The One Sentence That Convinced Me Sola Scriptura is False | Cold Brews & Catholic Truths 24

[@rickbaker261]

“I never said you stole money” would be a fantastic analogy if we only had a five word sentence from God and nothing before nor after.

[@bryanlugo1771]

So true. Context is everything.

[@joshuascott5814]

Also, no matter how you place the emphasis in that sentence, the basic meaning is always the same. The emphasis might have different significance depending on context, but the core is the same regardless.

[@elliemitchell953]

I’m currently protestant and your videos have been very helpful in my research and consideration of Catholicism. Thanks for all the work you do :)

[@michellezievert8241]

I became Catholic in 1999, Ellie. So grateful to be living the fullness of the truth with the church Jesus Christ established. Praying for you on your journey. 🙏

[@SeanHussey]

Ellie, thanks so much for sharing that :) I will keep you in my prayers!

[@jamesbatsis9762]

Make sure you consider orthodoxy as well!

[@PaulDo22]

@A B Cracks me up every time. The Orthodox claiming to be the true Church is like when your little brother says he was born first.

[@nayelizazueta9433]

Praying for you during your discernment!🤍

[@merciavandervyver4611]

I'm a Protestant in the process of converting to Catholicism. I am getting confirmed on 19 September 2021. Thanks for your videos.

[@harleymann5711]

Congratulations, sister. I am a former Baptist minister.

[@BornAgainCatholic]

Welcome Home to Rome!!!!!

[@grey0966]

No need to be a “Catholic” or “Protestant”. Just be a “Christian” and be born again filled with the Holy Ghost doing the Will of God

[@BornAgainCatholic]

@@grey0966 where did you get that from? The Bible doesn’t teach that nor has the Church taught that either. So, I’m curious where did you get that from?

[@grey0966]

@@BornAgainCatholic acts 11:26

[@scottsbiblereviews9727]

Thank you brother for this. I noticed you used a lot of the same arguments that Patrick Madrid did with his debate with James White. I am a former Reformed Baptist, then Presbyterian, and now Lutheran. I am looking at this issue with fresh eyes, and indeed praying and studying the issue a lot, and you make a lot of salient points. Lord bless you!

[@SamuelYetman]

I don't know if this will be seen since this video was posted so long ago, however, the Catholic doctrines are now interpreted by Catholics, which gives you the same issue. Further, if something cannot be plainly understood, then nothing can be understood, for the interpretation will then be interpreted and so and so on. This is an issue which would seem to imply subjectivity to everything. I appreciate your kind character.

[@donalgodon]

Protestants don't "reject sacred tradition." They reject tradition that directly contradicts the Bible. Galatians 1:8 illustrates the fact that even the Apostles recognized that they were not to be followed merely for their office: "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!" Paul also said, "Follow me as I follow Christ," not "follow me, even if I don't follow Christ."

[@donalgodon]

@trollpatrol7215 I didn't inspire the New Testament. Not my opinion, obviously.

[@Phil_mycuplord]

that's good stuff right there and great scriptural debate, but I guess you can't use scripture alone to defeat their desired additions of man. From a logical argument, even before having to discern scripture properly, it's a house of cards. I'd love for someone to show me that the church today represent "the traditions" of the early church. More over, are people really that unable to comprehend that the scriptures really didn't exist or at least weren't available to most of the early church during it's development. The ONLY way they had to grow was word of mouth and actions following Christ's teachings along with his instruction of areas of adherence to prior law. The OT law contained "tradition" in that it was observed repetitive behavior that was morally correct. The whole notion of protestantism was saying, hold up a minute, we've deviated from what the teachings actually were and added our own spin.

[@albaniancrusader01]

Protestantism is not sacred, is the work of rebellion.

[@batemanwave]

they only reject tradition that contradicts the Bible? same for Catholics! nothing we believe contradicts scripture!

[@bad_covfefe]

That directly contradicts YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible. That is the problem: every Protestant thinks their interpretation is scripture itself. That's why they all accuse eachother of ignoring scripture, and why they fought wars against eachother for 100 years after Sola Scriptura was invented untils ecular governments arose to stop the fighting. That's right: Protestantism caused the secularization of society because they couldn't play nice. Even the verse you quoted doesn't support what you said. It explicitly states that the gospel the Apostles previously preached was the standard, and that no one was now allowed to contradict it.

[@andrewstanifer7006]

Hello. Non denominational Christian here, and based on the comments I may be one of very few, so hopefully I don’t get hit too hard after this. ;) Please understand this comes from a place of love and genuine desire for the revelation of ultimate truth and I have no desire to be disrespectful. Also, this is going to be long so bare with me if you’re not afraid of being challenged. Though I presume this will be read by almost no one. Oh well! I watched this video to try to understand the catholic view a little better and I think I do. I see your arguments and I get why so many believe it, but I must say I remain firm in my belief in the authority of the word of God over all, including any church. This video starts with a statement regarding the word of God in the Bible as being “inerrant” which I agree with completely. But then he goes on to say the word of God includes sacred “tradition” which I don’t believe there is a sound basis for. He then quotes the catechism which means nothing to a non catholic, but he eventually quotes 1st Thessalonians. Before I address this verse, it’s important to note that the word “tradition” is used 13 times in the New Testament and 11/13 times the word is used, it is in a negative light or flat out condemning its use over surrender to Christ himself or the ordinances of God. Colossians 2:8 is one example of this. Now with Thessalonians the word, tradition, is used twice, (I read the KJV and my locations are not aligning with the ones he mentions so bare with me) the first time is the verse he mentioned in the video, the second time is in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of US.” Now here we find the issue between the catholic and non catholic view. Notice I bolded the use of the word US. Who is Paul talking about when he uses the words “us”, “we”, or “ours” in this context?? There is no evidence that Paul is referring to traditions of “the church” or any church leader, but instead of the teachings and traditions of the APOSTLES and prophets, but for our argument, we’ll focus on the apostles. If this is indeed the case, the teaching of the authority of scripture absolutely should not be so easily dismissed as a “false teaching.” This is because the apostles were given special authority from God and Jesus, which is clearly laid out in scripture (and I will get to where these scriptures are), to write and preach the word of God in such a way that NO ONE else has. So in the Thessalonians verse this guy mentioned, there is no evidence that Catholic Church traditions have authority over Gods word whatsoever, but that the teachings and traditions of the 12 apostles have the authority, and it is the role of the church to carry on THOSE traditions, not their own, and any tradition or teaching that contradicts this should not be followed. And it’s important to note that the word of God, that I regard as the final authority, in the New Testament and the teachings and traditions of the apostles are ONE IN THE SAME. The evidence of apostolic authority is in the opening of nearly every epistle Paul writes, but spelled out the clearest in: Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:1, Mark 6:7, 2 Peter 3:2, and especially Eph 2:19-20. What one discovers after reading these scriptures is the apostles and prophets had the most unique authority of any men who ever lived regarding teaching and writing scripture. And there is no evidence that this level of authority was passed to anyone beyond them. The role of the Church is to support and share what God revealed through these special men, and are not given authority past that in any scripture. Next, this guy beautifully articulated the idea that teaching and tradition is only useful insofar as it agrees with scripture. It’s just too bad he rejected this idea! He uses the argument that “the idea of sola scriptura is not spelled out in the Bible, so therefore it is unbiblical.” I reject this notion and believe it is a non argument. Something we all agree on is the teaching of the trinity and the word “trinity” or even explicit teaching on it is never spelled out in the Bible, yet we all believe in the teaching anyway because scripture clearly points to this as you look at it as a whole body of work. It’s the same idea with the teaching of the sole authority of scripture. Though the Bible doesn’t flat out say, “the word of God is the sole authority,” it does indeed point to that idea being true in multiple respects. So, on this basis, I think it took some mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that sola scriptura is a self refuting teaching in my opinion because it simply is not. Moving on, the speaker here then takes the verse in 1 Timothy completely out of context as well as completely overreaching on its meaning. First of all, it’s quite bold to assume that when Paul uses the word “church” he means the Catholic Church, when it’s used throughout the entirety of scripture, church, actually means the whole body of believers. Secondly, “pillar and ground (foundation) of the truth” is by no means referring to any church as the source, creator, or authority of truth. For “foundation” Paul uses the Greek word hedraioma which means prop or support, and like the word pillar, is teaching that the role of the church is to hold up the truth (found in Gods word), or in other words be stewards of the truth of God’s mysteries (1 Corinth 4:1-2), one who supports or stewards the truth does not have sole authority over it. Moreover, on multiple occasions, we see Christ himself as the sole foundation and “chief cornerstone” not the church. And who is Christ? Well, as we learn in the beginning of John’s gospel, “the word was with God and the word WAS God,” and that Jesus is “the word made flesh.” Thus putting THE WORD as the ultimate authority because he IS the word AND he IS the foundation and chief cornerstone simultaneously! So, like I alluded to before, truth comes from God alone, which is given to us through the teachings and writings of the prophets and apostles by special authority, and this truth is held up by the body of believers proclaiming it to others...... see continuance in reply.

[@andrewstanifer7006]

Continued..... So then comes the matter of interpretation. We are in agreement with the notion that the interpretation of scripture is not something we can do alone, nor does the Bible interpret itself. That would be preposterous. The Bible calls us to rightly divide the word of truth (2nd Tim 2:15). and that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation, “for prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God (apostles and prophets) spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Oh dear, does this mean I, as an individual, do not have the right or ability to read, understand, and interpret the word of God without the help of the Catholic Church? Not at all! The Bible tells us to “study the word to show thyself approved unto God.” (2nd Tim 2:15). Okay, so how then can we have confidence in our understanding of what we study? The speaker of the video rightly makes the point that we need help but completely failed to even mention the most important factor, or should I say, person, that guides believers in the interpretation of scripture. That person is the Holy Spirit, our “helper” and our “comforter.” In John 14:26 Jesus says “The Holy Spirit, whom the father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance, all that I have said to you.” 1 Corinth 2:10-11 says “these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a persons thoughts except for their own Spirit within them? In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God, except the Spirit of God.” John 16:13, “ but when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, HE will guide you into all the truth.” And guess what? This Holy Spirit of God dwells and lives within all who believe in the atoning work of Christ! Ephesians 1:13, “and you also were included in Christ, when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you BELIEVED, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit, guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are gods possession to the praise of his glory.“ I could go on and on about the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers, but I’ll stop there. Please don’t take this that I’m saying church is bad or even that we don’t need it. I’m saying that it is unbiblical to say they have the authority over truth and interpretation of scripture because that is the job of the Holy Spirit working in ALL believers, not just church leaders. So yes! Saying we need an infallible person to help interpret infallible text is exactly what’s happening in Sola Scriptura, and therefore, saying that scripture cannot interpret itself is also a non argument that means very little because that’s not what’s happening. This leads me to an important point. What happens when Catholic teachings or traditions contradict what we understand about God or what we read in scripture? There are many examples but I will just name this… we know from Mal. 3:6 that God does not change. Why? Because he has been perfect from the beginning. However, the Catholic Church has been changing constantly since the very beginning of its history including but not limited to the invention of praying to Mary and dead saints in AD 600, Lent AD 998, invention of Purgatory 1439, pope infallibility 1870, the Council of Trent even placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books! That’s to name only a few. My point is, if the church is of infallible authority, like this guy claims, why is it always changing in spiritual teaching and tradition before a God who’s word and who He himself NEVER changes? I’m reminded of a verse in Amos 3 where it is written that two cannot walk hand in hand except they be agreed. And there are many instances where, say, the catechism, or catholic tradition disagree with what we find in scripture. So in those cases, which do you choose to believe and follow? You can choose the traditions over God’s word, but I find that to be an extremely dangerous proposition. I’ll end with addressing what I find to be, quite literally, the silliest argument against sola scriptura that I’ve ever heard, which is that sentence the speaker mentioned. So in his example he gives us an isolated six word sentence and tells us all the possible meanings with no background and no context. Well of course we can’t determine the true meaning of that sentence!! We have no idea who said it, who it was said to, what are the circumstances and other words surrounding the sentence, what is the context?! How is this a representation of the Bible and the interpretation of it?? In the Bible, especially the New Testament, we know, for the most part, the author, the audience, the circumstances of writing (like Paul being in jail), the historical context of the time, the other sentences around any verse, we have the rest of the Bible as a body of work, and we have, most importantly, the Holy Spirit who guides us in interpretation!! How do we not have enough to determine meaning without a church who thinks they have a monopoly on truth? With any context whatsoever, I could easily determine the meaning of “I never said you stole money.” This argument is committing one of the most basic intellectual crimes I’ve ever seen with the intentional withholding of context, which the Bible gives us plenty of. And if anyone reads my argument and still uses this silly argument of the speaker in this video, I believe they are being very intellectually dishonest because it could not be found to be any sillier with just a minimal amount of critics thinking. To conclude, I feel it’s clear the belief in the sole authority of scripture argument, at the very least, holds water, and I implore you to stop calling it a “false teaching.” Even if you don’t accept it, you have to admit there is at least SOME evidence supporting the idea. Thanks for reading this to the end lol.

