"The bible is the only source of inerrant authority..." Where does the bible teach this? It is interesting how many different understandings of "Sola Scriptura" there are in the protestant world. The scriptures teach us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The first century Jewish historian, Josephus wrote"The Pharisees, a body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation in the observances of religion, and as exact exponents of the laws… became at length the real administrators of the state, at liberty to banish and recall, to loose and to bind whom they would. In short, the enjoyments of royal authority were theirs…" Josephus, War 1.5.2
Peter was given that authority. In Matthew. Sola Scriptura is still a fantasy
Greg, you said Sola Scirptura makes claim P. P- only Scripture can speak for God.
Say that group S of books speak for God. How do we know which books belong to group S, Greg?
I think your answer must be either: 1) we learn it by reason, or 2) by experience, or 3) by divine revelation. It seems that only divine revelation will do if the question is about whether a book is divinely inspired.
Your turn to tell me how/when God divinely revealed the list of books (without contradicting claim P).
@tnyrb444b Good question. Should I trust the Catholic/Orthodox bible or the protestant? Should I ask those who formulated the bible? Maybe they might know the answer
from 2:45 - the way you can know that sola scriptura is in fact logically self-refuting is that there has to be an authority that is equally inerrant - the authority by which we know what books are even IN the written Word of God: the magisterium of the Catholic Church. The WHOLE Bible is the inerrant Word of God. But Protestants are missing some pages. Kind of important not to remove pages accepted for more than a thousand years as inspired by the Holy Spirit, wouldn't you say?
Reality is the only other authority along side the Scriptures!
For example: Reality proves that God can not command impossibilities while some say that HE does using (mis-interpreted) Scriptures as proof, contradicting reality.
Sola Scriptura is exactly what Paul is talking about in 1 Thessalonians 2:15, when he warned his readers about accepting other doctrines, traditions, beliefs, etc, that do not conform to the doctrine of the Gospel of Christ, as found in the NT. They are to be rejected if they do not conform to the Bible. That eliminates many of the Catholic traditions and beliefs. It eliminates the JWs, the Mormons, as well as many others.
@FlashGordon288 When Paul wrote his letters, there was no new testament. The NT was put toghether by the catholic church several hundred years later. The first christians were instructed oraly. In the beginning there was only oral tradition, and thats how Christ instituted the church.
The Gospels were already in existence in Paul's time, as well as all the OT scriptures. Paul's letters came into existence as he wrote them and were circulated when he was still alive. The doctrine which is contained in all of these written materials, is the doctrine that was orally taught, and is the doctrine to which Paul refers that we must not stray from.
When it was canonized into what we now call the NT, is irrelevant.
The "church" was instituted at Christ's first advent.
I agree. And not everything that was orally thought was immediately written down. The things that were not immediately written down, were transmitted by tradition. Scripture alone is not enough. We have to listen to tradition also.
Oh yes, many times, Paul warns against allowing false doctrine to creep in to the church, which contradicted the doctrine which Paul had taught them. He calls them fables.
Yes, agree. I thought you meant that only the WRITINGS of paul have authority. Of course, i agree that what he thought has authority. And this is transmitted to us by sacred scripture and sacred tradition within the holy church.
2000deg, you're putting words in my mouth. The only thing transmitted that has authority is the doctrine that is found in the Bible. That doctrine, and the authority that comes from it, is found nowhere else today except in the Bible. So if your church is following a tradition, and claiming that it has authority, you are not following the concept of "Sola Scriptura". That's what Catholics do, and it is wrong, as can be seen from the many non-biblical traditions that they follow.
Already answered above. Instead of playing games, try reading what Paul says,
2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
What the scripture tells us, is all we need to be complete. No traditions.
I agree that we should listen to Paul and what the scripture tells us. Lets see what it tells, but first notice that the passage you quoted does not exclude tradition. Besides, what was first? Tradition or Scripture? Obviously, tradition.
