VV-322) Rm. Cafe Menyerang Orang-orangan Jerami (Review Part I)

Added: 2026-05-25

[00:00:27]Hello. Good evening dear brothers and sisters. It's been quite a while since I've been present in front of you all.

[00:00:34]I completed several dissertation exam sessions including closed exams.

[00:00:40]Then work on some revisions for the dissertation that has been tested.

[00:00:45]After that I went to Palembang. Then return from Palembang to Pekanbaru.

[00:00:51]After that, return from Pekanbaru to Palembang again. Then back from Palembang. I'm a bit unwell.

[00:00:59]Well, dear brothers and sisters, yesterday I received a link to a debate from Pastor Budi Asali, a debate about the Sula Scripture which was held on May 21, 2025. So a day or two ago on TikTok between Pastor Mel Atok and Romo Cafe. And my brothers took the time to watch the recording instead of the debate.

[00:01:36]And because of that, Ladies and Gentlemen, in this brief opportunity I will give a review that is not comprehensive of course because the debate is actually long in duration but ee too much time is spent on technical constraints so that the content is actually compressed to only about 1 hour more but in the recording it takes more than 2 hours, right? So too much time was wasted on the recording. Well, folks, aside from the initial comments on the technicalities of the debate, I 'll just make two comments. The first is related to the rules or technical aspects of the debate. Then the second is related to the opening statements of the two participants in the debate. The first is the opening statement from Pastor Melok.

[00:02:37]Then the second opening statement from Romo Cafe regarding Sola Scriptura. So that's the content rather than the review I'm going to give tonight. Without wasting much time, I will start straight away from the first comment regarding the ee rules and technicalities of the debate. Well, dear brothers and sisters, I have a few comments regarding this point. The first one for ee time distribution structure or time division the theme of the debate I think is clear. his debate about scriptural beacons. Then there is a time distribution of 10 minutes for opening statements for each party.

[00:03:22]Then there is a division of time for the other side sessions. So it's a very well-organized structure. Except there are a few things I need to comment on regarding the technicalities and rules. For example, the first is regarding the opening statement. It's a shame that in that debate the opening statement was only 10 minutes long. Well, Brother, the opening statement cannot be 10 minutes. Why can't it be 10 minutes? Because the opening statement is an opportunity where the debate participant lays down the premises that he will defend throughout the debate. So, the opening statement must contain or must provide sufficient time for a debate participant to have sufficient opportunity to put forward all the premises that he will defend in the debate.

[00:04:27]Because in the following sessions there should be no more new premises. So all the premises that will be used, maintained throughout the debate, must have sufficient time to be put forward, conveyed in the opening statement.

[00:04:48]That's the function of the opening statement.

[00:04:51]Well, 10 minutes is not enough for both the affirmative party accepting solah scriptura and those rejecting solah scriptura to lay out the premises that will be used in the presentation. That's the first one related to the opening statement. Then in the opening statement too, brothers and sisters, each party must provide positive premises.

[00:05:20]for his position. So, for example, the position of the Melatok priest received the Solar Scripture. So, what are the premises used to support suola skriptura or affirm accepting suola skriptura? Then secondly, the Romofe party who refused or the ee party who was in a negative position refused the solution. What premises do you use not only to reject scriptural schools? Because the position of the Roman Catholic Church is not just to reject the scriptura, but to have an alternative.

[00:05:56]So, what alternatives does the Roman Catholic Church accept as counter-alternatives to suola scriptura? Well, in general, I will discuss one by one the content of the opening statements of the two participants in the debate. But as far as I heard from Pastor Melok, Pastor Melok gave two premises to support Sola scriptura. Meanwhile, Romo Cafe's opening statement is entirely more of an attack, attacking the scriptural voice but not paying much attention to what his alternative position is. Well, we already know that the alternative position accepted by the Roman Catholic Church is not only the Bible, but also sacred tradition and the magisterium. So, later we will look at several verses used by both Romofe and Pastor Mel Atok in the debate. But my point is that it's not enough time.

[00:07:12]10 minutes is not enough. It should be at least 20 minutes or 30 minutes. Then after that they have a question and answer section, crossfire and the question and answer is usually intended to clarify, for example in the opening statement there are statements by Pastor Mil Atok that are unclear. Well, that was clarified there, asked there. Or in the opening statement from Romo Cafe, there are things that need to be clarified, need to be made clear.

[00:07:41]Well, that's the question asked there.

[00:07:43]So, the crossfire in the form of questions and answers from both participants is intended to clarify matters that are considered not yet discussed but should be discussed in the opening statement or that have been discussed but are unclear or unclear. That's the function of the question and answer session. Well, I haven't commented on that side tonight. Then after that, there's the ribattels side, what's the name of that side? ee rebuttals from both the affirmative and the opposing sides to the solar scriptura position. So, if you are having a formal debate, it's not just about dividing the time, there's time for opening statements, there's time for questions and answers, and there's time for rebuttal. It all has a purpose. and a debate participant, especially the moderator, must understand the substance of each session. So because tonight I will only comment related to the opening statement, for me the opening statement, especially the time allocation, is not enough, although it is good enough to accommodate a small number of premises that must be used in the debate related to ee related to sola scriptura. Then the second is still related to the technical aspects of the debate. Ee, in the debate, Pastor Melatok was the first to give a presentation for the opening statement, yes, and that was appropriate because in a debate the issue must contain a yes or no answer. So there can be no ambiguous answers. So the issue being debated must have a yes or no answer. Well, in the formulation or in the distribution of material allocation in the debate, the party that answers yes or the party that answers affirmatively, takes the affirmative position which must be the first to give the presentation and I think that has been accommodated in the debate. Then the following is still related to technical matters, brothers and sisters. Using TikTok is indeed a problem and it is proven if you watch recordings, for example, from whatever source I showed you here, you will spend a lot of time in the beginning because Pastor Melatok is apparently not tech-savvy when it comes to using TikTok. So there's about 10 or 15 minutes wasted just watching them mess around with TikTok. Well, that's actually inefficient and ineffective for a debate. And that's true if you use TikTok because TikTok was n't designed for people to debate formally. TikTok is a medium for people to chat informally. And that is why, brothers, despite the propaganda of our brothers and sisters from the Catholic Church. Oh, I don't dare, I don't dare. Romo Kafe has repeatedly insisted on arguing with me and it has to be on TikTok. I refuse. I'm not refusing to debate. You know, on this channel, since Patrick Allegro appeared, he has been continuously bombarding Protestants one day until now, on Facebook there are dozens of posts only discussing Protestants. That guy is obsessed to the point. He has no other topic to discuss and tell the public about other than attacking Protestants. Well, that's an unhealthy obsession for the psyche. Yes.

