The good thing coming from Lutheranism to Catholicism it’s not much of a jump. It should be an easy transition for confessional Lutherans.

@@P-el4zd Perhaps in its liturgical expression yes. But the theological underpinnings of Lutheranism - namely, the Solas - makes it a large paradigm shift. Which I am making...but it takes time.

@@N1IA-4 What Lutheran Church body did you leave?

Huge congrats! You won’t regret it!

@@P-el4zd I am in transition. LCMS. But it truly doesn't matter because it all falls under the Sola - or Prima - umbrella

Catholics worship God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Holy Trinity is our God! But it certainly seems that the god that Protestants worship is the bible. I have mentioned this to Protestants, and it kind of fun to watch the look on their face.

@cjr4497 CJ, I agree. Asking a Protestant to show where in the Bible is taught that 'the Bible' is "the pillar and foundation of truth", will generate another circular response which has nothing to do with "biblical" evidence. God bless.

Did the Old Testament cease to exist until the RC came along and recreated it existence?? Thus it clearly shows you have no business debating about sola scriptura

Certainly so, I have encountered the same. I was told that ultimately the Holy Spirit is needed. Nothing will happen initially many times but the seeds have been planted. Stay cool, learn Catholic responses. These are all "old" concerns or questions. Protestants have more Catholic ancestors than Protestant; consequently, they would not have the Bible where it not for the Catholic church. God Bless

When they actually do consider the evidence, they end up redefining Sola scriptura like Jeff durbin did.

Can I ask what was the first thing that led you away from reformed theology? I’m a catholic convert and I’ve known several reformed friends and they can’t get off justification. To me, it’s the cart before the horse, but they can’t seem to accept any role for man, even in having the free will to decide to love God…it’s so alien to me.

@@jamessalerno4234 it all started with James 2:24. That was a big one, reading it believing it. In its whole context of course. Then with sola scriptura not being taught in the Bible itself but assumed…as well as the question of which books are canonical and who the authority to say they were “Scripture “. Then the historical reason to why are we so cerebral and almost gnostic with Christianity in the west. Where many things aren’t literal or are explained away with reason or down played or watered down to some spiritual meaning. That’s summarizing but I can go all day lol

Trouble is with Sola Scriptura is its open to so much interpretation that no one's gets it definitively right..I heard a former Protestant says at a theological conference Pastors were giving different interpretations although of the same denomination

@@albertoascari2542 That is the trouble with Catholicism. They think they have some divine authority to interpret. They couldn't be more wrong in every way.

@@windowsscreen Apparently you don't have any real understanding of James, though. I'm surprised it's not the East that you find being so cerebral and almost gnostic. They are all about mysticism, mystical meaning/experience. It's the Holy Spirit who leads to understanding scripture and what writings are inspired. Yes, we do assume that God, His Word is supreme and over any word of man (sola scriptura).

Good observation. In fact, I was raised in the Catholic Church but I knew very little about the early history and heritage of the religion. I myself often use the phrase "Fathers of the church" without being cognizant of the religion they professed. To be honest, I personally dislike using certain words in my conversations such as "religion" and "Catholic". My preference is to concentrate on Jesus Himself. However I understand that in a podcast such as this, the words "religion" and "Catholic" and "Protestant" are a necessary part of the discussion. So I'm not trying to negate what you said. I try to be respectful of people of most religions ( and atheists too ). Peace of God to you....

@@johnbrzykcy3076 I believe that being truthful about our Catholic beliefs and traditions, why we have them and what they mean, especially in regard to saving our souls, IS being kind. How much would we have to hate someone to have the true Faith (and knowledge of the terrible consequences of not having it), but not honestly and openly share it? That was me at one time…motivated by fear…until I realized how wrong I was. Jesus himself was a stumbling block to heretics and sinners, a point of contradiction to unbelievers, a sword that divides the sheep from the goats. Did perceived unkindness stop Him? Did Jesus and His disciples slack off or quit for fear of persecution, torture and death? What if they had? Christianity would have died in its infancy. How great a debt we owe them for their courage, perseverance and love! That’s why it comes down to one question: how much do we love Jesus? If we don’t love Him enough to risk everything for Him as so many others have done, we don’t love Him enough at all, nor are we worthy of Him. Sometimes bringing Jesus to others online requires not being afraid to bring up a point of contention … not to be unkind but to share an important truth … ESPECIALLY when Satan (and much of modern society) would prefer we remain politely quiet.

@@johnbrzykcy3076Unfortunately the label “Christian” no longer had meaning as it can mean anything under the sun. So the word Catholic becomes necessary to highlight the differences.

This is a really good point. We as Protestants need to really recognize that point.

@@gfujigo Since you agree, I hope you’ll spend some time looking into our mutual Fathers of the Church, who they were, and what they actually said, wrote and believed. No need to learn from a third party when their original writings are so inexpensive, easily accessible and searchable through ebooks.

@YAJUN YUAN why do you troll catholic sites

@YAJUN YUAN Sam Shamoun is still waiting for you - you loudmouth cringe coward.

@YAJUN YUAN cool

Wow, great commentary; I love Justin the Martyr! God Bless You!

​@@Sheilamarie2 I agree that is a great commentary. Have you read any good books about the early Church fathers? Peace of God to you...

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Yes, but there are so many converts with content about the Early Church Fathers, you can also view on YT. Steve Ray (convert) has a great book, Crossing The Tiber with arguments, using the Early Church Fathers. Peace.

@@johnbrzykcy3076 "The Faith of the Early Church Fathers" by William Jurgens and "The Fathers Know Best" by Jimmy Akin.

The other reason it's not credible is that Luther plucked it from his rear

That's not evidence or an argument - that's speculation lol

@@Ttcopp12rt no, it’s historical fact. I don’t have to write it out all here. You can read about it yourself. How would the church in Alexandria, or the church in Assyria even know about the letters of Paul to the Colossians until a long time after they were written? And, would the church in Corinth even recognize immediately that the letter Paul sent them was “scripture.” I know it is hard to take a clear look at it, but it really is impossible to ignore. If you truly seek the Truth, you will explore this idea more…

​@@stooch66 I really like and appreciate your comments. I never thought much about "Sola Scriptura" because I was raised Catholic. I now just call myself a Christian believer. But I wonder if we seemingly give Sola Scriptura a less important place in our hearts, does that work against our discussion with Muslims who believe that every word in the Quran is God inspired and preserved? What do you think? I'm not trying to negate your views. Because honestly you make some valid points that we tend to ignore. Did people 2,000 years ago first hear the words/teaching of Jesus Christ orally and accept what they heard as "scriptures" inspired by God? Thought provoking. And to think that we are reading scriptures a long, long time after they were written. I'm not trying to negate the doctrine that the New Testament is inspired by God. But how do we correlate the human aspects of time, travel and culture with inspiration? What do you think? Peace of God to you

@@johnbrzykcy3076 there is a lot there to unpack, and I don’t fancy myself an apologist. I just believe wholly that Christ is God, that God is a Trinity, and that he established a Church to teach us and unite us in Christ. Christ is the head and the Church is the body, or better, He is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride. I believe the Church was established to teach us. Divorcing the scriptures from the Church leaves us all to figure out the meaning on our own and I believe that Christ left the Church so that we would always know what he meant when he taught. I have no concerns about the timing of the writing of scripture. God is outside of time and eternal. What is 2000 years for Him? It is but a blip, but even less…it is not even a measurable moment. Humans are not different now from humans then…sure, societies are, but humans are not. We all have an innate longing for the divine, whether we recognize it or not. I think sometimes (most times), humans think the world exists only in their time…not consciously, but subconsciously. Just pondering these questions humbles me in a way I cannot explain. God bless you.