Yes, by implication it does exclude tradition. It states that what makes a man of God complete is scripture. Tradition adds nothing to the man of God.
Matt 16: 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18. "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
You're misinterpreting scripture to help support your Catholic non-biblical doctrine of the office of Pope. Jesus was using the fact that Peters name means rock as an introduction to his next statement and subject, which was that Yahshua Himself is the Rock on which He would build His church. In this way, Jesus remains consistent with every other Old Testament passage that refers to God and Gods Salvation as the Rock.
The name "rock" was given to Peter (Simon Barjona) by Jesus ("you are Peter"). Peter is the greek form of "Cephas", aramaic for "rock".
BTW, here we see again the problem of sola scriptura. I have a different interpretation than you. Who decides who is right? Obviously we need an institution that has the interpretative authority over scripture.
I can say that your interpretation is wrong. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus does not say to Peter that his name is changed to "Peter" and that Peter was to become the head of the church. If Jesus had said that, He would have contradicted other scripture in which it states that Jesus is "the Rock". Your claim that Jesus did that is reading an interpretation into the verse that isn't there.
We have an interpretive authority. He is the Holy Spirit. The HS tells me that Jesus is the Rock, not Peter.
In I Corinthians 4:6, Paul warns about pride and states "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written:"
That is exactly what Catholics do. In their pride, they accept the unbiblical teachings of men (the Catholic church hierarchy) over and above scripture.
Be humble before God. Accept what the Bible says.
I think we should just agree to disagree. On the whole we have more things in common than divide us. We shouldnt forget this when we dispute our differences.
I agree that we can agree to disagree but our similarities mean nothing when one denomination completely changes the Gospel of Christ found in scripture with another Gospel, which the RCC has effectively done.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:19)
Those are the words of Our Lord Himself, brothers. Much as you may not want to admit it, the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ Himself. It was His idea to make one man preeminent in leading His Church. We better stick with that cuz I don't think anybody can have a better idea than God.
Total baloney. Every reference in the Old and New Testament refers to God and Gods Salvation being the Rock. Leave it to the Catholics to take the credit away from God and give it to a mortal, sinful man. The Catholic position promoting Peter as that Rock instead of Jesus is totally blasphemous.Luke writes in Acts that it was James who was the leader of the church in Jerusalem (not Peter).
The Church in Jerusalem! Right! But this is not the main church. If you read scripture with a view to Peters behaviour, you will see that he is obviously the head of the apostles. This an acknowledged fact, even among protestants. I'm really shocked to hear a protestant denying it. You are an evangelical christian, right?
Nowhere in scripture is Peter the head. No such thing as "main church" and then the other churches. The church is one universal spiritual church also known as the "Kingdom of God", of which all true Christians are part and are equal, and over whom there is only one master; JESUS.
I am a Christian, a member of the Kingdom of God, who by faith in the doctrine of the Gospel of Christ, have eternal life, as the scripture says.
1. Timothy 4,14: Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.
1 Timothy 5,22 22. Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.
Catholics should follow the advice of 1 Timothy 5:22 above, and you should use a good translation.
"Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other peoples sins; keep yourself pure."
By making the tradition of the laying on of hands more important then what the laying on of hands actually symbolizes, you run the risk of being too hasty in the laying on of hands.
It is important to notice here, that according to Jewish costum the laying on of hands was legally binding act by which one is commissioned and has authority (compare: Numbers 27:18-20, Deut. 34:9)
This was a one time event, which Catholics now use to substantiate their control over the masses. Nothing here says it was legally binding or that this was a tradition to be continued forever. That's where Catholics make their mistake.
You are not addressing my point. Nothing says it was legally binding or that this was a tradition to be continued forever. That's where Catholics make their mistake. When Catholics, and others, make tradition and following it the most important point, then you are resorting to works and salvation through works. Jesus said, we are saved by faith and belief in Him. NO WORKS.
