Sola Scriptura: Scripture Alone (The Five Solas)
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 02. 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
This video is the second in a series of lectures on the five solas of the Reformation. In this talk, I speak about the sufficiency and inspiration of Scripture.
This was a very helpful and lucid treatment of the Sola Scriptura teaching.
There is a legitimate *Sola* Scriptura, but there is also the American folk-religion of *Solo* Scriptura. This religion was popularized by many American cults and has spread worldwide. These people used a 'slight of hand' to redefine 'Sola Scriptura' into the product they were selling - a folk-religion that continues to grow until this very day.
I think i see your point, but could you provide any examples? The JWs come to mind....
@@drewpanyko5424Just try making an appeal to authority online - any authority other than the Bible. Sooner or later, you'll get someone saying all they need is the Bible.
@@jimmu2008 thank you for the response, but I'm still unsure of what is meant here by "solo" scriptura. As a confessinal Lutheran, I believe the bible is the only infallible & binding authority for faith and morals. How does any notion of "solo" scriptura differ from this? Would "solo" scriptura ignore the importance of documents such as the Augsburg Confession? Please clarify....
@@drewpanyko5424 That's often the implication. It's sort of like how Krauth identifies confessional Lutheranism as being the Conservative Reformation and then there are the Radical Reformers. As a result, there are two basic versions of sola scriptura, the conservative version that values tradition, and the radical version that devolves into a "no creed but the Bible" position.
@@pete3397thank you; I appreciate the clarification.
Thank you!👌
I was raised Church of Christ believing in SOLO Scriptura and getting rid of tradition wholesale. As I've done research over the years though I've begin to realize we weren't really being solo scirptura, we were really just smuggling in our own modern biases into things. Like C.S. Lewis said it's through the reading of old books that mere Christianity reveals itself and one can be made aware of modern biases that lead to synthetic religions.
A very good lecture!
Sehr gut
I’m pretty sure this isn’t how things happened, but It feels like you watched the White/Horn debate and then filled in all the gaps in Whites argument for him. Great talk!
44:18 - on the apostles and their authoratative nature in proclaiming the word of God through tradition
Thanks for all your work! Could you make an in-depth video responding to miracle claims by Roman Catholics? Arguing against doctrinal claims is easier because it's based on Biblical exegesis and Church Fathers, but I don't know how to respond to many miracle claims.
There are 3 kinds that stump me the most. 1) Eucharistic miracles. I believe God could certainly do them, but why do they only seem to happen in the Roman Church? Wouldn't we expect to see them in all kinds of churches? It kind of supports their claim of being "the One True Church." 2) Certain Marian apparitions. For example, our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico. rootofjesse2.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/miraculous-image-of-our-lady-of-guadalupe/ The claims about her image on the Tilma are absolutely wild and supernatural if they're true. Not to mention the claims about the tens of millions of people that converted to Roman Catholocism because of this, and the claim of a Native who accidentally got shot by an arrow and was raised back to life after everyone prayed to Mary for him. I know you could just say it's demonic, but it's hard to believe that when it caused the conversion of so many people from paganism to Romanism. 3) Personal testimonies of miraculous healing (or other miracles) after praying to specific saints. My friend knew someone whose sister had cancer. This woman with cancer did a specific devotion to Padre Pio during adoration, and she inexplicably smelled roses. When she went into her next checkup, her cancer was miraculously gone. And apparently the scent of roses is a common thing when people's intercessions to Padre Pio get answered. I know that God could grant their prayers even if they're wrongly directed, but why would he do the whole scent of roses thing and deceive them into thinking their intercessions to saints are effective and good if they're not? I can't believe that all these people are just lying, so what is the explanation?
he already made a video on that exact subject. Search on his channel for that video.
@afala4 yo, I believe some eucharist miracles are legit. I also don't believe Lutherans have valid apostolic succession, but even if they did, why would Eucharist miracles disprove Lutheranism?
