Sola Scriptura is the biggest joke to ever come on the scene doctrinally in the last 500 years. I don't see how anyone with reasonable intelligence and logic can possibly take the position of Sola Scriptura and personal interpretation of scripture.
in order to believe in sola scripture you must accept one of two things: morality is relative, or teaching the interpretation of a man as the tradition of God.
Guess what buddy? the catholic church is just another sub group that disagrees with the other sub groups. only difference is the catholic appeals to church tradition independent of scripture or early church history to back up the doctrines that are exclusive to them, while the protestant churches, esp the reformed, appeal to the ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE STANDARD, Scripture.
p.s. if justin timberlake and jonah hill had a baby, it would look like you.
"Guess what buddy? the catholic church is just another sub group"
Really ? What is it a "sub group" of ? Give us the name of the group from which the Catholic Church "sub-grouped". How did they sub-group ? When (give us a date) did they sub-group ? Who lead that division ?
If you cant answer any of these questions.... there should be a reason for that.
@MrJamesthecatholic The Roman Catholic Church is a sub group of Christianity. Constantine made "Christianity" the official, universal, "catholic", religion of the Roman Empire for the sole purpose of unfying the empire, and in order for him to do this, he had to incorporate A LOT of the paganism that the would be converts held to. The Roman Bishops became the supreme ruler of the Church, which later developed in to the Papacy after the fall of the Empire... The Church of Rome.
"The Roman Catholic Church is a sub group of Christianity. "
Interesting... So lets look at this further. When did this happen ? I need a date. Who was the first Pope (name please) ? What were the other 'Christians' who did not "sub-group" into Catholics called ? Who was their leader ? What are they called today ? Don't tell me they don't exist today - cause if you say that you accuse Jesus, who said the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church of being a liar.
@MrJamesthecatholic Ill just tell what isn't true. Peter is NOT the first Pope and The Church of Rome is NOT THE Church.
Peter was ministering to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8), and Paul told the church in Rome (real one), that he is the minister of the gospel among the gentiles (Rom 15:6).
There were numerous churches planted by ALL the apostles before the Roman Empire, who were then persecuting the early church, before the empire adopted "Christianity" as its official religion.
How is it that you suppose that you are the possessor of truth and Catholics are not ? Anything special about you ?
"Peter is NOT the first Pope and.."
Tahts your private fallible opinion. IF it is not - please tell me WHO the first Pope was. Give me a name please. Also what do you mean by " The Church of Rome is NOT THE Church." ?
So obviously this is true for Protestantism in general but let's say you just looked at the Baptist sect or the Presbyterian Denomination, it seems like in that case there would be authorities to settle issues and doctrines to abide by, at least in THAT particular denomination.
Protestants (and individuals in general) do not agree on everything, SO WHAT?? There are also many thousand of disagreeing sects within catholicism, so much for letting the pope speak for God. Let me ask you, if the teaching of the papacy is so clear and so evident then why are so many professed "catholics" in disagreement on important issues?? Your argument against the Reformed faith is essentially a pointless non-argument. Either the Bible or the pope, that is what it comes down too.
@WorshipInTruth: the difference is that ALL Catholics submit unconditionally to the Magisterium (which is not = to the pope), which is written in a systematic way that leaves no room to interpretation. Anyone who doesn't accept it is not a Catholic, so noone can say "I am catholic but don't believe in the Purgatory".
Disagreement can only exist on areas not covered (yet) by the Magisterium, eg before the XIX century on the immaculate conception.
It appears that you are afraid of "throwing evidence back and forth and back and forth"?? I ask only because I would love to do that all day. It is truely spiritually edifying to awaken heathens such as yourself to the salvation found within the Gospel of the Christ.
So I gather that your argument is essentially that "we cannot lay disagreements to rest so let us elect a pontiff to settle it for us"?? That is a horribly flawed argument my friend. How about allowing an environment which will enable the plain teachings of the Bible, and not man, to have final say regarding dispute within the Body of Christ?
Seems to me like you are afraid of letting the Bible having the final say regarding these issues, the Holy Ghost and the Everlasting Word certainly can interpret itself.
The two oldest forms of Christianity are Catholicism and Orthodox. All protestants are splinter groups of Catholicism. Why do so many people neglect to look into Orthodoxy? It's older, was the first to reject the vicar of rome (honestly why would a Roman lead the church? The Jews may have condemned Yeshuah but the Romans killed him), never did mass in a foreign language, and hasn't splintered into warring bickering factions.
@Master83236 For starters, the Eastern Catholic Church was excommunicated by the Western Catholic Church, after which the Eastern Church excommunicated the Western Church, and then renamed itself the Orthodox Church in 1057AD. Second, they don't deny the Primacy of the Patriarch of Rome as the leader of the Church, and this can be viewed in the video,(Orthodoxy & the Papacy), which give the demands of the Orthodox Church for reuniting to the Catholic Church,
@hockeyrulesus "Primus Inter Pares" or "First among equals" is the title and position an Orthodox Pope holds, NOT supremacy. The Pope was never the arbiter of the ecumenical councils, which I might add, all occurred in the East. The Orthodox were excommunicated for not accepting an illicit addition to the creed and Cardinal Humbert had no authority to do so, because the Pope never had a position of supremacy in the church. Also, Christ is the leader of the Church and needs no vicar.
@Master83236 I agree, as do many in the Catholic Church, that what happened with Cardinal Humbert and the Eastern Church should never had happened. I hope that one day the churches will come to an agreement and unite, but the Catholic position has never been that the Bishop of Rome has a "Supremacy" over the others, but a "Primacy", or as you stated, "first among equals". This means he has the last say, as a President, not a dictator, and that's how it is to this day.
I don't know if you know this paleocrat, but liberalism is rampant in Roman Catholicism today. You have people who believe virtually EVERYTHING who are Roman Catholics. Not to mention the homosexual and pedophile priests. The only reason Roman Catholics can use this phantom of an argument is because they all carry the same brand name. As soon as Rome cleans up their own messes, then maybe Protestants will listen to this rant without chuckling.
I'm not sure who is the relativist here, the person who claims that we can look at the Bible and use objective evidence, both from within revelation and without, to come to correct interpretations (whether consensus exists or no), or the person who claims that consensus will never be reached until the matter is "settled" by an "ecclesiastical court of appeals."
@LandonHobbs What gives the latter any greater ability to interpret Scripture than the individual? It may establish consensus, but does that resolve the issue at an intellectual level?
You ask what is the objective basis upon which Protestants claim to have a valid interpretation of Scripture? I can tell you that in a word: Reason.
@LandonHobbs We hold there is no need for Rome to interpret Scripture for us, only because we believe that there is an objective way to arrive at a correct interpretation of Scripture; otherwise, you would be correct in your assertion. I think you understand this, so you object that (a) it is impossible to resolve, as evidenced by the inability of warring factions within Protestantism to reconcile, and (b) therefore authority is needed to establish dogma. I dispute both counts.
@LandonHobbs As for (a), unresolved conflict is no indicator of a lack of objective and attainable truth, just as the fact that not a single fundamental tenet of philosophy has been "resolved", but remains in dispute, doesn't mean that there is no way to arrive at the RIGHT philosophy by the use of reason. With regard to the Bible, we can apply both internal criticism (that is, revelation), and external criticism (that is, reason);
@LandonHobbs thus against open theists, I would say that their picture of God is self-refuting, and that we can know certain things about the Primum Mobile via unaided reason. Clearly this precludes the need for your conclusion, (b). But I would also submit that (b) is unnecessary, or even self-contradictory, if one accepts your premises. Let us say you are right; let us suppose that neither by Reason nor Revelation a single answer is possible.
@LandonHobbs If this is truly the case, then how is the "official" answer justified? Presumably, the ecclesiastical authority (whether Rome or no) is working off the same materials. In other words, either an answer is possible with these two sources of truth or it is not. If it is possible, then there is no need for an "ecclesiastical court of appeals".
@LandonHobbs The Church may make its verdict, but with the understanding that individuals are free to judge it on its own merits. If an answer is impossible, then it is equally impossible for an "official" verdict to be reached by the Church, and thus the answer is truly indeterminate. I would submit that all fundamental questions fall theoretically under the first class, whereas most that fall under the second are merely accidental.
During my conversion process, I was argued with by Calvinists (my family), Armenians, dispensationalists, nondenominationalists (whatever that means), pentecostals, seventh day adventists, and a number of other groups. Their response to my questioning of their understanding of Scripture: "If you only open the Bible for yourself and read it with an open heart, you will clearly see that all of our doctrines are correct." Actually, the more I read the Bible the more Catholic I become.
What I find most interesting about catholics is that they claim the RCC has the authority and not the Bible. Yet, when you ask them how they can prove that the RCC has the authority, they quote the Bible! Circle reasoning. They can't have it both ways.
How do you reconcile your lack of admiration to it in that respect with the following link and still hold that Rome is as unified as you imply in this video?
Heavens no, I would never, under any circumstance whatsoever, kiss the Koran. The pope was wrong to do that. He was wrong to hold the prayer summit in Assisi. Pope Benedict was wrong to enter a synagogue or celebrate anti-Christ Jewish holidays. Ecumenism has become a cancer within the Body of Christ, and pluralism and modernism is the way of the day for many Catholics, even popes.
But a pope's actions are by no means considered infallible. I would dare call it sin.
The passages that were revealed during times of conflict and oppression? Why do you find them so interesting. Surely they are among the least relevant to the average person (who, in the West at least, is not being attacked and oppressed)?
@paleocrat Kiss it? You mean like your pope did? If you were an honest "catholic" you would either join the Bible believing Reformers or the cultist sect known as sedevacantism. Catholicism (universalism) is the main promoter of ecunemicalism throughout the world. Jesuitism has always sought to assimilate other cultures and religions into itself for the purpose of creating a world unifying tradition. It has even done this over the heated dissent of its fellow religionists.
@paleocrat I watched your video, I was impressed by your passion. BUT BUT. If yo don't seem aware that the alternative to that protestant confusion, is catholic oppression, the only way we cann follow one church at anycost, is as it happened in the dark ages. AT IS HAPPENED IN THE DARK AGES. so you have to choses protestant confution or one dictator leader who burnes people the stake. for example have you read the life of john hus.
When i was in the protestant church the bible studies went nowhere, everyone just ahd whatever opinion or no opinion and there was no clear doctrine at all, the only thing they could all say was "give your heart to jesus" it was like being in the special class at school!
On what basis can you accuse Protestantism of conflicting interpretations concerning predestination when your own church body contains the same debates? Do Protestants need to "resolve all differences or controversies" in matters your own Church does not? Lol.
