Catholicism Debate with Jimmy Akin & Steve Gregg, Part 1 - FINAL AUTHORITY
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- In Part 1 of a 5 part debate between radio host, author and bible teacher Steve Gregg (thenarrowpath.com) and Jimmy Akin (jimmyakin.com), an internationally known author, speaker and the senior apologist at Catholic Answers, the two discussed final authority in this 2019 debate.
#debate #catholic #protestant #jimmyakin #catholicanswers #thenarrowpath #stevegregg #bibleteaching #doctrine #theology #bible #solascriptura #romancatholicchurch #romancatholic #papacy #churchfathers
PART 2 czcams.com/video/byFdJNaBzzs/video.html
Love Steve! And informed, respectful discussions like this are a huge blessing.
The Galatians had been bewitched....the Corinthians fell into sin and errors...Paul corrected them...Paul corrected Peter.... hopefully they were restored at that time....think it not strange that the church might depart from the truth and embrace strange doctrines...each of the church fathers had BOTH sound and strange doctrines....only the canon that is accepted by both Catholics and protestants should be considered safe and reliable to teach
Protestants do not have a canon.
Love Jimmy!
Thank you both for an informative and faithful based discussion. Most of the disagreement and conflict among authentic modern Christians is based upon a lack true knowledge and perhaps a lack of love and true commitment to Jesus and his words.
At 10 I tried reading the Bible on my own. I didn’t get through all of it.
What I understood were to 2 things.
1st; The greatest commandments. love God over everything and love one another.
2nd A kingdom that’s divided will fall.
I am a Catholic by choice after reading church history.
Steve your interpretation of scripture is the least biased I have ever heard In my opinion, you let scripture interpret scripture as much as possible. I am a Jimmy Akin fan boy, but
You did a Great job, if Protestant Pastors would have your grace explaining scripture I would be worried. 👏
Any church that says that without them there is no salvation should be avoided! By the way more than one church says they are the truth. The early church was Persecuted but then the RC church became the ones persecuting, what happened? This is just one of many problems. When Jesus said it is Finished he meant it! If you add to a gift it is no longer a Gift!
Please provide proof the Catholic Church persecuted Christians and what years. I have a feeling you enjoy reading jack chick.
As far as the Roman Catholic Church, funny thing happened, during the reformation Protestants started calling it the Roman Catholic Church. If you look at the catechism, documents from Vatican none say Roman or RC.
One of two things here you are ignorant and don’t know what you say
Or you like to bear false witness and you are a lier.
Waiting would love to talk about it I hope you are a challenge and not one of them king James freaks, they only read king James, almost like they forget the Anglican Church created it, lol.
You better not be one of those conspiracists that claim things were hidden by the Catholic Church.
Please read on the trail of blood, it’s not historic just ignorant. The two babylons.
Amen
@@samuelflores1419 what did he mean when he said it was finished?
Can you also add a list of all the persecution Roman Catholics did, you know the name Roman Catholics came about during the reformation, You look at Vatican documents and the Catholic catechism not one does it say Roman Catholic.
@@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm Why don't you research the dark ages, then get back to me! By the way when you add to Grace it isn't Grace any longer! So again Any Church that says that without them there is No Salvation, Should be avoided! Last time I checked Christ did it All on the Cross! Remember the Dark age, you know with the pope the so-called vicar of Christ! What happened to Love your enemies, except they forgot. All they wanted to do was translate the Scriptures. Why were they enemies? If you don't think that the RC church had problems and still do Read your scriptures and compare! That's just a taste, Do the research! It's rather ugly!
@@samuelflores1419
I have read into the dark ages medieval times.
The Great Famine of 1315-1317
Black Death 1347 to 135
Extremely hard times for anyone to have faith with life expectancy of 30. I see people growing desperate and feeling the church was letting them down since all people would see is death. That gave way perfectly to people to the renaissance and the reformation. From historical view people were expecting god to help them, without changing their lifestyles. Yes I have read into the inquisition.
If anything we see the worst people can do, that’s why I quoted the trail of blood. I have also read into the so called extra Jesuit pledge.
People have done horrible things.
Have you ever read into American History
During colonization if you were black Jew or Catholic you could own anything, you couldn’t vote or hold office.
Protestants forced Catholics to go to Protestant churches and get baptized by them.
You had the Bible riot of 1814 where nativist party claimed the only people with rights was white Protestant Americans.
The KKK that was "reborn" in 1915 and grew to great political power in the 20's was not just anti-black, it was also anti-immigrant and strongly anti-Catholic. The theme of the KKK was "100% Americanism" and Catholics could not be considered real Americans because they had
"divided" loyalties to the Pope.
The christero war in Mexico supported by Protestant Americans.
I typically find a lot of anti Catholics in the south especially Bible Belt Christian’s. I get it. The Catholic Church told Texas to stop slavery. Texas had their revolution, was welcomed to the US , soon after involved in a revolutionary war. So wealthy slave owners helped spread even more anti catholic propaganda.
So we have a lot of bad history caused by bad people. That’s doesn’t prove Christianity is bad, the Bible clearly teaches something different.
I know you believe we added to grace.
