How can we defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura using Scripture?

Why should we embrace the Bible as our ultimate authority? From one of our Ask R.C. events, R.C. Sproul appeals to the teachings of Jesus Himself on the Word of God.
Ask your biblical and theological questions live online at ask.ligonier.org/
#AskLigonier

[@jack_skeean]

This video doesn't really seem to have anything to do with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It's an argument for the divine inspiration of scripture, which no Christian, whether they be Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, disagrees with.

[@noahcole3291]

I was waiting the whole time for him to say something!

[@ryanpope7891]

I thought the same - he seems to be arguing that historical reliability = inspiration.

[@alexanderderus2087]

Exactly. As an Orthodox(ex Protestant), I hoping to hear a compelling argument for Sola scriptura from scripture... yet I’m left nodding along in agreement. But this Christ he speaks of not only mostly quotes the Septuagint (which contains the deutero-canon) but also NEVER makes statements of Sola scriptura .... and also even goes on to affirm holy tradition in multiple texts. So I’m a little confused hahah, but on this video.. we agree with sproul! Hahah

[@SimonSyd]

@@noahcole3291 It's simple To equate anything else on the same level of authority as scripture, you would also have to claim "it" has divine inspiration.

[@tmlavenz]

Let's not forget that what is now called Scripture (the Bible we presently have) was consolidated from many, many other 'gospels'. The choice to include Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the other specific epistles - and only them - was a choice made by the early Church leaders. Scripture does not say: pick these and not these. There's no inspired table of contents. How did they know which ones to pick? One can only believe it was on inspiration of the Holy Spirit... Take the counter example: What if those early leaders had included the Gospel of Philip? In that alternate reality, a sola scriptura advocate nowadays would be obliged to consider it as authoritative as the other gospels. In according only scripture authority, one also accords it to those who put that book together... One trusts the initial 'editors' a power of spiritual discernment. If, however, one left no room for the Church to be inspired in its choice of what to include in the Bible, then one is in a tough position to respect their choice to exclude an apocryphal gospel. This is just one illustration of how even Scripture depends on the Holy Spirit work in the community of believers - in the tradition and in the Church. Divine inspiration is the work of the Holy Spirit in the community of believers. Paul clearly speaks of partaking of the Spirit and partaking of the nature of the Son. Pentecost signifies the descent of the Holy Spirit to the tongues of Christ's followers - it is an active, living reality. Divine inspiration takes place in every repentant human who loves and lives according to faith in the Son. That does not make everything they say 'scripture', obviously, but it clearly leaves room for the increase in knowledge of the faith, increase in richness of the Spirit's genuine work, increase in the love and power of mission in the "Church." To erase that entire heritage of love and knowledge, fought for so hardly, opens the faith to an endless string of heresies and absurdities - I need only name the 'prosperity gospel'.

[@DF_UniatePapist]

Since the video did not answer the question posed in the title, I’ll answer for you. Answer: You can’t.

[@portaadonai]

I think Jesus says it best: “My message is not my own; it comes from God who sent me. Anyone who wants to DO the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own. Those who speak for themselves want glory only for themselves, but a person who seeks to honor the one who sent him speaks truth, not lies."

[@reinholdwatty364]

Very good and profound answer to all sceptics.

[@Catholic101A.]

Jeff Cram is this a Bible verse sorry i had to ask?

[@portaadonai]

@@Catholic101A. Yes, you can copy and paste to google it to find out where. I dont like using verse numbers, they are not scriptural

[@Catholic101A.]

Jeff Cram its true neither are the commentary or the table of contents or who wrote what gospel for that matter, this influenced points to a bishop of Rome after all Jesus did leave his church.

[@anthonynosike]

@@portaadonai very interesting, I would think that the torah was numbered at least by that time frame but idk

[@mohaubereng9315]

But he seems to be commenting on the inspiration and infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture here. Nothing about Sola Scriptura. The title is misleading.

[@daniellennox8804]

He doesn’t even begin to defend Sola Scriptura in this video. Protestantism, with it’s many varieties, rests on this doctrine yet this doctrine can’t be defended by the best Protestant apologists. RC Sproul: “We have a fallible collection of infallible books” Luther: “The epistle of James is an epistle of straw. It’s time to throw Jimmy in the fire” Calvin: “Scripture is perspicuous” (self interpreting) These guys love to claim St. Augustine as a proto-Protestant, yet St. Augustine said, “I would not believe the Gospel were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.” It’s time to come home to Rome 🙏

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

AMEN BROTHER!!!!!

[@SonicSnakeRecords]

Acts 8:30-31 30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 🇻🇦

[@Convexhull210]

How does this disprove sola scriptura lol?

[@SonicSnakeRecords]

@@Convexhull210 You can figure it out.

[@jncon8013]

@@Convexhull210it doesn’t.

[@Eva_Hope]

It does. Iv been experiencing it myself. Sola scripture is open to interpretation. Our mere, sin filled, deceitful flesh cannot comprehend what God is trying to say. We are relying on our own flesh and our own understanding to interpret it. Greek Orthodox always revert back to the saints in order to help understand Gods Will for our lives. How did the saints live ? Did the saints speak in tongues? What was the original church and how did Jesus really intend for us to fulfil the word? We can only read a scripture and base it on our current situation. We can only view it from a flesh or worldly perspective. The Saints who are made Holy and pure have a more solid understanding than we do.

[@karlheinzmichel4042]

Thank you Mr Sproul ! Good methodology. --- All praise and glory to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

[@gsus493]

There were certain writings from the apostolic era which were accepted as infallible, inerrant scripture and other writings which were rejected as such. Who made these decisions and on what basis? Protestants always run away from answering these question directly.

[@crobeastness]

coming into protestant videos hoping to evangelize. the new form of door to door. love it. just curious, you think you've been successful so far? it's hard to tell online because after a while they just stop replied and won't admit humility, but at least I've planted seeds of doubt in their own fallacious arguments and hopefully dispelled their misconceived notions of the catholic church.

[@pierreschiffer3180]

@@crobeastness You say it well: you plant seeds. Who knows what the results are? God knows.

[@gsus493]

@A saph V What do you mean by "books" were already there"? How, according to "unbiased historians", did a number of books become considered uninspired while others remained in the inspired list? Saying that this happened "organically" doesn't give the specifics as to how we ended up with our current Bible. Also, on your assessment of transubstantiation, why don't you believe the words of Jesus Himself in the 6th chapter of John's gospel. Moreover, Christianity didn't join Rome. Rome joined Christianity; otherwise, we as Christians in the West would have continued living in intense persecution for the last 1700 years ... just like Christians lived for the first 300 years after Christ's resurrection and ascension. Even you have to agree the Jesus had a mother named Mary. This is a historical fact: It's not a replacement for Mithra and son. Nice try, though. Have you read what early christians themselves actually wrote? Or are you reading what some "historian" says about what they wrote? Please name of your historians. Tell me which early Christian writers you have read. We can take it from there.

[@gsus493]

​@A saph Vap Why is it that you are able to consider ECFs as just some individuals with fallible opinions, and yet, who ever it is that you're listening to or reading now definitely got it right? I, like you, do believe that the Bible is an infallible source of truth. The problem lies in interpreting the bible correctly. Why should I believe your or any other "expert" interpretation over ECFs and the Magisterium of the the Roman Catholic Church?

[@gsus493]

@A saph Vap Which part of the Bible says that Only the bible is the source of Christian Truth? Chapter, verse? Where does it say in the Bible that Scripture interprets itself? Chapter, verse? Also, I could cite hundreds of examples of nonCatholic denomintion's differences of opinion on Scriptural teachings. Eg. Some Protestants are Trinitarian; some are unitarian: some Protestants have communion and baptism; some don't; some Protestants believe in infant baptism; some believe only in adult baptism; some Protestants speak in tongues and get slain in the Spirit; some don't; Some Protestant denominations think that having an organ in the Church goes against New Testament teaching because organs are not mentioned in the New Testament; many are just fine with musical instruments...even rock bands!; Some Protestant denominations have homosexual ministers married to their husbands; some are "homophobic". Some Protestant denominations think worshipping on Sunday is Satanic, most are fine with Sunday....I could go on..... Anyway, I'm sure you get the point. The Protestant experiment has failed. The decline in Western society can be directly linked to Protestant's self-centred method of deriving Truth. Catholics have one Pope. In Protestantism EVERYONE is their own Pope. TRUTH has gone from Divine revelation to personal subjective opinion. I'd still like to get an answer to: Which part of the Bible says that Only the bible is the source of Christian Truth? Chapter, verse? Where does it say in the Bible that Scripture interprets itself? Chapter, verse? You asked first, so I will answer with Matthew 16:16-19 (Christ didn't leave a Bible: He left a Church with authority.That same Church produced a Bible and authoritatively declared it to be inerrant and infallible. The Bible is a Catholic book!

[@valdotc8559]

These are the basis of SOLA SCRIPTURE: 1) "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20) 2) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11) 3) "that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written" (1 Corinthians 4:6) 4) "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Mathew 15:3) "But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men." (Mathew 15:9). Here is a clear example, while Jesus told to call no man "father" because God is the father ("And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven." Mathew 23:9). And while the Bible teaches "The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2), the catholic church calls the leaders "fathers" and forbid them to marry creating rules through tradition AGAINST The bible. Biblical christian leaders are pastors, bishops and elders, not "fathers". The Bible teaches that Jesus is the high priest, while the catholic tradition makes the pope the high priest. The Bible teaches to worship ONLY God, while the catholic tradition worship the saints, creating the "devotion" doctrine, which is just a name that covers WORSHIP acts. Pray to God, praise God, bow for God to worship him and do the SAME for the saints and thats not worship? And historically, the importance of SOLA SCRIPTURE was that the catholic church was teaching salvation through human works and was selling salvation through indulgences. The Bible teaches that salvation is by faith and by grace.

[@josueinhan8436]

Muito bom!

[@glennlanham6309]

you are kidding right? for one thing, call no man father has nothing whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura, secondly, look at Luke 16, where Jesus Himself calls Abraham FATHER ABRAHAM

[@glennlanham6309]

you go on and on about every subject BUT SOLA SCRIPTURA

[@neo8840]

Then why quote the Bible?

[@risingdawn5788]

Given the title is about defending the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" I wasn't expecting it to only be about inspiration of the Scriptures.

[@LaFedelaIglesia]

It's classic, I have heard all the major protestant apologists attempting to defend Sola Scriptura, but they always deviate to explicate why the Bible is divinely inspired.

[@risingdawn5788]

@@LaFedelaIglesia The doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" has been clearly explained elsewhere. It just seems to me that this video title isn't the most fitting.