[@luvguitare]

Thank you so much brother for explaining all this. I completely agree with you ☺️

[@phillipbissell]

Thank you so much for your comprehensive explanation. Brilliant and true🙏

[@albaniancrusader01]

I thank our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ for leading me to your channel. As I’m having a conversation with an ex muslim from Albania, he has fallen into some sort of cult which rejects Protestantism, Orthodoxy or Catholicism Christians. Then out of the blue he mentioned Sola Scripture. Today I typed about SOLA SCRIPTURE IS NOT BIBLICAL then you showed up, and I’m glad. Thank you for your service. God bless ✝️🙏🏻

[@ryanpresler]

Hey all! The question that keeps popping into my head is: how do Church decrees take the interpretive onus off the individual? All communication ultimately involves interpretation by the receiver, so I don't understand the argument that the Catholic Church is Scripture's ultimate explainer when individual believers are gonna have to end up interpreting the Church's pronouncements anyway. I'm probably missing something from the Catholic perspective, but that question just keeps nagging at me.

[@wincyverghese]

I have the same question!

[@tomcruze8153]

@@wincyverghese Well Catholic believe the Church is led by the Holy Spirit, its interpretation is made with scripture and tradition. We have to have faith that the Church is established and is led by Jesus Christ. But on the interpreting Church teaching part that makes no sense, its already explained and well defined, its like saying I dont believe that dictionaries have the right meaning as I will have to interpet the meaning anyway.

[@willwalker6894]

Because scripture alone is not the exhaustive record of everything that happened during Bible times. The final book of the Bible was not finished until about 100 AD. The canon of the Scriptures was not formally declared by the Church until the 4th century. It wasn’t until about 1440 AD, when Gutenberg invented the printing press, that Bibles were widely owned. The only way they would have received the Gospel would have been through word of mouth and tradition.

[@josephssewagudde8156]

@@wincyverghese there must be an official interpretation that binds all believers, in whose absence you will believe in your own opinion, hence a church to your self

[@josephssewagudde8156]

Official interpretation goes above your own opinion. If we all go that way then we will become our own church

[@ryqabvn]

“I never said you stole my money.” That’s the version I heard once before. Same lesson though.

[@danielzhu1463]

So what happens if a church tradition contradicts the Bible?

[@veekee75]

I guess everyone here who are mainly roman Catholics will not be able to answer your question.

[@anonjohn7571]

Give an example

[@anonjohn7571]

@@veekee75Or Protestants who show up at veteran funerals with hate signs, join groups like the kkk, and have lesbian preachers who teach gay sex isn’t a sin.

[@veekee75]

@@anonjohn7571 let's start with the first contradiction which is the "priest" in roman catholic church. Why do we still have priests in RCC when in the New Testament, you never see Peter, Paul, or James ever ordained one in the Church they established.

[@veekee75]

@@anonjohn7571 what's the relationship between people holding hateful signage at funeral/kkk/lesbian preacher teaching gay sex and Christianity. I can't see any link between them and Christianity at all. The majority of Americans identify themselves as "Christians", but how many are actually true followers of Christ? Sad to say, they are far and few between.

[@TheJewishCatholic]

Great stuff, brother! I'm a Jewish Believer in Yeshua (Jesus) and I just wanted to point out that the Way of Life was never meant to only be according to what is written. From ancient times Israel was commanded to have a body of leadership which provided judgements, rulings and interpretation as well: Deuteronomy 16:18-20 and 2 Chronicles 19: 5-10. The Scriptures show that this leadership had the authority to pronounce decrees just as binding as what was written.

[@thewolfes146]

Where does the Bible name the messiah Yeshua?

[@catholicbeth2371]

@@thewolfes146 Yeshua is, of course, the Hebrew for Jesus...

[@thewolfes146]

@@catholicbeth2371 And where does the Bible call him that? I'll give you a hint. It doesn't.

[@catholicbeth2371]

@@thewolfes146 Oh for heaven's sake it doesn't call him Jesus either... in what language was the New Testament written? I'll give you a hint, eλληνική, Koine Greek. The writers obviously used the Greek form of the name Ιησούς, transliterated yesous for English speakers, the hard J doesn't exist in Greek. The aramaic form of of his name, the name he was called day to day, would be transliterated Yeshua. Picking over this is as daft and picky as me complaining if a French newspaper was to write an article about me and, as they surely would, spelling my name Elisabet.

[@thewolfes146]

@@catholicbeth2371 oh for heavens sake, Jesus is the English translation of his Greek name. Why don't you call him by his name in Greek since that's actually what he's called in the Bible?

[@musicleigh3267]

I recently returned to Catholicism wholeheartedly. This is true, although I enjoyed my time with many protestant churches, particularly, the Methodists; I have to say all the bible studies are sort of different, what you learn in one may not be the same in another.... causes arguments ect... further division. They are also being robbed of the tradition and the Sacraments as well... They are also missing out on the fullness of the Church, the lives of the saints ect... I pray for the unification of the Church, for our Protestant brothers and sisters to come home...Thanks for your videos, I really enjoy them. God Bless you and your family :-)

[@rudya.hernandez7238]

well done brother. just came across you showing the truth about individuals that claim no authority but Scripture, yet claim they're more right than the next guy.

[@Justas399]

Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.

[@user-rz8vp1bd2y]

You just interpretated scripture. No where does it says "ultimate authority "

[@Justas399]

@@user-rz8vp1bd2y Everyone who reads something must interpret. How can the Word of God not be the ultimate authority? After all, God is the ultimate authority. Right?

[@user-rz8vp1bd2y]

@@Justas399 that is what is wrong with protestatism. All claiming to interpret but yet all interpreting thousands of ways. Its the simple element of confusion.

[@quinnhussey6944]

I agree with you that the inspired and inerrant Word of God is found in the written scriptures, but don't stop there! What does the Bible have to say about what the 'Word of God' is? Is the 'Word of God' limited to just the written form? I'll throw one verse out there and then let you respond if you'd like. 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" Here's one verse seems to mean we should hold fast to the apostles teachings, which they have passed onto us into two forms; by word of mouth or by letter. What do you think about that?

[@Justas399]

@@user-rz8vp1bd2y Actually its worse in the catholic church. Millions of catholics interpreting the Scriptures for themselves.

[@theadventuresofjericho3856]

I feel that I should point out that the problem with this argument is that protestants still practice sacred traditions such as Communion, celebration of Ash Wednesday, Lent, Advent, and many more.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

What they always mean is that their interpretation of the Bible will never contradict their protestant views. You might think that as a historical matter, they would hold the interpretation of the earliest Christians as more significant, but they don't. They only say early Christians interpretations matter inasmuch as it agrees with their opinions originating 1500+ years later: heads I win, tails you lose

[@jediv9492]

​ @A DUDE *Did Jesus say we need to have a R Catholic faith or r ct sacraments or submission to r ct pope or devotion to Mary to be saved? If not, it is not necessary isnt it?*

[@WoodchuckNorris.8o]

Replace the word "Catholic" with "orthodox" and I agree with you. I just came out of protestantism. If you want the concise refutation of Catholicism, how can there be blatant dogmatic contradictions in Vatican II if dogma is supposed to be infallible?

[@rudya.hernandez7238]

Pope Paul VI, who presided over three of the council’s four sessions, denied clearly and repeatedly that the teachings of Vatican II are infallible. The truth is that Vatican II didn't contradict any official position on doctrine or morals. All that the Church taught when Vatican II began is still Catholic teaching. The changes, whether made by the Council or decided upon since, are in practical matters such as the liturgy or discipline, but always leaving doctrine unchanged.

[@TheOtherPaul]