Your clear implication is that one needs an "objective, binding authority" by which one can know what is true. How exactly did YOU decide that authority was RC? Your epistemic foundation is, ultimately, also rooted in private judgment.
You are missing the point entirely. The issue here is as much to do with how one settles conflicting views as the fact that there are conflicting views. Both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant contain a mechanism whereby disputes may be settled. Does this mandate any and all disputes to be settled? No. Councils were (even in the NT) only convened when it was a matter of grave concern that was, at the time, tearing at the Church. This is 101 stuff.
Clear implication? No. My argument was not directed at doctrine in general, but with matters generally referred to as fundamental. My claim is that Protestants have, at best, a general consensus of what the Bible says concerning fundamentals or dogma. But on what basis is the general consensus binding? How accurately it reflects the Scripture. Nothing like a vicious circle!
The Biblical model, from OT to NT, was a court of appeals with a binding verdict. Pure and simple.
Your argument is that "because conflicting interpretations exist, one must submit to a third party regardless of his reasons for disagreeing with another's interpretation"?
Protestantism with its sliding scale of "doctrines" is an inclined plain to the abyss of total unbelief.
The result of every Protestant being the interpreter of the bible, is as many Protestant churches as there are Protestants. Which is what we have today. Each Protestant is his own church, pope, and tradition of one day.
The bible needs an authoritative final interpreter, just like the US Constitution needs a Supreme Court. The 27 books that make the NT were chosen by the Catholic Church out of over 120 epistles and gospels that were available to the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Had they chosen any of the other books, the New Testament would have been completely different. You Protestants accept the New Testament chosen by the Catholic Church, and yet you reject Her authority to interpret it?
I love your videos because they are very informative and comforting. You have a new fan,i.e., me.
You have done your home work and as I earlier said in one of my comments somewhere else, you have allowed, whether you are aware or not, you have allowed The Holy Spirit to take charge of you and work through you. Praise God. The Holy Spirit of God has gifted you with wisdom and "The Truth" about Jesus and God.
Now you need to attack the second line of defense, viz., "these are not critical differences...as long as you've accepted Jesus in your heart, blah, blah blah..." This is demonic guerilla warfare - nothing less.
The only Bible. The one that was around for 1500 years before Rome added the Apocrypha as part of the Counter-Reformation. Scripture interprets Scripture.
Whose interpretation of Scripture interprets Scripture? Give me a ballpark estimate on how many different interpretations rely upon the "Scripture interprets Scripture" nonsense. How many heretics say the same thing? It would appear that if Scripture interprets Scripture, then Scripture interprets itself in thousands, if not millions of different and often contradictory ways.
I did not say that everyone who says that Scripture backs up their interpretation is correct. Only that as many as Scripture does back up are correct. I am saying that in the context of Scripture, confusing passages are made plain. Few people will claim that a given text will support thousands of interpretations. Usually there are only two or three apparent possibilities that must be checked against other passages to determine the correct one.
It is just a matter of whether the Scripture as a whole is clear or whether an infallible authority apart from Scripture and the Holy Spirit is needed. And if you want to place Rome as the infallible authority then proof must be given as to why Rome has this right, but the Scripture is not given the right to speak for itself. That is what Scripture interpreting Scripture really means, letting the Scripture speak for itself in context and not twisting the meaning.
How many idiots blow themselves up and say they are serving God? Yet I do not stop serving the true God because of such fools. Likewise, I do not stop hearing the testimony of Scripture because some people like to justify their madness with it. Such people fool neither God nor us, but only themselves. Luther asked in his Bondage of the Will what Scripture did to us that we should place the blame upon it and not on men's hearts.
I don't stop hearing the testimony of Scripture either, and I think you are wrong. Your argument leads inevitably to hermeneutical relativism.
I've read Luther's BofW. I was a Calvinist for 10 years, even while I pastored a church. The Church doesn't blame the Bible, though we grant it is often difficult and mysterious. We blame men. It is for this reason, and others, that Sola Scriptura is absurd! It places interpretation in the hearts and minds of EVERYONE, and they all "hear the Spirit."
Actually, Sola Scriptura doesn't claim that everyone hears the Spirit, only that the Scriptures are true and are the only authoritative revelation from God, as being the only text that is infallible and "God breathed." If men do not have the Spirit then it is impossible for Rome to lead them to the truth, for only the Spirit of Truth leads and guides men into truth and convicts them of the Truth.
Scripture speaking for itself. Speaking is only half the battle. We are talking about the Bible communicating what it means to someone. This means that the interpretation of the receiver is essential. Communication 101 (sorry, I am a mass communications major).
The Bible can speak for itself all day long, but the trouble is in the interpretation and application of the receiver. This is where we get different doctrines on issues great and small.
That's fine of you want to say that reception is important when hearing the Scripture. That's not the issue. The issue is, can Rome clarify anything that God has already spoken on; and if God has not spoken or taught a thing, why should we receive it from Rome? Or, namely, how can Rome help men interpret Scripture? It is not as if you were arguing that the Scriptures are difficult only, you are trying to bring in the authority of Rome as definitive OVER the Scripture which came from God.
Difficult passages are made simple. Nice assertion. But there are how many different positions on baptism? What about communion? What about the end times? Each says that they are letting Scripture speak for itself and all use Occam's Razor.
You act as if every one was trying to come to the truth, or as if everyone knew that Scripture must be interpreted contextually. No doubt, a great body of people want to believe whatever they want. This accounts for many different beliefs. But the problem is not so much how many different things are taught. Take away the Reformation, and there would still be billions of people who believe different things. The question for each individual is "Do I believe what is true?"
Besides, there are hardly 20,000 positions on baptism!!! More like two. And honestly, if there were 20,000 different positions on baptism, there are still only two CATEGORIES of belief; the one interpretation which is correct, indentified by Scripture, and the rest which are wrong. If everyone in the world (or even in the religious world) held the same beliefs, this would be comforting to many. But if that belief is contrary to God, and adjudged so by his Word, then they all will perish.
One last interesting thought: those that believe the Scripture and interpret it correctly (i.e., truly believe what it says and do not deferr to other men's opinions; or unprovable, undefinite, and unfindable tradition)are not the ones who are in moral and theological confusion.
Interpret it correctly. Well, that is the sticker. See, the moment you approach the Bible and then come away with an interpretation, you have just created a man's (or woman's) opinion. I spent too much time detailing this in the video to do so again.
Unprovable, undefined, and unfindable traditions? Like Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide? Or Ecclesiastical pluralism? Or pastors without legitimate holy orders? What are you talking about?
Nobody every said 20,000 different views on Baptism. Most denominational schisms are the result of single-issue matters.
There are more than two. Infant baptism resulting in regeneration; infant baptism resulting in cleansing of original sin; Infant baptism that merely incorporates into the covenant body; believer baptism that results in tongues; believer baptism that results in body membership; believer baptism that must wait until later age; those who believe that anabaptism can often, etc.
Each category believes their view is Biblical. They each have their verses, theologians, and apologists. If it was as easy as "open your Bible and submit to the plain truth" then we wouldn't have so many well meaning Protestants coming to radically different conclusions on most any given doctrine.
A glance at history would show this to be highly unlikely. Prior to the Protestant Revolution, there were schismatics and there were also those with differing opinions within the Church. But they recognized on visible Church, the same dogmas, the same authority, the same catechisms, celebrated the same liturgies (with very few exceptions), and had the same Bible. After the Revolution, this all changed; and it gets worse with every passing day.
The "apocrypha" was held as canonical by the majority of the Church Fathers (St. Jerome being one of the few before Luther who disputed the authority of the deuterocanon). What right did the Reformers have to reject it? Are you going to take the opinion of the Rabbinical Sages at Jamnia instead? (they didn't accept the New Testament writings)
The claim of Rome to authority over men and the Scriptures remains unproved and unprovable. Scripture interprets itself for those who have the Holy Spirit. Those who repent of their sins and trust in the merit of Christ ALONE have assurance of salvation. The Gospel of Rome = Another Gospel. His sheep hear His Word, Rome denies it proving itself to be of another fold. I say again, Rome has no authority and no basis for authority but myths; Rome shall not stand against the living God.
Scripture interprets itself for those who have the Holy Spirit? Which Bible? The one that has been around for 2,000 years or the one that Luther ripped to pieces? And whose interpretation? Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, Mennonites, Congregationalists, Reformed, Lutheran, Pentecostal? And how many different theologies are there within each of these? The list is endless. Your argument falls on its own sword. Try again.
You may be unaware that there are numerous Canons existent even today - The Greek Canon, the Alexandrian Canon, the Ethiopian Canon, the Syriac Canon, the Latin Canon, etc...
HER OWN BOOK; she can boast to the world that she alone possessess the true Bible and the whole Bible of not 66 books but 73 books, and that copies of the Scriptures outside the church are partly incomplete and partly defective and that whatever in them is true, is true because it comes from the Bible which the Church preserved from the days of the Apostles who were the authors of the New Testament.
cont's..the Catholic Church has guarded it and defended it all through the ages against those who would destroy the Bible; she has ever held it in esteem and has refused to allow the fallible brain of man to tamper with the Bible; she has grounded her doctrines upon the Bible; she, of all Christian Churches in the world has the right to call the Bible,
By a calm consideration of the facts of history and a mind open to conviction on genuine Catholic and non-Catholic evidence, you will admit by sheer force of honesty that the Catholic Church is not the enemy of the Bible for she has been the parent,the author and maker of the Bible;
cont'd-There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophesies his ravings and dreams." We have over 60 million of Americans quite indifferent to the doctrines of their Protestant ancestors precisely because-"In Religion,..What damned error, but some sober-brow Will bless it, and approve it with a text?"
Did Luther ever acknowledge the danger of private judgment?..He says this, as quoted in "An Meine Kritiker" (by Johannes Jorgensen, p.181), "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgement; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God.
2Peter 3:16 As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, WHICH THEY THAT ARE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE WREST, as they do also the other scriptures, UNTO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.
And don't you think Romans 14 covers most doctrinal issues? Hell, for instance. Perhaps someone can't accept hell and the scriptures appear to him that there is no hell. To another, hell is clearly in the Bible. This isn't God deceiving us, it's God allowing us to believe (without conviction), those things which we are ready to accept.
Faith alone? Yes, you are saved by faith alone. Jesus taught "know them by their fruits". A good plant will produce good fruit. A dying plant could produce good fruit, but it would still be a dying plant. James is really taking about works being the result of faith.