[@LaFedelaIglesia]

@@risingdawn5788 Well, I have listened to Sproul, Mohler, White, Duncan, Horton and they always talk about the inspiration of Scripture (2 Peter 1: 21) or its purpose (2 Timothy 3: 16, 17), but they always fail to prove where in Scripture Sola Scriptura is taught.

[@risingdawn5788]

​@@LaFedelaIglesia The doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is often misunderstood. It doesn't mean only Scripture, as if we entirely ignore church history and what anyone has to say. As well as it meaning the infallibility and divine inspiriation of the Scriptures, it means that Scripture alone is the highest authority for our rule of faith in the life of the church, being sufficient. This is taught by God in His word, as you referenced in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 for example. In oppostion to the Roman Church, for example, it teaches that "Sacred Scripture" is above "Sacred Tradition". When man believes he is infallible, like the RCC, he falls into error. This is plain to see when we compare the clear teachings of the word of God and the teachings of the Roman Church. The most concerning of these errors being in the area of soteriology through the Gospel itself.

[@patquint3291]

RisingDawn The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium work like a three legged stool. All three are equal in authority. Why so many denominations and sects? Protestants pick and choose what they want to believe. Protestants adhere to traditions, but those traditions, like sola scriptura and sola fide, were invented by man 15 to 16 centuries after the Church was established by Jesus. The Bible and the canon of the Bible are part of Tradition. In other words, the Bible came from the Church, the Church did not come from the Bible.

[@PatrickSteil]

Great video on how to defend Sola Scriptura with Scripture. Not a single Scripture was given which is correct. Sola Scriptura- to put the complexity of all human value, meaning and purpose in the hands of all believers could lead “Christians” to have millions of different doctrinal beliefs. Oh wait it already has. The past 500 years have been a “Big Bang” of doctrine. Do you know what is Scriptural? The fact that Paul is constantly warning churches, apostles and Bishops of The Church yo stick to the one true doctrine. And he NEVER says to do that by individual interpretation of the Scripture. Rather he says to hand down faithfully the truths he taught them. He says to hold on to that doctrine whether taught by word or epistle. The early church was and has always been very concerned about having the Authority to make correct doctrinal declarations so that all Christians can know the fullness of the Truth within His Church. This is why Jesus created One Church. Anyone who doesn’t submit to His church finds themselves worshipping their beliefs about God rather then submitting to the actual God our Creator.

[@danielomitted1867]

It's funny listening to catholics preach to us about unity when Rome isn't going to be kicking out it's liberals anytime soon. In fact Pope Frankie the "vicar of Christ" is appointing pro-choice cardinals. You can ask 5 different catholic priests what constitutes mortal and venial sins and get 5 different answers. Catholics will hiss and sneer at the idea private interpretation of the bible but don't realize they do the same thing but with "the church", which isn't actually the church but Rome. The fact is there is no reason to believe the Roman church has any special authority over the universal church. You can't find a single person in the first 500 years of the church who believes everything you must believe now as a Catholic.

[@2timothy23]

I respect and love the late RC Sproul, but there are times I disagree with him and this is one of those times. His thinking reminds me of classic apologetics, which basically says you reason with the unsaved mind to make God or the Bible reasonable before you tell them what it says. The Apostle Paul never did that in Acts 17, he just proclaimed the attributes of God to the Greek philosophers and led them to the gospel message of repenting. I am surprised RC loved this method of defending scripture for two reasons: 1) It negates the absolute attributes of God. God is self-existent (the great I AM of Exodus 3:14), as well as eternal and infinite. And God's Word is truth (John 17:17) that is absolute. When defending an absolute source, you begin with that absolute source. So, yes it is circular, but it isn't vicious because you can't go outside of an absolute source to show it is absolute because any outside source would have to be the prime source to "prove" the other. You're trying to prove the absolute by something that isn't. Now outside things can show God as absolute Creator, but you must first start with God and His Word, not start outside of His Word to "prove" His Word before you can quote His Word. The Bible can't be reduced to just a historical document, it is supernaturally God-breathed and sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16-17). 2) We can't forget that man is depraved (Romans 3:9-20, Jeremiah 17:9, Ephesians 2:1-3), so to try to "reason" with a mind hostile against God (Romans 8:7) from an unsaved world that hates God (John 15:18-23) is actually silly. We're basically trying to convince the spiritually dead mind that the Bible is first a historical document that we can say is reliable, then we can quote what Jesus said in those documents to show that it is true. You can't find this in scripture. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16), not convincing someone that perhaps the Bible is reliable then telling them that it is the Word of God before we tell them the gospel. If we had to do that, no Christian could quote the Bible because we' d be jumping through hoops all day for skeptics, atheists, etc. as they judge our faith and our God before we gave them the Good News.

[@theinfiniteawe]

He was definitely a classicalist, and a really good one. The other way to argue for Scripture's infallibility is the way of presuppositions. Sproul and VanTil (presupp) disagreed with eachother but they were both brothers in the Lord. I think it's worth knowing both methods--as well as the others--but I think eventually you do land on your favourite.

[@2timothy23]

@@ephs145 I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. I didn't say Paul just proclaimed the gospel and just left it. He reasoned with people for sure, but not based on their demand for "proof" or "evidence." Take a close look at Acts 17: 17:16 shows us that Paul's spirit was stirred in him because he saw the city was given in idolatry. Paul already knew they were caught up with false gods and wrong philosophies. 17:17 shows he disputed with the Jews in the synagogue and with others in the market place. 17:18 shows that certain philosophers encountered him and wondered what this babbler (an insult) would say because they thought he spoke about strange "gods" because he preached Jesus and the resurrection (this demonstrates the disputing in verse 17 was about the gospel; Christ and His resurrection). 17:19-21 shows the people taking Paul to find out what strange, new doctrine he spoke of because they spent their time talking about or hearing "new" things. 17:22, Paul tells his audience that they are too superstitious (actually religious) because 17:23 shows they had an altar to an unknown god who they ignorantly worshipped. In other words, if they worshipped a "god" that was unknown, they had no revelation about who this god was or is. Paul used that as a stepping stone to declare what they knew nothing of, the true and living God. Notice from there Paul never explains the Old Testament to them to validate what he is about to declare; he just declares it: 17:24, Paul reveals that God as Creator of all things (Genesis 1:1). 17:25, Paul reveals that God is not worshipped by man's hands (or efforts or doings) like an idol, because God is self-sufficient (Psalm 50:10-12) seeing He gives all life, breath, and all things. In other words, God upholds all things (Colossians 1:16-17) and, 17:26, made all nations of men and determined the times and the bounds of their habitation (you see the same language in Deuteronomy 32:8). 17:27 has Paul explaining they should seek the Lord if they truly wanted to find Him because He is not hiding (this is the reason Romans 1:18-23 tells us sinful mankind is without excuse because they know God exists, but they suppress that truth in their unrighteousness). In 17:28, Paul even appeals to their own poets who said we are God's offspring (they may have meant children of God, but Paul meant as people created and given life by God, hearkening back to verses 25-26). Then in 17:29-30, Paul makes the point that God is not like their idols (check the same language in Psalm 115:3-8) and :was patient at this ignorance but now commands men everywhere to repent. Why? Because in 17:31, Paul explains that there is an appointed day for judgment for all, but the assurance comes from that same judge (Jesus Christ) because God raised Him from the dead (and if you confess this with your mouth and believe this in your heart, Romans 10:9-13 shows that you will be saved). Notice in every verse, except the quick reference to their own poets just to make a point, Paul described the attributes of God based on scripture and led them right back to the resurrection. The very resurrection that made them take Paul and listen to him in the first place. And the result: 17:32-34 shows some mocked, some wanted to hear the matter again, and some believe. When God wants to reason with people, it's not based on their own understanding, but based on who God is (Creator, lawgiver, judge, and Savior), who man is (sinners who will be judged), and the revelation of these things given in scripture. Paul didn't explain the "validity" of the Bible before he spoke about God and the gospel, he just proclaimed it and reasoned from the truth of God's Word.

[@2timothy23]

@@theinfiniteawe I believe there is a place to mention some of things Sproul talks about, but I find when I speak to an atheist or skeptic in the classical way, it leads down a long rabbit trail where the sinner is always asking for evidence, proof, or hypotheticals. We end up not contending for the faith (Jude 4), but defending if the faith is even real or valid. Be honest, how many Christians praise, worship, and learn of God based on scripture with zeal and confidence in the churches, but the minute we're outside the church, that zeal and confidence is replaced with, "Well, if God were real" or "if the Bible is true..." and then we try to reason with the sinner from that starting point. So we believe God is God and the Bible is the Bible among ourselves, but then we speak hypothetically about God with the unsaved because we know they don't believe? I appreciate the argumentation of the apologist who brings the "proof" and "evidence" approach because God is Creator of all; therefore I expect to see evidence of Him all around. But we should never think we have to continue to go that direction just because the unsaved person doesn't believe. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us always to be prepared to give an answer to every man that asks the hope that is in us. The context of 1 Peter 1:13-17 is suffering/persecution. And what is our hope? Jesus Christ and His death on the cross; the glorious gospel. We derive the word apologetics from verse 15, but the context of it is to proclaim our hope in Jesus Christ among those that speak evil against us, not to demonstrate the "evidence" of that hope before we share it.

[@jasonbaker7284]

@@2timothy23 Faith doesn't come through hearing apologetics, only hearing the Word. However, there are many distortions and misunderstanding about what the Word says. I believe apologetics is a tool that can be used to refute those distortions and clear up those misunderstandings. The process Dr. Sproul walks through in this video refutes the distortion that believers view the Bible as the Word of God merely because their parents or pastor told them it was. Or, because they have taken a blind leap of faith and believed for no good reason. Apologetics also strengthens the faith of believers. We must equip our children with tools to answer the attacks of the nonbelievers, because those attacks will surely come. I do not believe apologetics can convince a nonbelievers to believe. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is merely a tool all believers should learn to use. I would even go so far as to say apologetics is more beneficial to believers than nonbelievers. As Dr. McGee always said concerning apologetics, this is a paraphrase, " I thank God for those who study apologetics, but God doesn't need me to defend Him. He does a fine job Himself. "

[@apilkey]

D Willcocks Faith is believing the Lion is in the room without having the lights on to show you. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT SEEN: HEBREWS 11:1 1 Now FAITH IS the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT seen. You don’t see the Lion so that you can then believe it’s there. You BELIEVE so you can “see” the Lion. That’s exactly what faith is. *If you gotta see it first then it’s NOT faith.*

[@captainmarvel76927]

Mr. Sprout didnt address the question

[@reformedcatholic457]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 English Standard Version (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. When something is breathed out by God, it has authority, that is infallible authority. The question is what else has this type of authority that God has breathed it out, therefore it must be perfect and sufficient. Then it states that Scripture is profitable or useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness many think this instantly refutes this passage for the Scripture alone doctrine but this passage connects to verse 17 that the man of God may be complete or "perfect" is another term equipped for EVERY good work. So Scripture makes man perfect or complete to perform every good work that God desires for him to do. So we see that Scripture is sufficient since it's God breathed and therefore perfect how can anything else be needed? And then Scripture demonstrates this as Paul states it makes man perfect for every good work. Even in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy we see God ordering Israel not to add to His Word, it shows that what God has spoken is infallible and sufficient thus it's not necessary to add anything to it. Deuteronomy 4:2 ESV You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. The Holy Scriptures is the source or the foundation of the Christian faith, without it we wouldn't have any idea what God has revealed to us, but since we have God's Holy Word, we have the perfect source of truth that explains everything we need to believe as Christians.

