Sola Scriptura is FALSE | w/ Suan Sonna
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- Hey everyone! In this live steam, Suan Sonna will be presenting a new argument against Sola Scriptura.
▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃
☩ Support the channel on Patreon ➔ www.patreon.co...
☩ Subscribe for more theological topics ☩
☩ Share this video with a friend ☩
☩ Check out some more videos!➔ • Theological Topics
▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃
Shameless popery has a really good video on this titled “the biblical case for infallibility.”
Shameless Popery (Joe H) has good videos all around. His legal training and ability to build a case step by step are impressive.
@getrit3007 The Mormons built their false Christology by elevating subjective "feelings" (pseudo "burning in the bossom") above infallible, time-tested divine revelation. Mormons and Protestants share a common (or very similar) conspiracy theory about how the early Church allegedly went off the rails (widespread apostasy) which had to be corrected by divine intervention. They just quibble over when and by whom this "course correction" took place. Prots credit Luther and the "Reformers" (rebels) while Mormons credit Joseph Smith (false prophet and con man). Prots and Mormons share a false history about the early Church. Prots retain an orthodox Christology and a Trinitarian theology (not always), but Mormons built their false Jesus out of a weird mixture of polytheism, human imagination, and diabolic influence... mixed with a dash of inter-galactic science fiction.
@getrit3007
Create humans. Raise them in the church.
@getrit3007
Well, the Scripture says to go to The
Church. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
@getrit3007 Yes but the Church precedes Scripture. There was a time when there was no written Gospel nor epistles. Who did Christians listen to and how did they learn about Christ? Through the Church as Christ established through the Apostles.
Protestants: Bible Alone
Also Protestants: Gay Churches
Ha
you're throwing stones in glass cathedrals
@@luxordfaith8506 nah man. Pope based beyond compare.
@@TJBowman-vr1co wasn't referring to the pope
-----Sola Scriptura ultimately means God’s Word alone-that we are not to add or take away any of God’s words but to submit ourselves to its supreme authority.
***Hebrews 4:12 Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart), or seen implicitly through its lens.
---- This apparently is what Catholics believe: According to Catholics. Indeed, the word of the Pope (priests) is living and effective......
*** Deuteronomy 17:14-20 states that we “shall not turn away from God’s Word, not to the right or the left”.
---This apparently is what Catholics believe----According to Catholics. They turn to whatever direction they can to satisfy their itching ears.
***Psalm 1:2 and Joshua 1:7-8 says that “the righteous person dwells on the Word of the Lord day and night”.
This apparently is what Catholics believe--- According to catholics. They DWELL on every word spoken by a mere man, the Pope (priests).
***Deuteronomy 8:3 states that “we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”.
--This apparently is what Catholics believe--According to Catholics.“we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope (priests)”.
***Proverbs 30:5-6 states: 5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
--This apparently is what Catholics believe----According to Catholics. 5 Every word of the Pope proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a heritic.
-----I will ask you, which NO ONE has replied to: Who's other writings does GOD tell us to accept as the truth??? QUOTE FROM the BIBLE!!!!)
Remember these words from Jesus: John 14:6 NIV -
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Since HE IS THE TRUTH, then when a church preaches their version of the truth, who is the truth??? Jesus or the "Church"???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sola Scriptura, or “God’s Word alone,” maintains that the Bible is the highest source of authority in a Christian’s life, the final court of appeal (though not the only authority: the Bible itself mentions governmental and other authorities).
Sola fide, or “faith alone,” affirms that justification-being made right with God-comes only through faith in Jesus.
Sola gratia, or “grace alone,” says sinners are saved as an unearned gift of God’s grace, “not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9).
Sola Christo (“solus Christus”), or “Christ alone,” emphasizes the exclusivity of Jesus’ role in salvation: “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).
And soli Deo gloria, or “to the glory of God alone,” says that the purpose of creation, salvation, and everything-including our goal as Christians-is the glory of God, “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).
I can certainly understand why the roman Catholic does not agree with scripture . It would have to get rid of some , not all , some doctrines that are totally false.
Thanks for showing my question boss :)
No problem my man
There is clear evidence Irenaeus sees divine/supernatural charisms of indefectibility and authority given to the Church and apostolic succession, with no indication such charisms will disappear or be taken away, not merely an ordinary and natural proximity to the apostolic age:
"...therefore, *the tradition* from the apostles does thus exist *in the Church,* and *is permanent* among us...."
"[T]he preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, *and continues in an even course* .... [O]ur faith, which, having been received from the Church, *we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth.... For this gift of God has been entrusted to the Church, as breath was to the first created man... the [means of] communion with Christ...that is, the Holy Spirit.... 'For in the Church,' it is said, 'God has set apostles, prophets, teachers,' (1 Corinthians 12:28) and all the other means through which the Spirit works;* of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behavior. For *where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth.* Those, therefore, who do not partake of Him...fleeing from the faith of the Church lest they be convicted; and rejecting the Spirit, that they may not be instructed…. Alienated thus from the truth, they do deservedly wallow in all error, tossed to and fro by it, thinking differently in regard to the same things at different times, and never attaining to a well-grounded knowledge, being more anxious to be sophists of words than disciples of the truth. For they have not been founded upon the one rock, but upon the sand...." (Against Heresies, 3, 24, 1-2)
“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, *have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father* .... *Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed,* there it behooves us to learn the truth, [namely,] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is *unadulterated and incorrupt* in speech. For these also *preserve this faith* of ours in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets.” (Against Heresies, 4, 26, 2, 5; Ch. 26 is entitled “THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHURCH ALONE“)
“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and *the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world,* and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and *has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved* without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy….” (Against Heresies, 4, 33, 8; Chapter 33 is entitled “WHOSOEVER…DILIGENTLY READS THE SCRIPTURES IN COMPANY WITH THE PRESBYTERS OF THE CHURCH, IS A TRUE SPIRITUAL DISCIPLE; AND HE WILL RIGHTLY UNDERSTAND AND INTERPRET ALL THAT THE PROPHETS HAVE DECLARED RESPECTING CHRIST AND THE LIBERTY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT”)
Do you have knowledge of the mysteries received by Paul?
@@_ROMANS_116 TROLL. getrit, EPH1:13, @_ready, multi-channel troll.
Scripture is profitable if the heretic accepts the correct meaning of Scripture. When this failed, the Fathers referred the heretic to the Church as Final Authority. The Fathers held the Church was Final Authority, and that's the diffence between a Father and a Protestant. Pax
I'm a Catholic convert and do a decent amount of work in the field testing arguments like this. I'm in the South, so there are no shortage of Baptists to talk to.
I run into two main problems. The first is that the slavery argument falls. They will shrug and tell you that if you need a Pope to tell you that the Bible is against slavery, something is wrong with you. It's similar to an agnostic telling you that they don't need God to know that murder is wrong. You know the rabbit hole there.
The second issue is that it's functionally a pathos argument. We would say it's morally repugnant to allow slavery under a Christian worldview. A Methodist might counter that they find it equally repugnant that you don't have priestesses or gay marriage under your Biblical/Ecclesial framework.
It's a logical argument, but I'm not sure how well it works on the ground. God bless you and thank you for all of your excellent work. Pax Christi.
