“Bible verses that teach Sola Scriptura” (REBUTTED)

In this episode Trent critically examines the typical Bible verses Protestants offer as proof of the doctrine of sola scriptura.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent

[@Dannyboy0202]

Why would God's plan of salvation be sola scriptura at a time when not many people could read?

[@beatlecristian]

@YAJUN YUAN The Bible canon wasn’t put together until the 4th century.

[@tellernickolas]

Maybe God is a monster who wants most people in hell? Yeah, I don't buy that one either.

[@kadeshswanson3991]

@YAJUN YUAN that's a possibility. But then Jesus would then also be explicit in telling us what future letters would be in the scriptures for us to read..... But what does happen is he gives us a council that infallibily lists the books. The council would have to be infallible otherwise it could not produce something infallible. Action follows being.

[@michaelibach9063]

@YAJUN YUAN that someone was a Catholic priest

[@stevenstuart4194]

@YAJUN YUAN They weren't simply "reading" the Scriptures. They were explaining them too. Or when you gather for preaching and worship, is your pastor simply reading the Bible without explanation?

[@christianpena8919]

You're Amazing Trent! The Lord has certainly used your videos to help me convert from my former Protestant faith and I am now halfway through RCIA. Thank you for helping me find the fullness of the Truth!

[@ironymatt]

Welcome home, and may God's blessings continue in your life! PS: as you can see by his reply, you've now been introduced to pope Tony, of the city-state Tonytown: population 1. You'll no doubt come across other self-proclaimed vicars of Christ, as Jesus himself warned us, so as He also counseled, don't be deceived and don't be concerned. As for Tony, he spends a lot of his time on Catholic channels, so there's hope for him yet!

[@stevenwall1964]

@@tony1685 You seem like a thoughtful Non Catholic to answer this question. It is a bit long but easy to follow. Maybe you could give me an answer to the question. I posted on several "Sola Scriptura" videos and have no answers. I am desperate for an answer on this question. Let me just take one disagreement between Catholic and Protestant. The question is how can we trust the Bible? Catholics say the Church put the Bible together. Protestants say “NO the Bible revealed itself. Protestants say "the Church no more gave us the Bible than Newton gave us gravity.” For me not growing up in a religious home I just read the Bible until I was convinced that it was not a myth. I read it carefully so I know the contents pretty well. So to the question as to why we should trust anything the early Church did; this is what the Bible says: Jesus said 1) He was going to build a single Church. 2) He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 3) He said that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. 4) He said that He was going to send the "Spirit of Truth" to guide the Church in all truth. Then Paul says 5) the pillar and bulwark of truth is “the church.” Okay so let us look in church history at the Canon. In 382 AD the Church had the Council and determined that the canon was 73 books. They chose which books are infallible. That would be a radically important thing right? So the question is why would we trust those 73 books? Well, the answer is that Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the age. He also said he would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. So we should trust what he says right? So from 382 AD to 1520 AD the Church that operated on the earth had the 73 book canon. But then Protestants come along and around 1520 AD and they claim that the early Church got the 73 book canon wrong. I am not being rude or belligerent but I really would like someone to explain - calmly and in simple language because I am slow - Please tell me how that is not absurd to say the Church got the 73 book Canon wrong based on Jesus promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and to send the “Spirit of Truth” to guide the church in All TRUTH. I am not being belligerent here really, I earnestly want to know. Did Jesus lie? Did He make a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make an error with the 73 book canon? I cannot for the life of me believe that the church which is described as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” was not even on the earth from 382 To 1520. But then let’s move on; let’s say that the Protestants are right and the Church errored in the 73 Book canon. If the Church errored in the 73 book canon did God wait from 382 AD until 1520 before He restored the real truth? Are we really going to believe that for 1200 years the true Christian Church was not there? You could not say the true church was there if they could not even get the correct books in the canon. And I don’t see any other church in history declaring anything different than the 73 book canon. So the real church with the correct Bible was not on earth if the Protestant claim is true. Can that make any sense? I am just a guy who read the Bible very closely and came down on the Catholic side only recently but now I have Protestants telling me I am going to hell. I am not being rude or accusatory. But please tell me how it is not absurd that Jesus says he would create one Church. He would be with the Church to the end of the age. He would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in ALL TRUTH. But then for one of the most important issues in all of Christianity the early Church gets 73 book canon wrong and so the real truth on this issue is not there until 1520. If that is true that would make me question the Christian truth claims entirely. Just a reasoned answer to this question would really help me.

[@jessebryant9233]

Maybe you can help me out regarding my numbered comments I posted yesterday? Some feedback would be greatly appreciated.

[@jessebryant9233]

@@stevenwall1964 You too might be a good candidate for my recent post! Regarding your comment... 1. Can you tell me what "the Church" IS? 2. Do you think the gates of hell could ever prevail against God's truth? 3. See #1 4. Could you cite the specific Scripture on that? Would need to review in order to understand correctly. 5. See #1 As for the canon, I would use the term "recognized" as I think that is more accurate. And this recognizing was based on very clear criteria. Regarding which books are infallible, we know that does not include the Apocryphal books that the RCC includes in their canon. (These books contain known historical and scientific errors and their teachings don't always comport with the rest of Scripture. Not exactly what one would call "infallible", agreed?) And finally, my previous questions come into play regarding your conclusions-and it seems your reasoning is perhaps viciously circular-meaning "the Church" in 1, 3, and 5 must be defined first. This certainly raises the question of whether "the Church" is in error or Jesus, or if "the Church's" claims about itself are in error. Best as I can figure anyhow. (There is also issues regarding "the Church's" claim to the 73 books, as it seems all of them appeared on like a single list-and the truth is that the Church officially added them later-appealing to this one time list-though they were considered worthy of study historically, but never considered canonical by Jews or Biblical Christians. And it would seem, though I haven't thoroughly studied it out for myself, that that is for good reasons.) But, if you go by the Bible, what of all the extra-biblical, un-biblical teachings and traditions invented by "the Church" sometimes hundreds or thousands of years later? How can one not find such teachings by the "infallible Church" to be deeply troubling? As for whether or not you or anyone else is going to hell, well, how about answering this question: According to the Roman Catholic Church, what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ? "...what must I do, that I may be saved?" (Acts 16:30)

[@stevenwall1964]

@@jessebryant9233 Well lets just take this one at a time to avoid confusion. I don't believe in Sola Scriptura because the church that existed for 1500 years before the Reformation did not believe in it. I am new to Christianity. It makes no sense to me that Christ would say that he is going to "build a church that the gates of hell will not prevail against" and then turn around and let the church fail right away. That is what I have to believe to be Protestant. The Apostolic Fathers like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all saw themselves as part of one church. In Greek it was the Katholicos Ekklysia. It was one church that worked together to begin to establish doctrines like the Trinity and the 2 natures of Christ as fully God and Fully human in one person. Those are complicated doctrines. It is difficult to use the Bible alone to define them or prove them. It took the early church to have the council at Nicaea in 325, Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431, and Chalcedon in 451 to define these doctrines against many heretics. My question is how can we trust that the church got these doctrines right? Don't we trust the church because Jesus said he would build a church and that he would be with the church? I went to my Protestant pastor and I asked him if he could use the Bible alone and explain to me from the Bible alone how you arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity plus I ask him to show from the Bible alone how you get to the idea that Christ has 2 natures in that he is fully human and fully God in one person. And from the Bible alone he could not do that. I have read the New Testament 10 times in seeking Christianity to determine if it is true or not. And I know I could never have come up with the doctrine of the Trinity and the 2 natures of Christ like the early church did. So my question is don't Christians have to trust that church that existed from 107 AD When Ignatius called the church Katholicos until Chalcedon in 451 AD? It was that church that developed those important doctrines. Don’t I have to trust THAT particular church? Modern day Mormons reject the Trinity based on Bible arguments. So how do I know that the early church got those doctrines right? The only reason I can think of is that it is because Jesus said that he would build a church, he said that church would be persecuted and he said that church would go to all nations. And when I look at the evidence of the early church fathers, that church back then that determined the crucial doctrines was the Catholic Church. All of the big players in the controversies over who Jesus was were “Catholic.” Athanasius who was important in the Council of Nicaea was a Catholic Bishop who believed in baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He believed that he was one bishop in a “college of Bishops” who worked together to establish the doctrine of the Trinity. Augustine was instrumental in clarifying and defining the Trinity. He was a Catholic Bishop who obey the Pope, believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration and he wrote extensively about confession an penance. He believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. My point is as someone who did not grow up religious when I look at the early church the only church I see is the “Catholic Church.” All of the those early church fathers saw themselves as part of one unified church. They site the apostle Paul who says that the church has to agree on everything. Paul is constantly writing about the church being one single united church. And the church for the first 500 years seems to be one united church. And it is the church that determined the difficult doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. As a new comer I just don’t see how it is legitimate to look back at the church and say that we will trust that they got the Trinity correct and trust that the got the doctrine of the 2 natures of Christ as one person correct but then claim that it was a false church or that the other doctrines that those same men developed are wrong. The same men who developed the Trinity and the Incarnation are the very same ones that developed the doctrine of the Bishop of Rome being the leader of the church. How can we trust that they got some things right and then claim they got other things wrong?

[@nickw9766]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

[@soteriology400]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 is actually referring to the Jewish traditions, that had to do with the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2.

[@nickw9766]

@@soteriology400 strawman argument.

[@soteriology400]

@@nickw9766 But it were the Jews whom God entrusted His oracles with, Romans 3:1-2 "3 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. " How did they build the scriptures? Through their oral and written traditions; 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. The word "us" was referring to the Jewish apostles (they were not Roman Catholics). Paul was writing to the Jewish Christians in Thessalonica concerning their gathering (2:1). The sign occurred in the sky on May 2, AD66, apostasy came first (Jewish revolt, September AD66), man of lawless revealed on August 14, AD66 (his name was Eleazar, who was the grandson of Judas Iscariot btw). So what epistles did they see or hear about to let them know it was time for their gathering? It was 1 Peter. We see in 1 Peter 1:1 is says; "1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen". Keep in mind, Peter was an apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles (Galatians 2:7). So he was writing to the Jewish Christians in those 5 churches. Notice he referred to them as "scattered". These were the Jews who came out of Babylonian captivity, who were scattered through the Roman Empire from Jerusalem, where the temple was. These are the stick of Joseph (Ezekiel 37). Peter and Mary were the stick of Judah in case you were wondering. This was a hint to them they were to leave for their gathering. This also suggests at the time Peter wrote 1 Peter, he was either in Jerusalem or near Jerusalem. If Peter was in Rome at the time, this would make him a part of the scattered. So, this makes no sense if he was in Rome. The temple was in Jerusalem, not Rome btw. So where were they to go for their gathering? Notice in 1 Peter 5:13, Peter mentions Mark greets you. Mark was in Alexandria, Egypt at the time. Do you see how it was located on the western most water channel, funneling to Babylon, Egypt? Peter would have immediately written this letter, after August 14, AD66 btw, since that was the day, the lawless one was revealed (restrainer died that day, who was his dad, and that was the same day he announced no more sacrifices for Caesar). So, they would have left by boat for their gathering quietly. They had to leave quietly to reduce the risk of the persecutions by the Gentiles (Nero was in power at the time, and he was having Christians murdered, emperor of Rome who you claimed wrote the NT scriptures, ha?) persecutions following them. At this time, Rome was the most dangerous part of the world btw. They would have arrived in Alexandria, to greet Mark. Then from there, Mark would have escorted them by boat to Babylon. There were only 2 Babylon's on the map at the time. There was Babylon, Iraq and Babylon, Egypt. They knew Peter was not referring to Babylon, Iraq, since this is where they left from their captivity. They knew Peter was referring to Babylon Egypt. This was considered their safe place in the first century (Egypt, Matthew 2:14-15). So, Mark would have escorted them by boat to Babylon, just south of him within 100 miles. Then from there, Peter would have escorted them to Petra, which is where their gathering was. We see in Revelation 12, the flood and later the earth split. Petra has a history of flooding, and we see the earth split just southwest of Petra, if you look on the map. This was the stick of Joseph, who would have arrived first (Matthew 19:30, they were the last to go, since they arrived first). During this time, they would have prepared a place for the stick of Judah, who arrived about 3.5 years later. They fled the temple on Thursday afternoon, April 10, AD70. They arrived the next day in Petra, which started their 1260-day prophecy of revelation 12:6, so the two became one stick (fulfilled Ezekiel 37:19). I will stop there, do you see how Peter fulfilled 2 Thessalonians 2:15? The letter they were waiting whether written or orally? Those 5 churches were not too far from the church of Thessalonica. It was Eusebius who made up the idea "Babylon" referred to "Rome" in 1 Peter 5:13. He claims Peter was using a metaphor. But was Peter using a metaphor in 1 Peter 5:13? No, he was not. Eusebius was fooled billions of people around the world, including you. He was trying to define the orthodox view of the relationship between church and state for Constantine. Eusebius did a lot of rewriting of history to accomplish this. He was trying to use the names of John and Peter to push this through. I encourage you to understand the biblical narrative first, purge out outside paradigms first. Then study the scriptures and understand the biblical narrative with Peter and John, it is an exhaustive study, but then you will see the discrepancies in written history.

[@bcalvert321]

@@nickw9766 In other words you can't prove him wrong. All you have is nothing. It is talking about Jewish traditions. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. This is a better way to put this verse. It has nothing to do with any Catholic traditions of any kind.

