Sola scriptura is a post apostolic claim Protestants would never claim that Sola scriptura existed while the apostles were alive . The apostles were instruments of public divine revelation and both their oral and written teachings were infallible . Every church today believes that public divine revelation has ceased after the death of the apostles . So in times where public divine revelation has ceased what is the only infallible rule of faith ? It would be the scriptures.The post apostolic church is not infallible . Their teaching will always have to be judged by the scriptures. The church cannot say centuries later that the assumption of Mary is a dogma to be believed to be a true Christian . This dogma has no basis in scripture and also is not in the teaching of the earliest apostolic fathers .As such this dogma cannot be part of the teaching of the apostles either orally or written . As such Protestants would rightly judge this dogma as not being part of the apostolic deposit and hence not essential for salvation .
It is beyond clear in the scripture that the church is not a physical location. The church are comprised of those are followers of Christ, each one of us at temple.
Here is how the early church heard from God - "“For where two or more are gather together in my name, I am there among them” is a Bible verse from Matthew 18:20.
You know, let's go to history first, why would you believe that the holy pope is infallible when he is only human and makes mistakes? even in history are there popes schisms or divisions? is that infallible for you? but the bible has never been corrupted because it is the only source of truth, so now you want to equate the holy popes with the letter of the apostles? Come on!
We don't believe the Pope is always infallible. The Pope has spoken infallibily only once in 2000 years of Church history. You should at least research about what Catholics actually believe before making claims. Furthermore, how do you know books like revelation and Hebrews are divinly inspired when the authors of these books don't even self identify in the text?
@@LuzianJ thank you for that. Well based on a doctrine called Papal Infallibility, which was officially defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870. This doctrine states that when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" (from the chair of Peter) on matters of "faith and morals", he is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures is about faith and moral so that means the Pope and the Bible are equal. In terms of writting of the book of Hebrew and Revelation, i think i am not better than the Council and Synods, if it is wrong for you, well that is your choice, but for me Iam not better than the council or cathage, synod of hippo, athanasius and, tertullan and others as they canonized the 27 books of the NT.
@@ProgramaMo so you have to appeal to something other than the scriptures to justify the scriptures. Well doesn't that sound a lot like tradition is equal if not greater than Scripture. The question then is if you agree with the consensus of the Early Church on the canon then why would you not with other things like Apostolic succession?. Seems like protestants pick and choose evidence to fit theology rather than have the theology fit the available evidence.
@@LuzianJ well in terms of Apostolic Succession it is more difference. The Pope today is not like the Apostle in the early Church. He never seen Jesus, he never chosen by Jesus rather the Pope was chosen his succession via votes or draw lots. Unlike the NT which was Canonized by the early Church Tradition, written by the first hand believers/ Christian. As a protestant i believed in sola scriptura and tota scriptura as a final authority of our faith and practice in the universal Church of Christ and not the Pope. Before the Reformation Pope has the total power to control the politics and religion and that causes of monopolizing faith and reason.
@@ProgramaMo this is ignoring the fact that Apostolic succession is well documented in the Early Church right from at least the 2nd century. We know exactly what it is, how it is/was done. Every single Early Christian and Church father believed in Apostolic succession, and every single one of them rested the final authority with the Church, not themselves when it came to interpretation of the Scriptures. This is the reason we have the Scriptures. My question to you still stands unanswered.
@@julzee111Looks like I need to give you a crash course on how to research and find reliable sources on Google! 😂😂 Don't worry, not everything around you is infallible.
If the Bible were infallible, why do you believe it warns against making changes to the scriptures. Jesus Christ was the word of God made flesh. The Bible is a book that has been translated 1 million times and has lost a good deal of its meaning as a result so when you say infallible Bible, which Bible is it that you're referring to. This seems like such basic common sense that it just baffles me why anybody would believe that the Bible, a book, is infallible
When Vatican I (1869-70) taught about papal prerogatives, it did not say that the pope is inerrant. To claim that he is inerrant is to claim that he “contains” no error, but every pope does. It said he teaches infallibly in certain circumstances. He is able to do that through the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. We need to understand that the Bible is inerrant and the pope infallible-but not the other way around.
This is an amazing video. Thank you so much for this!!
Sola scriptura is a post apostolic claim
Protestants would never claim that Sola scriptura existed while the apostles were alive . The apostles were instruments of public divine revelation and both their oral and written teachings were infallible . Every church today believes that public divine revelation has ceased after the death of the apostles . So in times where public divine revelation has ceased what is the only infallible rule of faith ? It would be the scriptures.The post apostolic church is not infallible . Their teaching will always have to be judged by the scriptures.