[00:11:37]So, I'm not averse to debate. In fact, I challenge there to be that debate and a formal debate. Well, the option for the debate to be conducted online or ee online in the network is not the medium for me, TikTok is not accommodating.

[00:11:59]It's not very accommodating. That's one more time it's a medium just for people to chat informally. Well, people have been holding debates via TikTok all this time. Y would like to call it a debate but I don't consider it a formal debate. It is an informal debate or exchange of opinions, an informal exchange of thoughts. Indeed, TikTok does not have a feature for a formal debate. And you can see it from the appearance. The view is landscape, yes. eh landscape e not portrait landscape yes and it is not good for the appearance of a formal debate the appearance of both Pastor Melatok and ee Romo Cafe in the debate the conventional media is via Zoom or I have debated several times once or twice using Streamyard and it looks very good in the debate. So it's just a technical issue. This means that if we want to have a debate that is convenient, comfortable, and good for both Protestants and Catholics, let's use Zoom.

[00:13:13]That's much better. The features are very supportive. In fact, not only does ee support it, but during this time, people have been delivering lectures online using Zoom. So Zoom was designed for educational purposes. be it online lectures or formal debates of that kind. And you see, there are a lot of formal debates taking place out there, especially in western countries, where they use Zoom or Streamyard because their features are very supportive. And that's why, ladies and gentlemen, before I offer any further comments regarding the substance of the debate, particularly regarding the opening statements of the two participants, I would like to invite Father Cafe once again. If you still wish to debate with me, let 's use Zoom. If you insist on using Zoom, I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in using Zoom because of the technical difficulties evident in your debate with Pastor Melok. Even Pastor Melok himself in the debate when he was busy fiddling with his TikTok because he didn't understand anything about TikTok, he wasn't too familiar with the features of TikTok and because of that he wasted too much time Pastor Melok said yes I'm not technologically illiterate in using TikTok but because Father Cafe wanted to be on TikTok that's why he served him and the result was too much time wasted in vain people waited too long when this started just for them to fiddle with the features instead of TikTok just wanting to get people in ee Pastor Melatok needs about 3 to 5 minutes. Well, 3 to 5 minutes in a forum like that, that's a waste of time. That's why I don't want to be on TikTok, folks. That's why I don't want to be on TikTok. So, brothers and sisters, for Father Cafe, whom I love in the category of fellow human beings, Father Cafe is not a brother in faith, okay? The faith of the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian faith. That's faith that goes a long way. That's speaking honestly, not meant to be offensive.

[00:15:43]Speak honestly as it is. The faith of the Roman Catholic Church is not the Christian faith. Instead, the brothers of the Roman Catholic Church, both the clergy and the faithful, must be called to repent and abandon that faith. It is a distortion of the Bible, a distortion of Christianity itself. Well, Brother Roma Kafe, if you want to have a serious debate, you have to have a debate unless you just want to challenge me. But if you're serious about debating, I'd encourage you to do so via Zoom.

[00:16:19]Yesterday's debate was very good because there were rules, there was a moderator, and the theme was also quite specific for us to be in a debate. But the media does not accommodate the interests of the debate itself. And as I said earlier, there's too much time wasted on technical issues that, unfortunately, don't need to exist, that don't need to exist if you use conventional media like Zoom. Yes, so for those of you who are watching my review comments, my review tonight is from both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant side.

[00:16:59]Please convey this to Brother Romo Cafe. I have seen his debate with Pastor Melatok. Hey, so if you want to argue with me, because I've seen you keep bothering me several times and I 've challenged you too. If there is to be a debate against me, whether about Sola Scriptura, whether about the papacy, whether about the Marian Dogmas, let us discuss and agree on that. Let's use Zoom.

[00:17:28]We agreed on a suitable time, which is eeel, comfortable for Father and also ee according to my schedule. I have nothing to do. Let's take the right time for the two of us. agree on the rules, agree on the theme, who the moderator will be.

[00:17:46]Then we use Zoom, a conventional medium. Then let's debate regarding Protestantism versus the Roman Catholic Church. Or if you want because I will finish my studies in June. If you want to argue onside, I'm ready, I'm coming. You don't need to pay me. You don't need to. I will pray that there will be funds to come and there will be debate onite. So for me, if you want to debate online, that's fine, but use Zoom. It's a suitable medium. That's very good for ee to have that debate. That's if you want to argue. It's not just about being stubborn, the important thing is to challenge yourself.

[00:18:34]Or if you want to go onside, is there a church organization or a campus or ee is there a church that wants to hold an onside debate.

[00:18:47]Go ahead, I'm coming to formal academic debates and you don't need to pay for me. I will come at my own expense for the debate. So that's what I want to convey regarding the technicalities and rules of the debate. So far, I see that from a technical perspective, the overall time distribution rules are good, except for a few critical notes that I mentioned to you all earlier. So, regarding the opening statement, ladies and gentlemen. I said earlier that the opening statement must be an adequate opportunity for a debate participant to have sufficient time to put forward all the fundamental premises that make him or her convinced of a position or convinced to reject a position. Well, in this case, the opening statement from Pastor Melatok. Pastor Melatok received solah scriptura. This means that there should be enough time for Pastor Melatok to put forward all the reasons for the sufficient premises, ee premises, which are the fundamental premises for accepting and affirming suola scriptura. Em, to be fair, brothers and sisters, I was not very satisfied hearing Pastor Melatok's opening statement regarding Sola Scriptura. There are two premises that I detected, I found from Pastor Melat's opening statement. Why did he accept Sola scriptura? But in my opinion, if Father Kafe is careful enough to hear these premises, ee the premises of Pastor Melatok are not strong enough to accommodate, to give kapa to accept this scriptural suah.

