Can anyone prove the difference in the geneology of Jesus Christ as per Gospel of Mathew and Luke? Is there any Bible verse that can prove why it is different? How can Bible be the sole authority when there is such a contradiction in the Gospels which are inspired by the Holy Spirit?

@@iamsamuelpaul First, there isn't a contradiction because neither genealogy says the other is false. Second, one reflects Jesus' lineage through Mary and the other Joseph.

@@DouglasBeaumont but it's not clear from the gospels which is St Joseph's and which is St Mary's. I think Luke was St. Mary's lineage and Mathew's was St. Joseph's by teachings and traditions. The problem with Bible alone is that this is a contradiction verse to verse because the record is different after King David. There is no verses that can prove why it's so. We need an external source to prove that the lineages belong to the mother and guardian of Christ. This is what makes Sola scriptura an utter failure because it cannot explain away if confronted by this, for example an atheist.

@@iamsamuelpaul Oh gotcha. Yes in that respect I would say that an extreme "solo" scriptura would fail.

@@DouglasBeaumont what's the difference between Solo and Sola scriptura? I'm not aware of this.

Well said!

Thank you kindly!

Thank you.

It’s an Islamic doctrine brought into Christianity by John Calvin.

"Sufficiency" is a theologically-rich term here. I go into it a bit in this article: douglasbeaumont.com/2015/04/21/macarthurs-mistakes-psalm-19-and-the-sufficiency-of-scripture/

Glad it was helpful!

Glad you enjoyed

Thanks, will do!

Yeah they won the language battle on that one unfortunately. :)

What about the practice of not believing anything outside the Bible? ;)

@@DouglasBeaumont You're saying Protestants already do, right? 😁

Correct. :)

We had much the same experience as Protestants!

@@DouglasBeaumont same experience on two different levels, seriously the way you go through arguments is a point I hope to get to someday. I felt extremely bad for rational animal towards the end of the interview. He is stuck in a place of agnosticism when it comes to church history, it is honest of him as a protestant but sad he has to go that far in order to maintain his premises. Like always Doug great work!

Good for you, Im impressed your honest on this as many Protestants ignore it or get hostile. I had to come home to Catholicism when I was honest about the Protesting doctrines not holding up, they are nothing but a house of cards & ignoring church history is just nonsensical, even Protestants are far from the 'Re'Deformers beliefs which leads to a circus of chaos. Most of all the Holy Eucharist is at the center of our living faith & I had to partake of the body & blood of the Lord otherwise we have no life in us

@@J-PLeigh8409 it goes back to the video Doug did "how conversion works" once you identify a problem in your paradigm that you see the answers aren't good, and it bothers you, only then are you able to be honest. And I assure you I won't be protestant much longer. You are exactly right, it is a complete house of cards! The entire paradigm can't build its own case it needs Catholicism in order to exist, like a parasite I might add. I am too far gone now when you call your own group a parasite Rome is around the corner, I can think in both paradigms but the Catholic paradigm has reason and logic. The other is built against it. As Gk Chesterton said,"to go against reason is bad theology." Catholicism is the only way to have all of scripture, history, truth, beauty, I don't see another option. Other than EO but I see too much evidence for the papacy.

@@kayjay6039 I know all it takes is honest research but some deny history. One person even had the audacity to say the Papacy started in the 6th, 7th cent🤔 ignoring the Councils, Its blind insanity, I even gave a list of all the earliest Popes then it goes to blaming Constantine, then u give evidence of the Church fathers early interp, Church Councils, & the catechism, what early Christians practiced & believed, but nothing matters except to those of us that keep an honest open heart & historical, biblical & Christian truth matters. The beauty & fullness is just that & our beautiful Churches & the Mass reveal this, its not all worshipped as God but aides in our worship in spirit & in truth, it all points to Christ. The Apostolic EO have beauty as well but it def comes down to the Papacy, peace

Catholics don’t worship Saints.

Yup.

It depends on whether one is speaking of God's declaration or our actions, many Protestants see both.