2. To be honest, there are some disputes over the existence of Juan Diego, most scholars don't believe he actually existed. I personally do, since he's been declared a saint, but it would be dishonest to say there isn't difficulties with the historicity of the story of Guadalupe. The most valid marian apparition is Fatima.
3. I feel like protestants have real difficulties with these types of experiences, since all of the apostolic churches today believe in the intercession of the saints, and from what I can tell, it's been a practice since the beginning of the church.
@@milinddashinobi6335Are you referring to the short, 5 or 10 minute video? I've seen that. I've searched for a longer one, but I haven't seen one.
@@afala4 I looked back, and yeah, I was referring to the 7 minute video. I think the point still stands that miracles can happen in other churches than the one in Rome. You specifically may need to look into those ones.
Gavin Ortlund has several videos explaining Sola Scriptura, so I'm not sure what was meant by him not being a Protestant because he doesn't hold to Sola Scriptura...
Maybe I misunderstood something. Apologies if I did.
That's not what I said.
@@DrJordanBCooper My apologies, I suppose that I didn't understand what was being said at 1:02:42. I do appreciate your teachings and your ministry. God bless!
Are the sufficiency of scripture and a closed canon necessary aspects of sola scriptura? Or are they adjacent teachings?
Can you please provide the literature source for when saint irenaeus replaced 'church' with 'scripture' in your explanation between 41:35 and 42:58 ?
It’s book 3 ch1.1 www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm
I just watched the debate between Dr. James White and Trent Horn on Sola Scriptura at (First Lutheran Houston) Church's CZcams channel. Although I share the same theological understanding as Dr. White, I think you may have made a better alternative. Trent made a couple references to Lutheran, Baptist differences that I believe was only meant to divide us and to ingratiate himself to you Lutherans.
I have yet to watch that debate, but as a former Lutheran (now Catholic) who attended and graduated from both a Lutheran junior college and a Baptist university, I'd say Lutheran views of scripture are closer to Roman Catholic views than other Protestant views.
And recently, I have seen radical Protestants attack Lutheranism online for having a sacramental system like Catholics.
I can't understand the Roman Catholics refusal of Sola Scriptura, the word of God isn't the ONLY inerrant, infallible authority in your Christian life? You would allow their magistirum to damn people just through word of man's mouth. No Excathedra for me thank you very much!
@@Mark_Penrose "You would allow their magisterium to damn people." What do you mean? Are you referring to anathemas?
@@Mark_Penrose and what do you mean by "word of man's mouth"?
49:15. The Sadducees did eventually unite with the Samaritains after the fall of the Temple, although we cannot establish that their canon differed during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. The sadducees were the priestly sect.
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, *which are able to make thee wise unto salvation* through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
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, *throughly furnished unto all good works*
{2 Timothy 3:15-17}
Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
I have more understanding than all my teachers: *for thy testimonies are my meditation*
{Psalm 119:98-99}
*Thy word* is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
{Psalm 119:105}
The entrance of thy words giveth light; *it giveth understanding unto the simple*
{Psalm 119:130}
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, *making wise the simple*
{Psalm 19:7}
14:03 Isn't that also acceptable in the papist view? I vaguely remember reading the CCC, and it talks about how Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are both the word of God, so shouldn't they be nearly identical? Wouldn't Sacred Tradition be what's inplicit and explicit and the application of Scripture?
I think this view is called Material (not formal) Sufficency of Scripture. In some sense it is close to protestant Sola Scriptura...
The thing is we actually believe there are many contradictions between them, especially rome's sacred tradition.
@@karolswirniak I see I see. I honestly think this view can be a legitimate Catholic view. It makes sense since Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is both the Gospel.
@@jesuscorona3562 Yo, mind naming a few? From your Lutheran standpoint and the Catholic standpoint.
@@thelonelysponge5029 yep, the papacy, epistemology, natural theology, iconography, the mass, relics, purgatory, Mary's asumption, Mary's perpetual virginity, mandatory celibacy of all priests etc. How many more you want me to list?
What is the best book on the solas?
