Yes, he's sorely missed.

Amen!!

ALL TRUTH....sorry but this is horribly non-Biblical....

@Asaph Vapor dont conflate your own views about Scriptures and Scriptures. Scriptures are infallible, dome one's views are fallible

@Asaph Vapor , justified by faith does not mean love has nothing to do with faith since Christian faith means to believe God is love. As a child believes his father a Christian believes Jesus. A child believes his father forgives his mistakes but also believes he can do what his father asks him to do. When Luther made up his Sola FIDE theology he ignored the real Power of God almighty, thats why he taught forgiveness alone and ignored love is greater than faith ( 1 Cor.13:13). The instant I don't love Jesus I am cursed (1 Cor.16:22) . Why should I doubt what Paul teaches. Why should I believe your opinions better than Scripture?

Protestants have no way of objectively interpreting scripture, thus making infallible scripture less than its intended purpose

@HappyToOblige Wow, you exactly proved my point. Every protestant denomination from Lutheranism in 1517 to all the 1000s of splinter denominations to present all have “listened to the Holy Spirit” and have radically different theological views. I know you’d agree that there is only one truth and you would also agree that the Holy Spirit will only lead you to truth and unity as Christ prayed. Obviously then something is wrong as protestantism “relies on the Holy Spirit” yet has splintered into 1000s of denominations. Lastly, what Catholics believe is what was passed down from Jesus to the Apostles to the Church Father’s and Doctors, this is recorded in writing. It’s obvious you know nothing.

Sola(my private interpretation of)Scripture plus my views alone

Two things immediately strike me here (and I don't profess to have an intimate knowledge of all of Athanasius writings, so you can help guide me where I err here): - Athanasius is famed for his defence of the Trinity against the Arians, is he not? The context of exactly *what* heresies Athanasius was encountering and what their nature was seems a very relevant piece of information to understand when reading anything he writes about 'heresies' - otherwise, absolutely anyone could simply take any of their personal beliefs and opinions on what constitutes 'heresy' in 2020 and apply Athanasius' condemnation to them (indeed, Rome, the East, Lutherans and Reformed Protestants can and do define heresies differently, and all could use or twist Athanasius' condemnation of heresy to their advantage, but these contrary views cannot all be correct). An immediate and logical conclusion to draw from this statement is that the Arians likely referred to the Trinity as 'human tradition' and attempt to read the Scriptures themselves in a personally convenient manner. It was Athanasius' achievement to demonstrate that what the saints handed down in this area was not merely human tradition, but the clear teaching of Scripture, handed down by the saints and the Church. Is it not logical to suggest that such fundamental attacks on Scriptural truths as these was what Arthanasius considered heresy? But while Athanasius can demonstrate the folly of Arianism through demonstrating the consistency of Church teaching handed down from the saints with Holy Scripture, this appeal to Church tradition quickly falls apart when alleged Church tradition is contrary to the words of Scripture themselves, as is often the case (in my humble opinion) amongst various groups who claim such ancient and apostolic tradition. - It's interesting that you indeed highlight not just Athanasius' appeal to the teaching of the saints, but that you highlight his connection to the formation of the Biblical Canon as we know it. You can see the immediate contradiction there would be if a man like Athanasius, so dedicated to both the Scriptures and to the teaching of the saints, found them to be anything other than wholly compatible and in agreement. To suggest that Athanasius would take such care as to assemble a list of the Canon, but considered it somehow 'subject to change' in subordination to contrary teachings of human tradition (like the Rabbis of Jesus' day) would be in clear opposition to everything the man appeared to stand for. I think it's likewise logical to deduce from this that Athanasius believed that truth passed down from the saints and the Scriptures had to be in accord with one another. You have likely encountered a variety of Protestants in your life, with varying levels of understanding of Sola Scriptura, but no one with an understanding of what Sola Scriptura actually is denies the role of the Church in the teaching of the Scriptures, as handed down from the apostles. I'll leave you with this fragment attributed to Athanasius (excerpts only, full quote is worth reading here: www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-92.htm) 'May God comfort you. I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? ... But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. ... However really, then, they seem to hold the church, so much the more truly are they cast out. And they think themselves to be within the truth, but are exiled, and in captivity, and [gain] no advantage by the church alone.' Interesting, reading the whole fragmented letter, that Athanasius places the greatest importance not on possession of buildings, on location and geography, or that the possessors of these churches could claim the true faith any more than those in possession of the Jewish Temple could (which predates the Christian Church by some way in its claims as the Ancient Faith...), but rather that the True Faith handed down by the apostles (the writers of Scripture) is greater than all other possessions. That to be 'cast out' from physical churches by force is not to be cast out from the True Faith. May God bless you.