Tradition is not the most important point. It is important. But by throwing out tradition completely, you make your own religion. A religion that is only similar but not the same as the religion our Lord instituted. It betrays a very low opinion of the majority of christians (and especially our Lord, who intructed them) to say that they had been wrong for more than 1500 years, just before the protestants came.
Now, if Peter is the head of the church and apostolic authority can be transferred by the layon on of hands, we are obliged by scripture to obey the successor of Peter. And the Catholic Church is the only institution that has an unbroken record of apostolic succession. Therefore, we are obliged by the Holy Scripture to oblige the Catholic Church.
Not me. I will follow Jesus and I will follow the scriptures. Following man-made traditions and organizations like the Catholic Church will lead you away from Jesus. You can obligate yourself, if you want, to your sex-crazed priests.
Peter is not the head of the church. The transfer of apostolic authority is a Catholic invention and not biblical. The Bible obligates nobody to follow anyone except Jesus. That's why Paul could rebuke Peter. That's why true Christians can rebuke Catholics who think that by following man-made traditions, they have salvation. The Catholic Church is the church that strayed away from scripture over time. No one is obliged to anything except Jesus.
I agree with the last part. And by Jesus we are obliged to follow the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The only true Church that is mother and teacher of all Christians.
I really hope that one time you will see the futility of man-made interpretations of our Holy Scripture that are full of error and ever changing. The Church, on the other hand, guided by the Holy Spirit teaches to all men the true and unchangeable meaning of Holy Scripture for over 2000 years now.
By looking at the Catholic church today, and the many immoral actions that are being discovered perpetrated by RC priests, Bishops and Cardinals, I would say that the RC is almost completely devoid of the Holy Spirit. No thanks, 2000deg. I'll stick to the Gosple of Christ as found in scripture.
If sola scriptura is true, then the only interpretative authority is the individual. If this is true, then there will be many interpretations, and therefore many divisions among christians. But this is against the will of Christ (John 17). Christs will is that there be unity among the christians. Therefore sola scriptura leads to something that is against the will of christ, and is therefore false.
This is not true. Man cannot take out what he thinks is true because, just like you said, there will be many interpretations. Instead, Scripture interprets Scripture since a perfect and Holy God inspired it. We do not have ANY authority to interpret the Scripture because we are imperfect and incapable of understanding every single detail. This is why the Holy Spirit works in us to fully understand the message that was meant to be conveyed by the author.
@FaithPlusReason How it comes then, that there are so many different interpretations of scripture? And what interpretation is the right one? Every appeal to scripture is really an appeal to a certain interpretation of scripture.
@FaithPlusReason Just look at the interpretations of the uncountable number of protestant denominations. Every protetstant denomination has its own peculiar interpretation of scripture.
@2000deg, that's not true either. There are definitely some minor disagreements on the details of certain doctrines, but it is not as if they all have completely different interpretations of Scripture.
@wood9670, minor disagreements such as predestination are obvious, there is no need for someone to decide that there is a disagreemen. Some denominations hold to this doctrine and others do not, nonetheless, it is still agreed upon that Jesus is the Son of God and that his death on the cross payed for our sins so that we can have salvation in Him.
@FaithPlusReason, Protestant denominations disagree amongst each other on the nature, purpose, and function of baptism, Holy Eucharist, ecclesiology, liturgy, matrimony, sin, salvation, and eschatology.
These are just to name a few, they are not peripheral issues.
As for Jesus being the Son of God- what does the Son of God mean?...Ingleisa de Christo, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormons are just 3 Christian denoms that deny the trinity.
@wood9670, your right that these issues are not peripheral but these denominations do not have totally opposing beliefs aout them, which is why I said there were minor details. Jesus is the Son of God meaning He was begotton by God. Just like humans beget humans and ducks beget ducks, God the Father begot Jesus who must, therefore, be God as well. And by the way Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons aren't really Christians denominations because their doctrine is way off from other Protestant doctrines.
Fair enough but my initial point is that there shouldn't be differences at all, no matter how minor.