The Bible covers most all doctrinal issues. That isn't this difficulty. The difficulty is that there is sharp disagreement, no objective and binding authoritative means of interpretation, and no objective or universal authority with the ability to censure heresy.
Sadly, your comments in no way dealt with the charges in my video.
Okay, but didn't you just contradict yourself? If "The Bible covers most all doctrinal issues", why do you say that there is no "no objective or universal authority ". By your own statement, the majority of doctrinal issues are covered by the Bible. Some of them are covered by Romans 14. What am I missing? What doctrine isn't clearly covered by the Bible or Romans 14?
No. The Bible may cover most all doctrinal issues, but the problem lies in the interpretation and implementation of said interpretation.
Example: Romans 14 is really important. Still, there are many different interpretations of that chapter. Who or what has the authority to decide between the proper interpretation? Or is it not important? To each his own?
Agreed. He is the final authority. But Jesus also told us to bring unsettled matters of dispute before the Church. Paul said the same thing. Paul also told the Corinthians that he had already judged a man for committing certain sin and told them to do the same by casting him out from the assembly of believers. We are also told to judge and test everything. Really, it boils down to what is being judged and what standard is being used.
What authority does my interpretation have on anyone? None. Why should any man's interpretation of scripture have authority over anyone? I know a Catholic who says that everyone will go to heaven. What good is the pope's authority when a Catholic can choose to ignore it?
Many who say they are Christians will be rejected by Chirst. It all comes down to us each doing what we are convicted to do. In the end, we are each solely responsible for our own actions and beliefs.
I don't believe that theology is relative, I believe that there is an absolute moral authority. But God doesn't give us more conviction than we can deal with.
A drug using, smoking, drink homosexual could be saved. And could would slowly and gently lead that person away from his/her sins. If God convicted the person on all of his/her sins at one time, that person would probably be forced away from Jesus.
Can you please tell me what standard you use to define what must be believed and what must not be believed as well as what must be done and what must not be done?
If the Bible, can you tell me how we settle disputes over what it says? Is the verdict authoritative over anyone? Who says?
If the majority agree that a persons beliefs are heresay, then that person should be expelled from the church. If there is wide disagreement, then that subject is covered by Romans 14. This was done in Nicea and worked just fine. I am not a relativist, because I believe in an absolute moral standard. That standard is written in the commandments, on our hearts and explained by Jesus in the gospels.
The majority agreed that Martin Luther was wrong. If you want to be consistent, join the Catholic Church.
Why should wide disagreement be bound by your private interpretation of Romans 14, especially in light of the fact that Christians did not understand or apply that passage in that manner for close to 2,000 years?
No, your standard is your personal interpretation of the Bible or conscience. Relativism.
Do the majority of Christians believe like the Catholics? Nope, 3/4s of Christians disagree with Catholicism. But it worked out exactly like I said, didn't it? Martin Luther was called a heretic and expelled from the church. But people were moved to accept his version of Christianity instead of Catholicism. As I pointed out, that is exactly what they did at Nicea when confronting the Arian heresy. So I'm a back to the basics Christian.
A. If you are looking at the church as catholic in the protestant sense of being both and encompassing the entirety of Christian history, then your numbers are wrong.
B. Could Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any other Protestant heretic say that they were the majority at the time? No. They should have stayed Catholic.
C. Nicea was deemed orthodox and binding by people with ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It was accompanied with anathemas. What of Luther and Co.?
B...What? I'm not sure what your point is. They considered the majority wrong. Jesus's disciples did the same thing, they followed the ONE man saying "Judaism as it is today is wrong". I believe that those who listen to the Holy Spirit will find Jesus. Peter was never told that Jesus was God, but he knew. I've been a Christian for a little over a year. I'm self-taught. I read the Bible and what I have read turns out to support Protestant Arminianism.
B. The issue was with majority and stats. When Luther and Calvin were around, they were the minority. Were they to stick with what the majority of Christendom thought, they would have remained Catholic.
When I was a one year old in the faith I had read the protestant Bible from cover to cover and came away a Calvinist. I know people who come away Jehovah Witnesses or Oneness Pentecostals. Some come out Catholics. In the end, you're stuck with relativism.
You feel that an earthly authority is needed to understand the Bible. I trust in God to guide me in my study of the Bible. Two different ways, who is to say which of us is correct? I've enjoyed this discussion with you, but I think I will stick to your videos on politics from this point forward.
This conversation proves that an authority IS needed. You trust God to guide you. So do I. You try to know what Scripture says. So do I. You feel God has led you to your conclusion. So do I. Yet we come to two radically different conclusions? These differences could be small, but many of them are detrimental to eternal life. So how does the protestant resolve the problem? They can't. Cross your fingers...
so because you have an authority figure does not mean that you have the truth. It just means that your relying on someone else to give you the truth. So in essence, your crossing your fingers as well.
why are you so concerned with numbers? Rather be concerned with souls and if you are preaching correctly, because that is enough to send someone to hell. The Bible clearly states that "Narrow is the gate, and all who enter into it". numbers do not mean anything. If you want numbers, look this up. All through out history, the majority has always been wrong!
"The work of Calvin, thus, may be called the first deliberately created gnostic koran. A man who can write such a koran, a man who can break with the intellectual traditions of mankind because he lives in the faith that a new truth and a new world will begin with him, must be in a peculiar pneumopathological state." -- Eric Voegelin, 'Modernity Without Restraint' pg. 201
The Protestant sect started as a revolt, protesting the Church of Christ and, pretending to accept Christ without Peter, the authority HE established on earth; with this split, they left the Church and became heretics. This use to be clearly said and understood, without sentimental fear of offendidng one's neighbors or relatives:A Protestant is a heretic because he severed himself from the Body of the Church.
No. This is a very gross misunderstanding of Catholic theology. Common, but unfortunate.
We have the Bible, the creeds, the church fathers, various traditions, catechisms, the liturgy, and encyclicals, and ex cathedra statements from the pope. Each helps to preserve the faith that was once and for all delivered. Papal infallibility is rather limited. In fact, there are very, very, very few examples of pronouncements that would fit the bill.
I see, so what you are saying is that you have no method of interpreting Scripture that is infallible in and of itself. What you do have is a bunch of fallible things and when you put them together it then automagically interprets Scripture infallible?
No, what I am saying is that your understanding of Catholic theology comes from cracker jack's boxes and chick tracks.
And these are safeguard. They are many witnesses. The leaders of the Church can't just take something out of thin air and force it on the faithful. Your gross misunderstanding of our theology is as typical as it is unfortunate.
You still have not demonstrated where the infallibility lies and comes from. All I'm getting from you is "you guys just don't understand us". Is selling indulgences your idea of infallibility?
You have demonstrated nothing but gross ignorance of the Catholic faith. From the moment you first posted here, you have demonstrated the grossest of caricatures of fundamentalist whack-jobs and back-woods chick track street preachers. Seriously, I think that you have done yourself a great disservice by remaining in a state of aliteracy.
Indulgences are infallible? OK, so you have demonstrated to the world that you don't have a clue what your talking about. Do your homework, kiddo.
The "we have an objective authority to settle disputes and you dont" argument presupposes the infallibility of the Pope and is therefore invalid until you demonstrate that premise to be true. Until then, you're using an invalid argument that cults use all the time.
You ask a Mormon how can X be true when Scripture says that X is false. He says, well let us see what Joseph Smith said since he's the ultimate objective authority. Catholics do the same thing, it all rests on one guy, the Pope.
Your videos on Protestantism are replete with fallacious argumentation. Here's an obvious one:
Arguing on the basis of uniformity is fallacious. What does it matter when everyone is in agreement if what they agree on is not the truth? You tout that your organization has only one interpretation, but what if that interpretation is wrong?
You should be arguing that your position is correct, not how well it has uniformly persuaded its adherents.
I don't think I argued for uniformity on this one. This is in response to very specific accusations and arguments by a certain individual.
Showing the weakness of the heretics argument is 1/2 the battle. Demonstrating the alternative is the other half. I have been arguing transcendentally and presuppositionally. We could talk "evidence" all day long, but we would do an injustice were we not to deal with the root.
"Showing the weakness of the heretics argument is 1/2 the battle."
If it was a superficial argument of "who has greater diversity in interpretation" then the answer is simple. However, I don't believe anyone is arguing for that position, but rather which interpretation is correct. As such, not only have you not addressed the 2nd part of the battle, you haven't even won the 1st part because diversity in interpretation does not mean they are all false.
My argument is based on mere diversity. Diversity is an outward evidence of a core issue: lack of any objective and universal hermeneutical or ecclesiastical authority.
Which interpretation is correct? haha Well, with as many interpretations as you have, each claiming to be right, each quoting their proof texts, you have quite a difficulty. This is true not only of minor issues but also of so-called fundamentals. I guess fundamentals just aren't what they used to be.
And my argument has already shown that argument of yours to be fallacious. It is the same argument cults use. They also have an "objective and universal hermeneutical or ecclesiastical authority".
haha The cults? Who has the ecclesiastical or hermeneutical authority to declare one thing heresy and another orthodoxy? haha You have NONE! One schismatics orthodoxy is another schismatics heresy.
I mean't "isn't based on mere diversity." I argue that protestants theological relativism goes much deeper.
You cant have it both ways. If you accept your premises you must also accept its logical conclusion. There will always be different Scriptural views and your position is that the Pope is the *ONLY* one who can ultimately say which is right and which is wrong. How is that NOT a monopoly on truth? If the Pope tomorrow declares ex cathedra that eating bananas is immoral would you accept that like a good Catholic?
Here it is straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 2, II 100:
"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."
This being said, the issue is and always has been over the interpretation of contrary positions. The Church, unless there is a controversy within her midst, is relatively hands off.
Most of the time, the Magisterium works through councils. These are on specific issues. Most of the time, the Pope does very little. Primarily oversight.
Once again, your cracker jack's box theology is a lose-lose.
Would that monopolistic quote be in line with their history of keeping Scripture from the hands of the common people? Hmm... yes, it would. The English translation that you now enjoy was made possible by the martyrs who stood for truth. If you had it your way, you'd just be an uninformed puppet of the RCC... and in many ways you Catholics still are.
Uh, no, they didn't keep it out of the hands of the common people. It was translated into many common languages before English took dominance.
Did they "chain it to the altar"? Sometimes, yes. But the reason is rather simple. No printing press. Translation and transcription took a LONG time and lots of money. Looting was the last thing the people of the church wanted to happen. Thankfully, the church NEVER barred them from coming to the church to read the ONLY edition the church owned.