Grace is free by god, we can’t add to grace, since all of grace belongs to God, If anyone has grace in the first place, it was given to them by God.
Love civil discourse!
Read the account more carefully... remember Peter at Antioch ALL the Jewish believers went astray before Paul admonished them.... Paul was arrested in Jerusalem and was not there to set them straight...they ALL were zealous to keep the WHOLE law 😢
Well done Steve.... you're a patient man...the fruit of the spirit of course... You are appreciated greatly...thank you 👍👍
“However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come" (John 16:13). *Thats right Steve,* Jesus told the apostles that the Spirit would guide THEM into all truth, which is God's word (Jn 17:17). The wrote it down. And that is the only reliable source of truth that we have today. It also means that by the time the apostles died, ALL of the truth had been revealed. We have everything we need written down in scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jude 3).
The church didn't form the canon, the canon formed the church.
Councils decided nothing; they merely agreed & disagreed.
The Church of Jesus Christ, like Israel of old, is only as good and fruitful as they are connected to the LORD.
When Jesus was on earth He acknowledged the leadership of Israel (as corrupt as they were) were backed by Moses (the Law). Yet, He rebuked them harshly for misrepresenting the Law, and replacing it with the commandments of men. Ultimately, Jesus saw the leadership as not loving the God they claimed to know and serve.
For any called out assembly that God forms as a people unto Himself must draw near by faith and trust in God's authority to order His people. His word is the Sword of the Spirit, if heeded it produces faith that pleases the Lord and cuts through lies of the enemy.
When it comes to the entity known as the Roman Catholic "Church", the real problem isn't authority disconnected from the LORD Himself, which is obvious. But the real issue is one of mistaken identity, or rather, stolen identity. There simply isn't anything that Scripturally connects the entity known as RCC to being the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Mat 16: 17-19
@@aadschram5877 there's nothing in that passage of Holy Scripture that backs up the Papacy or is about the pagan Roman Catholic "Church". That passage is about who Jesus would use to build _His_ Church. Matthew 18:17-19 confirms that Jesus wasn't only handing power and authority over to Peter.
I am Catholic. You mention that in regards to the Catholic Church the issue is “of stolen identity.” In your view when was it stolen and who were the culprits?
@ShallStandForEver
Roman Catholic Church is an invention of the Church of England some 1500 years later.
There would not be any reference (As you require) in Scripture to the Catholic Church, or the Church Jesus built as the Church existed first, then the NT was written. Jesus did build His Church on Rock (in the Bible) and Rock later became the Bishop of Rome.
As you don't think the Catholic Church is Scriptural you have to come up with an historic document declaring just when this fabricated Institution came into being?
You should be asking where in Church documents is Scripture confirmed, as Jesus built a Church and not a bookstore.
In acts 21 the whole church in Jerusalem had fallen....James declared they were zealous to keep the WHOLE law of Moses...animal sacrifice, stoning adulterers, circumcision.... EVERYTHING....they had fallen from grace by definition !!!!!
HI Donald, I would disagree with you that "the whole Church in Jerusalem had fallen". Obviously James who was the bishop of Jerusalem had not apostatized. Paul no where in verses 18-26 has to condemn James and say "why have you taught what is now false." There were many Jews ("thousands" as stated in verse 20) who taught that believers must continue to observe the Mosaic law but that does not mean the it became the office positions of Paul or Peter or James the overseer of Jerusalem. The leaders of the church had been guided into the truth of this matter by the Holy Spirit in Acts 15 . That teaching, guided by the power of God, persists to this day. Because some, even thousands of believers, reject the Church's teaching does not mean that the Church had fallen. Believers falling from grace is not proof source for the whole church falling.
@@brianfleming1310 Paul went through the purification ritual so he could talk to everyone at once as James suggested....his speech was cut short and he ended up in Rome as God foresaw....so it is ok to keep the whole law in your view 🤔 ?
@@donaldmonzon1774 Thanks for the reply. If what Paul did was sinful all it would show is that Paul struggles with sin like any other human. But he did not then teach or hold fast to the heretical view preaching that believers must now observe the Mosaic law. If Paul is now teaching heretical views how do we know that some of his writings (the scripture that assigns him as the author) are not heretical in other ways. Church authorities including apostles, bishops, popes and Protestant pastors all sin. But it does not necessarily prove that their "whole church" has fallen or that their teachings are false. The very fact that the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul etc... are considered to be inerrant proves that God would protect the teachings of his Church.
@@brianfleming1310 I didn't imply in the least that Paul had sinned or that he was in error....my only point it that the church in Jerusalem had gone astray and were debtors to keep the WHOLE which is impossible....they fell in similar manner as the Galatians.... hopefully they were restored
@@donaldmonzon1774 Gotcha... I would agree that many can fall away. It is a little much to say the "whole church at Jerusalem had fallen" as you had. James and the elders of Jerusalem (who are the leaders of Jerusalem) seemed to have not fallen away. They seem concerned about the situation. In my mind this passage does not undermine church authority.
"You know, the boss may not always be right, but he's always the boss. They had the authority given to them to speak for the Church, for Christ."
