The Bible isn't Enough

[@MW-eg4gu]

Try telling this to my Pentecostal cousins. Ha, ha. I'm a Catholic convert who grew up in Mississippi - a verrrry Protestant state. You can imagine the earfuls I got. Ha, ha.

[@panes840]

On day 2 of bingexwatching your video's. You are helping me out so much.

[@catholicskeptic]

@panes840 Glad the videos help, all the Glory to God.

[@JesusfoundedCatholicChurch]

I found your channel or it found me a few days ago. So I subscribed. I was in Protestantism some 55 years, from the time i was 8 until 2019 when my church declared itself NOT 100% pro-life. After a few weeks of prayer and Bible reading, I converted to Catholicism. I had done some research after high school but wasn't ready to convert then. After our RCIA class on the Bible, I knew sola scriptura or bible only wasn't a true doctrine of Christianity. May God bless you!

[@HellenicPapist]

God bless you. ❤️

[@catholicskeptic]

@JesusfoundedCatholicChur... Welcome Home to the Church, God Bless, hope the channel is a blessing to you. Whatever good I do here, it is totally by His Grace. Thanks for the comment and testimony. 🙏

[@calebleach7988]

to be fair, I'm not pro-life either. I'm an abolitionist. Pro-life can mean a great deal of things, and it often makes the implication that abortion is not already illegal. As an abolitionist, I make the assertion that abortion is already illegal because it is murder. Therefore, the goal of abolitionists is not to make abortion illegal, but instead to acknowledge it as murder and therefore already illegal.

[@HannahClapham]

@JesusfoundedCatholicChurch. So what are you going to do when Rome changes its abortion stance?

[@JesusfoundedCatholicChurch]

@@HannahClapham The Catholic Church will never support abortion or else Jesus Christ lied. It would mean that He didn't protect His Church.

[@Spiritof76Catholic]

LOL. I love your podcast. Your channel popped up in my KZbin scroll for the first time yesterday, 5/22/2024. I like your style, plain common sense new covenant Catholic Christianity. Then to learn that you are a convert is the cherry on top. Welcome home brother. So far I have watched several of your videos and they are great. I don’t know why the truth triggered so many protestant commentators. I have never seen such sinful uncharitable behavior anywhere else.

[@catholicskeptic]

@Spiritof76Catholic Thanks. I just pray for them, that they will see the Light and cone home too. Glad you like the Channel, all Glory to God!!!

[@vinb2707]

More than ever I have come to realize that while the scriptures are truly and utterly the word of God, I have also come to realize that those who remain in the scriptures “alone”, are often lacking in true spiritual growth.

[@catholicskeptic]

@vinb2707 Very True.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

I have no idea what or who you are talking about. What does scripture alone mean to you. How did you come to this conclusion?

[@catholicskeptic]

@@paulsmallwood1484 Boy is that a useless comment. 🤪

[@ralf547]

How do Catholics decide whether a Pope is teaching truth or error? If a Pope speaks ex cathedra and a Council agrees with him, it becomes dogma, is that correct? So can anything that becomes dogma contradict Scripture? Please note that I am not challenging, I am asking.

[@ralf547]

You would have to present some idea of what you consider spiritual growth to be.

[@martinmartin1363]

If St. Paul is guided by the Holy Spirit why does he need permission from St. Peter in acts why not do everything by his own authority and call his church’s the church of Paul, he understood the hierarchy in the church and Peter was the spokesman for the church and the disciples the counsel of the church, he didn’t do anything by his own authority and permission he always seeked permission from the authority of the church St. Peter and the counsel the disciples.

[@catholicskeptic]

@martinmartin1363 Amen🙏

[@viciousrage5548]

Hey Hugh I’m a Roman Catholic but I’m confused man. I’ve been looking at a lot of orthodox stuff since yesterday because of what happened in NY (heresy) and find it hard to keep my faith when stuff like that happens. If anyone can pray for me and give me some guidance on this please do so. God bless, and thank you for everything you do Hugh!

[@peterzinya1]

leave religions alone. jesus is a man, not a religion.

[@cskandrsgyrgy]

Please read the first chapters of the First Book of Samuel from the Bible. The prophet Samuel was born at a time when God's shrine in Israel was led by unwothy priests who did serious abuse there. Then God spoke to the little Samuel who told it to the High Priest. God said He will bring judgement on the priests and the shrine. A few years later judgement and restoration happened. Similarly, Jesus was dealing with unworthy priests in Jerusalem who did the most serious abuse - killed the Son of God. Nevertheless the apostles did not leave the Temple of Jerusalem but continued preaching and witnessing there. They were persecuted by the high priests but thousands of religous people believed them. We have to defend the church and keep witnessing there not leave it. You can listen to good theological commentary on current issues at Michael Lofton's channel: www.youtube.com/@ReasonandTheology/streams God bless you.

[@geoffjs]

Christ’s Church has existed for 2000 yrs in spite of sinful men, evidence of its divine origin. Keep the bigger picture in mind

[@francishaight2062]

As non-faith alone and non-scripture alone Catholics, we understand that everything is relevant to understanding what we see happening in the world, even in the Church, to paraphrase Chesterton, from our Catholic perspective, even the scandalous event to which you refer, brother. We can look at the history of the Church, all 2000 years of it, and recognize that it is following the general beginning-middle-and-end arc that includes the great apostasy, which this event may be just one example of, and also resolve to stay put in the barque of Saint Peter, despite these horrors because Our Lord simply said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Our Lady has been making more frequent visits in recent times to give her children, us, a heads-up of what was right around the corner. We're seeing it play out now like a slow motion train wreck. But, to quote the great Saint Pio, "pray, hope, and don't worry", but keep the faith. Though we're in the midst of spiritual warfare at a level unimagined by our forebears, she has given us weapons to protect ourselves and our families through it all. Pray the Rosary everyday, wear the brown scapular, make the first Fridays devotion, and find a traditional Latin Mass to feed your soul, but be at peace!

