As always, I welcome constructive discussion in the comments below! I wish I didn't have to say this, but . . . comments that are off-topic or demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the contents of the video will be ignored or deleted. Abuse or rudeness will result in blocking and reporting.

Doug, I’m a Protestant moving towards the Church. Your videos have been my number one source of inspiration. Thank you.

Excellent video! These are some of the reasons I left my “non-denominational” Protestant church after 26 years of Protestantism, and returned to the Catholic Church.

When I was an evangelical Protestant, I realized that there were scriptural verses that we had to ignore. The number of verses I needed to ignore grew overtime. I was also taught the Catholic Church taught a false doctrine of “ works based salvation.” My conversion to the Catholic faith happened after I was blown away by the church’s teaching on salvation and justification- it’s ALL grace. Our calling is grace, our faith is grace, our works are grace. The catechism’s teaching on this topic is the closest match to the 200 verses covering this topic written in the New Testament. However, I love my Protestant brothers and sisters and how they preach to the lost. We need to humble ourselves and learn from them in that regard.

This was the best explanation of Sola Scriptura I’ve heard. I’m tired of constantly defending the Catholic Church against “where is that in the Bible?”

It is amazing to me that those who hold to Sola scriptura ,need their pastors to explain it to them over and over.

Sir, you're one of the soundest minds I've ever encountered in my entire life, and in my career as a logic and philosophy university professor. I saw your other video of a discussion with your protestant friend. I noticed that he couldn't really fault your arguments for Catholicism, even though he said he found them unpersuasive. I guess it's probably because it's not easy to throw overboard a belief system in which one has been brought up. However, with time and studies, I strongly believe he'll make the switch, unless he's a hardliner in anti-Catholicism. Still, the Holy Spirit has been quite capable of taming Saul into Paul.

For most Protestants, sola scriptura is “the Bible and my interpretation and you’re wrong if you disagree with that interpretation” What is astounding is the almost complete disregard for the consequences of this self-imposed infallibility…a divided Body of Christ

I so appreciate how well versed you are in the opposite side - enough to concisely elucidate the claims without resorting to disparaging comments.

By reading the Bible I came to a point of not finding any protestant denomination to be part of. And then an old acquaintance shared with me the second episode of "Mass of the Ages" and the Eucharist triggered me to search more about it and lead me to the Catholic Church.

Brilliant, and thank you, sir. Pretty much all of your points, Doug, and others, can be said to have been swirling around and percolating, though inarticulated, just below consciousness my whole life, since I first encountered that most favored excuse, sola scriptura. They can leave us confident that Catholicism is where the truth is to be found, even if we haven't taken the time to work them out and articulate them as well as you have done here. Ave Maria!

The Catholic doesnt have to limit her source to a certain texts, doesnt have to twist History (even the dark History of the Church), doesnt have to pretend that every teaching of the Church is not involving development.... The Catholic position is easy to defend

I asked Dr. Gavin Ortlund a dozen times, " Can one know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", ( Matthew 26:26). Naturally, he never answered me! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

This is pure gold. Logic should tell any Protestant that thousands of denominations can’t all be correct, and thus “scripture alone” clearly is being merged with different interpretive traditions.

What I like most about Doug's KZfaq channel is how it actually teaches Protestant doctrine! Whenever I want to prove Protestant doctrine, I only go to Catholic sources. But how is that possible for a Catholic source to teach non-Catholic teaching? It's Impossible! Similarly, since the Bible is actually a Catholic book, it is impossible for it to teach anything other than Catholicism. So the REAL problem with Sola Scriptura is that it is an incoherent attempt to use a Catholic Book to teach non-Catholic teaching. Too often the Catholic side concedes the Protestant error that the Bible doesn't teach any one specific form of Christianity, but rather a book of various ideas that you can freely make up your own religion about. But then Christianity is no longer something passed down, and instead a build-a-relgion, which is nonsensical. So the Bible must be about one specific religion, Catholicism, and if so then by definition it cannot teach anything Protestant, and any verse they appeal to is necessarily a misinterpretation. To suggest otherwise is like saying I can take random clips from Catholic Answers and claim it teaches Protestantism.

