We need more books like this! I'm looking forward to reading it. Thanks for the great interview!!

Acts 8:30-31: So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” 2 Peter 3:15-16: So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Looking forward to listening. I couldn’t fathom the idea of a knowledgeable Protestant relinquishing the notion of the clarity of scripture until I started realizing that Protestants don’t agree on much of anything , either specific verses or doctrine. Question: does the interpretation of the living magisterium take into consideration cultural nuances of what Paul may be saying rather than an anachronistic understanding of the text?

Great discussion. I’ve been eyeing this book for a while now.

@16:07 Excellent point! I think defining our terms is essential for any theological discussion. Just today, I was having a discussion about my job and how "progressive" it has become. The other person stated you mean "ruin" not progressive. I said, "very true" I was using the term in the modern sense not a Chesterton sense (Chesterton would have lit me up) which just made me more aware to the fact how much damage and destruction has been done to our language. “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” ― G.K. Chesterton

Very interesting. Many thanks. Might have to start a channel for this purpose though having watched Sam Shamoun (Former Baptist then Calvanist now moving towards the Catholic/Orthodox Churches) and he has some mind blowing depth of knowledge. Also he led me here for which I am very welcome.

Great discussion doc!

No. No one is wise enough to understand the width & breadth of Holy Scripture without consistent teaching. It is impossible. That's why we have the magestirium

At the end of the Gospel of Matthew is described the mission that Jesus gave to His 11 apostles who represented the newly born Church. Here is what was said: "And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Where is there any reference to scripture? Here we have a very human institution, including even many apostles that were 'doubters'. Yet Jesus say's that He will be with them ..." all days' even to the consumption of the world ". This means that the physical Church of believers, started by Peter and these other disciples... will be the first of many teachers in the Church until the end of the world. On another note here.... The reference to Baptism is also not to be ignored, because it is a very physical act that is performed, and not merely an intellectual understanding or theological reflection. So, Jesus commands His Church to both teach things....as well as Do things. And again, nowhere here is there any hint that this new born Church should write anything down. But they were commanded to BAPTIZE. Best to all.

I agree that an "interpretative authority" outside of oneself is necessary for a fuller understanding. But it does not necessarily follow that that authority would be the historic Catholic Church. It SHOULD be, but it is not necessarily. The RCC has fallen into error on some things, lost sight of key insights, and has blurred the meaning of scripture in some of its interpretations due to misunderstanding of Jesus' teachings, yielding to the temptation to go along with popular fads, myths, and beliefs of the times, political expediency, and dogmatic demands. Worst of all was their desire to CONTROL everything.

29:09 ecclesial consumerism. Yep, this is what happens when divorced from true apostolic unity.

I have trouble with the opposite situation. The real question is can we find a church that understands the bible? There's too much that everyone has missed. Sure. A lot of the basics are figured out but it is still hard to clear out the muck.

🔥♥️

1:13 I would take a middle position. II Peter 3:16 says _some_ verses in Paul are hard to understand. He does not say a Scripture has to be hard to be understood for unlearned and unstable to wrest it to their damnation. So, the Bible is _mostly_ perspicuous. Especially the historic parts, as Historia scholastica was translated into both Flemish and French for diffusion among laymen.

Protestants have to make an argument from all three letters written to the Corinthians for me to even give a look at what they are attempting to say.

Bringing up the Jehovah's Witnesses reminds me of how malleable the "essentials" are. Dispensationalism denies that the Kingdom of God has come. That's what sets it apart from the historical premillennialism in people like St. Irenaeus. Any early Christian, any Reformer, any Catholic, any Orthodox would be appalled by that idea. Yet dispensationalists teach that. Since the Gospel is, basically, Jesus is the pre-existant, anointed king who became man, died for our sins, rose from the dead, is seated at the right hand of glory (a throne reference), and is coming again in the parousia (a royal term), Jesus' inauguration of the Kingdom of God is pretty basic. On that count, JWss are more faithful to the simpler forms of the Gospel than dispensationalists. When I point that out to (non-dispensationalist) Protestants, it gets very uneasy. They see the problem. The discussion then turns to Jesus' being God, but that doctrine has been reduced to a checkmark in most Protestant theologies anyway, and in the line of reasoning that leads JWs to their denial of the Incarnation, the JWs are simply applying a doctrine common to most Protestants and taking it to its logical conclusion. They are, therefore, both a little closer on the Gospel and more consistent. Add to that, God will answer their prayers (I have seen this). The conversation always gets tense, because JWs are not orthodox by any stretch, but it's difficult to get off that train once it starts. The only way off is to deny most Evangelicals are Christians or remove the Kingdom of God from the essentials. However, I have to defend the Protestants on this. The problem persists into the Roman Catholic Church. I'm Orthodox, for instance, so we would disagree on what church objectively defined the Nicene Creed, etc. There are four bodies that lay claim to that and have real historical claims to it, and because the body of literature is much greater over a broader history over more cultures, it's even easier to proof text. The miraculous is generally available too, for Fatima we Orthodox have the Holy Fire, for instance. If either of us retreat to Scripture as objectively verifying our claims, we immediately run into the exact same quagmire the Protestants have with Scripture save that the options are greatly reduced.

"In my opinion, you're not a real Catholic apologist until you anger James White." 🤣🤣🤣 I saw a video of Michael Lofton saying: "I greatly admire and appreciate James White and much of what he does...I think he's great overall." If Lofton has recanted that, I would very much like to know where that can be found. What do you make of Rome's present position not to convert the eastern schismatics, who they invariably call the "Orthodox"?

The rejection of Sola Scriptura has led to churches and individuals embracing false doctrines.

The RCC has never infallibly nor officially interpreted the Scriptures. That means the RC can never know with certainty what a specific passage or verse means because it has never been definitely interpreted. Not all RC's agree on the doctrines and interpretations of Scripture. There are dozens if not thousands of different interpretations. No getting around that. (This also includes church doctrines and councils) Christ never gave the RCC the authority to interpret the Scriptures.

Reading the Bible in Sola Scriptura mode, one tends to come up with his or her own myth. The founder of The Salvation Army,William Booth, was a Methodist but he picked up Charles Finny ; the theology of Revivalism , no where in the New Testament , Boot ended up combining Revivalism and the theology of Dispensation of John Darby, rejecting all sacraments, including baptism , replacing it the Altar Call and the Sinners Prayer, nowhere in the NT also. It's empirical to read the Bible in mode of Sentire Cum Ecclesia (In the Mind of Church) the best guideline for now is The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, without which, one ends in obscurity, intellectual bankruptcy, mythology, endless, mad breakups among the Protestants.