Yeah this is something ive noticed as well Many of the historical data that Luther based so much on has been turned over with new, more recent discoveries, the most obvious one being the canon of scripture

Things like a man like Gary Michuta isnt an unearthed find that overturns evidence. He’s a man in the 21st century who dreams up assumptions of what else it means when a pre Augustinian father says « Bewear of books which preach heresy. Study these books are sacred Scripture. Here’s a list to memorize the books. Study these books, but it must be said, there are besides these other books to read. But have nothing to do with the apocrypha. »

@@isaakleillhikar8311 in english please

nothing could be further from the truth. the exact opposite is true. catholic doctrine has continually walked away from any kind of scriptural basis

“And to him who does not work, but BELIEVES on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” Romans 4:5

This is so true. And the differences in beliefs are big ones.

@@beckanewell128 When one is born again, prot or catholic or what ever fades away. The born again follow the Lamb. The unsaved join sects or religions.

@@peterzinya1 And how does one do that exactly? By interpreting the Scriptures in just the same way YOU interpret them, I gather? Good thing Peter Zinya came along to set the Church straight.

@@sakamotosan1887 One isnt born again by interpreting scripture. So typical of you religion people. I dont interpret scripture. The bible ,means what it says and says what it means. Look at the way you interpret scripture. You take "no images" to mean make as many images as you possibly can and get on your knees in front of them. Theres tons more that i wont get into. You think your costume holymen own heaven and can reach up there and bring god down from off his throne. You guys really believe that madness.

@ThoskaBrah but the magisterium corrected them or excommunicated them. My pastor castrated himself. Everyone beat there kids to save them from the devil. I'll never depend on any one man's interpretation of scripture and it's a shame anyone followed him. Fear driven and legalistic was my entire childhood thanks to that church.

@ThoskaBrah There are indeed some reports that said some Catholic priest who offered Mass daily don't believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There are priests and Bishops who favour the agenda of LGBTQ. So, what you say is undeniable. The only difference is that the official teachings of the Church overrules the teaching errors of those wayward/ heretical teachers/ priests. Even the Pope could teach error but his personal opinion don't define the Catholic faith. Heretical Pope or Bishops or priests can't impose their personal opinion as the official teaching of the Church.

@ThoskaBrah except logically under their respective frameworks individual Catholic priests who may preach heresy don’t define dogma. Individual Protestant pastors create a new congregation of belief, a new congregation of heresy, and new dogma for themselves. Under Catholicism, there is one universal, unchanging truth. Under Protestantism, truth is whatever the individual interprets it to be for themselves, and congregations begin and end with the people you agree or disagree with on any given doctrine. God and his Word for all practical purposes becomes made in man’s image.

@ThoskaBrahName them

I have a similar story. The Pastor in my Methodist church I grew up with had a very sincere faith which I didn't find anywhere else until I visited the Catholic church. He has since retired. When I returned home after my conversion to Catholicism while at College the new pastor was a simple heretic- he denied the authenticity of scripture, said 'Prayer doesn't really do anything', and that we have 'no real free will'... all in one sermon. I took that as my sign.

Congratulations and welcome home! God has blessed us with your presence in His Church.

Good thing Catholicism doesn't need to be tested by the scripture

@@Olc... I am sure your interpretation of OUR scriptures is a twisted as your comment.

What protestant faith proclaim exclusively?

@Harley Mann The is no our scripture. There is only 1 word of God, and that's all.

This is a really great comment... Shocked it has no responses yet. Waiting for others to share their thoughts because a lot of this is beyond me

@@gabrielasanchez2028 Well thank you for responding. I have asked this question more or less all over the You Tube when there are debates over "sola scriptura" because it just makes no sense to me. I am new to religion and I don't believe the Bible is just a bunch of myths there actually is a lot of evidence that they do have a transcendent mind behind them. And the New Testament makes predictions about the church that actually come true. Jesus said that the he would build one church, that was united, that would be persecuted, but would go to all nations. And that is exactly what happened. There really was only one church for 1500 years. The schism of 1054 was over the smallest detail. Sometimes Protestants answer my question by pointing to the "Orthodox" schism but that does not answer my question. Christ predicted that the church would be "one," that it would be persecuted, that its members would be killed, but that it would go to all nations and that it would not fail. And all of that happened. But when you look at the church that did all those things in the first 500 years it was the Catholic Church. The early church fathers like Clement in 95 AD, Ignatius in 107 AD, Polycarp in 150 AD, Justin Martyr in 150 AD, Irenaeus in 170 AD, Tertullian and Origen in the the early 200's AD and Cyprian in 250 were all Bishops (except Justin Martyr) in the Catholic Church. They believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They believed in the baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. They viewed the Bishop of Rome as having authority to settle disputes. And this was all before they doctrine of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation were defined. Christian apologists point to the unity and growth of the early church as evidence for the resurrection. But how is it not absurd for people to come along n the 1500's people would come along and say that some of those things the early church was unified about were all wrong? That is saying that Jesus promised one unified church that would survive persecution and go to all nations; but for some reason many of the things the church was united about were false doctrines (according to Protestants). I would like to hear someone from the Protestant camp explain to me how that is not absurd. And if those people who started popping up in the 1500's were right about Christ letting his church teach false doctrines right off the bat, then which one of those people in the 1500's should I trust. They did not agree with each other about what the early church got wrong. If they cannot even agree on what the early church got wrong, then I question the evidence. I never get a straight answer. Someone responded to another similar question and said that the Catholic Church had "traditions of men." Can you see how absurd that is coming from a Protestant? There can only be one truth. And so if baptism is necessary for salvation like some Protestants say, then the other Protestants who say that baptism is not necessary have a "tradition of man." Only one of those can be true and the other is a "tradition of man" just by definition. Some Protestants say you can lose your salvation but other say that once one is saved then he or she cannot lose their salvation. Now only one of those can be right and the other has to be a "tradition of man." When you have 250 different denominations with different beliefs only one of them could possibly be true and all the others have to have at least some "traditions of men." I just don't get the Protestant argument and I am just asking for an earnest explanation. I am sure someone will dialog at some point. God bless you.

Maybe you can answer a couple of questions for me. Specifically, what are the oral traditions passed down to the early Church by the Apostles? Which Apostle or Apostles are credited with teaching a tradition not found in the Bible, and how do we know this? Thank you.