I've often thought about this I don't see a problem with Sola scriptura. In fact I'm willing to go that route. The explanations from loads of scripture I never had a clear answer of in protestantism but found the catholic explanations just made way more sense.... and it's all there. Authority structure, purgatory, communion of saints, confession... like it's literally all there it's just always glossed over and sometimes downright ignored in protestant circles... with these explanations, history, and logic... and God's grace I became catholic. I really believe if someone would be honest and actually look at the bible and search for explanations it would be hard not to become catholic. It would be willful ignorance at that point.

I had elderly neighbors who were Free Will Baptists … wonderful people. I couldn’t have had better neighbors. They loved Jesus & lived it. They had adult children who were also Baptist but believed in pre-destination … & didn’t even pray for a sick child b/c the outcome was already pre-destined by God. In the same town, I had a Baptist based non-denominational church friend who interpreted “saved by Grace” to mean zero accountability to God in our actions as long as we claim His grace… have a relationship w a married woman (my friend), embezzle money from the company you work for (a retired minister who stated there was no contradiction in his actions & beliefs b/c he was saved by grace). They didn’t draw on God’s Grace & power to be changed, but continued in sin (doesn’t that contradict a lot of scripture?) These examples illustrate to me what you are saying about the varied Protestant conflicting interpretations of scripture … & this is just in the Baptist church alone. I appreciate how well you are explaining these things b/c while I’m growing in a better understanding of the Catholic Church, I’m also growing in understanding of my Protestant, evangelical friends … where they’re coming from. While I don’t believe in their teachings, interpretations, or way of condemning all other religions, I can more easily love them when I understand them… even when they’re telling me I’m going to hell.

Great video! I loved your research. Thank you. I will share you as my source when I argue these points!

Clear and articulated arguments. Thanks for your efforts. May God bless you.

Hello! Learning a lot from your channel. Please do more videos on specific issues, as these not only help strengthen my position as a catholic, but also on my conviction and understanding on how God wants us to properly follow Him and his commandments. Thank you!

Praise the Lord for your testimony brother 👏 absolutely AMEN 🙏

Excellent again! I love your presentations and the way analyze these issues.

Excellent Video Mr Beaumont ..... Thanks for Sharing Your Thoughts and Knowledge

Thorough explanation thanks!

Your reasoning is rock solid, brother. Great video, Doc! 🍻

Thank you for teaching us.

Please debate Dr. Gavin Ortlund on this topic. Others have done so very capably, but this flawed doctrine is the gift to Catholics that keeps on giving.

Wow. I have always been taught that the Church held tradition above Scripture, and in a way, I was ok with this studying Catholicism… because the scriptures are part of the tradition. But I didn’t realize the Catechism put it this way!

Former student of Doug. Wholeheartedly disagreed with him then (mostly because I was a Calvinist) but his videos are top notch, informative, and appreciate his clarity. Find myself agreeing with him more these days on his views. I’ve Been binge watching his channel.

Very informative. Thanks

Excellent well balanced, calm exposition of the debate over Sola Scriptura. I would even argue that one can hold the Church can command things in contradiction to scripture. When God made a covenant with Abraham, it was to be an EVERLASTING covenant (Gen 17) and circumcision was the EVERLASTING sign which seperated the saved from the unsaved; as some would argue baptism functions now. Yet at the first council in Jerusalem, with the final say of Peter, the sign of circumcision was stopped. Nowhere could anyone say Jesus said it was to stop (He Himself being circumcised); nor was there any scripture to back up the New Tradition. We also see this happening over the matter of divorce. Jesus did say that it was God's intention for permanent marriage, and in the New Covenant it should be too. But under the direction of Moses and the Law, divorce was permitted and one would have to say, tolerated by God for a time. There is nothing really magical about the year between 1BC and 1AD that peoples' hearts are now so 'evolved' that such contradictions are no longer needed to lead people toward salvation. That is why the balanced approach you advocate for in Catholicism makes so much more sense in determining God's Will for the direction of His people in the absence of God doing so directly, face to face, upon the Earth.

