Contrary to Roman Catholics, the Bible Is Our Sufficient Authority

[@ronaldkulas5748]

I am a 67 year-old Catholic, and it makes perfect sense that Scripture is the ultimate authority.

[@SATMathReview1234]

Ronald Kulas But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

[@thomasmcewen5493]

So the Catholics who walked with their Jewish neighbors in 1942 were wrong,? But the scriptures were the authority when the Biblical Christians choose Romans 13 and supported Hitler, while the Catholics died in Dachau instead ?

[@urawesome4670]

Yeah, it is a tradition that was passed on from Jews to Gentiles; “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭17:10-12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ The Greeks to the Jews, were Gentiles. Roman Catholics reject this tradition of sola scriptura. 1 Timothy 3:15 as quoted above, is ripped out of context by Roman Catholics. Verse 16 is the truth Paul was talking about, that Tim was to focus on when Paul is gone. In other words, keep your eyes on Jesus, the truth (John 14:6).

[@danieljoshua4352]

@@urawesome4670 To add, Paul was talking about the tradition that was there when he was writing to Timothy. To them, Marian dogmas were unfamiliar, celibacy of priests was unknown, papal infallibility, purgotory, praying for/to the dead, Rome dominance were not even in their dreams... All these were later ideas that were not the traditions passed down to Timothy. If sola scriptura was a new invention, then all the above were a bit older inventions than sola scriptura. If sola scriptura was not found in the "tradition" of 1500 years and thus needed to be rejected, then the above mentioned catholic traditions are not found in Paul's time when he was passing tradition to Timothy, which should be rejected too.

[@bridgefin]

Ronald, you cannot be Catholic if you believe such foolishness.

[@TheCreepypro]

thank you Lord for your word let us never take it for granted

[@michaelhenderson2657]

You do not ask anyone in heaven to pray for you...God is everywhere at the same time...thus only pray to God...only one mediator..Jesus Christ. ..praying to dead saints or Mary and asking them to pray for us is ludicrous. ...necromancy. ...

[@georgepenton808]

If we can ask your friends on earth to pray for us why can't we ask our friends in Heaven, Mary and the saints, to pray for us? Asking saints to pray for us is not necromancy because necromancy involves conjuring up spirits

[@psallen5099]

Do you ever say the Apostles creed. The 12 apostles wrote it. It says we believe in the communion of Saints. Look it up and you will learn why you can ask a Saint to pray for you same as another person.

[@josephpasdo3986]

Was Jesus committing necromancy when he spoke with Moses and Elijah?

[@TristenTaylorMD]

He is God of the living. There's no such thing as a dead saint.

[@jaynekk1]

@@georgepenton808 Praying FOR someone and praying TO someone are totally different. Youre litterally praying to dead people asking them to talk to God for you? That God will hear you better and answer you if they speak to him for you?. You are simultaneously claiming that God is partial (That he is not enough to hear you directly or that he doesnt love you enough to pay attention and listen to you) and are exalting these dead PEOPLE's power above God because you think THEY will hear you?.

[@jesusislord5522]

When Peter, Paul, Andrew and the other Apostles preached baptism for example, which part of the New Testament (that was not in existence) would they have referred to, to support their argument?

[@no_prisoners6474]

Lol no one's gonna answer you 😂😂

[@urawesome4670]

For Peter; “who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3:20-21‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ He was looking at it from the perspective of the Holy Spirit coming after one makes a pledge of a good conscious towards God; “Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭2:37-39‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ The Greek word used for children is not the same as the Greek word for infants. Besides, try telling an infant to repent and identify him or herself with Christ. For Paul, same as Peter, it is a conscious identification with Christ; “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭6:3-4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

[@intedominesperavi6036]

@@urawesome4670 I think you misunderstood him here. When Peter preached to the people about baptism he didn't reference a letter that he had not written yet. He didn't reference The Acts of the Apostles, that weren't written yet. I think that's a valid criticism of Sola Scriptura, since the Word of God is not only what is written.

[@palabraviva5840]

What was their argument??

[@joycegreer9391]

The Hebrew scriptures and Christ's teaching.

[@tylerpedersen9836]

Beautifully put. We must always look to the Scriptures.

[@no_prisoners6474]

Which were brought to you by whom?

[@alexanderharding2221]

Absolutely, and to the Catholic Church who instituted them.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@no_prisoners6474 The Holy Spirit.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@alexanderharding2221 Hahaha. Perhaps the universal church, but not Catholicism.

[@alexanderharding2221]

@@joycegreer9391 synonyms

[@solafide9533]

*The 15 forged letters of Ignatius:*

[@solafide9533]

They claim to be written by Ignatius in 110 AD, but were forged by another in about 250 AD that deceptively claimed to be Ignatius. Apostolic Fathers: Dates they lived and other info. 1. All scholars reject 8 of Ignatius' alleged writings as forgeries and say the 7 remaining letters are genuine and were written in 110AD. 2. Some scholars reject them all as forgeries that were written about 250AD 3. We take the firm view that all 15 Ignatian letters are forgeries. All of the letters that claim to be written by Ignatius are fakes. 4. Almost nothing is known about the real Ignatius. See Schaff's comments below.

[@solafide9533]

A. Fraudulent forgeries of Ignatius: 1. The real Ignatius, lived about 110 AD. A total of 15 letters were allegedly written by Ignatius. We take the view that all 15 of Ignatius's letters are forgeries. The fact that neither Eusebius (300 AD) nor Jerome (495 AD) make reference to the first 8 Ignatian letters (Tarsians, Antiochians, Hero, Philippians, Maria to Ignatius, Mary, 1st. St. John, 2nd St. John, Virgin Mary) makes it likely that they were composed as late as 300-500 AD. It is this reason that all scholars reject these first 8 letters as forgeries. Some scholars, however accept that the "7 Ignatian letters" are genuine. These 7 Ignatian letters are: Polycarp, Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, Romans, Smyrnaeans, Trallians. We feel these scholars are in error and that even the 7 Ignatian letters are forgeries. (We have colour coded the quotes below.) 2. We take the view that all of Ignatius' writings are forgeries and unreliable. There are fifteen books attributed to Ignatius. Eight are surely forgeries and spurious. Seven are considered by some as genuine, although many scholars also believe they are all forgeries. Again, we view all Ignatius' writings as forgeries. They purport to be written by Ignatius, who lived about 110 AD. We believe it is clear, however, that they are all no earlier than 220 AD, more likely 250 AD. Although they are forgeries, they do represent the views of the author in time of 250 AD. We see a clear change from the Bible pattern, from a plurality of Elders (also called bishops) , deacons and saints, to a single Bishop who ruled the congregations and under him were a plurality of elders, then deacons and saints. At this point in history, congregations were still autonomous and independent, but we also see the seeds of development for the Papal system, where one man rules over all churches world wide which first occurred in 606 AD. 3. Within one of the "7 genuine Ignatius letters", is a powerful clue it is clearly a forgery from a later time. The very first historical reference to the "Catholic Church" is nestled warmly between very strong commands to obey the bishop as you would Jesus Christ and the only valid baptism or communion service is one by the bishop's authority. We feel that is it no co-incidence that the first historical reference to the church as the "Catholic Church" is contained within one of the "7 genuine Ignatius letters". Schaff comments: "been found in this letter to the Romans, especially as in this letter we first find the use of the phrase "Catholic Church" in patristic writings." (Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians.) We feel it is proof enough to reject all as forgeries. "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father ... Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may

[@solafide9533]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 be secure and valid. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.) 4. Having said this, the Ignatian letters do represent real history for the dates they were actually written. Forgeries yes, but even the forgeries prove that there was no one bishop over the church universal. 5. The first 8 letters of Ignatius do provide insights into what a the 4th-5th century author wished Ignatius had said in support of the authors current setting. The 7 letters of Ignatius being written probably around 250 AD, likewise give an insight into what was going on in 250 AD. 6. We therefore date the 8 letters of Ignatius at 300-500 AD and the 7 letters of Ignatius at about 250 AD. 7. "It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch." (Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians) 8. "The whole story of Ignatius is more legendary than real, and his writings are subject to grave suspicion of fraudulent interpolation. We have three different versions of the Ignatian Epistles, but only one of them can be genuine; either the smaller Greek version, or the lately discovered Syriac. In the latter, which contains only three epistles, most of the passages on the episcopate are wanting, indeed; yet the leading features of the institution appear even here" (History of the Christian Church, Philip Shaff, Vol 2, ch 4) 9. "Already, in the infancy of the episcopate, began the second stage of development, that of express emphasis upon its importance. Ignatius of Antioch was the first to represent this stage. Again and again, in his epistles, he urges obedience to the bishop, warns against doing any thing without the bishop, represents the bishop as standing to the congregation as the vicegerent of Christ. At the same time, he regarded each bishop as limited to his own congregation, and recognized no essential distinctions within the episcopal body. Ignatius, however, appears to have been an exception to his age, in the degree of emphasis which he put upon the episcopal dignity. He stands so nearly alone in this respect, that some have been disposed to question the genuineness of the epistles attributed to him. Baur declares it impossible that any writer of so early an age could have uttered such high episcopal notions as appear in the so-called Ignatian Epistles." (Henry C. Sheldon, History of the Christian Church, Vol 1, p 147)

[@solafide9533]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 B. Roman Catholics and Orthodox love to quote Ignatius because he is the first writer who documents the unbiblical concept of one bishop over a body of elders (presbyters). Yet even Ignatius has no hint of diocesan bishops, where one bishop is over many local churches. 30-606 AD: The gradual historical Development of the Papal and Patriarchal Systems of Centralized Church Government away from the organization found in the Bible. Outline: True Bible organization is very different from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox church organizations. 1. Now of course, Roman Catholics and Orthodox simply cannot accept that all of Ignatius writings are forgeries. He is their "organizational and hierarchical savior"! They desperately need Ignatius. The Bible doesn't help them. No other post-apostolic writer before 200 AD helps them. 2. Remember, even Roman Catholic and Orthodox scholars agree with us: "In the New Testament, the terms bishop and presbyter are used interchangeably. This is evident from the following passage from Titus 1:5-7." (THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, Clark Carlton, 1997, p 156)

[@PInk77W1]

One Roman Catholic Church 1000s of Bible believing churches that believe All across the board. Anything goes. So much for your Bible authority

[@GracieDontPlayDat]

Proverbs 26:4-5 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes. Remember the Manchurian candidate? How can a Catholic and a Bible reading Christian see the same verse, but one uses it to murder his salvation, and the other to edify his soul? One has the Holy Spirit as his teacher, the other has an mannish authority that twists the Bible until the target accepts a lie about the very words he reads, if he dares to read them at all.

[@missthunderstormable]

exactly! the mere foundation of the Roman Catholic church, that is- the priesthood, is not biblical and it is AGAINST the New Testament church structure, so how can a Christian be a member of that church?? confess their sins to a priest?? instead of coming to Christ to confess! Such believer puts himself in the Old testament frame of mind and does not understand the biblical salvation! We are saved to God and not to the Roman catholic church. I am an ex Catholic myself. I find that mostly people who have never been members of the Roman Catholic church can be seduced into being their member! not an ex catholic! ex catholic knows exactly what they were saved from! It is a dangerous cult, even occult in some of its dogmas, it is a cult that leads to hell, not to heaven. If someone is saved there, that is in spite of that church and not because of it. The gospel there is dimmed and their grace is not really the grace, it is a constant effort to please God, it is never knowing whether God is truly pleased and what really pleases God. It is spiritual darkness because "the word of God shines in the dark like a lamp" and the word of God is secondary there nor it is fully preached and so people do not understand it. The worst thing of all is that they use a vocabulary of the christian church and it all seems so "holy". But it is a deception, devilish deception. Roman Catholics are victims and we need to make sure to understand what they are in, in order to be effective witnesses to them and not be tricked into believing that they are "saved by grace", they will say, but do they really understand what it means? NO! They repeat like parrots, because the Roman Catholic church is now very active in ecumenical movement, she is basically its leader, and it has adopted the vocabulary of the reformers but not the essence and the meaning of it. So I find it difficult to explain these things to Catholics who say they are saved by faith, but when you ask them about myriad of their dogmas and whether they will go to heaven when they die....the answer is always non biblical. The gospel of the Roman Catholic church is the gospel of self righteousness!! that s its fruit! Catholics actually believe that they are saved BY THEIR CHURCH!!!! So do not be deceived, a Catholic does not think they can be saved outside their church! So what does that mean? It means that THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH SAVES THEM!!!!! Not Jesus Christ! And that s not the gospel that you can be saved by. The Gospel of Jesus Christ says: Jesus saved you! If you believe that, then you are saved! If you do not believe that, then you are NOT saved.