NEWS FLASH: The RCC was NEVER against making the Word accessible to the common people. The burning of people at the stake was simply because those people were inpatient about waiting for the printing press. Yep thats what the Reformation was all about; everyone wanting to check out at the same time the ONLY copy the church had. Soon as the printing press was invented the RCC ran to print millions of translations to give to the people. Yep thats it. haha.
Why are you so stupid? It isn't like you have to be. No, you choose to!
You can't fault the Catholic church for not having a plethora of Bibles before the printing press. They translated them, transmitted them, and preserved them for 1,400 years, but this was costly and time consuming.
If you did any study on the cases of Wycliffe and Tyndale, I am not too sure you'd like them, their theology, or their version of Scripture. Then again, you'd actually have to do your homework.
I used to be a Catholic and am well familiar with their position and the history of the church. I have done my research. You just don't like what I'm saying so you keep making unfounded personal attacks.
Your view of the reformation is naive at best and self-deception at worst. I have nothing else to say.
Wow, if you used to be Catholic, then your catechism teachers did a piss-poor job. I have shown over and over how your understanding of the Catholic faith is as hysterical as it is pathetic. Seriously, so far you have shown nothing but the grossest amount of ignorance.
My view of the Reformation is naive or self-deceptive. I love when Protestants throw out stuff like this and then leave it without substantiation. Common, all too common.
"we would do an injustice were we not to deal with the root."
You have NOT dealt with the root of the issue. The root is how can we correctly interpret Scripture. Your position is only a small group of people in Rome can do so and everyone must bend their conscience to them without question. Protestants claim the individual can read it for himself and the Holy Spirit can reveal the truth to him. So far, you have not proved your position nor have you disprove the Protestant position.
Uh, no, that is not our position. Why don't you do your homework and come back to me later.
PS- There is no such thing as the "protestant position." With 30,000 denominations and counting, you guys are all over the map on issues great and small.
The position you have doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is indicative of the real position that I have just posited. You're just avoiding the real issue. The battle over Scriptural authority is a battle over who can and cannot interpret Scripture. And history has already shown us the atrocities possible when that authority is in the hands of only a few.
History has shown us (with the millions of different interpretations and over 30,000 denominations) just what a beautiful world it is when interpretation is in the hands of every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
Seriously, do your homework. Your ignorance of the Catholic faith is starting to make me nauseated.
Do you ever offer any substance in your replies, or is "you dont know what you are talking about" the only type of response you got?
You claim your position is not based merely on diversity yet you continually quote the 30k denominations without getting to the root of the issue. When will you actually present a cogent argument in your videos?
Until you actually demonstrate that you have a functional literacy of what you are talking about, I don't know why I even respond to you.
Listen, in apologetics, the last thing you want to do is come to the table attacking a position that doesn't exist. This is what you have done. I am simply telling you to educate yourself. Simple as that.
Then there is no such thing as a "catholic position" for Popes and Councils have contradicted themselves. Rome cannot contradict itself or its claims of authority are untrue. Rome is not the only Christian church any more than Jehovah's Witnesses are. In fact, Rome is not a Scriptural church at all, anymore than Buddism is, because they do not receive the salvation that is in Christ but teach a different salvation which is no gospel at all.
The JW's are in a whole class entirely, as they reject the divinity of Christ. Plus their church didn't even exist until the late 19th century (or early 20th century, depending on where you start your chronology, with Russell or Rutherford). There's no comparison with this minority group and the Catholic church.
You: "(Whining) Christian scientists who don't believe in the Big Bang or evolution have no objective means by which to say what the true make up of the universe is! They can't all agree on the chemical composition is of extrasolar planets!
Therefore the big bang and evolution believing atheists must be right because they all agree and therefore are unified and have a long tradition of beliefs and have been around for longer than creationists!"
UR RANTING MAN. YOUR LOGIC MAKES NO SENSE. YOUR LOGIC = "IF PROTESTANTS CAN'T AGREE, CATHOLICS MUST BE RIGHT!" CUZ U SAID SO RANTER! You're freaking out like a little baby cuz u can't get people to believe whatever u want. FURTHERMORE you are not making sense by pretending that YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO IS DISAGREEING. WHY DO YOU PLACE YOURSELF OUTSIDE OF THE LOOP? CAN'T YOU SEE YOUR HYPOCRISY?
No, my logic was that Protestants, unlike Catholics, do not have an internal mechanism wherein the Church can decide between various interpretations on both matters of importance great and small.
The protestants have no objective ecclesiastical means? Uh when you have conflicting interpretations that doesn't mean that CATHOLICS MUST BE RIGHT. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
I am quite aware that your wallowing in moral and theological relativism does not, in and of itself, make Catholicism the only system wherein such a quagmire can be avoided.
I see you are friends with Prchdaword. I feel bad for the poor guy. It sucks when people can't fess up to the fact that their theological system sucks. Can't even account for the necessary preconditions for ecclesiastical and hermeneutical authority and jurisdiction. Sad, sad.
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God (Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae, 10).
I think a pretty good reference to this discussion is James White Alpha and Omega Ministries has debated on this topic nonstop.
One thing I'd like to point out is the church defined by Protestant terms is a Spiritual body, though their are devisions in the body (a leg, a foot, a hand) the body is one.
However in no case is one considered above the other for all are equall in eyes of their creator.
I used to be a Baptist pastor who practically idolized James White. I owned 5 or 6 of his audio debates against Catholics and printed out close to 100 pages worth of anti-Catholic literature.
Let it suffice to say that I think his argument are bad... I am being nice here.
Is that the same Augustine who believed in the Pope, the authority of Councils, purgatory, apostolic succession, holy orders, the priesthood, transubstantiation, etc.?
I think we could also quote him as saying that he wouldn't even believe in the gospels (much less any of the Scripture) were it not for the authority of the Catholic church.
I became a Catholic. I realized that I have no authority to interpret the scripture without error. It is pride for one to totally trust in their own authority. I believe Christ had a church established way before I was born to preach the Gospel Message of salvation. I have been back and forth for many years trusting the pastor that was the most convincing in his understanding of scripture.
Thank you for what you are doing!! Not only you are definding our faith but you are also teaching. I'm learning so much about our Church and our Catholic Faith through your videos! May God bless you and grant you the grace to continue the good work.
but in the end being Protestant just feels right. . . i think I will try being Lutheran. they have humility. . . Catholicism is too much flash and ceremony. . baggage too.
It is because the Protestant denominations do not have a church legal system moral authority etc to help them interpret scripture.
PaulBennett36 1 month ago
Sola Scriptura is the biggest joke to ever come on the scene doctrinally in the last 500 years. I don't see how anyone with reasonable intelligence and logic can possibly take the position of Sola Scriptura and personal interpretation of scripture.
atomagenesis 3 months ago
awesome video
JesusDisciple777 8 months ago
in order to believe in sola scripture you must accept one of two things: morality is relative, or teaching the interpretation of a man as the tradition of God.
JesusDisciple777 8 months ago
Guess what buddy? the catholic church is just another sub group that disagrees with the other sub groups. only difference is the catholic appeals to church tradition independent of scripture or early church history to back up the doctrines that are exclusive to them, while the protestant churches, esp the reformed, appeal to the ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE STANDARD, Scripture.
p.s. if justin timberlake and jonah hill had a baby, it would look like you.
semajgnik 8 months ago
@semajgnik
"Guess what buddy? the catholic church is just another sub group"
Really ? What is it a "sub group" of ? Give us the name of the group from which the Catholic Church "sub-grouped". How did they sub-group ? When (give us a date) did they sub-group ? Who lead that division ?
If you cant answer any of these questions.... there should be a reason for that.
MrJamesthecatholic 4 months ago
@MrJamesthecatholic The Roman Catholic Church is a sub group of Christianity. Constantine made "Christianity" the official, universal, "catholic", religion of the Roman Empire for the sole purpose of unfying the empire, and in order for him to do this, he had to incorporate A LOT of the paganism that the would be converts held to. The Roman Bishops became the supreme ruler of the Church, which later developed in to the Papacy after the fall of the Empire... The Church of Rome.
semajgnik 4 months ago
@semajgnik
"The Roman Catholic Church is a sub group of Christianity. "
Interesting... So lets look at this further. When did this happen ? I need a date. Who was the first Pope (name please) ? What were the other 'Christians' who did not "sub-group" into Catholics called ? Who was their leader ? What are they called today ? Don't tell me they don't exist today - cause if you say that you accuse Jesus, who said the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church of being a liar.
MrJamesthecatholic 4 months ago
Comment removed
semajgnik 4 months ago
@MrJamesthecatholic Ill just tell what isn't true. Peter is NOT the first Pope and The Church of Rome is NOT THE Church.
Peter was ministering to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8), and Paul told the church in Rome (real one), that he is the minister of the gospel among the gentiles (Rom 15:6).
There were numerous churches planted by ALL the apostles before the Roman Empire, who were then persecuting the early church, before the empire adopted "Christianity" as its official religion.
semajgnik 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@semajgnik
"Ill just tell what isn't true."
How is it that you suppose that you are the possessor of truth and Catholics are not ? Anything special about you ?
"Peter is NOT the first Pope and.."
Tahts your private fallible opinion. IF it is not - please tell me WHO the first Pope was. Give me a name please. Also what do you mean by " The Church of Rome is NOT THE Church." ?
The diocese of Rome ?
MrJamesthecatholic 4 months ago
Comment removed
semajgnik 8 months ago
So obviously this is true for Protestantism in general but let's say you just looked at the Baptist sect or the Presbyterian Denomination, it seems like in that case there would be authorities to settle issues and doctrines to abide by, at least in THAT particular denomination.
Link0126 1 year ago
Protestants (and individuals in general) do not agree on everything, SO WHAT?? There are also many thousand of disagreeing sects within catholicism, so much for letting the pope speak for God. Let me ask you, if the teaching of the papacy is so clear and so evident then why are so many professed "catholics" in disagreement on important issues?? Your argument against the Reformed faith is essentially a pointless non-argument. Either the Bible or the pope, that is what it comes down too.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth: the difference is that ALL Catholics submit unconditionally to the Magisterium (which is not = to the pope), which is written in a systematic way that leaves no room to interpretation. Anyone who doesn't accept it is not a Catholic, so noone can say "I am catholic but don't believe in the Purgatory".