[00:20:45]Comment objectively, brother, without intending to demean or minimize what my brother, Pastor Melok, has done. I basically accept those premises, but I do n't think they are fundamental enough to establish a position on solah scriptura. The first premise of Pastor Melatok is that all apostles and all prophets use or refer to the principle of sola scriptura. That's the first premise.

[00:21:21]So if you hear the opening statement, that's the first premise.

[00:21:24]Then the second premise, Jesus himself used the principle of solah scriptura and he referred for example to the event of temptation in the desert where when Jesus was tempted, Jesus was always written, written, written. So Jesus appeals to the authority of scripture to resist temptation. Those are the only two premises.

[00:21:52]So, why did I say that those two premises were not convincing enough?

[00:21:57]Brother, if you use both premises, the question remains unanswered. Why? Why? So, both premises only talk about the fact that the prophets and apostles including Jesus referred to the principle of the sculptural solah. It just talks about the facts. And it can be established from within the scriptures. Yes. That's why I said earlier that I also accept those premises, but they are not fundamental premises rather than scriptural ones.

[00:22:31]Because if you only use those two premises and I am not saying that the Melatok priest only believes those two premises. I already said the time was too short, only 10 minutes. What do you want to talk about in 10 minutes? So, as far as we have heard from my brother Pastor Mel's presentation, we only find these two premises. So if you only use those two premises, the question of why sola scriptura, why sola scriptura is not answered.

[00:23:07]Because even if the fact is that the prophets, the apostles, Jesus used the principle of cultural sol, the question is why?

[00:23:15]Why is it not answered? So it should be that if you want to establish solar scriptura, you have to start from deontological scripture, the ontological nature or character of the holy book itself.

[00:23:36]that the scriptures were inspired by Theopnustos and that character is not possessed by any other source. The church is not eh Theopnustos. Yes. The churches are not Theopnustos. Oral tradition is not Theopnustos. The only source that Theopnustos had was the holy scriptures. That's why sola scriptural, brothers. So you have to start from the ontology of the holy book.

[00:24:11]Something that is a shame it didn't show up.

[00:24:15]I'm not saying that Pastor Melatok doesn't know about it. But it's a shame it didn't come up in the debate.

[00:24:22]That is an irrefutable, undeniable premise.

[00:24:27]Because even in the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church to this day it says that only the holy book is Theopnustos.

[00:24:39]The oral tradition is not Theopnustos.

[00:24:42]The Church or magisterium is not The Teupnustos. that they believe the church is led by the Holy Spirit. That they believe that the Holy Spirit preserves the oral tradition. That is not the same as Yu saying that the oral tradition and the magisterium are teupnustos.

[00:25:04]There is no extra- canonical, extra-natural source outside or apart from the breathed out scriptures which use the term of the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3 verse 16 breathed out by God. Y has no other sources. The only source that explicitly states that all the writings of Theustos were inspired or breathed by God, inspired by God, is only the holy scriptures. That's why it must be skripturaal.

[00:25:44]Well, then this leads to the question of what is the meaning of solah scriptura?

[00:25:52]Well, I am grateful and I give credit to my brother, Pastor Mel Atatok.

[00:25:58]Thankfully, Pastor Melatok said that defining sacriptura in its concise form of course means that Sol Skripturut means that the holy book occupies the highest authority. Well, before I continue, I have a comment for the moderator. So in the introduction to the debate the moderator said that suola skutura means that the holy book is the main authority. No, that's not the definition of so scriptura.

[00:26:33]So the moderator has implanted the idea of instruments against scriptural suah. The scriptures as the primary authority are not just scriptural. That's another concept called prima skriptura. And that's not that's not the Protestant position.

[00:26:52]The debate is not about whether the scriptures are the primary authority or not. That's primasi skriptura. But the debate is about sola scriptura, the short form, the short definition, the summary of which is that the scriptures occupy the highest authority. This means the church can have authority. Yes. So solputura does not deny the authority of the church.

[00:27:25]Traditions can have authority. Yes.

[00:27:28]Brother Scriptura does not deny the authority of tradition, but the authority of the church, the authority of tradition, the authority of parents, the authority of the government, all other authorities are secondary. In the sense that these authorities are assessed, viewed, believed, accepted to the extent that they are appropriate, consistent, and based on scripture. This means it does not contradict the scriptures. That's solah scriptura.

[00:28:04]Well, that was quite well formulated concisely by Pastor Melatok explicitly in the debate. Well, I said it explicitly because later when Lombok Cafe had its turn to make an opening statement, they made a completely different definition and it was a totally instrumental definition. Totali was not trusted at all by Protestants. This means that the entire opening statement from Father Cafe is an opening statement that is an instrument of Sola scriptura.

[00:28:35]Well, I'll talk about that later.

[00:28:39]Due to the very short time, there was not enough opportunity for Pastor Melatok to develop explanations or arguments related to solah scriptura. Because if you want to establish a positive position on scripturalism, so you build a positive case, a positive argument about scripturalism, you don't just talk about the scriptures having the highest authority. That's the short definition. But now you have to establish the premises that substantiate supporting the definition of the view or what is called the definition of the summary, the overview, the summary, you have to talk about the attributes of the scriptures.

[00:29:33]That the holy book is sufficient, enough, the holy book is necessary, must, the holy book is clear. clear the clarity of scripture or claritas eh scriptural and the scriptures have the highest authority. So it is usually abbreviated with four ee chronim scan yes. S is sufficient, C is clarity, A is authority and N is necessary scan. uh sufficient, clarity, then authority and those are uh the main premises that support what is called solo scriptura. Well, one more time, it takes time, it can't just be 10 minutes, 20 minutes to 30 minutes is enough to establish the premises mentioned earlier, right?