I believe that while Suan was here appealing to moral reougnancy, we could approach the matter more clinically, showing from reason and natural law (even referencing some principles taught in the Bible) that slavery is wrong, yet the Bible had all the opportunity to forbit it, and failed to do that.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription That's a reasonable route to take. Suan might counter that this line of thought lands us in the same puddle we were climbing out of. Essentially, you can make all sorts of rational and reasonable arguments - all of which are clinical, valid, logically sound, etc. - and that still doesn't get you to a place where an interlocutor couldn't just propose another sound and logical argument from his perspective. Suan is right that we need some sort of God-backed and protected method of removing some arguments from the discussion and settling things.
Ultimately, my problem with Suan's argument isn't that it isn't true, it's that it's not effective in the field. That's all. Pax.
@@griffingartner3142Thanks for the response, God bless you
What part of the South are you in? I'm in upstate SC!
As far as the first point goes I'd like to offer a critique. Yes the argument fails but not necessarily for the reasons you mentioned. Sure there are some people who would offer an epistemologically poor response like that but there are historical-grammatical ways to reach the conclusion that we should abolish slavery. I'd particular cite the doctrine of the Imago Dei. The Bible teaches that all men are made in the image of God and this inherently valuable and equally so with one another. The last step in the historical grammatical hermeneutic is application. An application of this would certainly be that slavery is an offense against God as that is someone else who bears His image.
@@4jgarner according to contemporary scholarship the "image of X" is a near Eastern bronze age idiom to mean "X's representatives". Inspiring Philosophy has content on this, look it up.
Thanks for taking my questions Braden!
You bet! Well have to set up a dialogue soon once you’re all settled in!
@@thecatechumen sounds good man! Two quick points to what Suan said in the live:
1. It seems to me that the question of God's existence is every bit as important to the function of the church as any other question. Indeed, the question of God's existence is more fundamental than the question of whether God is against slavery. You need to assume the first in order to even answer the second. The church has to assume that God exists in order to even get off the ground. And yet, people still rationally dissent on God's existence as no institutional authority has ever definitively settled the matter for us. Indeed, God doesnt overwhelmingly compel us with evidence of His existence either.
So we cant even come to Christianity, much less the question of slavery, with this fundamental issue having been settled for us. Its not settled. And yet we can still function as Christians in spite of this and no one bats an eye. And so if we dont need such a fundamental question of God's existence definitively settled, this raises the question of whether we need other issues settled (in the way Suan thinks we do). This is why I dont feel the force of Suan's argument. Lots of things are unsettled and yet we still live our lives as Christians. Suan himself included.
2. Suan raised the question of Christians rationally dissenting about slavery, as if the Bible doesnt lean one way or another on this (it does) and that without the Roman church we wouldnt have even been able to to settle this issue. But wasnt it primarily Protestant abolitionists who overturned slavery? Didnt they use (Biblical) arguments and persuasion to make their case? What role did the Roman Catholic church play in any of this? It seems to me that the Roman church just followed along with what was already happening at the time, rather than leading the way. So this just raises the question of how the Protestant abolitionists were able to get this issue right without an infallible magisterium to tell them. And to preempt the "rational dissent" objection, we could say that in the same way in point 1 that God's existence can be assumed as correct without an infallible authority settling the matter for us, the same can true for slavery. So again, I just dont feel the force of this argument.
My wife converted because of you thank you suan you are a saint in my book
Where does Bible say convert to Catholicism?
@@Harbinger290 why don't you start at 2nd thesslonians 2:14
@@Tradition75christian 😂😂 that’s not a beneficial starting place. The RCC teaches an accursed gospel as defined by the teacher for this dispensation - Paul (see 1 Gal 8:9).
What is the catholic gospel? By gospel Paul means the way to salvation. The Catholic path to salvation is made up of what, my catholic friend???
Sola scriptura guy huh?
Get a life
Dear Suan Sonna and The Catechuman, I am very grateful to have come across this video today. I have been thinking about Acts 15. Let me see if I have this right... (If I have it wrong, please feel free to erase this comment!)
The Circumcision Party was made up of Bible-believing Christians, using the historical -grammatical approach.
Peter and Paul went beyond the text, looking at the actions of the Holy Spirit in Peter's vision and baptism of Cornelius, and in the wonders and miracles among the Gentiles wrought at the hands of Paul and Barnabas.
Because he was looking at the situation through an ecclesial hermeneutic, Paul was able to see Abraham's justification by faith came before God required circumcision. (Galatians 3) And James was able to read into Amos 9:11-12 proof that the Gentiles qua Gentiles would be brought into the house of David (Acts 15:16-18).
Thank you for giving me this better understanding of ecclesial hermeneutic, which underlies a passage like Acts 16:4-5 -- Then as they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the dogmas decided on by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, that they might obey. Therefore indeed the Churches were strengthened in faith, and were growing in number every day.
Protestants, consider a Bible, which you regard as the sole infallible authority on doctrine - except this particular Bible is in a language you don't know. Is that particular Bible still your sole infallible authority?
If not, suppose you take classes on that language. How well must you learn that language until that Bible becomes your sole infallible authority? What if someone else learns that language slightly differently and disagrees about what that Bible says. Who is correct?
Or consider if that Bible is translated later for you. On what basis do you know if that translation is accurate enough to be your sole infallible authority?
Looks like we're still left with the bible being just "useful" and/or"profitable" then
as per 2 tim 3.16
Looks like you all need to learn Latin fluently to abide by any papal encyclical. Are Catholics EVER serious with their arguments?
Question, Is there a catholic Church without the Bible? If there is, why should we believe them? If not, then would you not confess to Sola Scriptoria?
@luxordfaith8506 The Bible did not exist until the Catholic Church created it in AD 382. So the question is, how could Christians follow Sola Scriptura before then?
@fantasia55 The Bible is nothing more than the collection of letters . The only thing they invented was the index. When we refer to the Bible, we are referring to these letters sent out by the apostles. On top of this, the church in AD 382 did not have the original apostles or their letters. Instead, we have the copies. And by golly there were a lot of copies. These copies of the gospels confirm and attested to the faith. So it was still possible to stick to the Faith. Also, Sola Scriptora was made not as a protest to the early churches to begin with. It was made to the Roman Catholic church who were engaging in practices that were contrary to the Gospels. But that's another topic.
Instead, let us focus on the Church. The Catholic Church by itself has no legitimacy without the Bible. No matter which way you slice it. Without the support of the Gosples, you cannot have a church. However, you are making the circular argument that the Bible has no legitimacy without the church, which in turn has no legitimacy without the bible. Such circular reasoning is flawed. Either the church depends on the Bible for authority, or it has no authority to begin with.
This was absolutely phenomenal
Always love new installments in the sola scriptura rebuttal canon
@getrit3007 TROLL!
@getrit3007tricking people who were poorly taught. That's how.
The problem with the slavery argument is that slavery itself is not necessarily evil. There are of course evil forms of slavery which the Bible explicitly condemns, but not all kinds are condemned.