With all due respect, the arguments you chose to employ make me suspect that you have not even considered protestant responses to them, nor do I think you have considered the alarming implications of certain claims. You make many arguments so I'll have to be selective in my reply. First, you attempt to employ 1st Thessalonians 2:13 and 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 as evidence for the Roman Catholic concept of Sacred Tradition. Nowhere, however, does Paul mention anything close to a divinely protected deposit of unwritten tradition that would remain totally pure throughout all generations in the Church and that is of equal authority to Holy Scripture. As you read, the 1st Thessalonians passage says "We thank God constantly for this, that when you receive the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but what it truly is, the Word of God..." How does Paul referencing the fact that people "heard" the Word of God from him mean he is affirming an infallible system of oral tradition? If I were a protestant street preacher and I bring someone to faith because of my verbal preaching, does that mean I affirm a concept of Sacred Tradition distinct from scripture? Obviously not; these are two radically different categories, the only connection being a vaguely similar semantic domain (the hearing sense). Communicating the Gospel through oral means does not in any way equal support for an infallible deposit of oral tradition passed down through the ages and untouched by the regular decay of oral traditions. You don't get this concept from the passage; you have to read it in. The same goes for the 2nd Thessalonians passage; that Paul is communicating "traditions" through letter as well as by word of mouth is simply not endorsing an infallible system of tradition. Paul is stating the means by which he has preached the Gospel to the Thessalonians; the fallibility or infallibility of such means for all generations to come (which is the point of Sola Scriptura) is not even addressed here. Once again, I can communicate the Gospel to someone orally (perhaps a remote tribe with no written language). This does not mean that I believe in an infallible oral source, especially if I'm a Protestant missionary. I can't really state it any simpler than the means of communication in a particular instance =/= the means by which revelation is perfectly preserved for all generations. Next you move onto arguably the most common (and IMO the most fatally simplistic) Roman apologetic that the scriptures never teach Sola Scriptura. I could point to the usual passages in response to this, but I believe what is most necessary is exposing the ludicrous implications of this argument. Consider this: it is a clear and necessary principle that, unless explicitly established otherwise by God Himself, any given source is susceptible to error. All functional believers live with this mindset in their subconsciousness. In light of this, if God has not established a source as infallible, then it must by default be assumed to be fallible. And in scripture, only one source is ascribed a perpetual, God-breathed, infallible status; scripture itself. We hear Christ Himself acknowledge this in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 (same event) wherein in he contrasts the oral "tradition of the elders" that the Pharisees held to with the written Word of God, stating that the Pharisees wrongly placed the former above the latter. Nowhere does Christ affirm an unwritten source of God's Word; He only cites written scripture here (and everywhere else in the Gospels) as the Word of God, clearly reflecting an assumption that the written revelation from ancient men of God are the highest of all authorities. Never does He ascribe a divine status to an oral tradition. Likewise, we have the commonly cited 2nd Timothy 3:16 - 17, which establishes the divine nature of written scripture. Does scripture ever bestow this status on an oral institution? No. Thus, the scriptures do indeed teach Sola Scriptura by virtue of the fact that no permanent source is established as God-breathed other than the written scripture. And if you are to deny the assumption that nothing is inspired unless proven otherwise (which this Roman apologetic requires), then you have just given equal authority to not just your Sacred Tradition, but Orthodoxy's tradition, the Oriental Orthodox, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, and every other religious authority. After all, where does the Bible say the Book of Mormon isn't inspired? Or the Quran? Or another Church's tradition? Finally, there is the big sentence which you hyped up as a succinct refutation of Sola Scriptura: I never said you stole money. Almost each word in this sentence can be emphasised in speech, providing multiple possible yet totally different meanings. Frankly, I believe this analogy is an unintended yet serious mockery of the authors of scripture, both the men themselves and the Holy Spirit. Note that the written scriptures were made as just that, written scriptures. They were designed to be read and understood from their reading. This sentence analogy relies on a confusion in *vocal* emphasis, which is utterly irrelevant to writing. Do you seriously believe that the authors of scripture deliberately inserted vague sentences that can be interpreted multiple, totally different ways depending on where the tonal emphasis is? Can you name one place in scripture where that is the case? If by some miracle you can, has Rome infallibly interpreted that passage? Because that is what you require if you want your infallible interpreter argument to fly. Also, the analogy assumes a totally de-contextualised sentence, whereas scripture is a whole library of books filled with self-contextualisation, through which we can understand everything necessary for our salvation and holy living. Some things require extra-biblical study (language, historical context, etc.), yet this is more than possible without Rome's guidance. Now, I don't think you actually believe the Spirit and the biblical authors deliberately wrote to confuse people, but that is what this argument entails, and it serves to totally violate Paul's own promise that scripture can and does prepare the man of God for every good work. I hope you see this and reconsider your approach to this subject.

[@jamessheffield4173]

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.[1] Basil the Great, The Letters, Letter 189 (To Eustathius the Physician).

[@quinnhussey6944]

@theotherpaul Why would some things in scripture require extra biblical study? Aren’t the scriptures clear enough as they are? If the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice, what need would there be for any Christian to study anything other than the scriptures themselves?

[@TheOtherPaul]

@@quinnhussey6944 sufficiency for establishing matters of faith =/= sufficiency for establishing basic functions of reading and contextual knowledge. This is a non-sequitur.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@quinnhussey6944 Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the LORD Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

[@quinnhussey6944]

@@TheOtherPaul What would you say to this. The Lutherans, Methodists, and calvinists all believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura, yet they all have different understandings of what certain passages in scripture mean. For example, “This is my body” and “unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”. Shouldn’t they all come to the same understanding of these passages if Scripture alone were sufficient for establishing matters of faith?

[@mlambert1974]

Great video, thank you. Especially "I never said you stole money" illustration. Great example to illustrate the importance of scholarly interpretation.

[@jess_the_mess7816]

a. The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture. b. In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down. c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does. d. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

[@ClergetMusic]

The intent of compiling the Bible was also simply to separate those texts that are divinely inspired and from Apostolic times from those that only claimed to be so. It was not intended to be used as a complete source of all of Christ's teachings. When the Bible was compiled, the necessity of the Church as interpreter and teacher was presumed.

[@LP-or9bg]

It gives me great joy to know that there are North American Catholics who defend the Faith on youtube since I understand that Catholicism is not very common there. Although the Catholic Faith is still the majority in our Latin countries, you should know that this is changing fast because many catholics are renouncing our faith to follow some Protestant faith. God bless you.

[@jpinla858]

Hi LP, thanks for your comment! Fortunately here in the US many Protestants are converting to the Catholic Church, and many are now Catholic apologists who really know scripture and see the truth in the Catholic Church.

[@Downey-2000]

Strong protestants become Catholic and weak Catholics become Protestant.

[@JesusMovement2.0]

i’m born again in water and spirit , not in a denomination of protestant or catholicism

[@LightoverDarkMinistry]

The arguments of against sola scriptura always boil down to, “there’s other “truth” outside of the Bible you need to know.” Just so happens that “truth” says you need to be be part of our Church, and we’re right everyone else is wrong and you can’t go to heaven unless your a member. Yeah the Bible doesn’t say that but the tradition we made up does, and our tradition confirms our tradition so.... God’s word just isn’t enough, grace and truth just arnt enough, the cross of Christ just isn’t enough, you need our help, and indulgences.

[@PatrickSteil]

Here are my notes Contra “sola scripture” Protestants do not believe in Sola Scriptura. Protestants do not even believe in one definition of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not logical. Sola Scriptura is not found in the Scriptura. Sola Scriptura can not defend which books are the authoritative books that should belong in the Bible. The verses used to substantiate Sola Scriptura can ONLY substantiate the books of the Old Covenant as Scripture. Sola Scriptura ignores history outside of “Scriptura”. Does God not move in any other way? Ignoring Sacred Tradition is to ignore the Word of God. The Word of God the creator of the universe cannot be constrained to a book. Ludicrous. Mark is widely believed to be inspired from the teachings of Peter. Luke tells us he was not an eyewitness but got his information from eyewitness. Sounds like Scripture that was passed down by some means outside of Holy Scripture. We don’t know who wrote Hebrews but it sounds like Paul’s teachings so again Sacred Tradition. We don’t know the criteria that were used to decide which books would become the New Testament but it was the Authority of the Catholic Church that did. And it wasn’t Scripture that defined what would be Scripture. And the Church never taught anyone that it was permissible to use the Bible as “Sola Scriptura”. Anyone who wants to do that needs to get there own Scripture. If “orthodoxy” was a criteria for choosing the books, Sacred Tradition was the only source they had to determine this. If “widespread use” was a criteria - Sacred Tradition. The Bible is a formalization of Sacred Tradition. Without a church led by a Pope we wouldn’t even have a New Testament. It wasn’t until 367 (Athenasius) that we have evidence for the 27 books appearing as approved by the church. What did the Church do for the previous 300 years? Who had the Authority to remove 7 books from the Old Testament? No Christian ever believed in this major principle for 1500 years. It was only “discovered” by a guy who was excommunicated from the Church. Sounds like a man made tradition. Using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is illogical and it does NOT say that Scripture is the only thing we need. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 are depended on for “Sola Scriptura” but please read ALL of 1st and 2nd Timothy. Paul is not making a case in these letters for the Authority of Scripture as the foundation of Truth or our sole rule of Faith. He constantly refers to the things he has taught and preached and tells them to remember these things. And before he ever said 2 Timothy 3:16-17 he said 1 Timothy 3:15 - “But, if I am delayed, you should know the manner in which it is necessary to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and the foundation of truth.” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3:15‬ ‭CPDV‬‬ He definitively says “you should know the manner in which it is NECESSARY to conduct yourself in the house of God” which is “the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of TRUTH”. And proof is in the pudding. For 1500 years the Church was looked at as the rule of Faith to be the Authority over differences of opinion by random human ideas. Once Sola Scriptura became entrenched all people have the freedom to split the Church into 30,000 shards. And the World sees this and says - “yep, told you there is NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH! There is NO God!” What are we doing people???? You want to know why the world has lost its mind? It’s because with each successive generation we have drifted further and further from needing to listen the Church, the Bible and His Truth. Please look into the History of the early Christians that we have writings for AFTER those of the Bible. You will see that they deeply valued unity (even Paul chastised churches for veering from his teachings) and you CANT have unity without TRUTH and you CANT have TRUTH without AUTHORITY. And without AUTHORITY there cannot be LOVE because we won’t know how to be OBEDIENT to our God! The Bible is an infallible book but then as soon as anyone tries to discover what it means they are an infallible reader. If Scripture is the only infallible authority then we wouldn’t need to learn it from fallible teachers. There would be no preaching, teaching, writing books. Imagine if you could learn it and KNOW that what you were learning was TRUTH! How much more alive could you be??

[@LightoverDarkMinistry]

@@PatrickSteil When we say "sola scriptura" I mean books only by people who were confirmed to have the Holy spirit, aka preforming miracles, or those preforming miracles, affirming the writing. Some dude 1000 years later coming up with a new tradition, there is no way to confirm if he's speaking from the Holy Spirit, or from his own mind. I have to respond to what you said, because it's so far off the truth. "Who had the Authority to remove 7 books from the Old Testament?" > The Apocrypha wasn't added until the 1500's, even Rome rejected it for 1500 years. "The Bible is an infallible book but then as soon as anyone tries to discover what it means they are an infallible reader." >Ok, so then every priest and pope is also an infallible reader. Also the spirit teaches us about scripture. "1 John 2:27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie-just as it has taught you, abide in him. No Christian ever believed in this major principle for 1500 years. It was only “discovered” by a guy who was excommunicated from the Church. Sounds like a man made tradition >Wasn't he excommunicated because he was speaking against the totally unbiblical practice of selling indulgences....hmmm. People have always believed having a relationship with Christ, repentance and salvation by his grace is the core doctrine of the church. The reformation just pointed out, that Rome had become corrupt, and we didn't need those men to know and be loved by God. When I hear Catholics say, "you need more than scripture" you're basically saying, "you need more than the Gospel of Christ" and that my friend, is very very wrong.