[@barborazajacova7633]

I'd suggest a wonderful channel Reason and Theology. Specifically about this incident, there is a video (in the Livestreams) that addresses it but it's not mentioned in the title because that is about the Vatican issuing a note to the German Bishops to stop their problematic Synodal Way. Later in the video you will find a description of the incident, what followed it and what to think about it. Yes it was a failure and such failures happen and it's a great scandal but it's not a reason to leave the Catholic Church if you understand what makes the Catholic Church the one true Church. That channel can help you a lot, they have a whole playlist of videos addressing Orthodoxy. You can find also many other issues addressed. Protestantism, the Magisterium, the Rad Trad movement etc.

[@jeffreytan5840]

Thank you Hugh again for a wonderful video. Once in a while bringing back arguments against sola scriptura is always wonderful to watch. Perhaps next one could u offer verses? Like how do Protestants instruct themselves on the doctrines found in Hebrews 6:2? then another episode How do protestants offer the solution to Matthew 18:17, they have to be biblical right? surely they must follow whats written so outwardly in the Bible. Then in another episode, The eunuch saw water and asked to be baptised, Why didn't Philip just shouted in disgust NO NEED! JUST BELIEVE IN JESUS! Baptism is a 'WORK'! i think there are many gems in the Bible that disproves Bible Alone. 20mins is fine Hugh. Thank you!!!

[@ianpardue2615]

When I quoted II Thessalonians 2:15 in favour of unwritten tradition, someone that I know quoted I Corinthians 4:17, II Corinthians 1:13, and II Corinthians 12:18, to say that the apostles taught the same thing they did by Epistle that they did by word. I didn't believe them, because I've read the Church Fathers. But im still trying to find a way to explain their objection using the Bible.

[@timboslice980]

If you guys havent watched it yet, Trent Horn just destroyed James White in their sola scriptura debate. James admits that sola scriptura wasnt the paradigm while Jesus was alive, when the apostles were alive, or even after the 4th century when a completed canon was established and took time to develop. In fact he never gives even a rough date for when sola scrip started as an authority! At the 2.05 hour mark, White is asked a question about when the traditions of the catholic church began as an authority. His response was desert fathers late 2nd century! That they developed over time, he sees that development as an indictment against catholic tradition but expects it as a given for his. So Catholic tradition for sure predates sola scriptura as a workable doctrine in the history of the christian church. Finally White tried to tip toe around it but admits that Roman Catholics are not christian because we “teach a different gospel” So if you add these 3 points up, you get this idea….. the early church was the catholic church and it’s traditions predate aola scriptura as an authority. At an unknown time, the doctrine of sola scriptura overtook the authority of the church’s traditions. Leading thise who practice it to reject early christianity. What an absolute loss for the Protestants. Please go watch Trent’s masterclass, after this video of course!

[@catholicskeptic]

@timboslice980 Trent has an awesome ministry and is a tremendous apologist, for sure. 👍

[@ralf547]

Considering it was James White, that shouldn't have been difficult.

[@timboslice980]

@@ralf547 lmbo yeah well there’s a lot of calvinists that think he’s the cats pajamas. It was so funny he kept taking issue with topics that lutherans (the hosts) would agree with rome over calvin.

[@ralf547]

@@timboslice980 Lutherans put on the debate without a Lutheran debating?

[@timboslice980]

@@ralf547 yeah they just used their church and acted as the host for the venue. Lots of funny jokes, the pros keep it very civil.

[@MrJohnmartin2009]

Another problem with the doctrine of sola scriptura is the associated fallible, infallible claims of other sources found within the biblical text. The scriptures sometimes quote from non canonical texts (FN 1) inferring the non canonical texts were fallible sources used by the infallible scriptures. Similarly the scriptures often cite decisions by individual men such as Moses, Joshua or David, or councils such as Jerusalem (Acts 15) that are presumably fallible, and supposedly become infallible when inscripturated. If sola scriptura is true, the non canonical sources prior to inscripturation have a dual character of both fallible and infallible, making the non canonical sources have contradictory dual characters. The contradictory dual character of non canonical sources causes the scriptures to document contradictory sources, inferring the scriptures are also contradictory and therefore false. Scripture quotes James and Peters decisions at Jerusalem that are fallible until inscripturated making the same speeches infallible within the biblical text. The utilisation of non canonical sources infers the scriptures are in error and therefore not infallible, contradicting the claim of the scripture’s infallibility. The infallible Spirits authorship of the biblical text is apparently contradicted by the Spirit's various gifts for the church which are always fallible. When the Spirit grants the gift of prophecy, all prophetic utterances prior to the formation of the biblical canon are infallible from the infallible Spirit of truth. However, if the scriptures are the only infallible source of faith and morals, after the canons formation, all gifts of the Spirit become fallible, contradicting the Spirit's prior infallible gifts granted to all OT prophets. The Spirit's engagement with His church is initially infallible with the gifts and infallible with the biblical textual authorship, but after canonical formation, the Spirits gifts become fallible, making the Spirit a spirit of contradiction. Evidently, the initial infallible gifts are also the same fallible gifts beginning at some non descript time after the Spirit authored the last inspired text and oral tradition vanished, and later formalised when the biblical canon was formed. By noting the inherent contradiction within the Spirit's actions of both fallible and infallible gifts granted with some non specified date of change from infallible to fallible, the biblical inspiration of the infallible biblical text is a text authored by a Spirit who grants the same gifts that are both infallible and fallible. Therefore the gift of biblical inspiration suffers the same, or similar problem of the infallible Spirit operating in the two modes of infallible and fallible gift, moving the human authors with the same gift of inspiration. The Protestant claim of an exclusively infallible biblical text by the same author of fallible gifts implies an ambiguous, or perhaps more accurately, an agnostic presence of an inspired text that is both fallible and infallible. And noting the infallibility of the biblical text is never expressly stated within the biblical text, the non specific truth claim of the biblical text regarding the infallibility of the biblical text infers yet another unresolvable problem for sola scripturas’ infallible text. The biblical text is silent on the charism of textual infallibility, inferring the texts infallibility is comparable to the non specific timing of the Spirit granting infallible gifts for some time, and later granting the same Church fallible gifts after the canon was completed. If Protestants claim only the biblical text is infallible without any explicit or implicit definition of infallibility of the biblical text, the Spirit of infallible and fallible gifts has chosen to not reveal if the biblical text is actually infallible, making the choice of believing in the infallibility of the biblical text associated with the faithful who consent to the doctrine of sola scriptura after the biblical text was completed and therefore when the Spirit's gifts are fallible. Sola scriptura is consequently tied to the vexing problem of an infallible Spirit who choses to grant the faithful the burden of believing only the inspired texts are infallible after biblical canonisation and therefore during a time of fallible gifts. The problem of the Spirit of infallible and fallible gifts intertwined with sola scriptura makes sola scriptura an unworkable truth claim, involving the infallible Spirit open to errors associated with fallible gifts. FN 1 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible kzbin.info/www/bejne/fV6pfaqtm5agZ8k