?....please explain...
interesting.. although I respectfully disagree
I think it's important to note that slavery is not an historically static concept or practice. It clearly devolved. It was always historically shameful for its subjects in Europe and Asia in Biblical times but an important economic system. Later in history, chattel or racial slavery was however always and everywhere evil because of its negative reach and impact on its subjects. The Arab slave trade and some African societies that profited from it were connected to this economic system. We can accept there were some fair practices inherent in such systems. When it was abolished or condemned by some Popes, it was becoming evident that its practitioners' consciences were also becoming peaked not because it was originally historically tainted (debatable), but that the conduct of its exploiters in the modern era were denying Christ's fundamental teachings by unprecedented means. To use the Bible to legitimize slavery is like Saul's literalistic spirituality which is none other than a harbinger of death. When things don't add up....
Compelled work is not inheremtly evil, but treating peoole as property is.
Some forms of slavery simply allowed an individual to work, in exchange for shelter and food. Otherwise they would die, unable to obtain those things by their own abilities in a reliable manner.
This is an excellent presentation! The excellent points are so numerous that I can’t express gratitude for them in an enumerated way. One giant take away that stood out in my mind is that without a Magisterium in harmony with Scripture both receiving their commission with and from the same one God, the hope of the institution surviving for even hundreds of years intact is nil. The Prot deformation no matter the original intent is proof of that. There are 1000s of denominations none accountable to any power greater than itself each claiming to be “bible” orientated that don’t agree with each other. It’s frightening to hint of where they will be in another 200 years given how far they have descended in just 500 years. The Catholic Church? Still the same 2000 years later. An Apostle could walk into one of our services anywhere on earth and still recognize us by what they themselves taught.
I think something that could be added to the answer given to Justas' question is that the magisterium works on an ordinary level as well. The church did work to abolish slavery in Europe, which is why there's a markedly different proportion of slaves to free people in the roman times compared to the middle ages. It's an institution that the church patiently chipped away at, and only stepped it up with an act of the papal magisterium when it experienced an unexpected resurgance right before the church's eyes during the colonization period.
Same thing with the death penalty. It's something that the church has at the local levels discouraged, and it's only now that she's sealing the deal universally.
Didn't the Roman empire abolish slavery in the 4th century because of the influence of the church?
very good
The church said it was an “error” to say that heretics should not be executed
@@esoterico7750 not exactly. Please provide the full quote in your favourite english translation.
Maybe I am ill informed, but does the historical grammatical approach require, that Abrahams answer in Gen. 22,8 "God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son." can never be interpreted as a prophetic word for neither Abraham nor the author of Genesis intended it as such? I mean it is possible, that the author meant it as such, but you can't establish that definitly which lands you again in territory which the historical grammatical approach should reject.
So in short: the historical grammatical interpretation rejects, where God obviously wants you to read between the lines and understand a typology. A typology I hope no protestant would ever reject. Let alone all the other unwitting prophetic utterances and the scripture word fulfilled which only make typological sense (sign of Jonah very explicitly by our Lord himself) in the bible.
Don't know whether it's strawmaning the position though.
Just started reading St Francis de Sales chapter on this topic in _The Catholic Controversy_ . So not sure how new it is, at least argument 2.... Can see the influence of the recent YT video discussions of slavery on the topic.
Such a great book
1)Don't forget that the Jews have the same OT canon as Protestants.
2) the claim is that yes the confessions of augsburg, smalcald articles, and large and small Catechism are inherently scriptural
3) we don't need any other overrated rules, everything that comes from man is susceptible to errancy. That includes the church. The church can also though nail truth
4) historical grammatical isn't the most used hermeneutic in the protestant church. Many hermeneutics have been used, historical grammatical, literary, metaphorical, and sensus pleniar, all of which have built up the body of Christ.
-If the Catholic Church claims hermeneutical consistency, yet this has never been the case, and they are yet to establish one within their ranks.
-They also need to provide the true meaning of the bible... if it is of God, it wouldn't be subject to variety
This is tge first two slides
(1) Why does it matter that Jews have the same OT canon? During the time of Jesus, we have multiple different canons between different groups. Additionally, they reject the NT. So, using them as THE authority on what is canonical is rather problematic for a Christian.
3) Didn't Christ establish the church? So, how does it "come from man?"
@@Vaughndaleoulaw
(1) He is referring to the Apocrypha, the set of books that are not within the OT of the Protestant bible for they believe the books were written during the 400 year silent period when God had not selected any prophets prior to the incarnation of Christ and therefore believe the books to be divinely uninspired. there's more to it, but this is just the edge of the rabbit hole.
(3) The Roman Catholic church as it is set up right now is not exactly the way that the bible depicts how the church should be set up.
@@luxordfaith8506 (1) Full aware that he is talking about the Deuterocanonical writings. But my point stands, why does it matter that the Jews reject these books? They also reject the NT, so they clearly don't have a full, complete, & accurate canon. There wasn't a set Jewish canon until after the NT was written. We know the Pharisees and Sadducees had different canons. The Essene canon was different (as shown by the Dead Sea Scrolls).
(2) How do you even know what writings should be included in the Bible? And on what basis do you conclude the Bible is exhaustive as to what a church should look like?
@Vaughndaleoulaw the cannon of scripture should not conflict with itself. So if there is a teaching from one book that conflicts with the gospel of christ, then that book should be rejected. In Matthew Jesus foretells of the final judgement how he will gather his faithful in His Right hand and his enemies in the left, his left hand he will toss to hell while he will deliver those in his right hand to heaven, but want to know what is not mentioned? Purgatory, Purgatory is not mentioned once by Jesus, yet there is a teaching from one of the Apocrypha books that claims it to be so. So by the standards of the God Himself, that book is to be rejected on the account of one false teaching. The same principle is to be applied to the letters of the saints. In one of the maccabees books, they teach of an intercedeing prayer to an angel. However Paul writes a letter to the galatians condemning this, and the practice itself fundamentally rejects the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross. So that's two more strikes against that specific book.
I love how Gregory of Nyssa was touched on in passing lol He actually is a good case on how someone who is based on the sola scriptura principle can deduce from scripture the doing away with slavery without a magestrium.
I am leaning towards distilling this all down to a sort of transcendental argument for church authority by arguing from the impossibility of the contrary: If God's people recognize(d) scripture, and scripture helps us know who God's people are, then neither term has any meaning because they are circularly defined by each other. You have to know what scripture is to know who God's people are, and you have to know who God's people are in order to know what scripture is. This doesn't prove which church authority is the real one, but I think it shows that if Christianity is true then there must be one it's just a matter of developing that line of thought further.
I've actually been on this exact train of thought myself. It sounds like you and I are both intuiting that in order for any particular system of Church authority to be the genuine system established by God, it follows that this genuine and authentic authority will display specific properties and require certain conditions. In this sense, we would both be taking the general framework of the transcendental argument for God and applying it to the Church.
@@christopherponsford8385 Exactly. The only thing I haven't figured out is if this excludes certain high-church denominations like Anglicans. My gut says it does, but I haven't actually developed this enough to confidently say. I think you're on to something when you say the authority "will display specific properties and require certain conditions", that's probably the thread I will pull on myself.
We should be careful because as far as we know the Old Covenant had a fallible magisterium, but that's explained by God providing them with prophets to correct the course if needed.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Well I don't think this argument would apply to the old covenant, since they had a visible bounds to God's people which was literally the Jewish ethnicity. With the new covenant, though, this argument takes effect since Christianity isn't restricted to one ethnic group.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription the issue isn’t necessarily “is an infallible magisterium *required*” so much as “did God establish one, and how do we identify it”.