[@PatrickSteil]

@@LightoverDarkMinistry Hello, appreciate the response! :) Peace to you fellow Christian! > The Apocrypha wasn't added until the 1500's, even Rome rejected it for 1500 years. No my friend... this is not in dispute. Here is wikipedia's take (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha) "The seven books which compose the Protestant Apocrypha, first published as such in Luther's Bible (1534) are considered canonical Old Testament books by the Catholic Church, affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382) and later reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-63); they are also considered canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church and are referred to as anagignoskomena per the Synod of Jerusalem (1672)." Those books were taken OUT by the Protestant Church - they were part of the Catholic Cannon since 382! :) >Ok, so then every priest and pope is also an infallible reader. Yes! But if we want to get to the Truth we have to have a system in place that works very hard to make sure it is being led by the Holy Spirit and has great safeguards in place so that it does not and cannot veer from Revealed Truth. The Catholic Church does this by (just to name a few things): - Making sure the Church cannot reverse doctrine that has been in place since the earliest apostles and church "fathers" - Making sure the Pope cannot even reverse doctrine! - Only having big church councils only when necessary to address / correct heresies or other crises. And then they take YEARS to make decisions after working together with the very best theologians / priests, popes in the world. And they always look back to Scripture to make sure they are not contradicting it and also to church history. How does this compare to the Protestant system where literally anyone can just decide they believe something different than what "the church" has taught for 2000 years (we were all one church united in doctrine for 1500 years!) and start up a new church from your living room. That is NOT a way to find / maintain / defend God's Truth. >Wasn't he excommunicated because he was speaking against the totally unbiblical practice of selling indulgences....hmmm. Yes, but that doesn't magically make him an Authority, nor does any corruption in the Church discount the previous 1500 years of teaching God's Truth. > People have always believed having a relationship with Christ, repentance and salvation by his grace is the core doctrine of the church. It also obviously was a close-knit Church that defended God's Truth from many many heresies and spread throughout the World as ONE CHURCH. If it wasn't for this One Church, Christianity would never have flourished like it did. > When I hear Catholics say, "you need more than scripture" you're basically saying, "you need more than the Gospel of Christ" and that my friend, is very very wrong. What I hear Protestants say, is "all you need is the 'Word of God'" and by that, they mean the Bible. But are we really saying that God is constrained to the Bible? That there is no possibility of their being any other Truths outside the Bible? What if the Bible wasn't put together to be the sole infallible authority - which it wasn't - then the premise that it is is completely flawed. What if it was instead put together to tell the story of God's Revelation to his people starting with Adam and Even, through Abraham, Moses, all the prophets and all the "old covenant" so that then the story of Jesus and his New Covenant would be in context. If this were the case, then looking to the Bible as a sole authority is pointless because it wasn't even put together to accomplish that goal. What the Bible DOES say is that (1 Timothy 3:14-15): 14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 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. www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Timothy%203%3A15 It is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of the Truth and the earliest disciples, apostles and church fathers, all believed in this strongly - study the early New Testament church (outside the Bible) and you will see this has been carried down through the ages. If we don't need more than Holy Scripture, then why are there 30,000 different Christian Denominations who all claim to have "the truth"? What kind of system is that? How can ANYONE know the Truth if we Christians don't have "one truth"? If you study this more in depth, I think you will have the most awesome revelation of your life! :) God Bless!

[@jamessheffield4173]

They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.[1] Basil the Great, The Letters, Letter 189 (To Eustathius the Physician).

[@patrickoconnor9700]

@@LightoverDarkMinistry The Catholic church does not say that you need more than the Gospel of Christ. Christ is everything.

[@jvlp2046]

Why did St. Paul say, "Hold on to both the Spoken/Oral Tradition and Written (Epistles/letters) Tradition?"... (ref. 2 Thessa 2:15)... because St. Paul knew he would not see the Final Completion of the WRITTEN TRADITION after his martyred down (beheaded) in around 64 A.D. ... The Last to be written down were the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation in around 110 A.D. According to John 21:25... there were many EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done but were not written down for the whole world can not contain them... Therefore, God had summarized all the EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done and had chosen only those with GREAT IMPORTANCE to Mankind's SALVATION to be written down by Inspired MEN (not women) guided by the Holy Spirit and completed them in around 110 A.D. Other written books after the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation around 110 A.D. onward were no longer included in the WORD OF GOD (Holy Scriptures)... such as the written Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Magdalene, Mary, Judas, Enoch, Pontius Pilate, etc... After the Written WORD of God was COMPLETED in around 110 A.D., it became more AUTHORITATIVE than the Oral Tradition... As long as the Oral Tradition does not contradict the Written Tradition, that means, God still wanted them to be practiced... However, if not, the Written Tradition must supersede, overrule, and remove that particular Oral Tradition to be practiced by True Christians... This was God's WILL (Prerogative), for if it is still required/needed, God would allow them to be written down in the first place... logically speaking. The Oral and Written Traditions must be UNITED as ONE w/o Division/Confusion... One (United) God, One WORD (Scripture), and One (Spiritual) TRUTH... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.. ========== As long as the Old Oral/Verbal Tradition does not contradict God's Written Tradition, God still allowed them to be practiced... However, if it does contradict, then God's Written Tradition which is more AUTHORITATIVE must supersede, overrule, and stop the practice immediately... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)... The Oral and Written Traditions must be UNITED as ONE without confusion and division... One (United) God, One WORD (Scripture/Bible), and One TRUTH... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen. =========== What a BIG LIE... Christ Jesus repeated His Petition of Prayer to His Father God/YHWH only TRICE (3x) but with an INTERVAL BREAKS in between His prayers and not continuously... (ref. Matt. 23:39-42)... and not over and over and over again continuously... that is a big HOAX of LIES and Misleading... Repent, and may God have mercy on your soul!... Christ Jesus never PRAYED 50X with the SAME WORDS of PRAYER continuously like the Rosary... For Christ Jesus knew His Father God/YHWH is not DEAF.... There were Two (2) interval breaks in between His prayers... not continuously... Christ Jesus repeated only TRICE (3x) because he was at that time pleading/requesting to take away the TASK (Cup) of Suffering and Death on the Cross, not His will but God's WILL be done... That was the only time Christ had done that, no other events... Never He repeated over and over His Prayer with the same WORDS to His Father God/YHWH, only at the Garden of Gethsemane... Facts and Truth of the Matter... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen...

[@TR-wm3sg]

Helpful video with good arguments, but it left out the thing that every other Catholic apologetic discussion on this topic that I have heard leaves out: what Bible verses do Protestants use to defend sola scriptura? Surely there must be something in the Bible that they cite as their defense. If I went up to a Protestant and said, "You know, sola scriptura isn't in the Bible", what Bible verse would they come back with, and what would be the catholic response to that defense?

[@chrishumphries7489]

There is no such verse in the Bible (kind of the point, right?). However, the most often cited is oddly 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." I have yet to have a protestant or evangelical Christian explain how this is a proof scripture for sola scriptura.

[@catholicdefenceandtruthsee1223]

@@chrishumphries7489 and when they give you that verse ,,,, remember scriptures refered to old testament books not the new testament because the new testament books were not a part of scripture till somewhere 380AD ,,,,, so when they give you the verse all scripture is inspired ,,, ask them then why they removed the books of old then because that's apart of all scripture and that's what they were speaking of at that time ,,

[@junkim5853]

@@catholicdefenceandtruthsee1223 If you want to go to this route a protestant has all the right to ask Catholics why their Church completely removed the distinctions of the Deuterocanon that the Early Church Fathers had made throughout Christian history and anathematized it? The Early Church Fathers came with the distinction between canon and scripture, most of the Deuterocanon was declared to be part of scripture but for the purpose of edification not for divine revelation and authority. We know that the Deuterocanon unlike the Old Testament and the New had debates about its reliability and historicity not just between the Jews but with Christians for hundreds of years and this is evident by the councils like Council of Carthage and Hippo, and many Early Church fathers like Athanasius, Jerome, Ephiphanus.One Early Church Father like Rufinus viewed the Deuterocanon as Ecclesiastical books not canonical. In the case of the Deuterocanon the dispute between which books are canonical and which are not are still unsettled, you can clearly see that by seeing the Eastern Orthodox Canon along with the fact that any Catholic councils were unable to properly settle the disputes of the Greek Septuagint and the Deuterocanon. If you want to accuse Protestants of removing books from the Old Testament a Protestant can ask a Catholic why they removed the Shepherd of Hermas, the prayer of Mannaseh and other books from the Greek Septuagint? It seems the Catholics justify it with their so-called Apostolic authority which in my opinion with all due respect seems to be a cheap excuse.

[@catholicdefenceandtruthsee1223]

@@junkim5853 first off brother i never mentioned anything about protestent i mentioned anti catholic views .. Ok lets first talk about the cannon of scripture .. First off ... The word scripture in the bible refers to the books of old .. Not the new because the new testament wasint apart of scripture till 380s AD ... Over 350 year afther jesus was on the earth ... My point being when the bible tells us ...2 timothy 3: 16- 17...al scripture is given by inspiration of god .and is profitable for doctrine .for reproof .for correction ..for instuction in rightouesness ..so remember it refers to books of old because new testament was not apart of scripture .. They were only known as the new holy books and were to be added over 3 centurys later ... So if all scripture 2nd timoty 3: 16- 17 are given by inspiration of god ... Who is any catholic or any protestent. To say that none of the books of old is not inspired .... Now i no ur correct that some may say they dont think their inspired .. As you said a church father ... But also the leader of the protestent reformation .. Wanted to remove the epistle of james .. And the book of revelations .... So the arguement is you dont belive a catholic can make a mistake about he suggestion of what he was on inspired ... But i say you wouldnt agree with martain luther wanting to remove books .. Such as the book of revelations or book of jamez which he called a book of straw .. So lets agree a man can make a mistake hes only human .. Now lets get to the cannon .. Now if you do ur homework diffrent groups of jews honor diffrent books which they called sacred .. So the church noticed a fact that the new testament authours used refrences from only one book of the jewish groups. ..which is called sepuagint .. And no where in the bible thoose it say or caution us from useing the books ... Hebrews 11: 35 .. Contains a very clear refrence to 2 mc 7 and thats only one of 350 refrences from sepuagint .. Now lets get back to jerome lets see what he later said ... Apology against rufunus 2: 33 ( A.D 401 ) What sin have i commited if i follow the judgement of the churchs ..but he who brings charges against me for relating ( in my preface the book of daniel ) the objections that the hebrews are wont to raise against the story of susannah ( Dn 13) the song of the three children ( DN 14) which are found in the hebrew volume. Proves he is just a foolish sycophant ..i was not relating my own personel views .but rather the remarks that they want make against us ...if i did not reply to their views in my preface .in intrest of brevity ..lest it seemed that that i was composing not a preface..but abook..i belive i added promptly the remark..for i said " this is notthe time to discuss matters. Now brother the catholic church has the books the new testament authurs refrenced ... Good enough for the new testament authurs good enough for us ...and 2nd timoty 3:16 backs up our claim for the books .. Because we are speaking of the old remember ... So again if apostles refered to them. And second timoty says their inspired ...and the bible dosint condem them .. Now lets ask about the man who wanted them removed martain luther .. He also wanted revelations and james removed .. But guess what he didint remove them they were all placed at back of the bible along with james and book of revelations. In the 1611.k.j.v and were only removed in late 1800s .. So my question to you my friend is if god gave authurty to the catholic church to place the books in the bible .. And god does not change hes mind .. Who gave the man who took them out of the bible .. Couldnt be god ...could it ..and if you say their not inspired ur going against 2nd timoty 3: 16 and you have a problem with the authur who is realy the holy spirit who inspired the human hand to refrence them .. Now brother i was protestent. I love protesnt brothers .and sisters ..i was anti catholic ...i love my catholic brothers and sisters . i love you all with equal love .. I just said research ur questions and hear it from a catholic the accused not the accuser the anti catholic .. Peace brother love jesus .. Before you reply .. Remember the greatest command love the lord ur god with all ur heart all ur strenght and ur neibour as ur selve.. So insted of being anti catholic..heed the verse