"Man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the Mouth of God."
How can one have Life if they don't know what the word says, & for that matter what the Word is. Sola scriptura doesn't even address how & by what authority the closed canon of scripture was established & blatantly ignores the historical place Sacred tradition has played in both Judaism and Christianity.
This arguments is wrong. The errors come with your definition of "unity" and your statement that the only interpretative authority is the individual. That is also wrong. So this argument is simply wrong.
The problem is not just that the bible doesn't teach Sola Scriptura. The problem is that the bible clearly states that there are other reliable sources to follow. For instance,... So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (1 Thessalonians 2:15). So there is an Oral Tradition that is to be reverenced also as the Word of God. This is why Orthodox Christians reverence both the Bible and Holy Tradition as the Word
@ShawnThunderWallace, it is also note worth to mention the fact that the concept of Sacred Tradition can also be found in Judaism (e.g. The Talmud)
For early Christians, who were Jewish converts, to implement an "oral new testament" isn't anti-biblical, unhistorical, or socially unreasonable given the level of illiteracy found in the Roman Empire.
And I again reiterate, sola scriptura doesn't address how one comes to the infallible knowledge that the NT canon we have today is God-breathed.
Yay...way to go, Greg! It's amazing how the spirit of anti-Christ surfaces when God speaks. Yes, it is difficult to talk to God when the heart is still a bit stony. Last I checked, in this corner, the undisputed, undefeated Creator of the Universe! He doesn't lose! He's a gazillion and zero! Jesus said, "Thy Word is Truth". I know this vid was on authority, but still. Thank you, Lord..thank you, Greg. Love and am blessed by your ministry. Maranatha!
Semantics Mr. Koukl, please provide the chapter and verse that says that the only inerrant authority for the Christian is the written word.
You believe the Holy Spirit worked through men to transmit God's wishes through the pen yet you deny that the Holy Spirit can and has remained in His Church guiding and protecting His Bishops from error.
So much for the Church being the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Look. certain books in the Bible claim to be inspired, MOST DO NOT.
How do u know which books r inspired & which r not, keeping in mind that their r books currently excluded from the canon that claim inspiration.
If the Bible is the only inerrant authority 4 the Christian then u must admit that their r books in the Bible that may not be inspired & books not in the Bible that actually r. (Deuterocanon perhaps?)
Since men r fallible and u don't except the Holy Spirit uses men to guide & protect His Church then ur belief in a closed canon amounts to blind faith.
"The bible is the only source of inerrant authority..." Where does the bible teach this? It is interesting how many different understandings of "Sola Scriptura" there are in the protestant world. The scriptures teach us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
greglee20 1 year ago
The first century Jewish historian, Josephus wrote"The Pharisees, a body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation in the observances of religion, and as exact exponents of the laws… became at length the real administrators of the state, at liberty to banish and recall, to loose and to bind whom they would. In short, the enjoyments of royal authority were theirs…" Josephus, War 1.5.2
Peter was given that authority. In Matthew. Sola Scriptura is still a fantasy
ThomasAthanasius 1 year ago
Greg, you said Sola Scirptura makes claim P. P- only Scripture can speak for God.
Say that group S of books speak for God. How do we know which books belong to group S, Greg?
I think your answer must be either: 1) we learn it by reason, or 2) by experience, or 3) by divine revelation. It seems that only divine revelation will do if the question is about whether a book is divinely inspired.
Your turn to tell me how/when God divinely revealed the list of books (without contradicting claim P).
markpaul64 1 year ago
So Greg which version of the Bible is the sole source of inerrant authority?
And by what Authority?
tnyrb444b 2 years ago
@tnyrb444b Good question. Should I trust the Catholic/Orthodox bible or the protestant? Should I ask those who formulated the bible? Maybe they might know the answer
greglee20 1 year ago 2
@greglee20 Protestants should be careful about your suggestion.