The church cannot say centuries later that the assumption of Mary is a dogma to be believed to be a true Christian . This dogma has no basis in scripture and also is not in the teaching of the earliest apostolic fathers .As such this dogma cannot be part of the teaching of the apostles either orally or written . As such Protestants would rightly judge this dogma as not being part of the apostolic deposit and hence not essential for salvation .
It is beyond clear in the scripture that the church is not a physical location. The church are comprised of those are followers of Christ, each one of us at temple.
Here is how the early church heard from God -
"“For where two or more are gather together in my name, I am there among them” is a Bible verse from Matthew 18:20.
Remember we're Catholic not because we're based but because it's the truth
You know, let's go to history first, why would you believe that the holy pope is infallible when he is only human and makes mistakes? even in history are there popes schisms or divisions? is that infallible for you? but the bible has never been corrupted because it is the only source of truth, so now you want to equate the holy popes with the letter of the apostles? Come on!
We don't believe the Pope is always infallible. The Pope has spoken infallibily only once in 2000 years of Church history. You should at least research about what Catholics actually believe before making claims.
Furthermore, how do you know books like revelation and Hebrews are divinly inspired when the authors of these books don't even self identify in the text?
@@LuzianJ thank you for that.
Well based on a doctrine called Papal Infallibility, which was officially defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870. This doctrine states that when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" (from the chair of Peter) on matters of "faith and morals", he is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures is about faith and moral so that means the Pope and the Bible are equal.
In terms of writting of the book of Hebrew and Revelation, i think i am not better than the Council and Synods, if it is wrong for you, well that is your choice, but for me Iam not better than the council or cathage, synod of hippo, athanasius and, tertullan and others as they canonized the 27 books of the NT.
@@ProgramaMo so you have to appeal to something other than the scriptures to justify the scriptures. Well doesn't that sound a lot like tradition is equal if not greater than Scripture.
The question then is if you agree with the consensus of the Early Church on the canon then why would you not with other things like Apostolic succession?. Seems like protestants pick and choose evidence to fit theology rather than have the theology fit the available evidence.
@@LuzianJ well in terms of Apostolic Succession it is more difference. The Pope today is not like the Apostle in the early Church. He never seen Jesus, he never chosen by Jesus rather the Pope was chosen his succession via votes or draw lots.
Unlike the NT which was Canonized by the early Church Tradition, written by the first hand believers/ Christian.
As a protestant i believed in sola scriptura and tota scriptura as a final authority of our faith and practice in the universal Church of Christ and not the Pope. Before the Reformation Pope has the total power to control the politics and religion and that causes of monopolizing faith and reason.
@@ProgramaMo this is ignoring the fact that Apostolic succession is well documented in the Early Church right from at least the 2nd century. We know exactly what it is, how it is/was done. Every single Early Christian and Church father believed in Apostolic succession, and every single one of them rested the final authority with the Church, not themselves when it came to interpretation of the Scriptures. This is the reason we have the Scriptures. My question to you still stands unanswered.
John was baptizing people before Jesus Christ revealed himself as the son of God
Who told you that the Bible was infallible?
Ever thought of asking our know-it-all friend, Google? It might just surprise you!
@@adrielgabrielcamille cuz Google is DEF infallible
@@julzee111Looks like I need to give you a crash course on how to research and find reliable sources on Google! 😂😂 Don't worry, not everything around you is infallible.
If the Bible were infallible, why do you believe it warns against making changes to the scriptures. Jesus Christ was the word of God made flesh. The Bible is a book that has been translated 1 million times and has lost a good deal of its meaning as a result so when you say infallible Bible, which Bible is it that you're referring to. This seems like such basic common sense that it just baffles me why anybody would believe that the Bible, a book, is infallible
Search about the manuscripts of the Dead Sea and you’ll see that the Bible has never change its original meaning in the past 2000 years
@@davisantos1180 Finish this sentence. THE LION AND THE ________.
The belief in the Bible's infallibility doesn't hinge on its translations!
@@adrielgabrielcamille Really? How does that work?
@@adrielgabrielcamille if that is true, I guess I could translate it and it wud be infallible. Good to know
The Bible is about as infallible as your pope
When Vatican I (1869-70) taught about papal prerogatives, it did not say that the pope is inerrant. To claim that he is inerrant is to claim that he “contains” no error, but every pope does. It said he teaches infallibly in certain circumstances. He is able to do that through the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. We need to understand that the Bible is inerrant and the pope infallible-but not the other way around.