I try to explain this to protestants all the time, your interpretation or theology does not equate to the infallibility of Scripture. Unfortunately in their minds there are no distinctions between the two and believe the Holy Spirit is guiding their understanding and it’s unfathomable for them to think that they’re getting it wrong. This is my experience without fail. Another element is needed outside of the self. The Church as Doug says doesn’t deny that these element exist such as sacred tradition that guides interpretation of Scripture and a Magisterium that has the promise and charisma of infallibility. Whats more interesting is that these things are not novel. Moses and the Jewish world ordered their religion the same way. They had the torah, they had oral tradition and they had the Sanhedrin. It makes sense that the new Moses, Jesus, would order His Church the same way. Great job Doug, always look forward to your videos.

Salvation is a free gift from Christ alone that none should boast

I have one complaint... You don't post enough videos! Lol.

Great as always Dr. Beaumont! Yeah protestants interpret James 2 their own way. But let me ask you this, have you ever heard a protestant interpreting Matthew 25:31-46? When I ask protestants why are people on judgment day judged according to their deeds, I simply don't get an answer. This passage is just so utterly refuting Sola Fide, they simply cannot give an answer. Do you know anyone who tackled with this one? Thank you!

I don’t feel like I belong to any denomination, is there something wrong with me, brethren?

Hi! Thanks for this! I'm a Catholic but struggling a bit with this issue. Isn't one major difference between Protestantism and Catholicism that the Catholic church declares as dogma teachings that are only loosely based on Scripture, thus "forcing" me to believe things not based on Scripture. Protestants also have these kind of teachings as you say but they won't make my salvation depend on me believing these teachings.

Hello Mr. Douglas are you willing to debate or have a dialogue on this particular topic? We have someone that's interested in chatting with you on this topic.

Can a catholic theological argue that the "canon of scripture" is a secondary issue of doctrine and then hold to the material sufficiency of scripture? I personally think this can not be possible because not all doctrines are found in scripture. The canon being one of them, the order of worship, can we elect more apostles, is the canon closed, when is someone officially married,ect? Not all is in Scripture even materially but I could argue all is in Sacred Tradition except one condition and that would be the "inspired" part of tradition which would be Sacred Scripture. Therefore, I guess we could say that for a time the church was operating sola Sacred Tradition until the first inspired book is pinned. The Sacred Scripture would be a development of doctrine from Sacred Tradition that is the only inspired part. Any thoughts?

0:46 Let's recall, that the Protestant heresy or error, whichever it may be is all what the Catholic Church condemns, usually at Trent, and not all that the Protestant affirms. Obvious example "Lutheranism" - a Lutheran may very well believe things a Catholic not only may believe but even _has to_ believe, like Christ rising from the dead, or God intending the Church to convert nation by nation collectively, and therefore to have the Church as institution with the nation, and laws of the nation state inspired by God's true Church. What the Catholic Church _condemns_ are things like "simul justus et peccator" or "Ecumenical councils have erred" or "there is no Purgatory" or "souls in Purgatory do not profit from Indulgences" ... In the same way, what Session IV at Trent condemns and what Luther affirms by this one of his five solas are not the same.

What do Protestants mean when they say , classical Protestantism never taught Bible Alone ?