They may not like the truthful answer :)
tnyrb444b 1 year ago
from 2:45 - the way you can know that sola scriptura is in fact logically self-refuting is that there has to be an authority that is equally inerrant - the authority by which we know what books are even IN the written Word of God: the magisterium of the Catholic Church. The WHOLE Bible is the inerrant Word of God. But Protestants are missing some pages. Kind of important not to remove pages accepted for more than a thousand years as inspired by the Holy Spirit, wouldn't you say?
urbanh196398105 2 years ago
Reality is the only other authority along side the Scriptures!
For example: Reality proves that God can not command impossibilities while some say that HE does using (mis-interpreted) Scriptures as proof, contradicting reality.
Lhoizae 2 years ago
Sola Scriptura is exactly what Paul is talking about in 1 Thessalonians 2:15, when he warned his readers about accepting other doctrines, traditions, beliefs, etc, that do not conform to the doctrine of the Gospel of Christ, as found in the NT. They are to be rejected if they do not conform to the Bible. That eliminates many of the Catholic traditions and beliefs. It eliminates the JWs, the Mormons, as well as many others.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
@FlashGordon288 When Paul wrote his letters, there was no new testament. The NT was put toghether by the catholic church several hundred years later. The first christians were instructed oraly. In the beginning there was only oral tradition, and thats how Christ instituted the church.
2000deg 2 years ago 2
The Gospels were already in existence in Paul's time, as well as all the OT scriptures. Paul's letters came into existence as he wrote them and were circulated when he was still alive. The doctrine which is contained in all of these written materials, is the doctrine that was orally taught, and is the doctrine to which Paul refers that we must not stray from.
When it was canonized into what we now call the NT, is irrelevant.
The "church" was instituted at Christ's first advent.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
I agree. And not everything that was orally thought was immediately written down. The things that were not immediately written down, were transmitted by tradition. Scripture alone is not enough. We have to listen to tradition also.
2000deg 2 years ago
The doctrine that was taught by Paul and others, was in written form by 70 AD at the latest. ONLY these have authority; nothing else.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
Is that written in the bible?
2000deg 2 years ago
Oh yes, many times, Paul warns against allowing false doctrine to creep in to the church, which contradicted the doctrine which Paul had taught them. He calls them fables.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
Yes, agree. I thought you meant that only the WRITINGS of paul have authority. Of course, i agree that what he thought has authority. And this is transmitted to us by sacred scripture and sacred tradition within the holy church.
2000deg 2 years ago
2000deg, you're putting words in my mouth. The only thing transmitted that has authority is the doctrine that is found in the Bible. That doctrine, and the authority that comes from it, is found nowhere else today except in the Bible. So if your church is following a tradition, and claiming that it has authority, you are not following the concept of "Sola Scriptura". That's what Catholics do, and it is wrong, as can be seen from the many non-biblical traditions that they follow.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
"That doctrine, and the authority that comes from it, is found nowhere else today except in the Bible."
Is this merely your opinion, or is this somewhere in the bible?
2000deg 2 years ago
Already answered above. Instead of playing games, try reading what Paul says,
2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
What the scripture tells us, is all we need to be complete. No traditions.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
I agree that we should listen to Paul and what the scripture tells us. Lets see what it tells, but first notice that the passage you quoted does not exclude tradition. Besides, what was first? Tradition or Scripture? Obviously, tradition.
2000deg 2 years ago
Yes, by implication it does exclude tradition. It states that what makes a man of God complete is scripture. Tradition adds nothing to the man of God.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
Matt 16: 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18. "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
2000deg 2 years ago
You're misinterpreting scripture to help support your Catholic non-biblical doctrine of the office of Pope. Jesus was using the fact that Peters name means rock as an introduction to his next statement and subject, which was that Yahshua Himself is the Rock on which He would build His church. In this way, Jesus remains consistent with every other Old Testament passage that refers to God and Gods Salvation as the Rock.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
The name "rock" was given to Peter (Simon Barjona) by Jesus ("you are Peter"). Peter is the greek form of "Cephas", aramaic for "rock".