Ha! yeah, this is actually why I like the image I used when speaking of Reformation Day. It shows that what Luther was doing was basically just putting up a public notice (like everyone did at that time). It was hardly brave or an act of defiance.

That's hilarious! Tell him I said Hi. :)

I've experienced first hand what happens when Evangelicals try this. It wasn't pretty!

@@DouglasBeaumont I have as well, I can attest to the same. It has brought me and still brings me and my wife a great deal of hurt.

Sorry brother!

God's protection. Papal / Magisterial declarations (under proper conditions) are kept from error but they are not inspired.

@@DouglasBeaumont How can we know which Papal/Magisterial declarations are made under the proper conditions?

@po18guy I'm not saying that any of those verses are false. I'm just trying hard to understand HOW you were able to discover a teaching of a papacy out of these verses. Did you accept this because it is what you were taught, or did you rely on your own personal interpretation of these verses to arrive at your conclusion that these verses establish a papacy?

@po18guy But we live in a world where there are lots of different religions claiming to be "Christian. How did you choose the right "Christian religion" and church, when so many people have chosen the wrong Christian church?

I think my niche is speaking to/from both sides. :)

They'll say it's hyperbole and that it either all eventually did get written or it isnt necessary for salvation. That sort of thing.

They have faith, it is simply not in the Church.

Yeah it's kind of amazing what a weak "proof text" 2 Tim 3 makes for sola scriptura, especially when we have stronger ones like those you listed for the authority of the Church!

But St. Paul said he is “writing” so “you” might know how to behave in the Church if he is delayed. Meaning that in the absence of an apostle, the Church ought to reference apostolic writings as the authority of how to live the Christian life.

@@raeldc You're reading a lot into a simple letter LOL.

@@DouglasBeaumont I'd also make a rebuttal to the Lutheran professor on his take about not needing a single proof text. If you can't cite a place where your doctrine is taught explicitly then you need to have LOTS of places where it is taught implicitly. If we go looking through the Bible, both Old Testament and New, and we were looking for what is the Authority for God's people on Earth it's NEVER just a text. It is a person, a father, a prophet, a king, a priesthood (an institution), or an Angel. But not a series of texts ALONE. Those texts only have authority because the people who wrote them had authority. And if those people have authority to give to a text then they can hand it to a person. And them to another person. And do on and so forth. Yet, the Bible alone position can't be buttressed with even a series of implicit prooftexts. If you base your entire theological principles on an assumption that the bible supports you then you should be really worried about the poverty of explicit and implicit support.

@@raeldc 1st, you can't take the "you" that he is writing about as anyone besides who he explicitly intended the letter for. If you stretch your interpretation of it then you instantly remove all context and therefore content of the letter. 2nd, he says nothing about the absence of an apostle, the letter to Timothy is preparing him for a leadership role (Bishop) in the Church, and how to select other leaders with authority. Lastly, 2 Thessalonians say to hold fast to what has been taught by word of mouth and letters. Meaning the months/years Paul would have taken to form the people in Christ is of dire importance, even if it doesn't make it into a letter. Not refer back to his writing only

Well said! I actually don't have a problem with a well-formed definition of Sola Scriptura (which is not given here). namely, that Scripture - being inspired of God - is the Christian's final authority (i.e., it cannot be overruled by tradition). I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The problem is that Scripture's interpretation is itself a product of tradition for both sides. I go into this issue here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mq2HndSpqZvIZ3U.html

@@DouglasBeaumont That's true. The more bare-bones puritanical/low church private interpretation sense seems to only be logical with a more radical Calvinist interpretation, but the best denomination on this issue and of authority/the canon, and many other things, at least historically, is Anglicanism.

@@TheThreatenedSwan Yeah and how are they doing? LOL!