Do you think there is absolute unity in the Roman catholic church with its infallible popes and magisterium's?

@@Justas399 Are you dense or just a troll? How about this? Just admit you can't answer any of my challenges and then I'll reply. But I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of an answer until you say "uncle"!

Besides, perhaps a Catholic should reply.

@@Justas399 Again, asking a question instead of giving an answer. This classic ruse of the feeble-minded or con-men. At this point you're just embarrassing yourself with your denseness and "troll-ness"!

@@robertopacheco2997 Just countering the claim that there is unity in the RCc.

🙏🙏🙏

indeed, well done lassie boy. Numerous passages infer the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. While the Bible never uses the term “Scripture alone,” this teaching can be inferred from Scripture. Consider a number of reasons for this view: First, the Bible teaches not to add or take away from Scripture. Paul writes that we should not “exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). John writes, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19). Likewise, Moses writes, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it” (Deut. 4:2; cf. 12:32). If another authority could either add or take away from Scripture, then this would invalidate these passages of Scripture. Second, Scripture is the litmus test for discerning truth. Every time Jesus needs to answer a doctrinal question, he cites Scripture-not tradition. The phrase “It is written…” occurs some 90 times in the NT. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees saying, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures” (Mt. 22:29). He also rebuked the Jewish leaders for what was “said” (Mt. 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) versus what was “written” (Mt. 4:4, 7, 10). Moreover, we have nothing in the Bible to suggest that we need something in addition to Scripture. Third, the Bible does not allow for tradition to be equal or superior to Scripture. Jesus said, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? … by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Mt. 15:3, 6). Here Jesus judges their accepted human tradition by the superior authority of Scripture. Likewise, Paul writes, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men” (Col. 2:8). As we noted above, this does not mean that all tradition is ungodly, anymore than all philosophy is ungodly. However, this does teach that human tradition is not equal or more authoritative than Scripture. If tradition ever disagrees with Scripture, then this tradition is always wrong. Catholic apologist Jim Blackburn writes, “Jesus rightfully condemned [false tradition], but his condemnation was not meant to be applied to every tradition.”[5] However, we feel that Blackburn has missed the point here. The Pharisees were placing tradition above the Bible, and Jesus was using the Bible as a higher standard for correcting their false view. Fourth, Luke calls the Bereans “noble-minded” for “examining the Scriptures daily” to see if the gospel was true (Acts 17:11). That is, the Bereans compared the message of the apostles with the Bible itself. If the apostles were the supreme authority, then the Bereans would have been considered unbelieving for trying to interpret the Bible by themselves-apart from the interpretation and instruction of the apostles. But instead, they were encouraged for doing this. Fifth, Timothy was able to come to faith through the OT Scriptures as a child (2 Tim. 3:14-15). If a little child could come to faith through the OT Scriptures, how much more could a fully grown adult come to faith with the completed canon? Sixth, Paul tells Timothy that Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Paul writes: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Catholic apologist Tim Staples objects that 2 Timothy 3 “says that Scripture is inspired and necessary-a rule of faith-but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church.”[6] Of course, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn’t state that it is the only rule of faith. But it does say that it is a sufficient rule. Paul writes that Scripture makes us “equipped for every good work” (v.17). This is why we would define Scripture as sufficient for faith and morals. If Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals, we shouldn’t look for any other standard. Note also that this passage comes in the context of battling false teaching. Paul writes, “But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). What is our guard against false teaching? Paul tells us that Scripture is the final authority that equips us for “every good work” (v.17). Seventh, tradition is not a reliable way to transmit truth. Catholic apologists often appeal to the Church Fathers to defend doctrines, but we see no reason to believe in the early Church Fathers. In fact, false traditions were even appearing in the first century. Paul writes, “You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me” (2 Tim. 1:15). No doubt, some of these men were Paul’s personal disciples in Ephesus, whom he predicted would lose their faith (Acts 20:29-30). John had to correct false teaching in his gospel (Jn. 21:22-23), and Paul had to correct false teaching, too (2 Thess. 2:2). In fact, from one end of the NT to the other, we see contrary false teaching. If they had false traditions in the first century already, wouldn’t we expect more false traditions today? Even though the Church Fathers were closer to the apostolic age, this doesn’t make them more orthodox. Eighth, Sola Scriptura is not an invention of the Reformation. While we do not ultimately hang our argument on history, it is verifiable that this view has been present throughout the history of the Christian Church. A few quotations will suffice to demonstrate this historical point: - Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) - Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3) - Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) - Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.) - Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16) - John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians) - Basil the Great (AD 329-379): Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189 to Eustathius the physician)

Gotta love how Trent constantly steelmans protestant objections with citations from protestant scholars - taking down the adversary with their own ammunition

@@ironymatt mmmm does he???

@@bobbyrice2858 four "m"s and three "?"s does not a rebuttal make

kzfaq.info_JbaQHVkBs4?feature=share

@@bobbyrice2858 amen, being Catholic is awesome! Isn’t it so wonderful that God knows us so well and knows that as physical beings we would need to sacrament of reconciliation to really feel his forgiveness for us? Beautiful! Also isn’t purgatory amazing that we can be in heaven and be purified of our attachment to sin before we enter the beatific vision of our lord God??? Amazing, glory to God!

​@@juliannacodde8633 I like the way you explain your perspective of the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic but I don't recall hearing an explanation as good as you gave. Peace of God to you. ( By the way, I simply call myself a Christian believer ).

@@juliannacodde8633 in that day they will say “Lord Lord did we not pray to your mother or participate in the Eucharist” and the Lord will say “depart from me you workers of iniquity for I never knew you” Those that believe in purgatory do not understand the nature of the new Holy Spirit placed within the believer described in Hebrews 12. You are an unbelieving deceived individual. I pray to God you find true belief as described and John 6:40.