[@s.k.2802]

Miss, I admire your zeal. I am a Catholic, and am interested in responding to what you said. 1) One thing I'd like to say is: we understand being Catholic as being part of the Body of Christ - in a real, spiritual way. Being Catholic is how Jesus incorporates us into His sacrifice and saves us. 2) And, I'd like to understand better: What does it mean to you, to be saved by grace? Thanks and peace, Schafer

[@joycegreer9391]

@@s.k.2802 Being saved means being part of the Body of Christ, not being part of any particular church. It is Jesus who saves, not a church. No church can provide salvation, and being part of any church does not mean you are saved.

[@GracieDontPlayDat]

There was a real faith at one point, but seems like they picked up the values of the SPANISH Illuminati, where the Sephardi Jews were forced to become Catholic, but the French Illuminati is put forth for misdirection.

[@jessewallace12able]

So what did the original Christians do?

[@mursefed5532]

Went to church, praised God, prayed, tithes, and were taught from scripture. Just like Protestants. The Catholic church sat the bible down and made things up and so Protestants had no choice but to leave a church that didn't stand on the Word of God.

[@georgepenton808]

One thing the early Christians didn't do was rely on the New Testament. All the early Christians had were tge Old Testament and the authority of the Church. There was no New Testamentbuntil the bishops got together at the Council of Hippo in 393 a.d. and discerned which books to include and which books not to include. A Christian worship service around 100 a.d. would not have begun with "Okay, everyone, turn your Bibles to...." because (1) there was no Bible yet, (2) books had to be hand copied and only the richest of the rich could afford them, and (3) the vast majority of people at tge time could not read or write.

[@danieljoshua4352]

@@georgepenton808 cummon bruh... You gotta be kidding.... Even the first 3 centuries used the bible. They have the letters of the apostles. They quoted them very regularly. Yeah, they may not have all the new testament like we do. However they used what were available to them. Their arguements mainly depended on the new testament, especially the letters of St. Paul. Every time they exposed a heresy they came with the writings of the apostles and ofcourse the old testament, at times. They are more "protestantic" than today's. Please don't speak the stuff as if the new testament was not at all in existence until it was canonised into a single book. The new testament was used more than the Old and was used more frequently by the early church, especially the ministers of that time period. Not every person had the Bible, but they have the teachings of the Bible. For the early church ministers used the Bible, unlike today's "authority". Cummon bro... You are kidding right??? Today we have Bible in our hands yet we seek for someone to interpret on behalf of us as if we are reading a programme language.

[@urawesome4670]

“The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭17:10-12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

[@zacharyo.484]

@@danieljoshua4352 I'm not trying to be confrontational, just helpful. The problem with your claim is that new testament scripture wasn't scripture. Scripture was not scripture until it was accepted to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. None of Peter's or Paul's letter were considered scripture until the Catholic Church determined them to be. What separated works of Paul and Peter from Clement and Thomas? The Church, guided by the Hooy Spirit did. Scripture is very important but ultimately one must, by acknowledging the importance of scripture, must acknowledge the importance of the Church that used God's guidance to create a canon. Best of wishes!

[@jamesvotava7709]

Read the last 4 or 5 verses of the Bible (In the book of Revelation or Apocalypse depending on the version). It mentions adding or taking away from the Bible itself.

[@colepriceguitar1153]

That’s talking about revelation, not the whole Bible.

[@ReginaCæliLætare]

Was that written before or after the canon of scripture was established?

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

Protestants use this all the time, and literally took out 7 books.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@BiffsCoffee27272 No, it is Catholicism that added books.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@colepriceguitar1153 It is also in the OT.

[@jesusislord5522]

Which came first? The Bible or the church? How did the early Christians preach and teach when there was not the book we call the Bible today?

[@CHEKPNT]

First and foremost we are all bless we are talking about our Lord & God and debating our differences of what we think God's love letters to us is...#Truth. Please brother I say this with all do respect but as I agree with some of the things you say at the very basic that Jesus is the living temple... But if you step back just a bit to understand fully "Peter is the rock" we must understand why Jesus would say that to Peter. Plus don't be one of those who says you can't add or subtract to the bible, but when you do it, you say it's "implied". Anyways... Genesis 40:40-41 (Joseph overseer of Pharaoh); 1Chr 29:23 and 1Chr 29:10-11 (Soloman throne through God not David); These are examples of Stewardships, Primeministers... *Kinda like an appointed Executor of an Estate to carry-out exactly what a will stated.* Now lets take a closer look at Matthew 16:13-20. Where are they? Ceasare'aPhip'pi...why would they travel from Bethsaida up all the way North of mostly pagan. Look it up on google image you'll see there were the pagan temples and a cave that at the time considered to be the entrance to Hades. Imagine Jesus says who do you think I am. Peter Reveals who he is the son of the Living God not the dead pagan gods. "Blessed are you son of Bar Jona (look up what Bar and Jona means and look at couple of verse before this) for flesh n blood has not revealed this to you, but my father in heaven" (seems inspired) 🤔 So Jesus reveals Peter who he is the rock aka foundation (without one everything crumbles) to build and give us his Church (not plural with an "s") and "the gates of hades will not overcome it"🤔 then Jesus gives him the keys binding and loosening on earth same in heaven... This sounds familiar 🤔Isaiah 22:19-22 Wow Jesus knows the old testament better than anyone! #Authority To add to that I almost forgot... the The Temple was built on top of a ... you guessed it a "rock". Wow Jesus the new temple and Peter the foundation

[@SummerofKittyLove]

I can't help but see Mary worship as goddess worship that pagans love so much.

[@ibachmike3]

Tinker Diggens well since Catholics don't worship Mary you have nothing to worry about

[@SATMathReview1234]

Catholics revere, not worship, Mary because she is the vessel of he who crushed Satan under his foot 12 :1 A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne..

[@austinehrhardt4870]

anónimo2323 I know it’s not my place... but you pray to her. That is worship. If you do not then many other Catholics do. Prayer is worship. I don’t like arguing and wish not to start such a debate but I wanted to simply say that

[@ronl514]

Where in the Bible does it teach us to pray to Mary, why do (we)you need to pray to Mary, did not our Lord teach us how & who to pray to?? I pray to God the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit!! (Jesus also accepted worship & prayer) In short we pray to God, not Mary!!

[@ronl514]

@@anonimo-um2ng The last statement of yours is ironic, using the bible to prove that Sola scriptura is unbiblical, are you saying that the bible is your final authority on the matter?? Where does praying to Mary come from, where & why did it originate?? Is it based on some oral tradition?? How do you know if something is biblical or not, if not by comparing it to what the Bible actually says??

[@SamOwenI]

I think an essential issue John implies with all his answers here is the idea that God has spoken to us all, and therefore, we can correct respond to his words by his spirit. The Catholic Church will often assert that one needs her in order to interpret scripture correctly. I think this isn't biblical. All through the bible, we see God using words to communicate with people, and holding them responsible for their response.

[@s.k.2802]

Sam, As a Catholic, I'd like to respond to what you said. I agree that God has spoken to us all, and will hold us responsible for what He tells us. The Catholic Church does assert she is generally needed to understand God's revelation to humanity. And, generally, she asserts that she's needed to understand Scripture. But, she does not pretend to have an absolute definition for every passage of Scripture. And she doesn't exclude any variety of true applications of a passage that the Spirit could make to someone's life. So, the Catholic Church asserts authority to interpret Scripture by drawing out the teachings present there. This does not mean we say that God can't or doesn't speak to people apart from the Bible. This position is Biblical, since the apostles were entrusted by Jesus to preach to the world, sharing what He had done, said, and how He had opened the Scriptures to them. As you know, that is why the New Testament was written. The apostles also answered Jesus' command by establishing church communities across the known world, united by a universal Tradition of faith and practices. There's no evidence to say that Scripture was intended as an exclusive rule for faith. The apostles chose successors, as did those after them, and this line of succession has continued into the Catholic Church today. St. Paul urges us to hold fast to the traditions he passed on. This at least included the Tradition of the breaking of the bread, which included faith in the real presence of Jesus in the former bread (1 Corinthians ~ 11). Thanks for your time. Peace

[@solafide9533]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 *What ns are you proving?* *Again you are a L. Two or more Scriptures saying the same teachings proves a doctrine. No need interpretation. Scriptures is the infallible authority. Not men.* you said Acts Ch. 1. And literally 1Tim and 2Tim. Do I really need to break down what was said there for you? At this point you just deny the scriptures. But you are a protestant, you are apparently allowed to read the scripture and decide for yourself what it's saying. You are your own infallible authority interpreting the infallible word of God. Yall claim to know the scriptures, but you saying the bible doesn't show what I am talking about tells me that you don't know it that well. That's normal, Protestants tend to just read verses out of context and string them together to support their theology.

[@kaboom9081]

I have a few questions for Catholics (with all due respect so don't use profanity) - Does the Catholic church preach Salvation? If yes, what is the requirement for Salvation? - If you're Catholic, do you confess Jesus lives in you and that you a born again of the Spirit? - Jesus said "repent and be baptized" to people, not babies - have you done this? - Why do you believe in Purgatory if its not in the bible? its of Pagan origin. - Why do you pray to Mary and the "Saints" if Jesus taught us the Lord's prayer which is only directed to our Father who is in heaven? - Why the Rosary? Why the repetitive prayers? Jesus said "...and when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. - Why the statues in the church? It is written...You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth. They don't hear, listen or talk and its considered idolatry. - Lastly...Do you consider yourself born again of the spirit? I wait for your answers, thank you kindly!