​@@timmcvicker5775 You are asking me a question that you already know the answer to instead of just answering my question. What does the answer to the questions you are posing have to do with the questions I asked? I asked if we have to trust the early church that Christ established when it comes to the highly nuanced doctrines like the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation that took the entire church working through most all of its bishops and many councils over 400 years to define the highly nuanced doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation properly. They had to thread the needle in an extremely intricate and precise manner to define these doctrines that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture. You are asking the question that Protestants spring on Catholics when Catholics ask "where does the Bible teach “sola scriptura.” The Bible doesn’t say specifically anywhere that the sole rule of faith has to come from written scripture. Maybe it can be implied but to return the favor seemingly Protestants ask Catholics this type question of what oral traditions can be traced to the apostles that are not in Scripture? There are two things I would like to state about that. First that was not the point I am making or the question that I am asking. I was not trying to argue that Catholicism is true in my post. I was trying to point out that it seems like we have to trust the “early church’s decision on certain topics.” I was not trying to say the early church was today's Catholic Church. Secondly when the early church referred to “Traditions” it was not in the sense that your question digs at. There is not the claim that there are some oral traditions stashed away somewhere that the apostles stated which are not written in Scripture. The concept of “Tradition” is that the entire deposit of faith was given to “a church” that was established by Jesus Christ. It is clear that Scripture may have the smallest of seeds of Christian doctrines there but clearly, some doctrines are not fully nor even adequately developed in the pages of Scripture. That was my point about the highly nuanced doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Almost no Christian can read the Bible alone and come up with those formulations on their own. They have to trust the early church was guided by the Holy Spirit to clearly define those doctrines. It could be that the apostles said things about the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation which were not captured in writing - - OR - - it could be that Christ left it up to the early church to be led by the Holy Spirit to rightly interpret Christian doctrines. It is not an issue of some doctrines being written in scripture and some doctrines coming from only oral traditions as you hint at with your question. That is just not what scholars and church historians mean when they write about “Tradition.” It is not an oral vs written issue as I understand it but maybe you can explain what I am missing. The way I understand it it is the idea that everything obviously is not spelled out in Scripture and we need to trust that the early church got certain things right in expounding on them. Maybe the apostles wrote a few things in connection to the Trinity and the Incarnation but never fully described them in writing or even orally at all. We don’t know. But we know that the doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrines of the Incarnation are more finely tuned and defined more clearly after 400 years of struggle, dialogue and the holding of the many Councils I mentioned. So if we can set aside the argument about what church the early church was and just focus on whether or not we have to trust that church that would be great. We can’t make the assessment of whether we have to trust that early church if we hate what it was or what someone says it was. I referenced the Reformation because that is when “sola scriptura” was argued for heavily. But the point of my post was not to argue for Catholicism it was to show or ask if Christians have to trust the “early Christian Church.” And it seems like we absolutely have to trust it. I think Christians have to trust that Christ started a church that was guided by the Holy Spirit. So why is that? Well, what is one thing we know about the decision of the early church to create a new set of canonical documents that would be called the New Testament? One thing we know about that decision is that it’s: Not in the Bible Then once the decision was made that there should be a New Testament canon then how do we know which books were to be included? Well, one thing we know about the method that the church used to select which texts were inspired texts is that such a process is: Not in the Bible So where does the decision to create a New Testament come from? It comes from a church that Christians believe was guided by the Holy Spirit. And then why do we even have a case that the documents we have are truly inspired texts? It is because we believe that the men in the church that selected them were led by the Holy Spirit. So don’t we have to trust that church AND Scripture? Instead of just one in exclusion to the other? I don’t see how we can just trust one without the other. And all I would like to see or understand is a reasoned response from someone who believes in “Sola Scriptura.” How can one believe that Biblical documents have authority if they don’t trust that Holy Spirit guided the church to create the NT and select the texts for it. Since I am new to religion (meaning I have only studied it for the last 7 years and the last 2 years seriously). I feel like I missing something in this whole debate that I wish a sincere person would explain to me. And in addition, I brought up all the church councils that were held that discussed the very highly refined and nuanced doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation. There is simply no way that the average Christian could read the Bible and consistently come away with the official doctrine of the Trinity as 3 persons in one God who are each “consubstantial” or of the “same essence.” The Bible is certainly not clear about that and so we have to trust that the early church got it right. The same goes for the Doctrine of the Incarnation. The fact that Christ is fully God and fully human and that his human nature is combined with the one divine will that is shared by each person of the Trinity into a Hypostatic Union is mind blowing and not at all clear in Scripture. We have to trust that the early church over 400 years of discussions and work under the influence of the Holy Spirit got those doctrines correct. JDN Kelly’s “Early Christian Doctrines” is the book I read to learn about all those early church fathers and Councils that were held. It explains how the early church probably developed some parts of those doctrines from sources other than just written texts. And since these doctrines are anything but clear in Scripture, we have to trust that the church was led by the Holy Spirit. Kelly writes: “There is no reason to infer…that the primitive Church regarded the apostolic testimony as confined to written documents emanating from, or attributed to, the apostles. Rather, the early Church Fathers argued that the interpretations of the heretics were not in line with the “rule of faith,” passed on by the apostles to the bishops of the church.” So isn't it true that we have to trust the early church And we have to trust Scripture? I pray for Christian unity. Thank you.

Thank you most kindly for your elaborations. I grew up Protestant but left, and when I returned to the faith, I was so confused by the Bible verses quoted to prove Sola Scriptura that I started questioning it all. I couldn't find Sola Scriptura in the Bible, and there was even a point where I questioned the Trinity because it was anything but obvious to me. (I can now find the Trinity in the Bible, but I could never decipher all the intricacies.)

I just visited the town of Ave Maria a few weeks ago! There are so many things I like about it. (As an artist, I hope to see a gallery soon with Catholic art!) What do you think of the nondenominational church being there? I have to wonder why they even want to be there, other than for the purpose of pulling Catholics from their faith.

@@julieelizabeth4856 If any church makes less sense is the "non"-denominational stuff. There's no such thing lol.

@ottovonbaden6353 Thank you for taking the time to make this. Timestamps are very helpful!

Trent appreciate your work but can you talk less than your interviewee in your interviews please?

Thanks

@@seanrodrigues12 This guy isn't Trent.

Follow Jesus. Don’t worry about these discrepancies

@@ninjason57 that's a completely nonsensical statement

Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church. Follow Jesus. “Who hears you hears me, and who hears me hears the one who sent me.”