Disagreement can only exist on areas not covered (yet) by the Magisterium, eg before the XIX century on the immaculate conception.
michelexyz 10 months ago
It appears that you are afraid of "throwing evidence back and forth and back and forth"?? I ask only because I would love to do that all day. It is truely spiritually edifying to awaken heathens such as yourself to the salvation found within the Gospel of the Christ.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
So I gather that your argument is essentially that "we cannot lay disagreements to rest so let us elect a pontiff to settle it for us"?? That is a horribly flawed argument my friend. How about allowing an environment which will enable the plain teachings of the Bible, and not man, to have final say regarding dispute within the Body of Christ?
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
Seems to me like you are afraid of letting the Bible having the final say regarding these issues, the Holy Ghost and the Everlasting Word certainly can interpret itself.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
The two oldest forms of Christianity are Catholicism and Orthodox. All protestants are splinter groups of Catholicism. Why do so many people neglect to look into Orthodoxy? It's older, was the first to reject the vicar of rome (honestly why would a Roman lead the church? The Jews may have condemned Yeshuah but the Romans killed him), never did mass in a foreign language, and hasn't splintered into warring bickering factions.
Master83236 1 year ago
@Master83236 For starters, the Eastern Catholic Church was excommunicated by the Western Catholic Church, after which the Eastern Church excommunicated the Western Church, and then renamed itself the Orthodox Church in 1057AD. Second, they don't deny the Primacy of the Patriarch of Rome as the leader of the Church, and this can be viewed in the video,(Orthodoxy & the Papacy), which give the demands of the Orthodox Church for reuniting to the Catholic Church,
hockeyrulesus 11 months ago
@hockeyrulesus "Primus Inter Pares" or "First among equals" is the title and position an Orthodox Pope holds, NOT supremacy. The Pope was never the arbiter of the ecumenical councils, which I might add, all occurred in the East. The Orthodox were excommunicated for not accepting an illicit addition to the creed and Cardinal Humbert had no authority to do so, because the Pope never had a position of supremacy in the church. Also, Christ is the leader of the Church and needs no vicar.
Master83236 4 months ago
@Master83236 I agree, as do many in the Catholic Church, that what happened with Cardinal Humbert and the Eastern Church should never had happened. I hope that one day the churches will come to an agreement and unite, but the Catholic position has never been that the Bishop of Rome has a "Supremacy" over the others, but a "Primacy", or as you stated, "first among equals". This means he has the last say, as a President, not a dictator, and that's how it is to this day.
hockeyrulesus 4 months ago
Is this guy the amazing atheist?
stevehauk 1 year ago
sola ecclesia = RC church = false doctrine, denigrating Christ, adding to the Word of God, Idolatry etc etc etc.
gthumb123 1 year ago
I don't know if you know this paleocrat, but liberalism is rampant in Roman Catholicism today. You have people who believe virtually EVERYTHING who are Roman Catholics. Not to mention the homosexual and pedophile priests. The only reason Roman Catholics can use this phantom of an argument is because they all carry the same brand name. As soon as Rome cleans up their own messes, then maybe Protestants will listen to this rant without chuckling.
patrckhh20 1 year ago
I'm not sure who is the relativist here, the person who claims that we can look at the Bible and use objective evidence, both from within revelation and without, to come to correct interpretations (whether consensus exists or no), or the person who claims that consensus will never be reached until the matter is "settled" by an "ecclesiastical court of appeals."
LandonHobbs 1 year ago
@LandonHobbs What gives the latter any greater ability to interpret Scripture than the individual? It may establish consensus, but does that resolve the issue at an intellectual level?
You ask what is the objective basis upon which Protestants claim to have a valid interpretation of Scripture? I can tell you that in a word: Reason.
LandonHobbs 1 year ago
@LandonHobbs We hold there is no need for Rome to interpret Scripture for us, only because we believe that there is an objective way to arrive at a correct interpretation of Scripture; otherwise, you would be correct in your assertion. I think you understand this, so you object that (a) it is impossible to resolve, as evidenced by the inability of warring factions within Protestantism to reconcile, and (b) therefore authority is needed to establish dogma. I dispute both counts.
LandonHobbs 1 year ago
@LandonHobbs As for (a), unresolved conflict is no indicator of a lack of objective and attainable truth, just as the fact that not a single fundamental tenet of philosophy has been "resolved", but remains in dispute, doesn't mean that there is no way to arrive at the RIGHT philosophy by the use of reason. With regard to the Bible, we can apply both internal criticism (that is, revelation), and external criticism (that is, reason);
LandonHobbs 1 year ago
@LandonHobbs thus against open theists, I would say that their picture of God is self-refuting, and that we can know certain things about the Primum Mobile via unaided reason. Clearly this precludes the need for your conclusion, (b). But I would also submit that (b) is unnecessary, or even self-contradictory, if one accepts your premises. Let us say you are right; let us suppose that neither by Reason nor Revelation a single answer is possible.
LandonHobbs 1 year ago
@LandonHobbs If this is truly the case, then how is the "official" answer justified? Presumably, the ecclesiastical authority (whether Rome or no) is working off the same materials. In other words, either an answer is possible with these two sources of truth or it is not. If it is possible, then there is no need for an "ecclesiastical court of appeals".
LandonHobbs 1 year ago
@LandonHobbs The Church may make its verdict, but with the understanding that individuals are free to judge it on its own merits. If an answer is impossible, then it is equally impossible for an "official" verdict to be reached by the Church, and thus the answer is truly indeterminate. I would submit that all fundamental questions fall theoretically under the first class, whereas most that fall under the second are merely accidental.
LandonHobbs 1 year ago
During my conversion process, I was argued with by Calvinists (my family), Armenians, dispensationalists, nondenominationalists (whatever that means), pentecostals, seventh day adventists, and a number of other groups. Their response to my questioning of their understanding of Scripture: "If you only open the Bible for yourself and read it with an open heart, you will clearly see that all of our doctrines are correct." Actually, the more I read the Bible the more Catholic I become.
agentjs09 1 year ago
Bible is the name that Prostestants give to themselves. I live in Brazil.
daltonagre 1 year ago
What I find most interesting about catholics is that they claim the RCC has the authority and not the Bible. Yet, when you ask them how they can prove that the RCC has the authority, they quote the Bible! Circle reasoning. They can't have it both ways.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
Do you have reverence the Koran in the sense of having admiration, paleocrat?
LaneCh 2 years ago
As a piece of literature, possibly. Not enough to kiss it or consider it Divine Revelation. It is intriguing though, particularly the "sword texts."
paleocrat 2 years ago
"Not enough to kiss it..."
How do you reconcile your lack of admiration to it in that respect with the following link and still hold that Rome is as unified as you imply in this video?
tinyurl(.)com/jevlb
LaneCh 2 years ago
Heavens no, I would never, under any circumstance whatsoever, kiss the Koran. The pope was wrong to do that. He was wrong to hold the prayer summit in Assisi. Pope Benedict was wrong to enter a synagogue or celebrate anti-Christ Jewish holidays. Ecumenism has become a cancer within the Body of Christ, and pluralism and modernism is the way of the day for many Catholics, even popes.
But a pope's actions are by no means considered infallible. I would dare call it sin.
paleocrat 2 years ago
The passages that were revealed during times of conflict and oppression? Why do you find them so interesting. Surely they are among the least relevant to the average person (who, in the West at least, is not being attacked and oppressed)?
awesomewelles90 1 year ago
@paleocrat Kiss it? You mean like your pope did? If you were an honest "catholic" you would either join the Bible believing Reformers or the cultist sect known as sedevacantism. Catholicism (universalism) is the main promoter of ecunemicalism throughout the world. Jesuitism has always sought to assimilate other cultures and religions into itself for the purpose of creating a world unifying tradition. It has even done this over the heated dissent of its fellow religionists.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@paleocrat I watched your video, I was impressed by your passion. BUT BUT. If yo don't seem aware that the alternative to that protestant confusion, is catholic oppression, the only way we cann follow one church at anycost, is as it happened in the dark ages. AT IS HAPPENED IN THE DARK AGES. so you have to choses protestant confution or one dictator leader who burnes people the stake. for example have you read the life of john hus.
medusa210562 2 weeks ago
When i was in the protestant church the bible studies went nowhere, everyone just ahd whatever opinion or no opinion and there was no clear doctrine at all, the only thing they could all say was "give your heart to jesus" it was like being in the special class at school!
boganlewis 2 years ago
lol its "called insanity my friends!"
Josh42222 2 years ago
And since you brought up the issue of election, in what section of the Catholic Catechism is the issue of Molinism vs. Thomism resolved?
rhedrich3 3 years ago
First, show me where I claimed that the Church has chosen to resolve any and all differences or controversies within Her midst.
paleocrat 3 years ago
On what basis can you accuse Protestantism of conflicting interpretations concerning predestination when your own church body contains the same debates? Do Protestants need to "resolve all differences or controversies" in matters your own Church does not? Lol.
Your clear implication is that one needs an "objective, binding authority" by which one can know what is true. How exactly did YOU decide that authority was RC? Your epistemic foundation is, ultimately, also rooted in private judgment.
rhedrich3 3 years ago
You are missing the point entirely. The issue here is as much to do with how one settles conflicting views as the fact that there are conflicting views. Both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant contain a mechanism whereby disputes may be settled. Does this mandate any and all disputes to be settled? No. Councils were (even in the NT) only convened when it was a matter of grave concern that was, at the time, tearing at the Church. This is 101 stuff.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Clear implication? No. My argument was not directed at doctrine in general, but with matters generally referred to as fundamental. My claim is that Protestants have, at best, a general consensus of what the Bible says concerning fundamentals or dogma. But on what basis is the general consensus binding? How accurately it reflects the Scripture. Nothing like a vicious circle!
The Biblical model, from OT to NT, was a court of appeals with a binding verdict. Pure and simple.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Your argument is that "because conflicting interpretations exist, one must submit to a third party regardless of his reasons for disagreeing with another's interpretation"?
Rejected.
rhedrich3 3 years ago
No, that is not my argument. That would make the core of my argument ex post facto.
Better luck next time.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Comment removed
Silam81 3 years ago
Protestantism with its sliding scale of "doctrines" is an inclined plain to the abyss of total unbelief.
The result of every Protestant being the interpreter of the bible, is as many Protestant churches as there are Protestants. Which is what we have today. Each Protestant is his own church, pope, and tradition of one day.
AMClaret1 3 years ago 2
The bible needs an authoritative final interpreter, just like the US Constitution needs a Supreme Court. The 27 books that make the NT were chosen by the Catholic Church out of over 120 epistles and gospels that were available to the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Had they chosen any of the other books, the New Testament would have been completely different. You Protestants accept the New Testament chosen by the Catholic Church, and yet you reject Her authority to interpret it?
AMClaret1 3 years ago
Bravo young man, Bravo!.