[@s.k.2802]

Dear I was once blind but now I see, I am a Catholic, and would like to try and answer the questions you brought up as briefly as I can. 1) "Does the Catholic Church preach Salvation? If yes, what is the requirement for Salvation?” Yes, we believe that God saves us by grace through a living faith. So, the requirement for salvation is for a person to cooperate with the grace they receive, and with what they know about God. 2) "If you're Catholic, do you confess Jesus lives in you and that you a born again of the Spirit?" Yes, Jesus lives in us through Holy Communion, through the Holy Spirit, and as we strive to imitate him and His trust in the Father. We do believe we are born again of the Spirit, primarily through Baptism. But, we are also reborn through the Spirit’s continual work in renewing us throughout our lives. 3) “Jesus said "repent and be baptized" to people, not babies - have you done this?” I try to set aside time every day to repent of evil I’ve done, and sometimes consummate that repentance by confessing to a priest. And, I was baptized as a baby. I think baptizing babies is alright, since the parents have faith on behalf of the child (cf. Acts 16: 31-33). 4) “Why do you believe in Purgatory if its not in the bible? its of Pagan origin.” Purgatory is not named in the Bible, but the concept of the faithful requiring a purification is there: Mt. 12:32, Lk. 12:58-59, 1 Cor. 3:10-15, and 1 Peter 3:18-20. And, I think it’s okay for there to be some similarities between Christianity and other religions. I believe God speaks to all people in some way, and that we share some things that are true and good with many religions, such as doing charity, being kind, and being honest. 5) “Why do you pray to Mary and the "Saints" if Jesus taught us the Lord's prayer which is only directed to our Father who is in heaven?” Praying to the known saints is asking them to pray for us, and alongside us, as we would ask a friend to pray for us. We believe this connection is possible since we are all part of the Body of Christ, united by the Holy Spirit. The Lord’s Prayer is certainly a great model for prayer, and we pray it at every Mass. 6) “Why the Rosary? Why the repetitive prayers? Jesus said "...and when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.” The Rosary is a tool for contemplating the life of Jesus. We pray with Mary and think about her life as well, since she knew Jesus the best during His life, and we believe she still is the closest person to Him. The repetitive prayers are not meaningless, but drawn from Scripture, a spirit of devotion to God, and respect for Mary. So, the purpose of the many words is not to be heard better by God, but to let ourselves be drawn into the lives of Jesus and Mary, since she is so singularly devoted to Him. 7) “Why the statues in the church? It is written...You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth. They don't hear, listen or talk and its considered idolatry.” The statues of Jesus and the saints remind us of them. The purpose of that commandment is to prohibit making idols. This is supported by the fact that God asks for statues of cherubim to be made for the cover of His ark several chapters later (Exodus 25:18). Similarly, we don’t believe the statues actually are the people they represent, or that they can hear or speak, but they are simply representations that help us draw closer to God and His friends. 8) “Lastly...Do you consider yourself born again of the spirit?” Yes, I do, by grace through baptism, and continual renewal in grace. Here is another source to help answer your questions, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a summary of what the Church teaches. It's not very searchable, but it is comprehensive and has a good table of contents. I hope it helps: www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM If you want to talk more, feel free to e-mail me at [e-mail]. Thanks for your faith and kindness. Peace, Schafer Knostman

[@kaboom9081]

@Schafer - Thank you for taking the time to answer me. You seem to say the words “I think…” a lot which is your opinion and not biblical. Would you agree that your faith is put mostly on the catholic church than on a personal relationship with Jesus himself? Why is being catholic so important to you? Isn’t it more important to say I’m a born again Christian by Grace? I was a catholic for many years and only now am I experiencing a personal relationship with my Lord Jesus. I don’t need a priest, a rosary, a statue….I only need Him. It made a difference in my life like night and day.

[@s.k.2802]

You’re welcome friend. 1) Yes, I use “I think” to explain my understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches. I do believe what the Church teaches is biblical. 2) No, I don’t agree. The Catholic Church is a major part of my relationship with Jesus. So, I don’t see trusting the Church and being friends with Jesus as opposing each other. I do have faith in the Church, but the reason I trust the Church is Jesus. 3) Being a Catholic is important to me since it is the best way I know how of being a Christian. I am a part of Christ’s Body, so the Church community plays a big part of my being a Christian. 4) I’m glad to hear that you’re experiencing a personal relationship with Jesus. It is very important, and it’s sad that many people seem not to experience one. 5) Of course, it’s possible to have a relationship with God without a priest. But, the Lord uses priests to provide the ways we can come closest to Him in this life, the Sacraments. And, I agree that we don’t need rosaries and statues, but they are helpful tools. For instance, I have found the Rosary very helpful in coming closer to Jesus. Peace, Schafer

[@kaboom9081]

but Schafer....why do you need the Rosary and priests? what would happen if you got stuck on an island alone? would your relationship with Jesus cease to exist because you need those extra "things" to stay close to him? Jesus said "Nobody comes to the Father except through me"....He did not say "except through the a church, a religion, a priest, a Rosary or any man made tradition. Do you know what I mean? Do you know the historic Jesus or the life changing Jesus who is alive and offering a PERSONAL relationship with Himself?

[@s.k.2802]

Oh, I don’t mean to say that I need the Rosary, just that it’s helpful. I need priests because Jesus makes them needed. He chose certain leaders, and gave them certain authority: Mt 10:40, Lk 22:14-20, Jn 20:19-23. It would be very unfortunate to be stuck on an island alone, and God understands that. He is bigger than the gift of the priesthood, and can have mercy outside of it. Also, I probably wouldn’t be culpable for neglecting Mass, for example, since it would be impossible for me to attend. So, no, my relationship with Jesus would not cease to exist without a priest. You are right, no one comes to the Father except through Jesus. I believe that I do understand you right. I’m not saying that only Catholics come to the Father. I’m saying that Jesus chooses some people as special instruments of His. I know things about Jesus in history, and I know Jesus personally. Have a good weekend, Schafer

[@faithalone2171]

@jamess7576 *It is the self claim of RCs that Roman religion "determined" the Scriptures. Roman religion did not. Jesus and APostles already called Scriptures Scriptures in their days. They did not say believers need to wait 300 years for a Roman religion to "determine" Scriptures.* *Two or more Scriptures saying the same teachings proves a doctrine. Scriptures is the final authority. Roman religion says it's not. Roman religion claimed its the authority. Bible does not say so.* you said Who determined what is Scripture? What authority did they have, where did that authority come from? If it was an invalid authority, how can we be sure the selection is valid? If they had valid authority, where else does that authority extend?

[@psallen5099]

The Sola Scriptura argument, that we know the Christian faith by deriving it solely from the words of Scripture is incorrect both because the Christian faith predates the completed canon of Scripture in the year 392 and because Christ himself never instructed us to learn the Christian faith in this way. Jesus came to found a Church not write a book. The only church with an apostolic succession back to the Apostles is the Catholic Church. When Christ commanded that the faith be passed on to posterity he specifically enjoined apostolic authority and liturgical tradition as the proper modes of its transmission. (Matthew 28; Luke 22:19; Luke 10:16) He says not a word about relying on the Bible alone.

[@jaynekk1]

The New Testament (The Gospels, The Apostle's and Paul's Letters) were all written by the end of the 1st century, circulating through and being copied by church communities along side the Hebrew Bible/Old testament, The Catholic church was not established until the 4th century by the Roman emperor Constantine with his ''Miraculous'' conversion turning Roman pagan temples into 'christian' ones and renaming their idols with christian characters. "Christ came to found a church not write a book." Your right, but your saying that to undermine scripture and that the ''Church''(Men) have more authority than scripture If you want a clear and accurate picture of what Jesus and the Apostles who were eye witness's and knew him personally taught you go to the scriptures because they ARE the original CHURCH and they above anyone have the authority to tell you about the faith. Not Centuries and Millenia of Men after who never knew Jesus who claim to have authority over his faith.

[@psallen5099]

@@jaynekk1 I know your minister told you that the Catholic church was not established until the 4th century but that is incorrect. In the 4th century the Roman Empire converted to Christianity not the other way around. Peter the apostle was the first Pope and he choose a successor and so forth down the line until today. But even so the Protestant reformation did not happen until the 15th century and was the work of only one man Martin Luther, acting alone outside of established Christian community. Scripture is very important but Jesus spoke almost entirely about the church. He actually never said to read the book. Matthew 16:19 "I will give you (the church) the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." John 20 20:23 "When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you (the church) forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld".

[@perez6693]

@@psallen5099 “The Church” Jesus speaks of refers to his people who have given their life to him and worship in spirit and truth, not a fancy building filled with idolatry. Jesus never says that you are to bow down to a pope or pray to Mary or pray for the dead. The only way to God is through Jesus and the only way to know Jesus is through reading and studying scripture.

[@perez6693]

Sola Scriptura

[@faithalone2171]

@marcuslow1386 *Denominations are just churches. Roman religion itself is a denomination. There aren't tens of thousands of Christian denominations. If you claim have please list them.* you said Is that why there are tens of thousands of protestants denominations?

[@jacobwoods6153]

As much as I appreciate John Piper for my time as a Calvinist I am so glad I am now a Catholic... Protestants here go and read from the Church's own sources, read primary sources from the early Church Fathers, see if those who were disciples of the Apostles shared your interpretations on the issues and see if it's anywhere close to what you guys are doing in your congregation since all I heard as a Protestant was that, "we need to go back to the early Church." The early Church might surprise you on several things.

[@palabraviva5840]

I would say the same about the RCC… studying the disciples of the apostles you won’t find in their writings what the RCC believes and teaches… for example the Marian dogmas, papacy… they did not share anywhere close the same interpretations interpretations that Roman Catholics come up with… so let’s first go to the apostles in the New Testament then to the disciples they left like Clement, Ignatius and others and if it’s not there then it really needs to be considered

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

I did just what you said and walked into the Catholic church.

[@jacobwoods6153]

@@BiffsCoffee27272 Awesome!

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

@@palabraviva5840 it's there. But this was my argument at one point. But I was wrong as you are now my brother.

[@palabraviva5840]

@@BiffsCoffee27272 where is it? Please explain with facts how I am wrong

[@jaredbeiswenger3766]

I'm curious what the convincing argument is for the authority of non-biblical texts

[@fluffynoses]

my roommate is a big Catholic and he often points to stuff that Scott Hahn writes about. Hahn writes a lot about sola scriptura

[@SamOwenI]

Jared Beiswenger Catholics often talk about Sacred Tradition and describe the Canon as an example of Tradition. The Catholic Church will then appeal to other traditions and assert that these are also authoritative.

[@jaredbeiswenger3766]

Interesting. To sum up, it seems that verses referring to word of mouth teaching and letters from the apostles are being used to justify authority of teachings from non-apostolic church leadership. I'm also not quite sure the writer grasps the Protestant perspective. He seems to see us as worshipers of the Bible before we are worshipers of God. I suppose many Protestants see Catholics as worshipers of tradition before God, so I hope the sensible among us can meet in between as worshipers of God... Appreciate the reply.

[@PInk77W1]

Ten years after Jesus rose to the father Where could u buy a Bible ? NOWHERE. The church was the authority 10yrs after Jesus rose to the father. NOTHING has changed Because God NEVER changes

[@jaynekk1]

The Hebrew Bible.. The Old Testament was scripture Jesus fulfilled and the Apostles had and can find them quoting it in their writings. The Diciples were called Christians (The Christ ones or Christ followers) preached the good news about Christ (The Gospel). They were not the Catholic Church. The Catholic church was not established until the 4th Century by Emperor Constantine with his ''Miraculous'' conversion turning Roman pagan temples to ''Christian'' ones labeling their idols and gods with Christian characters.. All of the New testament was written by the end of the 1st century and circulating through church communities. Four centuries of persecuted Christians before their very persecutors (Rome) Claim to be their leading authority..

[@PInk77W1]

@@jaynekk1 Jesus is NEVER mentioned in the Old Testament. Good luck with that

[@aisaacp]

@@PInk77W1God is and always was the authority. Not the church.

[@PInk77W1]

@@aisaacp Jesus is God. Jesus gave all authority to the apostles. The apostles handed their authority on to the next generation. God didn’t give us Bibles from the sky. God inspired the Catholic Church to give us the New Testament. Todays Catholic Bishops have the same authority as the apostles.

[@jamesvotava7709]

Read 1 Timothy 4 1-5. Does that look like a warning about the Catholic church? Catholics forbid marriage and command to not eat foods that are to be received with Thanksgiving. That's one way to look at it.

[@bridgefin]

Catholics have had far more babies over time than Protestants by a mile. Catholics do NOT forbid marriage. How foolish for Paul to condemn his own faith system!

[@SATMathReview1234]

I have a challenge for my Protestant friends, find the words, "Sola Scriptura" anywhere in scripture.

[@SATMathReview1234]

+Janne2 Olof I agree completely with the teachings of Timothy on the paramount importance of scripture (As well as the teachings of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, etc.), that is why I take with extreme weight the words Christ in Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it." And in Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." My brother, Repent and be Baptized.

[@SATMathReview1234]

+Harin Lee 20 John 17:20-21 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." Can anyone doubt that The Protestant Heresy has been incredibly prone to to disunity? Allow me to quote scripture for a second, "there is no God." Of course scripture truly says Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good". But, magisterium, given to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by Christ whilst he lived (and denied by the Protestant Heresy) is necessary so "that all of them may be one" as Christ and all the Saints pray for.

[@SATMathReview1234]

+Janne2 Olof I am happy to see that you believe you are guided by providence. Matt 26:26-29 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” A Protestant service is a music festival, a Catholic Mass has cosmic significance

[@timmcvicker5775]

The Bible is the inspired word of God. The word of God! Nothing else can can be equal to it ... nothing.