[@junkim5853]

@@catholicdefenceandtruthsee1223 I hope you know that I am not an anti-Catholic and you failed to make a distinction of whom you were arguing to. It seems you didn't do much research at all and I urge you to do more research than using a typical cliche caricature. Let's be clear that although 2Tim 3:16-17 refers to the old testament this doesn't mean the new testament never existed or was never in the process of development until 380 years after the apostles and the disciples of the 12 apostles died. What the Church did was recognizing which books and letters were divinely inspired which means that these books and letters were already written long before the Early Church canonized the scriptures. Of course the books and letters in the New Testament were written about 9-80 years after Jesus died. Now to address your point since you ascribe to the Church of Peter what do you think of this? 2 Peter 3:15-16 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. So obviously, the New Testament was never canonized during the Biblical times, but this verse sure indicates that Peter acknowledged and affirmed the literate tradition and declared what Paul writes as part of scripture. Now you failed to address any of my arguments regarding the council and some prominent Early Church Fathers who clearly had a different canon compared to the Catholic Church. You interestingly showed the letter Jerome wrote to Rufinus but didn't provide any more insight. Now many Catholics constantly fail to take this letter in context. Jerome chose to go with the Church's decision of the Greek Septuagint translations of Daniel, not the whole Old Testament itself. We know Jerome showed his own canon list in one of his Vulgate after the council of Carthage which took out the Deuterocanonical books in Prologus Galetus. The latest works of Jeromes still had the Deuterocanon excluded which many Early Church Fathers and Christians many years later followed. Now you failed to understand the crux of my argument just because all of the Deuterocanonical books were divinely inspired doesn't mean these books had the same level of authority compared to other books in the Old Testament and the New Testament canon because these books were heavily debated throughout Jewish and Christian history. Because of these debates, the Deuterocanonicals were not part of the canon but were part of scripture for the purpose of edification. Now throughout the history of the Early Church 11 out of 36 books were heavily contested by the Early Church Fathers and like I already told you the Early Church Fathers unanimously proposed distinctions within the scriptures or a canon within the Canon. If you read Luther's Epistle of Straw he has proposed Christians reformulate the biblical canon the same way the Early Church Fathers proposed and put Epistle of James in a secondary status but never to completely take out James Epistle from the canon itself. So please don't try to misportray Luther's proposal by suggesting that he wants to take out the Epistle of James or delegating James' Epistle for no reason. I do urge you to do more research to make sure you represent the Protestantism perspective in a proper light. Now, I researched both Protestants view and the Catholics regarding their canon and it seems that the Catholics have way more misconception and stereotypes against intellectual Protestants as when we do a deeper dive regarding the Catholic arguments of their canon it's a combination of misinformation or taking information out of context and failing to truly take the writings of the Early Church Fathers as a whole.

[@4jgarner]

Please help me understand how inflection would correct my understand of James 2 verses 17 or 24?

[@jeremygarst394]

Bro you should get some religious stickers and cover up that laptop logo

[@jediv9492]

​ @A DUDE *Why no answer rctist? Did Jesus say we need to have a R Catholic faith or r ct sacraments or submission to r ct pope or devotion to Mary to be saved? If not, it is not necessary isnt it?*

[@tomsaltsman]

I believe we invite misunderstanding when we talk about Sacred Tradition as something ALWAYS separate from Sacred Scripture. More than anything, Sacred Tradition interprets Sacred Scripture. Only a few doctrines stand totally outside of Sacred Scripture. Even the Transfiguration can be used as ratification for the Communion of Saints. There are untold thousands of Protestant denominations because they reject the Church's authority in this important matter. Take the example of divorce and remarriage. In Catholic Tradition...as opposed to anything Orthodox or Protestant...a careful look at the sum total of scripture prohibits a baptized spouse having another spouse while the previous one is still alive. Since marriage is consumated by a physical act that makes a baby have the same parents for life, this union cannot be undone by a mere piece of paper or decree of any sort.

[@tonyl3762]

Nice summary of typical, strong Catholic apologetics on this point.

[@solovief]

I rejected the belief in sola scriptura in the late 90s and never looked back.

[@douglasmcnay644]

The Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, the Moonies, and all other cults don't believe in Sola Scriptura. Seems like a commonality that you probably shouldn't share...

[@solovief]

@@douglasmcnay644 Well, if sola scriptura was a biblically provable belief (no one has ever proven it to me by the truncated 66 book bible, even though I asked them to do so) then I'd agree with you. From a Catholic perspective those groups in part share something with all Protestants, and that is this belief that at some point things really went south for the Church (usually they say around the time of Constantine or earlier) and She was all but lost until novel minds brought Her back from the very brink around the 16th century even though Christ promised us that not even the gates of Hell would prevail against Her. Catholics would agree for the most part that those groups fell further off the rails of orthodoxy than most mainline Protestants. But the belief in an early corruption of the Church is almost universal.

[@redbeardedalaskaman1237]

@@douglasmcnay644 i dont know about the others but i know for a fact that jehovah's witnesses believe in sola scriptora. I know this because i have debated jw's so much. Since i know your wrong about jw's i also have to call into question if the rest of what you say is true

[@Nolongeraslave]

Why?

[@solovief]

@@Nolongeraslave It wasn't clearly demonstrated through the Scripture. So it had failed it's own test. On the other hand I grew up Methodist and realized that the Word and tradition go hand in hand. Eventually the Lord brought me to Catholicism and everything finally clicked. Since that time I've asked people who believe in sola scriptura to show any biblical support for it, even using multiple scripture passages. No one has ever been able to prove it. Not even pastors or seminarians.

[@donzelaya627]

Sola Scriptura is an Evangelical Movement that calls on Christians to live their faith and conduct guided by the Holy Scriptures. If that is a source of debate, then might as well say you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scriptures.

[@briankilcoyne9522]

Very well articulated and i totally agree with what you said ! One and only one holy Catholic and apostolic church which Jesus started !

[@veekee75]

Hi Sean Hussey, you said someone need to interpret the Scriptures and we cannot interpret the Scriptures ourselves as taught by the roman catholic church. Then why do you ask us to pray and read the scripture seriously and daily? Why read something that we can't interpret? I would like to hear your explanation.

[@veekee75]

Hi Sean, it's been a week but there's no response and answer for me. It's either you see me as someone not worth your time to have a fruitful discussion or you simply are not confident enough to engage or you have no answer at all. I don't think being silent is the way to go if your "Church" is indeed the successor of Peter. You should be out to spread the Gospel and teach the truth like the apostles. Isn't your channel about spreading and defending the truth?

[@veekee75]

@trollpatrol7215 you mentioned "Priest". Can you tell me why we still need priests in the Church? What do they do?

[@jonathanmaranatha8796]

it would be nice to have some precision and example on a certain interpretation .... the problem for many is more subtle .... even myself. as on the statue, the prayer to the saint and the role of Mary. I am a newly Catholic was Protestant .... I understand these doctrines in general except that I would like us to be more precise on the interpretation. I dont see a lot explanation given in its depth. thank you for your video.!

[@TheLoveAgenda]

1 Timothy 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

[@kayladavis4574]

Hey Sean! I’m also a Protestant joining RCIA soon. I was wondering how we can know it’s Rome with the right tradition or that it is the one true church Jesus founded ? Might be a silly question, but I was wondering if you have any church history resources! I order father knows best by Akins and a catechism! God bless

[@bradyyyyyyy11]

Check out “the Early Church Was the Catholic Church” Joe Heschmeyer or “the Protestant’s Dilemma” by Devin Rose. I was recently asking similar questions, raised Protestant. These were both very helpful to me

[@capecodder04]

Also, a book called "The Church Of Our Fathers" written in the 1800's is very well known

[@martinabdalla9409]

Because Jesus assured Peter faith will never fail. The pope symbolically is Peter of every age, for he's the successor or Peter. Also Matthew 16:18

[@jediv9492]

@Kayla Davis *R Catholicism has nothing to do with God and His Words. R Catholic Church contradicts Scriptures in every possible ways!* 1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. But BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. She was a sinner. Bible says Mary needed a Saviour. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10. 2. Catholics say clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter (supposed R Church first leader) had mother in law. Bible says celibacy is not a qualification for clergies. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39. 3. Catholics say Mary was forever virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was not perpetually virgin. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47. 4. Catholics say confess to R priests in a box. BIBLE says nothing about confessing to priests in a box. Bible says confess to GOD only. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10. 5. Catholics say drink of the physical blood of Jesus. Yet OT and NT both say do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26. 6. Catholics say pray to passed on Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. NT Church did not record a single case of NT believers asking passed on saints to pray for them. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19. 7. Catholics make and bow down to statues. BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5. 8. Catholics sprinkles “holy water”. But NT Church of the Bible mentioned nothing about “holy water”. There was no record of any Apostles sprinkling “holy water” on believers. Catholics claimed “holy water” came from OT. Yet Num 5:17 says “holy water” was water used to test adulterous women in OT temple. Hardly the same. Those were for Old Covenant Jews. Not New Testament Christians. 9. Catholics say Peter was pope - bishop of all bishops. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Bible says nothing of the office of bishop of bishops. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18. 10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. Jesus said “not to lord over others”. 11. Catholics has clergy priesthood. Bible says clergy priesthood was done away with in New Testament. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10. 12. Catholics preaches Works Salvation (faith + good works + partake R sacraments + submit to R pontiff + be in R Church + devote to Mary = to be saved). Yet Bible says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Bible says Works Salvation is cursed. Gal 1:8-9. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10. 13. Catholics says they must do Penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. Catholic Bible changes the word “repentance” in NT into “penance”. Original Greek NT does not use or mean the word penance. Penance = work to atone for sins. Repentance = change of heart. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6. 14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it. 15. Catholics say Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.

[@jediv9492]

​@@martinabdalla9409 *ROman ctists love self claims. Mat 16 does not say Roman ct inherited the authority of Peter. So where did these claims come from? Roman ct's own concoction?* you said Because Jesus assured Peter faith will never fail. The pope symbolically is Peter of every age, for he's the successor or Peter. Also Matthew 16:18

[@user-fy2ox9ep9t]

Many unwise Protestants justify and resort to this verse Matthew 18: 19 : "If two or three gathered in my name........" for the many Protestant churches around the world. If that is so, why Jesus says in Mark 13:16: "Many will come in my name...." For this, Patrick's analogy really applicable to all the simple and complex passages of the Bible.

[@preacherrobin]

Sean, how many catholic churches are there? If more than one your entire video is rendered invalid. I am not protestant, I am christian, a saint, a disciple, a follower of Jesus Christ. 2 Tim 3:15-17 Paul teaches that the scripture is given so that the man of God can be completely furnished unto every good work. This concept of the completeness of the scriptures is repeated in Paul's writing to the Galatians. Gal 1:6-8. John speaks similarly in Rev 22:18-19.Further Jude teaches that the faith which has once for all delivered. You mention Jesus instituted the Catholic church. When (once you have decided which Catholic denomination is the true Church) did that occur? Are you advocating one cannot be a christian by following only that which is taught is scripture? i.e. was Paul wrong when he wrote that he was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ Romans 1:15-17? Your one line 6 word sentence is a strawman. This is what the apostle Peter warned of when he spoke of wresting the scripture 2 Peter 3:16. One need not be protestant nor catholic. The scriptures are infallible, man's understanding or application may be at fault but not the text.My appeal, let us be simply Christian.