[@nickw9766]

@@bcalvert321 are you sure you want to go down that road with me? Keep reading! It also says, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the Tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). It’s called apostolic tradition! By the way, Paul refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession-his own generation, Timothy’s, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation next in turn. See 2 Tim 2:2, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”. That’s apostolic succession right there!

[@nofragmentado]

Trent te agradezco todo lo qué haces por evangelizar de la forma que lo haces. Tu paciencia, tu respeto y Amor para defender y hablar con nuestros hermanos protestantes es algo que no muchos lo tienen. Que Dios te bendiga siempre y te siga dando esa sabiduría para llevar y defender su evangelio.

[@AthanaSus]

Google translated this comment beautifully. God bless you maam

[@volusian95]

Absolutamente, gracias Trent

[@mayuasdf4281]

Que agradable sorpresa ver un comentario en español. Que Dios le bendiga también.

[@ajamusic7322]

I never understood why I should accept the presented definition of Sola Scriptura since it is defined from a source outside Scripture.

[@MrCheesywaffles]

It should also have a table of contents so we know it applies to this text. It's circular reasoning in my opinion.

[@Justas399]

Why does it have to be defined in Scripture?

[@jackdaw6359]

@YAJUN YUAN where are you taught that divine revelation alone is infallible?

[@SantiagoAaronGarcia]

@@jackdaw6359 which other form of revelation is infallible and why?

[@Vaughndaleoulaw]

@@Justas399 If the scripture is the final and sole authority for doctrine, which is what sola scriptura teaches, then, that must also apply to the doctrine of sola scriptura itself.

[@aahlstrom93]

If Sola Scriptura was real, and was real from the get-go as Protestant claim, then why in the Council of Acts do the leaders of the Church lay food restrictions on the gentile Christians with only the justification "It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us"? -- why did the Christians not contest the councils decision and ask "Where on earth is your Biblical basis we need to abstain from these things as gentiles?" None is given. They say it seems good to the Holy Spirit and them. Can you imagine how Protestants react if we told them we want them to believe in something specific and our sole justification was that "Is seems good to us bishops and to God"? They would utterly reject what we ask them to believe. Yet, as the Holy Bible testifies, when this circumstance happened to the early Christians it apparently was accepted and obeyed without question. Sola Scriptura is foreign doctrine to the Apostles. Perhaps Protestants could have a better case if they argued we should embrace Sola Scriptura as a matter of doctrinal development: "Hey, it's already written, it's handy, let's make it the sole infallible source of doctrine" -- yet they shoot themselves in the foot by trying to claim it was around by the time of Pentecost (or even before then), when the Church had all she needed to complete her mission. And the New Testament Scripture was NOT written at that time

[@orthocatsr.8723]

This prot would believe you

[@stueve]

What do you think the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is?

[@lkae4]

What's the alternative, the pope is the true apostolic successor? How is that when your pope is a universalist? Your pope isn't even Christian. So Sola Scriptura or follow a non-Christian. Hmm, tough choice.

[@stephengalanis]

//Perhaps Protestants could have a better case if they argued we should embrace Sola Scriptura as a matter of doctrinal development: "Hey, it's already written, it's handy, let's make it the sole infallible source of doctrine"// But that is Sola Scriptura. It's worth digging into the history of the 5 solas and understanding their context. This former Protestant, now outgrown it and happily atheist, understood Sola Scriptura exactly that way you described. The apostles had authority by virtue of being taught by God himself. The question for the Reformers is whether a council declaring assent to a Marian dogma, for example, to suddenly be necessary for salvation is defensible. It implies God changed the rules of salvation. The solas did not originate in a vacuum, all of them are explicitly or implicitly a rejection of Roman Catholic accretions in the eyes of the Reformers. Sola Scriptura is a claim *about* Scripture and about what ought to be authoritative. It's not going to be decided by proof-texting from the content Scripture itself. No verse needs to mention sola scriptura. All one needs is to acknowledge the difference in authority between men sent and taught by god himself, and those who have no such teaching. //yet they shoot themselves in the foot by trying to claim it was around by the time of Pentecost, when the Church had all she needed to complete her mission./ What pop-apologists on the internet do can vary. I think Protestants trying to find it at Pentecost is missing the point.

[@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577]

The problem with your argument is that some protestants will agree with you, but that after the last apostle the Bible is what we are left with.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

No Protestant Pastor actually practices Scripture ALONE, as they place their own fallible interpretations above Holy Scripture. Jesus Christ teaches, the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". ( Matthew 26:26) Fallible Protestant Pastors add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus Christ!

[@aGoyforJesus]

This is such a weak reed you're trying to use here. It's just trying to use ancient Greek skepticism to buttress Rome, which is how we got the Enlightenment.

[@crobeastness]

@@tony1685 the abundance of scripture proves the real presence of the bread and wine in the holy communion. real, actual presence along with it also being a representation. its a both/and situation.

[@michaelibach9063]

Exactly

[@rusluck6620]

What about lutherans

[@ryangalligan1040]

Same goes for Catholics! Even worse though

[@uncledot1868]

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that, with no authority outside Sacred Scripture to appeal to, there is no way of knowing the correct interpretations of Sacred Scripture, hence a multitude of denominations founded by leaders who claimed to have The Holy Spirit and all disagreed with each other.

[@petethepeg2]

Yup ,so true! ....And that includes the Catholic church!

[@jackdaw6359]

@@petethepeg2 exactly unless of course the Catholic church is correct that it is Divinely instituted and protected from teaching doctrinal error. Worst case for us Catholics - we are just another big denomination that for some reason is very old and has bared much wheat and tares. With amazing fruit. With bad guys too. Worst case for Protestants, everything that Catholicism teaches is true.

[@petethepeg2]

@@jackdaw6359 Well if there`s a level playing field here ,the worst case for Catholics is that everything the Protestants teach is true ! It just goes round and round ,rebuttal and rebuttal and rebuttal ad infinitum until every knee bows and THEN shall we all know even as also we are known

[@jackdaw6359]

@@petethepeg2 which Protestants?

[@jackdaw6359]

@@petethepeg2 Protestants don't claim to have infallible protection on their doctrine.

[@MiguelArcangel12]

I have Case for Catholicism. It's great and I'm glad you put some of that content on video. Thanks, Trent!

[@MiguelArcangel12]

@@tony1685 The fact that you have a Bible proves that sola scriptura Protestantism is false

[@MiguelArcangel12]

@@tony1685 The canon of Scripture, for one, which is not in Scripture. We don't have a Bible without it, do we?

[@MiguelArcangel12]

@@tony1685 Now you got a whole 'nother problem because Scripture contradicts itself. Lol

[@MiguelArcangel12]

@@tony1685 The notion of the canon of Scripture requires and is inclusive of the authoritative list of what books are to be considered inspired. This is not written down anywhere within Scripture. In other words, Scripture does not include a table of contents. That would be kinda important, don't ya think?

[@michaelibach9063]

@@tony1685 you have no idea what scripture says, like the scribes and Pharisees you are blind

[@JohnR.T.B.]

"So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him." (Acts 8: 30-31) Most of us here know about the account of Philip meeting and baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch. It's clear that by reading Scripture alone, you cannot understand it properly, and so one needs the Holy Spirit, someone who has been assigned by the Spirit, to properly teach the Scripture according to the Way and the Truth. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not possible, because you do not get ordained by the Bible, but by an authority that can give the power of the Holy Spirit, to give you the authority to interpret and teach Scripture. And if you're obliged to accept that there are the Scripture and the authority to handle the Scripture, hence you have accepted that Scripture alone or Sola Scriptura is not true. "Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to this chariot and join it.” So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him. Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” The eunuch asked Philip, “About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus." (Acts 8: 29-35)

[@Dannyboy0202]

@YAJUN YUAN so why so many different denominations

[@sotem3608]

@YAJUN YUAN For as far as I can tell the news Phillip proclaimed wasn't part of scripture at the time, it was to become scripture. So I wouldn't consider this to be a very strong case against John's post. How would you address that the news Phillip proclaimed wasn't in scripture yet?

[@docverit2668]

@YAJUN YUAN You don't understand the distinction between various laws that can be changed and those that cannot. Nice try.

[@heyman.712]

@YAJUN YUAN "Redemptionis Sacramentum," Nos. 48-50, which states: "[48] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools." The traditional use of unleavened bread in the Latin Church is a requirement for the Eucharist's licit celebration. A priest who consecrates a roll, bun or some other form of true wheat bread containing leaven performs a valid but illicit act. Most Eastern Churches traditionally use leavened bread for the Eucharist and this would be a requirement for the licit celebration of the Eucharist in those Churches. So you're wrong. It is not a sin to use leaven bread in the Universal celebration of the Eucharist. It is illicit to the celebration of the LATIN RITE, but the opposite (using unleavened bread) is also true when celebrating it in the EASTERN RITE. It is not a question of universal practice, it is simply the reverent celebration of the Mass as passed on to a certain tradition. The Catholic Church teaches that the Latin Catholic Rite MUST stay Latin and not stray away from the instruction of the Roman Catholic Liturgy, while the Eastern Catholic Rite MUST stay Eastern and not stray away from the Eastern Catholic Liturgy. This makes perfect sense, since The effect of deviation from the beautiful liturgical traditions of the apostolic church, as we can see, has its results in Protestantism, where the apostolic way of worship due to God is diffused and can no longer be seen. The sin is in the illicit and abuse of the celebration of the Eucharist from how a specific liturgy is celebrated. The fact that there are 23 ANCIENT Liturgies actually show that diversity in the Church do not need schism and deviation in terms of the fundamental Christian doctrine necessary for Salvation, unlike what is common in differing Protestant denominations (where there are very dangerous differences of the necessary doctrine of Salvation: Calvinist vs. Arminian, Trinitarian vs. Unitarian, etc. These differences cannot - and should never be - ignored and just be put on equal terms with diversity in the Eucharistic Liturgies, which all point to a singular truth). The danger of it all just proves that even with all this diversity, a magisterial authority is needed to PREVENT apostasy and falling into false Gospel.

[@michaelibach9063]

@YAJUN YUAN a dozen heretical sects, is a dozen to many. Just as 30,000 heretical sects is 30,000 to many.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

Sola Scriptura is by far the weakest of all Protestant doctrines. It is clearly an idea formed to rebel against the Church. My two favorite arguments are these: 1) The canonization was not complete before at least 325 AD. If you were a Christian in the year 324 you could not know infallibly if the letter to the Hebrews was in or out. It follows that Sola Scriptura was an impossible doctrine at the that time. If it was impossible until 325, then the only way to assert an infallible Scripture (necessary prerequisite for Sola Scriptura) would be to assert an infallible Council - or Church. Implicitly one would have to reject Sola Scriptura. 2) Take two Protestants, from two distinct denominations. Both should be the brighest of all men, learned in all the Bible and all commentaries. Both should be as holy as can be, ready to become saints. Both should have 100 years of life experience and all the gifts of the Spirit. Still they would come to different conclusions on how to read the Scripture. They simply cannot agree on all doctrines. This is not a crazy thought - I believe as should Protestants - that such men exists. Protestants proves every day Sola Scriptura is insufficient - they will always disagree.

[@ronaldfelix1000]

Yes the Canon is ratified around 325, a general Canon is already accepted. Also you are assuming that every Protestant put there just believes that every book just.kind of floated down to earth on a silver platter, when we have done more for the distribution, translation of the word than the Catholic church has done since it began, in 1033. You see what I did there, before you claim you are the church, you need to go tell the East that only you are the Church, that you are totally one in doctrine. Uuugh I hate tribalism I get sucked into it. Such a waste of time

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@@ronaldfelix1000 Tribalism? I don't know if you're serious or not. But I suppose it makes kind of sense to allude to tribalism as a modern Protestant. Of course, one must be, since no one can claim to have the truth or know the truth - it's all interpretations. And you definitely didn't answer my argument at all, you just set up some strawmen. It still stands that a Protestant in the year 324 would be unthinkable.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@YAJUN YUANThank you for your reply. 1) No you cannot choose such an option. That would lead to many canons, not one canon. The proto-protestant then always that their specific canon is the "sola scriptura" (just like Protestants reject Deuterocanonical books today). The other problem would be: Who would decide what was "accepted"? Every priest and every layman? This just shows very clearly that Protestantism is an anachronism. 2) You're strong in the faith, but - no, it doesn't work. History has proven it beyond any shadow of a doubt. Your solution is sheer fantasy - it will never happen. At best your solution can help people to become a little bit more liberal in their interpretations, to allow for other people who they recognize as Christians. This is what is happening today. Such a trend will eventually make it hard to do the necessary demarcation of what is and what isn't a Christian belief. And the "man in Rome" as you say, is a Magesterium bound by Scripture and Sacred Tradition, so your strawman doesn't work.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@YAJUN YUAN I think you are a little unaware of how NT was compiled. There were some uncertainties about some of the letters, like Hebrew - that's why I mention this in my argument to begin with. One didn't know whether or not Paul had actually written this, and we still don't. So the problem was real and acute, not easily solved before the Councils decided. That is of course not to say (yet another strawman) that I or anyone else believe that people suddenly came to believe the canon in 325. There was a wide agreement on most of the texts. But the point remains: There was disagreement. And if there was no possible way to make an infallible decision on this matter, the canons would have diverted already at that stage. I don't know understand how you can defend the latter part of your agreement. The various denominations are *only* being able to hold on to a central core of creeds, and barely that - as a common truth. These are the remnants of the original church. So much else has been lost. To be happy with a loose agreement on the creed, while there is a wide disagreement on nearly all other topics is to be happy with little. You seem to believe that things are moving in the right direction, tbh I cannot understand which world you live in? I think it boils down to something very simple: You disagree with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. But that has zero weight. Really, you don't believe yourself to be infallible, so why trust yourself? You should in fact expect to disagree with absolute truth since otherwise, you would already know all of the absolute truth. Therefore, your sense of "things going in the right/wrong direction" - cannot be the measure by which even yourself is measuring. I have shown pretty clearly how impossible your Protestant position would be before the Councils. Reason should compel you to revise your position on Sola Scriptura.