[@missthunderstormable]

1 Corinthians 4,6: "Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other." kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJvRl5KjaN6kb5Y especially min 3 and onward and minute 46 onward... Proverbs 35,6: Word of God is pure, Do not add to my word... Mark 7,13 "you nullify God s word by your traditions" "Scripture cannot be broken"- Jesus " To the law and to the testimony if they do not speak like that that s because there is no light in them..." 46 x in the Scriptures: IT IS WRITTEN! Jesus 3 times to the devil: it is WRITTEN! Peter: "it is light in the dark place..." etc...watch the video...Psalm 119.... The Scripture is the AUTHORITY, do not ask yourself where is sola scriptura in the Bible, maybe you should ask yourself: whether what you have been taught aligns or is in accordance with the scripture because the scripture IS THE AUTHORITY FROM GOD! Jesus said: IT IS WRITTEN!

[@johnsteila6049]

If you study the history of Christianity, you’ll understand that The Church existed before The New Testament was canonized. How can you base your beliefs on a text which was determined by a church that you reject?..

[@rosendoiscool]

The early church would disagree

[@JesusmySalvation]

Yeah because Catholics are not christian.

[@JesusmySalvation]

But heathen pagan idol worshippers from their father the devil.

[@PInk77W1]

Jesus my Salvation ALL MAINLINE PROTESTANT CHURCHES are pro abortion The Roman Catholic Church is pro life

[@JesusmySalvation]

@@PInk77W1 and u guys are not Christian either and u worship mary your pagan goddess aka the devil.

[@PInk77W1]

Jesus my Salvation it’s against Catholic law to worship Mary. If u are going to attack At least know what you’re talking about. Every Catholic Church around the globe recites the creed, the creed says “We believe in ONE God.”

[@faithalone2171]

@PInk77W1 *Christians do not believe in man made doctrine of papacy though. WHere is that in the Bible?* you said Catholic Church 1 pope Protestant Church unlimited popes

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

A man who definitely hasn't read early church writings.

[@joycegreer9391]

There is no dispute with early church writings.

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

@@joycegreer9391 you have also not read early church writings... And please don't tell me that you have because your response is proof that you haven't.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@BiffsCoffee27272 Oh yes I have. Your responses are only proof of your RCC deceived indoctrinated state.

[@faithalone2171]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 *RCs have to thank Christians for writing the Scriptures. If not for that, RCs would not be able to compile Scriptures into a Book.* *By the way, real history did not say Roman religion = the Universal Church or Church Christ founded. You have believed in Ls.* you said Well good thing Roman Catholic church put together the bible for you

[@albertdevasahayam6781]

Pastor John, when two people disagree on the interpretation of scripture, who has the authority to settle such disputes? Did Jesus appoint such an authority with the power to teach, explain and interpret scripture? If that authority is not the Church that Jesus established on Peter and which continues today in the Catholic Church, where else can we find such authority? Is such authority needed? When Paul said that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, didn't he imply the infallible authority of the church? Can a fallible church be the pillar and foundation of the truth? Your eloquence has no value and worth unless you represent the Church that is infallible.

[@mathisr.44]

Sola Scriptura isn't biblical

[@murilolinsdacruz4110]

You're kidding right ? Show me one verse that shows otherwise

[@1234poppycat]

At 2 minutes he starts with an illogical statement. "If the bible is Gods Word then no human authority can serve alongside the bible with equal authority. " We did not get the Bible as Moses got the ten commandments. We got the Bible through humans who listened to Jesus (God before his ministry) many years later writing down HIS words. We accept the Bible though it does not say in the Bible that JESUS told his followers to write some thing down. Bible comes from oral tradition as does Catholic Church teaching which NEVER contradicts the Bible.

[@Tsumebleraar]

Where in the Bible do you find rosaries, prayers tot the dead, obligatory celibacy etc.?

[@1234poppycat]

Intercessions / prayers for the dead follow on from the Jewish faith of which Jesus was a member for all his "human life" Of course it is backed up by scripture Corinthians 1:3 & 2 other bible references. Twice JESUS gave Peter the authority to lead the faithful "Whatever you bind on Earth will be considered bound in heaven" So the successors of Peter are following this rule as they dealt with a Church with a hundred million (now over a Billion thanks be to God))

[@WhyCatholicdotCom]

Its so painfully obvious isn't it?

[@georgepenton808]

I readily admit we Catholics believe and do things not expressly referred to in the Bible. Not all Christian doctrines got written down in the Bible---some are handed down by word of mouth only----see 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

[@Agustin-Plu]

@@Tsumebleraar The Rosary may not be in the Bible but the Bible sure is in the rosary.... ROSARY - JOYFUL MYSTERIES 1. The Angel Gabriel was sent from God....to a virgin betrothed to a man, named Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. (Lk. 1: 26-27) 2. The angel said to her: "Rejoice O highly favored daughter! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women." (Lk. 1: 28). 3. She was deeply troubled by his words and wondered what his greeting meant. (Lk. 1: 29) 4. The angel said to her: "Do not fear, Mary. You have found favor with God." (Lk. 1: 30) 5. "You shall conceive and bear a son and give him the name of Jesus." (Lk. 1: 31) - Hail Mary... 6. "Great will be his dignity and he will be called Son of the Most High. And His reign will be without end." (Lk. 1: 32-33) 7. Mary said to the angel, "How can this be since I do not know man?" (Lk. 1: 34) 8. The angel answered Her: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." (Lk. 1: 35) 9. "The holy offspring to be born will be called Son of God." (Lk. 1: 35) 10. Mary said: "I am the servant of the Lord. Let it be done to me as you say." With that, the angel left her. (Lk. 1: 38)

[@faithalone2171]

​ @bridgefin *Acts 15 says even Church took doctrines from "what God says and said" only. Wonder why RCs claim otherwise? Lol? Clearly Roman religion is not what it self claimed - the Church.* you said Of course I believe that Jesus is God. However, the Scripture in no place claims to be our sole authority. It goes on to call the church the pillar and foundation of truth.

[@joshuatcharles]

As someone who spent an entire year consuming many books, listening to many sermons, and watching many debates, and deciding to become Catholic (after a life of very devout Protestantism), I say with all due respect to Pastor John, a man I still love and respect, the following: (1) You have a very poor quality understanding of Catholic teaching; (2) You never addressed the issue of sola Scriptura, where it is taught in the Bible itself, and how we can even know what the Scriptura is; (3) Your arguments ignore countless examples from the Bible itself that show them wrong; and (4) You seem completely unaware how little grounding in any history any of your very peculiar doctrines are. This was an incoherent mess.

[@WhyCatholicdotCom]

Well said lets Pray for John

[@michaelhenderson2657]

All scripture is God breathed...the pope is a sinner and contradicts the Bible all the time....

[@missthunderstormable]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJvRl5KjaN6kb5Y watch this.

[@jimiduzit]

Hey Joshua, right on! it's quite amusing to listen to people who read the Bible and form their theology without going back to the beginning of the Christian Church and looking at how they interpreted and understood the Scriptures and the Church's authority before their was a Bible on every coffee table. The Bible was written nearly 2000 years ago and the pride in the cookie cutter protestant preachers is so ridiculous. I left the protestant world also. They are still arguing over which of their "denominations" are right and truly biblical. Pray tell, where was the Baptist, the Methodist, the Pentecostal, and any other of the thousands of "churches" when the Bible was being canonized. I would love to see protestants show one 1,000th the honor or respect for Mary that they do Luther or Calvin or any of the other rebel heroes. God bless you.

[@georgepenton808]

KY Chan, you are not 100% certain of your salvation and neither is anyone else. Maybe it has been a long timevsince you committed a mortal sin. That's good, but the flesh is weak and the dvil is tricky and we never know if or when we might fall back into sin.

[@onemarktwoyou]

roman catholic pagans so-called traditions derive from both heretical and pagan sources. Which clearly shows the need for scripture to be well above tradition. Especially roman catholic pagan tradition which contradicts scripture and common sense.

[@nikolakrcic1021]

Love how all protestants paint a picture of Martin Luther being a super hero. But the historical truth says opposite. Do you know of Martin Luthers regret when he seen all the different dominations starting knowing that he caused that. And the fall he had after he left the catholic church. Loving & feeding off of his own authority boasting & fueling his own power by saying things like " i want to throw jimmy in the fire" when he almost removed the book of james from the bible, as well as revalation. And he also said "Sin & sin boldly, does that sound like Advice of God?? Read the early church fathers to realize EVERYONE was catholic for 1500 years. God bless you all.

[@Psychodegu]

Your misquoting him the actual quote is this with the common misnomer in brackets; "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world." So to your answer yes it sound just like something one of the apostles would say.

[@nikolakrcic1021]

@@Psychodegu no way brother, im so sorry! Yes i didnt finish the quote, i am aware of the actual quote. But find ANY aopstle that says "to sin". I didnt think so. Sure Luther ended the quote beautifully, but started it in absolute horror, hence; my whole point! Telling us to sin?? So read the bible again and hear what ALL the apostles said about sin. God bless you brother.

[@no_prisoners6474]

@@Psychodegu and that sounds better to you? Wow

[@Hadrianus01]

Jesus left us the Church, not the Bible.

[@matthewburton3921]

I'm an atheist, but I still think Piper embarrasses himself in this video. Why do so many "learned" Protestants have such a poor grasp of Catholic beliefs?

[@a.k.a.simaobezerra8289]

This is indeed something intriguing. Many have left Protestantism in favor of the Church because they were attracted to make justice for Catholicism and its teachings, even though they did not agreed. There are many reasons for this. But one thing that can be seen most of the times: they don't actually attack the Catholic Church, but what they think the Church is. Honestly, I think the guy that made the question 4 years ago already converted, he was desperate to find answers. lol

[@strikevipermkII]

The man is just arguing for special revelation, which he first said teachers aren't supposed to have. You can't say that teachers aren't supposed to use revelation as a source, but the Bible, then come right around and say that the final authority of the appeals is the 'sprit-illumed' conscience. You cannot say that you just can't teach or believe something unbiblical in a supposedly biblical faith. You may not think it is biblical, but you don't have any right to say that Joey's Bible Chruch down the street doesn't teach what you believe is biblical. They believe their teaching is biblical just as much as you.

[@christourhopepodcast]

The question that you need to ask Pastor John is "if I bow to the authority of the scriptures" then should I not bow to the authority that put that bible together, ordained it to be the WORD of the word of God in line with the oral tradition? If you say yes, then run to your nearest Catholic (Eastern or Roman) and confess the creed. If you say no, then throw the Bible out because it was formed by the Catholic Church. Also to elevate Mary is to elevate Christ. You cannot claim that Mary is the Mother of God without at the same time declaring the Jesus Christ is God.

[@lanceneubauer1369]

The fact that mary is esteemed the way she is a good amount of proof that this authority you speak of is corrupt. So let's take a look at it. Firstly,Mary doubted her calling by God because she had not known a man. Then, she and her whole family went to "take charge" of jesus while he was teaching because they thought he was a mad man. Then after the gospels her name isnt even spoken of in scripture from that point on. The falliable corrupt church then inserts it's own traditions above scripture centuries later to determine her the immaculate conception and free eternally from original sin. Then proceeds to bow down before her in prayer and admiration as the blessed one and a way to be heard by christ. This is a clear case of how the catholic church is leading people away from a true relationship with Jesus Christ.

[@christourhopepodcast]

Lance Neubauer I’m sorry brother but your perspective is not in line with the early church. The council of Ephesus in 431 states that Mary is to be given the title of Theotokos or God Bearer. It protected the faith as declared at Nicea in 325 a.d and as was handed down by St Justin Martyr in the 3rd century and the apostolic fathers of the 1st and 2nd centuries. To honor Mary and to ask for her prayer and intercession has been a continual action of the universal church for over 1900 years. I believe that you should turn to the historical writers of the early church first and see their defense of Mary, and the proper understanding of scripture from the early church. I will pray for you that the Hoy Spirit will enlighten you in these truths. To go against the witness of the Apostles and their disciples is to go against Christ, for it says in the scriptures “and he chose twelve”.

