25 "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS” The term "did not know her" is the modest term for describing sexual relationship. For example, Adam knew Eve, and she conceived Cain, and he knew her again, and she bore Seth (Genesis 4:1, 25). Cain knew his wife, and she bore Enoch (Genesis 4:17). So Joseph did not have sexual relationship with Mary until Jesus was born.

[@lproof8472]

I’m a Protestant, but on the fence about Sola Scriptura. I certainly would align with Prima Scriptura. I don’t see the heresy in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura though. Someone please expound.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing where you're at with this!

[@impasse0124]

I hope I’m able to answer this helpfully for you. People mean different things when they say sola scriptura but for the purpose of answering your question, I’ll give my definition. Sola scriptura is the idea that scripture alone is our only infallible source for Christian truth and that anything apart from it, even if it doesn’t contradict Scripture, is not necessary. The reasons that this is incorrect are numerous. 1) The official canon of scripture took several centuries to compile into one “Bible”. How did Christians know what to believe in those first centuries without it? 2) There is no verse within the scriptures that says which books are inspired. For instance, there was a gospel of St. Thomas that didn’t make the final cut but nowhere in the current Bible does it say that this book was heretical. So how did the early church figure out which scriptures were inspired and which weren’t? Keep in mind, the Church predates the scriptures, not the other way around. 3) The Scriptures are vital to our faith (Catholics and Orthodox agree with Protestants on this) but they’re not the only source of Truth. We also hold Tradition to have equal weight. Tradition comes from “tradere” which means to hand on. Scripture talks about holding to the traditions which have been handed down and also several times says that there are things not contained in scripture because they are too numerous to recount. This would imply that Truth has been handed down orally as well. 4) Without an official Church (singular) to teach the Truth, what guarantee is there that any two people could read the exact same Scriptures and come to completely different conclusions? This is apparent from how many denominations exist. If Scripture alone was enough, I’d imagine everyone would agree on doctrines and dogmas. This denominationalism reminds me of Christ’s words that a house divided against itself cannot stand. 5) Lastly, Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Both/only the Catholic and Orthodox churches can be traced to the apostles and both of them reject sola scriptura. So if they’re wrong, it seems that Christ’s church did fail for about 1500 years after the resurrection until the Reformation. The problem is that this makes Jesus either a liar or wrong and I know that ALL Christians would say that neither is the case. This is a very long reply but I hope you read it and find it helpful. God bless!

[@lproof8472]

@@impasse0124 Sorry, I guess I asked the wrong question. I understand both sides of the argument. I guess my question is: what’s the argument meant when people say it’s the heresy that leads to other heresies. What is missing from the Protestant faith of you adhere to Sola Scriptura? Do you think it leads to non-salvific heresies?

[@impasse0124]

@@lproof8472 oh okay, thanks for taking the time to read my long-winded reply haha. Especially since I misunderstood your question and that wasn’t what you were asking. I think the reason it’s seen as the heresy that leads to other heresy is the mere fact that it’s left wide open to countless interpretations. Protestants disagree with the Catholic view of the Eucharist, for example. However, they don’t all agree with each other either. Some see it as holy but not literally the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus whereas others see no real holiness at all, just a symbol. Some Protestants believe that Jesus was just occupying a human body but his nature was purely divine, rather than a hypostatic union of the two natures. Some Protestants believe that Mary was only the mother of Jesus’ human nature but not his divinity. Some Protestants say the OT is basically null and void, helpful perhaps in understanding but otherwise obsolete. The list goes on. The problem is, Truth can’t be relative. It’s a logical impossibility. So that must mean there is only one Truth and it’s out there somewhere, but where? Personally I believe the evidence points toward the Catholic Church because not only can the Church be traced back to Jesus but I think that evidence for a magisterium and for the papacy is pretty strong. I really hope this time I answered your question hahaha.

[@lproof8472]

@@impasse0124 I see, it’s an interpretation of Scripture issue. Makes sense, though I disagree with the conclusion. Thank you for taking the time to expound. God bless you friend!