@@Mic1904 I would encourage people to read Athanasios writings and see for themselves how the early christians thought.

@@randomperson-gp8ph Absolutely! Exactly why I quoted him above. It's interesting and informative to understand the (various and differing) views of the early church.

@@Mic1904 look at the canons of nicea which predate the canon of the new testament and see the mindset of the early church. Athanasios obviously approved of canons of nicea.

@@randomperson-gp8ph Sure, absolutely, but I mean, virtually every mainstream form of Christianity - Eastern, Roman, Anglican, Lutheran, Protestant, etc - recognise and accept the Council of Nicaea. In fact, those who outright reject Nicaea generally aren't even considered Christian in any meaningful sense, they're considered non-Christian sects (Arians, unitarians, JWs, etc). There is little that is controversial amongst any of us when it comes to Nicaea, I'm not sure what it is that you think Nicaea says that is a problem for anyone.

My conscience captive to my SOLA (private interpretation of)Scripture plus my own views about everything plus my speculations about everything. Example: Luther's sola fide theology contradicts 1 Cor 13 :2 because faith before or apart receiving God's gift of love is NOTHING. Abraham's faith justifies. Abraham's faith was ful of love of God

N Scott.If my conscience is captive to the word of God I have to be captive to Heb.13:17, to 1 Tim.3:15 and so many verses that contradict " Scripture and me alone". We can't pick the verses that match my theology and explain away the verses that contradict my theology. Sola Scriptura in practice means SOLA (my private interpretation of)Scripture plus my views plus my speculations plus my assumptions. That is why the Bible Bible teaches that the Church ( not the Bible alone) is the pillar and ground of truth

@Asaph Vapor your God is your reading comprehension. You obey Heb.13:17 according to your Sola opinion. You choose your espiritual leader according to your reading comprehension otherwise you choose yourself as spiritual leader. That is how Protestantism works from the beginning. SOLA (my private interpretation of)Scriptura plus my views plus my assumptions. You decided faith alone (before or apart the love of God) justifies and that is it. You are the boss

Everything for salvation and knowledge of God and a relationship with him is in scripture. Give me something outside of scripture I need to be saved.

If you read the acts of the apostles you will note that the early Christians were saved by their association with the church. They were baptized, received grace and given the Holy Spirit from the church which was headed by the apostles. Also, Jesus came to found a single church, the fragmentation seen in Christianity today is a result of heresies that have accumulated over the last 2000 years.

@@psallen5099 that is a very gross misunderstanding of scripture. We are saved by grace alone through faith.

Both Catholics and Protestant believe that. The question really is what is faith? Catholics believe you life your faith and Protestants believe you just convince declare you have faith. Read the book of James, faith without works is dead.

@@psallen5099 faith first then living a life for Christ. I would never and could never disagree with that. But faith is first and the works follow and the purpose of the works must be known as well. The works are not to produce salvation

@Asaph Vapor revelation 11 19 to revelation 12.

