Why Protestants Are WRONG About The Bible - Sola Scriptura Debunked

[@justjamie6458]

If "God made me believe in the Bible" is a good enough explanation then "God made me believe in the Book of Mormon" should also be a good enough answer.

[@ccameroncc]

This should be the top comment

[@AJP.OT7]

W

[@semiprotacodestroyer3389]

@@justjamie6458 it would be if the Book of Mormon held the same authority.

[@terrywalker839]

It does.

[@semiprotacodestroyer3389]

@terrywalker839 the preserved Word of God that has 30000 copies in the original languages and writings and actions of people that corroborate their belief in its truth along with historical record that matches and continued archeological finds and academic study is what backs up the Bible. The Book of Mormon has none of these things. It doesn't mesh with the Bible, the doctrines produced from it are not Christian and entire sections, quotes, and paraphrase are pulled right out of the both New and Old Testaments. It is at best poorly written Christian fan fiction.

[@nancylowe2692]

Reformation or Restoration? I'll take Restoration all day long! ❤ This was so good! So thought-provoking! Thankyou!

[@HealthJourneyWithJake]

As times goes on. The LDS position continues to elevate itself above all others. Because it wasn’t some random farm boy who was an evil genius. It’s Gods work. Why else would Joseph and others go to their deaths for it? Doesn’t make any sense. I’d never give my life for a lie. Would you?

[@toddbender3463]

The fact that "Sola Scriptura" can't back itself up with scripture is basically the only conversation that ever needs to be had on the topic.

[@joelblessing1532]

Let’s put aside the New Testament and use the Old Testament as an example. The Old Testament canon was recognized through tradition, prophetic authority, and public miracles, even though it doesn’t explicitly say, “This is the canon.” Jesus validated this by affirming the Scriptures and holding people accountable to them, as seen in Matthew 5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." The same way the Old Testament canon was established without explicit declaration is how the New Testament is recognized today.

[@toddbender3463]

@joelblessing1532 even your own example is not explicitly referring to the old testament, only the law. By such a declaration, only those books containing the law should be considered scripture. Even if we made way for that interpretation for the old testament, no biblical text is found that validates the books assembled for the new testament. What's worse, many of the attributed authors of the new testament books are generally considered by most biblical scholarship to have not actually been written by them. So it's honestly really a mess. What remains biblical throughout your interpretation and throughout all time is the constant establishment of an Oracle through which God declares his word with authority to man. The prophets of all ages, as you said, validated the old testament as time went on, with Jesus himself validating them. That's the way it's always been done. That's the way he's doing it today.

[@joelblessing1532]

@@toddbender3463 Jesus affirmed not just the Law, but also the Prophets and the Psalms as authoritative (Luke 24:44). When discussing the Old Testament, Jesus didn’t just affirm the Law but confirmed the entirety of what we now call the Old Testament. As for the 66 books, do you consider them authoritative because Joseph Smith said so, or because of personal experiences like a "burning in the bosom"? We both agree on the 66 books, but the difference is in the criteria we use. Your tradition adds other texts based on additional criteria, while we rely on the Bible’s clear, historically verified authority. Our criteria for the canon is rooted in the apostolic witness, miracles, and divine inspiration - all elements that make the Bible's authority testable and falsifiable. This is in contrast to traditions that lack the same clear, consistent foundation for their additional books.

[@toddbender3463]

@joelblessing1532 That's not the point of the argument here. You're changing the subject either to ignore the video or you just didn't watch it. The Sola scriptura argument is self defeating. It can't even use its own criteria to prove itself a valid belief or doctrine. It's an invention of those who sought authority where they had none. Apostolic witness isn't a criteria because there are, according to sola scriptura, no apostles anymore. So even if you wanted to validate the old testament using the new testament, you can't do that until you validate the new testament. And as Protestants much smarter than you have said on the topic, it can't be done without appealing to a higher authority than the bible itself. That's ironic given your snarky comment about the burning in the bosom. We actually believe the bible when it says you can get knowledge from God that isn't contained in the bible, as it says in James 1. The video is pretty clear. Sola scriptura is an invention of men, and because of that, it easily falls apart when held up to even a modicum of scrutiny.

[@drewhanna9057]

​@joelblessing1532 to be fair, we probably don't agree on the 66 books of the bible. I also believe in many apocryphal books. I especially find the book of Enoch interesting as it was quoted by Jesus and many other new testament writers.

[@JohnDoe-po8ei]

When I argue with protestants on whether there are living oracles, I bring up the following scripture: Ephesians 4:11-14 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; Have we all come to a unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ? If they answer NO, simply point out this verse that tells us that we should have apostles and prophets, etc. until we come unto a perfect man. Therefore we should still have apostles and prophets if Jesus Christ's true church is currently on the earth.

[@1corinthians61]

1 timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

[@1corinthians61]

ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

[@JJLoLogo]

I thank my Father in Heaven for His son, Jesus Christ. I am sooo thankful for the knowledge that Christ's gospel has been restored through the prophet Joseph Smith.

[@1corinthians61]

matthew 7:15-20

[@1corinthians61]

True and False Prophets 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

[@1corinthians61]

1 timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

[@naofumi5616]

⁠@@1corinthians61 Acts 5:38-39 Amos 3:7

[@danielmoore4024]

@@1corinthians61 Look at Luke 6:22, Christ says what people, especially false prophets, will do to true prophets. Then compare yourself to what Christ says. Who’s reproaching? Who’s saying someone’s a false prophet? Who’s being separated from the rest of Christianity? Who’s been getting spoken of as evil for about 200 years for the Son of man’s sake? You’re treating The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a church with true prophets of God.

[@BunnyWatson-k1w]

Sola Scriptura is not open to any restoration, first vision, Book of Mormon, or other scripture. It is a narrow minded view of Christianity.