[@ralf547]

So the recorded Word of God isn't sufficient. Heard a non-Catholic critiquing Catholicism's explanation of Sacred Tradition. Stated that oral apostolic teachings weren't considered divine revelation, but that those same oral apostolic teachings included in Sacred Tradition are none the less infallible and must be believed and are binding. Are the ex-cathedra pronouncements of Pope's, and the final documents issued by Ecumenical Councils like Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II all part of Sacred Tradition? Whether or not they are Sacred Tradition, are they infallible and binding on the Catholic faithful? Is it threatening to the salvation of a Catholic (or anyone I suppose in the eyes of the Catholic Church) if they don't believe in one of the ex-cathedra or council pronouncements, such as Mary's bodily assumption or the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks from Peter's chair? Could I have found answers to these questions if I had searched the Catholic Catechism? Are there more than one Catholic Catechism, and if so, which is authoritative? The US Bishops' website has one, and I've heard there was one published by Pope St. John Paul II, and I've heard there is a Baltimore Catechism.

[@willherring1105]

Can you make a video commenting on ritual in the Old Testament and New and Protestants selective aversion to the concept? A big a ha moment for me in my conversion was while reading different Jewish books on the liturgy under the old Law at the temple and the things they described sound like the mass.

[@catholicskeptic]

@willherring1105 I have video entitled "Protestants can't experience true worship" , in that I go into what you are talking about. I did it about 5 months ago.

[@ralf547]

Within the video I suggested for viewing on Sola Scriptura is a nice explanation of why the "compliment" that there are 33K Protestant denominations isn't accurate. There are actually only about 3 to 5 denominations which would actually qualify as churches which hold to sola scriptura and have split from Rome. All those others are something, but not totally faithful to the scriptures, and largely for reasons that Catholics rightly call out.

[@geoffjs]

Pls explain how there are only 3-5 Protestant denominations when there are 000’s of sects. Protestantism is in direct conflict with Jesus’ desire for unity Jn 17 11-21 & is thus heretical Rom 16 17-18. Without unity & truth, Protestantism is false. No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Have you ever considered the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!

[@geoffjs]

Great title! To my Protestant friends, what did Christians rely on for the first 1500 yrs of Christianity as the bible hadn’t been mass printed & in any event, most people were illiterate until recent centuries? Protestantism seems to have no concept of Sacred Tradition which existed from the time of Christ, whose great commission Mt 28 16-20 is to baptise, which many erroneously think is symbolic & optional & to teach. He never said write a book. No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Have you ever considered the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for! Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21

[@Spiritof76Catholic]

The only traditions they believe are from 16th century men and their successors who have written thousands of different and contradictory rules of faith. In other words chaos.

[@cskandrsgyrgy]

Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that Scripture is the only authority. This is a later radical protestant idea and the term "SOLO Scriptura" is sometimes used to nickname it. Sola Scriptura meant for the reformers that Scripture is the only infallible authority on faith and morals but Tradition is also an authority albeit may be subject to their criticism in some aspects. The reformers were claiming the authority of Saint Augustine for example, not just the Bible. Reason & Theology just made a video clearing this issue: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5qriH2grJuFm5Y&ab_channel=Reason%26Theology God bless you.

[@justthink8952]

Thank you protestants for creating a narrative of your own. If Sola scriptura is not scripture alone, then protestants should have defined it properly so that we don't argue about nothing.

[@geoffjs]

Sola Scriptura and sola fide are both unbiblical, heretical and the cause of the confusion resulting from personal interpretation causing the scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity. Jn 17:21 Jesus didn’t leave a Bible! His One True Church Matt 16 18-19:codified the bible in 382 from which Luther removed 7 books without authority Deut 4:2. The Church is the pillar of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 The bible is inerrant not infallible which applies to when a Pope issues a doctrine or dogma, under specific circumstances, on faith & morals

[@justthink8952]

@@geoffjs Correct. Sola fide too is unbiblical and heretical. Protestants don't explicitly define what constitute faith in the Sola fide and what is not included in the Sola fide. They like to wriggle in ambiguity. They are afraid to make themselves explicitly clear. For example, they argue charitable work is the opposite of trusting in the saving work of Jesus Christ and they also argue that having faith in Christ's atoning work is not a sort of work. But faith is something. It is not a nothing. Similarly, loving God, forgiving others, hating others, ... are not nothing. They are some effort of a person. So when they are asked how do we classify these things - whether they are a sort of work or not, none of them has given me direct reply till date. Protestants propagate defective doctrines as the whole truth. But they got no guts to own up their errors. Most of them love dodging the issue because admitting their errors would make them cease Protestant.