@Asaph Vapor assumption of Mary was a belief of early Christians no bone relics was found of Mary the theotokos belief Mary slept for three days and bodily assumed to heaven. And later God showed the vision to John revelation 11 19 the new arc of covenant then to the woman in revelation 12

@Asaph Vapor psalm 45 6 7. Psalm 45 9 feast of assumption of Mary read in catholic church the queen ship of Mary. Luke 1 32 angel Gabriel said he will be great son of the most high Jesus sits on the royal throne of David and Solomon mother Bethsaida is called Gabora in Jewish meaning queen mother. The kings mother is automatic queen jewish tradition so Mary is queen and Jesus King. Mary us queen mother. If you want to disprove mary assumption please provide bible verses or any other source not your opinion ok

@Asaph Vapor enoch Elijah moses assumption to heaven is possible to God and resurrection of saints. Why not Mary mother of Jesus.

@Asaph Vapor where is the bone relic of Mary even scientist and archeologist could not find.

@Asaph Vapor How do you know what books belong into the Bible ? Church Tradition. Why do you believe Sola FIDE tradition? Because you learned the Bible from Sola FIDE followers

@Asaph Vapor How do you know what books belong into the Bible ? Church Tradition. Why do you believe Sola FIDE tradition? Because you learned the Bible from Sola FIDE followers

@Asaph Vapor 2 Tim.3:17 must be understood knowing Timothy learned to read Scripture from authorized leaders. Timothy did not read the Bible alone, by himself claiming to be God breathed himself as Luther or any Protestant leader claims for their man made doctrines according to their SOLA(private interpretation of)Scripture.

The Bible is scripture you stupid shit

@@co6742 How do you know the Bible is scripture? How do you know the right books got into the Bible? The only way we know that the Bible really is inspired word of God is that the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church says that it is. First came the Church then came the Bible.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum. Amen.

@Asaph Vapor Thank you. I was trying to test whether my notification was properly working. I knew Sola Scripture was a good way to bait the hook. Surely you know that it is a self refuting doctrine. Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

@Asaph Vapor One of the easiest way to demonstrate this is by referring to 2Timothy 3:16. This is the favorite Protestant proof text. I suppose you know it. Simply by quoting it in Latin the point is made. Omnia Scriptura divinitus inspirata etc. If God had wished to tell us that Sola Scriptura was devinely inspired etc., here was a perfect opportunity. It was opportunity not taken. Furthermore, St. Paul tells Timothy that he has known the scripture since his youth. What scripture would Timothy have known from his youth? Only the Old Testament. Are we suppose to conclude as Christians that the OT all we need as a rule of faith? Protestants think that Sola Scriptura is the an important doctrine of Christian faith. Yet this doctrine cannot be found in scripture ipso facto it refutes itself. Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum. Amen

@Asaph Vapor "Works", in the passages you cited, refer to works of the law, the Levitical law, repealed by Jesus at Luke 16:16. Good works of charity are still becessary for salvation----see Matthew 25:31-46, James 2:26, and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke. Good works and love are the same thing. Those who say that good works aren't necessary for salvation are essentially saying that love is not necessary for salvation.

Adaph Vapor, SOLA Scriptura is a fallacy. Every appeal to Scripture is an appeal to interpretation. If Jesus had taught that Scripture had a higher authority than Tradition, this would mean Jesus 'own word, which existed as an oral tradition after his Ascension, would have had less authority than Scripture. Catholics agree Scripture contains all truths that are necessary for salvation while Tradition contains the orthodox way of understanding Scripture. When a Catholic says "Tradition" he means Apostolic oral tradition. The canon of Scripture is an Apostolic Tradition, a Church tradition. A matter of faith ( but Christian faith is inseparable from love and hope 1 Cor.13:2)

@Asaph Vapor But the oral teachings the Catholic Church believes in WERE the teachings of the apostles! The Catholic Church does not make up new doctrine.

@Asaph Vapor YOU:" you don't see me saying my views. I always state the Scriptures". ME: really? Don't you realize you write your own views almost all the time? Do you really think "faith alone" (before or apart the love of God) is a Christian faith? Could Abraham believe with his heart before receiving the love of God poured unto his heart? Is "faith alone" tour view or Scripture? Paul is clear : faith without love is nothing. Nothing is nothing. We are nothing without Jesús, faith is nothing without love.