I love your videos because they are very informative and comforting. You have a new fan,i.e., me.
You have done your home work and as I earlier said in one of my comments somewhere else, you have allowed, whether you are aware or not, you have allowed The Holy Spirit to take charge of you and work through you. Praise God. The Holy Spirit of God has gifted you with wisdom and "The Truth" about Jesus and God.
Thank you so much for sharing.
Welldone and God bless †
benaggreyfynn 3 years ago
Now you need to attack the second line of defense, viz., "these are not critical differences...as long as you've accepted Jesus in your heart, blah, blah blah..." This is demonic guerilla warfare - nothing less.
bammbamm12 3 years ago
Studier, your post is humorous. Well said Paleo, you remind me of Christian Slater for some reason lol. Gleaming the cube.
SodaPopinski21 3 years ago
The only Bible. The one that was around for 1500 years before Rome added the Apocrypha as part of the Counter-Reformation. Scripture interprets Scripture.
Studier101 4 years ago
Whose interpretation of Scripture interprets Scripture? Give me a ballpark estimate on how many different interpretations rely upon the "Scripture interprets Scripture" nonsense. How many heretics say the same thing? It would appear that if Scripture interprets Scripture, then Scripture interprets itself in thousands, if not millions of different and often contradictory ways.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I did not say that everyone who says that Scripture backs up their interpretation is correct. Only that as many as Scripture does back up are correct. I am saying that in the context of Scripture, confusing passages are made plain. Few people will claim that a given text will support thousands of interpretations. Usually there are only two or three apparent possibilities that must be checked against other passages to determine the correct one.
Studier101 4 years ago
It is just a matter of whether the Scripture as a whole is clear or whether an infallible authority apart from Scripture and the Holy Spirit is needed. And if you want to place Rome as the infallible authority then proof must be given as to why Rome has this right, but the Scripture is not given the right to speak for itself. That is what Scripture interpreting Scripture really means, letting the Scripture speak for itself in context and not twisting the meaning.
Studier101 4 years ago
How many idiots blow themselves up and say they are serving God? Yet I do not stop serving the true God because of such fools. Likewise, I do not stop hearing the testimony of Scripture because some people like to justify their madness with it. Such people fool neither God nor us, but only themselves. Luther asked in his Bondage of the Will what Scripture did to us that we should place the blame upon it and not on men's hearts.
Studier101 4 years ago
I don't stop hearing the testimony of Scripture either, and I think you are wrong. Your argument leads inevitably to hermeneutical relativism.
I've read Luther's BofW. I was a Calvinist for 10 years, even while I pastored a church. The Church doesn't blame the Bible, though we grant it is often difficult and mysterious. We blame men. It is for this reason, and others, that Sola Scriptura is absurd! It places interpretation in the hearts and minds of EVERYONE, and they all "hear the Spirit."
paleocrat 4 years ago
Actually, Sola Scriptura doesn't claim that everyone hears the Spirit, only that the Scriptures are true and are the only authoritative revelation from God, as being the only text that is infallible and "God breathed." If men do not have the Spirit then it is impossible for Rome to lead them to the truth, for only the Spirit of Truth leads and guides men into truth and convicts them of the Truth.
Studier101 3 years ago
Scripture speaking for itself. Speaking is only half the battle. We are talking about the Bible communicating what it means to someone. This means that the interpretation of the receiver is essential. Communication 101 (sorry, I am a mass communications major).
The Bible can speak for itself all day long, but the trouble is in the interpretation and application of the receiver. This is where we get different doctrines on issues great and small.
And who determined context? All claim to!
paleocrat 4 years ago
That's fine of you want to say that reception is important when hearing the Scripture. That's not the issue. The issue is, can Rome clarify anything that God has already spoken on; and if God has not spoken or taught a thing, why should we receive it from Rome? Or, namely, how can Rome help men interpret Scripture? It is not as if you were arguing that the Scriptures are difficult only, you are trying to bring in the authority of Rome as definitive OVER the Scripture which came from God.
Studier101 3 years ago
Difficult passages are made simple. Nice assertion. But there are how many different positions on baptism? What about communion? What about the end times? Each says that they are letting Scripture speak for itself and all use Occam's Razor.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You act as if every one was trying to come to the truth, or as if everyone knew that Scripture must be interpreted contextually. No doubt, a great body of people want to believe whatever they want. This accounts for many different beliefs. But the problem is not so much how many different things are taught. Take away the Reformation, and there would still be billions of people who believe different things. The question for each individual is "Do I believe what is true?"
Studier101 3 years ago
Besides, there are hardly 20,000 positions on baptism!!! More like two. And honestly, if there were 20,000 different positions on baptism, there are still only two CATEGORIES of belief; the one interpretation which is correct, indentified by Scripture, and the rest which are wrong. If everyone in the world (or even in the religious world) held the same beliefs, this would be comforting to many. But if that belief is contrary to God, and adjudged so by his Word, then they all will perish.
Studier101 3 years ago
One last interesting thought: those that believe the Scripture and interpret it correctly (i.e., truly believe what it says and do not deferr to other men's opinions; or unprovable, undefinite, and unfindable tradition)are not the ones who are in moral and theological confusion.
Studier101 3 years ago
Interpret it correctly. Well, that is the sticker. See, the moment you approach the Bible and then come away with an interpretation, you have just created a man's (or woman's) opinion. I spent too much time detailing this in the video to do so again.
Unprovable, undefined, and unfindable traditions? Like Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide? Or Ecclesiastical pluralism? Or pastors without legitimate holy orders? What are you talking about?
paleocrat 3 years ago
Nobody every said 20,000 different views on Baptism. Most denominational schisms are the result of single-issue matters.
There are more than two. Infant baptism resulting in regeneration; infant baptism resulting in cleansing of original sin; Infant baptism that merely incorporates into the covenant body; believer baptism that results in tongues; believer baptism that results in body membership; believer baptism that must wait until later age; those who believe that anabaptism can often, etc.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Each category believes their view is Biblical. They each have their verses, theologians, and apologists. If it was as easy as "open your Bible and submit to the plain truth" then we wouldn't have so many well meaning Protestants coming to radically different conclusions on most any given doctrine.
paleocrat 3 years ago
A glance at history would show this to be highly unlikely. Prior to the Protestant Revolution, there were schismatics and there were also those with differing opinions within the Church. But they recognized on visible Church, the same dogmas, the same authority, the same catechisms, celebrated the same liturgies (with very few exceptions), and had the same Bible. After the Revolution, this all changed; and it gets worse with every passing day.
paleocrat 3 years ago
The "apocrypha" was held as canonical by the majority of the Church Fathers (St. Jerome being one of the few before Luther who disputed the authority of the deuterocanon). What right did the Reformers have to reject it? Are you going to take the opinion of the Rabbinical Sages at Jamnia instead? (they didn't accept the New Testament writings)
XSC3 3 years ago
The claim of Rome to authority over men and the Scriptures remains unproved and unprovable. Scripture interprets itself for those who have the Holy Spirit. Those who repent of their sins and trust in the merit of Christ ALONE have assurance of salvation. The Gospel of Rome = Another Gospel. His sheep hear His Word, Rome denies it proving itself to be of another fold. I say again, Rome has no authority and no basis for authority but myths; Rome shall not stand against the living God.
Studier101 4 years ago
Scripture interprets itself for those who have the Holy Spirit? Which Bible? The one that has been around for 2,000 years or the one that Luther ripped to pieces? And whose interpretation? Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, Mennonites, Congregationalists, Reformed, Lutheran, Pentecostal? And how many different theologies are there within each of these? The list is endless. Your argument falls on its own sword. Try again.
paleocrat 4 years ago
i love it 100%
PRIMORIMO 4 years ago
I need to watch more of your videos.
seltian 4 years ago
Watch as many as you want... then watch them over and over again. haha
Thanks for the compliment. I am glad that you enjoy my material.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You have some great ideas.
seltian 4 years ago
Under who's authority do you suggest that your version is authentic - King James of England? Do you realize how preposterous that
cfh99nyc 4 years ago
You may be unaware that there are numerous Canons existent even today - The Greek Canon, the Alexandrian Canon, the Ethiopian Canon, the Syriac Canon, the Latin Canon, etc...
cfh99nyc 4 years ago
This is why Augustine repeats, "I would not believe the Scriptures unless I first believed the Church."
cfh99nyc 4 years ago
To those protestants, evangelicals, non-Catholics, and non-Orthodox:
When you refer to the "Canon of the Scripture", which Canon are you referring to?
cfh99nyc 4 years ago
HER OWN BOOK; she can boast to the world that she alone possessess the true Bible and the whole Bible of not 66 books but 73 books, and that copies of the Scriptures outside the church are partly incomplete and partly defective and that whatever in them is true, is true because it comes from the Bible which the Church preserved from the days of the Apostles who were the authors of the New Testament.
mediator4u 4 years ago
cont's..the Catholic Church has guarded it and defended it all through the ages against those who would destroy the Bible; she has ever held it in esteem and has refused to allow the fallible brain of man to tamper with the Bible; she has grounded her doctrines upon the Bible; she, of all Christian Churches in the world has the right to call the Bible,
mediator4u 4 years ago
By a calm consideration of the facts of history and a mind open to conviction on genuine Catholic and non-Catholic evidence, you will admit by sheer force of honesty that the Catholic Church is not the enemy of the Bible for she has been the parent,the author and maker of the Bible;
mediator4u 4 years ago
cont'd-There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophesies his ravings and dreams." We have over 60 million of Americans quite indifferent to the doctrines of their Protestant ancestors precisely because-"In Religion,..What damned error, but some sober-brow Will bless it, and approve it with a text?"
mediator4u 4 years ago
Did Luther ever acknowledge the danger of private judgment?..He says this, as quoted in "An Meine Kritiker" (by Johannes Jorgensen, p.181), "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgement; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God.
mediator4u 4 years ago
2Peter 3:16 As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, WHICH THEY THAT ARE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE WREST, as they do also the other scriptures, UNTO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.
mediator4u 4 years ago
James 2:24-a man is justified by works and not faith alone. James 2:26 faith without works is dead..1Cor 13:2 faith without love is nothing
mediator4u 4 years ago
We are saved through faith. The fruit of faith is good works. Faith is the cause, salvation is the result and good works are a side effect.
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
And don't you think Romans 14 covers most doctrinal issues? Hell, for instance. Perhaps someone can't accept hell and the scriptures appear to him that there is no hell. To another, hell is clearly in the Bible. This isn't God deceiving us, it's God allowing us to believe (without conviction), those things which we are ready to accept.