[@39knights]

".....but Tradition is also an authority albeit may be subject to their criticism in some aspects...." that basically still means Bible Alone. Even though you use the word 'authority'; that authority really has no defining power that approaches the Infallible Authority of the Pope and Magisterium in the Catholic Faith. If beyond the bible what is derived is still considered fallible then of what use is it?

[@jamestrotter3162]

@@geoffjsActually, the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that the Bible is inerrant and infallible.

[@garymckenzie7196]

Basically, the Bible for us protestants is like the US constitution which the presidents are under ie to serve - I don't see how that is difficult to understand

[@billlee2194]

But our country established a Supreme court to interpret the Constitution. The Catholic Church has the Magisterium to interpret the Bible.

[@voxangeli9205]

​​@@billlee2194, yeah!!! You hit the nail right on the head, buddy!🎉🎉 Isn't this so easy to understand as well?❤

[@geoffjs]

Yes, but the errors of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation have caused confusion, division & scandal with 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17:21. With no hierarchy & unifying authoritative interpreter, Protestantism is not sustainable

[@jettoth3]

At 13:12 Hugh said, "If there's no infallible authority to tell you that this interpretation of the bible is true, then how do you know it is?" The problem with the demand for absolute certainty that your beliefs are infallibly true is that 1) no one needs faith if there is an excellent alternative to faith---such as a reliable way to infallibly KNOW what is true, let's say through a particular religious institution that simply cannot err, and 2) how can Hugh, or anyone else, infallibly KNOW that the Roman Catholic Church is this source for infallable teaching? If Hugh can't provide an infallible method by which to infallibly KNOW that Rome teaches infallibly, then all he's got is the empty assertion that Rome has the infallible teaching that he says we all need. A far better alternative is to choose a church that teaches from the bible. The guidance of the Holy Spirit is our help with the correct interpretation...as the believer seeks the truth from the Scriptures.

[@catholicskeptic]

@jettoth3 Well let's examine Jim's thinking here, note I refer to him, instead of addressing him, in his manner. First of all, if one has no infallible source of truth to look to, then referencing the Holy Spirit guidance is absurd. I know from my life and ministry in the 500 year old Protestant world ( yes folks, that is approximately how far back it goes), that everyone said they were guided by the Holy Spirit, and everyone had a different opinion on the Spirit said. It is called chaos! As far as how know it is the Catholic Church? Well using the power of reason God gave us,it ( The Catholic Church) has been here from the beginning; the Church gave us the New Testament Bible; the canon of the 27 books of the NT were established by Councils of Catholic Bishops in 382, 393 and 396 AD , respectively. Think about that timeline, the complete New Testament wasn't fully agreed upon until the Church decided. hmm 🤔 Yet the greatest generations of Christians who ever lived, in those almost 4 centuries!!!!, lived for Christ, many died as martyrs, and none had a Bible to check or quote from personally. 90 % were illiterate and there would not be a moveable type printing press for thousand years! hmmm 🤔! These stalwart believers, who put us to shame with there faithfulness, all relied on the teachings of the Church, on the Bishops of the Church, who were already referred to as successors of the Apostles. Then there is Jesus, who never said "on this paper I will write my Book", never told us in the 4 gospels that His followers were to wait for a collection of books, and then check them for what they believed. BUT He did FOUND a CHURCH, gave Peter the KEYS of the KINGDOM of Heaven, and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it! 🤔 The Catholic Church has been here 2000 years, intact , and has outlived whole nations, empires and civilizations. Has had corruption, yep. Bad leaders, yep, some downright evil leaders. But it has also produced great saints, and as the salt of the earth, brought science, education, medicine, and many other civilizing things into common place. It has preserved and proclaimed Doctrine clearly for all those centuries. hmm 🤔 If one is a Christian, then yes one needs absolute certainty. Christ told us He came to bear witness to the truth, and everyone of the truth would here His voice. ( John 18:37) I cannot believe that a God Who is not the author of confusion, would simply toss us a book and say have at it! All logic, common sense, history , and the Bible itself tells us Jesus didn't leave us to interpret for ourselves, and make it up as we each go along. So Jim here, needs to THINK, We all need to THINK 🤔, and recognize that there is only One Church that has been here from the start, and despite all the madness of assault of all truth and morality, still stands. I THINK it is the One Church Christ established, and which the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I left Protestant Christianity, and 30 years of Protestant ministry, and the Lord brought me home to His Church. All Glory to the Lord Jesus Christ!!! My prayer is that Jim here, will come to see the magnificent Truth of Christ, in its fullness, from His Church.

[@jettoth3]

@@catholicskeptic Hi Hugh! Sorry for referring to you as "he" and "him". I used these words because it was my intention to invite anyone reading my comment to respond... if they wanted to. No disrespect was intended, and I'm delighted that you responded! I should have been more clear that I view Scripture and the (often) hidden working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of God's elect to be truly infallible. But having clarified this, I must ask, why add an even bigger burden on God's people by insisting that Rome ALONE has the infallible teaching authority by which to interpret Scripture? This is an unnecessary and absurd claim because it cannot be verified. Is your own private "power of reason" reliable? What makes it so? If we're saved by grace, why do you insist that your own--or our own, private reasoning ability is the key to unlocking the truth? Yes, God gave the church the books of the NT, but how did you reason yourself to your assertion that this could only be the Roman Catholic Church? It seems to me that the bible could have said, "Rome is the way". But as you know, Jesus said, "I am the way". Why does this matter? See John 10:1-18 In John 10:1-18 we read: “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them. 7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.[a] They will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. 11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father-and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life-only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” The sheep know His voice through Scripture and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As you know, during the fourteenth century, there were three popes! Is it reasonable (in your educated opinion) for Rome to impose the burden to reason our way to the RCC AND to reason ourselves into the knowledge of which of three alleged popes (if any) is the real one? Did the apostle Peter act as if he were a pope to the very early church? If so, why did Jesus tell him, "get behind me, Satan". It is impossible that the Holy Spirit will ever lead His sheep to falsehood. The fact that I don't usually know the true sheep from the imposters doesn't nullify the fact that the Holy Spirit is infallible.