[@onlylove556]

As a protestant i appreciate everything u r doing here, to open r eyes to the truth. So my point is to say when i become a Christian i knew God existed and Jesus Christ is r Lord and savior. However i couldn't commit myself to a particular church, bc I noticed right away each church has a diff interpretation of the scripture, as in a diff Gospel on salvation issues, and of course a lot of Christians today ie protestants will say well what does that have to do with a salvation issue, they say you see we could agree to disagree, but @ the end of the day it's not a Salvation issue, but the fact is there are salvation issues 💯. In protestantism you see infant baptism, on how we r reborn again, others say no infant baptism is a false dogma, we see once saved always saved, others say no thats false all these are salvation issues💯 so who is right. Then I noticed in the bible ie "sola scriptura" that the church presupposes the New Testament scriptures, so how can sola scriptura be biblical, I noticed it is a self refuting argument. Well with that said i let go of sola scriptura, & now i see Catholicism teaching in the bible. So thank u God bless i pray this video reaches millions of protestants to see the truth, that Matthew 16:18-19 is a promise to the church to never fail, that no man can take over the church of Jesus Christ through satan, which means Constantine, Martin Luther, Calvin and many more men that the church was always here and passed down to others and is still here to this very day 2000 yrs later. God bless u all 💯🙏🏼

[@ronaldeglewski3073]

Hippolytus of Rome wrote 225-235 AD. " The children shall be baptized first . All the children who can answer for themselves let them answer . If there are an children who cannot answer for themselves ,let their parents answer for them ,or someone in their family , remember Peter baptized whole families ,their are no age limits in the bible .

[@onlylove556]

@@ronaldeglewski3073 I never read him yet but thank u for that. I appreciate church history so much. Growing up a protestant, & anti-catholic I cant stop reading church history. Realizing how much I've missed out as a protestant believer. But Yes that reminds me of these scriptures below. I was so surprise when I first started to study infant baptism, & read these vs... 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. Then Jesus himself literally calls infant babies to himself.. Luke 18:15-17 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciple saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” Then It made so much sense to me when I read scriptures on circumcision is the new baptism. and of course the Israelites circumcised their children on the 8th Day, and they entered into the Covenant. and it was bc of the faith of the parents... I felt so ignorant knowing these scriptures were right in front of my face the whole time, I jus didn't see it. Bc i was blinded by protestantism. I only read the bible with protestant glasses on.. I became a Catholic believer because of the Bible alone. And I cried for months when I found out the Catholic, & Apostolic churches were actually biblical. I believe its the Catholic church that is the 1st church. But I apologize & repent of everything I said about the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church... God bless u 💯🙏🏼🇻🇦

[@adude849]

​@@onlylove556Thank you

[@onlylove556]

@@adude849 most definitely

[@simonmarian6804]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I do however, respectfully disagree with your conclusion. It seems to me, that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is missing from your understanding of how we interpret scripture. No 'protestant' Christian thinker I have ever met, listened to, or read has suggested that we can accurately interpret what the Holy Scriptures say without the aid and direct revelation from the Holy Spirit that indwells each and every Christian once they are born again. I, like you, believe very much in there only being one correct way to interpret the Holy Scriptures. And I believe that God also cares that we have a correct understanding of the truth contained in the scriptures. As a Christian, I am responsible for exposing myself to the Holy Scriptures by studying, memorizing, and meditating on the words contained therein. But the Holy Spirit is the one who will reveal to me the correct interpretation and meaning of the text. I once heard a pastor put it this way: "The Holy Spirit cannot use the Holy Scriptures that you don't know." The Apostle Peter talks about this in II Peter 1:19-21: "And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The word "prophecy" means 'discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God'. The key to a prophecy is "divine inspiration", i.e., the revelation that comes from the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, one cannot rightly interpret the Holy Scriptures. And the Catholic Church is not the sole repository of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit indwells each and every born-again human who is now a servant of God. And God will ensure that we have the understanding we need to carry out His will for our lives! Because of Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I have everything I need! All I need is a humble heart and an open Bible, and God will reveal to me the truth that I need to be a faithful servant for his Kingdom. I might not understand everything, but that is ok, God does not reveal all truth at once, only what we need in the present. Another point of disagreement that I have is the elevation of the traditions and teachings of men to the level of the Holy Scriptures. Jesus took a very strong stance against this in Matthew chapter 15. I would encourage you to go read this chapter! I don't usually comment on videos, but since you don't have that many views yet, I was hoping that you might be more likely to read my comment. I hope my tone was respectful and gracious. I pray that God blesses you, my brother, and thanks again for sharing your thoughts!

[@tomaschacko]

Simon Marian study Eucharist miracles and see where living forgiving heart of Jesus is present and Jesus is indeed god who created life by his word!! The proof every living souls asks!! Protestants have a false spirit of disobedience and pride similar to Satan which twist word of god!! Even in Eden he twisted gods word to mislead and make slaves of those who believed it!!!

[@tomaschacko]

Simon Marian kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJC3eJ6HfsmdqLs

[@tomaschacko]

Simon Marian kzbin.info/www/bejne/Znm8YYOHab-ol8k

[@danielg.4528]

Mr. Marian, since on Pentecost the Church was born and since on Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles, it is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church, the Bride of Christ,. And since the Holy Spirit is the “soul” of the Church then it is the Church that is the sole custodian and expositor of the Sacred Scriptures; it is the Church with its Magesgterium, Sacred Tradition, and Sacre;d Scripture that inform, teach and guide the faithful NOT scripture alone which is clearly set forth in this video.

[@matthewbroderick8756]

Simon, okay, sure, then indeed, the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is True food and Blood True drink. ( John 6:53, Matthew 26:26). Not symbolic. Indeed, " it is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED ",,( James 2:24). You are in my prayers!

[@jediv9492]

​ @A DUDE *All my points still still still remain unchallenged. This is Sola Scriptura : 150+ verses say Jesus, Apostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they took doctrines from Traditions of Moses/Pharisees. This already proves Sola Scriptura doctrine. It's not a man made traditions.* you said Sola Scriptura is the definition of man tradition

[@andya2665]

The "traditions" Paul is talking about are for continuing with fervor the actual acts of the passing on of scripture, (The Great Commission) not in repetitive rituals, or in praying to Mary. Read the full chapter. The tradition of Purgatory actully undermines Jesus's atoning death on the cross. And too many other things in Catholic beliefs contradict scripture. Read for yourself. God judges our heart, our acts are like "filthy rags" Isaiah 64:6. Jesus is our only Savior, our Perfect Lamb. We bring nothing to the table.We are not saved by works but by trusting only in Jesus. The thief on the cross brought nothing but his trust in Jesus and was saved.

[@patrickoconnor9700]

Are you saying that you cannot hold to anything else, or any tradition unless it is written? St. Paul talks about oral tradition also, which hasn't been written. At the end of John's Gospel, it talks about how not everything that Jesus did has been written. Are the things that Jesus did which haven't been written, less important than the things that Jesus did which have been written? They are both valuable, whether written or unwritten. The Catholic church believes in our Lord Jesus Christ, so you're preaching to the choir. I'm not sure if you have the correct interpretation of Purgatory. Maybe you can explain what you're understanding of it is. The Catholic church does not teach works. Our Lord Jesus Christ is everything.

[@alexrizo605]

If were taking the One Sentence approach, then here's the one sentence that convinced me Sola Scriptura is true: "Do not go beyond what is written." 1 Corinthians 4:6.

[@amo4738]

1 Timothy 3:15

[@PatrickSteil]

Does not prove Sola Scriptura. This is an illogical and failed doctrine. The only thing it has done is splintered the church that Jesus founded into 30,000 different versions of His Truth. Please research and determine if this is really good for the Body of Christ.

[@JayRedding12_12]

Right. The Church is the pillar and bulwark, not personal interpretation of the Bible.

[@montagnesaintegenevieve5177]

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.

[@nathanoppy]

So happy to be catholic now. Had my first confession today and it was so beautiful

[@MementoMori1001]

Amen

[@godmakesnew]

It would be easier for me to agree if he addressed the problem of the Catholic Church corruption of doctrine and abuses of power that prompted the Reformation. I think, he has some great points. I see several problems with how some Protestants understand or misunderstand SS. However, I’m so far not satisfied on the answers about why church tradition can be considered inspired, when there seems to be such incoherence present. It’s probably due to my misunderstanding of catholic doctrine. But I would like to understand better.

[@tessamartinez6977]

Great, simple, clear and effective explanation ! Keep up the great service for the glory of God!

[@ev1193]

7:35. Ya know, at Home Depot I did buy a book on home remodeling. I guess they can tell you how to build a house

[@aurelia3494]

I get your point with the analogy, but actually the Holy Spirit is there to open our hearts, help us to understand. Also every verse we read, and so interpret, need to be confronted with the whole Bible message. So I think the Bible is sufficient because it reveals what we need to know, and it's enough to make us understand sin + justification + sanctification, God enables us to understand it (which leads to the topic of predestination..ouch) Then we could argue also how do we know that the catholic church has (or is idk) the truth bc catholic church is also intereprating just like the protestant church is in my opinion Your point is really interesting though thanks.

[@Daniel_Abraham1099]

Your method of interpretation would be great if there was only 1 protestant denomination. However there are more than 30,000 denomination. Meaning that all of them were using the exact same method as you, "asking the Holy spirit" unless you believe that the holy spirit can contradict itself then that means only 1 denomination can be true and the rest are false. We must heed the word of st Peter. 2 Peter 1:20 ESV knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.

[@Justas399]

@@Daniel_Abraham1099 Since there are supposedly 30.000 different Protestant denominations can you show me just 4 different interpretations by some of these denominations on John 3:16? Can you give me the infallible interpretation of this verse by your church?

[@Daniel_Abraham1099]

@@Justas399 Sure John 3:16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. Mormon: Since they believe Jesus was not God, they use this verse to support that he is a creation Baptist: they interpret believe to be a mere intellectual assent or trust. Lutheran: they interpret believe to mean the obedience of faith not just intellectual assent. The act of belife is baptism which they support with verses like 1 Peter 3:21"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you..." this is called baptismal regeneration Methodist: also believe in baptismal regeneration but they say that in order to be fully saved one need to be fully sanctified with the holiness of the holy spirit. Calvinist: for these guys it doesn't matter if you believe, becuase if you aren't part of the elect then this verse doesn't apply to you. God does not love the whole world since he personally damned the majority of them without even giving them a chance. Here are five completely different interpretations of the same verse and could keep on going. You asked if the catholic church has an infalible interpretation of this verse. If you mean to ask if the catholic church has an infalible commentary on scripture that comments on every single bible verse, then no. But no one claims that in the first place. However if you mean to ask if the catholic church has an infalible interpretation on the doctrine of salvation that is backed by scripture then yes. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. - Nicene Creed Therefore baptismal regeneration is the correct view. Obvious I only gave one example as there are numerous more, so here are some links with more information. www.catholic.com/qa/im-debating-a-protestant-and-he-rejects-my-interpretations-based-on-the-fact-that-the-church www.catholic.com/qa/doesnt-john-316-clearly-indicate-that-faith-alone-is-necessary-for-salvation www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/born-again-the-bible-way www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural-part-i

[@simonmarian6804]

@@Daniel_Abraham1099 As an evangelical Christian (I wouldn't classify myself as a protestant), I am also disturbed by the countless numbers of denominations. But you should know that most mainstream denominations do not disagree with each other on the essential doctrines of the Holy Scriptures. God is not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33), so where there is confusion in the body of Christ, one has to wonder where this is coming from... i.e., I believe that it is possible that the enemy (Satan) is at least one of the contributing factors in there being confusion in the body of Christ. Also, just because there are many denominations, does not mean that there are equally as many interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. Again, as I stated above, most mainstream denominations are in agreement with each other.