[00:30:30]But because the time was so short, I can understand why Pastor Melatok did not have enough time to develop his position or arguments regarding scriptural issues.

[00:30:43]Well, this is still related to the opening statement from Pastor Melatok.

[00:30:49]Pastor Melatok spends too much time talking about worshiping statues and praying to spirits. So, why is this a problem?

[00:31:02]Brother, I try to provide objective comments, OK? So, even though I am in the same position as my brother Pastor Melatok, once again these comments are not meant to be personal.

[00:31:17]Why is that a problem? It is problematic if the data is not placed in the proper context of the argument.

[00:31:27]So, this is an opportunity for you to speak positively. Why do I accept Sola Scriptura?

[00:31:37]You are not given the opportunity to answer the question of why you rejected the position of the Roman Catholic Church. Those are two different questions.

[00:31:46]You get what I mean? So why do you believe in solah scriptura? In contrast to the question why do you reject the position of the Roman Catholic Church?

[00:31:56]Well, the opening statement is the opportunity to answer the first question. Why do you believe about scriptura? You haven't answered the question of why you reject the alternative, the Roman Catholic Church.

[00:32:12]You haven't answered that question yet. That's later in the ribatels later in the ee opportunity ee rebuttal or ribatel session the rebuttal session later that doesn't appear in the opening statement. The opening statement is an opportunity for you to establish positive premises.

[00:32:35]Here is the biblical evidence or the logic or the philosophical foundation or theological foundation for Sola scriptura. So, it's a shame it's almost half the time.

[00:32:47]So, out of 10 minutes, almost 5 minutes of the Melatok priest talked a lot about worshiping statues and praying to the dead. Yes, I agree with Pastor Melatok on those points. But the context should not go there. Well, then because of that session for you to establish why you are the recipient of sol scriptura, those data are potential. Once again I am careful about using the words I have the potential to become a retiree in the opening statement. That will only become a valid point if later in the ribattel session, when Father Kafe talks about okay, I reject the scriptural surah because the Roman Catholic Church believes this, well, in that context, you can bring that data as one or part of the rebuttal to Father Kafe's position. This Cafe Father has n't spoken yet.

[00:33:54]Father Kafe hasn't spoken yet, right? The first Reverend Mel Atok, Father Kafe, has not yet stated his position.

[00:34:03]So the data that took up almost half of the 10-minute time allocation had the potential to be redacted in the opening statement of my brother, Reverend Mel Atok, in the debate. Well, that is related to the opening statement from Pastor Melatoki.

[00:34:23]Then secondly, you are related to the opening statement from Romo Cafe.

[00:34:30]Brothers and sisters, I actually had a strong suspicion even before I heard what Father KFEM said about his understanding of Sola Scriptura, I had a strong suspicion that as soon as he opened his mouth he would immediately strum and that was true, as soon as Father Kafe was given the opportunity for a moment, I had a drink first.

[00:35:01]As soon as Father Kafe was given the opportunity to deliver his strum, he summarized Sola Scriptura into three aspects of understanding. First, the summary is sola scriptura, which means the holy book is the only authority for the instrument, Mr. Romo Cafe. That strumen no scriptura does not mean that scripture is the only authority.

[00:35:32]In his opening statement, Pastor Melatok said that sola scriptura means that the holy book has the highest authority.

[00:35:42]So it doesn't mean that the church doesn't have authority, it doesn't mean that tradition doesn't have authority, it doesn't mean that councils don't have authority, it doesn't mean that confessions of faith throughout history that have been formulated throughout history don't have authority. No.

[00:35:58]All of them have authority. as long as it is appropriate, consistent and does not contradict or submit to the truth of the holy scriptures. The holy book is a norm or norming norm. The norm by which all others are measured. Confessions of faith, churches, church government structures or government or parental authorities, all of these are normata, standards that are measured. Measured by what? measured based on yes the scriptures.

[00:36:37]So to summarize the solah scriptura as holy scripture as the sole authority is a straw man is really a caricature of the Protestant position. And brothers, why did I say earlier that I had expected that as soon as he opened his mouth he would immediately start screaming?

[00:37:00]Because that is what our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters understand. Patris Alegro understands that.

[00:37:07]Netizens who didn't go to school, who don't understand anything, whose thumbs are faster than their brains, understand that. Catholic clergy understand that.

[00:37:17]So, it was even told in front of their eyes, in their own ears. Solah skriptura means the holy book of the highest authority. Once they open their mouths SPura means the holy book is the only authority. Did I hear your own words?

[00:37:35]Is it saying the holy book as the highest authority in the highest authority, the only highest authority and saying the holy book is the only authority? Are the two statements the same or not? Not the same.

[00:37:52]it's like heaven and earth.

[00:37:55]Not the same as Mr. Romo Kafe.

[00:37:59]So you stromen you don't understand. That is why the entire opening statement of Romo Cafe is a false opening statement.

[00:38:10]Brothers and sisters, you judge a person based on who they are, not on winning or losing. It's not, it's not, it's not. So don't get me wrong. But objectively, because in a debate, what you judge is the strength of the argument. The data is valid or not, the arguments are sound and valid, valid and sound or not.

[00:38:31]This means that if someone commits a fallacy in a debate, especially the whole section of the session rather than the opening statement, you have already lost the debate.

[00:38:46]You've already lost that argument. You have lost the debate and have no arguments.

[00:38:53]Because if it's Pastor Melok, I have n't commented on the pastor's rebuttal. If Pastor Melok is astute in reading your arguments, Pastor Melatok can just say that in the first 10 minutes of Father Cafe's speech there were no arguments against suah scriptura because the entire 10 minutes were filled with misunderstandings of stromen. Well, if you misunderstand, you don't have an argument.

[00:39:18]So you wasted 10 minutes on something that's a caricature, something that people are afraid of.

[00:39:28]Totalistomen.