[@catholicskeptic]

@@jettoth3 Hey no problem, it just seemed strange. I enjoy conversing with those who disagree with me, so feel to question, challenge, debate or anything else, as long as we keep it civil. I will respond to your points when I have read over your comments in more detail, so back in a little while.

[@catholicskeptic]

@@jettoth3 Hey Jim, just had a chance to get back to you.I appreciate your feedback, and the outline you gave was very familiar, as I use to teach along those lines myself. What I was trying to say, and perhaps I didn't communicate it effectively, was not some exalting of "my reasoning ", per se. What is meant was that, for all the clearly sincere and well stated points you are expressing here, you are utterly missing the point of my whole position. Yes you or I , having access to the complete New Testament, able to read, and get a hold of all kinds of information, can assert all sorts of private views and claim them as an operation of the Holy Spirit. And please don't misunderstand, I certainly believe He speaks to our hearts and guides us in our lives. But you seem to think it's just that this book was mysteriously dropped here, and each believer can just do his thing, what you fail to realize is that your entire view of God's plan, His revelation to us, the nature of how the Christian life is, has been fabricated, constructed over the last 500 + years. The private,"just me & Jesus", notion. Yes I have a personal relationship with Him, and I am sure you do as well, and I don't question the validity of that relationship. But God makes it clear in the Bible that He wants all things done decently and in order, that He is not the author of confusion; He spoke order into chaos when He said "let there be light", in Genesis 1:3. There are more than 35000 different churches, sects and denominations that make up Protestant Christianity. There thousands of variations on every notion of doctrine. God says in Ephesians , to be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive." ( Ephesians 4:14). The remedy for this He outlines in the same chapter, verses 8-13. God gave gifts to men, Apostles, Prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. In other words, He gave authority, a structure, a hierarchical structure. Read Acts, the Apostles were in charge, completely in charge. all the late 1st, and 2nd and 3rd century writings testify to this , the Bishops of the Church were considered already as the Successors to the Apostles. Christ established a Church, gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it. It was the Council of Rome, presided over by Pope Damusus and the Bishops, that selected which writings were scripture and which were not. It, this council of Rome, in 382, that gave us the 27 books of the New Testament. That is not an opinion, but a historical fact. Read the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch, a man both Catholic and Protestant scholars confirm was taught personally a disciple of the Apostle John. The translation I own and use was translated by Protestants. He , Ignatius, wrote that the Bishops were successors to the Apostles , He cited Church authority as the basis for being in sound doctrine, not the personal private reading of scripture. Several others also taught this, this is the heritage of every Christian. Because some disgruntled German Monk decided to break away, and unleash a floodgate of rebellion, was the result of. You seem to think "Rome" as you refer to it, just came along, snd i am advocating for it. Jim, it was and is the First Church. The Church is what Christ established, and that Church, in turn gave us the complete Bible, over 3 centuries after the time of Christ. The Epistles of Paul, Peter, John, were all circulating letters. for over 300 years! There was debate about which should even be Scripture. Is the Table of Contents in your Bible itself infallible? How do you know which writings in the Bible are inspired? I know because the Church Christ established gave me that Bible. When I was a Protestant like you, I just went by my inner assurance. Why would God just leave a book, when for centuries the majority of people were illiterate? And that didn't change until the Guttenberg Printing Press that was invented in the 1400s. How did generations of Christians serve God faithfully, and they did, for all those earlier centuries ? When I talked about reason and logic, and God says in Isaiah 1:18, "Come let us reason together ", so yes God is into us using our brains. I as a Christian Pastor, had to ask , was what I believed, preached and did my best to live, believed in all the other generations before me, for 2000 years. Would the God of the Bible allow His truth to be lost and hidden away until the 16th century? And spread in utter chaos for next 500 years? Should I trust myself, my own feelings and opinions? Or should I search for where God's truth has been consistently taught and proclaimed from the start. And it was only, as I discovered the Catholic Church, that all those scriptures finally made sense: like that Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins ( John 20:20-23) ; that Baptism is far more than a symbol, and actually saves us( 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Matthew 28:18-20); That Christ clearly, emphatically taught us we are to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood ( John 6, 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, 1 Corinthians 11:23-30) or we have no Life in us. Christ's words , not mine. Dude, the clarity of everything the Catholic Church teaches is all through the Bible, and I use to have to try and explain away all these verses. The only place in the entire New Testament where the words "faith alone" appear together, ( James 2:24) those words are proceeded by the words "Not by"! The very foundation of Protestant faith is we are saved by faith alone, and the Bible does not teach it. Peter, in answer to your question, was the first one to preach on the day of Pentecost; he was the first one to get Divine revelation that the Gentiles were to come to Salvation. ( Acts chapters 10 and 11. And please, the word "pope" is a transliteration of the Italian word "papa", it was more of an affectionate nickname name. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ on earth. And all of them, starting with Peter, were human, subject to all the same flaws and failures of other men. The doctrine of papal infallibility, simply means that a Pope, when speaking "ex cathedra " , from the chair, won't error in teaching doctrine and morals. It does not mean he will be sinless or perfect or anything like that. Yes there have been evil popes, vile sinners who have been popes. There have also been many saints, martyrs. The first 10 did not die in their beds, but were all Martyrs, tortured and killed for their stand for Christ . Pope John Paul II was as amazing man of holiness, who played a role in the fall of communism. Francis, well a horrible communicator who frustrates Catholics everywhere. But it is the Office that is established by Christ, and the office functions no what man is in it. Anyway, that's enough writing now. I am glad to dialogue with you, regardless if ever agree, have a great day.