By sola scriptura Jesus is risen! Do you honestly think that the Son of God and King of kings needs the pages of a book to rise from the dead?

@Asaph Vapor , We have to follow the chronology of events in Scripture. Dont forget to read Eph.2:5.What does "quicken" mean ? To be spiritually alive means to be able to love. Faith without love is nothing (1Cor.13:2). Abraham's faith was never ever alone. Don't forget faith before or apart receiving the gift of love of God is nothing. Any one who does not love the Lord is cursed (1 Cor 16:22). Sola FIDE theology contradicts the Holy Scriptures

@Asaph Vapor If faith is simply believing in Jesus, and if we have faith in Jesus, we will have faith in everything Jesus said. And Jesus said very clearly at Matthew 25:31-46 that works are necessary for salvation. He also said this at Matthew 16:27 and at Luke 16:19-31, the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. "Ye see then how that by works is a man justified, and not by faith only." --James 2:24

@Asaph Vapor Jesus and the apostles did not teach the Old Covenant. They taught the New Covenant. And faith in Jesus means faith in everything Jesus taught. What kind of faith would it be to say to Jesus, "Jesus, I love You, I have faith in You, but I don't believe some of the stuff You taught." Can't you see how ridiculous that is? Ephesians 2:8-9 contradicts James 2:24-26, Matthew 25:31-46, Matthew 16:27, and Luke 16:19-31. The Bible is full of contradictions like this. This is why we need the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church. This is why individual interpretation cannot work. The Church interprets Ephesians 2:8-9 as meaning works done without faith or works done out of self-righteousness. It does not mean that good works are not necessary. Read Ephesians 2:10, the very next verse, and see what it says.

@Asaph Vapor Jesus came on earth to teach us the New Covenant!!! That was the point of Him coming!! To take the place of circumcision He taught Baptism. To take the place of animal sacrifice He sacrificed Himself. To take the place of Passover He taught the Mass and the Holy Eucharist. To take the place of the Levitical priesthood He made His apostles the first priests of the New Covenant. He made the ten commandments of thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not commit adultery even stricter than they were. And at Luke 16:16 He repealed all the Levitical laws (at Luke 16:17 He stated that the ten commandments still stand).

@Asaph Vapor it is catholic church bible ang magisterium.

@Asaph Vapor Traditions of apostles carried on by successors. And catholics do not believed in sola scriptura sola fide sola gracie.

@Asaph Vapor there is only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of Apostles. The teachings not in bible are sacred traditions. The cathechism are the teachings of apostles to successors which we Catholics believe and follow.

@Asaph Vapor where is bible alone in bible? You cited bible verses but it does not say bible alone

@Asaph Vapor Matthew 16 18 jesus authority to Peter to build a church the keys to heaven and authority to bind and loose that includes Peter successors. And Jesus said God will be with the church even to the end of days. And the gates of hell not prevail over the church

@Asaph Vapor Yeah, but maybe can spell it.

@Asaph VaporSome Ignorant "Catholics" become Protestants. Some of the best Protestants become Catholics. Read Evangelical Exodus

@Asaph Vapor your views alone . Were the Scriptures alone sufficient for the Euthopian eunuch to come to faith or was an authorized teaching and guidance required also? Martin Luther decided he was justified by faith alone (without love) . That is Scripture Alone. My views alone, my reading comprehension alone, my pride alone

@Asaph Vapor SS=the Word of God reduces to Scripture alone. SS contradicts 2 Thess 2:15 . Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus is not Scripture alone. Scripture is never alone. As soon as anyone opens his/her Bible the Bible is not alone any more. That is reality

@Asaph Vapor SS=the Word of God reduces to Scripture alone. SS contradicts 2 Thess 2:15 . Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus is not Scripture alone. Scripture is never alone. As soon as anyone opens his/her Bible the Bible is not alone any more. That is reality

@Alex Lancaster The bible clearly carves out a place for Apostolic Tradition as authentic and binding. I don't see how you can get around this, or want to.