Just curious, what kind of church do you attend right now?

​@@ninjason57 mormons, jehova's witnesses, SDA and even muslims claim they follow Jesus

Yes, protestants are indifferent

It's not personal interpretation, it's the right interpretation.

@@eddyrobichaud5832 That's precisely what they dispute, first with Catholics, Orthodox, and then among themselves. With them, anything goes and that's alright. After all, each man can be his own moral and theological authority.

@MM22272 If it doesn't correspond with the bible, they are false teachers

@M M2 how difficult is it to practice love of neighbor? How difficult is it to believe in Christ the Lord the word made flesh who died and was raised so that by his resurrection we have been set free from thr slavery of sin and death of those who believe? How difficult is it also that with this faith comes love of God and neighbor? Which moral standard comes with harming your neighbor loving them?

"It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course. For that the former was better, God has made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since unto Noah, and unto Abraham, and unto his offspring, and unto Job, and unto Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their mind pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tables, and the admonition which is given by these. And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for "He," says our Lord, "shall bring all things to your remembrance." John 14:26 And that you may learn that this was far better, hear what He says by the Prophet: "I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them," and, "they shall be all taught of God." And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word." Chrysostom

Well given that he didn't take any books out of the Bible, I would hope you can reexamine that conclusion.

@EmberBright2077 It is a historical fact that Martin Luther ripped out 7 books from the Old Testament, and he would have gone for more in the New Testament if his friends didn't stop him

@@johnnypop-tart335 It's a historical fact that the canon Martin Luther affirmed was held by many Church Fathers prior to his time. The additional books were added in the Council of Trent, directly in response to the Reformation.

@EmberBright2077 That doesn't change the hypocrisy of saying "Bible alone" And then tearing books out. The people adding and removing books were not saying bible alone. Luther was and he had no authority to do so

Hebrews 11:6, John 1:1 brother.

Yes, Jesus Christ established his church and ways and teaching. It's called Christianity. He didn't establish anything called Catholicism or papacy

@@Olc... Exactly. I have studied hard, and also conclude Peter could not have stepped foot in Rome. This opened my eyes to the reality, there is rewritten church history. I believe it happened under Emperor Constantine.

@@Olc... There's over 20,000 brands of Christianity so which one holds the truth? If its not Rome, then there is only one more apostolic option - the Orthodox Church.

@@soteriology400 Where did you come up with that conclusion? And how did Constantine rewrite church history when he actually legitimized (and legalized) what Christians were already practicing before he (St. Constantine) was even a thought? Did not Christ say that the "gates of hell would not prevail against his church" (Matt. 16:17-19)

That's a perfect example of why "sola scriptura" is so crazy.

Luther said that it is every Christians responsibility to read and interpret the scriptures *correctly* . This is a cult which gets its doctrines from its founders, not the Bible.

@@hilohilo9539 maybe you're in a cult started by Luther. Who made him the authority?

@@jackieo8693 By correctly, he meant that their interpretations were to be guided by church tradition and the holy spirit. Sola Scriptura does not mean we reject church tradition as being authoritative, it's just less authoritative that the Bible.

And evangelicals get their doctrines from their founders, Luther and Calvin, not the Bible.@@hilohilo9539

Well said. Thank you for your openness. God Bless

I dont feel the same. Not only are they painting a rose colored picture of Catholicism here, but I fail to see how I cannot understand what Salvation is from Scripture. The Bible tells me I am a sinner, and it tells me that Jesus died for me. It also tells me to believe and follow Christ. I dont need a Magisterium to understand that and thats what perspecuity deals with. I think what Trent really means is that if one wants some advanced metaphysics explained to them about the nature of Christ, or the Trinity, THEN you need a "magisterium". Ok fine. But thats not what perspecuity is speaking to. But to say I need it in order to understand the Gospel message? No man. That is just a bait and switch.

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 *_But to say I need it in order to understand the Gospel message? No man. That is just a bait and switch._* I think bait and switch is a little harsh. I think your statement above is the issue they are trying to address. You said "It also tells me to believe and follow Christ." I believe that word follow is the big issue. What does it mean to follow Christ? Also, is the meaning of this part of the Gospel message or just something extra? There are so many opinions on what it means to follow Christ also some say it is part of the Gospel and I've even run into some that claim you only have to accept Jesus once and don't even have to follow him to be saved. What does it mean to follow Christ? For instance Christ says in Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Is being baptized part of the Gospel message or not? Because I've run into so many today that claim Baptism isn't necessary even though Jesus says it right here. Just one more... John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you Part of the Gospel message and necessary for salvation or not? Some say yes some say no. God Bless

@Joshua Benes - This (your path) sounds very similar to many protestants who begin to take a look backwards beyond the Reformation, and the discovery down the rabbit hole speeds up toward the Catholic Doctrine, viz a viz, the Catholic Catechism Book. Plumbing the depths of Catholicism makes for more deep rabbit holes to develop. The easiest way is to make a commitment to attend a well-taught RCIA Class (takes 1 year), with zero commitment to convert, so that ALL of your questions can be answered in an objective way. Additionally, you will soon be reading a Catholic Bible (many to choose from) which opens up more sacred Scripture that is highly valuable in further answering complex questions. All the while, the Holy Spirit is guiding the journey and process toward possible conversion. I was a life-long Protestant (Episcopalian), and considered the possibility of conversion 30 years ago, while attempting to avoid conversion. Reading the great ancient Theologians (St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa, and more modern-day Theologians, such as GK Chesterton), plus scrutiny of the Catholic Catechism, taken from Scripture, enabled my journey toward being fully received into the Catholic Church several years ago. Happy to be Home now! That is 'WHY' all Catholics will say, "Welcome Home!" Best wishes on your quest for the truth.

​@@theosophicalwanderings7696 In what way are they painting a rose colored version of Catholicism? And a lot of what you said begs many questions. Like previously noted what does it mean to follow Christ?

Theological fruit salad. 🤣🤣🤣

You're making a mute point, if you're Catholic you should know that the same thing happens within catholicism. They're many disagreements and theological debates that two Catholics can have with one another and HAVE had with one another for 2,000 years now.

I once heard a phrase. “It’s easy for a person to say an egg is rotten. It’s difficult for them to lay one of their own.”