Thomas Schreiner wrote 5 books (one on each of the solas). While I've not read them myself, they are quite popular. I suggest you start there.
(Thay-ah-newp-stos) The Greek (New Testament) word for God Breathed. (Theopneustos) is how it's spelled in the Anglo-(Greko) alphabet.
Jesus taught using sola scriptura!
But he answered and said, "IT IS WRITTEN, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
{Matthew 4:4}
Jesus said unto him, "IT IS WRITTEN again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”
{Matthew 4:7}
Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for IT IS WRITTEN Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”
{Matthew 4:10}
“For this is he, of whom IT IS WRITTEN, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”
{Matthew 11:10}
And said unto them, "IT IS WRITTEN, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
{Matthew 21:13}
Then saith Jesus unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”
{Matthew 26:31}
He answered and said unto them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as IT IS WRITTEN, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."
{Mark 7:6}
And he answered and told them, "Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how IT IS WRITTEN of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as IT IS WRITTEN of him.”
{Mark 9:12-13}
“The Son of man indeed goeth, as IT IS WRITTEN of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.”
{Mark 14:21}
And Jesus saith unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."
{Mark 14:27}
“IT IS WRITTEN in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
{John 6:45}
“Search THE SCRIPTURES; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”
{John 5:39}
And he said unto them, "Full well you reject *the commandment of God* that you may keep your own TRADITION."
...
“Making *the word of God* of none effect through your TRADITION, which you have
delivered: and many such like things you do.”
{Mark 7:9&13}
But he answered and said unto them, "Why do you also transgress *the commandment of God* by your TRADITION?”
{Matthew 15:3}
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.
{Colossians 2:8}
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them *in all the scriptures* the things concerning himself.
{Luke 24:27}
*Tradition* in the context of men
Greek παράδοσις / paradosis = 666
by counting the letter values of the Greek transliteration;
P(80), A(1), R(100), A(1), D(4), O(70), S(200), I(10), S(200).
He also used parables from science and nature.
He used an integrative, evidence-based approach to the wholeness of truth-Scripture, God's natural laws revealed in science and nature, and personal experience of His laws should bring us wholistically a revelation of God, His character, and the plan of salvation accomplished through His Son.
Jesus also said, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ *But I say* to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment." Matthew 5:21-22
He also said, "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28.
Jesus said, “Because of your hardness of heart *Moses allowed* you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." Matthew 19:8-9.
You can't just choose only verses you want to support your view. You gave to consider EVERYTHING the Bible says.
@@jimmu2008
Show me one verse where Jesus uses traditions of men or forever hold your peace.
@@larrybedouin2921 don't be an idiot. Jesus isn't against TRADITION per se. He's against traditions which contradict or nullify the Word of God.
"At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple area, in the portico of Solomon. The Jews then surrounded Him and began saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” John 10:22-24
This feast, which is Hannakah, is not in the OT. Now, it would be a stretch to claim [edit: based on this verse alone] that Jesus did or did not observe this feast, but we don't see him condemning it either. But here's the important thing: John mentions it because Jesus fulfilled the feast. It was a feast of light, and as the light of the world, he fulfilled it.
Paul says, "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."
@@larrybedouin2921 In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 Paul writes, "For I *handed down to you* as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."
He's talking about Tradition. At that point in the Church the Gospel was oral Tradition
36:00 - 36:40
1 timothy 3:15 explanation
41:35 - 42:58
First Bible into mass production was the Gutenberg Bible. Your version of the Bible as a Lutheran is at variance with it. What’s your authority?
What was Gutenberg’s?
@@TomPlantagenet The first Bible printed with moveable type, produced in the 1450s. It's just the 73 book Bible. Some 21 complete copies still remain.
@@david_porthouse what is Gutenberg‘a authority
@@TomPlantagenet
Synod of Hippo 393, Council of Carthage 397 and 419, Council of Florence 1431 would have given the Gutenberg printers formal guidance. I am just going from the Wikipedia article on the Catholic Bible.