Right, it would not matter very much if Catholics adopted sola scriptura: we'd still be having most of the debates we have been having for the last five centuries, debates which occurred among Catholics (ie., when we were all Catholics). (If I recall correctly, there were three dominant views of justification prior to Trent: those held by Scotus, Aquinas, and Augustine.) We would still be arguing about whether justification is by faith alone, apart from works, which in turn depends upon whether sanctification is part of justification (ie., in the sense that, in a Venn diagram, the circle called 'justification' there would be included a smaller circle called 'sanctification') or whether, while not strictly separated, justification and sanctification are distinguished from each other such that justification is by faith alone, the works "component" properly belonging to sanctification. We would still disagree with each over transubstantiation, the proper understanding of the Augustinian views of original sin and concupiscence (among others), whether original sin includes the guilt for Adam's sin, whether concupiscence itself is sin, doctrinal development. And we will certainly continue to debate the relation of scripture and interpretive traditions (ie., whether and to what extent such traditions is fallible and, therefore, subject to correction by the scriptures); that is, whether subsequent synods and councils can correct previous synods and councils. But since the so-called Reformation was sparked by Luther's 95 theses, we should start by asking why it was the 95 and not the 97 theses (published a month or so before the 95), which cause such a stir. After all, the 95 said nothing about justification by faith alone, or scripture alone. If anything, the 97 (being anti-scholastic, pro-Augustinian) contained more seeds of Protestant doctrine than the 95. And even then, he appended to the 97, the following declaration: "In these statements we wanted to say and believe we have said nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic church and the teachers of the church." He felt similarly about the 95.

@ 11:16 Didn't Luther acknowledge that James 2:24 meant justification in the initial sanctification sense? Otherwise why would Luther want to throw James out of the canon if it meant vindication before men as the modern Protestants want to claim it means. Also, how can the modern day protestants go against the founder of Protestantism on this definition of justification yet except Luther's canon?

In regards to 6:04, how do you feel about Lutherans, who are undeniably Protestant but believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

The difference between Protestantism and Catholicism on this issue is that Protestantism (in theory) does not insist on the infallibility of its own interpretations, while Catholicism explicitly insists upon its own infallibility. What this means is that Protestantism allows for course corrections if a demonstrable error has been made, while Catholicism has no such mechanical safeguard against error. Protestants don't take it as a matter of faith that the Christian tradition never went astray. In regard to something like James 2.24, if a Lutheran denomination determines that "Sola Fide" is incorrect, it can change its perspective accordingly (though some individual congregations may reject the denomination's conclusions and break away, of course). If anyone in the Catholic tradition--from Francis to Frankie--comes to the conclusion that the tradition got it wrong, there's no path toward correcting it from within. The Church would have to change its position on the infallibility of the Magisterium before it could change its position on anything that has been clearly instituted as doctrine.

2:29 I was shocked in Austria, surrounded pretty much by Catholics, when a Salvation Army officer gave me the booklet "Sieben Sekten" = "Seven Cults" Along JW and Mormons, you also found 7 D A (my dads then confession) and RC.

5:08 "pretty tough time proving the catholic church actually contradicts the words of scripture" Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

6:03 Historically, Lutherans have upheld the Real Presence. They have tried to show how this does not involve the "Popish" doctrine of Transsubstantiation (let alone Sacrifice of the Mass), but the quarrel between Luther and Zwingli was that Luther upheld and Zwingli denied Real Presence. High Church Lutherans and High Church Anglicans do believe the Real Presence.

As a traditionalist messianic who generally agrees with everything you said in this video, what would be the Catholic argument against my interpretive framework? That is, the church and the synagogue should be synchronized as much as possible, and that there is essentially perfect continuity between the testaments.

I follow your logic which is very good and convincing, but I think one could say that "Sola Scriptura" is dishonest and that's reason enough to not embrace it, neither for Catholics nor for Protestants.

Why, then, do I so often get the impression that whenever I see a toss-up between holy tradition and scripture, holy tradition always seems to win?