[@Justas399]

@@Daniel_Abraham1099 mormons are not Protestants. I'm asking for the official interpretations of the John 3:16. Not your interpretations of what you think it means.

[@jediv9492]

*nt Church of the Bible did not have Roman pontiff neither Roman priests, neither did Apostles pray to dead saints or Mary, neither did Apostles and Jesus make statues for Mary and saint .. Neither bow down to statues .. Neither Roman unholy water, neither sinless Mary, neither veneration of skulls bones tongues ... So where are all these man made doctrines of Rome in the Bible? Neither all the below man made doctrines! Wonder where they come from?* ​*There was never a Catholic Church in the Bible.* *There was never a R Catholic Church in the Bible.* *There was never a Catholic in the Bible.* *There was never a Roman Catholic in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church pope in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church priest in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church cardinal in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church sinless Mary in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church unholy water in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church penance in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church purgatory in the Bible.* *There was never a R Church canonised saint in the Bible.* *There was never an Nt believer who made or bow down to statues in the Bible.* *There was never an Nt believer who prays or received prayers from passed saints or Mary in the Bible.* *There was never an ecumenical council with bishops of all churches that decided the canon in history* *If you can find one example in the New Testament I will give you a lollipop.* *nt church of the Apostles did not have such practices. Answer me: did apostles make and bow down to statues? Did Apostles ask passed on saints to pray for them? Or sprinkle "holy" water on believers? Or wore fishhead hat and costumes? Or cite hocus pocus when they serve the communion? They merely broke bread and passed around the table. Did they demand believers to kneel in front of them to serve them communion? Or did Peter ask believers to kiss his hands and feet? Or did Apostles venerate statues, bones or relics?* *You do see clearly it all came from practices of believers after the Apostles - which Rcs claimed its from early writings. They had already deviated from the Apostles and Jesus. What Rcc called doctrines were merely partly traditions of errant believers + partly its own self traditions. Totally not from Jesus and Apostles at all.*

[@faithofourfathers]

“So what you’re saying is ...you totally hate the Bible”. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a comment such as this below. 😂. Great job on this video brother! Love it! 👍🏼

[@EugeniaB82]

Is it true that the gospel of Luke is originally written in all capitals and no punctuation? Which would make sense in needing an established body to pass on the real significance.

[@ipso-kk3ft]

I haven't read too much on this, but I remember many of the ancient manuscripts we've found are in all capitals with minimal to no punctuation. It was a common style at the time.

[@davidlabedz2046]

Well presented and straight to matters of truth and the Word.

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📜 *The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is deemed unbiblical, urging its rejection by Christians.* 01:52 💬 *God's word, as per Hebrews 4:12, remains living and active, constantly speaking to believers.* 03:42 📖 *Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture together form the Word of God, as affirmed in the Catechism.* 05:44 ❌ *Sola scriptura faces criticism for lacking biblical support, contradicting its own principle.* 08:03 🏗️ *Sola scriptura's failure lies in its inability to interpret itself, needing an external authority for understanding.* 09:30 🛠️ *While materially sufficient, Scripture requires interpretation, leading to divergent understandings among Protestants.* 10:10 🤔 *The sentence "I never said you stole money" exemplifies the interpretational challenge, undermining sola scriptura's efficacy.* 12:34 🚫 *Sola scriptura is ultimately rejected as an unbiblical and self-refuting doctrine, advocating for reliance on the Church's authority.*

[@habichuelasolutions6849]

Great work!

[@justinevan931]

We need context for the phrase "I never said you stole money" that's for sure.I believe the Bible alone provides much of that necessary context but church history is also very important, matters that were settled for us in a conciliar manner by bishops appointed by the apostles and those that succeeded them. I am inquiring with the claims of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, as someone who was raised in a cultural Catholic American household and now devout protestant attending a Baptist church who wants to grow in my love and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ as faithfully as I can.

[@bridgefin]

You: who wants to grow in my love and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ as faithfully as I can. Me: Then get out of a "church" established by a sinner and get into the ONLY ONE established by God.

[@thelvin28]

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were TAUGHT BY US, either by our spoken word or by our letter. Paul was stating to hold on to the things that were taught ONLY by them, not by priests 300 years later. The traditions are only taught by the apostles. That's it. Don't take the word traditions out of context, just because he used the word tradition.

[@theCurbSide]

imo, in order to correctly Interperet the bible, or ANY other historical document for that matter, it is necessary to try to view it through the perspective of the people who wrote it, as accurately as possible

[@siddesman5607]

"I never said you stole money." Brilliant

[@gomezjkv]

If you are claiming that a single verse of scripture would be sufficient to convince you that Sola Scriptura is true then I propose that you read Act 17:2 where we read that Paul entered the synagogue on three Sabbaths to, '...enter into discussions with them FROM THE SCRIPTURES'. Notice that he used the scriptures only and not scripture and tradition. Paul could very well have used traditions as well. Jesus often used the traditions of the Pharisees against them in an effort to convince them that he was the Messiah. We see this in John 9 when he heals the man born blind. It was the religious leaders that taught that only the Messiah would be able to heal a person of a divine judgement, which is what they believed about the man who was born blind. And when Jesus heals the man who was demon possessed, blind and mute. It was the religious leaders who claimed that it would take the Messiah to release a person from a demon that caused this condition because they believed that to exorcise a demon required communication to be established with the demon in order to cast them out. Is that sufficient enough for you? God bless you and your ministry.

[@savedbygrace8337]

Luke 4:4 “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!

[@JayRedding12_12]

Lol

[@ev1193]

Help me here. Ref. 6:30. 1 Timothy 2:15 KJV “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. “. I can’t make the church connection here.

[@hamb4945]

Even the Gospels give multiple versions of the crucifixion. Eg. The last words of Christ. Did Jesus speak on the cross? Did Jesus say Lord Lord, why have you forsaken me? or did he say, it is finish.

[@jediv9492]

​ @A DUDE *APostles merely said they were spiritual teachers/fathers. Totally not referencing themselves as "bishop of bishops (pope) or clergy priests". You are clearly misquoting Scriptures.* you said Jesus dint even command his Apostle to refer themselves as father's or even calling their Patriarchs as father's and yet look how they talked

[@jediv9492]

​ @A DUDE *Why no answer r ctist? So where did R ct got its m m doctrine? Bible does not teach "venerating/worshipping Mary" rctist. Cite me one apostle or Jesus or NT believer who "venerated Mary". Just one? You cant?* you said Oh that's it even fellow Protestant Doctrine you can't even accept the fact they to Venerated Mary

[@Caleb.S.Spangenberg]

I was considering Catholicism, but switched to considering the Eastern Orthodox Church, because it is the original Church that the Catholic Church broke off of. True, the pope was the head, but if a head breaks off a body, would it not be said that the head split off the body, rather than the body splitting off the head, for the importance of the head is not a sufficient reason to say "from it, the body split off." Rather, the size of the head in comparison to the body is sufficient reason to say, "the head split off the body, as it fell." For the head broke off as it desired to be independent and claim for itself its infallibility, while the body knew that no one part is infallible, and the body must make decision together, as was stated in an ecumenical council (I forget which, but one of the seven), all matters being decided in a council..

[@PatrickInCayman]

Very well put. Excellent example with that sentence. Well done!

[@jediv9492]

​ @A DUDE *150+ verses say Jesus, Apostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they took doctrines from Traditions of Moses/Pharisees. This already proves Sola Scriptura doctrine. It's not a man made traditions.* you said Sola Scriptura is the definition of man tradition

[@SDAWHISTLEBLOWER]

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[@chrishumphries7489]

The most interesting point on sola scriptura is that the Bible, by definition, would have to include a self-sufficient statement in it's pages. Essentially, it would have to outline exactly what books are included and state explicitly that everything else is excluded. Nothing even remotely close to such a statement exists, nor does any statement that God's mouth is forever shut and no more scripture can ever exist or be given.

[@JesusProtects]

God preserved what needed to be preserved. I see no problems here.

[@chrishumphries7489]

@@JesusProtects I completely agree. I simply argue that the Bible is not all God ever said, could say, or will say. We even read about future prophets just before the second coming of Christ. While the Bible is a solid standard of truth, it is not necessarily all God will ever give us.

[@aGoyforJesus]

No, it doesn’t have to include that. Besides overlooking that tradition doesn’t contain a list of traditions so you’d be in the same boat, you’re confusing epistemology with theology.

[@chrishumphries7489]

@@aGoyforJesus I see it this way: The Bible is not God. The Bible is not religion. The Bible is a history of people who had revealed religion through prophets (who God revealed His nature, will, purposes and doctrine to). These prophets were ordained and given authority and had continuing revelation. The Bible is a history of the covenant people and the revelation of prophets. The Bible clearly shows repeated periods of general apostasy and prophetic restoration to the covenant people. God calls a prophet and restores proper doctrine and authority anew after it has been lost for a time (dispensations). This is the Biblical pattern. Even in the time of Jesus the Jews (who had the scriptures and knew them well) were in a state of general apostasy. There were numerous sects within Judaism as well as countless diverse interpretations of scripture and doctrine. They had the word of God, yet they almost entirely missed their own Messiah! God even followed the Biblical pattern of sending John the Baptist, a true authorized prophet, to restore and prepare the people for Christ. The Bible is a history and the writings of prophets (God even follows the pattern of letting authorized servants testify of Him, as there is no gospel written by the hand of Jesus). Again, the Bible itself is not religion. Also, tradition is tradition; it is not doctrine. There are many false traditions, just as there are many false doctrines. That's why I specifically believe there was a great general apostasy in the church. There was clearly loss of prophetic leadership, revelation and proper authority. Christianity, during the dark ages, was not absent of all truth and light, but had become just as the Jews at the time of Jesus. Many sects, multiple doctrines, countless interpretations. No authority, revelation or prophets. The Catholic church began somewhere around 400 A.D. That was the sole church of Christianity for a great while. The reformers saw the corruption in the church as well as doctrines and practices not in-line with Biblical Christianity. They sought to reform, but yet they also lacked revelation and authority to do so. Many diverse sects, interpretations and doctrines sprung from this, and now Christianity does not look so different from the Jewish nation at the time of Jesus. Now I know this is probably not the answer you were looking for. I am not Catholic. I do however, believe the Catholics are right about sola scriptura. That doctrine is not supported by the Bible anywhere. God can always say or reveal more. His mouth is not shut. But, to say more another true prophet with revelation and proper authorization is needed. I believe that God restored the fullness of His gospel in purity and simplicity to the prophet Joseph Smith. Angels conferred proper authority to him and others. I believe that this was done preparatory to the second coming of Christ; that faith in Him may increase, and that "all things may be gathered together in Christ" before His coming. I believe there are true prophets and apostles on the earth today and that revelation continues. Additional ancient scripture was brought forth as a testament to these things. The Book of Mormon is that record. It can be known to be true by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the power by which all truth is known. Now, again I know that this answer is likely more than you bargained for, but I don't want to be disingenuous. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I strongly believe that God continues to speak, reveal, and call and authorize individuals to His holy work. This is my theology and hopefully I have provided you with some good epistemology. I wanted to give you a strait answer. The Bible is a great standard of truth, yet it is not all. God can still speak the way He always has, and always point souls to Christ and truth.