​@ThoskaBrah Of course it was. There's a difference between disagreement and division, and the devil is obviously ultimately behind any division within the Church. The devil can do nothing to weaken the Church, but the Church can weaken herself. There's an argument to be made about whether or not the Protestants were right to challenge Catholic teachings of the time, but I'm sure we can all agree they were wrong to divide the Church.

what is arianism?

@@silentsoul6233 the belief that the Son is neither coeternal nor cosubstantial with the Father.

Calvinism, a heresy? Are you a Roman Catholic? If you are, do you call Augustine a heretic?

@@hilohilo9539 I'm not, thanks for asking.

I'm going to use this syllogism. 👍

The church contradicts itself all the time what are you talking about

Of course. Because we see Jesus rising up on the day after Sabbath day, then we see people gathering on the Mia Savaton « first day from the sabbath. »

@@isaakleillhikar8311 Hi Isaak. I can't see how this follows. "we see Jesus rising up on the day after Sabbath day, then we see people gathering on the Mia Savaton « first day from the sabbath" therefore Sunday worship.

@@isaakleillhikar8311 where does the Bible say you should worship on the day of the week Jesus was raised?

The resurrection is the eschatological fulfillment of the Sabbath--thus, it's not a "change", it's a transformation. There's plenty of instances where the New Testament talks about meeting on the Sunday, and carrying out all of the crucial church practices. This must have been an issue for the early christians, as Paul says not to judge each other based on Sabath worship (also showing the validity of reinterpretring the commandment). Finally, all of the earliest Christian documents outside of the New Testament report Sunday observance as the standard. Even if you're a protestant, this should be evidence for Sunday worship. Personally, I rate the testimony of the early church significantly higher. The Bible is just a product of the larger Christian community. Sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible, and therefore the doctrine refutes itself.

It's less of a problem than say polygamy since the Bible documents worship and partaking of the eucharist on Sunday. So protestants would be more at the problem of Church authority preceding the Bible and the Church creating and authorizing the Bible.

Good point!

Scripture is clear to those who have already been taught the faith. That is, those who are not ignorant as Peter says in his warning.

@@user-nz8xr3wq9p Even Paul says "how far past finding out" about God's Word--Scripture is not clear.

Very good point , that would have to make one wonder !

Even when Jesus taught His students there were times He had to explain. He explained to ONLY the Apostles the parable of the seeds. Everyone else apparently had to 'wait for the movie' to find out the meaning. When the movie came out it still had teachers rather than an army of copyists. St. Paul takes a lot of effort on explaining things that were obvious but apparently were not to some.

The bible is perspicuous. The problem is that people read the bible in light of their religion. That causes much confusion. The bible is supposed to be read in light of the scriptures. Rightly dividing the word of truth.

@@brutus896 That's not biblical! Not only does the Bible never claim to be perspicuous, there are many verses to the contrary. Read what I posted below for some of those verses. Who determines who's rightly dividing the word? JN Darby?

@robertopacheco2997 No verse in the Bible says that scripture is perspicous. But it is perspicous when you rightly divide. Like, I said, read scripture in light of scripture. That is what determines the word rightly divided.

2 John 1:9 is clear that Sola scriptura is biblical.

​@@eddyrobichaud5832 I disagree because that is talking about a teaching which Paul clarifies can be written or a tradition. It is not talking about sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not found anywhere in the Bible which makes it a tradition which in itself contradicts sola scriptura ❤

@jennyohanlon5380 2 John 1:9 (KJV) Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son If the traditions contradict the bible than the traditions gotta go in the garbage. 😕

​@@eddyrobichaud5832 I know the verse, the word doctrine there in greek doesn't mean the scripture it means teaching or instruction which again can mean written or tradition. I agree with you 100% that if a doctrine contradicts scripture it has to go in the bin which is why sola scriptura needs to go in the bin because it contradicts the Bible which teaches scripture plus tradition.

@jennyohanlon5380 Sola scriptura can not go in the bin , Sola scriptura means bible alone the bible is the word of God the word is Jesus read John chapter 1. Catholic religion is full of unbiblical traditions and doctrine. It's your choice to let yourself blinded by your religion.

Romans 2 actually refers to saved Gentiles (v14 the law is written on their hearts by the Spirit, a fulfillment of the New Covenant promise in Jer 31:31-34, and v29 says these Gentiles are "circumcised in the heart by the Spirit")--of unsaved Gentiles, it says they have all gone their own way, the wrong way, and they don't seek after God. To read Romans 2 as referring to unbelieving Gentiles would be even worse than saying Jews can be saved by following the Law, which is explicitly condemned in the verse "if righteousness were by the Law, then Christ died in vain". To say Romans 2 refers to unbelieving, not believing, Gentiles doesn't make sense at all.

That's an arbitrary standard that you made up.

This has got to be a joke, right?

Textual criticism doesn’t prove Sola Scriptura at all though. Being able to identify what text belongs where doesn’t even do anything to address what scripture even is infallible, much less the idea that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. For Sola scripture, it begs the question.

@@freda7961 😂

So James White is the Pope lol

Jews Christians and Muslims all worship one God. As there are not many One Gods we must worship the same God. (There is only one God to worship) For some reason when this question is raised it always leaves out the Jews. They don't believe in the Trinity. (Neither do some Protestants) They don't believe that Jesus was is God. If they (Jews) worship a different God than Christians, then just where did the God that Christians worship come from? Later come Muslims. I could take this further and ask how many different Gods do Christian's worship? Does a Baptist worship the same God as a Lutheran? and do they worship the same God as a Catholic.... and so on and so on. BTW this is a Catholic teaching. Islam comes around 700 AD, far too late for the Apostles to directly address. Where does this come from? There is only one God.

@@dave_ecclectic You are lying, we worship JESUS CHRIST. If you try to separate Jesus from the father let me tell you, you don’t know God.

@@dave_ecclectic Matter a fact have you ever read the Quran ? Is Jesus God for you ? Do you know how “Allah” the greatest deceiver acts in the Quran? Jews don’t know God matter a fact they don’t even worship him they don’t know Jesus. Yo it heretical church washed your brain

@@internautaoriginal9951 The Father, The Son, and the _Holy Spirit._ Are all persons of God. You may know God, but you are deficient in knowing the Trinity, Now I ask you, as the Jews do not believe in the Trinity... do they believe in the same God we, as Christians, do?