[00:39:30]Too bad. Too bad. Even though you have enough time to develop the debate into a meaningful conversation, a quality conversation, a meaningful conversation. Unfortunately, Brother Romo Cafe made it into a small talk because he wasted the first 10 minutes of his opening statement by making a stromen on the solah scripttura. That's the first summary. Then the second summary is regarding scriptura which Father Kafe understands is that everything that is believed must be in the holy book. Er, yes, that is true in the sense that the holy book is the basis, the source for doctrine and faith. That's true.

[00:40:20]But if you put it in the context of the first summary, well that's the problem. But I skip the second point. The third point, the third summary is that tradition has no authority.

[00:40:36]What's that? What's the summary, Mr. Cafe Father?

[00:40:41]Who are the Protestants who say we don't believe in tradition at all?

[00:40:45]Who?

[00:40:46]You who think that Protestants don't believe in tradition? Even though it was already explicit in the opening statement from my brother, Pastor Melok, that the highest scriptural authority means that traditions can be accepted as long as they are consistent and coherent in accordance with the scriptures. If it contradicts the holy book, it is rejected and you are not allowed to make it up yourself.

[00:41:20]So scriptura does not mean that tradition has no authority. What the heck?

[00:41:27]We want to explain how long you don't understand. We have been explaining this for years since we started discussing Catholicism versus Protestantism. It's as if this script is a thorn in your flesh, right?

[00:41:40]So we have explained everything that I have said here, even though I have had several sessions on this channel. You can just search for it on the Verbum Veritatis channel in its playlist. You are looking for a playlist about Roman Catholicism.

[00:41:54]You see how many sessions, dozens of sessions just specifically explaining about solah scriptura and you don't understand it.

[00:42:05]That's what I don't understand. Is it really you, sorry, is that really hard to understand? Or you just don't read, don't want to listen to people. You go he in his introduction session Father Kaf said he was 10 years in Columbia. What did you do in your 10 years at Columbia?

[00:42:34]Huh? What's that for?

[00:42:38]Even the script doesn't understand this, you know, understanding something is not the same as believing it.

[00:42:47]If I want to criticize the Roman Catholic Church, I have to read what the councils of the Roman Catholic Church say. What does the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church say? What do the paratheologians of the Roman Catholic Church say? so that I don't get stromen.

[00:43:07]That's why if you follow the sessions at Firum Veritat here, I make formal sessions, I quote from the catechism, quote from the documents of the Council of Trent, Vatican 1, Vatican 2, quote from great theologians who are well known, not those of obscure classes to give you an idea. I'm not making this up, you really believe this.

[00:43:32]Well, you believe this but I don't agree. So the criticism is accurate to the point and hits the target. Well, here you are people in the east, you attack it to the north then you think you attack to the east.

[00:43:45]So take the time to listen to what the Protestants are saying and then think about the implications.

[00:43:56]So, Yos has heard Pastor Mel Atok say that the scriptural prayer means the highest authority of the holy book. So, what are the implications of the highest authority? The implication is that tradition has authority, yes. Does the church have authority?

[00:44:11]Yes. Amen. The government has the authority, amen. Parents have authority, amen.

[00:44:18]And other authorities. But the other authorities that I mentioned earlier, confessions of faith, councils, all of that sort of thing are accepted, evaluated to the extent of whether they are consistent with scripture, in accordance with scripture or not.

[00:44:39]So to summarize the scriptura says tradition has no authority. That's really a lazy person to think, lazy to find out what other people believe, but you criticize other people, attack other people. Well, that's quite ironic, Mr Cafe Romo.

[00:45:02]I really don't understand why this kind of misunderstanding exists. And not just here, folks. I see a lot of Catholic channels on YouTube, both in America and in the Western world, but I don't understand. I've been told they'll be back later. Saptura means the Bible is the only authority. It is already scriptural, meaning the church has no authority. Already scriptura means tradition. Who said that? Who believes that?

[00:45:34]You may criticize Protestants, but you must criticize accurately based on accurate understanding. Ca n't create an understanding of the instrument. Then bring that into what Jesus read about the debate.

[00:45:48]Well, that's very sad, yes, very embarrassing. That was a huge mistake. Well, because of that kind of mistake, you then remember that the entire first 10 minutes were instrumental because he understood the script like that. If you understand the script, then when you attack, you attack somewhere else. The person is safe, you think you hit someone, even though the person is safe. the attack didn't hit because it deviated to another location. So, let 's look at some of the points he brought up after he made a summary, three summaries regarding the previous scriptura prayer. First, he argues that scriptural voices are not enough. Why is it not enough? Because when there is a problem where do we run? Then he quoted from Matthew 18 and quoted from Acts 15.

[00:46:41]In Matthew 18, when there is a problem, you bring it to the congregation. And in the Greek language, Matthew 18, verse 17, uses the word ekklesia, which means bringing it to the church.

[00:46:55]Then the 15th chapter of Acts talks about the first council held by the apostles. So there was a debate about whether the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and ee abstain from foods that ee koseler food ee whether keeping koser food or not included keeping the Sabbath or not was a debate in the practical debate, not doctrine but practical in the early church circles then they met and also included the elders and in verse 28 the ones who decided were the apostles and ee the Holy Spirit and us. We are there, the apostles and elders. So his point, his argument is that if there is a problem it is brought to the church and if there is a problem it is brought to a session, to a council, then it is not suasptura. Brothers and sisters, if you hear that argument, can you see where the rebuttal against solah scriptura is? There is no objection to solah scriptura. Because remember, the scriptural text doesn't say we don't need a church, we don't need a council, we don't need a confession of faith, we don't need it because the scriptural text doesn't say that. I wonder why the first 10 minutes are all instruments.

[00:48:21]So his point is this, scriptural texts are not enough. Because when there is a problem, what is sought is not the holy book, but what is sought is the church. So what? What is his rebuttal to Sulus Keput? Zero.

[00:48:33]Zero. That's a zero point attack on Sul Scriptura. That's the first one.

[00:48:39]Secondly, this point is both ironic and rejects Father KF's own position. Why, Brother? When he said that the script was not enough. Then how did he prove it? Read Matthew 18, read Acts 15.

[00:48:59]My question is, are Matthew 18 and Acts 15 holy scripture or not?

[00:49:04]Scripture.