If Sola Scriptura was true, then why do we need a man to explain the Bible? And of course, why is that individual's explanation better than the pastor down the street. Why does anyone need to 'church shop' AND why don't they recognize how bad that term is? Church shop.... why not call it what it is, Jesus shop.

If anything "sola Scriptura" leads to Catholicism. You can completely destroy Martin Luther's false doctrine of salvation by faith alone by using sola scriptura. James 2:14-26 completely destroys the heretic! In fact sola scritura destroys a lot of protestant heretical teachings. John 6:51destroyes the protestant heresy that the body of Jesus is not the bread. Jesus himself destroys the protestant satanic and heretical doctrine that the bread is not the body of Jesus. Just read Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24 Protestants claim that they use sola scriptura but in fact they don't even use scripture and they don't care about scripture. They step on scripture and preach whatever they want!

No one can definitely prove Catholic tradition are not inspired by the holy spirit. Catholic Church not being able to prove with visible evidence those traditions to be inspired by the holy spirit doesn't prove that they are not inspired. No one can say that the holy spirit cannot inspire the setting up of Church's tradition. We cannot limit the works of the holy spirit. No one can definitely prove the 26 books of the NT Bible are inspired because none of those books except the book of Revelation claim itself to be scripture. Besides, no one had received revelation that those list of 26 books as inspired. At the same time, no one can say the NT books are not inspired due to lack of visible proof because there is reasonable basis that it must be inspired. It is by the Catholic Tradition that we take the NT books as inspired. Take it or leave it but that's the fact.