[@patquint3291]

@@chrishumphries7489 The Catholic Church started in the 400s? Dude, really?! Check out an excellent book by Rod Bennett, The Apostasy That Wasn’t.

[@bradyhefnet]

Okay so just 2 things im research both protestants and catholics and both don't understand the other...buts it's clear that sol scriptura can be interpreted by the holy spirit which is how its suppose to be interpreted so, it has and interpriter, and your point about, "I never said you stole money," is correct assuming your asking me to interpreted one verse in thr Bible with no context, passage, chapter, or books surrounding it...its a false analogy, because the Bible provides context for interpretation, while your sentance does not

[@fredharvey2720]

The Bible makes it clear that the Bible completes the man of God. In other words, one not refer to teachings outside of it to get to heaven. And that's the essence of Sola Scriptura and you have not debunked it since you're bound to the Bible.

[@simoncampos3943]

Did not Jesus appeal to scripture? See mark chap 7. God Bless.

[@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."

[@JonathanGrandt]

If Sola Scriptura is unbiblical…. Then how can we know it’s wrong? Since you are saying it is wrong because it is un->✨biblical✨

[@louisvega-oe2sc]

To take one verse, and throw out the rest of the scriptures, convincing you about sola scriptura, is like going on a long journey, by just taking one step, and not completing the journey?

[@Anon.5216]

Pew Research reported in 2022 that there are now 45,000 Protestant denominations in the world, no two agreeing with each other.

[@masterrubicks9241]

I have been researching on early Christianity and traditions but hardly I have came across any video or a source from Orthodox or even Catholic Church on how would they deal on views which were not universally accepted by early church father, it is worth to be noted that doctrines set by church today were made compulsory from 5th century until then many doctrines like perpetual virginity of mary, asking prayers to Saints, Early church father like Origen, Tertullian expressed caution about seeking intersession of angels and saints and argued that Christians should direct their prayers exclusively to God, also it is worth to be noted that if Catholic church was the foundation then why did Catholics were deceived by a 7th century illiterate caravan robber whom we today call religion of terror. Edit: I am open for a lovely discussions with my fellow believers in Jesus Christ

[@Mahsen_Hollowell21]

Thanks for this video my friend! I would intervene here though because the text you cited in 1 Thess 2:15 was out of context.

[@marklaurance1807]

At minute 6:26 in the video, I believe he mistakenly said 1 Tim 2:15; I think he meant 1 Tim 3:15.

[@veekee75]

I have a few questions for all the Roman Catholics here and hopefully I can get some convincing answers. 1) When you said the Church has the authority over the Bible because the Bible is the product of the Catholic church, may I ask from where then did the Catholic church get their teachings from? 2) How can you be sure that your church traditions(those by word of mouth) have been passed down without being corrupted, meaning nothing extra has been added to them? 3) Paul actually said, even if he or any angel were to appear to you now and give you another gospel/revelation, you are to reject it. Paul is very adamant that what he and all other apostles taught are final, nothing is to be added(not even by them). So what makes the pope to have the right to add in extra teachings not found in the Scriptures? Isn't that considered another gospel?

[@veekee75]

So many roman Catholics here commenting, yet none is willing to answer the questions posted? I wonder why? Aren't you people supposed to spread the Gospel and teach the truth? Isn't this channel about spreading and defending the truth of the Roman Catholics faith?

[@veekee75]

@trollpatrol7215 can you actually explain the word "Church" for me please? You said "a Church", what does that mean?

[@veekee75]

@trollpatrol7215 2000 years of unchanging church? You mean the church in Rome? The Vatican? Are you sure it's unchanging? Are you sure the church in Rome is 2000 years old? You need to do more research my friend. And do you realize how many perverted doctrines are being added by the Roman Catholics to the doctrines taught by the Apostles? So how can that be unchanging? The one who never read the Bible should be you, becaude your church forbids you to interpret the Bible on your own. Right?

[@murdog5253]

6:35 correction 1Tim 3:15 not ch 2 discusses the church as the pillar. The pillar however is not the foundation--pillars are beauty and protection from attack. What is the foundation? Ephesians 2:20. "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." This is what the Catholic church is missing, True leadership from God. But where can that be found?

[@RichardSmith-mx9ue]

Augustine agrees with sola scripture. Look it up he said councils are not over scripture. When in 1 Tim 2 -15 Paul says take it to the church he meant the local church. In that time with limited travel and no recognized single authority nationally it had to be the local church.

[@cal30m1]

What does 1 Tim 2:15 have anything to do with the churches authority?

[@Mustikkaleivos9]

1 Tim 3:15

[@jediv9492]

​ @A DUDE *Canon? Since when anyone says a doctrine is a canon? Are you sure you know what is Sola Scriptura?* *You should denounce you r ct faith since 95% of R ct doctrines were Not practised by Jesus, APostles and NT Church. It's all from man made traditions of R ct; which Jesus condemned. Mat 15, Mat 23.* you said unless I am convinced that Sola Scriptura is Canon I will never denounce my Catholic faith

[@jonathanreger5311]

You need to read the full context of that when he says what those traditions were literally are...

[@gopinathanaugustinemunusam911]

Totally agree with your comments. Make complete sense. Thank you.

[@benmiddleton9984]

I disagree. The Mass continues the Sacrifice of the Cross. Each time Mass is offered, the Sacrifice of Christ is repeated...In the Mass Christ continues to offer Himself to the Father as He did on the Cross." Thus, the Mass daily sacrifices Jesus Christ over and over again. And, the Father is well pleased with this daily Mass as He "continues to accept His Son's gift..." The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross, because "in the Mass the victim is the same...Jesus Christ" "Our Blessed Lord did not want His sacrifice continued in the same bloody way in which He offered it on the Cross...So at the Last Supper He gave us a ceremony under which we could continue His Sacrifice. BIBLE FORBIDS CONTINUALLY OFFERING HIS BODY AS SACRIFICE JESUS IS THE ETERNAL, ONCE FOR ALL SACRIFICE

[@megl6148]

But what about the the Protestant churches that do not follow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? It’s not only about interpreting. I also think another argument against Sola Scriptura is that there have been Christians lonbger than there has been a Bible. Also, the early Church decided what was going into the Bible. It didn’t just appear for us to use. That said, I’m staying a Protestant for now. But one that attends a church that follows the doctrine of Prima Scriptura.

[@tastybeetz1511]

Quick rebuttal to points 1.Yes a protestant could reflect sola scriptura if they wished, sola scriptura is not required for a saving faith, and the doctrine of sola scrriptura doesn’t affirm it is needed for salvation. It also doesn’t say you can only believe things in the bible. 2. Using ordinary means the bible is sufficient, It’s more akin to ikea furniture then a house. By ordinary means I mean reading, thinking Etc everything a person could ordinarily do 3. No infallible interpretation isn’t an issue, it mean you will need to think and consider the possibilities for interpretation like every single other decision you have made and will make. If an infallible teaching was that important the Catholic Church would have an official study bible so that no one need think for themselves (except about the interpretation of the catholic writings (maybe we need another church to interpret the Catholic Church)). 4. We figure out what he meant in the sentence by looking at the surrounding context, (the way we would figure out any other meaning of any other sentence), what we don’t do is claim 2000 years later to be able infallibly decipher the meaning of sentence.

[@lukasg9031]

To answer your 3 point. There is no need to have another church to explain the Catholic Church brave the catechism is there to explain or affirm doctrines. The catechism is so to speak the official study bible.

[@DavidIstre]

The simple problem with your "one sentence" dilemma is that the Bible itself is not composed of just one sentence. The Bible does provide its own context. You've merely composed a clever exercise that doesn't address the reality of Scripture. But, the first 10 minutes of your video mischaracterize Sola-Scriptura by conflating Sola with Solo-Scriptura. Protestants do not ignore Christian tradition. We simply don't believe it's infallibly binding. We are informed by our past, but not bound by it. And I think this point is evident in what you said: the Church itself is composed of fallible men wrestling to interpret Scripture, thus, the interpretations of the Church are themselves subject to error, which brings us back to Sola-Scriptura - that Scripture is the only infallible source of authority for the life and teaching of the Church. That doesn't mean we don't listen to the insights of Christians past, but that we don't treat their traditions as infallible.

[@kiwi-xl1vl]

Thank you CB & Catholic Truths.. Well said, keep it up bro! Yep.. Jesus did say to His disciples, "Go the whole world and preach the Good News & all I have commanded you.. " and not 'Go and write down whatever I have taught you and did before you.. '. So the Apostles were busy preaching and working, and accompanied by God's sugns and wonders. He mentored them during ore and post Resurrection till He ascended into heaven. Scripture is only a written Word of God. There's obviously much more than what's written. Mystery is in the core of all religions. It took centuries to compile Bible by His Church.Many deeper level Christian faith imbibed by His Apostles gradually reduced to sacred traditions. Although Scriptures are Word of God, they are still non living entity and cannot interpret themselves. Sacred teachings) traditions practiced through Apostolic succession such as Holy Eucharist (transubstantiation doctrine) in Catholic Church are being vouched by God in supernatural ways/miracles till today in different parts of the world acc to His Will, thereby proving worthy of belief.

[@jediv9492]

​ @A DUDE *Why no answer again? WHere in the Bible says there is such an office called "bishop of bishops - pope"? Or bishop of ROme = pope? If you can find this i will give you a lollipop. Lol*

[@Yrref_4053]

“Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you. I say again what we have said before: If anyone preaches any other Good News than the one you welcomed, let that person be cursed.” ‭‭Galatians‬ ‭1‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭NLT‬‬ KNOWING this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2Pe 1:20)

[@Yrref_4053]

Holy Spirit is our interpreter we speak to God directly!

[@diosdadoapias]

Colossians 2:8 "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." It is only what the Bible as written by the Prophets, and the Gospels as written by the Disciples of Christ shall we have our beliefs.

[@TheBlackToedOne]

To beat a dead horse: not all protesetants reject tradition. I can tell you as a confessional Lutheran we have an incredible amount of tradition and we do study the church fathers. If you were to actually research the meaning of it and its origins you will find it basically means if there is conflicting doctrine w/ one being scripturally based and the other being man based, scripture wins. Scripture is the base by which all tradition, all doctrine is measured by and if that doctrine doesn't align, scripture alone is the sole authority and that other doctrine should be rejected.