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

The issue of the acceptance of the Holy Tradition is directly related to the acceptance of the historical Church (by Church here I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church which is another topic). The sola scriptura goes together with sola fide and sola gratia. So if it is proven that sola fide contradicts Scripture, that would mean that the pioneers of sola fide (and sola scriptura) had not received the Holy Spirit, wherefore it would follow that He is received by the believers like He was received in the beginning - through the prayer of the apostles(Acts 8:14-17). But that would mean that, although all believers are holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:5,9), there is necessary priesthood with apostolic succession to pray for the Holy Spirit to come upon the believers. But that would mean the Holy Spirit, truth and and salvation are in the historical Church (I mean the Orthodox Church), wherefore since sola scriptura is not a teaching of the Church, it is false. A fundamental point of a contradiction of sola fide with the Holy Scripture, is the point of the rejection of the works of faith for salvation together with faith and grace. Regardless of whether the free will is violated due to man being considered totally depraved like in Lutheranism and Calvinism, wherefore he is considered unable to accept with his free will the grace’s gift of faith which precedes its acceptance by man’s free will (Acts 18:27, John 6:44) and so his will is violated by the grace (the teaching of the irresistable grace - in Calvinism some are considered predestined for salvation and others predestined for damnation), or that the free will is not violated regarding the acceptance of the grace which precedes its acceptance by the free will like in Evangelicalism, in both cases and in Protestantism as a whole the works of faith are not considered necessary for salvation together with faith by grace. Grace is accepted or rejected with the free will - Luke 7:29-30 in relation with 1 Timothy 2:4:,,When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; 30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.“ (Luke 7:29-30, Orthodox Study Bible); ,,For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, † 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.“ (1 Timothy 2:4, Orthodox Study Bible). The works of faith are impossible to do without God’s grace:,,But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.“; ,,“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.“ (1 Corinthians 15:10, John 15:5, Orthodox Study Bible), so they are Christ’s merits. And the calling of God’s grace precedes the will to do those works:,,Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; † 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.“ (Philippians 2:12-13, Orthodox Study Bible). The fruits are the good works:,,that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;“ (Colossians 1:10, Orthodox Study Bible). As the works of faith are impossible to do without God’s grace, they are gifts of God. The believers will be held accountable for not doing the works of faith:,,Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; a and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.“ (John 15:2, Orthodox Study Bible). That is why the believers will be judged not only according to their faith (John 3:18) but also according to their works (John 5:25-29, Matthew 16:27, Revelation 2:23) in the sense of rejecting God’s grace because the works of faith are done in synergism with God’s grace and are impossible to do without God’s grace (1 Cor. 15:10, John 15:5), wherefore their rejection is a rejection of God’s grace and so the rejection to do them is punishable - Matthew 25:41-46 in relation with John 15:2:“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: † 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they also will answer Him, a saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:41-46, Orthodox Study Bible). Therefore the works of faith are necessary for salvation which is clearly stated in James 2:24:,,You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.“ (James 2:24, Orthodox Study Bible). The works of faith that are done in synergism with God’s grace and doing of which is necessary for salvation (John 15:2 in relation with Matthew 25:41-46) are the ones referred to in James 2:24. The works that are not necessary for salvation are the works of the law:,,Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. †“ (Romans 3:20, Orthodox Study Bible); ,,I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.“ (Galatians 2:21); ,,You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.“ (Galatians 5:4). It is said to the Gentiles that the grace and faith are gifts of God and not of works:,,For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, † 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.“ (Ephesians 2:8-10, Orthodox Study Bible). But the works here refer to the works of a believer prior to his coming to believe and the meaning is that faith is a gift and so is not conditioned on the works one has done before coming to believe. The wrong Protestant understanding of the works of faith shows that the Holy Spirit is not received by the believers just by faith because He is the Spirit of truth (John 15:26) and where He is, there cannot be any false teachings. Therefore He is received by the believers through the prayer of the priesthood with apostolic succession like He was received at first through the prayer of the apostles:,,Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, † 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. † 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.“ (Acts 8:14-17, Orthodox Study Bible). Therefore, although all believers are holy and royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5,9), there is a distinction between laymen and priesthood as priesthood is a gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:17, 28 in relation with 1 Peter 5:1-2). Hence salvation is in the historical Church with her priesthood with apostolic succession. Why this Church is the Eastern Orthodox Church is probably another topic.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