[@lanceneubauer1369]

@@christourhopepodcast well fair enough man. I respect that you disagree, but I truly believe you are incorrect in your belief about the immaculate conception. In all honesty I want to ask you a question. Do you feel the reliability of the catholic church in their traditions is infallible because they were handed in succession continual from the apostles? (If so I have a follow up question)

[@christourhopepodcast]

Lance Neubauer firstly we must understand the conception I have of the immaculate conception. As an Eastern Catholic of the Ukrainian Greek Church, we believe that Mary was born without the GUILT of original sin, and thus was born without sin. St Augustine taught that due to the fall there was a global inheritance of original sin. This is based off of Romans 5:12. In the East, we did not pay Augustine much attention. He came at the middle of the Church Fathers period and there were several other Church Fathers from the 1st-3rd centuries who had already given a determination of these teachings. In the East we believe that guilt was not inherited, but rather we inherited only the effect of the original sin. God in his loving compassion would not condemn us with the same guilt, but the effect of that sin was concreted. It shows that the decisions of our parents play a very large role in the effects of the children and this holds to be true today. Mary was born without sin, but so is every other child. To the Roman Church, the fact that Mary was born without the guilt of original sin is something extraordinary, but us eastern Catholics it’s business as usual. Why did Christ come? To heal us from the loss of original holiness and to cloth us in the light of his righteousness. Baptism is not a symbol but is a filling up with the Holy Spirit and the reception of divine gifts, Chrismation is the confirmation and sealing of those gifts and reception of Christ in the Eucharist is the divine healing that helps to heal us and draw us closer to the divine image. Our teaching has always been that the image of God remained that what we lost was Divine Likeness and Christ came and taught so that we may reclaim that and receive healing from our brokenness. We call him the Divine Physician, the Divine Teacher. Mary was born without sin, but what is so beautiful about Mary is that she remained sinless. She devoted her self and life to God and carried the Son of God for our salvation. Touched by the Divine Light she remained sinless all her days and this is why we agree that she is the immaculate, most pure, God Bearer or Theotokos. These teachings are from the 1st and 3rd centuries and they are the teachings that the early Church martyred themselves for. I believe that tradition and Tradition are only those things that the Holy Spirit deems to be important for the salvation of our souls. Therefore, they remain because they are a Divine action carried out by Christ’s institution. Certain things like the Eucharist, Confession, Marriage, etc the seven sacraments are those things present in the Oriental, Eastern and Western Churches (Catholic and Orthodox). These clearly have evolved. It use to be that you confessed your sins in front of the whole congregation not just the priest. Thank God for the Irish! They instituted private confessions in the 7th century and it took on globally. Teachings from the Ecumenical Councils are not men making decisions, but rather the Holy Spirit moving men to act in unison and to move towards peace and unity (a true sign of God). The reliability of tradition I can attest because Christ sent us the Holy Spirit to “lead and guide” the apostles and their successors, the leaders of the church, “into all truth”. The times Rome has gone crazy is when the Pope did not listen to the Whole Church and then it was corrected and everything went well again.

[@lanceneubauer1369]

@@christourhopepodcast so basically the simple answer is that, "yes" you do believe because of your churches historical position they are worthy to have authority on certain matters without error. Now, my next question to you is about this authority. Since the history of the church being directly given down the line to the apostles themselves, apparently shows it must be correct I have a further question. The Jews were also given direct revelation and authoritative positions to interpret texts and have an oral law. This law was within the family lines God gave and yet grew corrupt and missed the messiah. So if the very people of the original promise can have this happen, why could it not have happened to the Catholic church? I would kindly ask you to concisely and directly answer that question.

[@joycegreer9391]

Excellent! I've seen so many R Cath claim Sola Scriptura is heretical, unsupported, impossible to defend, etc which I think is totally ridiculous.

[@bridgefin]

SS is self refuting since Scripture does not teach Sola Scripture.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@bridgefin You need to listen to the video again. So sad you don't accept the Word of God, but instead the word of man.

[@bridgefin]

@@joycegreer9391 I could listen to the video 100 times. There is still no place where Scripture says that it is our ONLY authority. If it did that would mean that none of Jesus preaching was authoritative since it was spoken.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@bridgefin That's stupid. Guess you don't believe Jesus is God either.

[@bridgefin]

@@joycegreer9391 Of course I believe that Jesus is God. However, the Scripture in no place claims to be our sole authority. It goes on to call the church the pillar and foundation of truth.

[@johnflorio3576]

Hilarious. You wouldn’t even have a Bible without the Catholic Church.

[@murilolinsdacruz4110]

What does it have to do ?

[@faithalone2171]

@johnflorio3576 *FACT: RCs did not write any Scriptures. Christians did. So RCs would not even have a Bible if not for Christians who wrote Scriptures.* you said Hilarious. You wouldn’t even have a Bible without the Catholic Church.

[@faithalone2171]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 *If we take a deep dive into real history, you would see 95% of RC doctrines were not like the Church of Jesus and Apostles.* *nt Church of the Bible did not have Roman pontiff neither Roman priests, neither did Apostles pray to dead saints or Mary, neither did Apostles and Jesus make statues for Mary and saint .. Neither bow down to statues .. Neither Roman unholy water, neither sinless Mary, neither veneration of skulls bones tongues ... So where are all these man made doctrines of Rome in the Bible? Neither all the below man made doctrines! Wonder where they come from?* *There was never a Catholic Church in the Bible.* *There was never a R Catholic Church in the Bible.* *There was never a Catholic in the Bible.* *There was never a Roman Catholic in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church pope in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church priest in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church cardinal in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church sinless Mary in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church unholy water in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church penance in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church purgatory in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church canonised saint in the Bible.* *There was never an Nt believer who made or bow down to statues in the Bible.* *There was never an Nt believer who prays or received prayers from passed saints or Mary in the Bible.* *There was never an ecumenical council with bishops of all churches that decided the canon in history* *If you can find one example in the New Testament I will give you a lollipop.* *nt church of the Apostles did not have such practices. Answer me: did apostles make and bow down to statues? Did Apostles ask passed on saints to pray for them? Or sprinkle "holy" water on believers? Or wore fishhead hat and costumes? Or cite hocus pocus when they serve the communion? They merely broke bread and passed around the table. Did they demand believers to kneel in front of them to serve them communion? Or did Peter ask believers to kiss his hands and feet? Or did Apostles venerate statues, bones or relics?* *You do see clearly it all came from practices of believers after the Apostles - which Rcs claimed its from early writings. They had already deviated from the Apostles and Jesus. What Rcc called doctrines were merely partly traditions of errant believers + partly its own self traditions. Totally not from Jesus and Apostles at all.* you said Actually just a deep dive into the first 300 years of Christianity may help you alot. You may find the earliest Christians taught by the Apostles were very Catholic in their beliefs and understanding of scripture. You may find that what you believe and are taught are actually the traditions of men and schemes of the devil... you may find that you were in fact lied too. Or you may find that you are right about everything... but you won't know until you actually check for yourself. You know read the source material. The Martyrs wrote, and their writings survived. The information is out there. But as long as the people you follow can keep you from looking because they have you believing Catholism is evil, then you will never actually know if you are right.

[@fred3893]

There is not a SINGLE passage that claims Scripture ALONE is the final authority, You are following a man-made doctrine.

[@DouglasMcCall]

John 1.1

[@mursefed5532]

There isn't a verse saying that the church can make up stuff not found in the bible. Yes, the church is the final authority but not if they start making things up. At that point you should just stack up all your bibles and burn them if they are not the authority the church stands on.

[@georgepenton808]

Murse Fed, the Church never made anything up, the Church merely passed on the teachings of Christ. Some of these teachings were written down in scripture, some were passed down by word of mouth. See 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

[@danieljoshua4352]

@@georgepenton808 thanks for the verse. Please show from the verse where it said to believe in purgatory, Mary dogmas, Tran-substantiation. Please!!

[@psallen5099]

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fida are both made up. You won’t find either of them in the Bible. Jesus did not come to write a book, he came to found a church. “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. I give you the keys to the kingdom and what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven “. Matthew 16:18-19.

[@Peppitrim8]

Well if that where true all Christians would be Romen Cathlics. Also on who's authoritie do u accept the bible as the bible? (No the 27 books of the new testament did not drop out of the sky into a book - The Cathlic Church gave the cannon and declared it as doctrinal. This is the New Testimate the infallible word of God - Given by the apostles) YR 330 CE. Ohhh yes the Cathlic Church 😁 #Isaiah56

[@TomorrowWeLive]

I used to think this way, growing up as an Evangelical Fundamentalist/Biblical Literalist, but as I have matured into a more sophisticated understanding of Christianity and the nature of religious truth in general, I now see how utterly wrong this is, and how devastating this doctrine has been to the Protestant West. The Bible alone is not sufficient. Pure Revelation is not a religion that can be followed by real people in time and space. In Medieval times Revelation was mediated by the Tradition, while allowed European to adapt Christianity to their particular needs and circumstances. Evangelicalism, in doing away with Tradition, now has the Bible mediated by Culture, and the prevailing secular ideologies of the day. This is increasingly apparent in the American Evangelicals Church's embrace of Social Justice ideology (amply evinced by this channel).

[@ret7army]

So Christ is not sufficient? If not then what?

[@theninjafry]

He didn't say Christ is not sufficient. He typed out the BIBLE IS NOT SUFFICIENT. As someone raised Catholic that now goes to a Protestant church, I do have a question. I was taught: 1) Love God with all my heart, mind, and soul. 2) Love everyone else a distant second. So if Catholics believe Jesus Christ is Lord and savior and died for our sins, why do you all choose to roast us for what seems like every service I go to? To say that Catholics aren't saved is laughable. That's like saying all Christians when Rome made Christianity their official religion and before Martin Luther weren't saved. But no one really likes to talk about that...

[@TomorrowWeLive]

Are you illiterate, or just lazy?

[@theninjafry]

Thanks for offending me. Now say something helpful

[@TomorrowWeLive]

I was replying to +ret7army The youtube comment system is awful

[@faithalone2171]

@sulongenjop7436 *RCs love demonstrating they do not read the Bible. Bible says clergy priesthood, altars and sacrifices were already obsolete. Heb 7, 9,10. Here we have RCs who resurrected their own altars, their own clergy priesthood and RCs sacrifice Jesus on the altar back to God which Bible says nothing about.* you said What's a nonsense!!!! Do you want to follow everything in the Bible, e.g. animal sacrifice, eat flesh and drink blood of human, quarrel/war with others like David, follow teaching of Moses, sacrifice yr life like Jesus did etc

[@ibachmike3]

Desiring God, this entire video is an oxymoron. By insisting pastor John's interpretation of scripture is correct and Catholicism's false you have destroyed your own argument. One, by insisting one interpretation of scripture to be right and another wrong, you have insisted there is a judge outside of scripture thus rendering scripture insufficient. In order for scripture to be sufficient, all interpretations must be correct, which isn't true either. Two, by doing this, Pastor John then becomes the sudoPope and sudomagisterium of your particular group. Because his particular interpretation is deemed correct by your group.

[@definitelynotatroll]

Michael Ibach that is the thing, he is not giving his ideas about how to interpret Scripture, he telling us to Read Scripture, it answers all questions alone, you don’t need a pope, because a pope is a human.

[@risingdawn5788]

Read the bible yourself! Jesus alone saves!

[@georgepenton808]

What winds up happening in Protestantism is that every believer becomes his own pope.

[@Orthoindian]

@@georgepenton808 it's basically giving yourself that authority and deluding yourself that you are following the Word of God. Heresy is a delusion.

[@GracieDontPlayDat]

@@georgepenton808. “I leave the Holy Spirit who will teach you all things.” Pope Francis is using absurdism to show how popes cannot be the final authority.