➔ All of the following things that Protestants attack can be found in the Bible: Holy images are BIBLICAL and are not "Idols" .... ➔ INTERCESSION OF MARY & THE SAINTS, CARVED IMAGES IN THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD, HONOURING MARY, AND BOWING AS A SIGN OF HONOUR AND RESPECT: (All copied from the protestant version of the bible by Cynthia X) Including proof that saints are not dead, niy tsyjrt sharing in eternal life with Christ. Sacred Images are Biblical & mocking & destroying them is a serious sin, an act of blasphemy: ➨ SACRED IMAGES: Sacred images are not idols and it is an act of blasphemy to attack them: ● EXODUS 25:18-22 God commands Moses to make STATUES of Angels. ● NUMBERS 21:8-9 God commands another image to be made, a serpent. ● EZEKIEL 41:18-25 KJV ➔ EZEKIEL's VISION OF THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD ADORNED WITH CARVED IMAGES: ... 18 And it was made with CHERUBIMS (ANGELS) and PALM TREES, so that a palm tree was between a CHERUB and EVERY CHERUB HAD TWO FACES; 19 So that the FACE OF A MAN was toward the PALM TREE on the one side, and the FACE OF A LION toward the PALM TREE on the other side: it was made through all the house round about. 20 From the ground unto above the door were CHERUBIMS (ANGELS) and PALM TREES made, and on the wall of the temple. 21 The posts of the temple were squared, and the face of the sanctuary; the appearance of the one as the appearance of the other. 22 The altar of wood was three cubits high, and the length thereof two cubits; and the corners thereof, and the length thereof, and the walls thereof, were of wood: and he said unto me, This is the table that is before the Lord. 23 And the temple and the sanctuary had two doors. 24 And the doors had two LEAVES apiece, two turning leaves; two leaves for the one door, and two leaves for the other door. 25 And there were made on them, on the doors of the temple, CHERUBIMS and PALM TREES, like as were made upon the walls; and there were thick planks upon the face of the porch without. ➨ BOWING as a sign of honour / respect: ● JOSHUA 7:6: 6 Joshua & the elders of Israel tore their clothing and lay prostrate (face down on the ground) before the Ark of the Lord. (an OBJECT) ●1 KINGS 2:19 Solomon bows to his Mother. (a human being) ➨ INTERCESSION OF MARY & THE SAINTS IN THE BIBLE ...INCLUDING BIBLICAL PROOF that SAINTS ARE NOT AMONG THE DEAD: The Protestant claim that we are forbidden to speak to / pray to Mary and the saints is NOWHERE in the Bible. In fact, the following scriptures were copied (by me) directly from the Protestant version of the Bible: ... ➨INTERCESSION of a holy person on our behalf: ● JOB 42:8 8 Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams, and GO TO MY SERVANT JOB, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and MY SERVANT Job SHALL PRAY FOR YOU, FOR I WILL ACCEPT HIS PRAYER NOT TO DEAL WITH YOU ACCORDING TO YOUR FOLLY; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. ➨INTERCESSION of MARY: JOHN 2:1 At the wedding feast at Cana, it was Mary who asked Jesus to help the wedding party. ➨INTERCESSION OF THE SAINTS: REV 5:8 The prayers of the Saints are offered to Jesus the lamb. ➨The KING Honours his mother's request: ● 1 KINGS 2:20: Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.” (Jesus is the Greatest King and he also honours his mother's requests) SAINTS ALSO WORKED MIRACLES: ➨ JOHN 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. ➨ PAUL RAISES A MAN FROM THE DEAD: ● ACTS 20:7-12 9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. 10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.20: ● MARK 6:12-13... 12 They went out and preached that people should repent. 13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. ● ACTS 19:12 The Handkerchief of Paul healed sick people: 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. ● ACTS 5:15 The shadow of Peter healed the sick: so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. ➨SAINTS ARE NOT AMONG THE DEAD: AND THEIR INTERCESSION IS BIBLICAL: They share in the ressurrection of Jesus: (Protestants attack Biblical saints while they follow dead reformers) ● MATTHEW 27: 52 -53: When Jesus was raised from the dead Many were raised up with him. 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. ● LUKE 23 v 39-43...Jesus told the good thief "today you will be with me in paradise" ● REV 19 v 14...when Jesus returns he will be accompanied by his heavenly armies of saints. ● 2 COR 5 v 8...Paul tells us that to be absent with the body is to be with the Lord. ● JOHN 11 v 25-26...Jesus said I am the ressurrection and the life, he who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives, believing in me will never die. ● LUKE 1619-30 The story of the rich man and Lazarus show The Rich man, Lazarus and Abraham, all concious and interacting with each other even though they have physically died. ● LUKE 9:30-31 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. (Moses & Elijah were alive, and were yalking with Jesus) ● REV 6:10 The souls of the martyrs are before the throne of God, crying out for justice. (they are conscious and actively petitioning God) ● HEB 12:1-3 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, ● MATT 17:1-13 ...At the Transfiguration of Jesus, he is seen speaking to Moses and Elijah, further showing that Holy ones of God are not among the dead. ➨HONOURING MARY: LUKE 1:48: All generations will call Mary Blessed. We Catholics are the ones who call her the BLESSED Virgin Mary and treat her accordingly. RELICS OF THE SAINTSS ● 2 Kings 13:21 The Bones of Elijah revived a man: 21 And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet ● ACTS 19:12 The Handkerchief of Paul healed sick people: 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them. ● ACTS 5:15 The shadow of Peter healed the sick: so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. ● MARK 6:12-13... 12 They went out and preached that people should repent. 13 They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. (the use of oil, a material substance was used to heal people) ➨NOWHERE does the bible permit protestants (or anyone else) to Scrutinize & monitor the prayers of other people, nor to judge their sincerity or their salvation. Protestantism does not come from Jesus. It began with Martin Luther in 1517 & exists Only to oppose the Catholic church which Jesus founded 15 centuries B4 the protestant revolt. They only know & accept the PARTS of the Bible that suit them and they do not have an accurate bible either.