[@reformedcatholic457]

@Brian Bachinger Good questions. I'm Reformed with Lutheran and Augustinian influence, I'm no scholar but I do read quite a few articles and books that come from Reformed tradition and learn from my Lutheran friend, since both camps come from the Reformation and have to deal with Roman Catholicism arguments and I do debate with Roman Catholics here on youtube. The arguments at first may sound convincing but it's good to read other scholars and Church historians on the topics on the quotes. 1. Which books do we consider inspired or God breathed? I can provide you links on this topics if you like, I have even have read a few books on this topic. Meltio of Sardis pretty much had the same biblical canon as we do just left one book out from 150 AD, Origen had the same OT canon as we do, St. Cyril of Jerusalem said to his students not to read the apocryphal writings, St. Jerome had the same OT canon as we do and a few more of the fathers OT had a few more books than we do. So, basically most fathers used the Jewish Hebrew canon to help them understand which books to choose in the OT canon, the Jews have the EXACTLY the same canon as we Protestants do, 39 books. Even Scripture give us clues of the OT canon Matthew 23:35, Jesus mentions Abel (Genesis) to Zechariah the whole canon, the canon was already closed at the time of Jesus. 2. Which interpretations of specific doctrines do you consider inspired? I'm sorry I don't understand what you're trying to ask. No interpretations are inspired and obviously the only doctrines are inspired are the ones mentioned in Holy Scripture. 3."Us as protestants generally don't consider that the bread and wine are literally Jesus's body and blood, yet pretty much all of the early Christians and church fathers (taught by the disciples), believed in the real presence in the eucharist" As Reformed I hold to a spiritual presence same as St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Anglicans hold to the same view), the Lutherans hold to the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I encourage you to read their confession the Augsburg Confession and they have very good answers to Rome's view of transubstantiation, this view wasn't really official doctrine of Rome until the 1200's as they declared it so by a council. 3. "Furthermore, the scripture in Timothy that you reference was written before even the Book of Revelation was written. Another issue is that that scripture is correct that the word is profitable for teaching and correction and reproof, but your doctrinal interpretation of specific verses will determine certain nuances of how you read some of these verses and therefore how you are corrected. " Not exactly, there is a father I think it was Rufinus who stated that "all Scripture" meant all the books in Scripture. St. Chrysostom says here that Scripture is replacing the Apostle Paul in his commentary and he states that we aren't to be ignorant of anything because we have the Scriptures, with Scripture we are to disprove what is false, so there some support with my interpretation. 4."The catholic argument would be that the tradition (at least of the early church) would be very important to understand in order to use the inspired scripture to correct and teach." I would agree, because the tradition that St. Irenaeus and Tertullian and others mentioned was later to be the Apostles creed which came from the Apostles, well respected Church historians would agree with this such as Pelikan, Kelly, Schaff.

[@reformedcatholic457]

@Brian Bachinger "2. The second issue they would note is that our protestant bibles don't have the 7 deutercanonical books, which early christian church fathers all quoted from. If scripture is God breathed (which I agree), why would you remove 7 books that were accepted as canon until the reformation? Also note that Luther did not fully remove these 7 books; they were removed later. Also note that Luther himself also wanted to take Revelation, Hebrews and the book of Esther out of the Bible. The 7 deuterocanonical books are all alluded to in some form in the new testament. Here is an example of what seems to be a prophecy of Christ: " As a Lutheran friend told me these books that aren't in Scripture but we can learn from them, they aren't in the biblical canon but they are in a second canon in other words "deutercanonical books". Luther didn't remove them exactly he included the deuterocanonical books in his translation of the German Bible, but he did locate them to after the OT, he didn't consider them equal to Holy Scripture but they were useful to read. Some Reformers Bibles had the apocryphal books in their canon not as inspired but it was encouraged to be read and profit from them. But why were they removed? Most fathers didn't see these books as inspired and the Jews didn't view them as inspired, the Jews would have a good idea which books were inspired and which are not since that's their tradition as many fathers looked to them to help them with the OT canon. This is a problem with the Churches that claim infallibly, both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (and other split churches) claim tradition and their church is infallible, if that is the case why do they have different canons? The Roman Catholic church have 46 books in the OT, the Eastern Orthodox have 49 books, not to mention the Eithiopian Orthodox church which have a different canon again. I asked this question to an Eastern Orthodox and he was honest when he said it shook his faith, he has already been struggling for a while. Here is a quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem lived around 300's AD telling his students not to read the apocryphal books, he affirmed a OT canon close to ours one or two books difference. 35. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishopsof old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave , and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle ; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament. www.newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 4 (Cyril of Jerusalem) Athanasius (300?-375) mention the apocryphal books as "led astray" and the true books. "But(2a) since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians(3), some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtility of certain men, and should henceforth read other books--those called apocryphal--led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. And again he mentions the apocryphal books as "invention of heretics" but doesn't regard them as inspired but profitable for instruction. But as St. Cyril of Jerusalem had close to the same canon, they were closer to us in the books that they accepted. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple. Taken from the link below. www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm?fbclid=IwAR0SOkjORdnhkk49z06eDyuVZzUiIF_k9TlIVXVClxfpK1WNxsE6WC6C2TU As I mentioned before many fathers rejected the apocryphal books, Origen and St. Jerome accepted the same 39 books as we do, the Jews have the same Hebrew canon. Here is Melito of Sardis canon from 150 AD his canon is the earliest and he has about few more books in his canon compared to the Protestant canon. Melito's canon is found in Eusebius EH4.26.13-14:[3] Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books;[4] of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books. Taken from the link below. www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

[@kennycecil9708]

@Biblical Theology I am in the middle of a theological research project on Sola Scriptura and have spent a long time trying to debate catholics. I would love to argue from an educated standpoint. Where would you suggest I go to look up (accurate and unbiased) information on early church fathers and their beliefs? I think that’s the key.

[@reformedcatholic457]

@@kennycecil9708 Ultimately there is no unbiased source of information. But there are articles you can read such as one of the best Church historians in Jaroslav Pelikan and not far behind J.N.D. Kelly you can read his works for free online same with Philip Schaff. There are Roman Catholic scholars who have admitted some fathers indeed held to a form of Sola Scriptura in Irenaeus of Lyons and Cyril of Jerusalem. The question is which source of authority did the early fathers appeal to as their final authority against the heretics? It's very clear it was the infallible Holy Scriptures, which Irenaeus referred to the ground and pillar of truth.

[@ryanpope7891]

Kenny Cecil The reasons above are key reasons why my wife and I are moving from the Reformed to the Catholic Church.

[@tongakhan230]

Going everywhere with rhetoric but getting nowhere.

[@CosmicNous]

No one is disputing that the Bible is inspired. What is the mechanism through which protestants know that the Bible is the word of God? If you don't have the Church, the Apostles, and the Ecumenical councils (what we call Tradition) all in alignment, how do you know that the Bible is the word of God? If the Bible is the only authority, why do pastors preach and interpret it? Where did their interpretation come from and how would anyone else's be judged as incorrect?

[@parrisroy]

I'm not sure why Catholics think all born again Christians should be labelled Protestants! Not all protestants are true Christians themselves. Like Roman Catholics they just have a religion based around Christianity, but that cannot make anyone a Christian. Although it is true by virtue of being born again and becoming a Saint and a Son of God, that this automatically makes all true Christians Protestants, we need to know and remember not all those that Rome calls Protestants are Christians at all, and we put those people in the exact same category as Catholics and Orthodox. i.e. they have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. In other words they do religion but are far from receiving the Salvation freely offered by Christ because their "religion" is not bible based but based on their own imagination of what a Church should look like. (In most Protestant and all Catholic places of meeting this "religion" will have many similarities to their old pagan religious ways.. And, like Rome does, they allow their favourite religious practices and beliefs to supersede the authority of the Word of God. Next thing you know, what Jesus began as his true church has been turned into some strange mixture of paganistic religion, sparsely sprinkled with the odd Bible truth. Like making statues to pray to, and then telling the critic they don't actually pray to the statues, they are just to aid focus when praying to the dead. And quickly adding a bible verse taken out of context to justify their obvious idolatry.

[@ranospiteri5776]

Your Seriously in error big time… Scripture cannot be in conflict with Scripture, and one of the ways this is guaranteed is by Sacred Tradition. There are some instances of Sacred Tradition in the Bible that are interesting. For instance, in Acts 20:35, Paul says the following: "In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" These words are not recorded anywhere else in the Bible, including the 4 gospels, so this is one example of an oral teaching of Jesus being handed on to Paul,who hands it down to us. Another example of this is in the book of Jude 1:9, which says the following: "But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." This dispute, between the Archangel Michael and the devil over Moses' body, is nowhere to be found in the written text of the Old Testament. Here are a few more: Matthew 2:23:And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."(This "he shall be called a Nazarene" prophecy is not in written scripture anywhere). Matthew 23:2:"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;"(Moses' seat is not mentioned anywhere in written scripture). 1 Corinthians 10:4:"and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ." (Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say that a rock "followed" the Israelites in the desert.) 2 Timothy 3:8: "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;" (These 2 individuals who opposed Moses are not written in the Old Testament). Hebrews 11:35: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (This is a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 7, which Luther threw out of his bible in the 16th century. This story cannot be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible. It is in the Catholic Bible, and has been since the 4th century.)

[@blaizeakpakwu6147]

The Bible is the word of God, but sola scriptura is not a teaching of any apostle. You making things up and you can not point it any where in the Bible.

[@jacobgarcia4826]

So the Bible is not the sole and infallible rule of faith and practice, is that what you're saying?

