Yuan, thank you for this. Did you copy it from a source?

@YAJUN YUAN Could you be more specific? Your answer is a little vague.

@YAJUN YUAN I think what you've written could be good considerations for why they wrote, but not really solid proofs as they are still speculations. The church was quite organic back then and many of the apostles students continue to write long after with those letters also holding authority to the church (i.e. Clements letter to the Corinthians, the Didache and many more). Also I don't think anyone is claiming that the NT writers preached something different from their writings, you may need to clarify.

@YAJUN YUAN Lesser authority is still an authority. And they were certainly teaching from Scripture. As for proof from the Scriptures, I hold a material sufficiency view, who can means every doctrine can be found implicitly or explicitly from Scripture. I think this is superior to the Sola Scriptural view since it allows the Church the binding authority Christ granted it. If scripture is your only infallible source than it makes it difficult to determine if a teaching from scripture is the infallible one (since none exist outside), and you easily end up with the multitude of doctrines floating around. Scripture hold a special place and is above the magisterium. Tradition (in one sense) is the guiding lens on how to read scripture.

@YAJUN YUAN Then why doesn't a single one of those points have an explicit Scriptural reference?

@YAJUN YUAN yeah, your list is pretty much baloney because you add to the text of scripture and leave off important pieces that frame the verse you use. In 2tim3 Paul tells Timothy to remember the faith and doctrine the he, Paul, taught Timothy through his own example. Then he adds the scripture, which is “profitable” NOT “sufficient”. While we acknowledge scripture as our only divine word, outside of Jesus himself, Paul does not say it is sufficient. When you CHANGE the words of scripture to defend your position, you at least err and at most lie. In the end you lead people away from truth. Several of your points have this error.

He says private interpretation isn’t the only authority and says that we can use tradition, but then immediately after says that Scripture has the final say so. But that is only relevant if you’re assuming your traditions interpretation is correct. I would venture to say that there is no early church father where you can find a nonbaptismal regeneration view or a non real presence view. And Protestants can say they disagree because they believe Scripture because it’s the authority. But no, that can’t be it. It’s not as if the early church just ignored scripture. It basically comes down to my interpretation versus theirs. And it’s starting to become more and more difficult to say. Yes, the church had it wrong the first 1500 years.

@@Mr.Anglo1095 Howdy, Jacob! Thanks for commenting. I appreciate your open mindedness, and I went through similar struggles before I was Catholic. In light of my discussion with Gavin, you may find this article of interest: jimmyakin.com/2021/10/a-new-approach-to-sola-scriptura-can-it-be-saved-by-changing-its-definition.html God bless you, and I'll pray for guidance on your journey!

At bottom though, everything comes down to your own use of reason. Even if you have an infallible magisterium teaching what the Bible means, you still have to interpret that interpretation since it is also conveyed in words. That’s why I never found this particular argument against sola scriptura very compelling. Motivated reasoning will get you where you want to go whether or not you have a magisterium, as shown by the many professing Catholics who believe things that are (per other Catholics) clearly in contrast with the Church’s teachings. In fairness Gavin’s appeal is no better insofar as a Protestant is debating a Catholic.

@@joshuascott5814 I had fallen away from Catholicism and came back to it about 2 years ago. I agree with you that everyone will use their own reason; however, because the Catholic Church has clear teachings on certain issues, those teachings motivated me to look more deeply at why the Catholic Church holds to those teachings. What I came to understand is that people in the Catholic Church have already used a ton of logic and reason as part of the process of discerning the truth and beauty of those teachings, which are important for human flourishing. The Catholic Church has been dealing with many of these questions for over 2,000 years and has considered them in a very deep way. A good example pertains to human sexuality. In our sex obsessed culture, on the surface it sounds nuts to oppose artificial birth control. But once I came to understand the fruits of artificial birth control - more fatherlessness, more single mothers, more abortions, and the normalizing of pornography- I started to see the wisdom and beauty of the Catholic Church's position that Natural Family Planning (NFP) and behaving with sexual restraint and sexual integrity is better for women, children, and human flourishing as a whole. This is just one example, and a long winded way of saying that the reason and logic is already there in the Catholic Church, and is available to anyone pursuing a full understanding of how and why the Catholic Church teaches particular doctrines and morals.

You can argue the same thing the other way. There aren't any early church fathers that even knew about icon veneration, not giving the laity the Lord's supper in both kinds, the papacy etc. The scripture is made up of words and words have meanings sometimes it can be hard to to understand. The prespecuity of scripture is there though for those who seek it honestly. Also, if the church is the one who interprets scripture, why haven't they just interpreted all of scripture? And laid everything out?