[@anthonytan7134]

if it's the WEAKEST link, that others will fall apart then, specially TULIP of reformed protestantism

[@andreeattieh2963]

Sola scriptura is why I'm Catholic

[@neoturfmasterMVS]

Sola scriptura is Catholic

[@andreeattieh2963]

@@neoturfmasterMVS it's anti Catholic

[@VACatholic]

One minor recommendation. When clipping some of these people, it might make sense to give an overlay that has the commentator's name on it. I realize that's not strictly required, but it would be incredibly helpful for people who aren't familiar with everyone in the video.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Good idea!

[@mx_moi1964]

@YAJUN YUAN you don’t announce the the already written scriptures publicly. The only scripture that they had was the OT so is only the Old Testament what we have to look at? Any reasonable person would say no

[@swordofarchangelmichael3848]

@@TheCounselofTrent Hello Trent God bless your work. Can you do a respond video to the video the rabid anti catholic Anthony Rogers and co made about Catholicsm today? He made a 5 hour video

[@takmaps]

@YAJUN YUAN the point made at the timestamp is not saying the word of God is *other* than scripture. Trent there is saying its *Not just scripture* that is the key difference. It doesn't exclude scripture but its not referring to just scripture.

[@takmaps]

@YAJUN YUAN also, Paul "reasoning with them from the scriptures" already implies that he is using both reasoning and scripture. Because... just showing them scripture alone would not have landed them to the Pauline conclusions implying an external authority through Paul as he reasons with them from scripture.

[@robertopacheco2997]

The Bereans "were more noble" because they agreed with Paul, plain and simple! It's not like other ancient Hebrews were ignorant of Scripture or thought it was not authoritative. You don't have "the word of God" without a teaching authority to rightly "divide the word of truth."

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

In addition to Trent‘s argument regarding second Timothy chapter 3, verses 15 through 17, what we call the New Testament had not been written nor the Church declared it to be scripture. So the only thing Paul could have been talking about is what we called the old testament. So would protestants then say all one needs is a solo Scriptura view of the Old Testament? You cannot apply Paul’s statement to our ancient Hebrew text to words that had not been written yet.

[@danielhaas9469]

The Church hadn't declared it to be scripture or written yet? What are you talking about? Firstly, the writings of Paul, Peter or any of the twelve were backed by Gods spirit as authoritative. Paul makes this very clear when he says: I was not sent here by mere men but by Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead to the church at Galatians. ALL the letters these Apostles wrote down at that time were scripture. First, they preached the gospel verbally then wrote them down to various churches to remind them of the gospel and to instruct them to live in accordance to Gods will. But yes, Paul would have been refencing the OT in conformity with the Gospel. That is to say: The Gospel is the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. As is written: "I the LORD, will shepherd my people" and "For I [am] the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior: I gave Egypt [for] thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee" Here, Paul is telling Timothy because he is IN the truth and because the OT bares witness to Paul's testimony about Christ being the Savior and LORD spoken to us and written down for our benefit in the OT that these events have been completed. So, by believing by faith that Christ is the Son of God who came down from heaven written down for us to read and see for ourselves these things have occurred have confidence in what Paul is teaching whether Jew or Gentile. To be more plain, First you MUST show that Christ IS the Messiah. Second, you must demonstrate this by citing various OT versus and parallel them to Christs ministry and life. Again, the whole point to Timothy and by extension to us is false prophets and teachers will come and are already here trying to deceive you into believing in something that God never said or wants you to believe. So, how can YOU and US therefore ascertain these things? Or how can YOU and I know that this person is a false prophet? If they teach something that contradicts the Gospel preached AND if it contradicts the OT prophecies concerning the messiah. That is why placing scripture above all things including the Church is vital. The Church holds up scripture and clings to it not adds things into it to statisfy theology.

[@pierreschiffer3180]

@@danielhaas9469 What you write does not make sense, Daniel. The Church existed before the New Testament, remember? The Church wrote the New Testament, just as Israel wrote the Old Testament. You first need the people of God before they can write anything. If you want to understand the relation between both, look at old Israel, my friend. You should not follow yourself: you should follow Him. All you do is presenting your own ideas and opinions and interpretations and all. You follow yourself, Daniel.

[@danielhaas9469]

@@pierreschiffer3180 I think you need to reread whay I wrote in response to Saint Yeah Okay...he made the ascertain that the Church did not define what Paul Peter and the others wrote as scripture. I am pointing out that the Gospel being preached must be in the OT. AND to demonstrate that Christ was the Messiah that was proclaimed for our benefit has been fulfilled. Therefore, Peter Paul or any Apostoles work are backed by God as authoritative.

[@danielhaas9469]

@@pierreschiffer3180 I also don't know what you mean by I follow myself: I tell you the truth that I deny myself daily and follow Christ who is ready and able to save us. But again, even Christ himself had to demonstrate that the OT prophets spoke about Christ in advance so that we will know he is I AM (the LORD). How many times do you think Christ himself referenced the OT? Most of the time: That is why he cites many passages that demonstrates that he is the Messiah, the Son of Man and the Son of God and God for that matter. But because of their hardened hearts as was foreknown by the LORD they rejected him and nailed him on a tree. As a result, for our (Gentiles) benefit we too are grafted on to the true vine which is Christ as the result of the Jews rejecting God. So I do not follow myself for what is myself? Nothing, worthless, guilty sinner who deserves death. But rather I have placed my hope in the one who has promised. And the one who promises will not disappoint.

[@docverit2668]

@@pierreschiffer3180 Excellent. As the late, great Bishop Sheen stated: The Church did not come out of the Bible; the Bible came out of the Church; the one established by Jesus Christ. Jesus established His Church; He did not set up biblical societies known as protestant churches.

[@JC-hm7he]

Having to explain this to Protestants constantly is mind numbing.

[@anthonytan7134]

to reason sola scriptura from scripture ALONE is mind numbing, circular reasoning.

[@ryangalligan1040]

Because the word of God, read with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, without any biases, traditions or doctrines placed in the word to confirm their own biases, is best way to read the word. No false interpretations or doctrines arise from that. Sadly, we are more divided than ever, Catholics, Protestants, etc.

[@davido3026]

​@@ryangalligan1040 You contradict yourself, pal! your reasoning is bogus!!!

[@adilsonlc]

I’ve listened to Trent speaking many times on other channels, but this video made me hit subscribe and the bell.

[@MZONE991]

additional note 2 Timothy 3:17 does not say "Scripture is sufficient to make the man of God complete" it says that scripture is useful to make the man of God complete this is an important distinction because the second reading implies that scripture is one of many things that make the man of God complete

[@mak88119]

Scripture will NEVER lead you astray, however, anything in its place will.

[@MZONE991]

@@mak88119 where is that in scripture?

[@mak88119]

@@MZONE991 Why would the Word of God lead you astray? 2 Tim 3:16 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:. Not the Church or any other document ONLY scripture and the word "inspiration of God" is God-breathed it. God told the profits and Apostles what to right

[@MZONE991]

@@mak88119 the word of God does not lead astray but our interpretation of it does "as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." - 2 Peter 3:16

[@DANtheMANofSIPA]

@@mak88119 We all use the same Bible yet have massively different beliefs. Almost like our interpretations arent reliable and we must rely not only on the Holy Ghost but also a council created on earth by God Himself to guide his sheep on matters of faith and morals.

[@requiem7204]

How To Be Christian does video topics like these. Good stuff.

[@renjithjoseph7135]

HTBC's logical takedown of 2 Tim 3:16 as a prooftext is so good.

[@derrick7442]

Such good videos

[@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577]

He's so good with easy explanations. Sadly he takes ages for him to make videos

[@geoffrobinson]

His videos are objectively awful

[@volusian95]

This made me realize that he hasn't posted in 3 months

[@marcihf217]

Thank you for making these videos. May God bless you.

[@probaskinnyman4960]

interesting, I think I like this new format of The Counsel of Trent rebuttal videos. I would be interested to see a rebuttal on Dr. Craig's views on God and time

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 📖 *Introduction to the Topic* - The video introduces the format change for rebuttal videos, focusing on common claims about the Bible explicitly teaching Sola Scriptura. 00:58 📚 *Definition of Sola Scriptura* - Matthew Barrett's definition of Sola Scriptura as the sole and final authority for the Church, containing all necessary teachings for salvation and Christian living. - Reference to the 1646 Westminster Confession supporting the concept. 01:53 📖 *Debate on Sola Scriptura's Biblical Foundation* - The claim that Sola Scriptura can be true even if not explicitly taught in the Bible. - Introduction of Acts 17:10-11 as a frequently cited verse supporting Sola Scriptura. 02:34 📜 *Analysis of Acts 17:10-11* - Protestant interpretation of Acts 17:10-11 as supporting Sola Scriptura. - Counterargument emphasizing the narrative nature of the passage and its insufficiency to build a solid foundation for Sola Scriptura. 08:36 📜 *Examination of Galatians 1:8* - Protestant argument using Galatians 1:8 to support Sola Scriptura. - Counterargument highlighting that the verse doesn't specify the exclusive source of authority and doesn't negate the possibility of complementary teachings. 12:20 📜 *Evaluation of 1 Corinthians 4:6* - Usage of 1 Corinthians 4:6 in defending Sola Scriptura. - Critique of the interpretation, pointing out the verse's ambiguity and the lack of a clear connection to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. 16:07 📜 *Examination of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Part 1)* - Introduction to the granddaddy of Bible verses for Sola Scriptura: 2 Timothy 3:16-17. - Exploration of the claim that "all scripture is inspired by God" supports the idea of Sola Scriptura. 20:01 📜 *Examination of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Part 2)* - Detailed analysis of the meaning of "inspired" in 2 Timothy 3:16 (theonustos). - Examination of translation issues and the lack of a clear indication that Sola Scriptura is the intended implication. 22:29 📖 *Scripture Importance* - Emphasis on scripture being God-breathed and useful. - Acknowledges its profitability for Christians. - Rejects the idea of scripture being sufficient as the sole source for Christian life. 23:52 🚫 *Limits of Verse 17* - Explores Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:17. - Contests the idea that scripture alone equips for every good work. - Highlights the need for prayer, grace, holiness, and community alongside scripture. 26:48 📜 *Exegetical Challenge* - Examines the Greek word "ex artes" in verse 17. - Questions whether scripture alone equips for specific doctrinal teachings. - Challenges the idea that scripture is sufficient for answering certain theological questions. 28:41 💬 *Misunderstanding Sola Scriptura* - Addresses the claim that sola scriptura doesn't demand scriptural proof. - Acknowledges that verses like 2 Timothy 3:16 alone don't establish sola scriptura. - Points out that Timothy received much for ministry directly from the apostles, not just from scripture. 30:17 🔍 *Future Rebuttal and Book Mention* - Mentions upcoming responses to implicit and logical arguments. - Promotes further exploration in the book "The Case for Catholicism." - Invites viewers to support and engage in content creation for quality discussion.

[@m4641]

I don't understand how it is that non-catholics who hold to Sola Scriptura can maintain it without acknowledging human interpretive authority. There's absolutely no consensus on Baptism, the Eucharist, Salvation etc...YET Sola Scriptura is True and so are their respective interpretive positions. Ugh...

[@thunderousooner527]

Because they don’t know any better. It’s how they were teach in there bible school from their protestant churches.

[@crobeastness]

ive heard counters to this being "a doctrine is made when 2 or more verses support a doctrine". or "good hermeneutics". or something similar. they cannot follow the Pope because clearly everything he teaches is unbiblical, like Mary being a perpetual virgin so Catholicism to them is a complete write-off based on Marian dogma alone.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."- 1 John chapter 2 verse 27.

[@Gondor149]

No consensus on salvation? Scripture is pretty clear if you take it all into context. We are incapable of saving ourselves. God became human lived a perfect life and took the punishment we deserve. We need only to place or trust in Christ and HIS work and sacrifice and repent of our sins. A true conversion will be evident by our fruit. We are not saved by our works but we do good works as a result of being saved. No man will be able to boast of their works in the afterlife because it was God that saved us, not our works.

[@crobeastness]

@@Gondor149 who says we are capable of saving ourselves? No one says that.

[@phoult37]

You could do an entire series on rebutting protestant proof-texts

[@joeheppell7085]

@YAJUN YUAN is it not a ‘logical deduction’ to quote your good self?

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

lol Personal interpretations are still being made to this day, but breaking down the popular ones would be helpful

[@phoult37]

@YAJUN YUAN What point are you trying to make in relation to my comment? I don't see the connection.

[@kadeshswanson3991]

@YAJUN YUAN technically it's not. Paul preached, meaning he spoke to them. So "scripture existed in a spoken form" any new testament reference to scripture is specifically the Old Testament.