There are two more important things to be added. The first refers to the penal substitutionary atonement. The penal subsitutionary atonement in the aspect of Christ taking the penalty of the Cross for our sins, thus substituting with the penalty of the Cross the eternal punishment for the sinners in hell and that way saving us from God's wrath, has always been an Orthodox teaching. It started being rejected as being supposedly non-Orthodox in the 20th century. If we look the history of the Orthodox polemics with the West regarding the Western deviations of the ancient faith we will see nowhere a rejection by the Orthodox theologians of the penal subsitutionary atonement (in the above-mentioned aspect) as supposedly a Western error. If the penal substitutionary atonement in the mentioned aspect, was a Western heresy, it would have been condemned as such exactly in the polemics of the Orthodox with the West, for example during the attempts for a union between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church because during those attempts there clearly arose the dogmatic differences between the East and the West. In the Encyclical letter of St.Photius (867) to the Eastern patriarchs, St.Photious mentions the heresies of Rome. (churchmotherofgod.org/salvation-history/new-life-church-history/6257-encyclical-letter-of-saint-photius-867.html). He mentions the heresies of Rome - the celibacy of the priesthood, the rejection of the validity of the chrismation made by priests, the fasting on Saturdays, the heretical Filioque addition in the Creed. But he does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement. The Definition of faith of the Local Council of Blachernae, in Constantinople ( 1157 CE) says that God was offended when His commandment was violated by the first man: ,,…The God-man Word during the Lord's Sufferings, brought the Salvific Sacrifice to the Father, to Himself and to the Spirit, from Whom (plural - the Three Persons) man was summoned from nothingness to being, Whom (pl.) he offended, violating the commandment, and with Whom (pl.) the reconciliation was made through the sufferings of Christ. ...‘‘ After the acceptance by emperor Michael VIII Paleologos of an union with Rome which was, however, short-lived, the Athonite monks of the Bulgarian Zographou monastery sent a letter to the emperor in which they pointed out the major heretical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the penal subsitutionry atonement in the aspect of Christ taking the penalty of the Cross as a replacement of the everlasting punishement of the hell fire that we would otherwise undergo, thus saving us from that everlasting punishment, was not among them: ''26 Monkmartyrs of the Zographou Monastery on Mount Athos In the year 1274 at the Council of Lyons (in France), the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII Paleologos decided to buttress his waning power by forming a union with Catholic Rome. This step evoked universal discontent. In 1278, the emperor issued a decree to introduce the Union at Constantinople by forceful measures, if necessary. Mt. Athos stood in firm opposition to the Union. The Athonite monks sent a letter to Michael pointing out that the primacy of the Pope, his commemoration in the churches, celebrating the Eucharist with unleavened bread, the insertion of the “filioque” [“and from the Son”] into the Creed, could not be accepted by Orthodox, and they asked the emperor to change his mind. “We clearly see,” the letter said, “that you are becoming a heretic, but we implore you to forsake all this and abide in the teachings that were handed down to you.... Reject the unholy and novel teachings of a false knowledge, speculations, and additions to the Faith. (www.oca.org/saints/lives/2016/10/10/108024-26-martyrs-of-the-zographou-monastery-on-mount-athos-at-the-hand). They mention celebrating the claim for the primacy of the pope, celebrating the Eucharist with unleavened bread, the Filioque. But they do not mention the penal substitutionary atonement and the satisfaction of God’s wrath as a Roman heresy. But they do not mention the penal substitutionary atonement as a Roman Catholic heresy. The differences between the East and West were discussed also during the negotiations at the Councils of Ferrara 1438-1439) and Florence (1439-1449) that led to the setting of the Ferraro-Florentine union of Rome and the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1452. In his 1444 Encyclical letter (orthodoxethos.com/post/the-encyclical-letter-of-saint-mark-of-ephesus) St.Mark of Ephesus who opposed the establishing of the union, mentions among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the Filoque, the addition to the Creed, the claim for the supremacy of the pope, the celebrating of the Eucharist with an unleavened bread, the purgatory, the moment of the consecration of the Blessed Sacrament. But he does not mention among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the penal substitutionary atonement. In his 1570s' letters to the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen, Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople (1572-1595) does not mention, especially in his commentaries on the Augsburg confession of faith, the mentioned aspect of the penal substitutionary atonement as a false teaching of the Lutherans. The Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople of 1672 which condemned Calvinism and the total depravity of the unregenerate man, and affirmed the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, also does not mention as a deviation of Western Christianity the penal subsitutionary atonement in the aspect that was referred to above. The Local Council in Constantinople of 1722 condemned the teaching of the Purgatory but dod not condemn the penal substitutionary atonement in the above-mentioned aspect. The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 to Pope Pius IX summarizes the main heretical deviations of the Papacy - the Filioque, the papal claim of supremacy over the Church by jurisdiction but does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement among the biggest heretical deviations of Rome. The Patriarchal encyclical from 1895 by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Anthimus VII (1895-1896) from 1895 which is a reply to the Papal encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1853-1903) Praeclara Gratulationis publicae (On the Reunion of Christendom) summarizes the heretical deviations of the Papacy but does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement: ,,VI. And indeed for the holy purpose of union, the Eastern orthodox and catholic Church of Christ is ready heartily to accept all that which both the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously professed before the ninth century, if she has perchance perverted or does not hold it. And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for 'there is one body and one Spirit,' it is said, 'even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx). The Patriarch mentions the biggest heretical deviations of Rome - the Filioque addition to the Creed, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the purgatory, the practice of sprinkling instead of immersion in baptism, immaculate conception of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the teaching of the created grace, the infallibility and the claim for supremacy of the Pope. But he does not mention among them the penal subsitutionary atonement in the above-mentioned aspect. It is evident that throughout the whole history of the Orthodox Church the penal subsitutionary atonment was never refuted and so was not considered an non-Orthodox teaching and a Western influence. So the theory that it is a Western influence in Orthodox theology is a 20th century modernistic myth. There must be noted that modernists recognize the term PSA only in the sense of Christ saving us from death by subsitututing it with His Death on the Cross but reject the term in the sense of Christ saving us from God's wrath and the eternal punishment by substituting with the penalty of the Cross the penalty awaiting the sinners.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