Hendrickson publisher's thirty-eight volume Early Church Fathers (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First and Second Series). I believe it is out of print. amzn.to/3LcI2rM

@@DouglasBeaumont thank you

He Knows , its a grammatical error,

@@freddyjflores6278 No se si el Dr Beaumont tendrá tiempo para interactuar con apologetas católicos en español. Creo que es una persona ocupada con compromisos. En todo caso debería primero consultarlo a José Plasencia. El señor Beaumont (su nombre parece de origen francés 😂) por sus conocimientos en teología reformada sería un invitado muy interesante para debatir con un reformado como Jonathan Ramos. El problema es que resultaria engorroso y prolijo una interacción en español inglés con traducción simultánea. Algo posiblemente irrealizable. Luego esta el hecho de que veo al señor Beaumont como un excelente articulista. Me encantó su refutación al Dr. James White en el artículo "James White and the Logic of John 6:44". Los debates no me parecen una buena fórmula para enriquecer el intercambio de ideas. Y las entrevistas pueden ser interesantes pero se necesita un interlocutor incisivo. Yo creo que se adaptaria mejor alguien como Santiago Alarcón, que tiene madera de periodista pero está el problema de ser un recién converso al catolicismo, por lo que su conocimiento de la doctrina católica es aún limitado.Jose Plasencia es excelente como apologeta católico y es un extraordinario debatidor (caritativo pero a la vez un peso pesado) como entrevistador es bueno pero quizás le falte algo de picante. Hugo del canal "Hosanna in Excelsis" hizo un gran video entrevistando a Matthew J Thomas

@@Fasolislithuan Gracias hermano, solo que es mi sentir, siento que necesitamos la ayuda de ellos.

💯 Agreed!

Oh I think the problem is precisely that they DO think all interpretations are fallible! This is what allows them to float hundreds of conflicting theologies and still consider themselves "one". ;)

@@DouglasBeaumont True Doug, to a point, yet, so many Protestants teach that without a doubt, the infallible Truth, is that Jesus Christ did not actually mean, "this is My Body ", and Mary is definitely not the woman in Revelation! Ironic for Scripture ALONE being infallible!🤔😁 Love your channel Doug! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@matthewbroderick6287 how does disagreement on Scripture now show Scripture to not be the sole infallible authoritative norm that norms all other norms?

@@HisLivingStone241 How is Scripture ALONE taught, when Holy Scripture doesn't teach that? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@matthewbroderick6287 that is avoiding the original topic. Even if you gave a definition, that is still avoiding the topic.

Interesting.

there is no real difference between solo/sola. In the end the only authority will be the individual interpreter. The problem is that words on a page simply don’t speak for themselves. They must be interpreted. There is simply no way around this: every act of reading Scripture is simultaneously an act of interpreting Scripture. What sola/solo scriptura means in practice, then, is not “the Bible alone as an authority for faith and morals,” but “someone’s interpretation of the Bible as the authority for faith and morals.” That is why, from the beginning of the "Reformation", Protestants broke up into splinter groups based on divergent readings of the same texts from the same Bible.

There is a real distinction between the two but it is more theoretical and the result is often the same.

@@Alfredo8059 Its also true for catholics when they interpret church teachings. Different interpretations what these teachings mean.

@@Justas399 ,Right, that is why Jesus did not leave us with Scripture alone but an authoritative visible Church.

@@Alfredo8059 The church would have no authority without the Scriptures.

Yes, the so-called "inspiration" test for the Canon of Scripture does not get us the Bible we have today. Rather it was which books the Church used in its liturgy.

A lot of prots did haha. I respond to the interesting ones.

Many great points! As to the (Catholic) argument that 2 Timothy is speaking of the Old Testament and therefore sola scriptura (if it were taught here) would only apply to the OT, I think it fails. First, because much of the NT had been written by the time St. Paul wrote 2 Timothy. Even though the Church had not officially canonized those writings, they were still inspired and so should (or could) be included in the category of "the Scriptures." That would only leave a few books outside the range of sola scriptura (again, IF it was being taught here - which it isn't).. Second - even if at the time St. Paul wrote 2 Timothy only the OT counted as Scripture, the NT writings would eventually be counted Scripture as well. It is not necessary to take St. Paul as speaking referentially instead of principally here - in fact I don't think he is. In other words, St. Paul is, I think, expressing a principle about Scripture ("Scripture is inspired, useful, etc."). Simply because the word "Scripture" at a given time only refers to a certain collection of books, that does not mean that others cannot be added to that collection later. When that happens, the principle that applies to Scripture applies to those writings as well. So even if 2 Timothy only referred to the OT at the time of its writing, that doesn't mean its principle would not apply to the NT later.