@@david_porthouse wasn’t the canon infallibly declared according to the Catholic Church only in 1546.? There was division within the church up until that time. If you read the Wikipedia article on the apocrypha (canonicity) it shows that some were not on board with those books. It was only at the council of Trent that the church “infallibly “ declared the canon. Trent Horn admitted this in his recent debate with James Whire
As to Dr Cooper's first question "what does the early church go to in order to settle disputes?', this sounds reasonable until one must realize that just because Scripture is quoted or mentioned in the early church, does not mean it is their final authority. I can name numerous writings of the early church that states that the Bishop of Rome is the Head of the Church with full authority over Christians. But that in and of itself does not demonstrate that the Pope is a higher level of authority than the Scriptures. Because it's not the case, and Catholics do not claim that is the case. Since Scripture itself calls the Church "the pillar and ground of truth", it is not logical or Biblical to state that the early Church mentioning Scripture as an authority to be appealed to is as exclusive or "either /or" a claim as Dr Cooper posits. The Catholic Church believes the Scriptures, the Pope and the Majesterium has full authority. Scriptures must be interpreted by the Church, since they are the pillar and ground of truth, which I think Dr Cooper also believes. St Paul told the Thessalonians to pass on the things he taught them whether oral or written. Tradition encompasses both oral and written teaching, not only the Canonical Scriptures. And some tradition was also written down and passed down. For Dr. Cooper to pit tradition against Scripture, one must ask him "which interpretation shall we use to correct tradition?" The answer is, of course, the Church. It appears that Dr Cooper's real problem is refusing to identify the Catholic Church of today as one and the same as the early church. What Church was Irenaeus a part of? The Catholic Church, of course! If Dr Cooper believes that the "Roman" Catholic Church is not this same very Church, he should be able to demonstrate exactly when and how this occurred, and provide some written testimony of the early church up until the "Reformation" of this paradigm change and any accompanying outcry against Rome's supremacy and dogmas in favor of the Protestant "gospel". As Dr. Cooper must admit, the early church did not teach any form of Sola Scriptura, nor did it teach that the Scripture was the definitive final authority over and above all other authorities. Nor does it argue that Scripture is placed over and above against any alleged "competing authorities". When Dr Cooper dogmatically declares, a priori, that Scriptures are the only infallible words we have from God, he fails to demonstrate the impossibility of other infallible authorities. I would posit a question to Dr Cooper: can the oral traditions St Paul taught the Thessalonians be considered infallible, even if they didn't end up in the Canonical Scriptures? Yes or no? If no, then they lacked the same level of authority. But St Paul grouped them together and instructed Timothy to pass both on. Nowhere did St Paul posit any kind of difference. In fact, he expected them to pass them down. Do they lose apostolic authority when they are handed down from a non-apostle? Of course not. Dr Cooper is trying to isolate apostolic teaching / tradition to the immediate Apostles, and in the teachings that ended up canonized in Scripture, when they never functioned in that way, and not even an early church father ever stated that it functioned this way.
This has all been addressed in other videos by Dr. Cooper.
@@MrSeedi76 Your inability to interact with my comment says a lot. Perhaps you should do a deeper dive into oral tradition from a Catholic perspective.