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
Faith alone? Yes, you are saved by faith alone. Jesus taught "know them by their fruits". A good plant will produce good fruit. A dying plant could produce good fruit, but it would still be a dying plant. James is really taking about works being the result of faith.
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
The Bible covers most all doctrinal issues. That isn't this difficulty. The difficulty is that there is sharp disagreement, no objective and binding authoritative means of interpretation, and no objective or universal authority with the ability to censure heresy.
Sadly, your comments in no way dealt with the charges in my video.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Okay, but didn't you just contradict yourself? If "The Bible covers most all doctrinal issues", why do you say that there is no "no objective or universal authority ". By your own statement, the majority of doctrinal issues are covered by the Bible. Some of them are covered by Romans 14. What am I missing? What doctrine isn't clearly covered by the Bible or Romans 14?
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
No. The Bible may cover most all doctrinal issues, but the problem lies in the interpretation and implementation of said interpretation.
Example: Romans 14 is really important. Still, there are many different interpretations of that chapter. Who or what has the authority to decide between the proper interpretation? Or is it not important? To each his own?
paleocrat 4 years ago
Romans 14:10
====================
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
====================
The final authority is Jesus.
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
Agreed. He is the final authority. But Jesus also told us to bring unsettled matters of dispute before the Church. Paul said the same thing. Paul also told the Corinthians that he had already judged a man for committing certain sin and told them to do the same by casting him out from the assembly of believers. We are also told to judge and test everything. Really, it boils down to what is being judged and what standard is being used.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Romans 14:22
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Someone who has an addictive personality might feel convicted to never drink alcohol, someone else might never feel convicted about alcohol.
So yes, it is to each his own, because we all have God's laws on our hearts and we all have the same master.
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
Do people have to believe in the Trinity?
Do people have to believe that the Holy Spirit is God?
Do people have to be baptized?
Do people have to drink poison and handle snakes?
Can you be a practicing and unrepentant homosexual?
What authority does your personal and private interpretation of the Bible on ANY matter have on anyone?
paleocrat 4 years ago
What authority does my interpretation have on anyone? None. Why should any man's interpretation of scripture have authority over anyone? I know a Catholic who says that everyone will go to heaven. What good is the pope's authority when a Catholic can choose to ignore it?
Many who say they are Christians will be rejected by Chirst. It all comes down to us each doing what we are convicted to do. In the end, we are each solely responsible for our own actions and beliefs.
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
So you believe in theological relativism and universalism?
paleocrat 4 years ago
I don't believe that theology is relative, I believe that there is an absolute moral authority. But God doesn't give us more conviction than we can deal with.
A drug using, smoking, drink homosexual could be saved. And could would slowly and gently lead that person away from his/her sins. If God convicted the person on all of his/her sins at one time, that person would probably be forced away from Jesus.
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
Can you please tell me what standard you use to define what must be believed and what must not be believed as well as what must be done and what must not be done?
If the Bible, can you tell me how we settle disputes over what it says? Is the verdict authoritative over anyone? Who says?
If conscience, how are you not a relativist?
paleocrat 4 years ago
If the majority agree that a persons beliefs are heresay, then that person should be expelled from the church. If there is wide disagreement, then that subject is covered by Romans 14. This was done in Nicea and worked just fine. I am not a relativist, because I believe in an absolute moral standard. That standard is written in the commandments, on our hearts and explained by Jesus in the gospels.
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
The majority agreed that Martin Luther was wrong. If you want to be consistent, join the Catholic Church.
Why should wide disagreement be bound by your private interpretation of Romans 14, especially in light of the fact that Christians did not understand or apply that passage in that manner for close to 2,000 years?
No, your standard is your personal interpretation of the Bible or conscience. Relativism.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Do the majority of Christians believe like the Catholics? Nope, 3/4s of Christians disagree with Catholicism. But it worked out exactly like I said, didn't it? Martin Luther was called a heretic and expelled from the church. But people were moved to accept his version of Christianity instead of Catholicism. As I pointed out, that is exactly what they did at Nicea when confronting the Arian heresy. So I'm a back to the basics Christian.
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
A. If you are looking at the church as catholic in the protestant sense of being both and encompassing the entirety of Christian history, then your numbers are wrong.
B. Could Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any other Protestant heretic say that they were the majority at the time? No. They should have stayed Catholic.
C. Nicea was deemed orthodox and binding by people with ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It was accompanied with anathemas. What of Luther and Co.?
paleocrat 4 years ago
B...What? I'm not sure what your point is. They considered the majority wrong. Jesus's disciples did the same thing, they followed the ONE man saying "Judaism as it is today is wrong". I believe that those who listen to the Holy Spirit will find Jesus. Peter was never told that Jesus was God, but he knew. I've been a Christian for a little over a year. I'm self-taught. I read the Bible and what I have read turns out to support Protestant Arminianism.
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
B. The issue was with majority and stats. When Luther and Calvin were around, they were the minority. Were they to stick with what the majority of Christendom thought, they would have remained Catholic.
When I was a one year old in the faith I had read the protestant Bible from cover to cover and came away a Calvinist. I know people who come away Jehovah Witnesses or Oneness Pentecostals. Some come out Catholics. In the end, you're stuck with relativism.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You feel that an earthly authority is needed to understand the Bible. I trust in God to guide me in my study of the Bible. Two different ways, who is to say which of us is correct? I've enjoyed this discussion with you, but I think I will stick to your videos on politics from this point forward.
SpiderCMB 4 years ago
This conversation proves that an authority IS needed. You trust God to guide you. So do I. You try to know what Scripture says. So do I. You feel God has led you to your conclusion. So do I. Yet we come to two radically different conclusions? These differences could be small, but many of them are detrimental to eternal life. So how does the protestant resolve the problem? They can't. Cross your fingers...
paleocrat 4 years ago
so because you have an authority figure does not mean that you have the truth. It just means that your relying on someone else to give you the truth. So in essence, your crossing your fingers as well.
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
why are you so concerned with numbers? Rather be concerned with souls and if you are preaching correctly, because that is enough to send someone to hell. The Bible clearly states that "Narrow is the gate, and all who enter into it". numbers do not mean anything. If you want numbers, look this up. All through out history, the majority has always been wrong!
Ajntb2Sli 3 years ago
"The work of Calvin, thus, may be called the first deliberately created gnostic koran. A man who can write such a koran, a man who can break with the intellectual traditions of mankind because he lives in the faith that a new truth and a new world will begin with him, must be in a peculiar pneumopathological state." -- Eric Voegelin, 'Modernity Without Restraint' pg. 201
neothomist1275 4 years ago
Rome has made unto itself a private interpretation; that is , one foreign to the text and foreign to the meaning of the One who inspired it.
Studier101 4 years ago
The Protestant sect started as a revolt, protesting the Church of Christ and, pretending to accept Christ without Peter, the authority HE established on earth; with this split, they left the Church and became heretics. This use to be clearly said and understood, without sentimental fear of offendidng one's neighbors or relatives:A Protestant is a heretic because he severed himself from the Body of the Church.
Pontmain7 4 years ago
I would love to see you make a video attempting to demonstrate the infallibility of the Pope! lol
That's what your entire theology rests on, isn't it?
INTJ22 4 years ago
No. This is a very gross misunderstanding of Catholic theology. Common, but unfortunate.
We have the Bible, the creeds, the church fathers, various traditions, catechisms, the liturgy, and encyclicals, and ex cathedra statements from the pope. Each helps to preserve the faith that was once and for all delivered. Papal infallibility is rather limited. In fact, there are very, very, very few examples of pronouncements that would fit the bill.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I see, so what you are saying is that you have no method of interpreting Scripture that is infallible in and of itself. What you do have is a bunch of fallible things and when you put them together it then automagically interprets Scripture infallible?
INTJ22 4 years ago
No, what I am saying is that your understanding of Catholic theology comes from cracker jack's boxes and chick tracks.
And these are safeguard. They are many witnesses. The leaders of the Church can't just take something out of thin air and force it on the faithful. Your gross misunderstanding of our theology is as typical as it is unfortunate.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You still have not demonstrated where the infallibility lies and comes from. All I'm getting from you is "you guys just don't understand us". Is selling indulgences your idea of infallibility?
INTJ22 4 years ago
You have demonstrated nothing but gross ignorance of the Catholic faith. From the moment you first posted here, you have demonstrated the grossest of caricatures of fundamentalist whack-jobs and back-woods chick track street preachers. Seriously, I think that you have done yourself a great disservice by remaining in a state of aliteracy.
Indulgences are infallible? OK, so you have demonstrated to the world that you don't have a clue what your talking about. Do your homework, kiddo.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Again, no substance, just a bunch of ad hominem attacks. Is that your idea of presenting an argument?
Why don't you address the issue of infallibility which is where your entire argument rests?
INTJ22 4 years ago
The "we have an objective authority to settle disputes and you dont" argument presupposes the infallibility of the Pope and is therefore invalid until you demonstrate that premise to be true. Until then, you're using an invalid argument that cults use all the time.
You ask a Mormon how can X be true when Scripture says that X is false. He says, well let us see what Joseph Smith said since he's the ultimate objective authority. Catholics do the same thing, it all rests on one guy, the Pope.
INTJ22 4 years ago
Your videos on Protestantism are replete with fallacious argumentation. Here's an obvious one:
Arguing on the basis of uniformity is fallacious. What does it matter when everyone is in agreement if what they agree on is not the truth? You tout that your organization has only one interpretation, but what if that interpretation is wrong?
You should be arguing that your position is correct, not how well it has uniformly persuaded its adherents.
INTJ22 4 years ago
I don't think I argued for uniformity on this one. This is in response to very specific accusations and arguments by a certain individual.
Showing the weakness of the heretics argument is 1/2 the battle. Demonstrating the alternative is the other half. I have been arguing transcendentally and presuppositionally. We could talk "evidence" all day long, but we would do an injustice were we not to deal with the root.
paleocrat 4 years ago
"Showing the weakness of the heretics argument is 1/2 the battle."
If it was a superficial argument of "who has greater diversity in interpretation" then the answer is simple. However, I don't believe anyone is arguing for that position, but rather which interpretation is correct. As such, not only have you not addressed the 2nd part of the battle, you haven't even won the 1st part because diversity in interpretation does not mean they are all false.
INTJ22 4 years ago
My argument is based on mere diversity. Diversity is an outward evidence of a core issue: lack of any objective and universal hermeneutical or ecclesiastical authority.