[@cowboysfan462]

the logic is overwhelming and frankly self evident. great work.

[@Logos-TheGodMan]

I can’t believe that Mormons are really that gullible.

[@toddbender3463]

Sola scriptura would be a great idea if people wouldnt interpret the same information in 20 different ways. It's ironic that a huge chunk of the New Testament is just the apostles writing to the different areas of the church trying to keep them from going off track and perverting the right way, and yet still they say God would not call or have need to call prophets or apostles in our day.

[@bob_balda]

On your first point, YES. Yet, they preach that they all interpret Bible the same and without error while establishing thousands upon thousands of different churches and publishing dozens of translations of the “infallible” Bible.

[@semiprotacodestroyer3389]

​@bob_balda there are 100s of mormon "churches" that fight amongst each other, 12ish small denominations, and 3 main denominations. Seems to not be a protestant problem. Many of the protestant denominations are in fellowship with one another and have doctrinal agreement but worship in different ways. Many others are not in agreement. The infalibility of the Bible is not at risk when a new translation is produced. Language is ever evolving and reading a Bible in one's contemporary words is arguably much easier.

[@OntheOtherHandVideos]

@@semiprotacodestroyer3389 And yet members of the Church of Jesus Christ don't argue that 'all the Mormon churchs must agree on how to interpret scriptures in order for Mormonism to be true' - we say that God has called a modern day prophet, and those who go elsewhere are in apostasy. Protestants are the reverse - they stake their claim to authority on how 'plain' and 'clear' all important things in the Bible are. Thus if there is significant disagreement between the thousands of protestant congregations, that disproves their claim to authority.

[@gbengoosewuru4139]

@@semiprotacodestroyer3389 it would be horrible because it would mean a living God no longer speaks to his people through a prophet.

[@semiprotacodestroyer3389]

@@gbengoosewuru4139 I'm sorry. What would be horrible?

[@dwRS1]

The church of Jesus Christ is not based on the Bible. It is based on what the Bible is based on. Revelation through prophets. Which of the 80,000+ versions of "the Bible" is correct and why? That's why there was a need for the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with Apostles and prophets.

[@buddyduddyful]

As with Joseph Smith, and LDS Prophet's, if Jesus came down to earth in human form again to preach his gospel, Protestant's would reject him and seek to martyr him like they did to Joseph Smith.

[@Corderito72]

Literally would be a repeat of the Jews, more specifically the Pharisees rejecting the new doctrine taught by Christ

[@ElsaBotha8379]

Exactly. They would crucify Christ all over again

[@tsmithson1]

Are you so sure we wouldn't do the same? Do you not think we would be guilty of wondering why Jesus was spending so much time with the "unclean" people. Don't be to quick to think WE have things all figured out.

[@vendingdudes]

I've asked one of these people the following: Let's say tomorrow a scroll is found in the Holy Land, proven to be authentic, and it is the personal journal of Jesus Christ himself. Are you saying the literal Book of Jesus would be rejected because it's not in The Bible, compiled centuries later? You would honor Jesus by rejecting Jesus? That's wild! The response is hilarious.

[@Corderito72]

@ The best is when they has to swallow the fact that the excerpts of Isaiah in 2 Nephi are more accurate to the Deutero Isaiah text found in the Dead Sea scrolls than the current iteration in the Bible. Score one for Joseph was a prophet.

[@JonahCluff]

I love that while y’all have your disagreements with Trent Horn (I mean Jacob literally debated him as well as uploaded critique/debunk videos about Trent’s stances), you don’t hesitate to highlight the good points he makes and truths he brings up. This is very Christlike and honest of y’all and I appreciate it!

[@hayteren]

I think Martin Luther would not appreciate Protestants now.

[@semiprotacodestroyer3389]

He disagreed with many of his co-reformers. He would not disagree with sola scriptura though.

[@LatterDayPup]

Protestantism as Martin Luther founded it was just Diet Catholicism.

[@agoodlittlewitch]

Great video! I particularly loved Elder Holland's message at the end! Mic drop!

[@BettyHorn]

Thank you. I hope, someday, to be able to retain such information, and more. Until then, I study, learn, grow, forget, study more, and on and on. I'm grateful I have videos such as yours to look back on.

[@always_hiking]

Sola Scriptura = Bible Worship. Latter Day Saints don’t worship an old book. They worship the Living God.

[@fidtru8615]

100% Almost akin to idol worship

[@life.with.mrs.a]

Exactly my thought. They have made the Bible their idol, which is so sad. Not that I think most have really thought this through, most just follow the tradition they have been tought.

[@markkrispin6944]

No, Mormons worship Joseph Smith and the current profits.

[@ryansmith6610]

Praise to the man = man worship/ prophet worship Protestant don't worship an old book they worship the holy one of Israel.

[@always_hiking]

@@ryansmith6610 Go read your Bible

[@VisualParadox000]

Amazing video! Elder Holland absolutely gives the most beautiful closing to this wonderful video that is very thoughtful and informative. Thank you 🙏

[@savsmaster4183]

I’ve watched so many of Travis’s takedowns of Sola Scriptura in his discussions with others, it’s like beating a dead horse when another tries and fails to prove the false doctrine.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😂 Dr.Gavin Ortlund does a good job defending Sola Scriptura on his videos. This Travis is pathetic : the Holy Spirit gives fallible men the ability to write reliable information about God. The books are written by different authors so they can verify each other. Paul verifies all Scriptura and Peter verifies Paul's writings. This ignorant argument only works if all the Books of the Bible were written by one person.

[@Steelblaidd]

​@@davidjanbaz7728Paul never gave a list of what he was verifying.

[@FaithofAbinadi]

You’re right Travis does a masterful job. Sola Scriptura is holding back the Christian world from greater knowledge.