[@kadeshswanson3991]

@YAJUN YUAN scripture denotes something written down. So Trent's conclusion is actually correct

[@CalvinGomes]

I just wish so many of the Protestants who write here would actually listen to the video cause it is clear many don't and spurt out the same old statements that Trent has rebutted. These people sound more like the Thessalonicans than the Bareans.

[@Cahrub]

Whenever I hear that the Scriptures are God-breathed, which is very true, I also think of when Jesus literally breathed on the disciples and gave them the authority to forgive and retain sins. So yeah, let's follow God-breathed revelation, including the authority God gave to His Church!

[@mynameis......23]

But the catholic church is pagan.

[@gonzalomorales1342]

I'd be then fair to say that 2 Tim 3: 16 supports inerrant and profitable scriptura rather than sola scriptura. Infallible is not the same thing as alone.

[@jakajakos]

Sola Scriptura is as unbiblical as the whole protestant project is.

[@Maxfr8]

Catholicism teaches that Scripture is enough for Salvation, and private revelation cannot introduce anything that the Church did not already know.

[@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577]

@@Maxfr8 That does not mean that whatever interpretation of the Bible is good. What the Church teaches in the Catechism or the Councils must lead your interpretation of biblical passages.

[@royalsoldierofdrangleic4577]

@YAJUN YUAN In the verses with various possible interpretations, yes. You can't say Matthew 16:18 denies the Papacy for example

[@crobeastness]

@@Maxfr8 how does what you said, disagree with the original commenter?

[@crobeastness]

@@tony1685 how does Matthew 16:18 not validate the Papacy?

[@tinman1955]

IMHO sola scriptura is a logical absurdity. What scripture instructed the early Christians to add the New Testament scriptures to the Old? What scripture told them which writings to include in the New Testament and which to exclude? What scripture told Luther to throw out a handful of books from the New Testament? Sola scriptura seems to be a self-defeating argument.

[@Mygoalwogel]

The Tawahedo Canon, the Peshitta Canon, the Greco-Russian Canon, The Papal Canon, and the Protestant Canon all differ. They all share the homologoumena books and all have discrepancies among antilegomena books. So we can dismiss the exaggerated claim that some one council magically created one definitive canon one day. Homologoumena has always been accepted by Assyrian Church of the East, Miaphysites, Palamists, Protestants, and Papists from the time of the Apostles until today. Even the Popes don't fret that Byzantine Catholics chant the portions of their longer canon in their Holy Liturgy. Antilogoumena books do not present a challenge to Anglican or Lutheran protestants because they don't contradict their doctrines anywhere. Luther didn't throw any books out. Rather he put homologoumena books first and antilegomena after.

[@camryn.d8841]

Thanks Trent! You and Matt Fradds content brought me to the Church!

[@SuperIliad]

2 Tim. 3:16-17: "'... equipped for every good work..." ? According to Sola Fide, being equipped for every good work is useless, anyway.

[@Gondor149]

Not true. A true faith is reflected in good works but we are not saved by those works. We do them because we are saved, not to be saved. James speaks of faith without good works being a dead faith. You can have false converts who profess to believe and yet never place their faith in Christ or repent.

[@SuperIliad]

@@Gondor149 and never do what Christ commander we do.

[@davido3026]

1 Timothy 3:15!!!! There you have it Heretic!!

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

It’s a good video format, i enjoyed the style. Charitable to the people presenting the targeted view, and thorough in their rebuff. On topics like these which seem so long-standing amongst apologetic discussions, I’d even enjoy longer videos. Well done

[@johnrowland9570]

Why were Deut 4:2, Prov 30:6, Rev 22:18-19 avoided. I know that these verses individually may have a specific context but together they have collective force.

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

@@johnrowland9570 I’m sure he couldn’t discuss every possible interpretation of every possible verse which could relate to the topic, but for what he did cover, i was satisfied with it. Would you like to write out an argument based on those verses? Trent may see it and reply, or i could try to Specifically, though, in Deuteronomy Moses is retelling the history of the Jews to that point, as a reminder for them not to reject the covenant made at Horeb; taken strictly literally, the Jews would never have written or maintained any book after Deuteronomy, and yet they did. There must be something more to the meaning than simply “don’t write anything more,” as God did speak more to them and they did write it down. Proverbs is in wisdom literature, and is profoundly helpful for making practical and moral teachings easier to remember, but i doubt you would find people who strictly literally interpret every line from Proverbs, or why that one in particular and not the other ought to be. Revelation’s citation is specifically referring to the visions had by John during his exile on Patmos, not to anything else; remember, “the Bible” as we have it today did not exist yet as a collection of these particular books, so treating that verse as though it applied to more than John’s visions is going to be the wrong perspective

[@johnrowland9570]

The idea of 'Trinity' by word or definition does not appear in scripture. However we believe the doctrine on the basis of the cumulative force of a number of references in the bible. So with 'Sola Scriptura'.So with Deut 4:2, Prov 30:6, together with Rev 22:18-19. For sure each on their own has a specific context but jointly they establish a principle. I would also add 2 Tim 3:17. The words 'complete, equipped' have a linked root in the Gk giving emphasis on what Paul is saying. We notice that it is for 'EVERY good work'. Every good work includes what we believe and how we live. Hence the man of God does not need man made accumulated superstious Catholic traditions. Sola Scriptura stands.

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

​@@johnrowland9570 Help me understand better. Can you define what you mean by "sola scriptura"? Because as many people as say those words have their own idea on what it means. I generally receive it as a negative thing: by making the statement, you 'negate' or deny the validity of the Church, the Tradition, the Holy Spirit active today, etc. If it's not in the written book, then it's not legit. Perhaps you mean something else? Define your terms please. You use the Trinity as an example of things not appearing in Scripture, but I don't think it supports your argument. God has revealed Himself as Three Persons in One God; how we refer to that reality isn't directly called "Trinity" in the Bible with that word, but the *meaning is there. The Church may have used "triad" or "Divine United Triple" or something else, but the words used to describe the reality aren't as important as the reality itself. In the verses you sited, though, the *meaning for "sola scriptura" isn't there, unless (as you say) you ignore the context multiple times to create a new principle. You also ignore the context of 2 Tim 3:17, as the entire chapter is about avoiding evil actions (literally verses 1-9) and how the witness of the Old Testament (stories we all know) shows why evil actions ought to be avoided. The "all scripture" St Paul is referring to is only the Old Testament, as the remaining books of the New Testament likely hadn't even been written yet, as St Paul's writings were some of the earliest written works of the New Testament. So, cumulatively, the principle you're advocating is actually (Deuteronomy) "Only value the Torah" (Proverbs) "Don't add to the Torah" (Revelation) "don't write more into St John's Revelation" and (2 Tim 3:17) "Don't read the New Testament" That's what you get by ignoring the context and "jointly establishing a principle": you're just confusing the intent of the text. You also make several claims about the Church which only demonstrate your anger. "man-made accumulated superstitious Catholic traditions" is just an empty sentence. So I'll issue you another challenge: name a "superstitious tradition" taught by the Church, site 3 Bible verses which could be used to advocate for that idea, because literally billions of people believe the Church's teachings on various topics, and then use your Intellect and Reason to show me why the "superstitious tradition" is not only wrong but bad for us.

[@akak8299]

In Acts 17:10-11, the "Scripture" cannot certainly refer to the "Bible" that we have today since the Gospels werent written by this time yet. Most letters of Paul werent written yet too. Surely this refer to the Old Testament books. But then again, which books? Since the Jews had no closed canon of their Old testament books during this period.

[@Glemaestep]

Also, when I started going to the Southern Baptist Church, I was told that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 taught that ALL of the Bible was true, but I never saw that it did.

[@edwardlucas3575]

You were blessed to arrive at that understanding because you were being offered a falsehood. That's because the proper context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is established all the way back in chapter one. However, even starting a few verses earlier helps us arrive at a better idea of what Paul was communicating. Beginning with verse 10 we read: 10 You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, persecutions that I endured. Yet from all these things the Lord delivered me. 12 In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13 But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. 14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed because you know from whom you learned it, 15 and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. Paul points out that Timothy has followed his teaching, way of life, etc. In the previous chapter, we are informed that Timothy learned it from Paul by what he heard from Paul through many witnesses (2 Timothy 2:2). We know that the only sacred writings that Timothy could possibly have known from his infancy would have been books from what we now call the Old Testament. In fact, none of what we now call the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as authentication for books that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims. Furthermore, Paul does not list any specific books that comprise the sacred writings. So, we know there are sacred writings, but Paul does not identify a single one by name. Neither does Paul tell us how many books are included in these sacred writings. In verses 15 and 16, Paul provides a summation of the preceding verses. His main point is not that the Old Testament is inspired, but that it has practical usefulness. What Paul here asserts is that the writings of the Old Testament have a great practical value, of which men should avail themselves. Neither the extent of divine inspiration, nor its mode, nor the limits of the Old Testament canon, nor the relative amount of practical value in the different portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, is discussed. Paul does not furnish the answer to such questions. He certainly does not claim that ONLY Sacred Scripture is useful. Beyond all of the above, there is serious translation bias that is present within many of the Protestant bibles. That's because there was a desire to have a "go-to" text in support of sola Scriptura. It was necessary to mistranslate verses 16 to achieve the objective. Many Protestant bibles render it as: All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness An unbiased translation reads much differently. Every God-breathed writing is profitable unto teaching unto convincing evidence unto correction unto chastening in the justice There is much more to this but time limitations prevent me from going into further detail.

[@edwardlucas3575]

@ZachCICM I was not addressing any of Trent's argumentation. I was responding to Glenda's comment. When she attended the Baptist Church they used 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as a "proof text" for the inspiration of ALL the books of the bible and they also use it to defend their erroneous doctrine of sola Scriptura. That is bad exegesis and they are using those two verses out of context. I was happy to hear that she did not buy into that nonsense. I agree with you that Catholics believe that all of the Bible is true. However, Catholics don't use 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as the proof text for that belief. Catholics believe that all of the books of the Bible are inspired and inerrant because they were discerned as such by the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

[@PatrickSteil]

As I see it using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 for Sola Scriptura has too major problems. 1) Not sure why, but most Christians have become accustomed to speaking about a verse or two without reading and putting the verses into context of the whole chapter or even book. For example we find earlier in 1 Timothy this quote which completely refuted the scripture alone doctrine: “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3:15‬ ‭NABRE‬‬ 2) 2 Timothy 3:17 also helps prove that we are to be equipped to do good work - so it helps disprove Faith alone. Lol

[@ReasonandTheology]

Nice!

[@nibcim5589]

The nuance in this video. Definitely Warranted a compliment from The nuance man himself

[@sotem3608]

@@nibcim5589 LOL =D In seriousness, I do get the importance of nuance though, it can make all the difference!

[@LuizLange]

In any academic paper, you'd be required to give full bibliographic references to all quotes. I think it would be much more interesting if you added the speakers' names in the video, and links to all third party videos in your dedcription. That would be a good thing to do.

[@zangified0117]

Ye that would help

[@LuizLange]

@@zangified0117, we are not called to just any agreement, but to a "great and godly agreement," like our forefathers in the holy Faith.

[@str.77]

Sola Scriptura was a doctrine invented ad hoc by Martin Luther as he had lost the Disputation of Leipzig, in which he had been defeated by arguments based on Tradition and decisions of Church Councils and Popes. In the same instant Luther also made himself judge over what was to be included in the Bible as he rejected arguments from 2 Maccabees. If Sola Scriptura were true, Luther would have stated beforehand, when negotiating the terms of the disputation that he would only accept arguments based on Scripture.

[@Jay-bp1yx]

It’s almost like context matters

[@mistermiel2854]

Trent, these videos are your best type. Thank you

[@colepriceguitar1153]

Trent doesn't explain what "do not go beyond what is written" means. He says it isn't clear and is a hotbed for debate, but he doesn't even try to explain what it means. It has to mean something. Paul wasn't just wasting his breath. The Catholic magisterium hasn't bothered to interpret it.

[@lawrencejones1237]

My problem with sola scriptura is the chaos that it has produced. There are 28,000 different Denominations all proclaiming that they have the correct interpretation.

[@anthonytan7134]

in the US, when you got dispute about the constitution, you go to the authority, the SCOTUS, in Protestantism when you got dispute over interpretation of the Scripture, you get yourself a new denom....no authority to settle the dispute ! by the fruit you will know the tree...Jesus Christ

[@stephenjohnson7915]

What’s the foundation of the truth? Bible alone? Or the Church? “… if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15

[@michaelibach9063]

@@tony1685 Gods Church is the Catholic Church, has been for 2000 years. You simply don’t understand the FAITH.

[@jvlp2046]

2 Thessalonians 2:15..." So then Brethren, Stand firm and Hold (Works/Deeds) to the TRADITION taught by us (Apostles/Disciples), either by spoken word (oral tradition) or by our letters." 2 Thessalonians 3:16... "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brethren who are Walking in Idleness (Lazy Works/Deeds) and not in accordance with the TRADITION (oral/spoken word and letters/epistles) that you received from us (Apostles/Disciples)." In Conclusion...the Christian Churches started without the Written (manuscripts) New Testament but with ORAL TRADITION (Spoken Word) more than 30 years after Christ Jesus Ascended to Heaven... therefore, SCRIPTURE (Bible) ALONE as the Sole Authority of God's Words is NON-BIBLICAL TRUTH... Amen.