[00:49:07]So, Yu said that the scriptures are not enough because we know that they were brought to church B. Yes. Where did you get that information from? Got that information from the scriptures. If Matthew 18 and Acts 15 don't tell you that, you don't know about it. You know that because the scriptures tell you. So the irony is that he wants to reject the instrument that the scriptures are not enough, there needs to be a church. But to establish that premise, he needs to go to the scriptures and needs to get information from the scriptures, namely Matthew 18 and Acts 15.

[00:49:42]This means that Father Cafe is not just a stromen, but he put forward a premise that killing oneself is self- killing, it is self-refuting, denying oneself.

[00:50:05]Here we go again.

[00:50:07]Ouch. Well, then on the next occasion he talked about tradition and talked about magisterio.

[00:50:19]And brothers, he started quoting from several verses, yes. For example, he talks about the authority of the church by quoting 1 Timothy 3 verse 15 which talks about the church or congregation of the living God as the pillar and foundation of the truth. Stulos kai edrayona tes aleteias itu di bahasa Greecenya brethren sayanglah Romofe tidak elaborate.

[00:50:49]1 Timothy 3 verse 15 do you use for which argument?

[00:50:54]As far as I have read from Catholic theologians when they quote that verse, they want to say that the church is also involvable, cannot err because the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Well, if it is the pillar and foundation of truth, the church cannot be wrong.

[00:51:13]Because if the church is wrong, it cannot be a pillar of support and foundation of truth. That means another debate.

[00:51:22]You quoted a verse that does not support this debate. No it doesn't fit into this debate. But for your information, I have discussed 1 Timothy 3 verse 15. The church fathers, for example Eusebius, for example Basilius of Caesarea, for example Gregory Nasiansus, spoke of Athanasius as a pillar of truth.

[00:51:48]So, was Athanasius involvable?

[00:51:53]John Calvin commented on the verse saying that the pillar of truth speaks of the function of the church, the role of the church as first of all a proclaimer of truth, as what is it called? Talk about the function of proclamation rather than truth. So John Calvin said that truth is preserved by the instrumentality of preaching. The task of the church as a preacher is to preach the truth and defend the truth and guard it as a faithful guardian.

[00:52:31]Why? Because the imagery of the pillars and foundations of truth was an imagery that was well known in the first century.

[00:52:41]What is the function of pillars and foundations? Supporting the truth. It means lift up to elevate the truth. Why do you lift up to elevate the truth? So that it can be seen. So, how can the truth be seen? By the instrumentality of preaching, by the instrumentality of proclamation, by means of preaching, by means of proclamation, proclaiming the truth. In that way, the world sees the truth or the world knows the truth. But not only that, the function of pillars and foundations is to protect the stability of an arch, a building.

[00:53:24]So the function of the church as a pillar and foundation of truth is to be a faithful guardian, to be a faithful guardian of the truth. If the truth is distorted, the church must declare that this is wrong, this is deviant, this is heretical, this is not in accordance with the scriptures. Faithful guardian, support and pillar of truth. If someone attacks the Christian faith, then the church has a duty to provide an apology, to provide the defense of faith, to defend the faith. Not defending God, don't be mistaken. Defending the faith. Faithful guardian of truth. That's 1 Timothy 3 verse 15. So that verse has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church's claims about the church being infallible. Rome immaculate is [ __ ]. There is no basis for that at all.

[00:54:19]But it's a shame that I said earlier that Father Kafe only quoted that verse but he didn't elaborate. But in case you want to quote that verse for the purpose of saying that it talks about the infallibility of the church, I'm sorry that the verse doesn't talk about that. Well, the verse that they most often quote to talk about the church, eh sorry, talking about tradition is 2 Thessalonians verse 15 and that was quoted by Father Kafe to talk about ee not only the scriptures but also tradition, he even called it the two lungs of truth, namely both the oral and the written. He quoted it from 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 15. Therefore stand firm and hold on to the teachings and words of the teachings there paradoxically. Yes, from the word paradosis which means the traditions that you received, the teachings that you received from us, both orally and in writing. Ee Romo Kafe itu gesis. If you quote the verse it says that not only holy books but also oral tradition are needed. Why essay? First, it's not just the esegesis but also the instruments. Stromen because of the question of scripturat remember yes solo scriptur is talking about the formal principle for the holy book as one totalit.

[00:55:49]So it seems as if the script does not deny that during the process of writing the scriptures when Paul was alive, the New Testament was still in the process of being written. It cannot be denied that during the process of writing the holy book, the message of the apostles or what is called the apostles' message was conveyed orally. This cannot be denied because the holy book was still in the process of being written.

[00:56:14]But what is stated about scriptura is that both during the process of writing the scriptures and after the scriptures were written, the apostles' preaching, both orally and through writing, as Paul said, was only different in terms of instruments but the content was the same. The content is the same because if you read starting from verse 13, what is Paul talking about, Father? Don't quote random verses. Verse 13 Paul talks about how God chose you from the beginning to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. Then verse 14, He carried you through our gospel. So the traditions, the verses that are there in the traditions that Paul talks about there, what are they talking about?

[00:57:10]talk about the gospel, talk about the gospel. Well, the Gospel that Paul preached was preached orally, but also in writing.

[00:57:21]What does it mean? The content is the same. The content is the same, the medium is different. The same content is delivered orally and in writing. And that's not the oral tradition you're referring to. It means you are doing equivocation. Because when the Roman Catholic Church talks about oral tradition, it is not talking about the Gospel. It talks about the words of the apostles' teachings that are not in the scriptures. This means that the content is different but has been maintained by the church throughout history. This means you are doing equivocation by quoting 2 Timothy chapter 2 verse 15. That's equivocation. equivocation is related to the term tradition. So, just because Paul uses the term tradition does not mean Paul is talking about the oral tradition you are referring to. The oral tradition you are referring to is something else, something other than what is recorded in the holy books. Meanwhile, 2 Timothy 3, eh 2 Timothy 2 verse 15, you read starting from verse 13, it doesn't talk about anything else. Talking about the same Gospel, but preached orally and in writing.