Gavin Ortlund has a PhD

@@bman5257 and lol

@@justsomevids4541 it originally said Mr. Ortlund.

@@bman5257 ooooh now it makes sense lol

@@justsomevids4541 I’m Catholic so I wasn’t saying Dr. Ortlund has a PhD, therefore he’s right about sola scriptura.

me too

@YAJUN YUAN sufficient doesn’t mean complete. In most times it really just means a minimum condition to meet for a particular action within language itself. There is also sacred tradition. Also not to mention the fact that Saint Paul himself told others to preserve the secret traditions that they had communicated to them. There wasn’t a Bible for the first 200 years as we know it. The scripture he would’ve been referring to what I’ve been mostly the old testament. Meaning there would be a significant gap period that this thesis that you’re proposing doesn’t account for. This means there would have been a significant oral tradition that would’ve been unaccounted for within Christian communities. Also the authorities stems from the persons of the apostle after they were give it from Christ. So the persons of the apostles of themselves carry some sway. This accounts for the catholic understanding of Scripture and tradition both having weight. Yes, we acknowledge scripture as having the highest authority. Saint Thomas Aquinas states that scripture is the highest form of knowledge. However it needs to be interpreted and taught by those who are the successors of the apostles. And that is why we have Bishops. The fact that there are historically bishops in the early church who taught and had to pass on succession is confirmation of this claim. History bares witness of Saint Ignatius of Antioch being a successor of John for example.

@YAJUN YUAN There was a church in the early times with Bishops. It's just a fact. You're playing exegetical games when history bares witness.

Janet, yes I noted that Gavin didn't respond to that point from Jimmy, which in a way was a shame (I'm protestant). I imagine the discussion would be something along the lines of whether doctrinal diversity amongst Protestants is necessarily bad, ie it may serve as a form of check and balance, and that it may guard the overall body from scriptural divergence , which a Protestant would say is what happened to the Roman Catholic church, hence the need for the reformation.

@@anthonywhitney634 Doctrinal diversity IS scriptural divergence. Isn't it true that every Protestant doctrine is backed up by scripture or are you talking about doctrines of men that have NO scriptural basis? The problem occurs when the same passages are interpreted differently by different denominations. The question for the Baptist for instance, is not 'why are you not Catholic?' It is 'why are you not Presbyterian or Lutheran?' Which denomination has the correct scriptural interpretation? The one that believes baptism saves or the one that believes baptism is just a symbolic ritual? The one that believes in predestination or the one that upholds that salvation is a free-will choice available to every single person?

If you could do me a favor, I did a rebuttal to this line of thinking called "the Psychology of Catholic Converts" which if you would watch adequately answers your concerns here. One of the things I would mention that I mention in your video is that there's evidence from church history which goes against what you're saying.

@YAJUN YUAN the Church was given the authority by Christ Himself in the Scriptures. All of the Scriptures attest to this. Jesus said that if one of your brothers is lost, and he won't listen to you and one or 2 others, to take the matter to the Church. THE Church. Taking him to the Church only works if there is a single Church, with the authority to settle such disputes. Anything less than that and you end up with 30,000 Protestant denominations with different personal interpretations of the Bible. Back to my original point, Sola Scriptura allows pride to outrule Scripture. If you're reading the Scriptures humbly, you'll see the authority Christ gave to His Church. The only way you won't see it is if you're reading them pridefully and with preconceived ideas of what they say

@YAJUN YUAN Catholics don't understand that any views they hold can be argued against using a parody argument they throw at protestants, namely, "how do you know that"? Any response they give can be equally adopted by the protestant.

I must say, this is a thought provoking comment. My response to that is that we do have a church to mediate scriptural disputes. I define church as the body of believers (this would include early church fathers and modern church officials). One term I remember from part 1 of this vid is "binding but not infallible". That's my view of the authority of the body of believers, binding and authoritative but not infallible. So, in my view, we have an authoritative church to settle disputes but do we need an infallible magisterium?

@@damerkharmawphlang4196 "I define church as the body of believers." Sure you do. That's a common protestant definition. But what makes that body of believers authoritative? What binds someone to agree with you? Paul wrote that if your brother is in error, and he can't be convinced by 1 or 2 others (the body of believers), take it to the Church. And of he won't listen even to the Church, let him be as a gentile or a publican. Paul is clearly writing about an official, authoritative body, who has the authority not just to settle disputes, but to excommunicate heretics. Do we really need an infallible magisterium? Yes, and for that exact reason. We have to be able to trust the authoritative decisions made by the Church. And Christ gives us this assurance when He makes the promise to Peter that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church

@@jakesanders136 Good point. There is no escaping personal intuition, conscience, and interpretation. Adding a magisterium really just removes the issue a step back. One reason I chose Orthodoxy and not RC.