[@pboyle3723]

@@jacobgarcia4826 the bible actually does tell you what the sole rule of faith is ... only some people ignore what is written in the bible >;o) .... Lk 3:2, 5:1, 8:11-15, Jn 1:1 Acts 4:31 etc ... Tradition!! 2 Thes 2:15 - "stand fast and hold to tradition as taught, either by word of mouth or by letter". Rom 10:17 - "Faith comes from what is heard and what is heard comes through the word of Christ". Both Scripture and Tradition (oral teaching) were passed on by the apostles. There was no rush by the Apostles to get everything written down in what became the New Testament. What was written down in the NT is not an Instruction Manual for Christianity ... because the faith was to be passed on by the church Jesus left on earth (again it is in the Bible) ... 2 Tim 2:2 "what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to pass it on"

[@pboyle3723]

... should have said above "sole rule of faith is Scripture And Tradition" 😁

[@2timothy23]

@@pboyle3723 I think you are mistaking tradition in terms of its source. The verses you site speak of tradition (a verbal ordinance or precept) based on the God-breathed inspiration to the Apostles. The same Word that is taught by the epistle is completely in line with the Word given by the Apostles in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. There is no separation as if the Word says one thing and the oral tradition says something different. That would mean someone is adding his opinion or view to the Word of God. The same Word that we preach so sinners can come to faith (Romans 10:14-17) isn't different from what's in scripture. It is the same. Any of the other verses where the Word of God came to someone still lines up with scripture. On the other hand, that same word "tradition" is used in Colossians 2:8 shows the contrast; it says, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." This tradition brings "philosophy and vain deceit" and it is "of men, after the rudiments (principles) of the world, and not after Christ." The traditions you mentioned in your examples are after Christ, who is the living Word (John 1:1). That is the reason Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 15:6, telling them that they "made the commandments of God of none effect by your tradition." Again, notice the contrast between God's Word (commandments) and their tradition (rules of their own making). The same Greek word for tradition is used in all these verses, but the context determines what type of tradition it is, the Word of God or the ideas of man. To make a statement that the "sole rule of faith is scripture and tradition" means that they are somehow different. That scripture is God's Word written and tradition is somehow either God's Word orally given that is different or contrary from the written Word or that is man's own ideas added to the Word. No, the same Word of God that is written is the same as the Word given orally by the early church. And in that respect, it is still scripture alone because it is the Word alone. This is the reason 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is supernatural (God-breathed),.sanctifying (profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness for our spiritual growth), and sufficient (that the Christian may be mature and thoroughly furnished unto all good works). And if tradition comes outside of God's Word, it violates Colossians 2:8 and means you can add anything you make up and continue doing over time to make it equal to God's Word (like many churches do to add or take away from God's Word). This does damage to the God-breathed authority of God's Word.

[@pboyle3723]

@@2timothy23 Eric - I think we will differ over the definition of certain words and terms. Scripture is normally defined as the written Word in the agreed canon of the Bible (although there is disagreement between Catholics and Protestants), and the Tradition I am referring to is “Apostolic Tradition” (as referenced many times in the New Testament -- 1 Cor 11:2 “…hold fast to the Traditions: as I handed them to you”, 2 Thes 2:15 “…stand firm and hold fast the Traditions that you were taught, either by oral statement or letters of ours”, 2 Tim2:2 “what you have heard from me through many witness entrust to faithful people” etc etc So Sola Sciptura is the individual’s interpretation, guided by the Holy Spirit, of the written Word (Scripture) as translated / interpreted from the Bible. The initial dilemma is obviously which of the many translations of the Bible do you use and forensically dissect - as each translation tries to interpret idioms and meaning from words spoken in Aramaic and recorded in Hebrew to Greek then translated / interpreted into English. The second dilemma is who has the Holy Spirit guided correctly - since there are so many interpretations / beliefs / doctrines that are all derived from words in the Bible in all the different Protestant churches that have been formed in the 500 years since the Reformation? So Apostolic Tradition preserved the doctrine and liturgy and was key understanding of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Jesus and the Apostles were in no rush to “produce a book” or get things written down. The teachings were all initially passed on via oral Word by Jesus and then within the Church Jesus left entrusted to his Apostles on earth. Within the Catholic Church, Apostolic Tradition (Oral word and understanding of Jesus teaching) is NOT held higher than Scripture (written Word). Both are held equal … and Apostolic Tradition cannot ever be contrary to Scripture - but not all Tradition is covered and included in Scripture within the Bible. We have many written works from the times of the Early Church written in the first few hundred years after Jesus mission on earth … and even before the canon of the New Testament was agreed. These writings include some from disciples taught by the Apostles. This give some more information on how the early Church understood Jesus’ teaching to allow us to compare with the interpretation of the Catholic Church or the many Protestant churches that have grown since the reformation. It is enlightening to see what those early beliefs are on Sola Scriptura (bearing in mind this is the “pre-New-Testament-Bible” era) …. Or other topics such as Baptism, the Eucharist, Church organisation, weekly worship (Liturgy), Once Saved Always Saved etc etc - but that is an entirely different tread!! So, in my view, Sola Scriptura is not Biblical, historical or logical. But I guess we will agree to disagree on our intetpretations and beliefs 😊

[@GR65330]

Sola scriptura came about when the reformers rejected the papacy. In doing so, they also rejected the teaching authority of the Church. They looked elsewhere for the rule of faith and thought that they found it in the Bible as they had nowhere else to look. By default, the interpretation of scripture was left to the individual, supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there are literally thousands of non-Catholic denominations, each claiming sola scriptura.

[@tmlavenz]

It's pretty ironic, given that each of those thousands of denominations must somehow believe that they're guided by the Holy Spirit in their individual interpretations, as you say -- which means that they are implicitly appealing to the Spirit at work in them to interpret the scripture as they do, for themselves, thus negating the appeal to sola scriptura and actually just appealing to what they say scripture says... They have scripture say what they're 'inspired' to say, using the alibi that only scripture is divinely inspired. It is as if they are denying the fact that words are coming out of their mouth! -- It's almost as if, by excluding the idea that the Holy Spirit might actually work in history in terms of tradition and Church, they abdicate responsibility over the spiritual legitimacy of what they say.

[@jenex5608]

What do you mean reject Papacy? Don't you know the protestant reformation? Seems like you don't

[@doriesse824]

@Greg And each so-called infallible pope has declared former popes to be wrong, and therefore changing church teachings and doctrines.

[@GR65330]

@@doriesse824 Not really, as the Pope is only infallible when he makes a doctrinal statement from the Chair of Peter. The last time this was made was in 1950, so these proclamations are very rare in occurrence. A sitting Pope has never changed doctrinal teaching as doctrine cannot be changed.

[@dorinamary7863]

@@GR65330 Can you prove Peter was ever a pope?

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Yet no where in scripture does it say scripture alone, Church is what gave us the bible 1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

[@BiblicalAuthority1611]

RC Sproul, an evidentialist, disagrees with presuppositionalism, which starts with the authority of God's Word. He argues that this approach is circular reasoning. However, the reality is that preaching the Word of God is the most powerful tool to convince people of its truth, rather than relying on human wisdom or worldly arguments. This approach is not Calvinism, but a mix of humanism and Arminianism.

[@zaggy3110]

The doctrine of Sola Scripture lead to 40000 protestant denominations.

[@chronoblip]

The Bible forbids carnal sectarianism, so how is a doctrine which recognizes scripture as the sole authority then responsible for people creating distinct denominations in direct contradiction with scripture?

[@ljss6805]

@@chronoblip Because the idea that Scripture is the sole authority is literally idiotic and unmoored from Christianity and rationality. LOL.

[@chronoblip]

​@@ljss6805 I am sorry, I was inaccurate in my statement. The correct description would be that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. So, how is the doctrine that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice responsible for churches contradicting the Bible?

[@ronaldcossin4525]

One needs to be Baptized in they Holy Spirit and he will only come to one if you believe in Him that saves , The Spirit will guide one in all truths that one seeks ... .. .

[@ljss6805]

Well, I guess only 1 person out of the 29,999 that started protestant denominations was seeking hard enough.

[@johnmartin1335]

Sproul argues for the canon of scripture using the following steps - The bible is a reliable historical document. Jesus was a prophet. Jesus view of the scriptures - Jewish canon was the word of God. Jesus taught from the Father - divine truth. Jesus sinless is correct in all he claims, based upon his sinless. The bible is the inspired word of God because Jesus taught so. Problems with Sproul's defence of sola scriptora - 1) The method assumes the documents are without error and faithfully document everything and only what Jesus said. If there are errors in the text, Jesus statements may not accurately report what he said about the scriptures. The historicity of the text does not guarantee the text is without error. 2) The text of the NT may have only been written by human authors, without any need for the holy spirit to author any text. The assumed inspiration of the text cannot be proven without reference to a tradition and external authority to the text. Jesus' statements in the NT alone cannot be used to determine the NT canon. 3) There is more than one canon of the Jewish old testament as accepted by different groups such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes. Sproul's argument having Jesus determine to canon of scripture assumes Jesus was without sin and always spoke the truth, when i fact if Jesus taught some of the Old Testament accepted by one Jewish sect and not accepted by another Jewish sect, Jesus words about the OT scriptures may be in error. 4) The NT does not have Jesus' testimony, for Jesus never mentions anything about a NT canon. Then the NT canon may not have any basis to be determined at all using Sproul's method. Therefore, all arguments for a complete canon based upon what Jesus said is inadequate to determine the NT. 5) If the NT is inspired without reference to anything Jesus said about the NT canon, the inspiration of the NT must be determined by another divine authority other than Jesus. Sproul denies a church with the authority from God to bind and loose, so his method assumes a NT canon without a divine authority. Therefore, either the NT is not inspired, or never known to be inspired. Or, the OT is inspired without any need for Jesus to establish the OT contrary to Sproul's claims. 6) Sproul's method assumes Jesus was without sin, and Jesus' human intellect did not know everything. Sproul must assume Jesus's sinlessness and knowledge of the canon from the Father is true, but never proven. Then if not proven, Jesus may have sinned and did not do the father's will at all times, and the texts which say otherwise are in error. The inability to establish the integrity of every statement within the NT treated as historical documents allows Sproul's claims to be challenged at the fundamental level, and no response is forthcoming to demonstrate the historical text is always true at every point. 7) Even if the canon of scripture can be determined using Sprouls method, the canon of scripture does not conclude to the exclusive infallible authority of the text when the text refers to tradition and the church as distinct authorities which bind believers. The canon is never exclusive in the OT, and the NT refers to preaching and the church to decide doctrinal matters in Acts 15. Sola scriptora is thereby indefensible using Sproul's method. Conclusion - Sproul does touch upon the need for an infallible authority to determine the canon. Then so, the OT bears witness to the infallible authority of Israel with her traditions, including Moses seat, to bind believers to a canon. And Jesus's statements about the OT assume a tradition and authority in Israel that was accepted by the faithful at Jesus' time. Then, consistent with the OT witness to Israel, the NT church must also have the same, or very similar authority to determine the entire canon.