You can argue that the reason the Old Covenant didn’t need an infallible Magisterium was because the Old Covenant served a specific purpose, didn’t have a complete canon, and was thus in a state of active development and wasn’t definitive by nature. Christ however, changes that; the Old is fulfilled, the New is established and is an everlasting covenant. The definitive nature of the New makes having a definitive, infallible Magisterium *make sense*.
The only problem i see is the common sense strength of the historical-grammatical interpretive sense in plenty of other areas. Sure, against slavery, polygamy, and other things it cant do much but the bible itself has been so hijacked by protestants and seculars that its hard to read it and not see it the way they do. Its hard to feel the magic of the Catholic Churches history and authority when reading. If this is our book why doesn't it jump off the page the way it does for protestants?
But to contribute something:
When i converted, frustrated with my protestant past, i took a long break from reading the bible because i never properly understood it. I came across an article online about the book of Romans. The author, a catholic, asserted that the main theme of the book was not soteriology but the priesthood. With various proofs to back him up. Which was so electrified my interest in the bible that i spent almost all that night doing a bible study instead of sleeping.
Great teaching. Can these slides be downloaded somewhere?
Excellent video gentleman. For further reinforcement to your position, refer to John Henry Newman‘s essay on the development of Christian Religion. Specifically pages 201, 209 216 and 217. He specifically calls out the Nestorian, Arian, and Monophysite heresy, all employing a literal interpretation of the text or as you are describing it, historical grammatical hermeneutic. Furthermore, Newman articulated the Jewish literal interpretation of the Messiah as a temporal political/military figure as grounds for rejecting the Gospel.
“ they all speak scripture without the sense of scripture and profess a faith without faith“ Saint Hilary.
Suan, I need those slides tto reference for my defense òf the Church letter I'm writting to family and friends. How can I get you my email?
Quote---Sola Scriptura is FALSE ...unquote
So, apparently the the Bible is full of lies!!!!
****Hebrews 4:12 Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart), or seen implicitly through its lens.
-.. (Is that a lie?)
*** Deuteronomy 17:14-20 states that we “shall not turn away from God’s Word, not to the right or the left”.
-(Is that a lie?)
***Psalm 1:2 and Joshua 1:7-8 says that “the righteous person dwells on the Word of the Lord day and night”.
-(Is that a lie?)
***Deuteronomy 8:3 states that “we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”.
According to Catholics.“we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope (priests)”.
***Proverbs 30:5-6 states: 5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
(Is that a lie?)
-----I will ask you, which NO ONE has replied to: Who's other writings does GOD tell us to accept as the truth??? QUOTE FROM the BIBLE!!!!)
Remember these words from Jesus: John 14:6 NIV -
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Since HE IS THE TRUTH, then when a church preaches their version of the truth, who is the truth??? Jesus or the "Church"???
>>>>>>>>
Sola Scriptura, or “God’s Word alone,” maintains that the Bible is the highest source of authority in a Christian’s life, the final court of appeal (though not the only authority: the Bible itself mentions governmental and other authorities).
Sola fide, or “faith alone,” affirms that justification-being made right with God-comes only through faith in Jesus.
Sola gratia, or “grace alone,” says sinners are saved as an unearned gift of God’s grace, “not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9).
Sola Christo (“solus Christus”), or “Christ alone,” emphasizes the exclusivity of Jesus’ role in salvation: “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).
And soli Deo gloria, or “to the glory of God alone,” says that the purpose of creation, salvation, and everything-including our goal as Christians-is the glory of God, “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).
I can certainly understand why the roman Catholic does not agree with scripture . It would have to get rid of some , not all , some doctrines that are totally false.
Let me add this; let's say a man presents to you an old parchment dated at 30AD. On that parchment states Mary IS NOT the mother of Jesus. Accept as true? Why or why not???
Same parchment states Jesus is NOT the Messiah. You accept as true???? Why or why not?
Same parchmant says Jesus is NOT the son of God. You accept as truth??Why or why NOT???
My point' Just because it is written, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!! What will you use to prove those statements are false?? The word of men??? Why not the WORD of God???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----I will ask you, which NO ONE has replied to: Who's other writings does GOD tell us to accept as the truth??? QUOTE FROM the BIBLE!!!!)
Remember these words from Jesus: John 14:6 NIV -
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Since HE IS THE TRUTH, then when a church preaches their version of the truth, who is the truth??? Jesus or the "Church"???
--By anyone saying Sola Scriptura is false, IS SAYING GOD is a LIAR!!!!
to mitchellosmer sola and shared are inseparable and qualitatively equal.
So if the magisterium used this argument to normalize gay marriage it would be true?
By definition the magisterium would never do it lol
@@Iffmeister why?
@@esoterico7750the magisterium is constrained by tradition, scripture, prior definitive church teaching. It can't tmrw define the resurrection is false, Romans is uninspired and the book of Mormon is, abortion is fine, etc.
@@cronmaker2 but it can change teaching on slavery? Is there a difference between these teachings?
@@esoterico7750 No difference. You are right to point that out.
They will say it was never dogma.
But isn't slavery an important moral issue that would demand a dogma? Or the death penalty? Or teachings in evolution?
So, everything less than dogma is negotiable - to give them an out.
Now, ask for a current and official list of dogmas (the Ott book is not official). There is no such list.
So . . . What's the point of this authoritative Tradition??
Thanks Braden and Suan.
This video was so enlightening.
1. As:
(A) the human person is the unity of soul and body,
- so -
(B) Divine Revelation is the unity of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
2. Sacred Scripture is the Inspired Word of God and comprised of the books of the Old and New Testament.
3. Sacred Tradition is composed of Active Tradition and Passive Tradition:
(A) Active Tradition is the Church's living and ever-present Magisterium, i.e., the Pope and the bishops in union with him,
- and -
(B) Passive Tradition is the accumulation of Church teaching over the centuries that reflects upon the written and unwritten traditions passed down from the Apostles.
When the church perfectly represents God, without making excuses about the church being full of _fallible men,_ who have been _called by God_ to their vocation, I will listen to arguments against Sola Scriptura.
If the Bible was enough to correctly interpret scripture then we wouldn't have over 40k different denominations each claiming to be the true church. One bride He died for and will never leave. Not a harem of denominations. Not a single protestant church was built by Him. Only one truth. Only one bride/church which holds the truth. She still stands.
There aren't 40k different denominations. There are at most 10-12 protestant traditions, and then thousands of organized groups that fall under one (sometimes more) of these twelve
@@Iffmeister "As of April 2023, there are over 45,000 Christian denominations globally, and more than 200 in the United States."
The Baptists alone consists of 64 denominations. Some believe innn infant baptism some don't. Some believe in free will, some don't. Some believe in double predestination, some don't. It's too much.
@@Iffmeister yeah about a dozen traditions and up to 40 thousands organized groups (called denominations)
@@Iffmeister There are at least thousands of seperate Protestant sects, my friend, and "10 or 12" is grossly inaccurate. The point is Sola Scriptura gives doctrinal chaos and continual division. People don't divide over "secondary issues". They divide over crucial issues. Pax
By the way, its always refreshing to be lectured about slavery and oppression from the Papacy, who for hundreds of years , united with the nobility to enforce and uphold a feudalistic and oppressive way of life on the peasantry of Medieval Europe all the while getting richer and more politically powerful as the peasants got poorer and had next to zero political power. Spare me.