[@solafide9533]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 *95% of Roman pagan doctrines were unheard of in 1st century and not from traditions of Jesus and Apostles or Scriptures or contradicts Scriptures! Jesus, Apostles and Nt Church of the Bible had not heard or practised any of these Roman pagan doctrines. Why is that so? Why would a "true church" deviate from the teachings of Jesus and Apostles that much? Why is that so? Explain coherently intelligently.* *1. Purgatory 2. Confessing to priests 3. Office of pope or priests4. Pope being the vicar (representation of Christ, usurping the authority of God)5. Praying to Mary, saints6. Penance 7. Worshipping idols/images, placing idols images in church8. Church in the Bible is not building, but the body of believers9. Sacrament was never the real body and blood of Christ as RC church claimed (Real meaning real blood and body, bcos it didnt really turned "bloody" did it?)10. Salvation by (works (7sacraments) +faith) was never in the Bible. Real salvation is by grace through faith as seen in Bible. 11. Rosary, set repetitive prayers, hail Mary 10000 times12. Mass - putting Christ on the altar again and again13. Mary as queen of heaven 14. Mary as Ark of the new covenant. 15. Mary as the mother of heavenly Jesus thus Mary exist before Christ16. Immersion of infant for baptism17. Holy water18. Celibacy of priests (no office of priests in NT anyway, only priesthood of all believers)19. Kissing of statues20. Changing of 10 commandments. COmmandment of graven image removed by Catholic CHurch in Catholic Catechism. Splitting of another commandment into 2 commandments. 21. Catholic church changed Bible verse Gen 3:15 (And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."). 'He' and 'His' referring to Christ. Catholics changed it to (Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; She shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise Her heel.") 'She' and 'Her' refers to Mary. 22. Catholic Church use Rev 12 to refer to Mary as 'queen of heaven', when Rev 12:6 clearly refers to Israel escaping the Great Tribulation. Mary cannot be alive to escape the Great Tribulation. 23. Catholic Church refers to Mary as 'Queen of heaven', but 'Queen of Mary' in the Bible is a demonic entity Astoreth or Ishtar, the female deity partner of Baal. 5 verses in Jeremiah as proof.24. Catholic church refers to Mary as the Mediatress, Co redemptress, helper of Christ, firstborn of all creation .. Mary cannot be the mediatress. Jesus is the one and only Mediator between God and man. Only Jesus redeems. Only the Holy Spirit is the Helper sent by Jesus. Only Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. 25. Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these and many other categories. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well.26. Mary is called the gate of heaven? Mary has keys to paradise? Here are roman pagan teachers saying their man made goddess is their savior. None of these quotes have been denounced, on the contrary they are cited. "Open to us, O Mary, the gate of Paradise, since you have its keys! " St. Ambrose "God has entrusted the keys and treasures of Heaven to Mary." St. Thomas Aquinas "No one can enter into Heaven except through Mary, as entering through a gate. " St. Bonaventure "Mary is called "The Gate of Heaven" because no one can enter Heaven but through her means." St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori Papal infallibility Immaculate Mary Assumption of Mary Perpetual Virgin Mary as Mother of God, co mediatrix, co redemptrix, new ark of covenant, Pope as vicar, Holy Water, papacy, peter as first pope, papal succession, apostolic succession, indulgences, 7 sacraments, rosary, veneration of saints and statues, celibacy of priesthood, canonization of saints, limbo, submit to roman pope to be saved, devote to roman Mary to be saved, be in, Roman religion to be saved, baptise in Roman baptism to be saved partake Roman sacraments to be saved, baptism of blood , calling Roman pope Lord God or equal to God

[@faithalone2171]

@BiffsCoffee27272 *THen according to RCs, Jesus and APostles must be unbiblical. Lolol. They all took doctrines from Scriptures Only and not from any other source. I have 180 plus verses as proof.* you said Sola scriptura is not biblical.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

Sola scriptura is refuted at 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Sola fide is refuted at Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 16:19-31, and James 2:24-26. Catholicism is real. Protestantism is phony.

[@tan1591]

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” ‭‭2 Thessalonians‬ ‭2:15‬ ‭ESV‬‬ “You were taught by US, either by our spoken word or by our letter” “Us” includes Paul. And since the apostles have authority by God to spread the gospels. They will be included as “us” and anyone that spreads the gospel that came from the APOSTLES and JESUS. (Which is sola scriptura because it comes from them) Paul not the apostles are not alive right now to use spoken words so we can only use their letters and written works. Therefore sola scriptura.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@@tan1591 The bishops of the Catholic Church are the successors of the apostles. See Acts 1:20.

[@Psychodegu]

@@GeorgePenton-np9rh And yet they are not an apostle they are not one of the US that the text refers too. You are quoting text that tell us to follow the apostles teaching, not some random guy 1000 years later, even if was voted best church guy by his buddies.

[@faithalone2171]

​ @bridgefin *Scriptures say doctrines come from the teachings of Jesus and APostles only, 2 Thes **2:15**. RCs pretended that meant "taking doctrines from traditions of Roman religion" which Bible rejects, Col 2:8, Mark 7:8.* you said So in the first century those listening to Jesus SPEAK did not have access to infallible truth according to your claim. TRUTH itself speaks and it is NOT truth since it is oral and not written down. Should I laugh or would a cry be more appropriate? And then Scripture fails to support your argument. It is YOU who is holding on to the infallible LIE of this man made doctrine.

[@no_prisoners6474]

But where does the Bible come from? 🤷🏾‍♀️

[@colepriceguitar1153]

God

[@no_prisoners6474]

@@colepriceguitar1153 who chose which books to include?

[@colepriceguitar1153]

@@no_prisoners6474 Churches.

[@no_prisoners6474]

@@colepriceguitar1153 bishops of A CHURCH

[@jesusislord5522]

How did the Bible come into existence? Which authority created the collection of books and verified them as the word of God? Or did it drop from Heaven?

[@solafide9533]

​ @bridgefin *According to RCs, Jesus and Apostles must be false teachers; since they took doctrines from Scriptures Only and not from any other source. Lol. Why is that so? I have 180 plus verses as proof.* you said SS is self refuting since Scripture does not teach Sola Scripture.

[@robertlehnert4148]

Yes, that's why Jesus said, in Matthew 18, to "look it up only in Scripture" when correcting a brother...oh, He didn't say that?

[@faithalone2171]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 *You are totally clueless aren't you? There is office of bishops does not prove there an office of bishop of bishops = pope. And Bible does not teach bishop of Rome = pope. Neither Peter = pope. So where did RCs get all your ns?* you said at times I just believe yall don't actually read the scriptures. It's not your fault really, yall read translations of scripture and never question what your preacher says. Who do you think Timothy is? Yall translate Bishop into Elder.... it's the same thing... bishop/elder.... Timothy was a young Bishop, but you protestants say Young elder... Bishops/Priest/Deacon... priest/presbyter Pope is Italian... means father... correlates to Isaiah 22... he will be a father to my people. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

[@douglaidlaw740]

The Bible is our best authority, but I couldn't call it "sufficient." Contrary to the waffle from yyou guys, the Catholics have read their Bibles, and are carrying on the commandments Jesus gave. In Australia, they are very involved in "healing the sick." The quality of people their schools produce moved one businessman to promote a similar school for Protestants. While you keep talking, they keep DOING. In Jesus' account of the Last Judgment, that is the yardstick that will be used; The Priest and the Levite will be admitted only if they stop ignoring the world's need; it was the Samaritan who "got it right." And he acted, not for religious reasons, but purely by instinct.

[@acnowmc7749]

Sorry my brother but you are wrong. The bible says the Church is the pillar of truth. The catholic church gave us the bible. Luther the heretic is probably in hell

[@deed7492]

John 14:6 Jesus said "I am the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE,NO ONE comes to the FATHER except through ME" So we protestants believe that in Christ alone we are saved and not being part of a Religion.Also Christianity isnt a Religion its a Relationship with God.I agree there are some protestant groups who pervert the word of God and they arent true Christians cause True Christians follow God and His word and not the word of man

[@thomasmcewen5493]

What authority did Christians use until Three hundred and ninety seven years after the birth of Christ when the Bible showed up in a non-English form ? How was the entire Roman empire exposed to Christ both east and West before the Bible ? How did Russia return to Christianity after 70 years of atheist communism when the Bible were not Published ?

[@ronaldignacio3574]

True and accurate scriptures are worthy of reverence but those heretically written are not then with total ignorance that you are holding such how will you consider it as authority ?The scripture is the Catholic Church Book compiled base on the Church's Tradition and not of anybody else .Its the Church who canonized it not the other way around.Please sstudy church and Bible's history dont make your own judgement of what the scruptures are you are not in a position to declare what the matters on faith and. Etc.

[@jaynekk1]

The scripture is not 'A Catholic church book' as they would have you believe , The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible which the Jews had complete centuries before Jesus's life, The New testament the Gospels and letters written by the Apostles in which you find Jesus and his followers quoting the Hebrew bible all the time , All written and complete by the end of the 1st century . The ROMAN Catholic church was not established till the 4th century. What books exactly are you considering heretically written and with total ignorance ? The ones written by Jesus's 1st generation and eye witness Diciples?

[@solafide9533]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 *You still cannot prove your self claims. Nowhere in Scriptures ever said APostles and Peter passed down any authority to ROman religion. Where? Chap verse?*

[@solafide9533]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 *All these were refuted thoroughly before. Why are you still using spurious writing of Irenaeus as proof for doctrines? Against HEresies was an interpolation of multiple writers and multiple writings. Totally not a proof for doctrines.* *1 Clement is not even a proof for anything. All bishops give exhortations and advices. Not only bishop of rome.* *Irenaeus spurious writings were all debunked here:* "Debunking an over-used Irenaeus quote on “Papal Succession”" you said When we look at Church History, we see Apostolic Succession. And the Church in Rome being looked to as the example and the one called upon in to settle disputes. 1 Clement is a letter written by Pope Clement of Rome between 70 and 90AD. He was responded to the Church in Corinth who wrote to Rome asking for help settling a dispute. This is interesting because the Apostle John is still alive at this point, but the Church at corinth appealed to the seat of Peter in Rome. Furthermore let's look at St. Irrenaeus (a disciple of Polycarp(Bishop of Smyrna) who was a disciple of John the Apostle) who was writing around 160AD. Here is what he says about Rome. It's a long passage. “One should not seek among others the truth that can be easily gotten from the Church. For in her, as in a rich treasury, the apostles have placed all that pertains to truth, so that everyone can drink this beverage of life. She is the door of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers." (Book III, 4.1) Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. - notice how the Early Church had Apostolic Succession. They took Matthew 16 to say what Catholics today still say it is. Notice that Irrenaues learned the faith from a guy who learned it directly from an Apostle. These early Christians did not believe the Church was some invisible body of believers, but a visible one with Bishops. And these Bishops all had to be in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. I have way more info to show this, but believe this to be sufficient for now.

[@solafide9533]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 *Again your comment is due to lack of knowledge. Taking all the verses on Church and Churches, Bible says Church refers to "all local churches + all believers". Bible says believers are already the Church. Nowhere in the Bible ever said Church need to be traced to the earliest Church or Apostles. All believers of Christ (the Church) are already traced to Christ. That suffices.* you said Prove your interpretation of scripture is from the Apostles. Show me your unbroken line. Show me one Christian that believed like you. Or have you fully accepted the lies you have been fed from the men you follow. Our claims come with evidence. You claims come from the minds of men.

[@jamess7576]

Who determined what is Scripture? What authority did they have, where did that authority come from? If it was an invalid authority, how can we be sure the selection is valid? If they had valid authority, where else does that authority extend?