We do not worship the same God. The doctrine of Trinity is the most obvious difference, but there's many more. Our God loves all his people unconditionally; the Muslim god Allah will love you only if you love him first. Our God calls us His children, whilst the highest relationship a Muslim can have with their god is a master-slave relationship. Our God commands us to love our enemies, pray for them, and respond to hate with love; Allah commands Muslims to fight those who do not believe in him. There's also things like Allah being described as "the best of deceivers" in the Quran, a title that would be unthinkable of our triune God. There's many other differences, I just listed a few of them. Saying that "there is only one real God, so we obviously must worship the same God" is ridiculous, when the teachings of our God and Allah are so vastly different. They simply couldn't be the same deity. Allah is a product of Mohammed's imagination at best, or a demon masquerading as god at worst.

You don’t believe you can know what the original writers were originally saying unless the Catholic Church tells you? The Catholics don’t have in writing the meaning of every single text.

_"This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."_ - Joshua "The prideful" 🙄

That's what it did to me

​@@JohnVILXIII Joshua didn't believe in sola scriptura. He believed the law was legitimate * because it came from God through Moses* who he personally knew.

@@marvalice3455 Everything that was revealed unto Moses is written in the book of the Law Joshua is talking about, a.k.a. the Pentateuch or Torah. There is no other personal or private revelation he is referring to. This is Sola Scriptura.

Where in the Bible is such definition?

@@jayschwartz6131 Queue average Catholic response: "SoLA ScRIpt mEAns Bible ALonE WHerE's tHat iN tHE Bible?!"

What you just wrote is basically the Catholic view. CCC paragraph 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

@@coffeeanddavid so does that mean there could be other definitions as well besides Sola Scriptura because certain truths are not found in it?

I like your zeal, but I am confused as to the whole "it's not defined as other protestants have claimed" part. What Trent is engaging is the version of Sola Scriptura he finds in Protestant churches and apologetics today. If no one brings the Solid Declarations definition into the conversation, it remains beside the point. If protestants don't believe it, there is no point to criticizing it.

Exactly. When we try to downplay or lessen God's Word, the enemy wins.

​@@anthonym.7653 Scripture is Authoritative and God breathed. No denying. The problem is in saying that scripture is the ONLY authority. Because Jesus founded an Authoritative Church ( Mathew 18:17). It is the "pillar and foundation of Truth" ( 1 Tim 3:15) ❤

It's authoritative because the Catholic Church which Christ founded says it is. A book does not have authority by itself.

You must thank the Catholic Church for our having the NT at all.

Well ask JW and Mormons about salvation and what you know. There’s obvious differences. What about baptizing infants? Necessary or no? Early Church Fathers said it was, pretty unanimous but some Protestants deny this. And baptism if it saves like St. Peter says IS essential. Protestants have serious disagreements amongst each other and are all over the map. Women pastors? Divorce? Abortion? Homosexual so called marriage? So these issues show how far apart they are with one another on serious issues It’s not a question of God. God doesn’t need anything from us. It’s a question of humans and these issues show our failings

He is powerful but we are too sinful. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible. But people don't want to submit to the authority of Christ s Church.

God preserved His book by means of the Catholic Church. The monks of the Catholic Church translated and copied by hand, letter by letter, copies of the Scriptures. The original scrolls written by the apostles and early evangelists no longer exist. But by virtue of the Catholic Church who recognized the Scriptures and then copied them and thereby preserved the Scriptures from being lost and forgotten, we have them today. So, yes, God is powerful enough! And He left enough information in His Church for us to understand His book for our salvation. It is easy for us to forget, now that we have printing presses and copy machines, how rare and expensive it was in past ages to possess a copy of Scripture. Individuals couldn't dream of having their own copy. And they probably were unlettered and couldn't read to begin with, so it didn't matter if they had Scripture or not. So what was it for the faithful to do? Simple. They belonged to a group (the Church) that did have copies of Scripture, and they met every week and had Scripture read to them. Notice that Scripture was an aural experience. They heard and listened to the Word, as a group, together. (Definitely not like someone reading a Gideon bible in the loneliness of their hotel room.)

The weakness of the Church is indeed scandalous. They are not allowed to receive and are usually not allowed to do so.

To be fair, that sort of relativism is the foundation of Protestantism.

@@49erfanaticfromnm30 the foundation of Protestantism is Martin Luther finding inconsistencies within the church. Having had to debate Erasmus of the will of man and many other issues. At that time not many Catholics had their own bible they had to go to the church to get scripture. The amount of unbiblical things the catholics taught was a big part in the reformation.

​@Timetravlin His perceived inconsistencies are merely relative. Simply his opinion. He wasn't reforming, he was restructuring the church to his subjectivity.

All Catholics whatever their politics or their social learnings are bound by the CCC and the Code of Canon Law, anyone who goes againts this are out of church, or in some cases are commiting a sin. (abrtn, artificial birth control, sex outside marriage, deliberatly missing Sunday mass, etc. are all sins.....There is no debate about the doctrines of morals in the chruch. The church is not a democracy. Catholics in a state of mortal sin cannot recieve the Holy Eucharist, doing so will be sacrilege and that is a grave sin, a sin that is fatal to the soul. Sins can only be absolved by a priest in the sacrament of confession. Note: Anyone can celebrate the mass, but only people in a state of grace (no mortals sin) can partake of the Holy Eucharist. Mass follows a calendar that would make all masses in any part of the world read the same bible verses and gospels for the day. A church in Greenland will be reading an identical bible verse and gospel with a church in Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. for the day. Mass is celebrated everyday in all parts of the world.

He also says in that same homily that the apostles left both written and unwritten tradition and that both should be rigorously followed

@@rickydettmer2003 He definetly does not subscribe to the obscurity of Scripture That was my point.

Scripture is not obscure of you have already been taught the Gospel through tradition. @@aajaifenn

What do you mean by " the actual strength of the Scriptural arguments"? Are you talking about those for perspicuity or for doctrines Protestants disagree about?

So you hold that Scripture's main doctrines are as clear to christians as God is to humams in general? That's what I gather from your comment...

​@@TheCounselofTrent Good question--and I just edited my above comment heads up. I mean over those doctrines necessary to salvation--the ones that perspecuity covers.

My point is to say that disagreement itself doesn't signal epistemic obscurity. There is at least one case where we don't think it does (e.g. the human community disagrees over whether God exists, and that says nothing as to the clarity or objective strength of those reasons). So disagreement must be replaced or supplemented by other considerations to substantiate epistemic unclarity; it by itself doesn't signal such unclarity.