[@finalbossoftheinternet6002]

God first gave us sacred scripture in exodus 31:18 when he gave it to Moses written on stone by the finger of God himself. He wanted it written down and he wanted us to follow it. The grass withers and the flower fadeth but the word of our God shall stand Forever. Isaiah 40:8 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:10-11

[@user-sm3qh5xq1y]

Gal. 3:10

[@aadschram5877]

The doctrine of sola scriptura is not in the bible, it is an invention of men, started by Luther in the 16th century. It was not taught the first 1500 years of christianity. Five hundred years after the reformation there are thousends of christian denominations all teaching different, even contradicting, doctrines and all claim to be led by the (same) spirit. The fate of Protestantism is complete disintegration in time.

[@aadschram5877]

@Asaph Vapor But what are debatable issues? Protestants cannot agree with each other, because there is no central authority that can settle it. It is all over the place. That is why Jesus founded (one) church (Mat 16,18) to have the final authority to set the proper doctrines and to settle disputes. Not the bible but the church is the foundation of truth.

[@aadschram5877]

@Asaph Vapor But who tells me what the word of God is. You(?) or is it the church who tells me what the word of God is. We got the bible from the catholic church, not from you.

[@aGoyforJesus]

@@aadschram5877 //But who tells me what the word of God is. You(?) or is it the church who tells me what the word of God is. We got the bible from the catholic church, not from you.// We got the OT Scriptures from which the NT faith is grounded from the Jews. By your logic, you should become an Orthodox Jew... or we could recognize your argument which you got from Catholic apologists is bad.

[@aGoyforJesus]

@@aadschram5877 //But what are debatable issues? Protestants cannot agree with each other, because there is no central authority that can settle it. It is all over the place. That is why Jesus founded (one) church (Mat 16,18) to have the final authority to set the proper doctrines and to settle disputes. Not the bible but the church is the foundation of truth.// So many problems here. There are disagreements. OK, so what? There have always been disagreements in the history of Christianity. Should I just go to the pope and ask him about the death penalty & get an answer that contradicts Scripture? Would that make you feel better. You have a centralized answer that's in error. But at least you don't have multiple answers, just one wrong one on the question. Does this make you happy?

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

Amen

[@BanJ0e82]

The reason we need to see the Bible being the ultimate infallible authority is based on the nature of scripture itself. Look at what Jesus said to the Sadducees in Matt. 22:31, “have ye not read (you only read something that is written, right?) that which was SPOKEN unto you by God,” So Jesus saw the Bible (the OT in his day) as the very words through which God speaks. Later, as we read in the New Testament, the words of the apostles would be placed in the same category as the OT scriptures. Therefore, the Bible, both old and New Testament, is the very voice of God. No other written document or decree, whether it be done by a church father, can be placed on the same level as the Bible for that reason. Now, we don’t disparage church tradition. I, as a reformed Protestant, acknowledge the authority of the ecumenical councils, but I also acknowledge that they are not on the same level of divine inspiration like the holy Bible. I believe they consistent with what the scriptures teach about who God is, and what it is essential to believe in order to be saved.

[@Guzmudgeon]

If you are a Protestant, take this to heart. A well meaning but uninformed scholar cannot defend the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura citing Scripture. So he must ramble on about stuff not even close to Sola Scriptura. This video may have been mis titled.

[@amacr.1549]

How does this prove that the Bible alone is all we need and not tradition?

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Yet the Church compiled the bible in 383AD and the early Christians celebrated mass every Sunday from the time of Christ, the bible also says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth

[@amacr.1549]

George Ibrahim Couldn’t agree with you more George, as a Catholic I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura.

[@georgeibrahim7945]

AMac R. That’s right when protestants say bible alone they forget that Jesus Christ himself is the Word of God yet he wrote nothing down he left us a Church and his disciples behind. Also St Paul tells us in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of MOUTH or by letter.

[@doriesse824]

@@georgeibrahim7945 Where does the bible say the early Christians celebrated mass every Sunday from the time of Christ?

[@saved6655]

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; God breathed, spoke from God, Theo-an-u-staus 2 Peter 1:16-21 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"- (this is at the mt of transfiguration) and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. The origin is from the Holy Spirit of God Why do we believe in scripture alone? Because God spoke. That’s it God spoke!!! Why do we believe what we believe? Because God said, why am I against abortion? Because God said. Why am I against homosexuality? Because God said. Why do we live life in a certain way as a family? Because God says. Here’s what I tell my kids when there having a sinful moment, God says to honor your mother and father. So if they tell me so what, then I will discipline them, why? because God says. Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. “The faith” and it’s meaning, in this context it’s not talking about a quality of people’s belief. It’s talking about a list of doctrines. A group of teachings that were handed to the early church fathers from the apostles. So we’re to contend for “the faith” we are to fight for those doctrines. Then it says “which was once for all handed down to the saints.” This is a blow to the thoughts that you can add to Gods word. “Once for all” past tense, it’s a done deal and we are to fight for that. So the faith is the doctrines and they have already been handed to us. We as the church are to stand up and fight for sola scriptura, the doctrines that have already been wrote down for us. Galatians 1:6-9 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! Paul is saying once that message (the gospel) goes out nobody has the authority to change it. This is a absolute denial of other authority’s (the Pope, Joseph smith, Charles Taze Russel ext….) Paul is very admit here, he’s saying even if I come back and try to change or distort the gospel, or even a angel. He says “if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” Accursed, this is a heavy word, Anyone who changes the gospel what so ever is damned. Mark 7:7-9 But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. This is exactly what false church’s or sects, or religions do. It says “Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'” They are turning there own teachings into the same or higher authority than the word of God. That is the only way they can take control or divert from the truth, is if they change the truth. Christ says “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” So not only changing the scripture but full out setting aside. For example, no where dose it teach to worship Mary, as a mater of a fact you would have to set aside the second commandment, you shall have no other Gods, to accomplish the tradition of Marrian dogmas. God absolutely knew what was going to happen and breathed this scripture out to keep his church from stumbling. The only way to do this is sola scriptura.

[@urawesome4670]

Where else are you going to get the Words of Jesus?

[@ljss6805]

Simple: you can't. Not sure why you need a 5:11 minute video to state the obvious.

[@glennlanham6309]

YOU CAN'T...its not IN THERE

[@FalconOfStorms]

He just did, and it is.

[@danielomitted1867]

Sola scriptura is proven simply by the fact the bible never presents another infallible authority like itself. Explicitly it's taught when Paul says scripture is sufficient so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work. I've noticed that people who argue against the doctrine of sola scriptura never say what it is they are proposing in its place, probably because they know what they're offering can't stand up to the same level of scrutiny.

[@BoereViking]

Hahaha classical Catholic...

[@glennlanham6309]

@@danielomitted1867 Paul says it is SUFFICIENT for every good work...NOWHERE does the Bible say It ALONE is our authority What is the Word of God, Scripturally? Think the beginning of John

[@glennlanham6309]

@@danielomitted1867 John 1:1, In the Beginning was the....WORD...is he talking about a book right there?

[@thecatechumen]

This video has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.

[@gregc7517]

The last sentence was as much of the defense for sola scripture "acquiescing to the teaching of the Lord". Fine, but the Bible also says tradition (teaching) is handed down demonstrably and by word of mouth and assuming it does not contradict the basic premise of the Biblical spiritual message then how can it be forbidden? How can any form of spiritual enrichment that brings one closure to Jesus and God be bad? When Jesus retreated into the desert for 40 days did he take Biblical scrolls with him to pray or did he pray in the spirit? Reading and contemplating the Bible is an excellent thing. Everyone who wants to live in Jesus must do this but graces from God and Jesus can also come from deep spiritual prayer, faith and works of charity when they are focused on serving and loving the Holy Trinity. A commitment and surrender to Jesus is key.

[@captainmarvel76927]

May Christ the King rebuke this heresy, and this heresy, as sacred scripture from the epistle of St. Paul to Titus sayeth (1:9-12), "Embracing the faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers. For there are also many disobedient, vain talkers, and seducers: especially they who are of the circumcision: Who must be reproved, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of them a prophet of their own said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beast, slothful bellies." Where is the sacred bible verse that sayeth it verbatim, "scripture alone," Mr. Sproul? Where is it?

[@followeroftheway1928]

Notice how we protestants have the OG canon of Jewish scripture? Unlike Catholics who've added wisdom scripture to their biblical canon (which the Jews never accepted as inspired holy scripture). Notice all of the things Catholics defend and notice how don't align with the Bible. It's almost as if they don't want scripture alone for a reason... As if we aren't scripture alone, we leave it up to serious personal interpretation by those who claim to have had a revelation from God. Those with high authority can claim to be in contact with the most High and add some extra steps.

[@doriesse824]

And their popes have all disagreed with each other, changing very important and fundamental doctrines at the flick of a wrist. I grew up Catholic, so I'm speaking from inside experience.

[@matthewbroderick8756]

6 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down. Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the Church. The same Church authority that existed way before the new testament was even written, and that later determined which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Matthew Broderick same can be said with Jesus Christ he didn’t write anything down he left us his Church and apostles behind. In fact Christ is the Word of God manifested in the flesh.

[@matthewbroderick8756]

@@georgeibrahim7945 I agree! Jesus Christ is the Word, as Is the oral teaching of all 12 Apostles and the written word, for the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the Church. You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Matthew Broderick thanks brother, also St. Paul tells us that the Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth, no where does it state that the bible is. St Paul also tells us in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of MOUTH or by letter.

[@matthewbroderick8756]

@@georgeibrahim7945 Awesome! So true! 6 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down! You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

[@matthewbroderick8756]

@A saph V So? So, Scripture alone is indeed not the only authority! Scripture alone is a man made tradition that came 1500 years later! According to anyone who holds that man made tradition, the 6 Apostles who taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down, had no binding authority and what they taught orally was not the word of God! You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

[@el-sig2249]

This was just a long, convoluted effort that eventually said nothing. Why? Because it is impossible to make a logical defence of sola scriptura !