[00:58:37]So the content is the same, while your oral tradition has different content.

[00:58:41]The content is different, you know. The contents are various. The one you summoned was the spirit. Go around kissing the statues. Go mix cement then sand then become a statue. Then you kiss it or go carve it into wood and then paint it so it looks good. You go kissing, that's the tradition you mean. Paul didn't talk about that, you know.

[00:59:00]So you quoted the verse out of context first. Second, you are doing exegesis by inserting the anachronistic idea of ​​the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church into the verse just because it says the same thing just because it uses the word tradition.

[00:59:16]Then thirdly, you do equivocation. So you made a lot of fallacies when you quoted 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 15.

[00:59:29]The verse does not speak of the oral tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, in fact, this is the fact that until now, for more than 2000 years, the Roman Catholic Church has never officially announced this tradition of the apostles of Jesus which still exists in the Roman Catholic Church, but is not in the Bible.

[00:59:54]You don't have that.

[00:59:57]It means you just made up a story saying you have an oral tradition, but you don't know what an oral tradition is. You only know when the magisterium says it's tradition. This is tradition. The magisterial question is where does that tradition come from?

[01:00:11]You don't have any reference. This means it is arbitrary in nature. As you please.

[01:00:16]If you like this, you say it's tradition. If you don't like it, you don't say this. And not only that, brothers. This is even more deadly if you want to bring it into debate. The Roman Catholic Church itself has been proven to have cancelled things that were claimed to be traditions and even those that had been in place for centuries were suddenly cancelled. Oh, that's not a tradition. I'll give you an example, for example the slogan about extra ekklesia nula salung.

[01:00:48]Outside the church there is no salvation.

[01:00:50]And since the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church has used that dictum to say that if you are not Roman Catholic, you have no salvation. For example, the Unam Sangtam document was written by the eighth Pope Bonif Ya. The Undangtang document says the date is November 18, 13.02.

[01:01:14]Therefore we declare and announce that every human being for every human creature is subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff. So it is a necessity for salvation for you to submit to Roman Catholic authority. That's the application of the extra eklesi nula salem.

[01:01:43]So, you can only be saved if you submit to the authority of the Pope in Rome, the bishop in Rome.

[01:01:51]Now the question is, what did Vatican 2 do?

[01:01:56]What does Vatican 2 do in the Lumengentium document?

[01:02:02]Lumenentiu said, "Even those of you who are non-Christians, Muslims, and even atheists have the opportunity to be saved." Including Protestants are called brothers and sisters in God, called to receive valid baptism, called Christian brothers and sisters.

[01:02:24]And it is even now in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. This means that Vatican II and the current Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church have diverged significantly from the assertions of tradition claimed in the Roman Catholic Church since the Middle Ages.

[01:02:51]That's a huge shift.

[01:02:53]One more example and you know this was in 2025 last October, Pope Leo the 14th said that the tradition of Mary comediatrix and coridemtrix was not appropriate and was rejected and annulled. You know that since the Middle Ages there has been a lot of devotional literature about Mary, the previous Popes carried out this chorionic devotion a lot.

[01:03:29]Then the current Pope said, "No, that's not tradition." I si I si because you have an objective basis.

[01:03:40]So, if the magisterium yesterday said it was a tradition, the current magisterium says it is not a tradition. So you will continue to revise what you call tradition. Why do you keep revising?

[01:03:55]Because you don't have the oral tradition you claim.

[01:03:59]You just claim something, but you don't have the goods.

[01:04:04]That's just the title of the claim.

[01:04:09]Why the Roman Catholic Church's claim about oral tradition is a soap bubble claim. Brother, if you play with washing soap on YouTube, the bubbles are big, but when you poke it, it bursts. That soap bubble claim has no basis.

[01:04:27]So using two Thessalonians doesn't help you. In fact, it could even endanger you, leading you into a very, very muddy ditch. Yes.

[01:04:36]Then he talks about the magisterium quoting from 2 Timothy.

[01:04:43]2 Timothy, the second chapter, the second verse, and the third chapter, the 14th verse. What have you heard from me in front of many witnesses?

[01:04:55]Entrust it to trustworthy people who are also capable of teaching others. Then 2 Timothy 3 verse 14. But you must hold on to the truth that you have received and believe in and always remember the person who taught you. He said, "This is the magisterium." Ah, Father. There is no magisterium in the New Testament. There is n't any.

[01:05:21]including the New Testament does not have a specific office of bishop.

[01:05:27]It was later, up to the fourth century, that Jerome Jeronimus still said that presbuteros and episkopos were one and the same office. only the name is different. The New Testament only recognizes two positions, namely the position of presbuteros, which is also known as episkopos.

[01:05:50]So, Prisbuteros is episkopos, episkopos is presbuteros, and diakonos.

[01:05:57]And the evidence is very much. 2 Timothy, Titus chapter 1, Acts chapter 20.

[01:06:04]So Acts chapter 20, Paul meets with the elders, presbuteroi from Ephesus. But in the 28th verse he calls them the episkopoi. So presbitoroi, presbuteroi are episkopoi.

[01:06:24]Philippians chapter 1. In his greetings, Paul only greets two offices, the episkopoi and the diakonoi, assuming that the episkopoi are the presbuteros. In the story of the Apostles, chapter 14, including chapter 15, which was quoted earlier by Father Kafe. When the apostles established churches in each city, what did they do?

[01:06:47]Oh, they didn't catch the bishop.

[01:06:49]Appointing them does not elevate the bishop to a separate position.

[01:06:53]What did they lift? They elected elders in every congregation, in every city. You can read that in Acts 14 verse 23. And in each congregation, the apostles in each congregation, the apostles appointed elders for that congregation. And after praying powerfully, they handed over the elders to God who was the source of their trust. including at the council in Jerusalem.

[01:07:26]The apostles did not convene with the bishops as a separate office. Who are they calling?

[01:07:36]The ones they called were the elders.

[01:07:38]That's explicit in the text.