I am a Catholic but this argument seems to be overstating the case. A lot of "it seems likely that it should be the case that" getting replaced with "must be the case that".
It’s very simple. The Bible doesn’t contain anything promoting Scripture alone. The Bible doesn’t pit Scripture against Tradition (wholesale). Scripture is a part of sacred Tradition. The Scriptures also never teach its own infallibility. Scripture is inerrant. But the Church is infallible. Last, without the Church and sacred Tradition, what is Scripture? The fathers speak to all these things.
The historical grammatical approach of Prots is easily refuted by their 30,000 various groups with their differing traditions and interpretations. It doesn’t work.
Luther and Calvin saw the church as a fallible witness to scripture. The idea that they completely ignored the church as an interpreter prior to them is more akin to Thomas Munzter. Catholics are so fixated on Luther and Calvin they strawman them as if they were a Thomas munzter.
I don't think anyone claims that they *completely ignored* the church prior to them.
@@thecatechumen but that is what is being portrayed in this video. Suan even quotes a scholar that points in that direction. Calvin and Luther had the church as a witness to the scriptures vs Rome sees the church as equivalent to the scriptures
@@joseilarraza6533 The argument requires a comparable authority to the Scriptures which is somehow protected by divine guidance in order for the ecclesial hermeneutic to be politically effective.
@@thecatechumen "A comparable authority to the scriptures" this is always assumed to be true from Roman Catholics and never proven to be true.
1 Corinthians 7:23- If Slavery was approved by the Almighty he would not have redeemed us from that treacherous system that he did not institute!
Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide or Works - all or any combination of them isn't enough. Only to "love with all one's mind, heart, soul, and strength" of which faith, works and Scripture are a part of. One can memorize the Bible and all the Commandments and rules and do the greatest of works but "do not have love, I am nothing." Saint John of Cross says "At the twilight of our life, we will be judged on LOVE." Not merely faith nor works nor perfect rule-following. Love. ❤
So you’re going to be judged on love? Sounds interesting. I hope it’s perfect! 👍. Where does love come from? Christ. How do we receive Christ? By believing. What happens when we believe and receive Christ Spirit - according to Rom 5:5 the love of Christ is shed abroad in our hearts by receiving the Spirit. How do we receive the Spirit! By faith John 7:39. So yes we are saved and we love by Faith.
@@Harbinger290 Pathological troll. Reported for repetitive hate speech, harassment.
@@HAL9000-su1mz pathological liar! Good luck
@@HAL9000-su1mz 🍼
The dysfunction of “Sola Scriptura” is why I (eventually) rejected Calvinist Presbyterianism and became Catholic. “Sola Scriptura” is the functional equivalent of a one-dimensional object. It’s fine - in theory, but without added dimensions (in our case, authoritative interpretation and then authoritative teaching distilled from that interpretation), it remains inaccessible. Put another way, “Sola Scriptura” is like a one-legged milking stool. The user has to rely on his own strength (two legs) to stay upright. Authoritative interpretation is the major blind spot for devout adherents to “Sola Scriptura.” Most cannot see that they only submit to their own preferred interpretation of Scripture, which means that they are only submitting to their own consciences, rather than to a truly divinely-appointed authority.
The Bible was only ever a sampler of Divine Expressions, never the whole picture or Word that is in the Mouth of GOD and in the ears and hearts of HIS own. Each writing is a special Expression, not a compendium.
This is great because if this one example is proven out to be logically and rationally correct and consistent, the entire premise of Sola scriptura (plus non infallible ecclesial bodies), must be trashed. By necessity to honor God's Word, in total.
The Bible does abolish slavery. We are made in the image of God, Love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If these three declarations had been followed by man, slavery would never have existed.
Where are all the interpretations? I ask but never receive? I have some verses I need interpretations for please ,,,,,
Post them and see what you get.
@@MegaTechno2000 EPH is a multi-channel suspended and re-registered troll.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Ok
14:32 y’all this slavery argument is terrible.
And it does show that the people who use it don’t study what the words would have meant to the original audience.
You can’t look at a slave in the Bible and think what you’re talking about is something like a black slave in America in the 1800’s.
“Man stealing” is a law straight up punishable by death in the Bible.
And for those called “slaves,” they could NOT be used and controlled in whatever way the owner saw fit. That’s also incorrect, and shows that these explanations were likely the result of someone copying and pasting from some “scholars” apologetic material.
There’s no argument it’s sola or nothing.
"we need more than just the bible alone" - yes. all informed protestants agree.
You'd have to convince me from the scriptures and plain reason.
“This is in the Bible/that is not in the Bible” is NOT a Christian thought ! Because for a disciple of JESUS CHRIST the FAITH is the WORD MADE FLESH : JESUS CHRIST and his teachings : The Gospel, ALL the GOSPEL !
Slavery per se is not abolished
We once again have an impressive presentation of, well, words and slides from Suan Sonna. It seems convincing.
However, I'll bet you $100 that Suan cannot and will not provide a symbolic form of this argument showing that it is valid, sound, and in any way actually addresses real-world, prevailing positions regarding Sola Scriptura. This is little more than a confident presentation of a sophistry-straw-man dumpster fire... though one that will appeal to those who have little or no training in philosophy and formal logic (i.e., about 99% of people).
Suan has been getting a lot of traction with this kind of stuff. It does not serve the pursuit of Truth, but only of affirming one's own biases.
Another Thomas Acquinus on making
Protestants making many assumptions in presupposing GHM as sole/ultimate hermeneutic. Since GHM, while useful, is by its nature limited and does not make any claims to yield divine truths by its application, and further, can often change with developments in scholarship in the various academic fields that drive and inform it, what it “proves” is nothing but plausible opinion, not articles of faith. Analysis in the ever-shifting seas of so many cognate fields have erudite scholars on all sides who study same raw data and come to differing/opposing conclusions, who can differ on what data even should count as the raw data to study or how to weigh its parts, and what proper methods should be used to interpret and analyze that data, and how those methods should be applied, and who all have their own biases/presuppositions that will influence how they abductively reason about and filter the data to reach their tentative revisable conclusions. And all of that can change based on newly discovered or considered evidence, as well as new analyses/ideas growing the scholarship. God left a church, not a university. The early church wasnt living by GHM alone when hammering out core dogmas.
Further, GHM hardly warrants Protestant affirmation of the illumination of the spirit as part of interpretation, nor a canonical hermeneutic in which a text and authorial intent is to be interpreted by other books of various genres, authors, languages, audiences, purposes, eras. Nor of course the christological hermeneutic the NT uses with the OT which Suan rightly pointed out.
Is Lacona a Catholic now?
So the WORD of God has little importance for you!
Colossians 2:8-11 KJV 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. 9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10. And ye are complete in him, which is the HEAD of all principality and power: 11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Mark 7:18-19 KJV And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19. Because it entereth not into his HEART , but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Dont forget Galatians!