The second thing to be added is related to the first one. It referst to the apostasy from the Orthodoxy of some local Orthodox Churches in the recent years as that process started decades ago. There are three significant moments that refer to the events in Orthodoxy in the recent few years and that must be mentioned. First, the decade-lengthy process (starting more severely in the late 1950s) of spreading modernistic theology by some modernistic Orthodox theologians, unfortunately gave bitter fruits to the point that the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate embraced the modernistic claim that the teaching of the penal subsitutionary atonement which is an Orthodox teaching and a teaching of the ancient Church, is a late Western teaching like the modernists claim and today rejects it. (www.goarch.org/-/btb-173?inheritRedirect=true). Second, the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate has embraced an eastern form of papism. Here is what he says:,,The beginning of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarchate; “in this is life, and the life is the light of the Churches.” The late Metropolitan Kyrillos of Gortyna and Arcadia, a beloved Hierarch of the Mother Church and personal friend, was right to underline that “Orthodoxy cannot exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate.” (www.uocofusa.org/news_180901_1). This is a indirect claim for infallibility. Then there are the non-canonical actions of Constantinople in Ukraine. These actions caused an arising internal schism within the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is an English translation of the letter of the Bulgarian Metropolitan Daniil of Vidin to and eparchial metropolitan bishops of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Church of Cyprus, Church of Greece, Albanian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church: new.sliven.net/res/news/292888/___________________.pdf. He explains the issue of the 2018 Moscow-Constantinopolitan schism entirely from a canonical perspective. This is a link to a famous 1995 Letter from Patriarch Bartholomew to Patriarch Alexey of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Ukrainian Diaspora: orthodoxsynaxis.org/2018/10/10/1995-letter-bartholomew-alexey/. In the letter the Patriarch clearly refers to the groups that were later included by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the recently formed Orthodox Church of Ukraine (2018) by issuing of a Tomos of autocephaly, as schismatic groups. The Patriarchate of Constantinople openly entered communion with the newly formed church of Ukraine that consists of those schismatic groups. But the communion with excommunicated persons, leads to excommunication of those who have communed with them:,,And, if any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.'' (canon 2, Council of Antioch, 341). That is why it is argued by some Orthodox theologians and priests that the Patriarchate of Constaninople is no longer a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church since 2018. In other words it fell from the Church like the non-Chalcedonians in 451 and Rome in 1054. Unfortunately there is a danger that the internal schism could grow bigger. The Alexandrian Patriarchate supported the schismatic OCU in 2019 and as a result the Moscow Patriarchate ceased Eucharistic Communion with it like with the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate in 2018. That way the Alexandrian Patriarchate also fell from the Body of the Church. Nowadays the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and the Alexandrian Patriarchate and the Churches which took the side of the schismatics and recognized them are not part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Those other Churches are partially the Churches of Greece and Cyprus - partially because some of the bishops of their holy Synods did not and still do not recognize the new OCU. Things can change if they can become again part of the Orthodox Church but right now they are in a schism, thus being out of the divine grace. There are modernists within all Orthodox Churches but the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and the other Local Churches that fell into schism, embraced the anti-PSA modernistic theology as a doctrine, whence they fell into schism. Schism is a result of embracing a heresy. In that sense the statement that it is the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate and the other Churches that fell into schism, is not political but refers to doctrine and dogma.