The Bible refers you to books of scripture not in the Bible and also secular history books etc. 😮
Nathan , Gad , Asher ,,
Books of the Meeds and Persians,,,,, Hmm 🤔
I LOVE MY PROTESTANT BROTHERS WHO DO SO MANY WORKS OF CHARITY AND HAVE SO MANY COMMON GOALS WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH LIKE BEING PRO-LIFE ETC. HOWEVER, I HAVE MANY QUESTIONS ON SOLA SCRIPTURA. FOR INSTANCE, DID JESUS PROMISE A BOOK OR A CHURCH? WHERE DOES THE BIBLE STATES THE WORDS "SOLA SCRIPTURA"? WHERE IN THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD RESTRICTED ONLY TO WHAT IS WRITTEN DOWN? WHY WAS THERE CONFUSION IN THE EARLY CHURCH OVER WHICH BOKS WERE INSPIRED? HOW DID THE EARLY CHURCH EVANGELIZE AND SURVIVED WHILE BEING BRUTALLY PERSECUTED BY THE ROMAN EMPIRE FOR ABOUT 350 YEARS WITHOUT KNOWING FOR SURE WHICH BOOKS BELONG IN THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE? IF CHRISTIANITY IS A "BOOK RELIGION" HOW DID IT FLOURISHED IN THE FIRST 1500 YEARS WHEN MOST PEOPLE WERE ILLITERATE? IF JESUS INTENDED FOR CHRISTIANITY TO BE EXCLUSIVELY A "RELIGION OF THE BOOK" WHY DID HE WAIT 1400 YEARS BEFORE SHOWING SOMEONE HOW TO BUILD A PRINTING PRESS? IF THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED IN SOLA SCRIPTURA, WHY DO THE CREEDS OF THE EARLY CHURCH ALWAYS SAY "WE BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH", AND NOT "WE BELIEVE IN HOLY SCRIPTURE"? WHY DID THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA WAS NEVER RAISED BY THE CHURCH FATHERS, BUT IT WAS FIRST RAISED BY JOHN CALVIN MANY CENTURIES AFTER JESUS' ASCENSION? WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT DO THE APOSTLES TELL FUTURE GENERATIONS THAT THE CHRISTIAN FAITH WILL BE BASED SOLELY ON A BOOK? HOW DO WE KNOW FROM THE BIBLE ALONE THAT THE LETTERS OF ST. PAUL, WHO WROTE TO 1ST CENTURY CONGREGATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS, WERE MEANT TO BE READ BY US 2000 YEARS LATER? ON WHAT BIBLICAL BASIS DO WE THINK THAT EVERYTHING THAT THE APOSTLES TAUGHT IS CAPTURED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS? WHERE DOES THE BIBLE CLAIM TO BE THE SOLE AUTHORITY FOR CHRISTIANS IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS? WHO MAY AUTHORITATIVELY ARBITRATE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS WHO CLAIM TO BE LEAD BY THE HOLY SPIRIT INTO MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE? WHO IN THE CHURCH HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHICH BOOKS BELONGED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON AND TO MAKE THIS DECISION BINDING ON ALL CHRISTIANS? IF NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY, CAN I THEN REMOVE OR ADD BOOKS IN THE CANON ON MY OWN AUTHORITY? IF WE NEED AN AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE US CONSTITUTION (US SUPREME COURT) WHY WOULN'T WE HAVE A SOLE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE WHICH IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET? ISN'T KIND OF STRANGE THAT OUR PROTESTANTS BROTHERS AGREE WITH THE CATHOLIC AUTHORITY IN AS MUCH AS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT? GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
The video answers many of those questions.
@@TomPlantagenet It actually doesn't.
@@N1IA-4 you should probably watch it again
@@TomPlantagenet His video was too narrow of a scope oo answer many of the commenter's points. Perhaps he has some refutation, but they all weren't presented here.
@@N1IA-4 Yes. He did not answer all of them. But many of the original posters questions or addressed
The most important "Sola" within modern churches is "Sola Rightwinga".
Apparently, Hugo hasn't set foot in a UMC church or ELCA church within last 10-25 years...
Sola dispensenational pre-millenia
Yes, the Bible teaches hereditary male privilege.
@@jasonlowther5700 Why would I? I'm a Catholic. Our far-right go as far as to deny the Holocaust, but they still look like communists compared to the Evangelical far-right.
This is either projection or gaslighting. Most (I say most not all) of the hierarchical churches have drifted left with the culture. There are few politically right wing churches. It just so happens that churches who faithfully preach the word of God have congregations that tend right because the American right is more aligned with the Bible than the left, like no murder, no adultery, no stealing, no lying, no trespassing, honor parents, He made them male and female and forms individuals in the womb, private charity.