[@savsmaster4183]

@davidjanbaz7728 First off, have you even watched Travis’s discussions? You should first do that by going to his channel called “Missionary Discussions” and watching his videos. You say Paul verifies Peter and Peter verifies Paul, yet who wrote Hebrews and who verifies that? How does the argument against Sola Scriptura only work if it presupposes all of the books of Bible were written by one person? The Biblical texts were written by many people over the course of thousands of years. I must ask you how can many fallible human beings write many books that are supposedly consistent and hold no contradictions, and then say with no evidence that no new books can be added to such a canon? Sola Scriptura is an impossible position to hold, and relies on logical fallacies such as circular reasoning to affirm itself. Your argument for Sola Scriptura is incomplete and completely incoherent.

[@savsmaster4183]

@davidjanbaz7728 How is the Bible alone infallible if it’s written by fallible men, and who decided which books made it into the Bible? Did they have authority from God to determine that?

[@coreymcleod2899]

This video was excellent! For those who view the Bible as the ultimate authority and believe God no longer speaks to us, I ask: "Why do we pray?" and "Why did Jesus command prayer?" If all we need is in the Bible and God is silent today, what is the purpose of prayer? I believe the answer lies in the idea that not everything is in the Bible, and we require divine guidance, along with our own agency and intellect, in our daily lives.

[@MaryBeth321123]

Yeah, I asked Jeff Durbin's church about which bible is the most "God-breathed". I mean the Catholic Bible has more books in it than the King James and Anglicans use the Apocrypha. They still haven't answered.

[@harmonillustration]

They won't answer because they *CAN'T* answer. It's funny, they always try to nail us on the 8th Article of Faith where we say, "...as far as it is translated correctly". They make fun of us for that, but *THEY* believe it too! Every time an Evangelical brings this up, I ask them this: "Do you use the New World Translation of the Bible?" (that's the one Jehovah's Witnesses use). They say, "No, of course not!". I ask them, "Why not?" They say, "Because it's a bad translation and it's no longer scripture because they've tampered with it too much." It's like they open their mouth, but don't even know what comes out.

[@tonyjames1953]

The actual reason for the argument of Sola Scriptura is because those so proclaiming have no connection to actual revelation themselves. And isn't it interesting that until this argument appeared, the people of God were always led by a prophet(s), and scripture was the product of their authority. There is no such thing as any writing possessing authority. Authority passes from God to man, period!

[@thekolobsociety]

Bingo

[@dekuthedog]

Trent horn is great when he's not arguing like an atheist against our faith.

[@mateoarteaga8274]

Sola scriptura is self-defeating because the Bible teaches that prophets are God's messengers. Basically, Sola scriptura says "the only authority says that it is not the only authority"

[@HealthJourneyWithJake]

Best video yet Jacob and Hayden! Wowowow! Hayden well done brother!

[@chrisdennis1449]

Excellent video, this should be shared and studied by every seminary student, every missionary, every Sunday School class. How can we teach truth without hearing it first. How can we grow in truth and righteousness with only knowing the basics of the Restored Gospel and never understand the beautiful truths we have. Too many people don't do the hard work, and then they are the first ones to leave the church when they have a "question"

[@raulofmustachio3d]

Trent Horn is usually right when he's not being wrong

[@davidjanbaz7728]

He's totally right about Mormonism.

[@raulofmustachio3d]

@@davidjanbaz7728 BAHAHAHA! Like when he got the plates theory completely wrong? His lack in understanding of basic Mormon history and doctrine was quite astounding.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

​@raulofmustachio3d LOL as you all keep CYA ing your doctrines and history.

[@johndavidanderson4382]

​@@davidjanbaz7728 kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJO5eGp-dqeXotUsi=dcjjzb5krLihnDqN

[@HistoryDwarf]

@@raulofmustachio3dcare to explain what exactly it was he got wrong about the Plates?

[@ElsaBotha8379]

In Acts 3:21 Peter talks about the restitution of all things. He did NOT say the reformation of all things. Restitution means "the restoration of something lost." There's a HUGE difference between the two

[@tsmithson1]

The one thing I have grown to detest about my religious experience in general are these conversations that insist "We are right and they are wrong". I think we all ought to use scripture as a way to begin a conversation instead of thinking WE have been granted the final, 100% sure interpretation.

[@cub3head]

I’ve always wondered how our Sola Scriptura pals would respond if actual ancient scripural texts were discovered from Biblical times that showed that Christ left a record. Or, there are many lost books mentioned in the Bible that don’t exist in the historical record. How would they respond if those were actually discovered? What if additional writings of Paul were discovered? What then?

[@thekolobsociety]

I’ve had many Protestants tell me that if Jesus showed up and said they misunderstood the Bible, they would reject it was Jesus.

[@Jaycen45]

Seriously becoming my favorite KZbin channel. This extensive defense of Prophets and ongoing revelation is invigorating. I feel defenses of Sola Scriptura accuse the other side of rejecting the role and power is Jesus as our Messiah. ie “Jesus came to earth to rid us of the Old Law. He being the New Law, anything after Jesus Christ is trying to make a new “new law” and making prophets greater than He.” I despise this assumption and I’m grateful this video addresses the contradictions of Sola Scriptura.

[@FaithofAbinadi]

When Jesus Christ returns in his 2nd coming, showing himself for all the world to see. He will then rule over the earth and will no doubt speak and teach. Everything he says will become scripture that a prophet will write. What are Protestants going to say? “No, we don’t need Jesus to speak, we have a Bible???”

[@Lomochenko]

Jesus isn’t ever coming back.

[@FaithofAbinadi]

@ fine, but why do you watch this channel? LDS are entirely focused on preparing the world for Christ’s return. God still speaks through Prophets and revelation. Have faith, repent and be baptized is our message.