It doesn't support it at all, and Protestants can't actually justify their belief in the Bible's authority without using circular reasoning or appealing to personal interior experience.

How the bible condemned SS ?,

The Pharisees were guilty of creating their own “laws given by God” in the oral Torah (tradition of the elders). These were rules/laws created by man but they claimed that they were laws and teachings given to Moses verbally by God on Mt. Sinai IN ADDITION to the written commandments. Jesus rebuked them for this. (Matthew 15). They had created an entirely separate set of teachings that God had neither said nor authorized which is heresy. You cannot say “thus sayeth the Lord”, when God did not say it. That’s blasphemy. Everything that God needed to tell us is written in the Bible. His word is sufficient. Sola Scriptura doesn’t put a limit on God. It solidifies the word of God and limits man from adding to His holy word.

@@nowthatisawesome5431 Jesus condemned them for _nullifying_ the Word of God with their traditions. Jesus was not against good tradition, since he instructed the people to listen to the Pharisees but not to imitate them because they do not follow their own teaching (Mt 23). SS is nowhere to be found in the bible, either the old or new Testament.

This response in epistle of James is always focused on one verse. Read the whole context. All churches always use isolated verses and typical issues. Boring

This response in epistle of James is always focused on one verse. Read the whole context. All churches always use isolated verses and typical issues. Boring

Sola Scriptura is the very simple idea that the Word of God holds higher authority than any man´s. That anyone argues with that and still wants to call themselves christian is really strange.

@@thomasfryxelius5526 I agree with you that the Word of God holds a higher authority than any man's ... The two questions that follow are: (1) is the Word of God the only infallible higher authority?; (2) who has the final authority in interpreting the Bible? Sola Scriptura is usually defined as the Bible or Word of God being the only infallible and sufficient source of our faith and life. The word 'only' is problematic. Regarding interpretation of the Word of God, Sola Scriptura says that the Scriptures are so easy to understand that one does not need an outside authority to interpret them. So the problem of Sola Scriptura is not as simple as many Protestants think.

@@albertdevasahayam6781 The principle is simple, but I agree there are more questions to ponder. 1. Yes. I think this is unavoidable since no Church authority has been promised infallibilty and that we see in the Bible how the Word of God is used to correct human authorities. 2. Here we see that everyone is held accountable to the Word. The pharisées were condemned for teaching contrary to the Word, the bereans are commended for studying the Scriptures testing the teachings of Paul. "It is written...", "so the Scriptures was fulfilled..." etc are common, showing how the Word of God is the authority they all appealed to.

@@albertdevasahayam6781 'What Sola Scriptura in essence means is: my private interpretation, opinions and conclusions are supreme and infallible.' 'Sola Scriptura says that the Scriptures are so easy to understand that one does not need an outside authority to interpret them.' Sola Scriptura literally says neither of those things. It's entirely fine and appropriate for you to question and challenge and wrestle with these things, or to object to them - but at the very least take sufficient time to actually gather an accurate working definition of the object of your criticism first. The fact that many a misguided Protestant might also misunderstand these same aspects of Sola Scriptura still does not make it so. No accurate understanding of Sola Scriptura denies the role of the church in the teaching and interpretation of the Word. Mainly because... such a doctrine is itself found in Scripture.

​@@Mic1904 Thanks to you for your response to my critique of sola scriptura. I admit that I could be wrong about my understanding of this doctrine. However, the two points you have quoted fairly represent the actual teachings of sola scriptura. That is what I have gathered from my interactions with many Protestants. Your final point is not acceptable to me; so far no one has proved beyond doubt that sola scriptura is founded in scripture.

Nope, I just selectively use Netflix. Imo those Christian movies are cringeworthy, poorly scripted and too lovey-dovey. I prefer action movies, yes they have violence (unlike nude scenes that's fake) but most of them don't have nude scenes.