BTW, here we see again the problem of sola scriptura. I have a different interpretation than you. Who decides who is right? Obviously we need an institution that has the interpretative authority over scripture.
2000deg 2 years ago
I can say that your interpretation is wrong. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus does not say to Peter that his name is changed to "Peter" and that Peter was to become the head of the church. If Jesus had said that, He would have contradicted other scripture in which it states that Jesus is "the Rock". Your claim that Jesus did that is reading an interpretation into the verse that isn't there.
We have an interpretive authority. He is the Holy Spirit. The HS tells me that Jesus is the Rock, not Peter.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
This is a fringe opinion. But as i said, every protestants believes what he wants. This is the way sola scriptura works.
2000deg 2 years ago
Fringe opinion? Or an opinion based on scripture?
In I Corinthians 4:6, Paul warns about pride and states "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written:"
That is exactly what Catholics do. In their pride, they accept the unbiblical teachings of men (the Catholic church hierarchy) over and above scripture.
Be humble before God. Accept what the Bible says.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
I think we should just agree to disagree. On the whole we have more things in common than divide us. We shouldnt forget this when we dispute our differences.
2000deg 2 years ago
I agree that we can agree to disagree but our similarities mean nothing when one denomination completely changes the Gospel of Christ found in scripture with another Gospel, which the RCC has effectively done.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
Also:
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:19)
Those are the words of Our Lord Himself, brothers. Much as you may not want to admit it, the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ Himself. It was His idea to make one man preeminent in leading His Church. We better stick with that cuz I don't think anybody can have a better idea than God.
urbanh196398105 2 years ago 5
This passage obviously tells us that Peter is made the head of the church.
2000deg 2 years ago
Total baloney. Every reference in the Old and New Testament refers to God and Gods Salvation being the Rock. Leave it to the Catholics to take the credit away from God and give it to a mortal, sinful man. The Catholic position promoting Peter as that Rock instead of Jesus is totally blasphemous.Luke writes in Acts that it was James who was the leader of the church in Jerusalem (not Peter).
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
The Church in Jerusalem! Right! But this is not the main church. If you read scripture with a view to Peters behaviour, you will see that he is obviously the head of the apostles. This an acknowledged fact, even among protestants. I'm really shocked to hear a protestant denying it. You are an evangelical christian, right?
2000deg 2 years ago
Nowhere in scripture is Peter the head. No such thing as "main church" and then the other churches. The church is one universal spiritual church also known as the "Kingdom of God", of which all true Christians are part and are equal, and over whom there is only one master; JESUS.
I am a Christian, a member of the Kingdom of God, who by faith in the doctrine of the Gospel of Christ, have eternal life, as the scripture says.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
Again, your interpretation against another interpretation.
2000deg 2 years ago
1. Timothy 4,14: Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.
1 Timothy 5,22 22. Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.
2000deg 2 years ago
Catholics should follow the advice of 1 Timothy 5:22 above, and you should use a good translation.
"Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other peoples sins; keep yourself pure."
By making the tradition of the laying on of hands more important then what the laying on of hands actually symbolizes, you run the risk of being too hasty in the laying on of hands.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
It is important to notice here, that according to Jewish costum the laying on of hands was legally binding act by which one is commissioned and has authority (compare: Numbers 27:18-20, Deut. 34:9)
2000deg 2 years ago
This was a one time event, which Catholics now use to substantiate their control over the masses. Nothing here says it was legally binding or that this was a tradition to be continued forever. That's where Catholics make their mistake.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
This was not only a one time event. Jewish priests were ordained by the laying on of hands throughout the old testament.