[@hayteren]

​@@Lomochenko wooow edgy atheist here

[@raulofmustachio3d]

I've heard some say they will deny it, if it doesn't comport with what they conceive the scriptures to have said.

[@harmonillustration]

@@Lomochenko - Wait . . . He's NOT?! Oh no! My faith is crumbling! I'm calling my Bishop right NOW to denounce my faith! You just said He isn't coming back, and everything you say is absolute and undeniable truth! Thank you, sir! You've saved my life! You've shown me the error of my ways and that I'm in a cult and I'm being brainwashed. My eyes are truly open! This random KZbin comment from a random stranger has shifted my life paradigm!

[@bkgoulding]

This video was amazing! Thank you!

[@pajabesa2492]

Creedists say, "we are saved cause the Bible says we are the elect. We are the elect because of the gift of faith. We have the gift of faith cause we interpret the Bible to say so. If you don't believe like we do, you are not saved...cause we say so."

[@bob_balda]

Perfect explanation. If I may take it a step further… “if you don’t believe like we do, you are not saved” and will burn in Hell for eternity. Unreal. Such a skewed view of a loving Heavenly Father.

[@Whatiftheresmore1314]

@@bob_balda AMEN👍🏻

[@semiprotacodestroyer3389]

​@bob_balda why send out missionaries to convert people if correct understanding is unnecessary?

[@daveyshmavey]

@@semiprotacodestroyer3389the LDS church doesn’t say, if you don’t believe like we do your going to hell. Judgement is Gods. We simply say, you’re looking through a pinhole at the love and power of God. Look toward the savior with open eyes, to recieve all he wants to give you.

[@Whatiftheresmore1314]

@ They send out missionaries to invite people to Christ and His gospel that was restored to the earth. To give people more light and truth about God’s Plan and love for them. ❤️☀️

[@BrandonPugmire]

This was so good! So great letting them articulate your points for you! Very well done!

[@danielmoore4024]

Are you suggesting he should take credit for someone else’s claims in a debate? Additionally, I would say it’s better to hear from Protestants themselves.

[@BrandonPugmire]

@@danielmoore4024 If you watched the full video, you'll see they played quite a few video clips of Protestants in their own words that support the key points of this video showing the challenges with their logic and defense of Sola Scriptura, the idea that the Bible is the final word.

[@danielmoore4024]

@@BrandonPugmire Showing what Protestants have to say to defend their belief the Bible is a closed cannon is not one sided, both sides of the debate are included as they should be. I did watch the whole video, Sola Scriptura wasn't defended very logically. No where in the Bible says it's a closed cannon, so someone outside of the cannon did, meaning they don't believe the Bible is highest authority, they believe they're in more authority than God, enough authority to tell God to shut up and there can be no more Bible.

[@23pisila]

Great work my brothers

[@bob_balda]

Not only do they believe in Sola Scriptura, but, as evidenced in a debate I had with my ex-Pastor and many other online debates, many also believe that they ALL interpret the Bible exactly the same and without error. “They” being all those who accept the Trinitarian creeds. Therefore, their theology supposes that the Bible is a perfect and complete translation and representation of God’s message to his children and that the Creedist’s ongoing interpretation of the Bible is without error. Thus, nothing can be questioned.

[@germanslice]

Sola scriptora is not how the Lord is going to preach his word in these last days. Its not gonna come from these delusional sola scriptora people. The Lord went instead to Zion with his plans... The Prophet Joel knew that the Lord was going to do this. For the Lord's voice is going to come roaring from out of Zion and Jerusalem in the latter-days. Its not gonna come from Sola Scriptora Bible Book Clubs...

[@tylerahlstrom4553]

Excellent video. Logical presentation and great resources. There are some things that will just never make sense to me about Protestantism, no matter how much I try to understand it from a Protestants’ perspective. Sola scriptures and Biblical inerrancy are two of those things I can’t comprehend. I also cannot understand saved by grace alone, no priesthood authority, the Trinity, and who determines who is saved or not. I’ve tried to understand these things so I can understand Protestants, but when I hear their justification for how these things can make sense, it sounds like word salad and I come away more confused.

[@robertlewis7208]

Love this message not just one nail in a sure place but point by point sola scriptura is undefendable 😮

[@Kunichiban]

Love this, thank you!

[@gatherin_in_podcast]

**Found in Gospel library, April 2008** Does anyone have the reference for the talk by Jeffrey R. Holland at the end of this video? It's so good

[@gatherin_in_podcast]

Found it! April 2008

[@Whatiftheresmore1314]

Awesome conversation! Very insightful! ❤️☀️

[@mccaf87]

As a Latter-day Saint, I've always made the argument that Sola Scriptura was actually a really good thing- a 'best practice' in the absence of prophets and apostles, so to speak. The accepted writings of the prophets and apostles (canon) is the best standard available to ensure that the current doctrines and practices are in line with God's will. However, Sola Scriptura can only take you so far. Of course, this is why Paul speaks of the Church being built on the foundation of prophets and apostles. When prophets and apostles are called and the Church is established after the original pattern, it's important to leave sola scriptura behind and build our faith upon *THAT* foundation.

[@angelalewis3645]

This is the finest comment under this video. Well said!

[@Zeik888]

Ironically....doctrines like faith alone, 'forensic imputed rigtheousness' ,immaculate concepcion'..creatio 'ex nihilo'...even the idea of 'sola scriptura' itself..are hermeneutical approaches to the biblical text that rely outside from the text itself.....

[@austinnajar]

@@Zeik888 all of those are derived from the text of scripture. I’d invite you to actually study them, especially since there are entire books written on each of those doctrines and the scriptural basis for each doctrine.