Galatians 1;6-10 (NIV) I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
By the will of Christ, the Catholic Church is, in fact, mistress of truth: its function is to authentically express and teach the Truth which is Christ [...] the disciple is bound towards Christ Master TO THE DUTY TO KNOW EVER MORE FULLY THE TRUTH THAT HE RECEIVED FROM HIM, to announce it faithfully and to defend it energetically while refraining from any means contrary to the Spirit of the Gospel. (Extract from the book “365 Days of Hope” by Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan)
Sola Scriptura is not scripture, but opinion.
Well formulated!
Thanks guys and God bless.
Another example aside from slavery would be loaning without interest.
By all means every protestant should have no money in the bank;
Since you know they are loaning your money to others for profit
Our Lord EXPLICITLY said loaning with interest is immoral!
From watching the Q&A I think it also help to stress, as Suan says: "Christianity is a typological religion"
A lot of the pushback seems to just assume we can rationally determine typology-
Which Dr Ortland CLEARLY disagrees with.
Dr Ortland often questions "how do we tell when typology has gone too far/been misused?"
Gavin is COMPLETELY right.
Without the magesterium- this is a potential danger!
Suan: “You’d better be sure your presuppositions come from God.” You mean like your presupposition that slavery is wrong? Your argument only works if you presuppose this, which you’ve admitted is not really found in the text by a grammatical historical method. So your argument is not really that sola scriptura is false, but rather that you can’t get to this one particular conclusion using that framework. And even then you didn’t really argue that so much as assume it. By the same logic, you could argue that the Constitution doesn’t allow slavery because we know that’s wrong and we just needed a Supreme Court centuries later to tell us that was what the Framers “really meant.” The only thing missing is the idea that the Constitution is inerrant, but that actually doesn’t matter, because the process is the problem. You *cannot* determine the meaning of something by referring to presupposed conclusions and then making the something fit those conclusions. That is exactly what eisegesis is. Instead of examining two propositions and determining whether they clash, you’re taking two propositions you assume to be true (slavery is wrong; the Bible is inerrant) and trying to find a way to force them to reconcile. That’s precisely how the Supreme Court has made some of its most egregiously wrong decisions. What it isn’t is a valid way to interpret a text. All you’ve really done is prove once again that arguments for Catholic magisterial authority are circular: the only way to prove the Catholic Church has infallible authority is from the Bible (alternate-from the testimony of Church Fathers who claimed that authority for themselves in claiming it for the Church); the only way to know what the Bible “really means” is to listen to the Catholic Church.
In the second argument, I’ll just briefly point out that this not an argument so much as a statement of what you would like (a check against abuses). I would also like to be able to eat ice cream every day and not gain weight; that doesn’t make it so.
What is the kingdon of heaven referring to…. Heaven or Earth? I need interpretation please.
Both. Christ's rule is from His heavenly throne operating through the Church and her earthly hierarchy via the Pope (Christ's earthy vicar) and the Bishops in communion with him. Christ, the immortal High Priest rules through mortal, sinful men but protects the deposit of faith through His Church despite human weaknesses. Christ's rule is universal and eternal. His Kingdom influence will continue to grow and spread like leaven in a lump until the whole world is voluntarily under His rule. So, it's both. "...on earth as it is in heaven..."
@@michaeloakland4665 where does the Jesus say we need these rulers? If anything, after reading Matthew 23;8-11 Jesus paints a very different picture of how He want things to be done. And if you read the earlier verses in the same chapter we see how He really feels about people who put themselves above others.
Proverbs 1:7 KJV ...The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction...
Psalms 12:6 KJV The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever...
Matthew 4-4 KJV 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.
2 Samuel 22:31 KJV As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him...
Psalms 18:30-31 KJV As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him. 31. For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God...
Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Isaiah 1:10 KJV ...Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorra...
I'm the dumbest person on earth. Yet when I read the bible, the bible clearly states in Genesis 8 that "god would never again smite down mankind because of their sins". Yet the Canaanite slaughter totally contradicts this. Joshua totally went against "sola scriptura", and if he didn't Jesus would have entered into existence the way he did. If I, the dumbest person on earth has figured this out using the bible, what does it say about those who have missed the obvious?
The Canaanites are not "mankind"
Catholics' saying that sola scriptura is false just gives them the excuse of inserting their own unscriptural beliefs, such as saying that...
1. Mary is the mother of God.
2. Jesus is God.
3. God is a trinity.
4. Mary can be worshiped.
5. statues and relics can be worshiped.
6. Mary is a co-redemptrix.
7. Mary was a perpetual virgin.
8. Jesus' birthday is celebrated on December 25, the same day as the Roman Saturna,ia,
9. Mary was assumed into heaven.
10. "we worship one God in trinity."
11. homosexuality is not a crime.
12. Peter was a pope.
13. purgatory is real.
14. Mary was immaculately conceived.
15. Mary can be prayed to.
16, the Godhead is triune.
Massive L for you here bud
oh it's you again, the annoying troll. Promise you will reference the catechism or other magisterial text and not a century old non magisterial encyclopedia and we can talk. I know that throws a wrench in your useless script, but I expect you to say yes because it's a reasonable request. So, can you say "sure!"
@@1984SheepDog how so?
Since when can Latria be given other than God?
Ooohh you have something in common with satan....... Hating mother mary.
Love Suan
Great argument
Protestants
Sola Mea Sententia
Only my opinion
Respect 👊
“Believing” is what liars want you to do. The fact that Paul plucked out Genesis 15:6 as “Faith” was genius. Like, is it even the same “faith”? In the fictions of Genesis, we have God directly communicating with Abraham causing his elderly wife to have children. First off, Abraham knows God. He knows the right God. He does not “believe” in God. Second, believing that god can do what he says is a different kind of “believing” than “belief” in Paul’s preaching. Thinking God can do what he says is not the faith you have in believing the preaching of Paul. Think about it, you’re an illiterate gentile Roman citizen and Paul says “believe in my preaching and you’ll have salvation. As a reward, I’ll be by weekly and collect money from you and you will be blessed”. Verses Abraham having a direct conversation with god… a god that does things for him.
speaking technically, knowlege is
1-justified
2-true
3-belief
So you believe all you know, but you don't know all you believe. Does that make sense?
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription So answer me then, You speak to god directly and he tells you am going to do things for you. verses "4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.' - Paul is making claims never heard by the people he is preaching to. And if they are gentile, these gentiles have no idea who the hell yahweh is. So they have to believe Paul is preaching about the correct God, a god they dont know. Youve got to be able to tell the bait and switch.
@@JezuesChavez I don't see how that's related to what I said. I objected to you reading too much into the word "believe", by showing it that believe and know is not a dichothomy, as all things you know, you believe also.
None of Paul's letters are addressed at unevangelized gentiles. He is talking to people he has already met. These "demonstration of the Spirit's power" are miracles! Miracles are the proof of the supernatural! Paul performed miracles before the corinthians, to prove to them Yahweh is the true God (which is a valid thing to do, as only someone above the laws of nature could actually make a miracle).
So there's no bait and switch here, you're mistaken.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Before I respond, would you call miracles "signs"?