[@jettoth3]

@@catholicskeptic Thanks for your response Hugh! You said: "But you seem to think it's just that this book was mysteriously dropped here, and each believer can just do his thing..." I admit that all of Scripture is mysterious in the sense that what is God-breathed is utterly unique in all of literature. But you're asking people to believe that we got the canon of the NT from an institution that continually mocks Sola Scriptura! Amazing! Let me ask you this: without Scripture, how is it possible for anyone to discern which alleged "churches" are teaching genuine biblical doctrines vs. all of the false "churches" out there? Is Scripture a poor choice as our final and ultimate authority for doctrine? If so, why? As you know from history, the papacy evolved amid profuse skepticism and massive resistance over the first several centuries after the ascention of Christ. There were a variety of forged documents that were being circulated by those who wanted to impose a global papacy on the early church. Among these forgeries were the "Donation of Constantine" and the "Pseudo-Isadorian Decretals". It appears safe to say that there was such strong resistance in the early church to the whole concept of a "papal office" as a world wide "vicar of Christ", that forged documents were needed to defend the whole concept. In addition, the main bible passage used to support the supremacy of St. Peter (by those who reject Scripture as our final authority) relied primarily on Matthew 16:13-20 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. If you read this passage in context (which lots of people seem to ignore), you will find that Jesus begins the dialogue by asking His disciples about His own identity; not the identity of Peter! Yet surprisingly, we now have hundreds of millions of Catholics thinking that this passage is mostly about the NEW identity of Peter! This is absurd! Before this response gets too long, I will let you respond...if you will. With much respect, Jim

[@quakers200]

It's all about how much you want to think for yourself and how much you want others to do your thinking for you. Now I was a biologist and in school accepted everything I was told a sort of trust in authority. Of course when things did not make sense I could always go back to the earlier studies on a subject see for myself how we discovered what we know about say nerve conduction. My question is f I want to know if original sin is what the church says how do I go about examining for myself. Is this tree of the knowledge of good and evil always been taken literally. Is there any evidence that eating anything can give us knowledge? Why didn't Jesus give his disciples something to eat that would give them the knowledge of who he was? It seems reasonable that we inherit the desire and ability to lie but how could we inherit something from a choice our ancestors made. It seems more reasonable to conclude that sin is a common inheritance and as such is part of how we were created. How can God need to punish us for something that we inherited? More than that, if God is all powerful why not just remove original sin? I get this feeling that if seminary is anything like church such questions will get you only dirty looks.

[@jamestrotter3162]

Actually, the traditional protestant teaching on sola scriptura is that the written word of God is the only infallible source of authority for a Christian. They don't teach that scripture is the only authority, just the only infallible authority. They acknowledge other authorities in the church, such as bishops(elders, pastors), but that those authorities are not infallible. In other words, all other authorities in the church are subject to the infallible authority of Holy Scripture, but not equal to Scripture. St. Augustine put it like this: "Holy Scripture is invested with supreme authority by reason of its sure and momentous teachings regarding the faith; whatever then it tells us, that we believe. We believe it simply because it is written in Scripture. And unless we believe in Scripture, we can neither be Christians nor be saved." Ironically, since St. Augustine himself was also a fallible authority, he wasn't always correct in everything that he taught. And that's okay. He didn't have to be infallible, just faithful. BTW, I'm not protestant.

[@catholicskeptic]

@jamestrotter31 True the many Protestant groups accept other authority, but my point stands, as any doctrinal system they set up, cannot work as there are too many "absolute " doctrinal positions " that cannot be backed up in scripture alone. And furthermore The cannon of the New Testament wasn't even full established until the late 300s.

[@jamestrotter3162]

@@catholicskepticI totally agree with you brother. I think one of the earliest examples of the teaching authority of what would later be called the Magisterium is in Acts 8:26-40, where the Spirit told Phillip, the deacon, to join the chariot where the Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah 53, but didn't understand what he was reading. But God used Phillip, a man ordained by the apostles, and full of the Holy Spirit, to explain to him the right understanding, and to help him realize his need to be saved. God bless.

[@geoffjs]

If Protestant belief in the bible is based on unbiblical sola Scriptura & the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can you pls explain the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17:21. The lack of unity is not of God.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

Protestant response. Objection to Sola Scriptura: Oral apostolic tradition is mentioned in Scripture (see 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:2) and granted divine authority alongside the apostolic writings. Response: While living, the apostles could express their authoritative statements either orally or in writing, for they were hand-selected authoritative spokespersons for the Lord Jesus Christ. This apostolic authority in both forms must have been tremendously helpful as the early church emerged in the first century. It’s reasonable to conclude that the oral communication of the apostles was no different in content from their writings. After the apostles’ deaths, however, the only way to confirm whether a particular so-called extrabiblical (apostolic) tradition is in accord with what the apostles taught and believed is to rely upon the permanent written Word (Scripture). Not all such claims were historically authentic and factually true even in apostolic times (John 21:22-23). Bowman makes this point: “Nowhere in the New Testament is it stated or implied that the church was commissioned to transmit to future generations oral traditions teaching doctrines or practices not found anywhere in the Bible-much less any guarantee that they would do so infallibly.” Ancient church traditions may serve as a type of noninspired subordinate norm in theology, but they possess a derivative and ministerial function only. However, such church traditions often suffer from being contradictory, biblically inconsistent, and even nebulous in nature.