It is an admittedly simplified and crude comparison, but very well said Steve, and very apropos. Time for you, Steve, to come under and into the Catholic Church. Speak no longer just for yourself, but for the Church, your errors and all. Your truths, the Truth will be preserved, verified, amplified and protected; and your errors will be corrected, even if it takes years, centuries. The Church is eternal.
Job well done with your life of study and teaching! Now rest, and give it all back to God, and the Church, a higher authority.
Minute 34:00
God bless,
@@anotherlook6930 so be a lemming 🤔...not a good idea...they will not adhere to sound doctrine...itching ears...get a q- tip instead
Not all denominations hold to the basic beliefs. In the past there were some who we now call heretics and could call some today by the same name today.
This is an old recording
Steve’s view on church leadership is a great example of how the scriptures are not perspicuous. There is no consistent Protestant exegesis of the teachings of Paul on this subject. Steve’s position is a distinct minority- by his own admission. So holding the scripture to be the final authority is toothless because everyone who disagrees with you can claim the scripture is on their side. What Steve really believes is that his own exegesis of scripture is his final authority. It doesn’t matter that Ignatius was a legate of the Apostles like Titus and Timothy …ordained by the same Apostles. But if ignatius’ views contradict Steve’s, then Steve wins. This is incredibly arrogant, coming from someone born 2000 years after the fact. This is why I left Protestantism after 46 years. Christianity is not Steve’s private religion. It’s a very public one. Steve’s view on the church fathers is no different than Mormons.
"What Steve really believes is that his own exegesis of Scripture is his final authority." - This blatantly false. Steve looks at all the major views of most any passages, gives the arguments for each, brings to their strengths and weaknesses and usually gives his opinion. He says he may be wrong. Didn't just trust him, study the scriptures for yourself. This is the most humble approach I've seen. From a Catholic perspective, you're just taking the interpretation of another man, whether it be a church father, pope, or whoever, so it makes no difference... Except you just assume based on superstition that the guy is right and didn't look at whatever it stands logically, hermeneutically, within the context. - moderator
@@SteveGreggVideos this is called spiritual relativism. “I believe this about Scripture, but you believe what you want to believe about it. You do you- as long as you sincerely use Scripture to arrive there.” That’s basically what you just said. Again, Christianity isn’t a private religion. Either infant baptism is biblical and part of the Apostolic tradition, or it’s not… and I’m obligated to assent to it or not if I want to be a faithful Christian. I can’t just unilaterally declare it to be a minor issue because there is no consensus among Christians about what the Bible says about it. Because that’s just it: the Bible *says* nothing. The Bible is interpreted. Its message is more important than the literal text, because the literal text can often be interpreted many contradictory ways. Exegesis is important. That’s why we need a public witness to a very public Faith-one with authority to teach and correct others. Steve’s view doesn’t “bind or loose” anyone- by your own admission. He presents his best case, then I present mine (even if it’s polar opposite) and none can claim with any authority that the other is wrong- as long as they make their case sincerely from their scriptural exegesis. This is not the view that built the West. It’s a house of sand, and that’s why there are thousands of competing denominations teaching a confused and perverted gospel.
Next year, we celebrate the 1,700 year anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. This council never could have happened if Steve’s views were representative of the norm at the time. That’s because Steve’s views are a spiritual sole proprietorship. But we are supposed to be a Body- the Body of Christ. Not bodies. Christ prayed for unity. On what basis could the Arians be condemned? They based their heretical views of Christ firmly on Scriptural exegesis. They’re still around today! But they’re not Christians. Why? Because their views were condemned at Nicaea by *the* Church Jesus Christ established. Everyone knew what the Church was in 325- even secular leaders. Today, the Church is whatever Steve thinks it is - based on his private exegesis of Scripture, because that is the final authority for him. “Traditions of man” is just what many call any exegesis they don’t agree with. Convenient. But an infallible book without an infallible authority to interpret is as dangerous or useless as medication for a deadly illness with no consensus on the prescription. “I think you should take two pills daily with a meal.” “No, you should take one pill when you get out of bed.” “I think you should take the whole bottle at once.” Etc. Someone would end up dead.
Many people have taken the Bible and exegeted themselves right into hell-or made a hell on earth for others.
I’m with the Ethiopian eunuch, “how can I know what I’m reading unless someone guide me?” Philip didn’t just respond “keep trying, bud. When you know, you know.”
@@henrytucker7189it is by your words without humility and love or even knowledge that immediately discredit you.
Read what you have said, you do not worship God or Christ, you worship your church and its doctrine which is man-made literally. What is canon but law, but we are not under the law, yet you believe men use “traditions” to create a new law written by men who believe they have the authority of God. This process is the same across every cult. You’ll be worshiping Mary in no time… even as it is specifically refuted by the words of Christ himself.
Catholicism is mostly consistent...yet consistently wrong to 99%of protestants....unity doesn't make it accurate....most of the church fathers ( leaders after the passing of the apostle) were a mix of thoughtful considerations about scriptures and clear heresies
Truth is never defined by what a majority believe.
2 Timothy....3:13,14....🤔
Sola Mea Sententia
Only My Opinion