I 100% get it!

Luther was influenced by Gnosticism “secret knowledge”.

Interesting! Well that we have additions to the canon of Scripture is admitted by both sides, and that wouldn't be a problem except that - as you said - it requires a source outside scripture to determine it. Catholics have that source, Protestants don't. That pretty much kills the notion of "solo scriptura" (ONLY the Bible is a religious authority), but not the traditional(!) understanding of sola scriptura, which simply says it is the highest authority. I don't think 2 Timothy 3 needs to be understood as referring to anything other than Scripture's definition (e.g., "Scripture = writing which is inspired") which would be true whether or not there was any Scripture, whether there was some but more was on the way, or whether we even had any way to recognize it (the epistemological rather than the metaphysical issue).

@@DouglasBeaumont yeah I agree. I came from a fundamentalist background, so that much was revelatory. But your second point is really interesting too, which gets into the whole written vs oral tradition discussion, and the levels of authority each tradition holds. I've been having discussions among my peers on this topic, and I think it's fraught with error on the protestant side. I'm not sure what the Catholic position on oral tradition is though, because from what I understand, most of Catholic doctrine is written down somewhere, so I don't know what the Catholic equivalent to oral tradition would be.

@@churchoftheformerdaysaints Right, "solo" is basically your fundamentalist Baptists and confused non-denoms. :) Basically the Church sees apostolic tradition as contained in the "deposit of faith" which itself was composed of written Scripture and oral tradition. In the nearly 2,000 years since the Church began, though, yeah it's basically all been written down. :)

@@DouglasBeaumont cool! Weird question. When does the Catholic church count the beginning of the church? And is there gonna be a Millennial celebration?

@@churchoftheformerdaysaints Pentecost either AD 30 or 33. No idea on a millennial.

100% stated perfectly!

The OT was sufficient for those under that Covenant and by the time St. Paul wrote to Timothy, the gospel was already written down and spread across the world. In any case, it doesn't say scripture is sufficient in any way - much less the way Protestants need it to for SS to be proved, so it's a moot point!

@@DouglasBeaumont the OT Magisterium, the sacrifices and the Holy Scriptures were indeed sufficient for them together. And I agree that the passage to Timothy is about the nature of the word of God, not its self sufficiency. Which is why it is so sad this is the prime text Protestants use to prove sola scriptura. I get they try to build sola scriptura as some form of logical system, aka the Words of God is Supreme above all. Yet, this was true even in the Old Testament, yet Sola Scriptura was unheard of for Israel. The fact is that we need help to interpret and to keep unity. The church gives much freedom but draws such explicit lines that we may not cross that we remain in unity and truth in charity.

@@jackdaw6359 Well said!

I think the reason the debate continues is because (1) sola scriptura is often confused with solo scriptura (by both sides), and (2) because the basis for SS - the Bible's inspiration - is not in dispute, but rather one's interpretive authority.

Do you have some examples of a tradition of a specific apostle that is not found in the NT and how you know?

@@Justas399 "In accordance with Apostolic faith delivered to us by tradition from the Fathers, I have delivered the tradition, without inventing anything extraneous to it. What I have learned, that I inscribed, comfortably with the Holy Scriptures." - St. Athanasius the Great

@@RedWolf5 ok. Now give me a couple of these apostolic traditions of the apostles not recorded in the New Testament and how you know. We need to be specific and show how you know.

@@Justas399 really? Do you know who’s Athanasius???