[@jediv9492]

@Bellas Palabras de Vida *Scripture Alone doctrine does not say its the only truth or only authority. There are many authorities such as Jesus/God, Apostles, Church, Leaders .. but even Jesus, Apostles and NT Church all appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they appealed to traditions.* *Jesus and apostles all appealed to Scriptures only as support for doctrines. They cited "it is written, as the Scriptures say" 150 times in nt alone. They did not appeal to traditions of Pharisees and Moses as doctrines. NT church of the Bible also appealed to “what God says” and “what God said” as support for doctrines at Jerusalem Council. Acts 15. Not traditions. Isn’t that good enough proof Christians should only take doctrines from Scriptures only?* you said This doesn't prove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura: Sola Scriptura teaches that the only authority on faith and tradition comes from the Sacred Scriptures,

[@EndoftheTownProductions]

(1) If you believe in the inerrancy of scripture, then Matthew 16:18 clearly establishes the Primacy of Peter, which is difficult to dispute if one does an unbiased exegesis of the passage. (2) The Petros/Petra argument, used by some non-Catholics, has been summarily rejected not only by Catholic scholars but also Protestant Greek scholars Joseph Thayer and D.A. Carson, who have explained that in first century Koine Greek the words "petros" and "petra" meant the same thing: namely, "rock." In Koine Greek, small stone would have been written as lithos. Also, in Aramaic, the word "Kepha" is the word for rock and would have been used twice because there are no grammatical issues with gender regarding nouns. (3) If Christ did not hold Simon, his first disciple, in such high regard, then why does he change his name to Peter in the first place if not to build his church on a solid foundation -- "a rock"? In Matthew 10:2, Peter is the first apostle listed. Peter is present at the transfiguration, which obviously shows his importance among the disciples. Peter was singled out by Christ and elevated. (4) Peter is the disciple who declares that Jesus is the messiah, which leads to Jesus building his church upon Peter (Matthew 16:13-20). It is obvious that as the leader of the disciples, he was the one who steps forward to proclaim Christ as the messiah, which leads to Christ conferring on Peter the keys to the kingdom and establishing him as the “foundation rock” of the church. (5) The early Church Fathers (e.g. Tatian the Syrian, Tertullian, The Letter of Clement to James, and Origen--just to name a few) clearly understood Peter as the rock upon whom Christ built his Church. Therefore, it is clear that Christ singled out Peter from the beginning of his ministry, had him present at a key event The Transfiguration, and proclaimed him as the "rock" upon whom he would build his church after Peter declared who Jesus was, which all clearly establishes the Primacy of Peter, which was understood and promulgated by the early Church Fathers. Petrine theory is clearly supported by scripture as well as tradition.

[@blusheep2]

1)Even if we were to assume that Jesus was saying that Peter was going to be a rock by which the early church was founded, that would not necessitate any of the other many conclusions that have been extrapolated from that admission: a. Peter was the first Pope b. Peter was the only apostle that the church would be founded upon c. That any church structure that followed Peter's leadership would be infallible and not corruptible. d. That any leader that follows Peter's leadership would either be equal to Peter, have any infallible qualities, or given any keys. Verses in Acts dismantle the primacy of Peter in the early church where others are making decisions instead of him. James for instance and when Paul rebukes Peter in another instance. Peter is obviously a central figure in the Bible and in the early church. Our disagreements should not encourage us to not honor Peter in the plan of Christ or even Mary in the plan of the God. The verse suggests that he will be a prominent figure and the Bible appear to record this. The Bible loves to record all his failures, all the way up to the time Paul rebukes him for showing favoritism. 2) This leads into the grammar because the word for Peter means something akin to a small stone, a single stone, an insecure stone, moving or shifting. The second word means a rock, a cliff, solid formation, fixed and immovable. We can cherry pick scholars but if this is what these words mean then there is a difference. The Aramaic shouldn't even be mentioned because we don't have an Aramaic Gospel. We have a Greek Gospel and in Aramaic there are also different words for Rock. So we can't refer to Aramaic to ignore the issues with gender formulations in Greek. The gender formulations, (Petros masculine) and (Petra feminine) provide a very good reason to conclude that Jesus was playing with words and that the second rock was different from the first. We can find support for this in 1 Corinthians 10:4 where we find "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ." In Ephesians Christ is our chief cornerstone 3)I agree that Peter has a prominent position. It doesn't follow that all Popes that follow him are also so chosen. Nor does it speak to their right to make doctrine through there own personal revelations. 4)He did proclaim Jesus as the Messiah but he was asked. So your conclusion isn't obvious. Why did Jesus pick 12 apostles? 12 is an ancient number for government. 12 tribes of Israel, 12 apostles, 144000(12X12) martyrs before the throne. If your interpretation is correct then why not more about it in Acts? 5)Are you trying to suggest that there weren't early church fathers that saw Jesus as the rock and not Peter? If Peter was so obviously the first Pope how could it be that these church fathers wouldn't think the verses in Matthew were as clear as you do? _______ The early church had three regions. Rome, Asia Minor and Alexandria. I've seen no evidence that one submitted to the other. They all worked together and the legacies of these regions all trace their lineage back to one of the Apostles. So I think its clear in scripture that certain figures like Peter and John took a prominent role in Jesus's ministry and were even scheduled to play an important role in the churches early years. Its a big leap from there to the doctrines of the Pope in the present day and the authority given to him, especially in the light of verses that tell us to reject any gospel that begins to be preached that varies from the one we were given. Even in these verse and not 4 verses later Jesus calls Peter Satan. So in almost the same thought Peter is picked out and then humbled as if to say, "just because I have plans for you doesn't mean you should think yourself infallible." The other part of those verses is "and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." The general understanding is that this rock will stand strong against the enemies attacks and it will endure but that is a misreading because "gates" are not offensive weapons. They are defensive structures. The idea then is not the endurance of the church but rather how hell will not be able to stop the churches momentum and the plan of Christ. Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense if we apply Petra to Peter. Hell isn't going to be able stop Peter? Hell, put Peter to death on a cross upside down. Now if we understand Petra to mean Christ then this makes perfect sense. Isaiah declared the chief cornerstone. Paul himself wrote that Jesus was this chief cornerstone. Even David said, "Lead me to a rock that is higher then I. (A shirt I'm currently designing, btw. :) ) In Luke the disciples quarrel over who will be the greatest. If Christ had already chosen Peter in this way then why the debate? _______ My summation is this. I understand why Catholics use this verse. Its not an impossible interpretation. Its possibly true. The verse is not that clear even though you think so. I think biases might be at play on either side of the question. In the end, even if its Peter, the extractions that the CC has made do not necessarily follow from this interpretation. God Bless.

[@jediv9492]

*It's Scripture Alone. Not Bible Alone. 150+ verses say Jesus, Apostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they took doctrines from traditions of Moses or Pharisees. This already proves Sola Scriptura.* *Roman ctists love defying God and His Words.* you said The Bible didn’t come in one package. No valid reason for sola scriptura.

[@LetsgoB]

I’m convinced that the Bible is inerrant, but where does it say it’s the ONLY source of revelation?

[@charliek2557]

He didn't explain why it's the SOLE rule of faith though as the title of the video suggests.

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

He didn’t explain anything . He jumped from the Bible is basically historical to Jesus being a prophet of God because the Bible said that.

[@jediv9492]

​ @Methodius ☦ *Roman ct DEBUNKED: Bible speaks of 2 types of traditions: Acceptable Traditions (traditions of Jesus/APostles, 2 Thes **2:15**) and Unacceptable Traditions (Traditions of men, Mat 15, Mat 23). Sola Scriptura accepts Acceptable Traditions and rejects Unacceptable Traditions. No contradictions at all.* *THe question now is: why did Roman Ct take doctrines from its own m m traditions? And why 95% of r ct doctrines did Not come from traditions of Jesus and Apostles?* *Acceptable Traditions:* *Bible does speak of traditions of Jesus and Apostles we hold fast to. 2 Thes **2:15**. Whatever doctrines that Jesus and Apostles taught falls into this category.* *Unacceptable Traditions:* *But .... Bible rejects m m unbiblical traditions of men, Mat 15, 23; such as those of Pharisees and R Church. These are traditions apart from those of Jesus and Apostles. 95% of R Church doctrines falls under this category.* you said Sola Scriptura DEBUNKED: But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.† (2 Thessalonians 2:13-15)

[@JohnMoog-ug6bk]

I gather sola scriptura as opposed to nuda scriptura means that only the written bible is infallible - therefore the contrary argument would be that church tradition is infallible - where would scripture support that, & how to avoid infinite regress to the point that the present woke pope is infallible?

[@MrPeach1]

not every book on the bible claims to be scripture. there are plenty of reliable books that are not scripture

[@Orthodoxy.Memorize.Scripture]

Luther and Calvin hadn’t abandoned tradition. They sought to correct corrupted traditions in the Catholic Church. They held onto tradition as witnessed by their constant dependence on the early church fathers. Sola Scriptura and it’s logical outworking leads to the abandonment of tradition, which is impossible. A person will embrace some form of tradition at some point, whether from themselves or an established group like the plethora of Protestant denominations. I’m an evangelical Christian for now, but even I can see this. If only the Reformers joined Eastern Orthodoxy then maybe the mess it caused which Rome has a big hand in, wouldn’t have happened.

[@Gericho49]

While God gave us intellects and reason, unfortunately the Bible could not be described as perspicuous (sorry Dr Luther) anymore than the challenge of someone trying to understand the many works of Shakespeare, a book on physical chemistry or a manual on Golf Techniques, by personal study alone. Right? * If someone else is needed to tell the believer what the text means, Scripture would not be his sole authority; someone else would have binding authority When Paul speaks of "ALL scripture is useful for teaching" most, if not all of the NT was merely in the minds of the apostles. If Paul died circa 62AD then when he speaks of written Scripture at least, it could only be the OT and the Oral Tradition being taught by the apostles. Moreover, did Paul claim, hint or predict any of his letters would be at some future time, be included in a "NT" Canon? And who might have had the duty to wade through some 70 gospels to decide which were "God breathed?"

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

I’m a believer in Christ but this is the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard lol. Can’t believe there are actually comments praising this explanation. It jumps from the Bible is mostly historical to the Bible proves Jesus is divinely prophetic . Also , even if this was solid reasoning , it would only prove that the scriptures directly quoted by Jesus are inspired scriptures. Good grief.

[@Kenneth-nVA]

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work

[@ProtestantKing7]

Second Timothy is referring to the Old Testament only and Timothy doesn’t even tell us which is scripture and what isn’t scripture. Nice try

[@stevenirizarry9427]

@@ProtestantKing7it also doesn’t tell us which books are inspired and actually the word of God. Patrick Madrid debate with James White in sola scriptura convinced me to convert away from Protestantism.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 utterly refutes sola scriptura and Matthew 25:31-46 utterly refutes sola fide.

[@shepherdson6189]

1 Timothy 3:15 also affirms the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. James 2:24 and James 2:26 also refutes sola fide.

[@GeorgePenton-np9rh]

@Asaph Vapor 'For I was hungry, a d you gave me no food, thirsty, and you gave me no drink..."