Which interpretation is correct? haha Well, with as many interpretations as you have, each claiming to be right, each quoting their proof texts, you have quite a difficulty. This is true not only of minor issues but also of so-called fundamentals. I guess fundamentals just aren't what they used to be.
paleocrat 4 years ago
"My argument is based on mere diversity."
And my argument has already shown that argument of yours to be fallacious. It is the same argument cults use. They also have an "objective and universal hermeneutical or ecclesiastical authority".
When will you get to the meat of the issue?
INTJ22 4 years ago
haha The cults? Who has the ecclesiastical or hermeneutical authority to declare one thing heresy and another orthodoxy? haha You have NONE! One schismatics orthodoxy is another schismatics heresy.
I mean't "isn't based on mere diversity." I argue that protestants theological relativism goes much deeper.
paleocrat 4 years ago
When will you move from trumpeting your conclusion ad nauseam and actually defend the premise that it is based on?
We're all still waiting for you to demonstrate how the Pope has a monopoly on truth with his infallible authority of Scripture.
INTJ22 4 years ago
We don't believe that Pope has a monopoly on truth. Seriously, your theology is taken right out of a chick track.
Study ex cathedra.
Study the development of doctrine.
Study the formulation of dogma.
Study how the canon came to be.
Come back when you won't look so absurd. It is a waste of my time.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You cant have it both ways. If you accept your premises you must also accept its logical conclusion. There will always be different Scriptural views and your position is that the Pope is the *ONLY* one who can ultimately say which is right and which is wrong. How is that NOT a monopoly on truth? If the Pope tomorrow declares ex cathedra that eating bananas is immoral would you accept that like a good Catholic?
INTJ22 4 years ago
We don't believe he is the ONLY one who can ultimately decide which is right or wrong. Seriously, do your homework.
Given that you don't understand ex cathedra (limitations of content, etc.) I won't entertain your question.
paleocrat 4 years ago
THE MONOPOLY:
Here it is straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 2, II 100:
"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."
INTJ22 4 years ago
Catholicism 101: Catechisms are not infallible.
This being said, the issue is and always has been over the interpretation of contrary positions. The Church, unless there is a controversy within her midst, is relatively hands off.
Most of the time, the Magisterium works through councils. These are on specific issues. Most of the time, the Pope does very little. Primarily oversight.
Once again, your cracker jack's box theology is a lose-lose.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Would that monopolistic quote be in line with their history of keeping Scripture from the hands of the common people? Hmm... yes, it would. The English translation that you now enjoy was made possible by the martyrs who stood for truth. If you had it your way, you'd just be an uninformed puppet of the RCC... and in many ways you Catholics still are.
INTJ22 4 years ago
Uh, no, they didn't keep it out of the hands of the common people. It was translated into many common languages before English took dominance.
Did they "chain it to the altar"? Sometimes, yes. But the reason is rather simple. No printing press. Translation and transcription took a LONG time and lots of money. Looting was the last thing the people of the church wanted to happen. Thankfully, the church NEVER barred them from coming to the church to read the ONLY edition the church owned.
paleocrat 4 years ago
lol.
NEWS FLASH: The RCC was NEVER against making the Word accessible to the common people. The burning of people at the stake was simply because those people were inpatient about waiting for the printing press. Yep thats what the Reformation was all about; everyone wanting to check out at the same time the ONLY copy the church had. Soon as the printing press was invented the RCC ran to print millions of translations to give to the people. Yep thats it. haha.
Self-deception is a powerful tool.
INTJ22 4 years ago
Why are you so stupid? It isn't like you have to be. No, you choose to!
You can't fault the Catholic church for not having a plethora of Bibles before the printing press. They translated them, transmitted them, and preserved them for 1,400 years, but this was costly and time consuming.
If you did any study on the cases of Wycliffe and Tyndale, I am not too sure you'd like them, their theology, or their version of Scripture. Then again, you'd actually have to do your homework.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I used to be a Catholic and am well familiar with their position and the history of the church. I have done my research. You just don't like what I'm saying so you keep making unfounded personal attacks.
Your view of the reformation is naive at best and self-deception at worst. I have nothing else to say.
INTJ22 4 years ago
Wow, if you used to be Catholic, then your catechism teachers did a piss-poor job. I have shown over and over how your understanding of the Catholic faith is as hysterical as it is pathetic. Seriously, so far you have shown nothing but the grossest amount of ignorance.
My view of the Reformation is naive or self-deceptive. I love when Protestants throw out stuff like this and then leave it without substantiation. Common, all too common.
paleocrat 4 years ago
"we would do an injustice were we not to deal with the root."
You have NOT dealt with the root of the issue. The root is how can we correctly interpret Scripture. Your position is only a small group of people in Rome can do so and everyone must bend their conscience to them without question. Protestants claim the individual can read it for himself and the Holy Spirit can reveal the truth to him. So far, you have not proved your position nor have you disprove the Protestant position.
INTJ22 4 years ago
Uh, no, that is not our position. Why don't you do your homework and come back to me later.
PS- There is no such thing as the "protestant position." With 30,000 denominations and counting, you guys are all over the map on issues great and small.
paleocrat 4 years ago
The position you have doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is indicative of the real position that I have just posited. You're just avoiding the real issue. The battle over Scriptural authority is a battle over who can and cannot interpret Scripture. And history has already shown us the atrocities possible when that authority is in the hands of only a few.
INTJ22 4 years ago
History has shown us (with the millions of different interpretations and over 30,000 denominations) just what a beautiful world it is when interpretation is in the hands of every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
Seriously, do your homework. Your ignorance of the Catholic faith is starting to make me nauseated.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Do you ever offer any substance in your replies, or is "you dont know what you are talking about" the only type of response you got?
You claim your position is not based merely on diversity yet you continually quote the 30k denominations without getting to the root of the issue. When will you actually present a cogent argument in your videos?
INTJ22 4 years ago
Until you actually demonstrate that you have a functional literacy of what you are talking about, I don't know why I even respond to you.
Listen, in apologetics, the last thing you want to do is come to the table attacking a position that doesn't exist. This is what you have done. I am simply telling you to educate yourself. Simple as that.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Then there is no such thing as a "catholic position" for Popes and Councils have contradicted themselves. Rome cannot contradict itself or its claims of authority are untrue. Rome is not the only Christian church any more than Jehovah's Witnesses are. In fact, Rome is not a Scriptural church at all, anymore than Buddism is, because they do not receive the salvation that is in Christ but teach a different salvation which is no gospel at all.
Studier101 4 years ago
The JW's are in a whole class entirely, as they reject the divinity of Christ. Plus their church didn't even exist until the late 19th century (or early 20th century, depending on where you start your chronology, with Russell or Rutherford). There's no comparison with this minority group and the Catholic church.
XSC3 3 years ago
Lose the rock music. It's conformity to the world.
Jitpring 4 years ago
Keeping it short and sweet:
No. I disagree.
paleocrat 4 years ago
You: "(Whining) Christian scientists who don't believe in the Big Bang or evolution have no objective means by which to say what the true make up of the universe is! They can't all agree on the chemical composition is of extrasolar planets!
Therefore the big bang and evolution believing atheists must be right because they all agree and therefore are unified and have a long tradition of beliefs and have been around for longer than creationists!"
Wrong.
kylexraine 4 years ago
That example is so bad I won't even waste time with it. Try again.
paleocrat 4 years ago
UR RANTING MAN. YOUR LOGIC MAKES NO SENSE. YOUR LOGIC = "IF PROTESTANTS CAN'T AGREE, CATHOLICS MUST BE RIGHT!" CUZ U SAID SO RANTER! You're freaking out like a little baby cuz u can't get people to believe whatever u want. FURTHERMORE you are not making sense by pretending that YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO IS DISAGREEING. WHY DO YOU PLACE YOURSELF OUTSIDE OF THE LOOP? CAN'T YOU SEE YOUR HYPOCRISY?
kylexraine 4 years ago
No, my logic was that Protestants, unlike Catholics, do not have an internal mechanism wherein the Church can decide between various interpretations on both matters of importance great and small.
paleocrat 4 years ago
The protestants have no objective ecclesiastical means? Uh when you have conflicting interpretations that doesn't mean that CATHOLICS MUST BE RIGHT. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
kylexraine 4 years ago
I am quite aware that your wallowing in moral and theological relativism does not, in and of itself, make Catholicism the only system wherein such a quagmire can be avoided.
I see you are friends with Prchdaword. I feel bad for the poor guy. It sucks when people can't fess up to the fact that their theological system sucks. Can't even account for the necessary preconditions for ecclesiastical and hermeneutical authority and jurisdiction. Sad, sad.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God (Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae, 10).
MRKetter81 4 years ago
I think a pretty good reference to this discussion is James White Alpha and Omega Ministries has debated on this topic nonstop.
One thing I'd like to point out is the church defined by Protestant terms is a Spiritual body, though their are devisions in the body (a leg, a foot, a hand) the body is one.
However in no case is one considered above the other for all are equall in eyes of their creator.
MRKetter81 4 years ago
I used to be a Baptist pastor who practically idolized James White. I owned 5 or 6 of his audio debates against Catholics and printed out close to 100 pages worth of anti-Catholic literature.
Let it suffice to say that I think his argument are bad... I am being nice here.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Is that the same Augustine who believed in the Pope, the authority of Councils, purgatory, apostolic succession, holy orders, the priesthood, transubstantiation, etc.?
I think we could also quote him as saying that he wouldn't even believe in the gospels (much less any of the Scripture) were it not for the authority of the Catholic church.
Quote him, but don't cherry-pick. : )
paleocrat 4 years ago
I became a Catholic. I realized that I have no authority to interpret the scripture without error. It is pride for one to totally trust in their own authority. I believe Christ had a church established way before I was born to preach the Gospel Message of salvation. I have been back and forth for many years trusting the pastor that was the most convincing in his understanding of scripture.
t0b3nn3t 4 years ago
You have no authority to teach scripture without error? Oh, so you have the authority to teach it with error?
Who said to trust totally in your own authority lol?
"Trust in the Yahweh with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"
Oh but wait, you're not allowed to believe that plain verse... LOL!
kylexraine 4 years ago
May God bless you!! Have a good day and take care.
t0b3nn3t
t0b3nn3t 4 years ago
Thank you for what you are doing!! Not only you are definding our faith but you are also teaching. I'm learning so much about our Church and our Catholic Faith through your videos! May God bless you and grant you the grace to continue the good work.
bibimuny 4 years ago 3
but in the end being Protestant just feels right. . . i think I will try being Lutheran. they have humility. . . Catholicism is too much flash and ceremony. . baggage too.
citizenkong 4 years ago