​@@bobbyrice2858 I also want to find "true belief" but I struggle with the concept of faith itself. Sounds weird? I'm a Christian believer yet I dislike to be confrontational with people of other religions ( or even with Christians). Muslims often tell me that I'm "deceived" by my belief in Jesus Christ as the One who died for my sins. Yet I try to be respectful of Muslims and listen to them For one thing, I don't know it all. Only God is all-knowing. And only God knows our hearts. I appreciate your sharing of Jesus' words. I think I understand what Jesus meant but I do need ( and will always need ) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I hope you don't mind that I read your comments to someone else. Basically I tend to be non-confrontational. May God open our hearts and enable us to desire Him more. I'm nothing without the mercy of God. May I stand before the cross where Jesus was crucified and accept God's love for me. Peace...

kzfaq.info_JbaQHVkBs4?feature=share

@ThoskaBrah so out of the hundreds of church fathers writings we can just add or subtract anything from the Canons..we would be arguing like muslims with there hadiths because they dont have a central magesterium..what's sahih what's not sahih..what's weak what's strong..who ultimatley confirms what is what in Canon..

Where has the Roman Catholic church infallibly-officially interpreted Scripture?

​@@Justas399in its Holy Magisterium that quotes Scripture in support of its Doctrines. This includes, the Magisterial ruling that the consensus of the Fathers cannot be denied, Papal declarations, ecumenical councils and the catechism that was officially promulgated by the Magisterium. These often quote scripture and when they do it on a universally binding level, it is declared. One such example would be John 6, of which Protestants often deny the obvious Eucharistic meaning.

​@@Justas399a better question to ask yourself is where have all the protestant denominations fallibly interpreted scripture? Answer: they've been doing it non-stop for 500 years, starting with the removal of seven books by Luther

​@@jackdaw6359Where does the Magisterium get "sinless" Mary teaching from?

@@ironymatt Luther never took any books out of the Bible. Council of Trent added books.

In regards to Mary’s supposed assumption the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words: But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40). In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact: In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought-as some theologians still do today under one form or another-to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).

@Justas399 Mary is the Woman in Revelation, she who gave birth to the male child born to rule the nations, she the Queen Mother of the Davidic King, Jesus Christ. There are several Church Fathers who taught the Assumption of the Mother of God, even as early as the 200s. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@matthewbroderick6287 Catholic scholars Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482): a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications. In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the Old Testament ”.

@Justas399 Once again, several Church Fathers taught the Assumption of the Mother of God, as Mary is the Woman in Revelation 12, she who gave birth to the male child born to rule the nations, she the Queen Mother of the Davidic King, Jesus Christ! What is so funny is, the Protestants whi claim the Woman in Revelation 12 is NOT Mary, have absolutely no clue who it is, for Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@matthewbroderick6287 Those church fathers that supposedly taught it were teaching a false doctrine. Even catholic scholars tell us the woman of Rev 12 is not Mary.

It’s not extraneous to Scripture. It flows from it as Scripture does not indicate that anything other than God himself is infallible. And scripture are the words of God. The church is not God so the church can go wrong. But scripture, since it is the word of God, cannot. Scripture indicates nothing else.

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 Oh I agree sometimes the church can go wrong and that is called protestantism. I guess the difference between you and me is that I believe that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and as the Head of the Church He has not left us comfortless. And at the same time I guess the difference between you and I is that I am not going to tell Jesus the Christ that He failed to keep His promise and I have to take things into my own hands to fix His mistakes ie usurp. And at the same time I guess the difference between you and I is that I believe Scripture needs to be viewed through the lens of the Church not vice versa because you will only fail outside the context of the Church. You are doomed to fail if you take Scripture outside the Church.

I really think the Amish are the closest holders of Sola Scritura

You clearly don’t understand sola scriptura Sola scriptura doesn’t work like that so such a person in your imagination cannot possibly exist because they don’t

wait a minute... I see what you did there!

I'm not very familiar with Trent's channel but this was a good podcast. In fact, his presentation was very scholarly. One of the problems I face is understanding what the Church fathers were saying in the context of their culture, especially to the early Christians. I also wish I knew Biblical Greek. God bless..

@YAJUN YUAN God intended the third shift into sola scriptura? There needed to be? That’s a giant assumption you are making on the fist claim and bad reasoning on the second. You didn’t converse with God and recieve a direct revelation from him. And for God to just leave scripture would make God responsible for all the errant denominations running about like jehovas witnesses. Mormans. Oneness pentecostals. Once saved always saved. Etc. no Gods intention are in the New Testament. He left us 12 apostles to teach guide and correct. And those apostles he breathed on them authority to forgive sins and perpetuate his memorial sacrifice. And these apostles left new apostles in their place to continue the model Jesus Christ left in the New Testament.

Yeah, but that was a Lincoln-Douglas style debate where the affirmative (Ortlund) is supposed to prove their claim and the Negative (Horn) does not have to prove anything but to show that they did not prove it. Horn had the lower standard. If you think it was a tie, by the standards of the debate form, then Horn won. I generally think those styles of debates should be done in a series where both people should take the affirmative an equal amount of times.

@@enniomojica7812 There is no record of any apostle offering a mass.

@@Justas399 oh no? Aside from the fact that Jesus told them to “do this in memory of me” (the last supper is the first Mass officiated by the high priest/king/victim himself). it’s mentioned in the New Testament . Acts 20:7. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. Acts 2:42. 1 Corinthians 11:23-34. Also remember Jesus on the way to emaus that follows the basic liturgical form we follow for the mass to this day. Luke 24:13-35. By perpetuating the one sacrifice of Christ the apostles were also priests. And they deputized presbyters or (priests) to continue it as well.

@@enniomojica7812 Do this in memory of Me does not mean Jesus turned himself into a piece of bread. Rather it means to remember when you eat the bread that you remember what He did on the cross. Presbyter and priest are not the same things. They mean different things; Here is what priest means in Greek- "hiereus Definition: a priest Usage: a priest, one who offers sacrifice to a god (in Jewish and pagan religions; of Christians only met.). presbuteros: elder Original Word: πρεσβύτερος, α, ον Part of Speech: Adjective Transliteration: presbuteros Phonetic Spelling: (pres-boo'-ter-os) Definition: elder Usage: elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly.

@MM22272. We think the exact same thing about Catholics. When it comes to understanding another person’s religious beliefs, it’s an “occupational hazard.”

@@HannahClapham That's understandably mutual. After listening to years of debates how about this and other such issues, ultimately the debate comes down to and will be finally settled by appealing to and accepting Father Martin's interpretation of the Bible or that of the Catholic Church's 1500 years of interpretation that preceded him. Anyway, it's not something that will be settled immediately or between our brief exchange of comments. Blessings upon you and your family. Happy Easter!

#canon

I just can't allow that in my heart.