[@mikelopez8564]

Mat28:18 Jesus gives the apostles all authority commanding to teach everything and that He is with them to the end of the age. If the end of the age is His return, and it is, well, He must’ve meant for them to pass down this authority. You say everyone has authority but it’s really the apostles and those they appointed. The authority of the apostles are passed to those bishops following them. Early in Acts, when Matthias is chosen, Peter says the office is called a bishopric or an episcopate. So, there is scriptural proof and it is explicit. Mt16 and 18 and Jn20 clearly give the apostles and the Church absolute authority. We are bound by conscience but you must inform your conscience You have no authority nor does your Protestant minister. The apostolic ordained and Church are the authority God gave us. Many great Protestants have tried to discredit the scriptural teaching on this authority and ended up coming home.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@mikelopez8564 The “everyone must have authority” was nowhere in my statement so I am not quite sure what you mean. Yes the Apostles and the Church most certainly have authority. Nowhere in my statement did I say otherwise. Apostolic teaching is infallible. The church’s teaching is not infallible. Therefore the Church must submit to the authority of Apostolic teaching or doctrine. True apostolic succession is present when the Church is faithful to Apostolic teaching or doctrine which is completely inscripturated in Holy Writ. The Church ceases to have true apostolic succession when it departs from Apostolic teaching or doctrine. You also make the error of equating the Church solely with your particular Christian tradition namely Roman Catholicism. The Church and Roman Catholicism are not synonymous.

[@mikelopez8564]

@@paulsmallwood1484 Jesus appointed the apostles, giving them all authority and they appointed overseers in the Church; Matthias, Timothy and Titus, who received Jesus’ teaching to pass on. This is how one knows the teaching is apostolic. If there’s a question about the faith, the apostles showed us the authority of binding and loosing at the council in Jerusalem and that it was authoritative and all the churches were to accept the decision with joy. That’s how it has been for 20 centuries in Jesus’ Church. Those who have left the Church and started their own communities and sects are not in the Church. Some are recognizable still, as Christians. Some are not. None of them have authority because they are not apostolic. You say the bishops, priests and deacons, who are apostolic, are wrong and those outside the Church for the last 500 years are right. I disagree. The way I know I’m right, my view is in line with Jesus’ promise His Church is here in all ages and indefectible. Your view is Jesus was wrong. You probably wouldn’t say it like that. You may go “trail of blood” or some other unhistorical road.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

Protestant response: Objection to Sola Scriptura: The Roman Catholic Church wrote, canonized, and interpreted Scripture. The Bible cannot be greater than its cause-the Church. Response: First, the claim that the church produced the Bible is wrong. (Note: Protestant scholars typically view the early church as catholic but not Roman). The church did not exist officially when the prophets and patriarchs wrote the Old Testament books. And the church accepted the Old Testament canon on the authority of Jesus Christ’s personal testimony. As an institution, the church did not produce the New Testament writings either. The apostles and their close associates (initial leaders of the church at large) wrote those books under the Holy Spirit’s direct inspiration. Though the early church preceded the apostolic writings, it was the gospel message preached-later recorded and expounded in those writings-that by divine grace produced the church. This progression can be described as: Gospel -> Church -> New Testament The New Testament books became a permanent, infallible record of an oral message. Because Scripture is identified with the preached gospel, it is authoritative. The church (made up of gospel-believing communities) submits to the Word (gospel) that created it. Scripture derives no authority from the church; the authority of Scripture is inherent because the very words of God are the text (2 Tim. 3:16). The early church did not create Scripture. The church merely received Scripture and recognized its inherent authority. God determined the canon by inspiring certain books and then guided the church to recognize and receive them. The true church derives authority from rightly understanding and applying Scripture. The purpose of Scripture is to bear witness to Christ, who himself bears witness to the integrity and authority of Scripture: “You diligently study the Scriptures….These are the Scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39).

[@bibleman8010]

love your denial of history King of king of trolls most infallible of the protestants' mouthpiece of al the 40,000 denominations😎😎

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@bibleman8010 Unlike you my friend I say something intelligent that contributes to the conversation. All you do is engage in childish name calling. You are such a bore. Don’t you tire of being boring. I get it. The truth makes you uncomfortable.

[@mikelopez8564]

The early church absolutely did create the scriptures of the NT, inspired of course. All the writers were followers of Jesus. We agree the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in determining what writings were scripture, but it was the authority of the bishops to settle and there were some disagreements. I’m sure you know writings like 1Clement and Shepherd of Hermas are a couple of writings that some considered inspired but ultimately were set aside. You have the additional problem of explaining by what authority Protestants dropped 10% of the books from the Bible which had been accepted by the Church. This happened in the 1800’s, so basically 1,400 years after the fact.

[@geoffjs]

You diligently exclude any reference to the early Catholic Church contributions to the NT ie Catholic authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit & the CC codified your bible in 382. Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Christ, not only complements Sacred Scripture but contributed to the Deposit of Faith which, almost solely taught the laity the faith for 1500 yrs until the bible was mass printed & even then, most people couldn’t read until recent centuries. So much for sola Scriptura which 2 Peter 1 20-21 rebuts.

[@paulsmallwood1484]

@@geoffjs You must not have read my post.

[@ralf547]

This video seems concentrating on your despensationalist viewers. I don't think their understanding of "sola scriptura" is mine. They misuse the phrase. I don't agree with Catholicism nor the greater Protestant world on this (as I've said, I don't consider myself a Protestant in the same sense as likely all those who comment here). I suggest watching this youtube video . . . Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone (The Five Solas) by Dr. Jordan B Cooper It is long at 1 hr and 18 mins, but it explains true Lutheranism's understanding with historical and background info. Likely, neither you (Hugh) or anyone else will watch it due to it's length, but even the Q&A at the end is worth watching. You will come away knowing how Lutherans understand sola scriptura in opposition to Catholic arguments against it.

[@geoffjs]

I won’t watch the suggested video, not because of its length, but because sola Scriptura, whatever its flavour can’t be justified as it is error, the bible can’t interpret itself 2 Peter 1 20-21 Likewise, sola fide is error rebutted by James 2 20-24 & Protestantism is heretical Rom 16 17-18 No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21. Protestantism is neither rational nor true, instead a false system that, like the genie out of the bottle! No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Have you ever considered the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!