It was by the Apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings were to be included in the list of the Sacred Books. This complete list is called the Canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament, and 27 books for the New Testament. What you have to realise is the Church is the authority, not the Bible.
In the one and only Church of God, from its very beginnings, there arose certain rifts, which the Apostles strongly censured as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church. The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body, heresy, apostasy, and schism, do not occur without human sin.
Tradition is the oral preaching of the apostles, and the written messages of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
Protestants love to say the Catholics added books to their Bibles.
The Catholic Church did not add books to the Bible. The 7 books in question - Tobit, Judith, Naccabees 1, 2. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Bauruch - are properly called the Deuterocanonical Books. The label "unscriptural" was first applied by the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century. By the time of the Reformation, Christians had ben using the same 73 Books in their Bibles and therefore considered them "inspired". For more than 1100 years, this practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the Deuterocanonical Books on nothing more than his own sat-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.
One of the two "Pillars" of the Protestant Reformation, Sola Scriptura, or the Bible alone, in part states that nothing can be added or taken away from God's Word. History shows therefore that Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine.
Better give it up mate. You have to be "inspired" by the Holy Spirit to understand the role of Tradition and Scripture in the Church.
All that yap is easily refutable. For example, if the discernment of the “one true church” gave us the Bible then why do we not trust the Pharisees? Their discernment is what we base the Old Testament canon on.
Could you please clarify what you mean by this "living tradition" which exists alongside scripture as the revelation of Christ? Has this tradition existed since the days of the apostles? Could you provide some examples? Thanks in advance.
Refute all that yap not just one example@@ryandelaune139
This was exactly the twisting of history and nonsense one would expect from a Roman catholic online.
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Matthew:18:20
Jesus taught using sola scriptura!
But he answered and said, "IT IS WRITTEN, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
{Matthew 4:4}
Jesus said unto him, "IT IS WRITTEN again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”
{Matthew 4:7}
Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for IT IS WRITTEN Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”
{Matthew 4:10}
“For this is he, of whom IT IS WRITTEN, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”
{Matthew 11:10}
And said unto them, "IT IS WRITTEN, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
{Matthew 21:13}
Then saith Jesus unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”
{Matthew 26:31}
He answered and said unto them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as IT IS WRITTEN, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."
{Mark 7:6}
And he answered and told them, "Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how IT IS WRITTEN of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as IT IS WRITTEN of him.”
{Mark 9:12-13}
“The Son of man indeed goeth, as IT IS WRITTEN of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.”
{Mark 14:21}
And Jesus saith unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."
{Mark 14:27}
“IT IS WRITTEN in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
{John 6:45}
“Search THE SCRIPTURES; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”
{John 5:39}
And he said unto them, "Full well you reject *the commandment of God* that you may keep your own TRADITION."
...
“Making *the word of God* of none effect through your TRADITION, which you have
delivered: and many such like things you do.”
{Mark 7:9&13}
But he answered and said unto them, "Why do you also transgress *the commandment of God* by your TRADITION?”
{Matthew 15:3}
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.
{Colossians 2:8}
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them *in all the scriptures* the things concerning himself.
{Luke 24:27}
*Tradition* in the context of men
Greek παράδοσις / paradosis = 666
by counting the letter values of the Greek transliteration;
P(80), A(1), R(100), A(1), D(4), O(70), S(200), I(10), S(200).
Comically, Sola Scriptura is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. Since it is not in there, it must be a MAN MADE TRADITION.
Jesus constantly states "it is written" and he also constantly denies "tradition" that contradicts the written word of God. So exactly the thing that the RCC is constantly doing by inventing things that aren't in the Bible but have to be believed by catholics.
@@MrSeedi76 I couldn't care less what Latin heretics are doing. You did not provide any Scriptural reference in favor of heresy called "sola scriptura". As I already stated - if it is not in the Scriptures, it must be MAN MADE TRADITION. Question is - who invented it.? Name.? Was it unhappy, constipated, drunken German monk.? Or someone else..?