2000deg 2 years ago
You are not addressing my point. Nothing says it was legally binding or that this was a tradition to be continued forever. That's where Catholics make their mistake. When Catholics, and others, make tradition and following it the most important point, then you are resorting to works and salvation through works. Jesus said, we are saved by faith and belief in Him. NO WORKS.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
Tradition is not the most important point. It is important. But by throwing out tradition completely, you make your own religion. A religion that is only similar but not the same as the religion our Lord instituted. It betrays a very low opinion of the majority of christians (and especially our Lord, who intructed them) to say that they had been wrong for more than 1500 years, just before the protestants came.
2000deg 2 years ago
Now, if Peter is the head of the church and apostolic authority can be transferred by the layon on of hands, we are obliged by scripture to obey the successor of Peter. And the Catholic Church is the only institution that has an unbroken record of apostolic succession. Therefore, we are obliged by the Holy Scripture to oblige the Catholic Church.
2000deg 2 years ago
Sorry, i meant of course that we are obliged to subordinate ourselves to the One and Holy and Apostolic and Catholic Church.
2000deg 2 years ago
Not me. I will follow Jesus and I will follow the scriptures. Following man-made traditions and organizations like the Catholic Church will lead you away from Jesus. You can obligate yourself, if you want, to your sex-crazed priests.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
Peter is not the head of the church. The transfer of apostolic authority is a Catholic invention and not biblical. The Bible obligates nobody to follow anyone except Jesus. That's why Paul could rebuke Peter. That's why true Christians can rebuke Catholics who think that by following man-made traditions, they have salvation. The Catholic Church is the church that strayed away from scripture over time. No one is obliged to anything except Jesus.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
I agree with the last part. And by Jesus we are obliged to follow the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The only true Church that is mother and teacher of all Christians.
I really hope that one time you will see the futility of man-made interpretations of our Holy Scripture that are full of error and ever changing. The Church, on the other hand, guided by the Holy Spirit teaches to all men the true and unchangeable meaning of Holy Scripture for over 2000 years now.
2000deg 2 years ago
By looking at the Catholic church today, and the many immoral actions that are being discovered perpetrated by RC priests, Bishops and Cardinals, I would say that the RC is almost completely devoid of the Holy Spirit. No thanks, 2000deg. I'll stick to the Gosple of Christ as found in scripture.
FlashGordon288 2 years ago
If sola scriptura is true, then the only interpretative authority is the individual. If this is true, then there will be many interpretations, and therefore many divisions among christians. But this is against the will of Christ (John 17). Christs will is that there be unity among the christians. Therefore sola scriptura leads to something that is against the will of christ, and is therefore false.
2000deg 2 years ago
This is not true. Man cannot take out what he thinks is true because, just like you said, there will be many interpretations. Instead, Scripture interprets Scripture since a perfect and Holy God inspired it. We do not have ANY authority to interpret the Scripture because we are imperfect and incapable of understanding every single detail. This is why the Holy Spirit works in us to fully understand the message that was meant to be conveyed by the author.
FaithPlusReason 2 years ago
@FaithPlusReason How it comes then, that there are so many different interpretations of scripture? And what interpretation is the right one? Every appeal to scripture is really an appeal to a certain interpretation of scripture.
2000deg 2 years ago
What do you mean by different interpretaions of Scripture? Show me an example.
FaithPlusReason 2 years ago
@FaithPlusReason Just look at the interpretations of the uncountable number of protestant denominations. Every protetstant denomination has its own peculiar interpretation of scripture.
2000deg 2 years ago
@2000deg, that's not true either. There are definitely some minor disagreements on the details of certain doctrines, but it is not as if they all have completely different interpretations of Scripture.
FaithPlusReason 2 years ago
@FaithPlusReason , who decides whats minor?
wood9670 2 years ago
@wood9670, minor disagreements such as predestination are obvious, there is no need for someone to decide that there is a disagreemen. Some denominations hold to this doctrine and others do not, nonetheless, it is still agreed upon that Jesus is the Son of God and that his death on the cross payed for our sins so that we can have salvation in Him.
FaithPlusReason 2 years ago
@FaithPlusReason, Protestant denominations disagree amongst each other on the nature, purpose, and function of baptism, Holy Eucharist, ecclesiology, liturgy, matrimony, sin, salvation, and eschatology.