@ thatguy I would like to tackle baptismal regeneration a little bit. So from scripture, in most cases it seems that the Spirit decends before water baptism; Baptism by water using the formula Father,Son and Holy Spirit or God's Spirit decending upon them like fire? In Acts 10 when Peter gave his speech on Christ the Holy Spirit came before they were water Baptized. In Acts after Pentecost Peter encourages them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. But in many other places it seems to indicate two or perhaps 3 different ways to be baptized. 1. Baptism by John the Baptist which was for reptenence for the coming of the Lord 2.) Water baptism using the Trinitarian formula 3.) Being baptized by the Holy Spirit The early fathers quite clearly had the position on case 2 but for me I see real power in case 3 noted above. That dosent mean case 2 should be ignored but rather an outwardly display of your inwardly baptism by the Spirit aka circumcision of the heart using case 2. So here the tricky aspect of this is in which case should we given more weight? Case 1 is 0 because in the texts also in Acts we read some where baptized by John the Baptist but did not know the Spirit until they laid their hands on them. Case 2 is tricky outside of acts after Pentecost when Peter speaks to the crowd But in many other instances it was being baptized by the Holy Spirit is where the spiritual regeneration occurred and then were baptized. Paul being a perfect example of this on his way to Damascus.The Lord already anointed him as a chooses instrument to preach his word and after he was healed by Barnabas was he then water baptized by him using case 2. So, to me it could mean that the Fathers were using case 3 but that case 2 got more attention. Case 3 is really where the true regeneration occurs as this is the spiritual promise to those who believe and elected by God.

//If Ortlund accepts the infallibility of apostolic tradition, and by implication the apostolic magisterium, that necessarily posits two distinct infallible authorities outside the bible, which would nullify any definition of sola scriptura as the only source of infallible ecclesial authority (at least within the first century). // You answered your question. All the apostles have been dead for a long time. Sola Scriptura is operative when prophets and apostles aren't around. But even in those eras, prophets and apostles were to be tested against Scripture. //The doctrine of private judgment holds that a Christian may freely appeal to his/her own private interpretation of scripture to check and even overthrow the doctrinal pronouncements of the Magisterium. // There's no way around this in any paradigm. Even yours. You are always the last link in the chain.

@@aGoyforJesus //But even in those eras, prophets and apostles were to be tested against Scripture.// How are the apostles to be tested against scripture if scripture was being revealed? According to your logic, if someone had determined that their interpretation of the OT was contrary to apostolic teaching, they were well within their right to reject it, which is rather absurd. Furthermore, you are not comprehending the force of my argument. You have three distinct infallible sources of authority within the first century; you would have to PROVE that this was no longer the case after the first century. Also, where does scripture teach formal sufficiency? //There's no way around this in any paradigm. Even yours. You are always the last link in the chain.// You can only come to that conclusion if you don't understand what private judgement is. It's specifically a Christian doctrine which states that Christians can reject the teaching authority of the Church based on their private interpretation of scripture. In the Catholic framework, Catholics are bound to follow the judgements of the church. For example, if I currently thought that Mary was not the mediatrix of grace, but tomorrow the church defined that she was, I would be obliged to follow it. In your paradigm that isn't the case.

@@contrasedevacantism6811 //How are the apostles to be tested against scripture if scripture was being revealed? According to your logic, if someone had determined that their interpretation of the OT was contrary to apostolic teaching, they were well within their right to reject it, which is rather absurd.// The Torah orders people to test prophets according to what's in the Torah. Current prophets are tested against past revelation. This is in the Torah. This is what the Bereans were commended for. //Furthermore, you are not comprehending the force of my argument. You have three distinct infallible sources of authority within the first century; you would have to PROVE that this was no longer the case after the first century. // All the apostles are dead. It's not incumbent on me to prove there's an ongoing revelation. Given both myself and your church actually agree on that, I'm not sure what the issue would be. I guess what the issue is in the last 200 years your church came to recognize due to historical analysis that previous claims that all their beliefs were delivered by the apostles were untenable. So your church claims that ongoing revelation is not happening while you need the equivalent of ongoing revelation for your developed doctrines. //Also, where does scripture teach formal sufficiency?// Mark 7 teaches both material and formal sufficiency. I have a video which covers this if you're interested. //You can only come to that conclusion if you don't understand what private judgement is. It's specifically a Christian doctrine which states that Christians can reject the teaching authority of the Church based on their private interpretation of scripture. In the Catholic framework, Catholics are bound to follow the judgements of the church. For example, if I currently thought that Mary was not the mediatrix of grace, but tomorrow the church defined that she was, I would be obliged to follow it. In your paradigm that isn't the case.// As we see in both the New Testament and Old, God expects us to reject teachings coming to us in the name of God which don't conform to Scripture? How do you think an Israelite was supposed to detect that a prophet was a false prophet?