[01:07:40]For example, you read verses 4 to verse 6. When they arrived in Jerusalem they were greeted by the congregation and by the apostles and elders.

[01:07:49]Then chapter 15 verse 6, then the apostles and elders met together to discuss the theory.

[01:07:58]So the first council did not have a bishop as a separate office but was attended by the apostles and elders. Peter himself in the first verse of 1 Peter chapter 5 calls himself what? not as a bishop in Rome, but calling himself Yes. Sun presbuteros, fellow elders, Coelders calls himself an elder.

[01:08:30]Brothers, the position of Father Cafe, the position of Father Patris Allegro, the position of these Catholic clergy have no basis. I don't have a session on Prisut yet. In fact, the position of pastor, the position which is a special elder, the pastor is a shepherd is a special elder, yes, that is actually in the New Testament. So it is not the magisterium that continues the ministry of the apostles. The Magisterium is not in the New Testament. In the second century there was no magisterium.

[01:09:02]What existed were the apostles, or elders who were appointed, appointed by the apostles to shepherd every congregation in every city at that time. So whose right is it to teach? Rights of elders. It is not the bishops, not the clergy, not the priests of the Roman Catholic Church, but the elders, the pastors who have the right to teach. You have no right to teach. So don't claim something you don't have. You're just making claims. You can debate me on that point.

[01:09:37]Cafe Father. You can debate me on that point. You have no teaching authority. You just claim it. Those who have the authority to teach are the elders. The elders in particular are the pastors. What are the priests called? Successors of the ministry of the apostles.

[01:09:59]Yukip from 2 Timothy, quotes from the pastoral letters. Timothy and Titus were commissioned by Paul to appoint elders in the places where they served. That's why Paul said, "Don't be quick to lay hands on someone."

[01:10:14]And in 2 Timothy chapter 5 verse 17, Paul talks about those who labor in teaching having a double burden.

[01:10:26]Well, who is working hard to teach? Elders who were specially assigned to preach taught the truth. The pastoral letters you quoted, respected Father Kafe, do not talk about the magisterium but rather talk about the pastors. Well, don't be confused by the term pastor. Indeed, that term does not exist. But the pastor was talking about spiritual leaders or the term pastors use more commonly, shepherds and that term comes from the Bible. Not talking about you. The clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, including the cardinal bishops and the pope in Rome, have no teaching authority. Those are their own claims.

[01:11:11]You can debate me on that point. Come debate with me on Zoom or onside I come. I'm coming, brothers. It's been over an hour so I'll stop here okay?

[01:11:25]In essence, he wasted the first 10 minutes of what Romo Kafe said. He has no attacks. He thought he was attacking the voice of the scriptura, when in fact he was attacking the Straw People. And when he talks about the tradition of speaking of the magisterium as an alternative to solus scriptura, he quotes the verses out of context.

[01:11:44]he quoted and then did an equivocation just because there was a traditional term there. So that means talking about oral tradition. Apologizing is not about oral tradition. The smell is n't there either. Then the third he did what is called an anachronism. Anachronism reading. So he took the Roman Catholic Church's idea of the magisterium which emerged hundreds of years later. Then he brought this. 2 Timothy 2 talks about this. 2 Timothy 3 verse 14 talks about the magisterium. The Magisterium is not in the New Testament. In fact, I could sit, Father Cafe, for hours just quoting for you from famous Catholic scholars from Cambridge, from Notre Dame, from Boston College, it's very famous, from the Catholic University of America, very famous theologians, biblical experts, historians, theologians say that the New Testament does not teach apostolic succession as understood in the Roman Catholic Church.

[01:12:43]It only came up later.

[01:12:45]This means that you are making an anachronistic reading of the New Testament, which is a mistake.

[01:12:52]So in the scriptural school debate that took place 2 days ago on the 21st, Father Kafe lost badly.

[01:13:02]There are criteria for a crushing defeat, not because we say he wants to lose, but all the points are points of instruments, points of fallacies, equivocation, esegesis, readings of chronic children, all his fallacies are combined and then become juice in the debate.

[01:13:21]Okay, brothers, I've come here for those of you who want to support God's work at STT Batam, I invite you to support God's work at STT Batam. We are currently accepting new students. This time, quite a lot of new students are from Papua. There are 30 people who will be brought in and you know from ee from Meraoke, yes, from Bovendigo the cost is quite expensive. So, the support and assistance from all of you will be very helpful for their arrival in early June.

[01:13:50]Including also from other areas.

[01:13:52]This year we accepted 75 people.

[01:13:55]Yesterday the committee reported to me that 70 people had registered, only five more people left. So the target will definitely be achieved if God wills. So, the needs in May and June for recruiting new students, including adding facilities to the dormitory, mattresses, and so on, will be very numerous. So, your role, support and prayers will be very useful for God's work at ST Terai Batam. Okay, brothers and sisters. I can't promise that I will be live again soon because I still have to take care of completing my dissertation, including the EE date in June when I will take an open exam or doctoral promotion. Then some activities in Jakarta later. So I 'll see if I have some free time later I'll show up again. But until here, brothers and sisters, study well. Don't just listen to the claims. Because these claims make people say it makes their mouths feel good.

[01:14:53]What is the evidence, what is the basis, what is the argument. That's what you should always ask. If we only hear claims, the magisterium has the authority to invite. Oh, the Roman Catholic church existed in the first century. Uh, without the Roman Catholic Church there would be no Bible. Oh, the Roman Catholic Church is the only apostolic church. Ah, that's a claim. This claim is important, as long as you keep wagging your tongue.

[01:15:17]If you keep shaking your tongue, the claim is that it is delicious and sweet to the ear. Oh, that feels refreshing. But it's like a balloon. I have five balloons. There are red, blue, green, and yellow and what's more. But once you stab it, plong plong plong plong. It explodes because there is no content. It's just filled with air. That is the Roman Catholic Church.

[01:15:38]See you guys. God bless you all and thank you very much for the offering from Mr. Aenst for ee thank you also to Mr. Nar, thank you also once again to Mr. Aliensen yes. God bless you all and see you next time.

[01:15:58]Hello.