These are just to name a few, they are not peripheral issues.
As for Jesus being the Son of God- what does the Son of God mean?...Ingleisa de Christo, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormons are just 3 Christian denoms that deny the trinity.
wood9670 2 years ago 2
@wood9670, your right that these issues are not peripheral but these denominations do not have totally opposing beliefs aout them, which is why I said there were minor details. Jesus is the Son of God meaning He was begotton by God. Just like humans beget humans and ducks beget ducks, God the Father begot Jesus who must, therefore, be God as well. And by the way Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons aren't really Christians denominations because their doctrine is way off from other Protestant doctrines.
FaithPlusReason 2 years ago
Fair enough but my initial point is that there shouldn't be differences at all, no matter how minor.
"Man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the Mouth of God."
How can one have Life if they don't know what the word says, & for that matter what the Word is. Sola scriptura doesn't even address how & by what authority the closed canon of scripture was established & blatantly ignores the historical place Sacred tradition has played in both Judaism and Christianity.
wood9670 2 years ago 4
This arguments is wrong. The errors come with your definition of "unity" and your statement that the only interpretative authority is the individual. That is also wrong. So this argument is simply wrong.
DoctorAkke 2 years ago
@DoctorAkke What other interpretative authority is there, if sola scriptura is true?
So, it wasnt Christs will that there be unity among the Christians like in one body?
2000deg 2 years ago
The problem is not just that the bible doesn't teach Sola Scriptura. The problem is that the bible clearly states that there are other reliable sources to follow. For instance,... So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (1 Thessalonians 2:15). So there is an Oral Tradition that is to be reverenced also as the Word of God. This is why Orthodox Christians reverence both the Bible and Holy Tradition as the Word
ShawnThunderWallace 2 years ago
@ShawnThunderWallace, it is also note worth to mention the fact that the concept of Sacred Tradition can also be found in Judaism (e.g. The Talmud)
For early Christians, who were Jewish converts, to implement an "oral new testament" isn't anti-biblical, unhistorical, or socially unreasonable given the level of illiteracy found in the Roman Empire.
And I again reiterate, sola scriptura doesn't address how one comes to the infallible knowledge that the NT canon we have today is God-breathed.
wood9670 2 years ago
Yay...way to go, Greg! It's amazing how the spirit of anti-Christ surfaces when God speaks. Yes, it is difficult to talk to God when the heart is still a bit stony. Last I checked, in this corner, the undisputed, undefeated Creator of the Universe! He doesn't lose! He's a gazillion and zero! Jesus said, "Thy Word is Truth". I know this vid was on authority, but still. Thank you, Lord..thank you, Greg. Love and am blessed by your ministry. Maranatha!
nowaydudebook 2 years ago
Semantics Mr. Koukl, please provide the chapter and verse that says that the only inerrant authority for the Christian is the written word.
You believe the Holy Spirit worked through men to transmit God's wishes through the pen yet you deny that the Holy Spirit can and has remained in His Church guiding and protecting His Bishops from error.
So much for the Church being the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Look. certain books in the Bible claim to be inspired, MOST DO NOT.
wood9670 2 years ago
How do u know which books r inspired & which r not, keeping in mind that their r books currently excluded from the canon that claim inspiration.
If the Bible is the only inerrant authority 4 the Christian then u must admit that their r books in the Bible that may not be inspired & books not in the Bible that actually r. (Deuterocanon perhaps?)
Since men r fallible and u don't except the Holy Spirit uses men to guide & protect His Church then ur belief in a closed canon amounts to blind faith.
wood9670 2 years ago
people who affirm sola scriptura are really difficult to talk to, when it comes to debating and things.. its annoying..
iToyRobot 2 years ago
Sola Scriptura
Solus Christus
Soli Deo Gloria
Sola Fide
=)
1evangelika 2 years ago