[@faithalone2171]

@jamess7576 *It is the self claim of RCs that Roman religion "determined" the Scriptures. Roman religion did not. Jesus and APostles already called Scriptures Scriptures in their days. They did not say believers need to wait 300 years for a Roman religion to "determine" Scriptures.* *Two or more Scriptures saying the same teachings proves a doctrine. Scriptures is the final authority. Roman religion says it's not. Roman religion claimed its the authority. Bible does not say so.* you said Who determined what is Scripture? What authority did they have, where did that authority come from? If it was an invalid authority, how can we be sure the selection is valid? If they had valid authority, where else does that authority extend?

[@solafide9533]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 *Yes you are as usual bw by RC Apologists who misrepresented Faith Alone doctrine. Faith Alone doctrine come with Good Works. Totally not what you claimed. True faith would naturally have Good Works. That's Faith ALone doctrine.* *Faith Alone doctrine:* - Eph 2:8-9 - Saved not by Works - EPh 2:10 - Save to do GOod works (which includes fruit bearing) James 2, 1 Cor 13, Mat 25. *Mat 25 has never been an issue with Faith Alone doctrine.* *Misquoting James does not help you again. James 1:1 clearly says James was addressing 12 tribes of Israel - J - ws saved by Mosaic Law of Works - Old Covenant.* *Instead you should look at how Apostle Paul addressed Gentile Christians in New Covenant. Stop looking at Old Covenant passages.* Abraham Justified by Faith Rom 4:1 📝 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:8 BLESSED IS THE MAN TO WHOM THE LORD SHALL NOT IMPUTE SIN." Rom 4:9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. Rom 4:10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

@@solafide9533 yeah, your faith alone doctrine essentially is what the Catholic Church has taught for two thousand years. Congrats you made it back to the truth. The Letter of James refutes Martin Luther's faith alone theology... do you know who agrees with me? Martin Luther. That's why he wanted to remove the book. Anyways, James writing to Jews who were dispersed. Why? Well because they were learning that we are saved by faith alone apart from works of the Law, so they like many modern protestants (not you, since you teach the Catholic doctrine although you didn't know it. Remove the word alone and it reads basically the same) but they went to far saying we just have to believe... So James brings up Abraham as well, isn't that crazy!!!! (By the way, Paul makes it obvious what works of the Law are when he asked if Abraham was circumcised before or after he was justified. I recommend actually reading Abraham's whole story, I just wrote a paper on it not long ago) anyways James brings up the 2nd time Abraham was justified. Crazy right. It's really interesting what God says to him then to, should we look at it? Yeah let's look at it. Genesis 22:11-18 11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” 13 And Abraham looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place “The Lord will provide”; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.” 15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.” Wow did God just say, what it looks like? That Abraham's obedience is why he is being blessed. That God is now sure that Abraham fears him? Because he obeyed and didn't keep his Son from him? Was this after his circumcision? After you say? Did his works just bring his faith to completion? What did James say? Let's look. James 2:19-24 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Yep James drives this point home. There are different types of works. Works of the Law, works of the spirit, works of love, works of Faith.... works of the Law are referring to the Mosaic Law. When you guys say faith alone..... it leads to people believing literally faith alone. Because the word alone has a meaning. So maybe just teach what all Christians everywhere have taught since the beginning up until Luther.... that you are saved by grace, through faith, working in Love.... that there is nothing you can do on your own to obtain salvation. But instead yall want to hold on to that word alone and confuse everyone.... have you ever wondered why the Holy Spirit didn't use the word alone? And why do you think it's OK for yall to add the word alone to Romans? Because you say faith alone... then define faith alone in such a way, telling everyone with reading comprehension skills that you don't actually believe in faith alone. But then call people heretics when they point out the biblical truth that you aren't saved by faith alone. That's insane.

[@solafide9533]

@@BiffsCoffee27272 *Ns. That’s not my Faith Alone doctrine. And Roman religion does not teach that. Roman religion teaches Works Salvation- faith plus works to be saved. Works Salvation is anathematised by Scriptures. Gal 1:8-9.* - submit to Roman pope to be saved - devote to Roman Mary to be saved - be in Roman Church to be saved - partake Roman sacraments to be saved - baptise in Roman baptism to be saved - do lots of works to be saved

[@solafide9533]

@@BiffsCoffee27272 *James did not refute anything. He was addressing 12 tribes of Israel - saved by Works of the Law (not by Faith Alone). Not Gentile Christians saved Not By Works (by Faith Alone).*

[@solafide9533]

@@BiffsCoffee27272 *Wrong again. Paul clearly said Salvation is not by all forms of works. Not just works of the law. RCs do not read the Bible.* *Bible is clear: Salvation is Not By All Forms of Works - Not works of law, Not works of righteousness, Not good works.* *NOT GOOD WORKS* 2Ti 1:9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, Eph 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. *NOT WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS* Tit 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, *NOT WORKS OF THE LAW* Gal 2:16 knowing that a man is not [i]justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. *BLESSEDNESS APART FROM WORKS* Rom 4:6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: *IF IT IS WORKS, IT’S NO LONGER GRACE* Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. Rom 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. Rom 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

@@solafide9533 also James addresses the 12 tribes in the dispersion. And then goes on to make it obvious that he is talking to Jewish Christians. One's who misunderstood what Paul was teaching. He clears up their literal faith alone notion. Man you guys will do anything to downplay the obvious contradictions in your theology. Even change the definition of faith alone to pretty much what the Catholic Church has been teaching for two thousand years. But man, yall love the word alone. What does alone mean? a·lone /əˈlōn/ adjective 1. having no one else present: "she was alone that evening" Similar all alone, solo, lone, solitary, single, ... moreOpposite accompanied adverb 1. on one's own: "he lives alone" Similar by oneself, on one's own, solo, singly, without an escort, ... moreOpposite in company 2. indicating that something is confined to the specified subject or recipient: "we agreed to set up such a test for him alone" Similar only, solely, just, uniquely, exclusively, ... more Yep, so when you say saved by faith alone the word alone excludes everything else. You say, na good works are part of faith so it's faith alone, True faith has works.... and the bible says that's not true, for the Demons believe.... Faith that is alive has works, Faith that is dead doesn't have works. Still faith, just dead. Now if my theology tells me that once you are saved, you are always saved, then yeah you have to finagle this to say something else. You have to say true faith or saving faith, because the idea that you could at one point have faith, and then that faith die is impossible to one who has accepted the false doctrine of once saved always saved, so you add words here to make your theology fit. Then you read the verses like nothing can take you from my hand!!! And nothing can separate you from God's Love as proof of your false belief, not realizing that those verses didn't say that you couldn't walk out the hand, just that nothing from outside can. And nothing can separate you from God's love, well that's true if you are saved or not saved. So not a real strong foundation for these relatively new beliefs amongst Christians. Sounds like a gospel for itching ears to me... I wonder if the people who believe this get to pick their own teachers too? Maybe vote on their Pastors. Fire them when they disagree with his bible interpretations.... and when he gets fired he just starts a new church... I feel like the bible warned me about this... could be wrong.... but they get it from the bible!! So did the judizers and Gnostics, and Jehovah Witnesses, and even the Mormons use the scriptures to teach their beliefs, so maybe just piecing verses together to support a theology is the correct way to come to the truth... if only Jesus set up some sort of authority to make final decisions on controversies that come from disagreements... you know, some authority that could bind or loose. Crazy he didn't think to do that. All we have now is the bible and our own wits. I guess the Holy Spirit is leading all these groups to different conclusions. Just which one is right.... just so many to choose from..... I mean all these groups agree that the Catholic Church is evil and pagan... that seems to be the only thing they agree on.... but the Church of Satan also hates the Catholic Church. And so do atheist.... so I don't think it's the Holy Spirit leading the others to that conclusion.... but why is the Holy Spirit telling some that baptism is a symbol and others that it is for the forgiveness of sins? Why is it telling some Communion is just a symbol and some it's the flesh and blood of Jesus (luthern, anglican) why is it telling some that u just have to believe and others that belief has to also have works, but that's somehow faith alone? Why is it telling some homosexuality is wrong and others that it is OK? Why is it telling some that women priest a good and others that it's wrong? Why is it telling some that you have to speak in tongues, but telling others that the gifts ceased? I mean they are all reading the same book, and all claim to be led by the same spirit, but all come to different conclusions.... but agree that the Catholic Church is pagan and wrong..... see what I'm getting at here.

[@bradleesargent]

The Bible alone, the book that divides and separates Christians from one another angrily arguing over the interpretation of passages and pastors, when they are in a nursing home and too weak to read then what. They don't have the memorized prayers like the rosary to pray but feel useless and depressed, abandoned with no priest to call on, no bishop to bring them the eucharist. The church however unites all of the Protestants who come home to the unity of the one church founded by Christ to feed the flock his very blood and body, soul and divinity.

[@Gondor149]

Are protestants schismatics and therefore accursed or are they separated brethren? Two infallible teachings by the church seeming to say two different things. Which is it?

[@bridgefin]

Those who were Catholic and who left are clearly schismatics. The next generation are not. They are separated brethren. But all are judged individually.

[@johnflorio3052]

The Bible claims the opposite is true. John 20:30-31 2 Thessalonians 2:15 2 Timothy 2:2

[@colepriceguitar1153]

2 cor 4:6

[@GR65330]

The scriptures, like all writings, are open to interpretation by the reader and therefore cannot be the final authority in matters of faith and morals. A perfect example of this are the reformers themselves who could not agree on scripture. I think that Irenaeaus of Lyons stated this quite perfectly in the 2nd century. Paraphrased: “Scripture, then, is an excellent source for the Rule of Faith. It is divine and must be believed. But the Scriptures are not always clear, nor did all of Scripture exist from the beginning. Hence, it is not an absolute Rule of Faith. Scripture is ultimately subject to the criterion of tradition, of the doctrine of the Church; of the Rule of Truth itself…..Tradition must be derived from the Apostles. Any tradition outside the apostolic Tradition must be absolutely rejected…. Since Tradition existed before the writings of the New Testament it is an absolute source of revelation. It is the teaching of the living Church, which would have existed even if nothing had been committed to writing.” - Ancient Christian Writers, Ireneaus, “Against the Heresies” Book 1. Introduction, Scripture and Tradition, pp. 10-11, paragraphs 30-33, 180 AD

[@solafide9533]

​ @bridgefin *RCs simply love misrepresenting the doctrine of SS. SS does not say "Scriptures is the sole authority". Since when it said so? RCs love harping on false definition of SS then claiming it's false.* *Sola Scriptura does not say Scripture is the only truth or only authority. Sola Scriptura merely says: there are many authorities such as Jesus/God, Apostles, Church, Leaders .. but even authorities like Jesus, Apostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they appealed to other sources for doctrines (such as from traditions of Moses or Pharisees).* you said Of course I believe that Jesus is God. However, the Scripture in no place claims to be our sole authority. It goes on to call the church the pillar and foundation of truth.

[@johnsteila6049]

You obviously don’t understand what “Sola Scriptura” means. How could it be more plain??C’mon lady!!!

[@solafide9533]

@@johnsteila6049 *Of course I know. I am a Christian. You are not. Why don’t you define SS? It’s easy to tell.*

[@johnsteila6049]

@@solafide9533 No, you don’t know what it is. Unbelievable, smh.

[@solafide9533]

@@johnsteila6049 *Still waiting for you for define SS. Where?* 1 2 3

[@johnsteila6049]

@@solafide9533 Sola Scriptura is Latin for, scripture only. It’s the heretical Protestant belief that The Bible is the sole authority for Faith and practice. You really should know these basic concepts already.:/

[@alexanderharding2221]

It is astonishing to me how weak these arguments are. There is no solid argument for Sola Scriptura. It is fundamentally self-refuting, since the Bible itself does not contain this doctrine, making it extra-biblical. Furthermore, even if the doctrine were included in the Bible, it would still be invalid if it were not confirmed by an external authoritative force, as this would be circular reasoning. Nowhere does the Catholic Church contradict Scripture. It affirms and elevates it, as it is the Catholic Church who infallibly declared the canon of a Scripture. If one were to realise that the Catholic claim to authority truly is a valid one, one should have the humility to submit to Christ’s own Church, and work through any other doctrinal issues one might have.