@@aGoyforJesus //The Torah orders people to test prophets according to what's in the Torah. Current prophets are tested against past revelation. This is in the Torah. This is what the Bereans were commended for.// Technically, Deuteronomy 13:1-5 does no such thing. First, God is speaking at a time when the Torah was yet to be revealed, so this would be a reference to the oral commands given through Moses. Second, the Bereans weren’t commended for examining the teaching of the apostles per se, but accepting Apostolic Teaching; contrary to the Thessalonians whom I’m sure also examined the scriptures but rejected the teaching of the Apostles. Also you do not understand what private judgment is. It exists exclusively within an ecclesial context; so it doesn’t apply to those outside of it. So they can’t be used in support of sola scriptura. //All the apostles are dead. It's not incumbent on me to prove there's an ongoing revelation.// No one is suggesting that there is ongoing revelation. What I was arguing was that private judgment wasn’t operative in the first century at least with regard to legitimate authority. In other words, Christians couldn’t appeal to their interpretation in OPPOSITION to the apostles’ teachings or their legitimate successors. //I guess what the issue is in the last 200 years your church came to recognize due to historical analysis that previous claims that all their beliefs were delivered by the apostles were untenable.// You would have to explain. //Mark 7 teaches both material and formal sufficiency. I have a video which covers this if you're interested. // Mark 7 would simply be an instance of binding and loosing, without it having been authorized by heaven. In fact, there was never an official decree by the Sanhedrin to my recollection that made such a claim regarding washing hands. Even supposing that the rabbis didn’t have such authority, Jesus now clearly gives that the apostles and their successors in Matthew 16. //As we see in both the New Testament and Old, God expects us to reject teachings coming to us in the name of God which don't conform to Scripture? How do you think an Israelite was supposed to detect that a prophet was a false prophet?// You don’t need revelation to know that Idolatry and polytheism are wrong; this is clearly stated by Romans 1:19-20. Given that the Jews accepted the infallibility of tradition and the authority of their teachers (in some cases even the infallibility of their decrees), we know that they didn’t practice sola scriptura; so I don’t know why you are even bringing the Jews up. The same would be second century Christians; they had the traditions of the apostles and their legitimate successors. Your comment merely proves the necessity of an ongoing teaching authority. Here is an argument for you: (1) The deposit of faith (DF) was received in fullness by the Holy Apostles. (2) One may construct a proposition P that contains concepts or facts unknown to the apostolic generation. Who decides whether P contradicts or is consistent with DF? The Apostles themselves could not answer. Though they knew DF in its fullness, they could not have been aware of P. So we will not find the answer explicitly written in Scripture. We need a teaching authority who understands both DF and P.

@YAJUN YUAN I don't know why you are copying and pasting the same comment on different posts that have nothing to do with the content of those aforementioned posts. If you want to debate me, I already told you that we can do so on a different forum such as streamyard or over the phone. Regarding your comment, a Catholic can licitly hold to the view that all of Christian doctrine was materially (i.e., implicitly) committed to writing. However, I don't necessarily adhere to that view. I think the strongest counter argument is that oral teaching (through legitimate succession) was the primary mode of handing on apostolic teaching. As proof of this, only 5 out of the 11 original apostles committed anything to writing. Plus we are not including the numerous other disciples who committed nothing to writing. If oral teaching was unreliable as you suggest then it wouldn't have been their primary mode of teaching.

You realize that all you have is your own subjective conclusion on history, tradition, and scripture in recognition of the authenticity of the magisterium? The day catholics wake up to the fact that they fall to the same epistemic shortcomings they love to throw at protestants will be the day the discussion can move forward. Any argument a catholic can bring can simply be parodied against the catholic, which in turn makes it no argument at all.

@@TKK0812 subjective conclusion on history, tradition, and scripture on the authenticity of the magisterium? Jesus Christ recognized the teaching authority of the Pharisees. And we have the example of the council of Jerusalem in the book of acts. Nothing subjective there. Just like Jimmy said, if tradition and magisterium was the model in the book of acts and the 1st century why would Protestants decide to do alway with it later??? Also apostolic succession ensures that those original teachings are faithfully passed down. After all didn’t Christ give his promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against his Church?? So with that promise we can know for sure that the teachings of the apostles live on to this day. Otherwise you begin to argue like Muslims and Mormans who claim that the original teachings of Christ were lost in the early centuries and only recently resurrected.