[@shepherdson6189]

@Asaph Vapor Jesus makes clear, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). We can’t earn our way into heaven, and yet God calls us to do our part and be purified of our worldly attachments. The way to heaven is hard (Matt. 7:13-14). St. Paul also affirms that power reaches perfection in weakness (2 Cor. 12:8-10) and that we will be purified before entering heaven (1 Cor. 3:15). What is truly shameful is turning away from Christ and laying down our cross. Matthew 7:21 (D-R): 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[@shepherdson6189]

@Asaph Vapor 1 Corinthians 3:15 (D-R): 15 If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. This indicates a purification process, I did not misquote.

[@shepherdson6189]

@Asaph Vapor Your objections have been answered many times by many Catholics, that would be enough. God bless you

[@michaelstanley4698]

'We having the same Spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak (not argue); Knowing that He which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus...' (2Cor.4:13,14). Sheep do not need to argue 'the truth of the gospel', yet goats cannot help but argue from every objection, enjoying being 'contrary' to the Spirit of Christ, of Truth. Philosophers have been 'taken captive by [the devil] at his will', as Paul warned 2000 years ago (2Tim.2:26, Col.2:8, Acts 17:23). Where, in Scripture, is any one argued into the kingdom of God with philosophy?

[@johnnyd2383]

No, you can not defend it. It is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Since it is extra-Biblical, it can be only one thing - a man invented tradition. Ouch.!

[@stevenharder308]

Okay, the NT is a generally reliable historical document, and the OT scriptures used by Jesus are considered infallible based on his endorsement, but how is this reasoning supposed to establish the infallibility of the NT without falling back into circularity?

[@doriesse824]

Jesus certainly didn't endorse everything in the OT. He refuted and changed many things.

[@stevenharder308]

@@doriesse824 “many things”? What do you have in mind?

[@jediv9492]

@Cecilia Morrissey *150+ verses say Jesus, Apostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they took doctrines from traditions of Moses or Pharisees. This already proves Sola Scriptura.* *Roman ctists love defying God and His Words.* you said Where in scripture says SOLA ESCRITURA?

[@Ryan_Zell]

which is correct 1 or 2: DIRECT QUESTIONS #1 Ephesians 2:10 RSV For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. #2 Ephesians 2:8 RSV For by grace you have been saved through faith ALONE; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God- AND THIS, 1 OR 2: #1 James 2:24 RSV [24] You see that a man is JUSTIFIED by works and NOT by Faith Alone. #2 Luther 2:24 You see that a man IS JUSTIFIED by Faith Alone.

[@gungusmoo]

Praise God that Brother Sproul is a presuppositionalist... As of 2017

[@James22426]

Regarding 2Tim3:15-17, i noticed Prots stress the qualifiers attributed to the man of God ("complete" and "fully" and "every") but fail to stress the qualifer attributed to Scripture which is "All". The qualifier "All" leaves open the possibility of other things being inspired of God. Stressing the qualities of the man of God does not teach Sola Scriptura. Let me give an example: All military documents and manuals are useful/profiitable for making a soldier complete, fully equiped for every military duty. The above does not mean Sola Manual. Soldiers need Military leadership, training, battle field Intel and much more. Prot's only source of Truth is Scripture and yet they don't even understand basic grammatical logic. 2 Pet 3:16 "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

[@valdotc8559]

2 Tim is not the basis of sola scripture. These are: 1) "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20) 2) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11) 3) "that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written" (1 Corinthians 4:6) 4) "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Mathew 15:3) "But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men." (Mathew 15:9). Here is a clear example, while Jesus told to call no man "father" because God is the father ("And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven." Mathew 23:9). And while the Bible teaches "The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2), the catholic church calls the leaders "fathers" and forbid them to marry creating rules through tradition AGAINST The bible. Biblical christian leaders are pastors, bishops and elders, not "fathers". The Bible teaches that Jesus is the high priest, while the catholic tradition makes the pope the high priest. The Bible teaches to worship ONLY God, while the catholic tradition worship the saints, creating the "devotion" doctrine, which is just a name that covers WORSHIP acts. Pray to God, praise God, bow for God to worship him and do the SAME for the saints and thats not worship? And historically, the importance of SOLA SCRIPTURE was that the catholic church was teaching salvation through human works and was selling salvation through indulgences. The Bible teaches that salvation is by faith and by grace.

[@ProjectCould]

Romans 10:17 refutes this reasoning. Christianity is based upon circular reasoning, but it is RIGHT to do so because it is the truth.

[@ProjectCould]

​@@mehi8145 Faith comes by hearing the word of God. How do we know faith comes by hearing the word of God? Romans 10:17 says it does. This is circular reasoning, yet biblical & true reasoning. Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[@menofvirtue6238]

No where in scripture does it say scripture alone and we see that in St John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. No where does it say these other things weren't written down somewhere or does it say we can learn about them. There were no bibles for a very long time that people could even afford. Then how was Jesus words brought to the world? How did people learn after the Apostles died?

[@bazzy8376]

Paul was preaching to the crowd who had been following him daily. One man cried “Wait, doesn’t prophesy say that there will come a great man who will show that your teachings cannot be trusted unless they are in writing? If that’s true - ZIP IT, we’re going home and waiting for the book.” Paul answered “It’s true. Prophesy says that many fallen angels will name religions after themselves and say that only writings can be trusted, and that only they can interpret them.” So, the man and some protesters left, the others confessed theirs sins and shared the sacrificial meal and discussed the teachings. These people spread Paul and the other apostles teachings throughout the world. Many became martyrs. Sure enough, 1500 years later a great man came and taught the people that they could only trust the teachings that were written in the book, and only in the way that he interpreted. His followers waved their bibles at Paul’s loyal followers and jeered “You people have been following a false teaching, it’s right here in Paul’s letters.”

[@valdotc8559]

Thats full of lies. By the way, the "luteran" church and many protestant churches were named by THE CATHOLICS. Luther didnt even aprove this name.

[@dougmichalak5687]

You can't. Not without ignoring the plethora of Scriptures showing that God also speaks to us through other means. Can you justify Prima Scriptura using Scripture? Yes. The ultimate authority of Scripture? Yes. But Scripture alone? No.

[@malcolmabram2957]

I am a theologian and have to confess that I do not understand what 'sola scriptura' actually means. As for me, there is only one Word and that is living and human incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ. Is my confidence in Scripture or the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (John 5: 39), and if we treat Scripture as the infallible code to follow then this leads to death (2-Corinthians 3:6). As for me the leading and the law of the Spirit is my life, but I do confess the Spirit uses the Bible heavily to give language for my confession in Christ Jesus. Moreover if I believe the Spirit has convicted me, I feel uncomfortable if I can find no Scripture to qualify it. But then Abraham had no Scripture, yet God doted on him.

[@calson814]

Of course the Bible doesn't claim itself to be the "only" infallible word of God.

[@georgeibrahim7945]

Eric Calson Jesus himself is the Word of God manifested in the flesh and he didn’t write anything down but preached orally and left us a Church and his disciples

[@calson814]

@@georgeibrahim7945 yep...

[@doriesse824]

@@georgeibrahim7945 That church cannot be found anymore. Marcion of Sinope, son of the Bishop of Sinope appointed as one of the 70 who took the gospel to the world in the Great Commission, tried to reformulate and reestablish it. There were no priests, no altars, and the only gospel he advocated was a modified Gospel According to Luke, and a few select epistles. He was having great success, and amassing a very large following, until he and his followers were executed or forced to relent their beliefs. That's the typical response from those who are threatened by the very truth.

[@dcdreamwake7]

so if jesus is god. And the bible is the word of god. That means the bible is also the words of jesus. And by the way. You believe the bible is the word of. You don't know it.

[@eleftheriosiliopoulos8796]

Θεσ. Β' 2,15 ῎Άρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. Θεσ. Β' 2,15 Άρα λοιπόν, αδελφοί, να στέκετε σταθεροί, και να κρατάτε τις παραδόσεις που διδαχτήκατε είτε με λόγο είτε με επιστολή μας. So, brethren, stand firm, and keep the traditions you have been taught, either by word or by our letter.

[@RKcousins625]

This video does not touch Sola Scriptira

[@lucianbane2170]

wow this was amazing

[@ibperson7765]

The difference between the infallibility and omniscience.... one knows nothing false, another knows all that’s true.

[@preenahcu]

Misleading title...

[@rodriquenongkynrih6665]

Scripture Alone means Leave Alone

[@jvlp2046]

My Personal Opinion (non-biblical opinion) regarding "Sola Scriptura" (Written Scripture Alone)... during the time when the New Covenant Scriptures of God thru Christ Jesus were not written down yet or have not fully completely written down yet... the early Christians of the 1st Cent. A.D., before the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire, their CHRISTIAN FAITH in Christ Jesus thru God's Grace, practiced their FAITH based on VERBAL/ORAL TRADITIONS alone written from the Hearts of the Apostles and Disciples... But after the 2nd Temple was destroyed in around 70 A.D., more or less 40 years after Christ Jesus ascended back to Heaven with God the Father... God decided to ALLOW only those VERBAL/ORAL TRADITIONS to be written down by God's People guided by the Holy Spirit that have significance, relevance, and importance to the process of SALVATION of mankind... Those oral/verbal traditions were practiced by the Early Christians in the 1st Cent. A.D. that was not written down was God's DECISION not to practice no more... most especially after the book of revelation was written down by Apostle John at Patmos in around 92 - 96 A.D. Apostle John said (Rev. 22:18-19/paraphrase)... "I testified and warned anyone who hears the Prophecy of this SCROLL (singular/Book/Bible): if anyone ADDS any WORDS to them, God will add to that person the PLaGUES (tribulation/troubles) written in this scroll (Book)... And anyone who SUBTRACT (takes away) any WORDS of the Prophecy from this scroll (Book), God will take away to that person any share from the Tree of Life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll (Book)."... Amen Therefore, in my personal opinion, today, in our time when the WORD of GOD is finally completed without any FAULT of its OWN (not of Human Scribers' errors/mistakes like handwriting, spelling, printing, grammar, language translation, etc.)... we, Christian believers and followers of Christ must RELY Solely upon the written Holy BOOK/BIBLE (no longer Oral/Verbal Traditions).

[@jediv9492]

*Of course Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. R ctists are just demonstrating you do not read the Bible.* you said Sola scriptura Is not In the Bible.

[@arandomdude9982]

Can you kindly recite the verse

[@jediv9492]

@@arandomdude9982 *150+ verses say Jesus, Apostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures/Written Word only for doctrines. Not once they took doctrines from traditions of Moses or Pharisees. This is already Sola Scriptura.* *Cite all the 150+ verses that mentioned "it is written", "as the Scriptures say"?*

[@jediv9492]

@Cecilia Morrissey *You are once again demonstrating you do not read the Bible. Jesus did ask Apostle to "Write down in the book".* you said nor He said “Write down My word” We have to listen to His apostles.