Hey.. I don't see you in the "stupid category." I was raised in the Catholic Church but I never encountered Sola Scriptura as most Protestants recite. I'm just a simple Christian believer although I've been questioning things as I get older. I personally don't believe Sola Scriptura gives any individual a reason to say that his interpretation of scriptures is correct. Our perception of the meaning of scriptures is influenced by many factors. Even scholars debate the correct interpretation of various scriptures. I think it's good to listen to the reasoning behind any interpretation. Anyhow... you make some valid points. In fact, I need to reread Matthew 18. So don't worry about your questions. I'm no scholar so I can't answer you at this time. In fact, I don't know it all. But God is all-knowing and if he established the one true faith through Jesus Christ, then we need patience to listen and we need the holy Spirit to guide us. I wish I could answer your questions better. But I do appreciate your comments and honesty. Peace of God to you...

He's very likeable, but liking someone doesn't make them right

@@ironymatt I never implied that was the case.

@@sdboyd I know. I wasn't intending to be critical of your particular comment, rather the more general notion that likeability confers some kind of quasi-authority. It sways a lot of people.

@@ironymatt That it does.

​@ironymatt I like him, and he's right.

What a surprise, early church leaders painted themselves as authority figures. Throughout human history this has never happened. People taking advantage of the situation to give themselves power over others!?

kzfaq.info_JbaQHVkBs4?feature=share

Catholic theologians run 🤣 to the early "church fathers" plainly because the Bible does not support their teachings.

Tradition has to agree 👍 with the Word of God not contradict it..! The Catholic Church contradicts the Holy Scriptures 😳 🙄 of God.Repent and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour alone.

Born again believers don't have to run to the "church fathers" to explain the Holy Scriptures 🤔 for them. The Holy Spirit of God will guide the born again believer into "ALL TRUTH"..!

@@lupelo8819 tradition was always subservient to the authority of scripture until the 1500s. The council of Trent elevated tradition to the same standing as scripture as infallible. But it was never like that before that.

some of these protestants are so delusional (not saying Gavin is) actually believe that the Saints hold their baptist/reformed views lol

@YAJUNYUAN Augustine wouldn't recognize any Protestant churches as the Church. Quote mining him won't change that

And what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. In fact, it can be quite convincing to quote favorable sources to your interlocutor to show they actually agree with a point you are making. I mean, I'm a pro-life apologist, and I quote pro-choice writers, I'll quote Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood's research organization) for statistics, etc.

Augustine was not a roman catholic.

@YAJUN YUAN Didn't Augustine believe Mary was a sinner?

Christians have always had the OT Scriptures.

@@Justas399 even during the times of the jews, tho they had a type of canon, they didn't rely on it as sola scriptura. They went to the rabbis.

Not all

@@andrealmoseley6575 an overwhelming majority. 99/100. Out of every protestant I've ever spoke to, roughy 3 were reasonable. And that is over 3 years of talking

Not to mention that it wasn't until recently historically speaking that people were literate. How can scripture be the only authority for all 2000 years of A.D. history without some other means of authority to share/teach it. Why should that magisterial authority even be believed up until the point of literacy if sola scriptura is true? Who's to say they're right if not by a tradition to prove it.

Thanks. I've tried to study Greek but understanding eludes me. So I appreciate your comments. That's one thing that we also need to consider, how did the early Church fathers try to communicate to people with the Greek language? Were all the early Church fathers "on the same page" when it came to communicating the meaning of words ?? Seemingly, even the apostles and followers of Jesus sometimes misunderstood what Jesus was teaching. Let us desire to understand better the words of Jesus, so that we can be examples of love and compassion to others.

​​@@johnbrzykcy3076 don't mean to be too critical of Trent in this video, but at around [4:20], the sources he cites are a little misleading, and he definitely makes a mistake here that could use a subtle point of clarification. In the present age, Christians tend to call the writings in the canon "scripture", and not as mere "writings". But this is a modern way of designating a distinction between the sacred and profane that doesn't exist in the Greek word itself. It requires context to discover whether an author was calling something divinely inspired, or not... not just whether they happened to use the Greek word 'graphe' in regard to a certain text. For example, Trent's source cites Irenaeus as being a chief influence in having the New Testament regarded as scripture with the same stature as the Old Testament. There is some truth in this, but not merely on the basis that he referred to the New Testament writings as 'graphe'. Irenaeus also referred to The Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement, the Epistle of Polycarp, and the Exposition by Papias as 'graphe', too. If you re-watch this portion of the video, with this in mind, you will see that Trent has the mistaken idea that the word 'graphe' itself means something along the lines of authorative or inspired scripture, which it does not. The other source at this point in the video says that "the term 'Scripture' meant only the Old Testament for Christians until the end of the second century". This, too, is a bit sloppy. Yes, the Christians looked to the Old Testament as authoritative and inspired, and yes, perhaps relied on it with greater weight than they did the New Testament writings. But, no, the idea of canon really wasn't a thing just yet, historically. Again, it wasn't the _term_ 'scripture' that was used as a means to distinguish sacred from otherwise. It requires a contextual reading of the fathers to get a sense of how they regarded each 'graphe' they cited.

​@@Giant_Meteor I tend to agree with you, especially in regards to the context where a church father was writing. I was kind of thinking the same way. From the few manuscripts that are extant, can scholars even decide the appropriate context? And can scholars determine exactly who the church fathers were writing to? On a slightly different idea, I wonder why the Shepherd of Hermas was supposedly considered as authoritative or something good for Christians to read ( or listen to )? From my understanding, some Biblical manuscripts ( books ) included the Shepherd of Hermas. Are you familiar with those? Thanks again for your clarification. If only we had a time machine to go back to 2nd century where we could listen to various sermons by the church fathers. God bless..