[@Glemaestep]

Then, preachers don't need to have sermons but simply read the Bible?

[@phoult37]

Haha great point

[@michaelibach9063]

You mean like Catholics do at every mass, covering the entirety of scripture in a three year cycle

[@phoult37]

@@michaelibach9063 I think she is being sarcastic. If Biblical interpretation is self-evident, why do protestants even have preachers? She's pointing out the irony.

[@thedomesticmonk772]

Hi Trent, I’d love to be a part of your research team. I love apologetics. As a cradle Catholic I have spent many years debating and defending Catholic teaching with my evangelical friends and owe most of my knowledge to Catholic Answers and podcasts like yours. I am a retired police officer and ran a PI business for over a decade. I know how to research and write. Let me know if I can be of service.

[@thedomesticmonk772]

@@tony1685 it depends what you mean by “God’s church”, since he only started one and also what you mean by walking “in truth.” There are so many different meanings regarding what the church is and what truth is or isn’t among the ever growing and increasingly divided Protestant sects, I would need more information to answer your question properly. If you mean Christian in communion with Rome, then yes. You cannot go wrong following the teachings of the Church Christ founded. God bless!

[@michaelibach9063]

@@tony1685 you do not know God, you do not love God and you do not walk in truth.

[@thedomesticmonk772]

@@tony1685 Regarding point 1 it is in Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build MY church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Regarding point 2, of course I believe the Bible. We only have the Bible because of the Church. We owe the Cannon of scripture to Holy Mother Church, which was decided in a council in the late 4th century. It’s not about believing the Bible, it is about believing the Bible properly interpreted. This requires the authority of the Church as given to it by Jesus in Matthew 18:18 “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” We also learned through scripture that we must be properly instructed, when St. Phillip encountered the Ethiopian Eunuch reading scripture . St. Phillip asked the Eunuch if he understood what he was reading and he replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” And he urged Philip to come up into the carriage and sit with him. Acts 8 31. If not, then anyone can interpret scripture anyway they want, and often do, which is why there are an estimated 70,000 different forms of Protestantism and counting all proclaiming to be preaching “the truth”. We know that Jesus taught in scripture that a house divided cannot stand. Luke 11:17. Regarding point 3, I gladly follow the teachings of Jesus as taught through the authority of HIS Church. All others are the invention of man. Well intentioned or not, there is only one truth. Here on earth, that lies with Christ’s one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[@michaelibach9063]

@@tony1685 you are a Sadducee

[@thedomesticmonk772]

@@tony1685 I love having these discussions because it is easy for me, I get to cheat. I have 2000 years of history to rely on, Holy Scripture, which, when properly interpreted is wholly supportive of Catholic doctrine, the teachings of the apostles, the teachings of all the great Saints and Doctors of the Church like Polycarp, Athanasious, the Desert Fathers, Augustin, Aquinas, Francis De Sales, Thomas Moore and on and on. These brilliant men in conjunction with the Holy Catholic Church protected and defended her teachings through Scripture AND tradition, as implored by St. Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” I am truly saddened by those who hold their own opinions of what the Bible says above the Church Christ founded to teach it. I put my faith in the teachings and traditions of Christ’s Church. You put your faith in the traditions of man and in your own opinion. These great Saint’s I mentioned are some of the greatest theological minds in history. They spent their lives dedicated to serving Christ and his Church. It is incredibly prideful to think you know more than any of them individually, never mind their collective teachings and wisdom which have held firm for 2000 years and counting. But then, pride took down Lucifer, it took down Adam and Eve and countless others since the dawn of time so it is not surprising it is still leading people astray. I would like to know one thing if you’d like to continue with this discussion, where in Scripture does it say you have authority to interpret scripture?

[@ScripturalMormonism]

Watching just now. You might be familiar with it already, but just in case. On the meaning of theopneustos, a recent study one should check out is that of John C. Poirier, The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture (Library of New Testament Studies 640; London: T&T Clark, 2021)

[@jabelltulsa]

Maybe try and crowd source the help you mentioned in the beginning. If you want to cover a topic, post the subject, the personalities that cover it, then ask that people send links with time stamps that make claims or discuss the subject you are covering. You could do a web form that accepts particular fields like, link, time stamp start and end, and description. That would be fairly easy to implement on a website, and you could use it over and over for different topics.

[@ucheodozor4147]

I find it interesting that Protestant apologists have to resort to using the concept of "good works" (in 2 Tim 3, 16-17) which they utterly reject when it comes to sola fidei, to argue for sola scriptura. Is there an irony here, or is it just me? Let's talk more about this for more information and enlightenment.

[@TheMarymicheal]

I didn't understand what's Good work in there in faith alone?

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

classic protestant maneuvering. james white is a gold mine for stuff like that, sometimes almost sounds like he's debating last week's version of himself

[@jvlp2046]

As long as the Old Oral/Verbal Tradition does not contradict God's Written Tradition, God still allowed them to be practiced... However, if it does contradict, then God's Written Tradition which is more AUTHORITATIVE must supersede, overrule, and stop the practice immediately... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)... The Oral and Written Traditions must be UNITED as ONE without confusion and division... One (United) God, One WORD (Scripture/Bible), and One TRUTH... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

[@b4u334]

Good content. Karl Keating would be proud. Just finished Catholicism and Fundamentalism.

[@calebdesjardins616]

As a Protestant (who loves your channel) I really appreciate this explanation. I will say the trouble many Protestants have isnt when we hear Catholics DONT believe in sola scriptora. Of course we also have things that we believe that aren’t inherently in scripture too as long as it doesn’t conflict. But when you say no to sola scriptura but then ALSO believe doctrines that DO contradict scripture. Sola scriptura doesn’t mean that literally everything has to be in scripture to believe it. But it certainly means that if there’s any major doctrine that contradicts scripture scripture is the authority. Of course we also have bishops, leaders, pastors, deacons, etc and hold to the fathers and church tradition. But doctrines like works based salvation, worship and praying to other mediators like Mary and other saints, purgatory, and infant baptism. To say certain tradition can just come up with doctrines and they are just to be believed is a tough one for me. I guess I’m sola scripture lite because I do believe in tradition of course, and I leave room for some other things that Catholics do ritually, but there are certain doctrines that I just can’t see how one could teach and then also say, it’s not scripture alone as the ultimate authority. Anyways, I love your channel and it’s caused me to really appreciate Catholic faith in Christ more than I did in the past

[@shepherddog1199]

It isn't worship to ask the saints in Heaven to intercede. They are part of the Body of Christ. Revelation 5:8, the saints pray for us. Another passage in Revelation proves that the saints are lucid. Therefore, as they are aware and do pray for us, why would it be wrong to ask them to pray for us? We do not consult them. Also, the images aren't idols. We don't worship the images of Christ, Mary, or the Saints. They are simply a physical representation of the saints, Mary, and Christ. God bless you!

[@calebdesjardins616]

@@shepherddog1199 I can see that it’s not worship per se. You’re venerating and worshipping Christ through them. And I appreciate that a lot more as I study it more. But I still think it’s excessive and not the same as asking a friend or brother in Christ to intercede for you. For example if you read through prayers to Mary there’s plenty of verbiage you wouldn’t say to or refer to another human. And I personally believe is reserved for God alone. I’m curious though about the verse in revelation that says the saints are lucid? Which one is that?

[@jpesmar]

​@@calebdesjardins616 Conceded, there are many Catholic prayers that go a bit far on the intercession of Saints, and some that use less than fortunate language. However, that doesn't mean the official teaching of the Church is so. The Church is comprised by millions of people, today, and countless millions in the past. Not all of them have a way with words. Some Saints have been great scholars and poets, some great warriors but most of them were just ordinary people that put God above all else, even if they weren't able to perfectly articulate their theology in the best possible way, never mind translations and colloquialisms that are now lost in translation and time. Thing is, as a Catholic, no one is forced to pray a prayer they aren't confortable with. People can be extremely catholic and pray the Rosary, or not pray the Rosary. Have a fervent devotion to Mary, or not. There are things we must believe if we consider ourselves catholics, but there isn't a single way to pray, there isn't a single language in which to pray to, nor a list of literary figures we must use in order to pray "catholically".

[@calebdesjardins616]

@@jpesmar So if this is the case, can I pray to CS Lewis?

[@jpesmar]

@@calebdesjardins616 I don't know if you insist on calling it "praying to" to make a point, but let's take it as the Catholic viewpoint of asking for the intercession of the Saints. Yes, I suppose you could ask for the intercession of CS Lewis, a man of whom we have all reason to believe was a man of God and, now that he's deceased, is most likely with God. There can't be 100% assurance for us of who's in and who's not in heaven, because no one besides God is God, no one besides Him can judge because only God knows our heart. That being said, when you ask for the intercession of a Saint, is like when you ask a friend to pray for you. Like how I'm asking you to pray for me, and how you can be sure I'll be praying for you.

[@Olc...]

Very poor arguments, seems like he was debunking himself when reading all those verses

[@elitisthavoc3949]

1. What came first, the Word of God in the Church or the Bible? 2. When did the Bible, as a book come into the world? 3. Who compiled and translated the scriptures into the book of the Bible? 4. Who numbered and added chapters & verses to the Bible so things were easier to navigate? 5. Who preserved and kept the book of the Bible alive during all ages? 6. What group of people were inspired by the Holy Spirit as to which texts should be in the book of the Bible? 7. Who then removed books from the Bible on their own accord to create their own narrative? 8. Who said they would never leave or abandon us and would be with us through all time?

[@mynameis......23]

Who added pagan traditions (catholic church)? Who started worshiping mary( which is unbiblical)? Who has unbiblical doctrine? Catholic church Who keeps man in the place of God?(catholic church does that with pope) Who replaced Christ's intercessions for apostles and mary? Who started saying" to go to Jesus you need mary", even though Apostles never said that?

[@mynameis......23]

1)word of God . 2) after Martin started translating. 3)God Himself through Martin Luther.

[@mynameis......23]

4) not sure

[@mynameis......23]

5) God Himself, He doesn't need anybody to do that

[@mynameis......23]

6) maybe catholics 7) Protestant because they were not inspires by God.

[@JoKe27]

Very good format!

[@daverowe5836]

2 Kings 22 is a great example of the way Scripture must always be held in the highest esteem. King Josiah needed to submit himself to God's revealed messages in the form of Scripture. Behind Trent's arguments are an appeal to the authority of the Pope. This it the truly the question at hand, and the reason the doctrine of Sola Scriptura came to be developed. Where is the highest verbal, universally accessible revelation of God to be found? Scripture.

[@MrKev1664]

Christ be with you The Church teaches that scripture is true. What the Popes authority does not override scripture but is used to interpret it. To many think their interpretation is true and should take president but Jesus gave us a Steward and gave us a Church and gave them authority. (Matt 16:15-19 18:15-20) We believe in him. God bless you

[@harryallenpearce89]

Protestants - Only the Bible is Authoritative. Also Protestants - We admit, nowhere in the Bible does it say only the Bible is Authoritative. If the canon list of your Bible, which is not found in Scripture, is not Authoritative, then your Bible can potentially have fallible writings. ONLY if the canon list is infallible can we say 100% of the writings in the Bible are infallible.

[@mak88119]

The church any church teaching or traditions are NOT above scripture. The bible says God puts his WORD Above his name.

[@harryallenpearce89]

@@mak88119 The Word is first orally spoken. And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16, RSV-CE)

[@mak88119]

@@harryallenpearce89 The first books of the Bible were written down by Moses when God sat him in a tent, the Glory of God filled the tent and he literally was writing what God was saying. Again, believe whatever you want. I know where my salvation lies, it's with Faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and the Word of God. That is It! The Church can not save, priests can not save you, Mary can not save you Salvation is by Grace Through Faith in Jesus Christ and him alone.

[@harryallenpearce89]

@@mak88119 It’s important to be logical, rational, and reasonable when considering these things. The printing press does not get going until the 1500s CE The book of Genesis: Adam didn’t write anything Noah didn’t write anything Abraham, Isaac , and Jacob didn’t write anything Also, what Moses wrote went inside the Ark. Do you think the average Hebrew was strolling into the Tabernacle, cracking open the Ark, and reading it? And Moses commanded them, "At the end of every seven years, at the set time of the year of release, at the feast of booths, when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place which he will choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. (Deuteronomy 31:10-11, RSV-CE) Israel had Moses’s writings read to them 1 time every 7 years.. obviously “daily scripture reading” was not a part of their lives, but the Oral Torah was how the Law of Moses was taught by parents to children. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah Even Jesus, at the Last Supper, drank the 4 cups of the Passover. Search your written Scriptures, you will not find the 4 cups of the Passover in Moses’s writings, or in any of the Old Testament writings. It’s Oral Tradition. Paul writes this: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; (2 Timothy 3:8, RSV-CE) Search Moses’s writings, you will not find those 2 names. This information comes from the Oral Tradition. Paul also writes: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15, RSV-CE) Either by word of mouth or written letter. If you only follow the written letter, you’re not following the instructions of Scripture.