[@joshanderson8566]

You can't, because you can't determine the Canon of Scripture with Scripture. Opened and shut case. You need an authority structure outside the Bible, that has the authority from God, aka Jesus, to definitely declare the Canon. No one can know what goes in the Bible without the knowledge of their forefathers.

[@MrJayb76]

Omg that was a lot of rambling for nothing. It is still circular reasoning.

[@josephgoemans6948]

Okay sure, that proves that the old testament (and possibly the gospels, but this is far weaker as Christ never referred to the gospels as scripture) are the inspired word of God. But then what of the New testament? How do we know what ancient texts are actually inspired and which are not?

[@HearGodsWord]

The Gospels were written after Christ's ascended so He couldn't have referred to them.

[@JamesMC04]

The Scriptures authenticate themselves. Or to be more exact, the holy spirit who is their author, by His working through them and in the heart of the believer bears witness in the heart of the believer that they are the true word of God Almighty, and come to the believer with the authority of God Himself. The discernment that the Scriptures are indeed the word of God is not the unaided work of man but is the testimony of God graciously bestowed upon the Christian believer in Christ by the Holy Spirit of Christ. Just as Christ opened the Scriptures to the disciples upon the road to Emmaus, so also He opens up the Scriptures through His Spirit to his disciples today. To deny this, is to say that He has ceased to be the Shepherd of His Church. The Scriptures don’t need human apologists to defend their authority. They show by their authority over and in the believer and by their fruits in the life of the believer that they are the word of God that comes with the authority of God Who is the supreme author of all the Scriptures in all their parts. It is objected that their authority can be mimicked by false Scriptures such as the Koran or the Book of Mormon. But since when did the existence of imitations of something true make that which was true to be itself a fake ? The logic of the objection destroys not only the authority of the Bible, but also all authority whatsoever; including that of the Church, which is frequently what deniers of the doctrine of Scriptura Sola wish to put in place of the doctrine they deny. The objection that there are many contenders and claimants to divine authority throws doubt upon the authority of God himself; because there are many false claimants to authority; but God alone is the source of all authority in heaven and on earth. Are we to argue that because there are many false Christs, therefore Christ himself is false ? No Christian argues in that way. But if Christ is not falsified by false Christs, why should the authority of the Bible be falsified by false claimants to the same authority as the Bible possesses ?

[@colepriceguitar1153]

Many bishops in the time when the New Testament canon was formed adamantly affirmed sola scriptura, including Augustine and Basil. Does the Catholic Church consider them heretics?

[@neilanadams5173]

This is the same waffling we find from prots as with the canon.

[@217truthseeker]

The invisible created the visible, something from nothing. GOD IS, therefore I am, GOD is Sovereign, independent, therefore HIS word is. The word is Christ, Christ is GOD. The Word is infallible because God is infallible.

[@kathleenrutherford733]

AMEN

[@saved6655]

We see the Roman Catholic Church in the end times they are the church of thyatira. This is one of the seven churches Revelations 2:18-22 "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this: 'I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. It says “Your deeds of late are greater than the first.” When the Roman Catholic Church started in the late 300 ad, they did not hold to all the false teachings they do now. Like, Mediatrix of all graces,

[@doriesse824]

And this was all Luther was attempting to change. The excesses and criminal elements of the RCC. It had to finally boil down to Scripture itself so that no man could appoint himself above it; i.e., popes.

[@James22426]

Protestant beliefs are contradcitory and self refuting which proves it is not of God. 1)All beliefs must be derived from scripture 2)All scripture refers to the old testament in 2 Tim 3:15-17 3)2 Tim 3:15-17 is not part of the old testament 4)Conclusion, 2 Tim 3:15-17 cannot be used to prove Sola Scriptura

[@augustvonmacksen2526]

Waiting to hear anything about Sola Scriptura in this video.

[@randykuhns4515]

I have to disagree with Mr. Sproul on this,.. Faith is Borne from God, not from what a man can rationally see TO Believe,.. We're moved to Believe even as young children who easily and simply Believe, And by Believing in Him we confidently dig into the Bible without wondering about it's inerrancy so to get all what these scriptures are supposed to move us to see and obtain Revelation from every Word that is written,.,.. I don't think Apologetics should enter the church, that's for Worship,..that's for the front lines where those who don't Believe can hear rebuttal to some of the audacious claims being put out there by those who hate Him,.. to give the fence-sitters who are looking for truth something to grab onto,.. Anyone can approach Him through Faith, and seriously seek Him to Hear your Plea,. That's what reaches God,.... Apologetics can only lead those who are honestly looking for truth,.... where they can choose to personally Seek Him for His Mercy,.. and NO apologetics can fit into that place between you and God,.. only Faith will,.. that's it.

[@reinholdwatty364]

In my understanding R. C. Sproul did exactly what you write apologetics should do. I don't understand why you disagree with him. He does such a good job to help sceptics

[@randykuhns4515]

​@@reinholdwatty364 I simply believe that place between you and God can only be filled through Faith, which is simply Believing,.. If Faith has already been bestowed by God then any "evidence" becomes a moot subject,.. IF we, as He states, have the Faith of a mustard seed then we can extrapolate from that tiny bit ALL we need to commune with God through His Son, Those who have yet come to Believe may need something (apologetics) to cause them to pause long enough to really wonder the possibility of the existence of God, For it states In Romans 1: 19 ,.. "The Wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness OF MEN WHO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH BY THEIR WICKEDNESS, Because God has made it plain to them. for since the Creation of the World God's invisible qualities - His Eternal Power and Divine nature - have been clearly seen. Being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse",.. As I see it, The line "of men who suppress the truth" are what apologetics are for,... to give rebuttal TO those who have suppressed the Truth by their wickedness,.. So to give the "fence sitters" something to pause FOR and spark them to try Seeking on their own which is how God reaches out TO them, So we give sound rebuttal FOR the fence sitters,... ... Peace to you - John 3:16

[@carmensiekierke3579]

@@randykuhns4515 Romans 1:19 is about general revelation. They know right from wrong and that God exists. It is not saving revelation. Saving revelation only comes from Scripture. Apologetics is being ready to give anyone an answer for the faith that is in you. "Apologetics can only lead those who are honestly looking for truth....where they can choose to personally seek Him." Randy, Scripture says no one seeks God.....God seeks them.

[@Jman155]

Where does it ever say he used the Jewish tradition of the Old Testament in the Bible 😂

[@joeiiiful]

Very well done 👏✔

[@joshuatheo1419]

Isn't them asking us to do that a self defeating argument?

[@Convexhull210]

Yes

[@joshuasy10]

Wrongly titled

[@jamessheffield4173]

Isaiah 34:16a Seek ye out of the book of the law, and read; no one of these shall fail...

[@joseonwalking8666]

Answer. You can't. Even beyond the logic it is in scripture itself.

[@tookie36]

This is an intellectual ?

[@user-eh6qx1bs8m]

There is no such thing in Calvinism as Scripture alone. If there were there would be no such thing as Calvinism

[@carl-catholicmusic-english3039]

There is no verse in Bible that explains BIBLE ALONE AUTHORITY ...... (Yes the Word of God is inspired and we should read it and follow it) ...........but where in the Bible does it say that? I ve talked to hundreds of Protestants online and they can never answer to prove that doctrine (if it says that in the Bible) But what I do see is alot Protestants adding on things that are not even the Bible......

[@letscarryit]

2 Tim 3:16

[@carl-catholicmusic-english3039]

@@letscarryit This scripture is a great scripture and it talks about how precious the word of God is as himself and his words. Yes for reproof correction it also says that we are complete but the problem with just Bible alone authority it doesn’t talk about that This scripture is a great scripture and it talks about how precious the word of God is as himself and his words. Yes for reproof correction it also says that we are complete but the problem with just Bible alone authority it doesn’t talk about that..... 2 Thessalonians says “ stand firm and hold to the traditions that you have learned, whether by our word or our epistle

[@jediv9492]

@@carl-catholicmusic-english3039 *150+ verses say Jesus, Apostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they took doctrines from traditions of Moses or Pharisees. This already proves Sola Scriptura.* *Roman ctists love defying God and His Words.* you said There is no verse in Bible that explains BIBLE ALONE

[@visitor5009]

How can we defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura using Scripture? You can't, because "Sola" Scriptura is anti-Christian, Heretical, anti-Biblical and false. It is NOWHERE to be found. No Christian argues that Scripture is an infalible source, however, Scripture is not the ONLY infalible source of the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. Seek the beginning, the early Church and the Fathers and you will find the truth.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

No Protestant Pastor ever practices Scripture ALONE! Jesus Christ teaches the bread, WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". ( Matthew 26:26). Fallible Protestant Pastors add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus Christ!🤔 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@doriesse824]

That's what He was symbolically saying 'about' the bread. Do you really believe that piece of bread turned into His body as He said that?

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@doriesse824 Do you really believe water turned into wine at Cana? With God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE! Jesus Christ teaches the bread ,WHEN BLESSED, "is My Body ". Fallible Protestant Pastors add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus Christ! No one brings condemnation on oneself for consuming a mere symbol in an unworthy manner as Paul warns in Corinthians! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@doriesse824]

@@matthewbroderick6287 No, the wedding at Cana was another parable, just as Him asking who are his mother and brothers. The stories are all symbolic, not literal. They teach us so much more this way. Where does Jesus teach blessing the bread?

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@@doriesse824 where does Holy Scripture teach Jesus Christ did not turn water into wine at Cana? Where does Holy Scripture teach the wedding at Cana was a parable? You made up that it was symbolic, just as you added the word symbol to "this IS MY BODY ". ( Matthew 26:26). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@doriesse824]

@@matthewbroderick6287 I didn't say it says Jesus didn't turn water into wine. I said it's a parable, and it's a beautiful allegory of creation, the fall, grace and salvation. Why do you think it also doesn't tell us who the bride and groom are, and the deeper meaning of Him referring to Mary as "woman"? Who calls their mother "woman" like that? It would usually be considered disrespectful, but there is a reason for it, reaching all the way back to Eden when Adam referred to Eve in that manner.

[@pjdelucala]

How would you make the argument for Sola Scriptura 5,000 years ago? How would you make the argument for Sola Scriptura in 1700 if you lived in Hawaii? Books are okay. They can help. But the true teacher is experience and learning from that experience. The Knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven is WITHIN YOU.

[@ellobo4211]

There's no sola scriptura in the Bible