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Most of the time, I think you can get an some sort of sense of who various fathers were addressing in their letters, and what the topic they were addressing was. For example, Ignatius was writing to churches under his care on the way to martyrdom, Justin Martyr was arguing against a Jewish guy named Trypho, Irenaeus argued against heresies principally for the benefit of those Christians that were having to confront those heresies. A lot of the time, we don't have both sides of the back-and-forth exchange, but we can get an approximation of what view was being opposed. The social and situational context isn't really what I was referring to. I just mean the written context itself. When Irenaeus refers to the writing, say, in Shepherd of Hermas, I don't see any immediate contextual reason to suppose he is suggesting it should be regarded as canonical... though I am aware of those who read him that way, seeing as how he had also just been citing some verses from the Bible. There is a fairly recent book, The Way to Nicaea, by Fr. John Behr, that I think makes a really good point. The way orthodox doctrine came about, historically, was frequently as _a reaction_ to heresy. It wasn't the case that if we were to time machine back to 200a.d. that we would find is a church as it exists today. Just as you are the same person you were when you were five years old, you have developed since then. The proto-orthodox Christians who first encountered Shepherd might have been comfortable with it, even relying on it to support a certain argument they happened to be making at a given time (just like Trent cites a source). It does have some good material. But, as happened in this particular bit of history, the Docetist heresy emerged, claiming that Jesus only _seemed_ to be God, that he became "divine" at his baptism. And the docetists made heavy reliance on this text to demonstrate their claim. Thus, Shepherd fell out of use in the church. The orthodox _reaction to heresy_ is what came to crystallize orthodox doctrine as such. This same, basic story can be told again and again, regarding any number of other dogmas, including the more complete declarations of the Holy Trinity. It was only after the church had to wrestle with a variety of heterodox propositions that she ultimately declared what is, and is not, true, in the fourth century. It is not as though the concept of the Trinity had not existed earlier, but the details of the doctrine had not been hammered out, and declared as constituting the true faith. In those cases in which heresies emerged from within the church, the heretics were tossed out. Prior to the abuses of the docetists, Shepherd of Hermas was sometimes regarded as a beneficial read. Afterward, not so much. Yes, Shepherd does appear in an ancient codex from Sinai, but again, the very idea of 'canon' is a late development. As I look at it, it wasn't until ~398a.d.at the Council of Carthage that a canon was formally stated, and the decision of that local council was not confirmed as being universally authoritative until some time later, at the sixth ecumenical council. Point is, _even if_ earlier, very competent, orthodox, and relied-upon fathers might have personally regarded a certain text as good, or even "inspired", it is only the later, universally-agreed upon decision of the church that ultimately makes the determination, not a prior opinion of an individual. And, yes, I have read the Shepherd of Hermas, some years ago. It is pretty strange.

​@@Giant_Meteor Thanks so much for your time and your efforts to clarify some historical aspects regarding the Church fathers and the Canon of scriptures. I might try to read that book you suggested. Were you raised Catholic? I was but I never seemed to be cognizant of Sola Scriptura or what the early Church fathers wrote. So I appreciate your comments. It seems like there's much more to church history than we acknowledge. I don't negate the foundational principles of Jesus Christ and Christianity but it seems like I do need to study early church history to get a better grasp of some of the important events. God bless...

I appreciate your scholarly information but what do you mean by "at least one cannot be nonessential , the understanding of the Triune God"? What do you mean by "non essential " in reference to a theistic view or belief? I appreciate your time. Thanks.

I wanna say it's frank....but i could be wrong.

@@ComandoWitty OMG you guessed!

​@@frankrosenbloom May God bless you Frank and blessings to each of us who seek or need to seek the Almighty and All knowing God.

@@johnbrzykcy3076 thank you brother

Do you still have a copy?

I wish I understood Greek !

@YAJUNYUAN not all passages have been definitively ruled on. We have clear implicit rulings when Scripture is quoted to support our doctrines and dogmas and some are explicit. Catholics are free to multiple opinions. However, there is a binding authority and to deny this is just dishonest

The Bible is living too Hebrews 4:12

@@mmbtalk No it is not. Imagine receiving a 10 page letter from a friend before he dies. There was something he said in the letter that wasn't clear. You can objectively exogete the letter to try to interpret exactly what he meant by the passage, but all exegetical methods are prone to error. Now, imagine your friend was still alive when you received his letter. There is a 100% certain way to know what he meant in the ambiguous passage of his letter; You can simply ask him what he meant. You dont need to be an infallible interpreter to know what he meant because he *alive* and can simply tell you what he meant. The letter itself is not alive, and does *not* have the power to do this; you *need* an infallible interpreter for the letter. You do not need an infallible interpreter for your friend who is alive. The text in the Bible is not alive in this sense; it needs to be interpreted through exegetical means.

@@user-hj8vd2od9h The problem with your assumption is that you limit the Holy Spirit to the magisterium, suggesting that we cannot interact with God dynamically. For goodness sake," those who received Him, gave He the power to become children of God. Unless God designed the magisterium to be the only super children with the privilege to communicate with God! However such notion is to contrary to the teaching of the Old Testament and let alone in the New Testament where we are even at a superior level (2 Corinthians 5:17 1 Corinthians 2 :10-14 Jeremiah 31:33,34). Of course there are those who are more gifted in some aspects and as we observe, Apollos was eloquent and convincing but required the intervention of Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18: 26) to get some details right. So our walk with God is relational and it is not a question of ticking a few rules. Even in normal families, we don't get older siblings creating a presiding magisterium over the younger ones to convey the parents teaching to the younger. God has blessed the church with variety of capabilities not to make some superior rulers over others but the entire church should grow more into Christ and it is vi this route that unity is eventually achieved(Ephesians 4:11-16). Tell your RCC friends that they are working too hard trying to accomplish what only God can accomplish!

@@mmbtalk Good job expertly avoiding the arguement👌

“There were four views of the Eucharist in the early church. In his magnum opus, History of the Christian Church, historian Philip Schaff (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 241-245; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 494-500) documents the four views the early church held in regards to the way in which Christ was associated with the bread and wine. You had the (1) mystical view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Cyril of Jerusalem which said the body and blood of Jesus are mystically in union with the elements leading to a sort of repetition of the incarnation, though no change in substance actually takes place as in later Romanism; (2) the symbolic view of Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Macarius the Elder, Theodoret, Augustine and Gelasius which said the Eucharist symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus and is a commemoration, not Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation; (3) the allegorical or spiritual view of Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius which said the believer receives the spiritual but not physical blood and life of Jesus at Mass; and (4) the literalistic view of Hilary, Ambrose and Gaudentius which affirmed the bread and wine as being the literal transformed body and blood of Jesus which is basically in line with the modern Roman Catholic system. The Roman view is in the minority, while the symbolic and mystical views seem to be the most primitive and popular.”

@@Justas399 Whatever Philp Schaff had to say, by being a Protestant he was being biased. The original view of the Eucharist has ALWAYS been THE REAL PRESENCE. Paul is emphatic on that (1 Cor. 10:17, 11 23-28) even when he compares it to what the pagans were doing (1 Cor. 10:20) And the modern Eucharist miracles which scientists have studied proves that Christ has always been present in the Host, body, blood, soul and divinity. God bless!!

@@Justas399 Ignatius of Antioch Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]). Justin Martyr We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Irenaeus He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life - flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]). Clement of Alexandria “Eat my flesh)” [Jesus] says, “and drink my blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]). Athanasius You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ…(Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches [A.D. 295-373]). Aphraahat After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]). Cyril of Jerusalem The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). Ephraim the Syrian After the disciples had eaten the new and holy bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own blood, which was about to be poured out (Homilies 4:6 [ante A.D. 373]). Gregory of Nyssa The bread again is at first common bread, but when the sacramental action consecrates it, it is called, and becomes, the Body of Christ (On the Baptism of Christ [A.D. 383]). Ambrose of Milan Perhaps you may be saying, “I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?” It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]). John Chrysostom The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ? Very trustworthily and awesomely does He say it. For what He is saying is this: “What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it” (On First Corinthians 24:1:3 [A.D. 392]).