The rule-of-thumb for interpreting the Scriptures is to always compare scripture with scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16&17. "ALL Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Many Roman Catholics, as well as Protestants, have established church doctrines based on one, two, or some scripture verses, without comparing ALL of the other pertinent scripture verses with each other. An example would be the difference between the works of the Law (for one to attain right standing with God) spoken by the Apostle Paul in his letters, and the works spoken by the Apostle James in his letter, the manifestation (fruit) of one who lives by faith.

Scripture alone is definitely a problem when it comes to dogmatic teachings regarding the blessed mother. One could argue other disagreements are about interpretation. But since there is nothing specific in scripture in relation to the assumption of Mary, or the doctrine of the immaculate conception, then scripture alone as the sole rule of faith is definitely a problem. Luckily for Catholics, scripture doesn't teach scripture alone.

Im a Protestant. Id like a time machine please.

I have discovered that one must be a a protestant to be a better catholic in future.

No, not every Protestant holds to Sola Scriptura it's a popular misunderstanding by Roman Catholics. Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed truly hold to Sola Scriptura this is because they also study Church history which helps interpret the Scriptures.

I'm Catholic, and I affirm Prima Scriptura.

I am glad you like discussion. So do I. I promise to be respectful. But I cannot agree with the view that all RCC teaching are in scripture. Many are not. Now yes there are differences and having a youth pastor is a human tradition. But it does not go against scriptrue. But when a human tradition is the opposite or does against scripture. Than that is a false teaching. Start off with a small easy post to show the RCC puts it self above scriptrue. Even though they say they do not. So here. 1Timothy 3:1-7 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. So first A bishop can be married. But in the RCC that is a false teaching. So the RCC places human tradition on the Bishop cannot marry. Now if a Bishop does not have a wife for other reasons not a problem. But to demand that the Bishop must not marry. That is placing tradition above scripture. Second A Bishop must be a good person . But RCC Bishops fought in wars slept with Whores and murdered people. But they are not removed that is putting human tradition above scripture. So Bishops including Popes who operated orgies and went to war on other RCC how can that be anything but a rejection of the Bible as any real authority. Next point. Jesus said : Matthew 5:43-48 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. But the RCC instituted the inquisitions to route out the enemies of the church by torture. To kill the enemies of the church. So the RCC has put the human traditions above scriptrue. The Pope is not in scripture. But he is made the ruler and could do what he felt. So wicked men were in charge of the Roman Catholic Church. Not GOD.

Once you realise biblical epistemology lies on the living witness. 2 or more. You don’t have much of choice but accept the Catholic Church

Solo Magisterium.

If a Catholic believes in only scripture, and not 2,000 years of apostolic tradition. As well as the New Covenant (Eucharist). Well, that’s just sad.

Question, the passage in James, did you quote it in it's entirety? Or just part of it? Because I seem to remember it reading differently but i have shoddy memory.

By saying that the bible isnt enough show a contempt for the bible. catholic have their doctrines and traditions, which many contradict scripture despite you saying they dont. One more thing, catholics assume that when the NT says "church". what makes them think the writer was referring to the catholic church, which wasnt around for another 400 yrs.

There are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, not hundreds, because each non-denominational church is its own denomination.

Luther's approach to biblical interpretation cannot be separated from his convictions about the nature of Scripture and its place in the life of the church and the individual Christian. His renowned protest against the doctrine and practice of the Roman church arose, as he himself insisted, from his own submission to the teaching of the Scriptures. Faced with instructions to recant all that he had written to that point, Luther told the emperor, the Imperial Diet, and the representatives of the Vatican assembled in Worms in April 1521 that he was bound to the text of Scripture, which he considered to be the word of God: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by evident reason -- for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves--I consider myself conquered by the Scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience is captive to the word of God." ---- Martin Luther

But doesn't the Catholic Church Deny Gen. of god creating in 6 literal days. They do teach evolution.