[@D12Min]

The issue is not whether or not Paul´s spoken word to the Thessalonians had authority. The issue is that even Paul himself said that his spoken words could potentially be / become fallible (Gal 1:8) , whereas Scripture could not be / become fallible (2Ti 3:16).

[@wessbess]

How do you think churches get into error? When they get away from the teaching of the word of God.

[@GospelSimplicity]

True

[@nightowl3619]

When they stop reading and studying Holy Fathers and Great Saints of the Church. Like Catholic did. They read their own saints ( like St Francis of Assisi ) and there are lot's of heresies in these teachings. They contradict teachings of Holy Fathers of early Church. The results are very sad. It's like broken compass on the ship. Such churches go wrong direction and lead people away from salvation.

[@beautifulspirit7420]

Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

[@oliverfrancis3841]

I was born a catholic , but left when I was 17. I did this because of the massive disconnect between what I read in scripture and what I heard from the pulpit and the life of my catholic church. I just couldnt get around the fact that I just never knew God genuinely. Also the Jesus I read about in the scriptures is someone I never really encountered in the act of preaching. I then tried to explore Hinduism and then practiced Hinduism for 6 years and soaked up all the theology my guru could throw at me - still no understanding of who God was . The first real encounter I had with the gospel which was real was in a small protestant home. Their prayer from a broken heart moved me - I sensed something out of this world. It was out of curiosity that I attended a service. A simple preacher - a good exegetical guy preached from some part of the NT. I had forgotten my Bible by then and till today cannot remember what portion of scripture it was. But his words put me in the presence of the Living Son of God. The following months were months of wrestling. I surrendered to the gospel and it has been 17 years now. The point I want to make it this - some one practising prima scriptura could never handle the word of truth like that protestant preacher. St. Paul is sleeping and waiting for his resurrection. But the word of God is live and active. It becomes the backbone of how the church functions. Dogma turns into drama in real life. Sola scriptura births real faith from the hearing of the word of God in truth. You cannot get that from Prima Scriptura. Anyone saying otherwise is talking from the back of his neck. My parents are still catholics and they say things have changed, priests are better today etc., So I do pay a rare visit. That could be from a deep longing that some priest may be a secret protestant more than anything else. Same beautiful homily with more scripture thrown in here and there. But that is about it. No life in it. I return home sad. May be someday things will change.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing your story! I'm glad you experienced the power of the Gospel in that Protestant church. Your story reminds me of how Calvin and Luther would talk about the efficacy of the gospel. They're brilliant in this. Luther used to say, "we just swirled our beers in Wittenberg and the gospel did the work"

[@ourblissfulhaven]

I also was raised and now am a born again Christian! Praise God!! 🙌🏼🙌🏼

[@nicholastrudeau7581]

With all due respect, I have a couple issues. So how are we to distinguish what the infallible oral tradition and teachings of the apostles are if they are not written down? Are we to just trust what the church says? Yes it is true that the church at Thessalonica had only the two letters of Paul in print, but the majority of what would have been taught orally would be that which coincided with the Gospels, so the possibility of there being important, infallible doctrines that are not in what we now call the Bible is unlikely. Is doing the sign of the cross and praying to the east vital doctrine? Baptism by emersion is something that can be easily gleaned from the Scriptures.

[@tonyvasquezjr8105]