@@atgred what makes you think Roman Catholic apologists are not biased? The Roman Catholic view is just one of many different views on the nature of the supper. The book of Hebrews refutes the theology of the mass.

@@rooforlife we know by e exegesis of the passages on the supper accounts that the Roman Catholic view is false.

I think you need to do a bit more reading on the historical status of the deuterocanon. It's history, who used it, why they used it, how they used it, why it's called the deuterocanon. When was it first seen as on the same level as the rest of the OT canon such that it could establish dogma? What was the social and political situation at the time? The term "deuterocanonical books" was only coined in 1566. That's a long time after Christ, no? And even then, after one thousand five hundred years, it's making a clear distinction between those books and the rest. Why? And you think Gavin ought to just shut up and accept that now they ought to be in the OT, and establish dogma like the rest? Because Rome says so? The status of the NT canon is no grounds for accepting the Catholic OT canon. Those paths of development are wildly different in significant ways. What do you make of this paragraph on wiki? [quote] ... and was sanctioned by the Council of Trent at its fourth session, although as the Catholic Encyclopedia reports, "in the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. ... Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity," but that the countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Roman Catholic Old Testament. Subsequent research qualifies this latter statement, in that a distinct tradition of large format pandect bibles has been identified as having been promoted by the 11th and 12th century reforming Papacy for presentation to monasteries in Italy; and now commonly termed 'Atlantic Bibles' on account of their very great size. While not all these bibles present a consistent reformed Vulgate text, they generally exclude the deuterocanonical books. [end quote] The Catholic Encyclopedia is whitewashing history. "Subsequent research qualifies this latter statement", no kidding. The picture is not a church that has settled the canon, much less one that consistently includes the deuterocanonicals. And even more removed than that, it certainly doesn't show any willingness to use them doctrinally, if they're generally excluded from Bibles altogether. You wrote that Gavin must accept the decision about the OT canon because its made by "the same early church in those same councils". That's just factually wrong on many levels. Not even Rome acted like those councils recognized the definitive OT canon. I don't have the source at my fingertips, but I have high confidence that Luther's opponent Cardinal Cajetan can be quoted as rejecting the deuterocanonical books. And he's not unique, it was an open question in the early 16the century. It was in fact common to reject those books. Search "Our Beans: Cajetan on the OT Canon" and you can find further links down the rabbit hole concerning the status of the OT canon in the 16th century. Outright rejection of the deuterocanon was normal. It was not settled by the early councils, and per Catholic doctrine the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. And that decision was not given until Trent. You can't have that double standard and claim the early councils for the OT when it suits you. You are wrong. So what changed within Catholicism? Why did Rome need to lean on those books more and more. Why are they defended so vigorously now by internet Catholics? (Well, on a psychological level it's an identity marker. Just for that point of difference to separate the ingroup from the outgroup post-Reformation, it has that utility.) Is there any great theology in 2 Maccabees, for example? No, it's a BS trainwreck of a book. It's really a propaganda text made up out of whole cloth. There's a letter at the start of the book that doesn't belong with the rest of the text, and clearly wasn't part of it, and is laughably wrong in many details. And my precise question about that book is this: at the Council of Trent when formally ratifying the canon, why didn't the bishops then take the chance to say about the opening chapter of 2 Maccabees "it's made up. It's fake. It's inaccurate. It has so many mistakes that calling it divinely inspired is an insult to God, and anyway it wasn't written as part of the rest of the book. Let's not canonize it". Why didn't Trent reject that part of 2 Maccabees? Why didn't they also take out the bit about the ambush killing Antiochus IV, which directly contradicts how he dies later in the same book, and 1 Maccabees? But these are top quality books that deserve to be in Bible? Really? Why //didn't// the Council of Trent in it's wisdom cut out the rotten parts of the deuterocanon? Instead they validate it. It almost like there was another motivation at play, something other than identifying supernaturally inspired writing. I'm just not sure you can say "hah, Gavin! why don't you accept Rome on the OT canon!" Thinking that's a "match point" is amateur hour. Gavin isn't at all acknowledging any ecclesial authority in accepting the NT canon. If you watch a kid doing math, and they're doing 5+5=? when they get the right answer, 10, you can see how they got there and agree it's the right answer. It's not the right answer //because// Rome says so. No, Protestants look at the canon, they look at the history, and their believing the early church to be right about the canon confers no authority on Rome. Me believing the kids to be right that 5+5=10 doesn't set up the kid as an authority, the answer we both arrive at flows from the evidence, not ipse dixit table thumping. Gavin would not say it's Rome that //makes// the NT canon true. His agreement on the NT implies no submission to Rome. If the kid is confused and multiplies instead of adds -- and they think 5+5=25 -- then again you can even understand the mistake that was made to get to the wrong answer with all the accretions. Sure you can just submit and believe 25 is the answer, but that's preventing you from ever knowing if what you believe is true is actually true. Gavin compares the Catholic OT to history and sees the mistakes and says "no thanks". But what do I care. I'm an atheist.

@@stephengalanisOh really? Identifying the correct NT canon is now as obvious as doing 5+5? That’s probably why it took only 400 years of debates among the finest scholars and theologians. Nothing you said is even relevant to my point. If Protestants trust the early Church to have made the right call on the NT canon just because they believe the early Church was led by the Holy Spirit in those councils, they obviously must believe that the same Holy Spirit in those same councils led the early Church to recognize the wrong OT canon. My point is not about whether the deuterocanonical books should be included or not. It is about Protestants believing in a sort of Holy Spirit schizophrenia.

@@thejerichoconnection3473 I think you have a really good point here. If they trust the Church to have picked the right books for the NT why would they be rejecting other decisions made by the same group - & here I'm thinking more of the traditional place & interpretation of the the Scriptures as being within the Church, rather than Sola Scriptura, rather than which books should be part of the OT, though obvioulsy it includes that.

We have discussed doing a second debate where I take the affirmative on apostolic succession

@@TheCounselofTrent awesome!

@@ProtestantKing7 are you talking about me or Trent Horn? Because I know I can tell you some of Ortlund’s compelling points.

​@user-bj5dp6nz4y May God bless you for leaving the church. Best decision ever. Make sure you lock the door behind you and DONT GO BACK!