First paragraph: excellent analogy! Second paragraph: I'm afraid not. The Bible is unique in that it is the product of divine inspiration working in the human authors - nothing else is (including even approved apparitions and infallible declarations).

@@DouglasBeaumontthank you sir. I respect and trust your expertise so will definitely change my view accord to your kind guidance. I thought maybe I had some part wrong. Thanks you!

@@jesusmarywillsaveyou We're all learning!

@@ACReji What does it mean to say "the canon is infallible" over and above saying "every book of scripture is infallible and every non book of scripture isnt". The canon isnt some inspired thing in itself over and above just being the set of infallible writings

@@ACReji Rather than the list being infallible, I think what you mean is the arbitration of the list being infallible. To deal with that claim, I simply point out that the Isrealites and the early Church (and arguably up to Trent, though I won't to avoid an epistemic discussion of how much the catholic ought to obey not infallible declarations of an infallible church) didnt have this, and yet they were still citing, holding themselves to, and being held to by Jesus, Scripture. By this argument, the Jews couldnt hodl to the Law, nor the early Church to the Gospel, since with no infallible arbitration they were lost in the dark. But this is surely far too high a price to pay to whatever certainty the infallible eclarations of Rome grant one. Better instead to look historically at the organic means by which the Church recieved and accepted scripture, and trust that God's providence won't lead us astray.

How many of the Church Father's would attend a Lutheran church? Zero. Q.E.D. And to confuse inspiration with infallibility isn't excusable. I can infallibly communicate truths of math without being inspired, and I can infallibly declare what Scripture says too. God's protection of his revealed truths is not producing them.

@@DouglasBeaumont For the purpose of the argument, infallibility and inspiration are the same, ie there is a source of doctrinal information that cannot err in virtue of being directly from God. ALso yeah the early fathers would be way more comfortable in a Lutheran than Catholic CHurch. Theyd see you guys bowing down to Mary and other saints and go apeshit, just for one example

@@ACReji If by physical manifestation you mean an institution that decides things inerrently through councils then no. God might use councils for His purposes though, but this is a completely different thing

"When tradition goes against scripture the Scripture is what is supposed to teach." OK, great! So now which of the hundreds of conflicting Protestant traditions accurately teach the teaching of Scripture? I'll wait...

@@DouglasBeaumont Nice try. That people disagree and have different histories. Does not prove Sola Scriptura is wrong. It shows that humans argue. Also there are lots of doctrines that Protestants agree on. Protestants agree on the majority of doctrines. Like the Trinity. Like Sola Scriptura. What all Protestants agree on. Is that traditions of men cannot be the bases of doctrine. For example I can walk into a Baptist or Methodist church and totally agree with the sermon. So that we disagree is okay. Most of the fundamentals are agreed on. Secondly Protestants can be grouped into groups. There are two main views. But Evangelicals do call themselves Protestants. But they teach most Protestant doctrines. One author stated the most Protestant denomination in the World is the Seventh day Adventist church. God is love.

@@samuelwilliams1559 Protestants often agree on words or phrases but once you actually look into what is being taught "based on the Bible alone" the real story gets told. The Trinity: Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity, and there are opposing views even among those who affirm it (two of them were made into one of the MANY Counterpoint books.) Sola Scriptura: Again, they agree on the words but does SS mean the Bible is the ONLY authority or do they mean the Bible is the HIGHEST authority among others? Depends on which Protestant you ask. It's unlikely you'd hear anything too divisive in a mere sermon, but the fact that you bring up the "fundamentals" brings up another issue Protestants don't agree on - what are the fundamentals? So yeah I am feeling like my "try" was pretty nice indeed.

@@DouglasBeaumont True many people have made their opinions as truth. When it is not. But that is the problem of human beings having free will. In general Protestants agree. For instance Oness Pentecostals are looked at of teaching falsely. So we are to pray and seek truth. But the RCC demanded that on penalty of torture and death that all must follow the popes. So not all people who say they are Christians are correct. God know the tares from the wheat. Most Protestants go with highest authority. That is biblical. Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Now light is not so much authority but as it being the final truth. Jesus fought the Pharisees and Sadducees for putting their traditions above scripture. Mark7:7-13 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Titus 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. So nothing can be higher than scripture in authority.