[@Zeik888]

@austinnajar Yes almost every Christian Church would have their 'scriptural basis' based on an interpretation of a text in "the Bible"....the biblical "interpretation of the text" is coming from diff external hermeneutical approaches to the biblical text.....

[@leightonanderson]

Just on 2 Tim 3:16, it’s perfectly obvious that Paul is referring to the existing scripture that Timothy had studied, namely, the Torah. If Paul’s use of theopneustos there is a declaration that those scriptures are complete as the word of God, to which no other scripture may be added, then we would lose the entire New Testament. Which is obviously wrong, thereby proving that sola scriptura is likewise obviously wrong.

[@JohnPerriton]

This was an awesome breakdown of sola scriptura. Thank you!!!

[@darinbracy8433]

14:40 - Where does the Bible teach that the Bible is the final authority? 2 Timothy 3:14-17 Isaiah 55:11 Matthew 24:35 2 Peter 1:20-21

[@thekolobsociety]

Those verses don’t mention the Protestant canon..?

[@harmonillustration]

2 Timothy 3:14-17 - I didn't see the word "Bible". You're presupposing that "scripture" in these verses means "Bible". Isaiah 55:11 - I didn't see the word "Bible". You're presupposing that "word" in these verses means "Bible". Matthew 24:35 - I didn't see the word "Bible". You're presupposing that "I have told you before" in these verses means "Bible". 2 Peter 1:20-21 - I didn't see the word "Bible". You're presupposing that "scripture" in these verses means "Bible". Good grief, dude. Did you even watch the video?! Hayden addressed like every single one of your arguments here.

[@Hol0gr4m]

Videos like these make me wish someone wrote and published a "95 Theses" for Protestant Christianity.

[@jasonhardman1770]

Is God all-powerful? If so, can he add to the Bible? "He wouldn't " you might say... well, I'd buy that answer if all bible believers happened to agree 100% on how it's interpreted. God should be able to clarify, not because he failed, but because we fail.

[@Robo1818]

The reformation helped prepare the world for the restoration. I believe “God in a box” is synonymous with “Sola Scriptura.” And the model of revelation to prophets is what created the Bible. And suddenly that model is no more and God stops his direct guidance to man?!?!

[@anthonymagee5725]

I’ve been saying these points for the longest and I don’t study as much as I should. Thx God my eyes are open to the truth.

[@James_Wisniewski]

This is one thing I really like about Quakers. Meetings of the Religious Society of Friends have living documents that members can add to, addressing questions that arise in their time. Because they acknowledge that answers to questions that arose in 17th century England aren't necessarily applicable to someone living in, say, 21st century Kenya.

[@echomountain3370]

Where's the link for the Holland video???

[@thekolobsociety]

“My Words … Never Cease” By Elder Jeffrey R. Holland April 2008

[@echomountain3370]

@@thekolobsociety Thank you.

[@muttonlettucetomato9768]

The best argument against the Bible as sola scriptura is the inclusion of Song of Solomon 😂.

[@FortheLoveofGodNetwork]

Great job Hayden

[@perryewell5395]

The final authority is God, period. Our assuming we can silence Him is naive and narrow-minded. God loves us, so He will continue to speak to us forever if we will but listen.

[@GarySaint-xm6tr]

What are the letters in the New Testament? They are letters to the existing congregations at the time. Were the letters in the New Testament Sunday school? In other words, is the letters to the congregations how the early Christians learned about all the teachings of Christ? No. They learned about all of the teachings of Christ at Sunday School. The letters were for correction of some of the teachings. By this true knowledge we know that we cannot know everything the New Testament Christians knew by reading the new Testament. 2) Revelation 11 speaks of two prophets that will, sometime in the near future, prophesy for 3 and a half years. The Bible itself teaches that it is not complete. 3) In AD 303 emperor Deoclatian ordered all Christian scriptures to be burned. That decree lasted 10 years. The Book of Mormon teaches that "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy." All of the rest of Christianity teaches that the fall of Adam was a big tragedy. Let's see who is right. Look at the power of Christ's body after He was resurectected. He materialized in the middle of a closed room. How would you respond if someone you saw murdered three days earlier materialize in the middle of a closed room? Christ's disciples were terrified and afrighted, and thought a spirit had appeared unto them. If Adam and Eve's children, who we are, had a body like that from birth, if there had been no fall, could any laws be written? No, because no prison could hold anyone. No bullets could harm anyone. There would be no way to enforce law. Christ could also travel at the speed of thought after He was resurectected. He disappeared out of His disciples sight in an instant. If we were immortal from birth there would be no roads, no buildings, no farms, no industry, probably no cloths. Nothing and no one could harm or kill us. We have joy when we learn from our mistakes. We have joy when we create things. It would be counter to God's plan for us if we were unteachable. The Bible teaches that everyone will eventually be immortal. That reality could have been achieved over 2000 years ago when Christ paid the price for all sin. Because everyone is not now immortal, we know mortality is a time to be tested, as the Book of Mormon teaches. We also know that the Book of Mormon teaching that Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy is true, and the rest of Christianitys teaching that Adam's fall was a big tragedy is false. We would be unteachable if we were immortal from birth! Other plain and precious truths that were lost. The Book of Mormon teaches that we lived before we were born. Look at Revelation 12. There was a war in heaven. as a result of the war Satan and His angels were cast down to the earth, so every time you read of a person being possessed by a devil they are being possessed by one or more of those cast out angels. Those cast out angels possessed the body of the man in the tombs. When Christ asked their name they responded" Legion " for many devils possessed the man. They begged Christ to go into the bodies of pigs. Can those angels cast out of heaven have a body of their own? No! 2) How bad do they want a body? So bad they'd rather possess the bodies of pigs than have no body at all. It is obviously a punishment to not have a body. God does not suffer the punishment of the devils! Another teaching the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints got right that all the rest of Christianity got wrong. God has an immortal body of flesh and bones, just like Christ. Romans 6:9 " Christ hath dominion over death , he dieth no more" There is the Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Godhead is not The Holy Ghost, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. That God has an immortal body of flesh and bones is also a teaching that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints got right, and the rest of Christianity got wrong. The angels that were cast out of heaven as a result of the war in heaven, are they Jelous of us, because we have a body, and they can never have one? Yes! Do they hate us, because we have a body and they can never have one? Yes. Are they at war with us, because we have a body, and they can never have one? Yes! God is not sadistic to create beings for Satan and his angels to wage war on here on earth. We have a body, because we are the ones that won the war in heaven! We are the sons and daughters of God! So, we see that the Book of Mormon is true in teaching that we lived as spirits before we were born, and that that truth was lost in it's Plaines in the Bible. There is nothing taught as official doctrine by the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints that I cannot prove is true