[@ralf547]

@@geoffjs You refuse to watch, but I regularly watch on KZbin, Return to Tradition, Pints with Acquinas, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Timothy Gordon, The Remnant(now on their website), Theology and Reason, and others. I know all truth is God's truth. I fear hearing from no one. Christ's one true and Apostolic Church has Christ as it's hierarchy/head, and it is the saving Gospel of Christ that unifies it and is it's authority. Protestantism is indeed fractured terribly due to sinful people, and one look at the Catholic Church right now presents a bit of fracture as well. You must agree. Africa simply says they won't obey the Pope on whatever they disagree with. Seems, at least for the African church and the Traditional Catholics scattered about the world, that there is a higher authority than the Pope and whichever Cardinals and Bishops that don't hold to that higher authority. So what is the ultimate authority in the Catholic Church? It must be Scripture and Sacred Tradition. All of the Bible demonstrates how God used Prophets and Apostles and also how He had to correct and discipline them. It's not the human institution or organization (the visible church) that we are to place our trust in. Incorrect interpretation as well as purposeful misuse of God's Word has resulted in the many denominations. You propose that the Catholic Church is the one authoritative interpreter. I would like to have that infallible interpretation available to the world. Every Protestant denomination could be told that each verse is to be understood this one way because the Catholic Church says so. But there is no place where the Catholic Church says so, at least not anywhere I have been able to find or gotten a Catholic to point me to. Various Catholics of varying levels of authority provide interpretations not unlike Protestants. In the end, Catholics and Protestants are in agreement on an immensity of the scriptures and biblical doctrines (i.e. the Trinity, Virgin Birth, bodily Resurrection, the Gospel, the authority of the 10 Commandments, etc.). So only Protestantism is to blame for abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism, etc? What about the Godless, secular, and evil inspired people of the world. What about a Pope who tells an abortion promoting President and other politicians that they are "good" Catholics and can receive the Eucharist. And a Pope that enthusiastically welcomes abortion promoting celebrities and world leaders without calls to repentance. Yes, I know that their have always been bad Popes and the Church has survived. But that makes my point. Because members of Christ's one true Church are found in the Catholic Church just as they are found in other Christian faith traditions. No one church/institution/organization is the one true Church.

[@soteriology400]

If you use good hermeneutics to obtain the authors intent, then you will realize the Bible is enough and everything we need for doctrine and theology. But if you develop your theology off of fallible sources such as “church fathers”, then you will perform eisegesis without realizing it and conclude the Bible is not enough. Best to stick with Ephesians 2:20.

[@franaldo93]

👍👍👍

[@EddyRobichaud]

The title of your video says you don’t know the power of God

[@catholicskeptic]

user-fi1pe4dg3u Your comment says you are comfortable making personal judgments on a person, but lack any ability to refute the claim of the video.

[@EddyRobichaud]

@@catholicskeptic Your title doesn’t inspire me to watch it. God left us His word the bible which is plenty to understand Gods plan for our lives on earth, and for our eternal salvation.

[@peterzinya1]

@@EddyRobichaud Catholics hate the bible because it condemns alot of their practices and beliefs.

[@PInk77W1]

@@EddyRobichaudGod didn’t leave us his word. The Catholic Church compiled it, assembled it, guarded it, copied it. Named it the Bible.

[@EddyRobichaud]

@@PInk77W1 and along the way they twisted the doctrine

[@Frankjp555]

At 3:10 you said that Protestants believe that the sole source of revelation is what is written in the Bible, and that’s just not true. At 4:10 you say that the Bible doesn’t teach the doctrine of the trinity…. Except Tertullian, Augustine, Athanasius all quote scripture for arguing the doctrine with heretics. “Take away, indeed, from the heretics, the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground” Tertullian - On the Resurrection of the Flesh, dated to have been written around 206 or 207. The view of Catholicism with regard to the sufficiency of scripture stands in direct opposition of the first 500 years of the unanimous view of the church fathers.

[@mikelopez8564]

What passage or passages get you to our understanding of the Trinity. Seriously, this should be good.

[@mikelopez8564]

That doesn’t say the three divine Persons are one God, so it falls short of expressing the nature of the Trinity. Three persons in the same room don’t make God. Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize in the name (not names)of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Again, this is evidence, but you have to admit the Trinity is not explicitly taught in scriptures. You only know of it because the Church taught it and had to defend it from the beginning

[@Frankjp555]

@@mikelopez8564 You could have a better argument when you say that it doesn’t express the nature of the trinity, but your words in the video were that it “does not teach the trinity”. The Arians actually charged Basil, Hilary of Poitiers, and Athanasius with using philosophy to come up with the word “Homousius” to describe part of the nature of the trinity and their response was that although the word isn’t found in the scripture, the doctrine behind the word was clearly evident in scripture.

[@GarthDomokos]

KJB? lol...English is not remotely a language that anyone used before or during Jesus's time. I wonder if JW's ever wonder why the word Jehovah is the same age as the KJB?

[@blynkers1411]

Hey hey hey. Nobody here is with the Soviet Secret Service (except maybe Google employees).

[@catholicskeptic]

@@blynkers1411 😂 👍

[@HannahClapham]

I hope not many listen to this channel. This guy is not very educated.

[@ralf547]

his viewership keeps growing.

[@hanssvineklev648]

@@ralf547. Whoop-dee-doo. Any idea how many total idiots have large audiences for their channel? Numberless.

[@geoffjs]

Remain in error, driven by pride, as you know better than Jesus!

[@hanssvineklev648]

@@geoffjs. I wasn’t aware that Jesus had published an opinion on this guy. That’s so interesting!

[@geoffjs]

@@hanssvineklev648typical sarcastic comment, is the best that you can do?