Mary's bodily assumption is in Revelation 12 and Purgation is derived from several scriptural assertions (simply put, we are unclean and no unclean thing enters heaven - Revelation 21 - yet people get into heaven). Maybe you havent read Revelation enough. ;)

WBL, "purgatory" means final sanctification, Read 1 Cor. 3: 12-15. Protestants are taught justification apart from sanctification. If you realize there is not justification without sanctification you will find "purgatory" in the Bible .

Roman denotes the western rite, why wouldn't I use it?

@@DouglasBeaumontYou should not use the term Roman Catholic because it was invented by Protestants, as an insult, to deny the universality claimed by the word Catholic. The name for the Latin Rite is Latin Rite, not Roman.

@@fantasia55 "Christian" was originally an epithet too. Words derive their meaning from current use, not origin. :)

@DouglasBeaumont Even so, the name of the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church.

The problem is that Protestantism places human traditions above Scripture. This is an easy case to prove. FAITH AND WORKS: “A man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). But Protestants teach salvation by faith alone. BAPTISM: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21). But many Protestants say baptism does not save. COMMUNION: “Any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Corinthians 11:29 cf. John 6:54; Matt. 26:26). But most Protestants don't think bread and wine become flesh and blood. THE CHURCH: “The church of the living God [is] the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). But Protestants teach that the Bible is the ground of truth. ORAL TRADITIONS: “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). But Protestants say traditions are man made and elevated above Scripture.

@@DouglasBeaumont Nice try. You have to ignore so much of the Bible to get your points. James is not saying works save. He is saying works show who is saved. That is what Protestants teach. Not that works are not important. But they do not give merit and save us. Read Ephesians 2:1-10 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Now if you say some Protestants have failed to follow the whole scripture. You are right. Since many forget that those who do works show who they are. Matthew 7:12-29 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Here is where both Protestants and the RCC fail so often in teaching. Since both have their way of saying wicked evil men are still Christians. So a hateful Protestant and a hateful Roman Catholic are both lost. Since all who walk in hate are followers of Satan.

@@DouglasBeaumont True many say Baptism does not save. But the point is not does Baptism saved. But what does a baptized person do. The ceremony does not save. Now to be baptized you had to accept Jesus as their savior. That cannot happen with babies. A Christian will obey GOD and get baptized. Romans 6:1-6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. So how can a baby be taught to not sin? Now here is the main point the RCC follows. (COMMUNION: “Any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Corinthians 11:29 cf. John 6:54; Matt. 26:26). So first read the passages. Then come back and explain your point on this to me. I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly. (But most Protestants don't think bread and wine become flesh and blood.) True. That is why this must be a separate discussion. God be with you and your loved ones.

Th question is not whether tradition is important, but whether is infallible or not. How did Dr. Beaumont misrepresent this? Do confessional protestants think tradition is infallible? If not, then Dr. Beaumont is on spot.

100 % on spot. Any Confessional Lutheran believes every oral tradition ( the Canon is an oral tradition) is the fallible word of man. In fact, every Lutheran doctrine , their catechism, is oral tradition. Martin Luther based his entire theological principles on an assumption that the Bible supported his opinions. Martin Luther was sincerely convinced every one was wrong but him alone, that is why he relied on his SOLA (fallible private interpretation of ) Scriptura.

@@Alfredo8059 yeah, and regarding the canon, initialy he considered some NT books like Jude, Revelation as mere human books lacking divine inspiration.

@@davidszaraz4605 It depends on the tradition. If by tradition you mean that which comes from Scripture, then it wouldn't be fallible (like the Mass, for example). If you mean something like Masses for the Dead, then yes, fallible. So no, he's not spot on. AGAIN, Beaumont should ACCURATELY represent Cooper's view. Hence, why I asked for a second video.