[@Jerb-ib9wx]

Thanks Gary appreciate those comments

[@FortheLoveofGodNetwork]

If we want to be Christian as they outlined, then we must accept their guidelines on what it is to be a Christian. If we want to be a latter-day Saint, then we take those principles that adhere to the idea that we have a living Oracle of God here on this earth then we must choose that solely. To try to invent a way into their category of Christian is wrong. We must stand as a latter-day Saint and not try to infringe upon other people’s rights to make their determination on what they believe constitutes a Christian.

[@angelalewis3645]

💯! Well said!

[@Ellatrixx_14]

I love your channel!

[@heberfrank8664]

The faith that doctrine should be found in the scriptures, or supported by the scriptures, is close to the Book of Mormon doctrine to follow the "Iron Rod". Protestants are valid in not accepting teachings by Catholics, Orthodox and others that contradict the Bible. They are not justified in claiming that God has no more to reveal to us. In John 16:12-13 Jesus promises to reveal to his disciples when they can bear it through the Holy Ghost MANY more truths until they have ALL truth. The inspired writings of Paul and others AFTER Jesus died are in direct fulfillment of this promise. The restoration scriptures are further fulfillment of the great John 16 promise -- or Jesus has yet to continue fulfilling the promise. If anyone reject the restoration scriptures then their only argument against Mormon teachings that are not in harmony with their understanding of the Bible is that it is false revelation. The argument that something cannot be true revelation if it is not in previous scriptures is not valid because Jesus promised to reveal more truth through the Holy Ghost.

[@nancylowe2692]

Ummm...on the lawnmower example: is it in California? The women's dressing room example: is it in California?

[@thekolobsociety]

Exactly

[@angelalewis3645]

🎯

[@FaithofAbinadi]

Sola Scriptura has held so many back from Further light and knowledge.

[@harmonillustration]

I'm always amazed when Protestants claim to be Christians and love scripture and then throw a fit when God gives them MORE scripture. Like, what?! It's like an absolute fan of J.R.R. Tolkien absolutely DEVOURS the Lord of the Rings and make it their whole personality, and then years later another manuscript from Tolkien is found and those fans now throw a fit because "We already have Lord of the Rings! We don't want anymore Middle Earth stories!" Like, WHAT?! I thought you LOVED Tokien?!

[@alexmunro2640]

So, a question to those that say the Bible only: if Jesus comes and speaks more will you reject it because it is not in my Bible. He will speak during and after his second second comming or even msy came to you. Are you going to say we have a Bible and have no need for you to speak again

[@thefish103]

Wow great stuff guys.

[@truthfromearth]

It's circular reasoning.

[@gbengoosewuru4139]

@@truthfromearth Circular Christianity

[@MaryYoungblood-xy8vg]

Love me some Elder Holland

[@gigglesnorman6434]

The pope is not the authority. Peter was not the first pope.

[@theclarkmanman]

Amazing video and content

[@jonathanettinger6970]

The Bible is a tool, a source of information, not practical authority itself.

[@angelalewis3645]

🎯 Bingo!

[@1corinthians61]

john 15:34-35 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be set aside-

[@AJP.OT7]

This very helpful. Thank you

[@DC-pm8wv]

Which Jeffery R Holland’s talk are you using at the end of this video? I’d really like to share it!

[@danielmoore4024]

My Words Never Cease April 2008

[@DenverJohn]

Protestants and Catholics both share certain misconceptions: 1. They believe the Bible is the Word of God (it’s not-the Word of God is Jesus). 2. They tend to deny the power of the Holy Spirit. While Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) is not a biblical principle, neither is the Catholic Church the one true church or the pope the vicar of Christ. Instead, the true church consists of born-again Christians. The Catholic Church incorporates many pagan rituals and was, in essence, a political effort to control the rapid spread of early Christianity by blending genuine Christian faith with Roman traditions-an approach akin to "if you can’t beat them, join them." Scripture serves as a vital guidebook for those who are born of the Spirit (born again). Upon being born again, believers become part of the One True Church. Christians rely on two witnesses: 1. The Holy Spirit, dwelling within us, is our primary and most essential guide. 2. Scripture is our secondary witness, complementing and confirming the Spirit’s guidance. For centuries, early Christians didn’t have access to a compiled Bible but relied fully on the Holy Spirit as their guide, with some also relying on oral tradition and fragments of Scripture that were available to them at the time. Unfortunately, during those same centuries, the Vatican substituted the first witness for papal authority (this was intentional, as the emperor/pope viewed Jesus's kingdom as being of this world-an interpretation that is clearly incorrect.), leading to many errors and false teachings. Protestants have taken a similar approach, but instead of completely replacing the first witness (the Holy Spirit), they reversed its role. They elevated the Bible to the position of the primary witness, while relegating the Holy Spirit to a distant second. This imbalance has also led to numerous falsehoods and the proliferation of denominations. So, the point I'm making is just because one is wrong doesn’t automatically make the other correct.