[@harryallenpearce89]

@@mak88119 As far as Salvation, why did Paul say this: Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1 Timothy 4:16, RSV-CE) Why did Paul say to Timothy “you will save”? Not “Christ will save”? Perhaps Paul teaches us that we are doing God’s work. When Timothy comes, see that you put him at ease among you, for he is doing the work of the Lord, as I am. (1 Corinthians 16:10, RSV-CE)

[@pattyb6003]

Sola scriptura cannot be demonstrated by example in the scripture, since the very example itself would not have been part of the scripture at that point and therefore reliance on it breaks sola scriptura within the example itself. For the same reason Sola scriptora must not only be stated as a doctrine in recognisable way, but the future scope of that scripture must also be stated, since all scripture after that point would be void for the same reason.

[@bobuchman5571]

Thanks for the video Trent! I've heard and read a lot of Catholic apologetics on sola scriptura but this had new stuff. I think, though, in talking with protestants, that they'd pushback on saying sola scriptura has an underlying meaning of being sufficient for all doctrine. They would say it's just the only infallible rule of faith but we do and should rely on other fallible authorities along with scriptura to get all of our sufficient doctrine. I think it's very hard for them to stay consistent on this though because a lot of them have to argue that baptismal regeneration or the real presence or other doctrines are not truth and usually they say because scripture doesn't teach them. Could you perhaps do a video on how liturgical protestants like Lutherans or Anglicans build their doctrines? Or could you do a video on the perspicuity of scripture and protestant believe that means and why it's' false?

[@BibleLovingLutheran]

Being in the process in becoming Lutheran I'd be interested in this.

[@TeamChaosYugi]

@@tony1685 yes

[@michaelibach9063]

@@tony1685 Jesus Christ was raised on Sunday. This was the day that Christians worshipped. Jewish Converts to Christianity, went to the temple on Saturday to make converts, not worship. They were eventually kicked out of the synagogue, but continued to worship on Sunday. Truth & Life App Acts 20:7 7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. Your Saturday worshipping church never existed, it’s a modern invention. Btw, Catholics start their week with worship, giving God the first fruits and then end it with a second sabbath, double portion. Thank you Jesus for two sabbaths, the first I give to you, the second I’ll take for myself. I certainly wouldn’t want to be so ridged as you are, you would have me working six days a week.

[@michaelibach9063]

@@tony1685 I’m sorry, your interpretation of scripture is just your opinion. You aren’t anybody. Christianity has already existed for 2000 years and they all worshipped on SUNDAY. You have no argument, none, zero, zip, nada, no Saturday worshipping church has ever existed before 500 years ago. I don’t care that you don’t like it and neither does the majority of Christianity.

[@michaelibach9063]

@@tony1685 you mean like the cathars, a gnostic sect that believed that the god of the Old Testament is evil, sex was evil, wrote a fake creation story, rejected the entire Old Testament and starved babies and children to death, to free them from their “mortal prisons”. You mean People like that? Boy, tough decision. I’m pretty sure the world is better off without them or do you believe people should just be allowed to continue to murder babies and children and rewrite scripture? Imitation of Christ, you mean like Joan of arc. A poor illiterate peasant girl, that one, got France to give her an army and two, was able to use it to force the Protestant English soldiers occupying France back out of France. A feat no rich and powerful man had been able to do, total David and Goliath story and then she died a martyr at the hands of Judas Catholic priests getting kick backs from England. Just like Jesus was killed by His own people and betrayed by Judas. Yah, I have a few thousand more stories just like that. Catholicism calls them Saints. See, God protected His Church. Those other groups, didn’t get Gods protection. Gods Church spread THE GOSPEL to the world. Those other groups, didn’t. Gods Church hand wrote bibles for 1500 years. Those other groups didn’t. Truth & Life App 2 Peter 2:1 1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. You should probably understand what those heretical groups believed before you claim them as your brothers in faith and if you find some group that did possibly believe as you do, you should ask yourself why Catholicism either converted them, destroyed them or they simply died out.

[@davido3026]

Gamaliel, Paul's mentor prophesized that the Catholic Church will never be destroyed; Acts 5:38-39! That was 2000 years ago!!

[@87weberdrex]

Matt Slick is a lolcow, I don't know how anyone takes him seriously.

[@spiritpearls2091]

Also, as someone else shared, "the persistence of the repeated phrase IT IS WRITTEN underlines the importance of sola scriptura. The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18: “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.” Why Catholics always attempt to give human traditions as higher authority than God’s Word, is inexcusable and quite sad. This was true of the Jews of Jesus’ day. In refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God,” as Matthew 22:29 shows. Christ Jesus continually rebuked the Pharisees because they made their traditions on a par with the Word of God which corrupted the very basis of truth by equating their traditions with God’s Word. So, He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority, and it alone is the final judge of “tradition” not the Catholic or any other church. The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5-6: “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” So, if God commands that we are not to add to His Word and this command shows emphatically that it is God’s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated, why do you Catholics claim the opposite? Along with Proverbs, the Lord’s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” So, the truth is this: since God’s written word alone is inspired, it and it alone is the sole rule of faith and it cannot be otherwise, no matter how you defend Catholicism! The Bible itself tells how Scripture to be accurately interpreted. Psalm 36:9 explains, “For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light.” God’s truth is seen in the light of God’s truth. The Apostle Paul said the same thing, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God’s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7. So, who are you to argue with God? Even the Apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares, “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:20-21. Logically, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God’s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself! Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture, as John 14:16-17, 26 shows." Catholicism is a wicked man-made system of lies, forgery, perjury, deception, blasphemy and no church/body of Christ. It's a mockery of True Christianity.

[@faithofourfathers]

Good stuff! I’d love to see more videos like this from you.

[@jvlp2046]

The Counsel of Trent Blog (TITLE) was supposed to give ADVISE and GUIDE based on the COUNCIL (gathering/meeting) of TRENT (Catholic Ecumenical Meeting of 1545 to 1563 A.D.)... The English word COUNSEL is a verb that means to give ADVISE and GUIDE, but nowhere can we find the meaning to REBUT (rebuttal, refute, invalidate) or to REBUKE (scold, reprimand, castigate). My advice if I may, they should change the TITLE of their Blog, for it is MISLEADING to the viewers... My suggestion if I may, their TITLE Blog should be "The COUNCIL of TRENT DEFENSE."... which is more appropriate and non-misleading to the viewers... or a separate Blog, one for Counselling/Giving Advice and the other Blog for Defending the Catholic Faith... MISLEADING the viewers are (parts of) associated with the works of Satan (former Lucifer/Old Serpent in the Garden of Eden/the Dragon in Revelation)... Amen.

[@john-paulgies4313]

One thing I do not understand is the rhetoric that says that Scripture is or has authority. Just tell me: how can anything that is not itself a person have or be an authority? To my ears, if Sola Scriptura is to be consistent (at least with this authority predication), it must either undermine itself or DENY THE AUTHORITY OF GOD to reveal Himself as He chooses - as He has chosen: through Holy Mother Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. It is Jesus Who has/is the authority, not the text. “This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" - St Augustine, On the Creed: Sermon to Catechumens (14) c. 395

[@finnpope7745]

Great video Trent, thanks!

[@Solideogloria00]

Love Trent, but I think that in this case you’re presenting an inaccurate definition of Sola Scriptura. The key word is “the only infalible rule of faith”. Sola Scriptura also asumes the existence of a Scriptura, the complete cannon of the NT as well as the Jewish Scriptures (OT). For Protestants the Bible is the Word of God, thus God’s Word and His Word alone is the ultimate and sole infallible rule of faith. Is there another voice or word equal to God’s? This is another way of asking “Is there another infalible rule of faith the church has besides the Bible”. If there is then What God says has something else that has equal authority to God Himself. The only authority that would be equal to God’s Word would be God himself in my opinion.

[@mynameis......23]

Thank you for a great explanation 🙌

[@anthonytan7134]

the infallible part is correct ( material sufficiency ), we don't argue about it, the "sole" part is problematic. Who can put all this correct material into a COHERENT teaching ( formal sufficiency ) ? you, me or anybody ??? any plough-boy ( borrowing term from Luther ) ? Read Acts 8, the story of Phillip and Ethiopian eunuch, then you probably will see my point. Bible is simple, not complicated. God bless

[@nemochuggles]

As a Protestant, I’ve always looked to Christ in Matthew 15 where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for holding man-made traditions over Scripture. “Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” If the traditions contradict or stray in a different direction than scripture, then that’s a problem. I would be Catholic if it weren’t for certain traditions. Prayers to Mary and the saints, Purgatory, the treasury of merit, indulgences, the murder committed by the RC church throughout history, penance after confession and infallible pope (ex cathedra), and idolatry with crucifixes and the rosary. I can’t say with truth in my heart that these are not going against scripture in some way. Love you all ❤ God bless

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Problem is that without Sola God's Word is that you open up a veritable Pandora's Box of endless accretions which is exactly what has happened in the Roman Church. No thanks. My Christian brothers and sisters and I use the Bible as our only authority and it works. What could be better than God's literal words?

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

What's better is God's literal Church, community. "Endless accretion" is not a bad thing, Science develops and so does theology, over the centuries the knowlege piles up, not from new Revelation but from insights into the once for all times Revelation.

[@mynameis......23]

AMEN brother

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@mynameis......23 what's bad with "accretion"?

[@ne0nmancer]

How does it work? There are thousands of protestant denominations, each interpreting the scriptures slightly or very differently...

[@ne0nmancer]

Protestants can't claim to have the Holy Spirit if they can't agree on the meaning of scripture.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

As a catholic, I don't think you put forth a well argumented case for first corinthians.

[@Gericho49]

While God gave us intellects and reason, unfortunately the Bible could not be described as perspicuous (sorry Dr Luther) anymore than the challenge of someone trying to understand the many works of Shakespeare, a book on physical chemistry or a manual on Golf Techniques, by personal study alone. Right? * If someone else is needed to tell the believer what the text means, Scripture would not be his sole authority; someone else would have binding authority * Sola Scriptura is anarchic. This is evident from the endless multiplication of divergent theologies, doctrines and denominations within Protestantism. * It is the freedom of all and sundry to assume the right of private judgment that has resulted in over 20,000 Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's World Christian Encyclopedia. * Sola Scriptura is culturally and historically impractical if not impossible.. Not only was ILLITERACY RIFE (>90%) for many centuries but also there simply was no such thing as the New Testament aka a Bible for centuries. The church fathers at the Councils had to sort through some 80 gospels and many letters to discern which were inspired. * universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular by the invention of the printing press *The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues (What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Is baptism for infants? Can one lose salvation, be gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination, partial atonement, free will, baptism by immersion only etc etc

[@phoult37]

Great points!

[@michaelibach9063]

God gave us intellect and reason, but Jesus said to be like little children. Intellect and reason are hindrances to the spiritual life. If I had followed my intellect and reason, I’d still be a Protestant, having learned nothing

[@DavGre]

My biggest problem with Sola Scriptura is that it nullifies the necessity to attend church at all, if faith can be derived solely from scripture. In that case, mere ownership of a Bible and living by that Bible would be sufficient, there’s no need to attend church or tithe or have fellowship with anyone else. Besides, every translation is a cultural interpretation of its time, so not all translations will be exactly the same, which degrades the argument that all translations of scripture are equal in authority.

[@davidf5089]

Great video as always. There's many good debates on this topic. Probably one of the best debates was with Fr Mitch Pacwa and James White which was mentioned here. Highly recommend!

[@leonardu6094]

who do you think won?

[@davidf5089]

@@leonardu6094 It’s been awhile since I watched it. Fr Pacwa said something that really stuck with me though that scripture has a unique authority but sola scripture takes it too far saying it to be the ONLY authority. There’s no oversight as to what the authentic interpretation was without tradition and a magisterium. I’m loosely paraphrasing from what I remember though.

[@leonardu6094]

@@davidf5089 oh ok thank you

[@RealGGnoREEE]

Exactly you are agreeing with Mike winger saying that one cannot proclaim something contradictory to what was previously stated in stature. The problem is that Catholics proclaim things that are indeed contradictory to scripture

[@dennisboznango4942]

It would be helpful if Protestants could all agree on the definition of the term.

[@jksg1au]

It would be helpful if Trent didn't use the term "protestants" so generally under the theologial premise that solo scriptura defines itself. It's just bad apologetics.

[@Rorschached]

Another great video! I’d love to help find various claims for you to reply to, so I’ll definitely look forward to any kind of casting call you put out! I come from a Confessional Lutheran background (currently in the process of entering the Catholic Church), and I’d love to see some replies to some of the more nuanced areas of disagreement, such as Catholic vs Lutheran stances on the real presence in the Eucharist.

[@jerome8950]

Well, essentially, the Catholic Church regards the Holy Eucharist as a SACRIFICE of the body and blood of Jesus Christ offered to God under the appearance of bread and wine.

[@allopez8563]

The problem is every scripture is inspire and then proceeded to retire several books of the Old Testament based in that Jews who denied Christ rejected them.

[@phoult37]

@@tony1685 He's referring to the KJV bible removing the Deuterocanonical books.

[@phoult37]

@YAJUN YUAN Think before you post and try to actually understand the comment. Not everything needs to be an argument.

[@tylere.8436]

Martin Luther wanted to remove New Testament books too, I don't think he would have subscribed to Sola Scripture since he had theological gripes with many books.

[@learnfind-f7c]

Love to hear more of Trent's wisdom and Counsel. All mind blowing of God's revelation through Trent.

[@sonval3997]

I was raised a catholic but then I began to read the Bible at the age of 30. I began questioning things, important things that I was learning, that were different to what I was taught at church. I WENT TO THE CLERGY and the only explanation I got was that the tradition says this and the tradition says that. For them the Bible was a necessary nuisance and we, the common people were unable to understand it. So I continued to read and study the Bible and thirty years later I thank the Lord Jesus for letting me see the truth!