@@Alfredo8059 The Canon is not only "oral tradition," but Apostolic Tradition, and it's not one that Lutherans disagree with because of the recognized authority Apostles had - thanks to Scripture ;) The disagreement comes into play with Catholic Church's view of the Canon, one that was disputed long before Luther came along. If you can tell me (you can even Google, copy and paste in the comments) the ACTUAL view of Sola Script, according to Confessional Lutherans, dialogue with you is worth having. Otherwise, take a hike.

the fact that a teaching must not contradict Scripture does not means that YOU are able to discern that contradiction with certainty - indeed, you don't have the authority to sanction your own reading of Scripture - that means that sustaining sola scriptura does not correspond to ascribing final authority to Scripture itself The truth being that the one who believes in sola scrptura inevitably ascribes that final authority to himself as interpreter - in other words, protestants cultivate a idolatrous attitude towards Scripture - yeah, they will always believe in their own ideas, insofar they can claim them to be 'biblical' The truth is that you always need refer to the Church doctrinal tradition in order to confirm that contradiction with Scripture (and that is how most protestants behave when they accept the 'authority' of the doctrinal traditions of their churches, which they justify by presenting them as being taugh in Scripture)

@@silveriorebelo2920 Nice try. Insults show you are just going along with the RCC teaching that the popes and others have the right to change what the Bible says. Instead of looking at the scripture and seeking truth. You have a human being who by who the RCC gave authority too. To answer the questions with human traditions and self given authority. No. Protestants are not in to idolatry. Using scripture as the final authority requires that you can show and look to agree on what the Bible actually say. Instead a human being is set up and they can be very immoral and wicked. But because of tradition they place themselves above all others. That is why the Orthodox left the RCC. That is why Protestant's looked to the Bible Not a man who live in luxury and depravity cannot be a good Christian ruler. Why then is Pope called by such Imperial title which was rejected by St. Ambrose and a title which makes Bishop of Rome Maximus (most great) Pontifex when Christ is only Magnus (great) Pontifex. forums.catholic.com/t/pontifex-maximus/8819 www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a104.htm Pope claims this title. 360 A.D. Indeed, it was not until the Empire split in two, with the Western Empire going to the pious, youthful Emperor Gratian (c. 360 AD) that the Pope was given the title Pontifex Maximus. Indeed, feeling that it was not right for he himself to carry that title (since he was, after all, not a Christian priest) the pious young Emperor bestowed it upon Pope Damasus I, who became the first Pope in history to hold the title "Pontifex Maximus r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrFPnSbfRRjUbYC0IiXnIlQ;_ylu=c2VjA2NkLWF0dHIEc2xrA3NvdXJjZQR2dGlkAwRydXJsA2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9T2VPZldfZ0k2MU0-/RV=2/RE=1662316059/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2fwatch%3fv%3dOeOfW_gI61M/RK=2/RS=0D4Nz7d.ry7se1BKAbG48ih0Q0s- Many things the RCC did went against the Scripture. Like Papal wars and the authority to live in hate and sin. Yet still be the only final authority in the world. Show me where the Bible teaches wicked men are the true Christians? Protestants agree in many places. Argue on others. But all who name themselves as Christians will attack those who murder and torture others because they just disagree. Matthew 5:43-48 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. So Jesus said love your enemies. Many Popes have practiced murdering their enemies and any who get in their way. So how can a organization that goes against one of the two fundamentals of the teaching of Jesus be followed? There are and have been many good Christians in the RCC. But they as a body rejects the two greatest commandments from GOD. They have not loved their enemies. Also in many cased they have not even loved those who were Roman Catholics.

@@silveriorebelo2920 When the Bible says Love your enemies and you teach to murder them. That does not make the murderer correct. It make them wrong. Consider your words on idolatry. first it is not a single person but groups of people using scripture to come to a consensus. Not a Druken leader who sleeps with whores to tell them do what he says. The RCC is shown in Jude.