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

But not according to the bible

[@joycegreer9391]

Totally according to the Bible.

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

@@joycegreer9391 I've noticed that you have no answer to all the other post. 😂

[@purgatorean]

We are not saved the Protestant way - by faith alone. Faith alone salvation is a heresy which can not be found anywhere in the Bible. We are saved the Bible way as Jesus taught the necessity of the Sacraments for Salvation in Mark 16:16 and John 20:19-23 and John 6:50-59. Challenge yourself to find just one protestant in the New Testament Church that was saved without a Catholic Sacrament. The model for Salvation can be read in Acts 2:36-42. You will see here that people heard the Gospel preached by authentic Bishops of the Catholic Church - the Apostles. These very first converts believed upon this Gospel because of the authenticity of the one who preached it - however, they knew that they were not saved by their faith alone. So they asked their Catholic Bishop, St. Peter, what else must be done and St. Peter told them that they must REPENT OF THEIR SINS AND RECEIVE THE CATHOLIC SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM for the forgiveness of their sins and then - and only then - will they receive the Holy Spirit. That is the simplicity of the Gospel, and then you can see that about 3000 people were saved this way, and then they DEVOTED themselves to the MASS which is the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the Breaking of Bread and the prayers. Only Catholics DEVOTE themselves to the Breaking of the Bread and to the prayers of the Mass, just like in the Bible. This is Biblical Salvation and is the model for Salvation throughout the remainder of the Bible and for all of mankind, in every place and every time, right down to this very day. Amen, and may God bless each of you on your journey of FAITH.

[@connordenton788]

"Challenge yourself to find just one protestant in the New Testament church that was saved without a catholic sacrament" The thief on the cross (Luke 23) 🤔

[@purgatorean]

@@connordenton788 Hi Connor. Thanks for taking the challenge. The Biblical Church of the New Covenant did not begin until the Day of Pentecost which was some time after the thief died. Before the New Covenant Church, Our Lord healed people, saved people, and blessed people at any time and in any manner that He so chose to do so. However, after He departed this world on the Day of His Ascension, the work of saving souls continued through His Church. He commanded His Church to spread the Gospel and to make Disciples of those that believe the Gospel by Baptizing them. Mt. 28:16-20 should be a good start for you if you want to try again. Christ gave us His Church, sent the Holy Spirit to fill the Church on the Day of Pentecost, and commanded Faith PLUS Baptism for the Salvation of Souls. Read Acts chapter 2 and always keep in mind the teaching of Paul in Galatians 3 that we are Baptized into Christ. Baptism is a Sacrament. A Sacrament is how we obtain God's Saving Grace in order to share in the Divine Life of Christ. There is no other Biblical way. God Bless.

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

Well good thing the Catholic church put together the bible for you 😂😂

[@joycegreer9391]

Compiling means nothing. The books existed whether compiled into one book or not.

[@GracieDontPlayDat]

No, they put it together for elites who knew Latin and men only.

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

@joycegreer9391 true. And the Church made them Cannon. There were many more books. But the Church through the Authority given to it by Jesus decided the Cannon.

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

@craigslist6630 I didn't want to reply, but I felt like I should. Latin was the common language. There was also Greek and Arabic. I mean, just a little research would help here. Like 10 minutes. Actually just a deep dive into the first 300 years of Christianity may help you alot. You may find the earliest Christians taught by the Apostles were very Catholic in their beliefs and understanding of scripture. You may find that what you believe and are taught are actually the traditions of men and schemes of the devil... you may find that you were in fact lied too. Or you may find that you are right about everything... but you won't know until you actually check for yourself. You know read the source material. The Martyrs wrote, and their writings survived. The information is out there. But as long as the people you follow can keep you from looking because they have you believing Catholism is evil, then you will never actually know if you are right.

[@faithalone2171]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 *RCs have to thank Christians for writing the Scriptures. If not for that, RCs would not be able to compile Scriptures into a Book.* *By the way, real history did not say Roman religion = the Universal Church or Church Christ founded. You have believed in Ls.* you said Well good thing Roman Catholic church put together the bible for you

[@marcuslow1386]

Is that why there are tens of thousands of protestants denominations?

[@faithalone2171]

@marcuslow1386 *Denominations are just churches. Roman religion itself is a denomination. There aren't tens of thousands of Christian denominations. If you claim have please list them.* you said Is that why there are tens of thousands of protestants denominations?

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

Sola scriptura is not biblical.

[@joycegreer9391]

That is the only view that is Biblical.

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

@@joycegreer9391 show me in the bible where it says it. I'll wait... Also show me only using the bible what books belong in the bible. It must be there right? Sola scriptura must be in the bible right?

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

@Joyce Greer let me save you time. You can't answer those. I know every argument you have, I used to teach them as well. I found that I was wrong. To go into history is to cease to be protestant. I challenge you to really look into it. The anti-catholic propaganda is strong. Ask why? Look I don't expect to convince you, I assume that you are a great Christian that Loves Jesus with all your heart. That is amazing, continue your walk with Christ, I am not your enemy. I have no Qualms with protestant churches, just their incorrect teachings of what Catholics actually believe and practice. But that is fine. I challenge you to actually read what the church Fathers were saying. There are many many writings. But if you don't that's fine, may God bless you and keep you!

[@joycegreer9391]

@@BiffsCoffee27272 You tell me what other writings are the Word of God?? Infallible, God-breathed. I'll wait.

[@joycegreer9391]

​@@BiffsCoffee27272 Actually to really go into history, the real actual true history of the first few centuries is to see how the claims of Catholicism are false. I challenge you to really look into the true history, not the history the RCC claims. It is Catholicism that has the propaganda, and I know why. I have read some of the Church Father writings. Thanks, though, for your kind words. Teaching of sola scriptura is in the Bible, just not those particular words. Same as the teaching of the Trinity is in the Bible, but not that particular word. Having the books say which books are to be in the Bible when there wouldn't be a Bible without the books is nonsensical. The books were determined by the Holy Spirit, and the books tell us they are the inspired Word of God.

[@PInk77W1]

Catholic Church 1 pope Protestant Church unlimited popes

[@faithalone2171]

@PInk77W1 *Christians do not believe in man made doctrine of papacy though. WHere is that in the Bible?* you said Catholic Church 1 pope Protestant Church unlimited popes

[@PInk77W1]

@@faithalone2171 A Protestant named Eric Ybarra just converted to Catholic. He wrote a 700 page book on the papacy in the Bible. Pope means father. Father is in the Bible over 900x !!!!!

[@solafide9533]

​ @PInk77W1 *50 RC priests left Roman Catholic Church for Christianity. You can find the video on youtube. Lol* *Stop using arguments with no sound logic. People convert to all kinds of religions everyday.* you said A Protestant named Eric Ybarra just converted to Catholic. He wrote a 700 page book on the papacy in the Bible. Pope means father. Father is in the Bible over 900x !!!!!

[@solafide9533]

@@PInk77W1 *You cannot answer ... Christians do not believe in man made doctrine of papacy though. WHere is that in the Bible?*

[@solafide9533]

​@@PInk77W1 *You cannot answer ... Christians do not believe in man made doctrine of papacy though. WHere is that in the Bible?*

[@solafide9533]

​ @BiffsCoffee27272 *Bible and real history did not say "Roman religion = the Universal Church or Church CHrist founded". So where's your proof for all these self claims? Still waiting .. Other than spurious writings and your own man made history, what do you have as proof? Still waiting ..* *Even Ignatius did not say "Roman religion = the Universal Church or Church CHrist founded". Neither any early writings. So where is your proof for your self claims?*

[@michaelibach9063]

The Bible alone doctrine is man made. 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 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. Sorry, not sorry The Bible alone doctrine is a blindfold that keeps you ignorant of the Truth. Truths like our lady of kibeho warned of the Rwandan genocide a decade before hand. Our lady of Fatima warned of ww1, ww2, and the errors or Russia covering the earth two months before the bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Hey Protestants, YOU ARE ALL BEING LIED TO. You drank Martin Luthers kool-aid. While Europeans were leaving the Catholic Church because of Martin Luther, our lady of Guadalupe was converting pagans in Mexico to Catholicism.

[@frekigeri4317]

😂you mean the Bible that was entrusted to Catholicism and protected by Catholics and preserved by Catholics for the past 2000 years?

[@GracieDontPlayDat]

Protected so well only people patronized by royalty who wrote Latin and practiced Eastern transcendental meditation at their monasteries could have it. We are still waiting for the RCC to sell all their gold to pay sexual assault victims. Your church hasn’t been the church of the Bible for over 1,000 years.

[@faithalone2171]

@frekigeri4317 *RCs really love self claims. Scriptures was protected by all Christian Churches. Not Roman religion only. You are pretending Roman religion was the only Church in history. It was not.* *ROman religion banned Scriptures from laymen for centuries to millennial. Lol. Learn some real history.* you said you mean the Bible that was entrusted to Catholicism and protected by Catholics and preserved by Catholics for the past 2000 years?

[@faithalone2171]

@@GracieDontPlayDat *ROman popes and priests are too busy entertaining altar boys. They have no time to read the Bible. Lol*

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

@@frekigeri4317 lol they hate that truth.

[@nonsoanigbogu6989]

this is exactly why many souls will perish in hell..preach salvation and leave Catholic Church alone. don't force me to worship God or understand the Bible the same way you do. Church does not save, what saves is Jesus Christ. let all Christians unite.Muslims can never fall apart this way though they still have different denominations just like Christians. the way holy spirit teaches you might not be the same way He teaches others, what matters most is the salvation of our souls. its high time we stopped reading the Bible just like an ordinary book and start studying it like a spiritual and holy book. may God bless all of us...Amen

[@definitelynotatroll]

edwin vakkachan Jesus had risen before the catholic church was created, so it is not the church he established, Catholicism got so messed up that in 1517 Martin Luther was called by God to tear apart Catholicism, and bring back true Christianity.

[@jimiduzit]

actually many souls will "perish in hell" because fallen man is too proud to throw himself upon God's mercy. When someone comes along and says let me show you what He has done, what He has given, what He will do, man says no I'll do it my way. See it day in and day out. The best thing to do is pray.

[@s.k.2802]

Dear @@definitelynotatroll , Hello, as a Catholic, I'd like to respond to what you said. 1) I believe that Jesus created the Catholic Church. He founded a church, and promised that it would be protected from error (cf. Matthew 16, John 16:13). 2) Where did Christianity go in the time between Jesus and Martin Luther?

[@sulongenjop7436]

What's a nonsense!!!! Do you want to follow everything in the Bible, e.g. animal sacrifice, eat flesh and drink blood of human, quarrel/war with others like David, follow teaching of Moses, sacrifice yr life like Jesus did etc

[@faithalone2171]

@sulongenjop7436 *RCs love demonstrating they do not read the Bible. Bible says clergy priesthood, altars and sacrifices were already obsolete. Heb 7, 9,10. Here we have RCs who resurrected their own altars, their own clergy priesthood and RCs sacrifice Jesus on the altar back to God which Bible says nothing about.* you said What's a nonsense!!!! Do you want to follow everything in the Bible, e.g. animal sacrifice, eat flesh and drink blood of human, quarrel/war with others like David, follow teaching of Moses, sacrifice yr life like Jesus did etc

[@sulongenjop7436]

@@faithalone2171 We still need altar for Jesus as a symbolic of his sacrifice today.

[@solafide9533]

@@sulongenjop7436 *Cite me one Apostle or Jesus or any NT believer who offered Jesus on the altar back to God in the whole Bible. Just one.* 1 2 3 *You can’t.*

[@sulongenjop7436]

@@solafide9533 The Last Supper is the Holy Eucharist/Communion taught by Jesus directly to be obeyed - the ritual of sacrifice of Jesus's body and blood!(Matthew 26:28-28)

[@solafide9533]

@@sulongenjop7436 *Mat 26 does not say “sacrifice Jesus on the altar back to God”. You failed to prove Roman man made invention again.*