[@cleberferreiradejoao1306]

2 Pet 1, 19-21 (KJV): “19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

[@essafats5728]

And yet thousands of former protestant ministers, preachers who were seminary-trained in Bible study, and devout readers of the bible, etc. converted to catholicism. What a mystery of our good God!

[@Mari_Oh]

You're right, sister. Good for you! Jesus will always lead us to all truth!

[@davido3026]

The Lord Jesus, in his infinite divine wisdom, bestowed the church with infallibility to secure the purity of doctrine against error! The Holy Spirit guides the church. Confirmed on Pentecost day 33AD!!

[@urkosh]

Indeed - Holy Scripture is inspired, very helpful, because it tells first-hand about our Lord Jesus Christ , who is alone our is our hope and salvation. I'm wondering why Protestants make an emphasis on Scripture (or keep up the organized religion at all), if, they hold that in the soteriological field not so much depends on a person's free will, to say the least.

[@urkosh]

@YAJUN YUAN Just to clarify language, I suppose "no longer in bondage" is equal to "Thy will be done". Unlikely that biblical "Hope" is (merely) in perfection. Living with certainty in salvation is false - it's would be a personal groundless speculation: who, when, why - we will know only in the afterlife.

[@urkosh]

@YAJUN YUAN Who "we"? "Christians"? Baptists/Catholics/Orthodox? Believers? All humanity?

[@Gondor149]

Do you believe God can fail to save someone? Do you think God can fail at anything? What do you take perfection and holiness to mean?

[@danielespitia1776]

Sola Scriptura. Show me verse that supports the papacy and I’ll become a catholic. Christ is sufficient. No works required.

[@Pratsg86]

I know this is off topic, but I am trying to get a perspective on this....HALAL MEAT....please talk about consumption of HALAL meat and food products. As a catholic I am confused about it. I live in a place where there is an increasing monopoly of the meat trade and restaurants with halal certification. Most of our takeout are usually from halal restaurants...but an increasing number of priests and faithful are talking a stand against halal.

[@christeeleison9064]

Halal is a muslim construct, why do you care dude? Smh

[@jendoe9436]

Halal meat is prepared in a certain style, like how Kosher refers to the numerous preparations done by Jews. Kosher includes not letting dairy and meat touch, no pork or other ‘unclean’ products, etc. A big thing with Kosher meat as well is making sure the animal is killed quickly and humanely, as life is considered precious and blood is considered sacred. There’s special knives and preparations Jews take to collect blood so none of it is left in the animal or wasted on the ground. Halal meat, in contrast, calls for the animal to pretty much be tortured before they are killed. It’s supposed to bring out ‘better flavor’ or something according to Muslim preparers. However, torturing animals is a horrible practice. They are part of God’s creation and even though they are here for our consumption and work, they should still be treated with respect to their life as God created them. So I can see why people are taking a stand against Halal meat. Torturing animals for “better flavor” or whatever is quite bad.

[@Pratsg86]

@@christeeleison9064 because majority of the places we buy our food and takeout are halal certified( it is a Muslim certification body), despite the muslim minority.I think even Mc donalds and KFC are halal. They also pray to Allah to bless their food. It has to be a Muslim butcher and shop. Putting aside the meat and restaurant monopoly by them ...I never really cared, considering our catechism says that Muslims and Christians pray to the same God. But recently in our area, ( In India) the church is becoming quite outspoken against halal food. saying its wrong to consume it. Thats why I am also confused .Is it such a big deal?

[@michaelibach9063]

@@Pratsg86 I wouldn’t worry about eating it to much, if nothing else was available, but I certainly wouldn’t be skipping the blessing. I do find it interesting that Judaism does everything it can to ease the fear in the animal and Muslims do everything they can to intensify it. Seems adrenaline and other hormones that would be released into the meat could have an effect on the human body and brain as well. Note: meat processing that’s neither halal or kosher is very humane to begin with.

[@werkplaatshiggins9685]

I love how you refer to protestant Theologians a lot. Good idea.

[@SolarJord]

based

[@str.77]

At least, none of the Protestants shown in this video used the abonimable translation (ESV) of "Scripture breathed out by God".

[@LuizLange]

It is interesting that you spent zero time with Church Fathers like Athanasius and Irenaeus, who had lots to say about Scripture alone (against the heretics). Another big absence here are the Confessional Lutherans. If you want to stick to post-Trent Church History on the matter, you could pick Chemnitz and his Examination of the Council of Trent.

[@Mygoalwogel]

I agree!

[@romasliv]

How that talking about the authority of Scripture prove Sola scriptura? The Father's did talked highly about scripture that doesn't mean they believe Sola scriptura, the same way catholic and orthodox speak highly of scripture

[@LuizLange]

@@romasliv The Scriptures are proof for their own self-standing as sole authority in terms of doctrine and morals. We would not need the Church Fathers to prove that. But the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, who claim to be apostolic and heirs of the Church Fathers but do not follow them in this regard, should give them heed in this matter.

[@romasliv]

@@LuizLange well I was responding your comment about the church father, now you say that we don't need church fathers, I don't get it, guess Lutherans appeal the church fathers only in things they agree with them. The truth is that without tradition we wouldn't know what is scripture and what is not, the claim that scripture is self attesting is wrong by the fact that we didn't have a unified Canon before the church couldn't settle the matter of what scripture is inspired.

[@LuizLange]

@@romasliv, the church with her tradition did not define what was or what nor Holy Scripture; it just recognized it in a concerted way. Jesus Himself attested to the sufficiency of Scriptures in His temptation battle with Satan after His Baptism, and in His promises regarding His apostles' teachings. If all of church's tradition limited itself to just echo Scriptures and faithfully reflected the "faith once for all delivered to the saints" as we have in the Apostolic, Nicene, Athanasian Creeds and in the Book of Concord of 1580, we would not be even arguing here. The Holy Spirit's message is and has always been the same: Jesus Christ crucified for the forgiveness of your sins. When then a tradition deviates and contradicts the Holy and God-inspired Scriptures, then it is not a reflection of God's Word any longer, but rather just man's talk, and many a time also doctrines of demons. The Word gave birth to the holy catholic church, not the opposite.

[@austinapologetics2023]

If one grants that the Bible doesn't claim Sola scriptura and also that Peter was the head of the church after Jesus' ascension then how does that imply that the papacy is a continual office with an infallible knowledge of scripture. I'm trying to understand Catholicism and I think this channel makes a lot of good points. But I've never seen it demonstrated that because Peter was the head of the church, therefore there's a continual office who can claim infallibility until the end of time.

[@mcspankey4810]

Petrine supremacy in conjunction with apostolic succession

[@jonathana92]

Also the church fathers point to the bishops and the bishop of rome

[@jonathana92]

@YAJUN YUAN bishops ordained by the apostles and at different occasions saying that you need to be in communion with the bishop in Rome. 1 of them actually says that while john might still have been alive so why not point to john instead at that point

[@lyterman]

This video is only "tearing down", so to speak, Sola Scriptura. That doctrine being false doesn't make you Catholic. It just makes you not Protestant. Making the case for Catholicism would require more material. Erick Ybarra does a lot of good work on this topic, and a good book is "Upon This Rock" by Stephen Ray. Those are all from Catholic perspectives, so you know what you're getting into.

[@lyterman]

@@tony1685 The Bible is not a synonym with God's Word. Even in Scripture, the New Testament is only rarely referred to as the Word of God. That is normally referring to the Old Testament, but it also refers to Christ Himself and the oral teaching of the apostles. None of these proof texts even lend support to Sola Scriptura unless "Word of God" refers to Scripture alone and nothing else, which it clearly does not.

[@Vattsu]

I don't see how this was a rebuttal. Yes Sola Scriptura is supposed to defend against contradictions and heresy that comes from authority abuse. The gospel and the teaching of the apostles are the ultimate authority. Where do we find the tradition of the apostles and the gospel? In the New Testament. This doesn't mean the church fathers have no place. On the contrary they are almost necessary for a deep understanding. The ecumenical councils have authority too. This doesn't mean all innovation is bad. But there is a lot that is bad. How can we defend against it? Well we filter all by Scriptures. Some dogmas are reinforced by the Bible, some just pass through since they are acceptable (like let's take music, I don't think it matters if you prefer gregorian chants to byzantine chants or different aesthetics) and then there are things that contradict like iconodulia and Mary talking the place of mediator from Jesus.

[@irishandscottish1829]

All you need to disprove ‘sola scriptura’ is Luke 24:13-35 where Jesus meets the disciples on the road to Emmaus! Scripture alone did not help them to realise Jesus was right there in from of them DESPITE the fact Jesus himself told them how all scripture and all prophesies point to him! It wasn’t until he broke bread that their eyes were open. There are other parts of scripture that I’ve used when debating Protestants on sola scriptura but this one is the most important! If Jesus himself couldn’t get the two disciples to believe with just scripture alone then how are we as mere humans to do so 2000 years later?!?

[@stephengalanis]

To disprove Sola Scriptura, Catholics need to demonstrate a new revelation from God is verifiably from God. The follow up would be: *even if it's true* that particular trivia about Mary's sex life is now known to be true because God says so, why is believing it suddenly soteriological? Why didn't Jesus mention it, or the apostles, if it's important and necessary for salvation?" That's an inconsistent God to add rules to salvation after a while. I'm an atheist. I think it's all magical thinking.

[@Numenorean921]

@@stephengalanis Other than certain miracles, Catholics don't believe we have received new revelation, but rather are following traditions of early Christians passed down from the apostles

[@Dannyboy0202]

@@stephengalanis believing in the virginity of Mary is not a requirement for salvation, what are you talking about?

[@stephengalanis]

@@Dannyboy0202 If anyone does not, according to the Holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned. It seems to be open for debate if that makes it dogma or not, and if one is really condemned or not, because that was from the Lateran Council of 649. I wryly think to myself, "where's an infallible guide when you need one to settle these things?".

[@stephengalanis]

@@Numenorean921 Yes, that's what Catholics believe. The details of how new dogma emerges -- see JH Newman -- is little different to that. It's stretches credulity that in the halls and corridors of the Vatican, the guys there are passing around deep teachings of the Apostles, unknown to anyone else. And at some appointed time at some appointed council, something is dogmatically declared to be the case. What Rome has is carte blanch to declare any new doctrine as apostolic; that a genuine apostolic teaching was "revealed" by God at this time (look, all religions adapt to sociological pressures, but you've got to have a fig leaf, and that one is Rome's). And so with a straight face the laymen are told that a new doctrine has always been part of the "deposit of faith". Does the deposit of faith exist in any tangible, falsifiable way such that we can check if any new dogma is really there? No. And the deposit of faith is ad hoc academic speculation from the 19th century specifically to address the problem of how doctrine really does develop and accrue in Roman Catholicism, only that admission cannot be made. At Vatican 1, the dogma of papal infallibility caused a small split in the church. Once upon a time I had Ignaz von Döllinger's letters on papal infallibility. I can't find them now. That dogma seemed politically motivated, and for those who rejected it, it was a matter of truth and infallibility having no grounds in history. Döllinger was a professor of church history. So... yes. New dogmas come into being. Are they really apostolic? Are they really as reliable as just sticking to the Bible? Many don't think so.

[@chrisferatu1793]

The argument that open-mindedness and generosity are somehow “characteristic” of upper-class values is absolutely hilarious 🤣

[@drizzle452]

It always seemed to me that if Jesus intended us to worship a book in a unyielding way, why wouldn’t he have just written it himself? God literally etches the 10 commandments in stone for clarity. Why not do the same for the new covenant? He had to have known that a lot of things would be said and written about him for the next couple 1000 years…hence, he empowered a Church to oversee his teachings.

[@travisthompson8752]

You held me until your evaluation of 2 tim 3. You seem to ignore the actual scripture for your evaluation of specific words. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. There is truth outside of scripture nobody denies that but what we need to believe and to live for Jesus is all contained in scripture. We trust that Jesus preserved his words for us so that we may know what we are being taught agrees with the truth Jesus taught. If its not taught by Jesus its not important to salvation.

[@DanSeverino]

What did the poor Gentile population do to "prove" if Paul's teachings were true or not? Jews would naturally go to scripture as it was in their veins. Not so to the Gentiles.

[@christeeleison9064]

@YAJUN YUAN but gentiles didn't know scriptures smh

[@phoult37]

@@christeeleison9064 Yeah that Yajun guy just likes to quarrel and doesn't slow down to think before posting.

[@christeeleison9064]

@@phoult37 his comments are all over Trent's videos, he is living rent free in his head

[@michaelibach9063]

One, the Greek Septuagint was translated 600 years prior to Jesus’s incarceration. Two, Paul used the pagans own religion to point to God and Jesus Christ. Truth & Life App Acts 17:23 23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. Three, Paul performed miracles to confirm his teaching. Truth & Life App Acts 28:8 8 It happened that the father of Publius lay sick with fever and dysentery; and Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him healed him.

[@Gericho49]

Hi Trent, When Paul talks about "Scripture" and/or the Law in his missionary work, 35-60AD, He is likely referring essentially to the O.T. In any case, > 90% of his followers were illiterate, so the Oral Tradition was paramount to evangelizing the masses as Paul travelled through Mesopotamia and other distant regions. Both Mark's (1st) gospel and Acts werent written till around 66-70 AD If Paul died in Rome circa 62-64, what Scripture was he referring to in "You are saved by grace through faith" and not by works........"? Did I forget to add "of the Law"?