@@TheCounselofTrent I hope you’re going to do that in Ortlund’s home territory. (I say that because Ojai is a reasonable drive and I would love to attend such a debate)

@cordsworks this is a very good argument, thank for sharing it. I have *long* thought Protestantism can be objected to on philosophical grounds more strongly than theological grounds. My only issue with it is that I think it can be developed into an even stronger set of claims than you provide. Let's extend it out a bit: Divine revelation is God's perfect communication of truths concerning Himself and His creation, which man must know in order to be saved. In order to know a truth as divinely revealed, man must have certainty as to its source (ie whether it is human or divine). So God provides such certainty with respect to Christ since He rose again from the dead, thus confirming the status of His teaching as divine revelation. Christ imparted that revelation to the Church through the Apostles, giving them His authority. The Apostles then preached and wrote Christ's teaching via oral tradition and scripture. A book is not literally alive such that it can answer questions on its own contents, so the sacred scriptures cannot answer all questions as regards its contents, that is, it does not provde the *certainty* mentioned above that is necessary for man to believe in it as divine revelation. Therefore, the notion that Christ set up the Church such that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith cannot be true. It's not a matter so much of sola scriptura historically presenting practical difficulties of realisation; it's rather that *in principle* it does not do the work it needs to given background truths on God's nature and man's nature.

Where did you get premise 1 from? I'm still trying to read your comments. Peace

​@@ClassicPhilosophyFTW "A book is not literally alive." Especially a book ( books ) written in Biblical Greek ! Peace

​@@johnbrzykcy3076: Hey, John! I think both premises need some additional work to demonstrate. But I suspect Premise 1 is logically necessary in some fashion, given some set of premises that both Catholics and Protestants would equally grant. Let me take a stab at selecting some, and trying to exhibit the that Premise 1 follows from them: (a.) God wants us to "know the truth" so that the truth "will set us free"; (b.) Having a false opinion about the truth isn't the same as knowing the truth; (c.) It is notoriously easy to err in attempting to arrive at religious truth, and some cultures make some errors more likely; (d.) If, therefore, we are to "know the truth" so that the truth will "set us free," God must provide us some _way_ of knowing the truth (since no _way_ to do so means we _won't_ do so); (e.) A _way_ of knowing the truth is called an "Epistemology"; (f.) There are many epistemologies that many epistemologists propose humans ought to use, including epistemologies for arriving at religious truth; (g.) But, in a world rife with religious error, it's clear that many, or possibly all, conventional epistemologies for arriving at religious truth are unreliable; (h.) So, to allow us to arrive reliably at religious truth (and be "set free"), God will need to provide not just _any_ epistemology, but one which is unusually good and arriving at religious truth; (i.) Furthermore, to "know" the truth" is more than merely to _happen to have correct opinions,_ since one can have the correct opinions without claiming to "know" that they're correct; (j.) The difference between having an opinion and claiming to "know" something is, _at minimum,_ the confidence with which the proposition is known...but it's _more_ than mere additional confidence, since people can be confidently _mistaken,_ or even if they're correct, they can have ill-grounded (or ungrounded) confidence which is out-of-proportion to the reliability of the epistemology or data which produced it; (k.) Therefore, if God is to allow us to "know" the truth so that the truth can "set us free," He must provide a uniquely reliable epistemology of religious truth which gives well-grounded principled confidence in its conclusions, such that the person can claim to "know," and not merely be holding an opinion. (l.) Furthermore, to "be set free" appears to require some kind of freedom to choose one's actions; (m.) One isn't "free" either to disobey, or obey God, if one has no clue what God desires of us...but if one _knows_ what God desires us to affirm and to do, then one is thereby empowered to _choose_ to obey God or not; (n.) Christians also believe that Christianity -- _true_ Christianity, but not some of its false near-beer substitutes -- provides a Christian with salvation from their sins: Not merely forgiveness, but _also_ liberation from slavery to sin; (o.) It seems, therefore, that for the "truth to set us free" we need to arrive at true Christianity so as to have the freedom to choose to obey God (or not), and also to have access to the truth which can produce liberation from slavery to sin; (p.) Therefore, it appears that if God is to allow us to "know the truth" so that the truth will "set us free," He must point us towards some _unusually reliable_ Epistemology of Faith. There. There's probably some way to make that shorter than I've made it. But that's the general idea.

@@ClassicPhilosophyFTW: Thanks! Look at my reply to John, I think it's along similar lines. Perhaps what you said can be combined with what I'm saying about Premise 1?

Whoopsie!

Where did Christ give the bishops of Rome the authority to interpret Scripture?

@@Justas399 He gave the authority of the church to Peter. Peter gave it to his successor at Rome.

​@@Justas399 Where did Jesus say that only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are to be his official Gospel writers?

@@georgepierson4920 He didn't.

@@Justas399 Are you absolutely sure that Jesus only wanted four men to officially write his life story?

But what do you mean by "the early Church can get things wrong"? Don't worry... I'm no scholar, especially of theology or Scripture. I think this podcast is thought - provoking, at least for me. I'm basically here to listen and not argue. Peace of God to you from Florida.

@@johnbrzykcy3076 I only mean that if they thought these books were not scripture then they’d be wrong. But the fact they are silent on this doesn’t mean they thought that.

​@@theosophicalwanderings7696 Okay. You seemingly have a valid point because "silence" is not necessarily an accurate way to interpret a person's belief or worldviews. However an accumulation of such absence could point to the probability that a specific belief was not held by a church father. So it can be confusing because there are various things to consider, such as how many writings do we have by an individual church father? And from the writing extant, who was the recipient of the manuscript? So although I don't negate all the information that Trent made available, we need to consider other aspects too. Thanks for sharing because your comments help me to think better. Peace of God to you from Florida.

I also have been thinking similar to you. In fact, these arguments and debates provide another opportunity for Muslims to attack Christianity and the authority of the New Testament. I'm not trying to disrespect Muslims but their strong belief that Jesus was not the Son of God nor did He die for our sins, is based on the Quran. And the Quran is the ultimate Holy book for Islam. Are you familiar with the Quran? So if we argue and fight about the authority of our New Testament, we become a target similar to the way that Jesus was "attacked" by the religious leaders of His day. Unfortunately, these debates have divided us for centuries and I don't see any reconciliation in the future. Do you? Peace of God to you from Florida...

Where has the Roman Catholic church infallibly interpreted the Scriptures? Where is this work to be found?

@@Justas399 Answering a question with a question is always a sure sign you can't answer the original question as posed. Nice try, though!

@@robertopacheco2997 Just pointing out one the weaknesses of some of the claims of catholics.

@@Justas399 Where has the Roman Catholic Church infallibly interpreted Scripture? I don't know, but perhaps, just perhaps, mind you, a Catholic would respond in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church". That you wouldn't agree isn't proof that they're wrong.

@@Justas399 You did no such thing, at least in the reply to my post. That you don't think the Catholic Church is right about anything doesn't make it so. You might just think the earth is flat or just 6000 years old. That doesn't make you a geologist!

Interesting comment. Thanks.

Actually, they were. The great Christological debates of the early centuries all involved citing the scriptures.

@@malcolmtas5601 agreed that they involved scripture. However, not scripture alone. All the other groups used scripture as well.