Lutherans believe that communion is the body and blood of Jesus, I also think anglicans do also. I guess they are in the minority most Protestants do not believe in the real presence. So you may want to correct your video on that point

Scripture alone had misled many Christian groups and lose of Souls, return to the True Church of Christ, not created by man, The Church of Christ is Catholic, the Holy Church of Christ is The Church of Fathers of Church of Christ.

Can you give one example of a oral tradition of Paul that is not found in the Scriptures and how you know? BTW- we both know that your church has not infallibly nor officially interpreted most of the Scriptures. Luther was not the only one who believed in "alone". So did many catholics before him. There are all kinds of beliefs among catholics. And that is supposedly with an infallible pope and magisterium.

The thief on the cross took no sacrament. His faith alone saved him in the end. And he was a wretch up till that moment as far as we know. This is one of many instances of Christ confirming salvation by faith alone. You are miss reading the portions of the text regarding sacraments by isolating the verses out of their context. Works are an evidence of salvation that exists, not a requirement for salvation to be granted. Faith alone saves. We do not need intermediaries for confession, purgatory does not exist it’s heaven or Hell only, and the Bible is very clear that anyone that adds to the scripture is in sin.

To broad a criticism. . Council of Trent. .. Indulgences

The protestant doctrine of the "Sola Scriptura" is not at all to say that the protestant view of the Bible is the right and the only right interpretation. Rather, this was and still is what Rome claims. Instead, it simply proclaims that the only and final authority of the saving grace and truth is not of Rome, but of the very Word of God, the Bible itself. It is not about who interpret the Bible right, although it is important, it is all about the final authority of celestial matter. The immediate backdrops of this doctrine was at time the Rome was under Leo X, who, by all account, was indulging himself in his luxury life with his artistic hobby - building St. Peter's basilica by issuing indulgence to the lay people, just to point out one reality, and did not care too much about spiritual life. So the real issue, when it comes to define Christian faith and Salvation, at Martin Luther's time, as well as today's, was and is, Who has the final celestial authority, Rome (Constantinople) or the Bible? Church Tradition (orthodox and protestant church tradition), or the Word of God?

Actually you do contradict scripture. For instance, setting up the pope to be the head of the Church on Earth. Christ is the only head of the Church in Heaven or on Earth. The Catholic Church violates scripture on baptism as well. I do agree there are many denominations that violate James, as well as other scriptures. However, that is because they do not understand the Bible. Secondly, the Eucharist, or Communion, is where the Catholics completely misread John 6. One cannot say, righteously, that the scripture means what they want it to mean. It means what God says what it means, which is very evident in the Bible.

Its the rejection of Sola Scriptura that leads to false doctrines and practices. It has led to the false doctrines of the claims of the papacy, Marian dogmas and purgatory for example. These doctrines contradict Scripture.

Here is evidence that the catholic church is not from God. -Contradicts the bible: -Purgatory is not mentioned once and was made up much later than the bible was written. In fact Paul knew nothing of an intermediate place: 2 Cor 5: “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” -Mary didn’t remain a virgin after having Jesus: Mathew 1: Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Also Jesus had brothers like James and Jude. -Peter was married: “And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.” -The celibate is not biblical: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;” in fact even more: I Tim 4 says that forbidding to marry is a doctrine of devils. -Confession is not biblical: 1 tim 2For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; -Praying to angles, praying to and for dead saints. Not only that this is not mentioned once in the bible, but its expressly forbidden as necromancy in the torah. Its really quite transparent, people would give entire fields for the church to do a mass for their dead relatives not to mention indulgences. And please dont stick kenneth copeland with the rest of us, he is just a plain prosperety gospel heretic. Best regards. God bless

DO YOU DO DEBATES ...YOU SEEM VERY GIFTED TO DEFEND GOD'S CHURCH... VERY GOOD VIDEO...THANK YOU...

A good philosophical inquiry on Sola Scriptural, Sola Scriptura will fail miserably because, the queen of theology will ask which comes first : The Church or The Bible? 1 Timothy 3:15 reveals the verdict.