I was not going to respond but I have to say something especially since the host of this channel stated protestants have not done a good job backing up Sola Scriptura, another reason I am going to respond is because i can't help but notice a huge wave of protestant believers turn to orthodoxy and or catholicism. First let me begin by saying I consider myself someone humbly blessed with having a background in Theological studies and having read the Bible from start to beginning before, that doesn't make me better than anyone but i'd like to show myself approved and state why i feel qualified to respond, I too have my own Podcast on Facebook but am more centered on preaching Christ centered messages on there, strictly Gospel, however I have flirted with discussing such topics as these. I proceed with this debate regarding the Scriptures aka The Word of God being the supreme and final authority for the average Christian to go by, why? Well I do not believe it is that difficult to perceive, first and foremost because since the beginning of time we have read how God with HIS Word causes things to exist and Happen, in Genesis 1 God "SAID" let there be light and there was light, John 1:1 In the beginning was THE WORD, there is an importance in The term used WORD and Christ being The living WORD himself, now call it Sola Scriptura or whatever you want to call it The entire Jewish and Christian Bible where btw The first Bible was not the Canon made in the 3rd Century, It was actually The Jewish Tanakh compiled and made into a book in about 450 BCE which contains the entire Old Testament 5 books of Moses, The Historical Books, The Poetic writings, The Minor Prophets and the Major Prophets and years later the Septuagint which was the Greek copy of the Tanakh later added the Apocrypha books if you will i'll use that word so people know what i am referring to but those were also Jewish writings, so essentially no one can attribute to the first Bible being brought by the catholic church when in essence we really got everything from the Jews, now there is also history recording that when pope damasus asked Jerome for a canon later named the latin vulgate (Which he took from The Jewish Tanakh) there were already many copies of a bible elsewhere but not approved by the catholic church, just a little historic background, now In scripture we see a major emphasis on the importance of God's word over all else or mans opinions, in Exodus 32:32 It tells us of a Book in Heaven that God himself has in his possession, also in Psalm 119:89 The Holy Spirit reveals "Thy Word is forever settled in Heaven oh Lord" then in Mount Sinai We see how important it was for God to have his people keep his Word recorded in Writings, God himself wrote his commandments on Stone for His people to see and keep written down, another major example is Christ himself in Matthew 4 when he is in the desert He does all but respond to Satan by "It Is Written" also in John 5:39 he clearly says "Study The Scriptures" Also when Jesus went into the Synagogue to reveal himself He does what? He opens the scroll of Isaiah 61, again call it what you want but I see an emphasis on SCRIPTURE ALONE being the ultimate authority! Lets discuss the early church for a second, when The Holy Spirit comes upon the 120 in the upper room what is the first thing Peter starts to do? It clearly states he begins preaching the Gospel proclaiming Christ and revealing him fulfilled prophetically through the Scriptures, what scriptures was he citing? The OT of course, now lets talk about The Apostol Paul for abit, this man knew 14 Languages 7 of which he spoke fluently, he was a very studied Hebrew and knew The Tanakh, Torah thoroughly, i've heard bogus arguments from orthodox stating that it was absurd to think only because there are only two letters found written to the Thessalonians that you can take only those two letters and think that is the only thing Paul would intend to be used as the only measure of faith written for them doctrinally but what they have failed to understand is that Paul was actually a walking Tanakh, of course he preached Christ to them but what did he also tell the Church in 1 Corinthians 11:1? He said imitate me as I imitate Christ and Christ emphasized "It Is Written" How else can I challenge Scripture over mere traditions of men? Well it's quite simple, in Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men," So what did the Apostles teach and emphasize to the early Church? Have you not read 1 Thessalonians 2:13 where it gives us the answer stating "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe." THE WORD OF GOD! My main challenge to the orthodox and catholics is to ask them if then they attain to their so called "holy traditions" if they were truly of God and necessary why is it then that we do not see the early church in The book of Acts or The written in Pauls letters and the letters of the New Testament urging believers to practice many of those things they call traditions? were they not necessary? Another important thing to note is that many of the traditions practiced by 3rd century believers seem to have been passed down by a Roman Christianity, let's be honest the first christians were Jewish and did not have the same traditions as the gentiles with only the exception that they were now Jews who accepted Christ so that's my other observation regarding tradition essentially whos traditions and cultures are we referring to? I have so much more to say but I will semi end this time with this, Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Is The Same, Yesterday, Today and Forever More" Also in the Old Testament God in Malachi 3:6 6 "For I am the Lord, I change not;" "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35, a side note by the way one of the issues I encountered and I have against orthodox is that they won't call protestants brothers unless you are chrismated and or baptized into one of their churches which is sad because I do not need to be chrismated by them to know I am a child of God, John 1:12 tells me "But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God." Though I am not ready to say all orthodox or catholics are condemned I can only say like Peter said in 2 Peter 1:5 "5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love." Also you must "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15, anyone open to discuss this with me I am more than happy to do so, my Facebook page is found by Searching "Tony Vasquez" or on Instagram as "tjlimt" or simply respond to me here, Peace and Blessings.

[@tonyvasquezjr8105]

@PatristicNectarFilms

[@tonyvasquezjr8105]

@tonyvasquezjr8105