But it's not the ink on the page that matters it's this semantic web that must be maintained by a living tradition to remain coherent. A random person picking up a Bible normally or especially if they have no Christian tradition they're familiar with and draw out all the proper doctrines. Protestants take for granted all the implicit knowledge of their tradition without recognizing for it to be correct, it has to terminate with some authority that is correct. Saying it's the holy spirit guiding individual believers to the correct interpretation doesn't track with the wide diversity of interpretations, including the liberal way contemporary evangelicals do "exegesis," or the indifferentism that has always plagued protestantism especially Anglicanism. The first protestant revolutionaries also thought that a succession of belief was necessary to have proper interpretation.

What gives? Rather rude, Sam. It is his show after all.

It’s a discussion, not an interview. I’m still watching it but so far I think the guest is being given enough time and opportunity to answer.

I think that is a false dichotomy. Jesus says to His disciples "Whoever hears you, hears me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent me."(Luke 10:16) You have people speaking the word of God. So then the question really is this: How do I know if what this man speaks is from God?(or if he is speaking from his own mind?)

@@petardraganov3716 Yes, the disciples did preach the word of God and thus we must believe what they said. If someone chooses to despise the word of God then they will reject the disciples but as you already said, anyone who rejects the disciples rejects Jesus and anyone who rejects Jesus rejects the One who sent Him. Next you asked an extremely important question. You asked how can we tell if someone is speaking from God or not. We can tell by this: anyone who is from God is a completely new creature. They are nothing like their old selves in any way, shape, or form. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold the new has come." Also you can trust people who love *Christ alone.* John the Baptist said "He must increase; I must decrease." John 3:30

Jesus Christ gave the authority to His apostles who were our first bishops. So yes man meaning Jesus is the authority, the word.

@@jackieo8693 By God's grace the apostles were humble followers of Jesus Christ. They were not power hungry, money loving false converts. Anyone who is from God is a completely new creature. They are nothing like their old selves in any way, shape, or form. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold the new has come." John the Baptist said *"He* must increase; I must decrease." John 3:30

@@micahhenley589 well, since you know everything, please don't become a Catholic. We already have a Pope!

There are far more groups that follow SS than the 3 you mentioned. RCism rule of faith is not sola ecclesia but sola STM-triad which is unique to it, so no, you can't lump them in with EO or Mormons as having same rule of faith. It would be like lumping SS adherents with other religious groups who hold any text to be sole infallible authority as sharing same rule of faith. Obviously they don't.

The thing is, Scripture is a product of the Church. That is, members of the Church (household of faith) wrote Scripture, by, to, and for members of the Church. Scripture was not written to those who were not already part of the household of faith, the ecclesia. Church exists chronologically prior to Scripture making the infallibility of Scriptures dependent upon the infallibility of the Church that wrote them. Scriptures cannot be divorced from the Church that made them. Even though many try to do that, and witness the chaos resulting. @@cronmaker2

So a rule of faith shouldn't be clear to understand? Yet it dictates the clarity of other teachings? Very strange. Magisterial clarity lies along a spectrum (that's why and how doctrine develops and the church grows in understanding). But it's obvious many magisterial teachings are clearly understood by RCs and non-RCs alike. There is no dispute on what RCism teaches on things like baptism, eucharist, loss of salvation, grace, justification, episcopacy, Mary, icons, trinity, christology, the rule of faith (STM-triad), etc. Under Protestantism given SS principles, everything is revisable and open to disagreement according to one's private judgment of Scripture.

@@cronmaker2 "magisterial clarity lies along a spectrum" Why can't scripture's clarity lie along a spectrum? Why should it be clear to understand in every aspect? I don't understand the criticism that's raised here.

@@georgwagner937 Scripture's clarity does lie along a spectrum. RCism (and Trent and Casey here) doesn't argue it's hopelessly obscure or a wax nose. No one argues Scripture talks about Big Bird for example. That doesn't entail Protestant perspicuity though, which argues Scripture is clear and formally sufficient on the essentials (which implies it is not necessarily clear on non-essentials, so it's not as if asserting Scripture is unclear is impious and God-dishonoring contra some Protestant polemics).

@@cronmaker2 do you think industrious persons can attain knowledge about salvation from holy scripture alone? Let's say a Bible lands on an island with 100 people, they read it, they discuss it, the Holy Spirit honors their hard-working hearts and they attain all the knowledge that is contained in scripture, do they now know how to be saved or do they lack something to know how to be saved?

@@georgwagner937 I think this hypothetical is a bit imprecise. What Bible lands on the island? Marcion's? RC/EO one with the deuteros? The NWT translated one of the JWs? One supplemented with the book of mormon? One with asterisks next to any disputed passages? Already the question sidesteps the issue of authority regarding the scope and extent of the canon, which ties to perspicuity. Secondly, "all knowledge that is contained in Scripture" is a very grand claim. I would posit this is impossible as the depths of Scripture are inexhaustible and the church will always be growing in understanding as it reflects. And we actually already had this experiment in history. It was called the Reformation and we see the HS did not choose to guide all those rejecting infallible ecclesial authority to reach doctrinal agreement (even the first generation had Reformed and Lutherans and Anabaptists throwing harsh words at each other), thus this video. Let's put it this way - let's assume SS and perspicuity is true. What would be different about the state of Protestantism if perspicuity was not true? But to the meat of your question, certainly non-RCs can come to correct conclusions on certain teachings. The RC rule of faith provides a principled way (STM-triad) to distinguish opinion from articles of faith. Even if a non-RC is unaware of this principled basis and mistakenly thinks Scripture is sole way divine revelation is given to us and erroneously interprets it to some extent, he can still assent to actual divine revelation (if only in part) in Scripture and have faith. A non-RC might be unable to articulate a principled basis for distinguishing divine revelation from opinion, but that doesn't exclude possibility of faith in the divine revelation in Scripture. Just as some have true faith in God, but cannot give a good argument for His existence.

When

@@cephasmwila7537 over a decade ago. Sungenis is a different kind of cat. As some would say"prickly" google Sungenis vs Hester it'll pop. He touches on some of these topics. The other debater is a Church of Christ preacher.

There is no such a thing as a “Special teacher” since the Holy spirit is the one that teaches 14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Now you say that we need an infallible magisterium for this (which clearly doesn’t exist and it doesn’t interpret itself, that’s why we use hermeneutics) Your infallible magisterium contradicts scripture and early teachings of the Church

@@internautaoriginal9951 Did I quote anything other than the Bible?! Just because you disagree with my interpretation doesn't make yours right. And, in fact, it only proves the point being made that the Bible is not perspicuous. Nice try, though.