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Lets try this again. "4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.' - Paul's message and preaching rest's on God's power. He doesn't say my miracles and acts rests on God's power. His message and preaching represent God's power. Remember in Galatians 1 he says " 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." - He is hell bent on convincing his converts that what he is preaching comes from God's revelation to him. "God's power" are not miracles. 1 cor 1 "22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." Jews want miracles (signs) - Greeks seek human wisdom, what does Paul offer? REVEALED PREACHING OF CHRIST CRUCIFIED. Christ crucified is not a recent historical event. Its revealed knowledge Paul received from God. Its not known to humans. Paul made that shit up.
*DIOS* LE BENDIGA HERMANO *SUAN SONNA*
Well done
Did the bishops of rome eliminate slavery by the 3rd century?
We answered your question at the end of the stream
@@thecatechumen what was is then?
@@Justas3991:10:20
@@thecatechumen Thanks. This just shows the failure of the RCC. It also shows, that no church had the power to stop it.
@@Justas399 Non Sequitur
16:45 That is an awful argument. So secular cancel culture is the measure of morality now?
If one is consistent with their belief about the magisterium being infallible, then why does one who believe this, not push for a magisterium complete commentary of the bible?
The Church need not infallibly pronounce on every verse of Scripture, because its God-given teaching authority necessarily extends to the full expanse of the Bible. After the Resurrection, recall that Jesus tells his apostles, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). How did the Father send Jesus? Jesus explains to his apostles in another post-Resurrection encounter: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18).
So the apostles teach God’s word with full authority and do so centered in and faithful to Jesus, not independent of him. That’s why Scripture not only speaks of God’s word and the teachings of Jesus, but also “the teaching of the apostles” (Acts 2:42), precisely because they teach God’s word with the infallible God-given authority Jesus gave them.
That’s how Christians throughout Church history have been able to discern God’s authentic word: Is a teaching in conformity with the teachings of the apostles and their successors, or not? So we see the need for a God-given authority extrinsic to but not independent of the Bible, especially in those many centuries in Church history when the overwhelming number of Christians were illiterate.
And so in reading and interpreting Scripture, even if the Church has not pronounced definitively on a particular verse, we have the God-given doctrinal guidelines that any interpretation cannot contradict the teaching of the Apostles, including their apostolic successors who lead the Church today, i.e., the Pope and the bishops in union with him. The Catechism of the Catholic Church consequently summarizes well how we should read Scripture:
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.
112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation (footnotes omitted).
@@noahgaming8833 All authority has been given to Jesus, nothing more, nothing less. You use the word "authority" way too loosely and liberally btw. I encourage you to do a careful word study on "authority" and look where it applied in the scriptures.
If you really believe the magisterium is the infallible rule of interpretation, have you requested they create a magisterium full complete commentary of the bible?
@@soteriology400 I’ve already answered that argument. Also, you haven’t proved I use it too loosely
@soteriology Good question. I'd also like to hear an answer to that
@@J_Nwachukwu I already answered it
If God is protecting the magisterium then why isn't He protecting the rcc from pope Francis?
Pope Francis is based 😎
Agreed, Pope Francis is based.
@@StringofPearls55 yet the roman catholic is to be in subjection to him for their salvation:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
@@Justas399 Of course. The Pope is the head of the Church on earth and the keys to the kingdom on earth were passed on to him. And since we're still on earth I'm subject to him. What don't you understand?
@@Justas399 Imagine thinking you can reject Christ's Church without consequences.
How do you attain salvation per the magisterium?
By believers in Jesus. This is what they teach.
The Catholic Magisterium? By the grace of God. The thing is: how do you receive that grace that God gives to us freely? By the Sacraments. Therefore, in a very practical sense, the Magisterium teaches that you need to be baptized and not die in a state of mortal sin to be saved.
@@felipeneves9571 ok 👍🏼 thanks. Now we have 2 responses. 1. Faith alone 2. Get in the water and don’t sin. 3. Can we add to this false list of salvation processes ….
I need at least 10 responses.
Next
@@_ROMANS_116 I don't get your point. I just told you what the Church teaches in sum about salvation.
@@felipeneves9571 waiting on more responses and then we can compare all to the catechism and also to the Bible
👍
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.
I don't think a book can be an authority. An authority is a person or organization that can legitimately settle disputes. Books don't do that, at best, exegetes do that.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription So the inspired-inerrant Word of God is not an authority?
@@Justas399 No. It's authoritative, but not an authority.
@@Justas399 maybe you define the term differently?
@@ghostapostle7225 Is there another authority in your church that is inspired and inerrant like the Word of God?
2:05 written words means nothing. Actions speak louder than anything that is written by any scholar in theological or any intellectual thesis. No need to have pope's or cardinal's as guide's. Jesus guides us through his teachings by the promised living waters in 1 john chapter 7: 37-39. Lastly the disciples asked jesus increase our faith, consider his reply, all is needed is a small amount of faith like a mustard seed is enough, therefore no need for eucharistic rituals every day or a confessional through a priest who is no different from ourselves.
Jesus established a Church. I'm going to follow that.
I don't see how you arrive at your position with the verses you presented.
16:46 you can't change our mental processes of our environment and influences of today than 3 thousand yrs ago: heard of the generation gap within families, 2 different outlooks from our parents upbringing and our own present environment.
Slavery is not a sin period.
Explain.
@@HAL9000-su1mz He said that Protestants come to the right conclusion about slavery and I plainly disagree. If the text never condemns slavery or slave owners then slavery is not a sin. Christ never condemns Slavery. The Apostles never condemn slavery. Paul never condemned slavery. Why... because to do so undermines the entire understanding of the Christian faith. God is the ultimate slave owner and master of all creation and we are rightfully his property and therefore his "slaves" whether we are obedient/Christian slaves or disobedient/heathen slaves we are still property of the Master of all creation. So no to call slavery sin is blasphemy of the highest order for you are saying that God sins. So no slavery is not a sin. Period.
@@RealmWaffen We must look at the definition of slavery. It was often different from today's view. 2,000 years ago, it was very often debtors who owed money and were bonded. Not property to be owned or traded. Not in every case, of course, but very commonly.
Slavery in the sense of owning people and preventing them to leave is evil and sinful. Slavery in the sense of "justly compelled labor" isn't. God doesn't prevent us from leaving him and going to hell if we want to, so we're not his slaves in the first sense
@@HAL9000-su1mz This is categorically false. Scripture allows for people to be owned in perpetuity and for life. You cant say that this was fine then and its not now because then you are saying that God changes. Which is false.
26:08 26:13 God is no respector of persons, consider the priesthood of jesus day,they we're targeted by jesus by their thirst of power over the people.he choose people outside the priests influence. Consider the marvelous reaction jesus had on the Roman centurion faith, and the Samaritan woman and the parable of the good Samaritan is best examples of who is God's choosen people.
Fred, how did you arrive at this conclusion?
@@HAL9000-su1mz simple you not answering my question did not jesus give the highest praise to the Roman centurion,ask yourself why??? He was not amongst the disciples of jesus or brought up in a Jewish education. Explain too me ,
fred fred fred, those were Jewish priests of the Mosaic LAW! Hello? Christ fulfilled the Mosiac Law. He Himself MADE new priests of the apostles. Read Malachi 1:11. A messianic prophecy of the pure offering in the MESSIANIC AGE. Christ! From sunrise to sunset a pure offering will be offered.