​@@user-uc1yb7hy2n Again, this is thought provoking. Have you read any of the historical accounts regarding these Christological debates? Peace

@@johnbrzykcy3076 yes I have. Ignatius’ Seven genuine epistles deal with the Docetae. Irenaeus delt with the Gnostics in Against Heresies. This was particularly interesting due to the Gnostic’s way of interpreting scripture. Both these early Fathers are worth checking out if you haven’t already. I was also very surprised years ago to learn how dependent Arianism was on scripture. God bless.

Part 2... I there there is problems when someone who find something valid tries to apply it universally to the entire Church. If one person holds Sola Scriptura, it is a problem to say all must. Others need other things. There is a minefield when navigating this area. Those who hold believe baptism and do evangelism and make disciples that stand do a good work. But... they run into problems when they have children. I have bounced around. I was Orthodox Church awhile but cannot now because I am not near one so I went back Catholic. I conversed with someone saying that they were an ExOrthodox, and had a site up going into it. Infant baptism was discussed with them saying Protestants all opposed infant baptism. I told them do research on it further and look at the Reform tradition. I believe they pulled the site and decided to reevaluate things. People need to tread carefully. I have my own quirks and fusion. I fit a lot of places but also nowhere. I do Catholic mass now out of practical reality that if I am not going to fit anywhere, I might as well be with the largest group I do not fit in. Ironic part was that I mirrored Catholic Church teaching outside the Church in opposition to Evangelical issues while even being antiCatholic while doing this. Go figure. Reading the updated Catachism, I really only had objection to particular judgement and also the idea that the goal is to get to heaven and not to be part of the return of Christ. This is also I hold salvation is a process, nor a destination. I have my roll my own version of it, that has issues, but errors that points to greater truth. The assumption of Mary is of greater issue for me because of this. Everyone who places everyone in heaven immediately does not. But it goes on. I think holders of Sola Scriptura need to do it as a personal thing. Just my take.

convert to what?

Convert to stop his great paying business of being a pastor, olsteen…

The real question is will you trust yourself to read Gods word as he intends? Or will you see what you want to see?

@@NevetsWC1134 I don't trust myself at all. That is why I need the Holy Spirit to guide me wherever I go. His word is a lamp to my feet and light for my path.

Micah, “ I don't trust myself at all. That is why I need the Holy Spirit to guide me wherever I go. His word is a lamp to my feet and light for my path” How do you explain people who disagree with you on what the Bible teaches? Do they not have the Holy Spirit? And how would you know?

@@andonedave Make no mistake, anyone one who calls Jesus a liar does not have the Holy Spirit. Anyone who rejects the word of God does not have the Holy Spirit. After all, it was the Spirit who inspired the authors of the bible what to write. Please consider the words of 2 Peter 1:20-21 "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the *Holy Spirit.*

Micah, Can you clarify? Are you advocating individual interpretation of scripture “guided by the Holy Spirit”?

Agreed, why did he not give a number like he did the other columns ?

@@codysmith7038 Have you ever seen penalty kick shoot outs in soccer? When they keep score, usually the "O" is for a made PK and "X" is for a missed kick. It just looks weird. Like the "X" means the church father spoke out against church authority or were at least silent. Of course, Horn is making the exact opposite point!

LOL Thank you. I was so confused about the X's too. I knew they couldn't mean zero because he used zeros too, so I was scratching my head feeling like a dummy.

Facts are stubborn things, though. I am still waiting for evidence of Sola Scriptura believers prior to Luther.

no one cares about your opinion.

There's no valid rebuttal. Sola scriptura didn't exist until Martin Luther pulled it from his rear, some 1000+ years after it would've been necessary if there was any legitimacy to the idea at all.

@@tom6812 I get the sense you wouldn't say that to my face; that you'd be far more respectful to me in person. Anonymity online does bring out the worst in us.

@@N1IA-4 facts are stubborn things; one of the things that made me desire to do a response video was Horn's double standard. He's essentially making arguments that would invalidate the Papacy.

who said 2 Peter was written by Peter?

Actually 4 Gospels was already the consensus of the Fathers way before 313. St Irenaeus himself talks with the highest insistence that there are only 4 gospels, and that like, in the end of the second century. He didn't get this insistence out of thin air, so the "only 4 Gospels" position was already there before him in a very strong state. And all the gnostic gospels are from either the late second century or third century.

However, the Church Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit did copy original scripture and compile what we now call the Bible. So in a sense yes, some of them spoke and acted for all of Christianity. God bless

@@user-uc1yb7hy2n You don't know if any church father was guided by the Holy Spirit. You don't know if they had the "copy original scripture". You are making stuff up.

​@@Justas399 And you are making assumptions based on no evidence.

@@georgepierson4920 I made no assumptions. He did.

@@Justas399 your original post is an assumption

Exactly. As a Protestant, I've always felt 'Sola Scriptura' was never about scripture itself but instead about how we view the nature and role of the church and its authority. I have not yet seen a discussion on this end (I will be finishing this video, though!), but so far, the main arguments I've seen for the Catholic position on the infallibility of the Magesterium have been a) an interpretation of Jesus' commands and blessings on the apostles which bequeathed this infallibility (which most Protestants see as either not giving infallibility or otherwise not applying beyond the apostles) and b) an argument from a negative of "Here's why an infallible Magesterium is necessary, therefore we have an infallible Magesterium." I'm hoping to find some additional proofs for and discussions of this idea of an infallible Magesterium. If nothing else, I at least want to understand this core assumption as I feel this could help dialogue between Catholics and Protestants in the future.

Umm the Magisterium does many teachings, in fact most of those teachings aren’t infallible. Seems to be a really big misunderstanding of the Magisterium. Yes some of the teachings that are dogmas are infallibly taught sure, but that number is minuscule to the amount of doctrines and other teachings in the Church So there’s this constant straw man argument from Protestants about the Magisterium because they don’t understand it really When it does speak officially, the Magisterium can exercise its authority in different degrees. At the low end, the Magisterium may merely propose an idea for the consideration of the faithful without imposing it authoritatively. At the high end, the Magisterium may infallibly teach a truth, binding the faithful to definitively believe or hold it. It can also exercise any degree of authority between these levels. A particular mistake to be avoided is thinking that, just because something has not been taught infallibly, it is optional. This is not the case, and the degree of authority with which the Magisterium has taught must be recognized. When considering the authority that statements in magisterial documents have, one must make a careful assessment. The degree of authority “becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Veritatis 24).

It shows a little bit of how Ecumenical Councils are done

La foi seule est morte! Voir Épître de Saint Jacques 2;24 et 25

I would also appreciate such notes if it's possible. I'm not very good with this cell phone technology. Or is there a book that Trent can recommend to us ?

Pastor means shepherd.

And, as Mr. Horn says, it's a tact that the early writers make reference to books such as Enoch or the Proto-Evangelium of James; so on a related note, we should rhetorically ask Bible-alone-Chriatians why their KJVs don't have such books.

*fact, not tact lol