[@jonathanettinger6970]

"God makes us believe" Then why didn't God make you perfect? Why doesn't He make EVERYONE believe?

[@natedawg2020]

Powerful message by Elder Holland at the end

[@natedawg2020]

Sell merch that says “sola scriptura is illogical.”

[@Frisby412]

We have a similar problem if I'm not mistaken, namely this: Statement: The prophet speaks the word of God when he speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost. Question: How do you know when the prophet speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost? Answer: When he speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost. And also, as is a common trope in our faith, it is explained even by general authorities that our measuring rod or "touchstone" for correctness and truth are the scripturess, and that if what they teach is in line with revealed doctrine then we can trust it. Question: What if a new doctrine, or practice arises outside the cannon as it has in church history? A circular theme is present here too.

[@thekolobsociety]

You've moved the goalpost to epistomology. A completely different topic.

[@academyofchampions1]

Strong episode!!!!!

[@bambie1830]

This is the highest authority….. if it’s not god you are turning the Bible into an idol

[@GarySaint-xm6tr]

Now that we know, from my previous comment, that we lived as intelligent spirits before we were born, we want to know why we want a body? We see, by the Bible, Book of Mormon, D& C and Pearl of Great price, that we absolutely do not need a body to live. Why then do we want a body? It would have to be to be able to do something that we cannot do as a spirit or there would be no point, right? From Lazarus and the Rich man we know we can 1) see as a spirit, 2) hear as a spirit, 3) speak as a spirit, 4 )feel pain as a spirit, or be comforted in Abraham's boosum, From 2 Peter3: 18-20, and 4:6, and from section 132 of the D& C we know we can repent of at least some sins as a spirit, From Job 38:4,7 we know we can sing and shout for joy as a spirit. From Jaramiah 1: 5 we know we can be sanctified and ordained as a spirit. See also D&C and Pearl of Great Price. We fought in a war as spirits. Christ created heaven and earth as a Spirit. We are so incredible as spirits, we absolutely do not need a body. The only things we cannot do as a spirit is eat, and drink, and copulate. Considering the ability to eat and drink as an immortal would not require a 80 year mortal test the purpose for mortality, and the only part of Celestial law we cannot repent of as a spirit is the law of chastity. We can repent of all other violations of Celestial law a a spirit. See section 132 of the D&C Yes this answer your question about the Thief on the cross? Do you have to be a member of the church to live the law of chastity? Can you live the law of chastity as a slave. Can you live the law of chastity during the dark ages when the priesthood was not on the earth? It is a fair law.

[@dmoney4075]

Blinded by presuppositions

[@izaakvandenhazel1053]

Helping the algorithm

[@MarkHigbee]

If you go back to Genesis chapter one its says God breathed on the waters or his spirit or power came over the waters. It's often translated as a the spirit of God or his power. In 2 Timothy 3:16 you could understand God-breathed as the scriptures were brought forth by God's power or spirit.

[@FortheLoveofGodNetwork]

What you were saying about the authority and which would be the hierarchy of scripture is completely correct. Self validation doesn’t validate anything. What validate scripture is one’s commitment to it and that is it nothing else. Either we embrace it or we do not. We as Saints are more than either to look for new ideas and understandings of the scriptures and therefore when we hear of other scriptures that are available, we are eagerly waiting their release. We also are here to hear the profit and his apostles and other leadership within the church each conference we are waiting for the next real head turning you’re on your heels kind of doctrine. It doesn’t happen very often and the only one that’s really been head turning has been the or addition of the 1978 manifest that allowed all worthy members to receive the priesthood. Even though he was not new doctrine , it was still a memorable moment in our history

[@nicholasogden6082]

Noooo you can't use logic and reasoning to disprove sola scriptura 😭😭😭💀💀 that's not Christian 😡😡😡

[@echomountain3370]

Can you please list all the books you have read on Sola Scriptura and How we got our bible?

[@seasonedwithsalt5129]

Why would you ask this guy anything? He knows nothing about the truth of the Bible, is completely spiritually dead and blind, and is 100% Biblically illiterate. This is why he is a mormon.

[@greg3995]

Why do most reject James 1:5. I have made comments and get a response, that is a false doctrine or concept. What is wrong with asking God about things that are questioned or don't understand?

[@Killthesefears]

Sola scriptura is satanic

[@pigetstuck]

also... there isn't just one sola scriptura; it isn't just one doctrine from one church

[@darinbracy8433]

5:53 - Bible Interpretation is done by hermeneutics, which is a process that allows for consistent interpretation. The first is that the Bible is without contradiction, so if the interpretation introduces contradiction, the interpretation is wrong. This is the one Mormons violate most often. The next is that the interpretation must be in context, you read all the verses around the text to ensure that it is in agreement with the rest of the text. Mormons also violate this one as well, which is called proof texting. Proof Texting is when you pull out a single verse and use it to make a claim, mostly because one word is found in the text, like the word Water meaning baptism. Last two are historical context, which means that the interpretation must be understood from the view point from the time it was written. We do not import or impose 21st century cultural norms onto a 1st century text, and lastly is grammatical which the interpretation must work within the grammatical framework of the original language. Most modern translations take care of this for us, with the exception of the KJV, which is what Mormons use.

[@thekolobsociety]

Where does the Bible say the Bible is to be intepretted by hermeneutics?

[@OntheOtherHandVideos]

"The first is that the Bible is without contradiction" is the exact kind of presupposition outlined in the video - as it's not outlined in said scripture, and even if it was that would be a circular argument.