@@HAL9000-su1mz u not responding to my question am talking about suna opinion on his post about historical conclusions. I want to know what about the praise jesus gave considering he was not a jew in practice or character, regarding the Roman centurion.
He chose people who he then gave authority, and they gave authority to others. Jesus never removed the concept of hierarchy, he instituted a greater one for the New Covenant.
Its amazing how sola scripturas who starting irraticating slavery through the protestant crown with archbishop of canterbury in house of lords etc. by the royal navy is attacked by catholics yet it it is protestants who started the erradication of it
I would actually argue the opposite. For much of Feudal Europe slavery was mostly reduced and replaced. Not fully eradicated mind you, but miniscule and limited.
The rise of secular authorities and absolution actually lead to colonialism and the resurgence of chattel slavery
The Devil doesn’t want to accept Sola Scriptura either. It’s no wonder He has convinced others to keep adding to it with their own unbiblical Ideals and machinations.
The devil quotes Scriptures alone to Jesus
CHRISTIANS DO NOT NEED A BIBLE! The bible proves this. No Christian "IN" the bible "HAD" a bible. Please explain this, since it destroys your "argument" Why? Because you hold to UNBIBLICAL bible alone.
You should be ashamed to exhibit such ignorance of scripture!
Source?
Unbiblical ideals and machinations such as Sola Scriptura, yes.
Satan says the same - “Sola Scriptura” is no good.
Do you speak to him personally?
Source?
@@mfjh505 Lord - I tried to tell them the Bible was not enough! How’s that going to sound? Who you think would come up with? May God show us all more truth.
@@EmberBright2077 easy to see. I’m the source.
@@_ROMANS_116 I appreciate the honesty.
Bible is the Words of God, but the Roman Catholic Church, who claimed to worship God, undermines the Authority of God's Words. Saying man-made tradition is equal to the Bible.
Revelation says "Come out of her My people, she is blasphemous".
But there was no Catholic Church until CONSTANTINE! BWAAAAHAAHAAA!!!!!
Prove to me the Bible is the Word of God without appealing to a logical fallacy like circular reasoning please.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription 2 Timothy 3 : 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.
@@sparrow5407 not a proof. That's a quote from a letter, it coukd be wrong, or it could be talking about something other than the Bible. Please PROVE to me that the Bible is the Word of God. Be precise, lengthy and logically consistent.
@@sparrow5407 1. Paul did not define scripture. 2. He did not name the books. 3. It is uselul - but the bible PROVES that scripture is neither required nor even necessary. 4. You are kicking against the goads, EXACTLY as Saul of Tarsus did before his conversion. 5. Oh, and those Bereans? Whatta bunch of goofballs! They lived and breathed the scripture. 24/7/365. They ate and drank with them. Scrutinized them. Pored over them. Analyzed them. Aergued and disputed over them. MEMORiZED them! Lived and breathed the scriptures! They only missed one tiny detail:
JESUS CHRIST.
It was only Apostolic preaching which revealed Christ to them. Even then they DOUBTED! Fine examples they are...
Satan tried scripture alone and failed. He is vastly superior in intellect to you, I or anyone else. You think YOU can make scripture alone work? You must be a badder ass that Satan!
The Catholic system produces their adherents to refute and have the same narrative that their church is true and the continuation of the apostle's. That mentality is still same because of their hatred of Luther brave stance against the corruption of the Roman system of his Day.
fred, you know that is not true. This has been carefully and patiently explained to you over the past several months at least. What blinds you to simple history? Simple facts?
@@HAL9000-su1mz who knows the true history of anything your church,or maybe karl mark interpretation or hegel. Ok lets be honest do you interpret Daniels vision from historical sources, because not all histories are same. Many like hegel and karl mark's interpretation of history had a big impact on millions!!! I think their interpretation is just as true from different perspectives.
@@HAL9000-su1mz explain the faith of the Roman centurion.jesus gave him the highest praise. Use the same methods as your post explains
@@frederickanderson1860 Fred, are you having issues with reality contact? The history is extremely clear. Look up the Eastern Orthodox church. 95% identical and came from the same Church founded in 33 AD as recorded in Acts 2. UNDENIABLE!
@@HAL9000-su1mz you are responsible to my main points, regarding suna post,his point about the correct method of historical process. Now he mentioned about the individual who will come to the same conclusion correct,now l respond by mentioning the historical encounter with jesus and the Roman centurion,he marvelled at his faith,more than he found in all Israel,therefore does that negate his view that you need a magisterium to have their authority over the individual personal faith!!! Did jesus recommend him to the synaquque or church council.
The Catholic Church falsely interprets even some basic scripture so why pretend we should believe any interpretation?
@EPH-re2xj you’re a perfect example of why week need a magisterium…
So yeah, thanks “Pope You” for your great wisdom.
@@dsonyay can you show me where the interpretations are? I have a couple verses I need help with please!
falsely, according to you
How do you know it's the false intepretation?
@@felipeneves9571 I can ask you a question and get a false answer. Want to try just one?
Communism = Roman Catholicism, Capitalism = Protestantism. There is more freedom in Protestantism, but this does not mean sola scriptura is wrong (Hebrews 11:6). All are dealing with the sinful nature in different ways.
The Catholic Church condemns communism lol
I don't think this is correct, at least when we're getting into specifics. If anything, I find that Protestantism is pretty rigid in its interpretations and conclusions in comparison to Catholicism. In fact, the line is very thin when people are willing to leave their church if they don't agree with an interpretation of a specific passage. The line for freedom of interpretation is very thin depending on denomination.
In my opinion, Catholicism has a much more stable foundation which allows a variety of beliefs and interpretation, so as long as it doesn't contradict or contain error. Where as Protestantism has a more shaky foundation, that if not established correctly, will end up limiting itself.
@@Cklert I was using the analogy in the sense of freedom to study for oneself (2 Timothy 2:15), no man made dream of a magisterium telling you what you have to believe. It is a layer of bureaucracy that gets in the way between a believer and Jesus. Jesus is the one who died for my sins and is my judge. God is a rewarder of those who diligently seeks Him (Hebrews 11:6). This does not make Ephesians 2:20 (sola scriptura) false. If a preacher is rigid in their interpretation, one can find another one that fits where they are currently at. The HS does not enlighten every single believer btw. Some believers are like Simon, and some are like the Eunuch in Acts 8. Also, the reason why I used "communism" as an analogy. There are multiple layers of suppression in Roman Catholicism, as well as layers of disinformation. Eusebius did a major rewrite/modification of church history from the time shortly after the apostles, to his day. Once a person goes down this path, it is extremely, extremely difficult to get out of.
What I find interesting, Gavin uses better hermeneutics than Suan does. I remember they were both reading the same texts of a book and it was obvious Gavin was getting the authors intent. Now I see Suan in this video talking about authors intent, which is great. But he does not have a good history of obtaining the authors intent. This includes his understanding of Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22.
As far as slavery in the Bible, Israel had a sustainable economic system of freeing slaves. Going from being mistreated amongst the Gentiles, to being treated with respect as a slave for up to 6 years, then were free.
Saint Pope JP II literally consecrated communist USSR to the Immaculate Heart of Mary before its collapse in the 90's 😅
Also, Russia wasn't Catholic, they were Orthodox that similarly reject the authority of the Pope, like the protestants 😅
The so called "sola Scriptura" is an invention