[@irishandscottish1829]

1-- The Bible contains much information on Scared Tradition - Scripture is unique, but it refers to an authoritative apostolic tradition apart from itself. When Paul spoke of receiving and delivering such traditions, he gave no indication that they were fallible or that he questioned any of them because they came through oral transmission rather than the written word. Thus, he appears to take for granted that which many Protestants have the hardest time grasping and accepting. 1. 1 Corinthians 11:2 - I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 2. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 - So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 3. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 - Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 4. 2 Peter 2:21 - For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 2-- In the Bible, good (apostolic) Tradition is contrasted with bad traditions of men - The bottom (biblical) line is not “tradition versus no tradition,” but rather, “true apostolic tradition versus false traditions of men.” The Bible often expressly distinguishes between the 2. To help see this I will underline true tradition and italicize false tradition. 1. Matthew 15:3 - He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” 2. Matthew 15:6 - So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. 3. Matthew 15:9 - In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” 4. Matthew 16:23 - But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men” (cf. Mark 8:33). 5. Mark 7:8-9, 13 - “You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!… thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on.” 6. 1 Corinthians 2:13 - And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. 7. Galatians 1:9-12 - As we have said before, so now I say again, If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 8. Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. 9. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 - And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 10. 1 Timothy 4:1, 6-7 - Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons … If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. Train yourself in godliness. 3-- Peter exercises apostolic authority in Acts Chapter 2: In his sermon in the upper room (Acts 2) and in other recorded sermons, St. Peter gives an authoritative New Covenant interpretation of salvation history, interpreting the Old Testament messianically and “Christianly.” It was binding and equally authoritative and inspired before it became “inscripturated” because it was from an apostle. Throughout the book of Acts we see Peter and Paul exercising apostolic authority and preaching-not merely handing out Bibles or mouthing (Old Testament) Scripture. 4-- The Bible explicitly teaches about a true and unchangeable apostolic Tradition. Tradition, like the Bible or the Word of God, is presented as immutable in Scripture: delivered “once for all” to the saints. This preached gospel stood forever as truth before it was ever encapsulated in the Bible 1. Acts 2:42 - And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 2. Jude 3 - I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

[@TheMarymicheal]

Very helpful

[@aGoyforJesus]

the "traditions" spoken of in Mark 7/Matthew 15 are what the Orthodox Jews would describe as the Oral Torah today. How exactly were the Pharisees supposed to recognize that their allegedly Divine oral traditions were false if Sola Scriptura wasn't the standard they should use?

[@cronmaker2]

@@aGoyforJesus Christ also rebuked unbelieving Jews for poring over the Scriptures, yet refusing to come to Him. Sola Scriptura wasn't operative in the apostolic age by definition. Even James White agrees - "You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation-that is, when new revelation was being given-sola scriptura was operational.” Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?" So any appeal to Scripture to prove SS fails at the outset. Just one of many problems with the doctrine.

[@harmur80]

If one carefully reads 2 timothy 3:17 we find the New Testament Scriptures are enough .... "that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." exartizó = "furnished completely" for "every" good work. That the New testament Scriptures are included here in this passage is confirmed in 2 Timothy 3:15 where St Paul makes reference to the wisdom that the Scriptures provide concerning salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. The Old Testament only gives us shadows and types of the coming Messiah. Only in the New Testament do we have his name manifested. Jesus. 2 timothy 3:17 makes it perfectly clear that the man of God has been furnished completely through the Scriptures (Old Testament and New Testament) for EVERY GOOD WORK. St. Paul does say that the man of God has been “partially furnish” … or “somewhat furnished,” but rather the man of God has been exartizó = "furnished completely" for "every" good work through the Scriptures of the 1st century. Likewise, Jesus told His Apostles that He would send them the Spirit of Truth, who would guide them in ALL TRUTH, (See John `16:13). Hence, the 1st century Apostles of Jesus were guided by the Spirit of Truth into ALL TRUTH as related to the faith. Jesus never promised His Apostles that New Revelations of Truth (that is, later traditions) would come centuries later through the Roman Catholic Church. Of course the following Scripture is the corker that slams the door on the traditions of the Romans Catholic Church: Jude wrote the following inspired Words: “... earnestly contend for the Faith that was ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS.” Jude 1:3 makes it clear that the Christians Faith-the body of Christian Doctrines necessary for obtaining life and godliness-was completed and delivered unto the Saints of the Church before the end of the 1st century. And guess what? Our dear Apostle Peter echoes this same sentiment in 2 Peter 1:3, 4 when he writes: “His divine power HAS GRANTED to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he HAS GRANTED to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature …” (2 Peter 1:3, 4) St. Peter makes it clear to his readers of the 1st century Church, that God “HAS GRANTED” (past perfect tense) everything they need to experience life, godliness, and the divine nature. Neither St. Peter nor any of the other Apostles ever stated that there would be subsequent writings, traditions or revelations that would enable us to experience life, godliness, and the divine nature. No, the writings of 2 Peter 1:3, 4 both declare and confirm the writings of our brother Jude who makes it clear that the Faith of the Church has “once for all been delivered (past tense) to the Saints” of the 1st Century.

[@davidvanriper60]

Nice commentary.... When Horn gets to 2 TIM. 3:17, he begins to go all MATT. 23:24 ... straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. When you have to argue semantics about what the "inspiration" of the scriptures means, I think you have lost the argument.

[@KnuttyEntertainment]

I’m amazed at the dogmatism that people show in support of Sola Scriptura AND the creeds at the same time. My favorite example is saying that Latter-Day Saints in the Church of Jesus Christ can’t be Christian because they don’t believe the trinity, but Catholic and Orthodox are despite not believing in Sola Scriptura. Because apparently the trinity is more important than Sola Scriptura, even though it comes from an extra-biblical creed.

[@lukebrasting5108]

Terrible logic. The Trinity is rooted in scripture, while Sola scriptura is not. The theology explicated at the councils was just a result of drawing out the implications of the text which resulted in the doctrines of divine simplicity, unicity, imutibility etc because that's what the Biblical data teaches. Protestants have no authority whatsoever to even call a council let alone define a doctrine that must held and believed by all Christians, whereas Catholics do.

[@KnuttyEntertainment]

@@lukebrasting5108 First off, I was making fun of the very point you made in your last sentence, we’re in agreement there. Second, we can’t say the Bible implies the trinity because a text cannot interpret itself. Data on its own is just noise. You cannot derive a structure to interpret data from the data itself. I could translate the Bible into binary, plug it into a computer, and it could never tell me what it means without me to tell it how to make sense of it. Now you would argue that the people at the council of Nicaea had the authority to interpret that doctrine because of apostolic succession, but that’s a very different claim than the trinity is explicitly laid out in the Bible. Now I’m not making any claims of my own yet, just responding to what you’ve said. If you want to know my position, I’m a Latter-Day Saint: a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. So I do oppose the trinity, and we can discuss that if you’d like. But my above argument isn’t compromised because of my position. I’m just stating the fact that the Trinity is extra-biblical, which is neutral to whether or not it’s true or implied by the Bible.

[@michaelibach9063]

@@KnuttyEntertainment the trinity is clear to see for anyone with the Holy Spirit. I cannot even get through genesis without seeing it. God Himself declared trinitarian doctrine in the garden. Let us make man in our own image. This is what God specifically claimed to be doing. What did God make? A male and female capable of procreation of a third. Mankind was made a trinitarian family. Two love each other producing a third. God has to be self contained, God cannot be dependent on anything outside of God or He’s not God. God is love and the source of love as all good things are found in God. In order for God to be love He must have a beloved one contained within God. As an outside beloved one would constitute a need God had outside of God, which would render Him not God. God thus has to be at least two persons as love cannot exist with out a beloved one. Love is life producing as shown through the examples God made Himself, Adam and Eve, it is not fruitless, it cannot be fruitless. Thus the love the Father has for His Son must also bear fruit which is the Holy Spirt. This must not be confused to be some sexual type of procreation as sexual procreation is a purely human endeavor, that is only an allegory of what actually happened between the Father and Son to produce the Holy Spirt, which is simply beyond human comprehension. God is infinite and infinity divided by 2 is infinity, just as infinity plus infinity is infinity.

[@KnuttyEntertainment]

@@michaelibach9063 Let me rephrase your opening paragraph: “pantheism is clear to see for anyone that has reached nirvana. I cannot walk outside without seeing it.” You see it that way because you view everything through that lens. All I have to do to disprove the notion that the trinity is self evident in scripture is simply provide a separate but still valid interpretation of those passages that a person without any preconceived notions could arrive at after reading the Bible. Consider this, God is three beings in one person. Like three actors all portraying Hamlet. Same words, same deeds, same character (perhaps slightly different performances), but still 3 entities. I think there are a number of situations where this fits better. Consider Jesus’s baptism. Jesus is in the water, the Holy Ghost is a dove, and the father’s voice can be heard from heaven. That’s three different entities. You can hardly say that’s all one undivided substance. Now I could also go into the precise arguments against your claims because I don’t think the trinity makes sense even if we agree it’s self evident in the Bible. But I think this counter example is sufficient for now.

[@michaelibach9063]

@@KnuttyEntertainment actually, you kinda have to prove that your trinity denying church existed for the past 2000 years as well. I really don’t care about some opinion that supports a hypothetical church that never actually existed, sorry. As for your rephrasing of my statement, lol

[@cdeep4548]

Let’s be blunt. People who don’t believe that the Catholic Church is the foundation and pillar of truth will not believe what Trent is saying. Dare I say they are blinded by the God of this world and are therefore not in a state of Grace for they are in opposition to the body of Christ. Yes I am convinced that the majority of Protestants are not going to be saved, since they believe in imputed righteousness and do not concern themselves with contrition of sins. Yes it is correct to say it is possible for someone outside the church to be saved, it is also correct to say it is a very low probability. I think we as Catholics need to stop sugar coding it by saying things in the spirit ecumenism to make these non believers comfortable in there disbelief in the one and only church. Yes I’m saying it because I’m tired of tiptoeing around it. It is what it is. We are not getting anywhere with this coexistence “separated brothers in Christ” nonsense. You cannot be separated from the church (aka the body of Christ) and still be considered a brother just because they were baptized into the invincible body of Christ. As our Lord even puts it, treat him as a pagan or tax collector one who doesn’t listen to the church. I’m sure many other Catholics maybe even Trent as well are tired of having to spare the feelings of these hardened Protestants, that is what the truth does, it cuts deep. Now I’m not saying to treat them with contempt but I am saying we need to stop giving them false hope, because let’s face it the majority of them are not saved. Culpable ignorance isn’t an excuse to stay outside the church because if so then why else would our lord give us the great commission. I can understand the person who has never heard of the gospel or has never heard of Jesus has the probability of being saved just like the Protestant but again that is a low probability and one that shouldn’t be banked on. This is should be the battle call for every Catholic for this is why we have so many issues within the church. We have compromised the truth for sake of getting along and trying to “coax” people into the faith. Let God be the one draw men to him and let man speak his truth.

[@mynameis......23]

Catholicism is paganism. And catholicism is the most unbiblical church.

[@ryanharvey6375]

As a protestant it is very refreshing to finally hear someone say it! Thank you. There are plenty of anathemas in the RCC, but they seem swept under the rug. Seems like no one wants to look at them. Are we or are we not damned?? Just say it. If I don't believe Mary was assumed, if I only disagree on this one point w the RCC, am I not saved? It seems like I would not be, bc you are disagreeing w the word of God through the church? I don't know all the anathemas but it seems like if you disagree you are out of the body of Christ, which puts you outside of salvation. Im not hurt if you say yes, I just need to hear it plain!

[@Radtrad_strada]

😄 my rebuttal to all my protestant friends and relative is” whose interpretation of the Bible should i follow? Your interpretation that didn’t exist for the last 1500 years and created by fallible men or the interpretation of the Church Fathers who are students of the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ who actually met some of them??” I just pray that the Holy Spirit will show them the Truth that the Catholic Church is the only Church of God.

[@Justas399]

Where has the catholic church infallibly interpreted the Scriptures? Where is this work found?

[@jackdaw6359]

@@Justas399 not many places to be honest but a few like Matthew 16:18 (Peter appointed as the foundation of the church) 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (None in mortal sin to receive Eucharist) Mark 10:6 (marriage is between one man and woman) John 6 (is about the Eucharist) Now there may be a few more and although the church doesn't say that there's not more meaning here it puts boundaries on the Catholic that they may not go beyond. No Catholic for example may say that John 6 is not about the Eucharist. A better way of looking at it besides the very few times the church infallibly declared what scriptures pertain to is to follow the principle "Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church" That includes the early church. And all of the church before the revolution of Martin Luther. Another way to look at it is to see which Scriptures were quoted to create dogma at councils. And with these principles, Catholics don't read like Protestants.

[@crobeastness]

@@Justas399 read the catechism of the catholic church.

[@jackdaw6359]

@YAJUN YUAN unfortunately some churches have gone wrong here. So it is great that one church has bound it authoritatively forever. It is not that people can't read the Bible themselves and come to conclusions that is 100% correct. But only one church can bind people forever to a specific interpretation.

[@jackdaw6359]

@YAJUN YUAN We look to the consensus of the fathers on some matter with councils obviously exercising higher authority.