[@James_Wisniewski]

In defense of the Protestant position, I will say that they don't generally say that individuals can decide for themselves, apropos of nothing, what the Bible says; or, to use the legal analogy, they don't decide on an individual basis what the letter of the law is. What they actually do isn't much better though. What they do is form clubs of people who internally agree on a similar interpretation. In terms of the legal analogy, it's like states or counties breaking away and forming their own independent nations and bodies of law distinct from the whole and totally disregarding the federal circuit as superfluous.

[@rodrigolopez9286]

Hello. Please activate closed captions in English. Thanks,

[@sotl97]

I think it's interesting that people who defend the Bible will say that we have really good historical evidence to support their authenticity. Then, in the same breath will admit that we don't even know who the authors are for many of the books. Then in the same breath will deny the other books not found in the Bible that have just as good of evidence to justify them as scripture.

[@austinnajar]

@@sotl97 what genuine Christian is saying we don’t know who the authors are for many books? As far as I have found there is only one book, Hebrews, where the author isn’t known. There are skeptics who argue we don’t know but the historical record of who wrote each book of the Bible is pretty clear, especially in the New Testament.

[@OntheOtherHandVideos]

@@austinnajar There are many Christians who claim they know - but how do claim to know? Generally it's the same circular reasoning of presuppositions as Sola Scriptura - Revelation is written by John because it says that it is. Can you prove that it is? Nope - the best you can do is make arguments from textual analysis, tradition, popularity, etc. And none of those are certain, and some are fallacious.

[@ranzelganzon850]

The visitation of the Father and the Son to the boy prophet Joseph revealed the true personality of God. The Protestants and Catholics are all wrong in their belief about God. 😊 The LDS belief in God is based on the first vision and not from the teachings of the Bible. Period!

[@davidconlee2196]

The Sola Scriptura principle does not stand up to scrutiny. In any case, I would be wary of any doctrine that sews God's mouth shut.

[@darinbracy8433]

1:08 - It only took a minute for you guys to get something wrong. Sola Scriptura is Scripture Alone or Only Scripture. Not off to a good start.

[@thekolobsociety]

What scripture is there outside of the Protestant bible?

[@harmonillustration]

Okay. "Sola Scriptura" means "Scripture alone". So, what is scripture? What book contains ALL of scripture? The Bible? SooooOOoOooo . . . "Bible Alone" See how logic works?

[@ClintRay1]

For them to say God breathe... I had a thought. Does God breathe, If he is a spirit? Does he have lungs? Just a thought that popped in my head

[@gingermcgovern5682]

Same idea when Adam was created and God breathed the breath of life into him. How can God breathe if he doesn’t have a physical form? How does he even create anything physical if he’s not physical Himself?

[@ClintRay1]

h@@gingermcgovern5682 I guess there's just a mistranslation of what the word was for breath or breathe 😂🫣

[@anichols2760]

Excellent presentation.

[@mascotbenches5146]

I think to be consistent is important. When the protestant groups give God attributes that humans have it muddies the water. God according to them has no form so how does he breathe the scriptures into existence? It seems like a dumb thing to say but they do this kind of stuff to us too. They are acting in the role of prophets, with a little p, when they interpret scripture but say they aren't interpreting. The restored gospel has hard things to accept but they aren't hard to understand if you look into them, and they are consistent with how God did his wish in the Bible.

[@bartonbagnes4605]

The video stopped halfway through a sentence.

[@OurLadyOfLaSaletteWeeps]

An often overlooked sola scriptura problem is the moral dilemma. There are moral issues that are as old as time that the Bible does not give a judgment on. For example the practice of slavery is never condemned and was even permitted in the OT. How do we know the practice of slavery is morally wrong by going off of the Bible alone?

[@austinnajar]

@@OurLadyOfLaSaletteWeeps the Bible absolutely condemns slavery as we would define it today. It does so as early as Exodus or Leviticus. Voluntary indentured servitude was permitted in the Bible since it is a voluntary transaction. It is referred to as slavery and even then there are strict rules given down by God around the treatment of people who enter into a servant relationship.

[@OurLadyOfLaSaletteWeeps]

@ You’re referring to indentured servitude between Israelites In Exodus 21. Leviticus 25 gives the instructions on how you may purchase gentile slaves from the heathen that surround you and that you may pass them down to your children as an inheritance: “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 You may also acquire them from the sons of the foreign residents who reside among you, and from their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with [ac]severity over one another.” (Leviticus 25:44-46) The owning of human beings was permitted by God in the lesser law of the Old Testament. Could you please show me a verse from the Bible which states that the practice of slavery is wrong?

[@OurLadyOfLaSaletteWeeps]

@@austinnajarYour thinking of indentured servitude between Israelites in Exodus 21. In Leviticus 25:44-46 it says that Israelites may purchase heathen slaves and keep them forever and pass them onto their children as an inheritance. Slavery was permitted in the Old Testament. Could you please show me a Bible verse where the practice of slavery is condemned?

[@tsmithson1]

The opposite issue exists with continued revelation, which I generally like, but is not without logical problems. If new revelation arrives which disavows a previous practice as not moral, then isn't it just a matter of time before whatever a current prophet says becomes irrelevant? As well, what seemed perfectly moral, even proclaimed as revealed by God, is now made not moral because why? This seems like either moral relativism bound by culture and time, making God incapable of actually communicating unchanging eternal morality. Hmmm. i don't subscribe to "sola scriptura", but at least it suggests that morality doesn't shift.

[@OntheOtherHandVideos]

@@tsmithson1 Practices changing does not mean morality changes - God commanding the ancient Apostles to start taking the Gospel to the Gentiles is not a 'change in morality', but a change in practice. I can see where you are coming from - but the same problem is present in Protestant circles as well. If one doesn't have an authoritative interpretation of scripture, people can decide that 'that passage is metaphorical' or 'that's not what that means', and they interpret themselves into moral relativism, because there is backstop to the interpretations of scripture following the culture of the day.