@@robertopacheco2997 Something else comes to mind. If the Bible was so easy to understand then there wouldn't be scribes and pharisees, neither of who are authoritive. BUT the "High Priest" was authoritive. Why does he have authority if nothing needs to be explained?

@@internautaoriginal9951 The Holy Spirit taught through the Apostles and later through the Bishops. St. Paul asks a few if they have the Holy Spirit. Acts 19:1-16

You guys always cherry pick Scriptures. You pluck them out of context and make them say what you want. The Bible is not your final Authority, YOU are your final Authority. That's why you all ignore the True meanings meant in verses you quote. Paul is continuing in chapter 4 what he was saying in chapter 3. The point being, what does it profit being a Jew. He's talking about Jewish works, not good works.

@@tabandken8562 kzfaq.infohIAVbck93pc?feature=share

@@tabandken8562 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d6efgcl5ltiqpHk.html

@@tabandken8562 The Letter is addressed to the Romans. There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek. Paul is rebuking the jews because did not believe on him who justifies the ungodly, as Abraham did. But went out their way to establish their own righteousness instead of God’s righteousness. Just read Chapter 3. *Romans 3* _19 "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God._ _20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin._ _21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;_ _22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:_ _23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;_ _24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:_ _25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;_ _26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus._ _27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith._ _28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law._ _29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:_ _30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith."_

This verse does not mean all you have to do is think the right things in your mind and you're locked in or that good works don't matter

How is noting SS adherents disagree on essentials arguing like a liberal Episcopalian? Are all liberal Protestants who interpret Scripture differently from conservative Anglicans not following SS? "Rome on remarried people receiving Communion?" Anyone in mortal sin shouldn't receive communion. "The Death Penalty?" Not intrinsically evil. May be opposed given circumstances. "NFP?" Compatible with church's teaching on contraception. "Papal Infallibility? The Immaculate Conception? The Assumption?" All dogmatic with the qualifiers in their definitions (e.g. no ultramontanism for PI, free to hold Mary died or did not before Assumption, etc). So, what's the current Protestant position on baptism? lord's supper? justification? sanctification? grace? free will? atonement? predestination? loss of salvation? law and gospel? christology (hi WLC)? trinity (hi James White)? images (hi R Scott Clark)? evolution? salvation of RC/EOs? church govt? miracles/gifts? universalism? inerrancy? NPP and FV? authenticity of disputed passages? ordained women? birth control? lgbtq? divorce/remarriage?

Are there some passages of scripture that are obscure or hard to understand? Peter seemed to think so (2 Peter 3:16). If so, do any of them relate to what we could call "essential doctrines"? If so, then you have a good justification for the book's title.

@@TheCounselofTrent it seems the Roman Catholics are the untaught and unstable who distort Paul's teachings! They just outright reject many of Paul's statements in his letters: even substituting Roman Catholic traditions for Paul's traditions in your proof text verse of 2 Thessaionians 2: 15. An Eisegesis application if I ever heard one by you and similar Eisegesis of John 3, & 6 ; Matthew 16. Missing Jesus Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology from the Old testament and 2nd temple Biblical Judaism.

@@TheCounselofTrent “Some Roman Catholics claim that the Scriptures, like any text, need an authoritative interpreter. I think this claim is too broad. There are context-free meanings. These context-free meanings are sufficient to fix the central doctrines of the Gospel. (Moreover, the idea that every text requires an authoritative interpreter would apply with equal force to papal and conciliar writings. Indeed, it would seem to apply to oral pronouncements as well, leading to a vicious infinite regress.)” - Koons, A Lutheran's Case for Roman Catholicism: Finding a Lost Path Home

​@@TheCounselofTrent Who gets to decide what is essential? And who gets to decide what a problem text is? If the proto-Pope who walked with Jesus for years couldn't understand Paul then who can?

​@@theosophicalwanderings7696 koons and Trent's statements are compatible. RCism denies Protestant perspicuity, but doesn't claim scripture is hopelessly obscure and a wax nose (some overzealous RCs may imply that). Scriptures clarity lies along a spectrum, you don't need the magisterium to know Scripture doesn't talk about Mickey Mouse (and if RCism tmrw defined that it did, that would falsify it. As vat2 said, magisterium is servant of Scripture).

@Anomie You need Icons to worship Christ, that’s what Nicea 2 teached

@Anomie yes the papal distinction between latria and dulia is there but it is wrong because it is not apostolic teaching ie Biblical distinction any cult can redefine terms and arrive at a different Christ or a different atonement or a different “worship” read the glories of Mary and realize who is bearing false witness when the papacy says they do not worship it is not a misrepresentation. I am refusing to answer the fool according to his folly and accept the pagan traditions of Rome on their terms

@Anomie these very acts the scriptures define as worship

This is pure blaspheme I am not misrepresenting catholic heresy we are a temple for Christ not Mary these things are inflammatory and should cause great reverence and fear toward the trice holy Godkzfaq.infoP5Xo3ZS0VFM?feature=share

As the mary doctrines rose in importance, the attack on Scripture did as well. Coincidence?

Because confirmation corresponds to growth, while baptism corresponds to life itself. Baptism is more directly neccessary for salvation. Calling upon the name of the Lord presupposes being a justified believer (ie a baptized person).

@DanielAbdallah so, if a person were to die not baptized but going through the Catchesis would they be saved?

Why don't they baptize babies right away after they are born? Why do many catholic families wait months to have them baptized?

@@danielhaas9469 If they desired to be baptized they would be saved, but they would have to go through purgatory first.

@@anthonym.7653 Unfortunately many catholics fell into man-made traditions of waiting 40 or 80 or other number of days, but the Church declared a long time ago that babies should be baptized as soon as possible. From the Ecumenical Council Of Ferrara-Florence 1439-1445 ”Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians.”

People getting things wrong means sola scriptura is not true ?

@@internautaoriginal9951 No, after that bit. What he starts saying at 47:28. Weirdly it took me back a second or two earlier just now when I clicked the time stamp too but then it was fine when I tried again.

@@internautaoriginal9951 Yes, because if some people get things so horribly wrong, then Jesus either didn't die for the unlearned (which is ludicrous) or He expects us to rely on somewhere to make sure we are getting XYZ correctly. Preferably a large community of experts, who keep close to them the interpretations of the best and greatest throughout history, and do their utmost care to keep things clean and tidy for us. I think you know where I'm going.

Third 😂

810th 😏

I ask Casey about that objection at 53:10

The Unity in Catholicism doesn't mean there can't be any disagreements whatsoever and that we all have the same thoughts. It refers to unity in Dogmatic matters and teachings. Also, at no point did Pope Francis say it was OK to bless same sex unions, rather the German Bishops are acting in defiance. In fact Pope Francis explicitly said sin cannot be blessed on this subject. The unity also doesn't not mean Bishop or priests are incapable to splinter or go rogue... they can schism from the Church. This should be evident. *Your religion* comes form a rogue priest that went into schism and splintered form the Church, Martin Luther, former Catholic priest that was excommunicated. As these German Bishops should be, if they stay on this path of defiance.

@@TheCounselofTrent yes, I saw that, but it's not really an answer. Again, there is Pope Francis and the Magisterium on the German synod?!?!?

@Patrick again Pope Francis and the Magisterium are silent on the German synod. Homosexual couples is a Dogmatic matter! Sorry but you can't excuse your way out of this one. And don't red-herring with Luther and the other reformers, because there were heretical popes, like Honorius I and many others.

I don’t know why protestants keep making this mistake. The unity in the Catholic Church doesn’t mean the absence of disagreements, it means there is a mechanism through which disagreements can be settled thereby making it easy to identify those who express ideas contrary to what the church has settled on as being in error. Our critique of protestantism is not simply that there is disagreement. There is disagreement everywhere, even in the early church as far back as the days of the apostles as seen in the book of Acts. Our critique of protestantism is that there is no mechanism that can provide a principle of unity in the midst of disagreements. Our argument is that the scriptures alone can’t be that principle of unity and that God having known that gave us an infallible Magisterium. If the scriptures alone were that principle of unity, then we wouldn’t have thousand of protestant churches now, would we?

What is necessary for salvation and the Gospel are two different things. "When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all." Romans: 12-16

@@petardraganov3716 the Gospel is Christ dying for your sins. You don’t think this is necessary for Salvation?

The way Christ intended. Jesus commanded the Apostles to go out and teach. More of the Bible points to what we shouldn't do instead of what we should do. It was never intended to be an instruction manual Yes we can read the Bible ourselves but we were never meant to interpret doctrine on our own. Doctrine was always intended to be taught through the teaching lens of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. God Bless

I don’t think the Bible is all that vague about doctrine. Jesus pretty plainly says that you have to take communion, you have to get baptized, you need to pray and to fast, and you have to repent of sin. Some Protestant groups have read those verses and come to the conclusion that Jesus couldn’t have actually meant that and pretty much everything other than your mental belief in Jesus’s existence is optional. With respect to the protestants who do believe in a simple reading of scripture, it’s not the Catholics who have a weird, abstract, completely symbolic and detached from reality interpretation.

@@Matt-1926 and who is going to interpret the Church’s teaching?

@@colepriceguitar1153 The church of course. The Magisterium can obviously iteratively clarify its teachings as things become disputed - that's part of development. Magisterial teaching, just like Scripture, lies along a spectrum of clarity. No one disputes for example the RCC teaches loss of salvation or real presence (as one of many obvious examples where Protestantism has many conflicting and differing positions).

@@cronmaker2 Well the Catholic Church will give you different answers on some subjects depending on the time period. Sometimes its a complete U-turn, not just a development.

They are not denominations, but different liturgies, all united with the pope, there is disagreements between common people but not teachings of the Church, everything is clearly stated in cathechism.

@@ninodjuras I implore you to do you research. Ecumenical Catholic Communion, the American Catholic Church, the American Apostolic Communion, the Independent Catholic Church of the West, the Catholic Apostolic Church in North America and the National Catholic Church of America support full LGBTQ equality, affirmation and support in their congregations including same-sex union in marriage, and homosexual priests.

@@Link25 So You under the Papacy and you can do whatever you want ?

@@Link25 thank you for responding so well to that comment. I came back here to do so. But now no longer have to.

If you think this is the only basis for the papacy you show your ignorance

@BobtheBuildest if you don’t know that the Catholic Church bases "papacy" on that, YOU ARE the ignorant one!

@Barsabbas what's the other ones then, from the Scriptures ofcourse

No, because it is explicitly stated in Mathew 16:18, which is part of the canon of the Bible, the Catholic Church canonized.

Because Jesus said so. And because of apostolic succession.

You can't Trust the bible without somewhat Trusting the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the bible.

So in a head to head of protestant man-made tradition where every man is his pope and there's no sense of magisterium and proper interpretation vs the Church, which has a better provenance, a better pedigree, more historical evidence? I'm going to go out on a limb and say the random interpretations of lying virtue signalers 16th century specifically designed to be anti-Catholic with historical claims that have been disproven aren't correct

What you consider God's word is just your tradition that you take for granted. Whatever or God's intention is being properly interpreted there, you got from the Church. In fact, that's where you got your whole Bible

Definitely not in Protestantism, the denominations comprising the same contradict each other (that’s a fact). If you want to reduce it to their common points that they all agree on, assuming there is any, then you’d have an extremely diluted gospel. That’s another fact. But that the Catholic Church “made up, changed and flat out contradict in what it’s taught” is not a fact. That’s just your narrative.

Nobody cares protestant cry harder

Even as a non catholic, it’s clear Trent still won. Gavin did not substantiate the thesis of the debate

Trent won but if you look up the usage of quotes, Gavin was right. Trent’s opening statement was dissapointing. I’m shocked. He is the Catholic James White. He reads great books he finds and doesn’t go to the primary sources. That Ireneaus quote makes Me, David Falk, Lizzy Answers smirk and the other people who actually read Against Heresies smirk. He also quoted Poirier who is an scholar who doesn’t believe that Verse was written by Paul and is 2nd Century. And he quotes Lee McDonald where he is mistaken.

Defend your own position, don't deflect the question with lies. So how can you hold to the clarity of Scripture given what was brought up in the video?

Can you give me where that dogma is in the Catholic church? You protestants, Muslim and the left are the same always lying and twisting the subject

Protestants constantly lie about Catholics, why is that?

That’s utterly false. And my guess is that you know it.

@@masterchief8179 No, Roman Catholicism is trying to build one world religion. Do muslims worship the Father of Jesus Christ?