@@enniomojica7812 *Just like Jimmy said, if tradition and magisterium was the model in the book of acts and the 1st century why would Protestants decide to do always with it later???* That's just your private interpretation of scripture. Why should I trust it? *Also apostolic succession ensures that those original teachings are faithfully passed down* It absolutely doesn't. Many of the early churches, including ones Paul planted himself, fell into rank heresy almost immediately. *After all didn’t Christ give his promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against his Church??* Gates are defensive, not offensive. The meaning of that verse is not that the church won't fall into error, even serious error, for prolonged periods of time. That verse means that the victory of the church over the works of satan are guaranteed. Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, and to crush the head of the serpent. This verse has nothing to do with guaranteeing right doctrine or practice. *So with that promise we can know for sure that the teachings of the apostles live on to this day* We certainly can, but it's no thanks to the catholic church or "apostolic succession". *Otherwise you begin to argue like Muslims and Mormans who claim that the original teachings of Christ were lost in the early centuries and only recently resurrected* No, that doesn't even make sense, it's simply an assertion.

@@TKK0812 sounds like your refutes have more to do with your frame of bias than an actual historic frame of reference.

I did a video you may want to look up called "the Psychology of Catholic Converts." Without reiterating the arguments here, the desire for everything to be clean & orderly doesn't make it so. Also, you know Pope Francis is your pope, right?

@@aGoyforJesus : I think psychologizing away other people's motivations is not a good way of pursuading folks. Nor is sarcasm.

@@actsapologist1991 // I think psychologizing away other people's motivations is not a good way of pursuading folks. // You guys straight up tell us what your considerations are. Are we not supposed to analyze it? // Nor is sarcasm.// You go on and on about the speck in Sola Scriptura's eye but ignore the Pope Francis-shaped log in your own.

Gavin has a video on Augustine’s affirmation of sola scriptura

Thank you very much! I'm afraid that, since this conversation was done live and unscripted, we don't have a transcript of it, but if one becomes available, I'll let you know. Some of the material I cover in the discussion is found in my book The Bible Is a Catholic Book and on my website Jimmy Akin Dot Com. Gavin may have material that he drew on available as well.

Thank you!

@@JimmyAkin 🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of seeming facetious, any person who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron. Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise he wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept and therefore has no influence on the eternal, timeless Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The ONLY omni-property which comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since the Absolute knows absolutely everything (i.e. Itself). The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted simultaneously with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I'm sure most everyone would indicate the head, at least in the first instance, agreed? Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God or The Goddess), which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion. Of course, the more INTELLIGENT theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely not a person in the etymological sense, and not even a person in the common-usage of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent “entity” as being a person? The mere fact that theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person require gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague and undefined term. Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal which possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I am planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals). Many otherwise intelligent theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a radical Indian cult first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s by a truly delusional retired pharmacist named Mr. A. C. De), HONESTLY believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna manages to incorporate relative time into the timeless realm (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades or sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher himself. Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must NECESSARILY transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. Neither Eternal Beingness, Unlimited Consciousness, nor Blissful Quietude (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit) necessitate personality. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from (Absolute) Truth. The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for theists referring to the Absolute as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of MIND (by which they really mean some degree of Universal, Infinite Consciousness). However, it is indeed possible (and in fact, is the case) that the Ground of Being is Pure Consciousness Itself. Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa” or “brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristicss of Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated awareness, et cetera, and we humans are, quintessentially, of the same Nature. In other words, you are, fundamentally, “God” (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Most arguments for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. As explicated elsewhere, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a a legitimate contention, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness. There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity): 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Cont...

2. Because they may have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self. The Real Self is synonymous with “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field” and “The Source of All”. 3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is inherently PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism. We atheists are patiently awaiting the time when the Perfectly-Loving God will publically show Himself to His beloved creatures, rather than merely sending imperfect representatives to this planet, under the pretence that they are “fully divine”. This is known as the “Problem of Divine Hiddenness”. Of course, this will never ever occur, because, as I think that I have sufficiently demonstrated, a Supreme Personal God is a logical impossibility. 4. Because they may have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analytical skills, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source, no matter how unreliable. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life. Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the famous South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed. As an aside or adjunct, it seems that virtually every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit). It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God which created the Universe. “God is greater than God.” ************* “Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.” ************* “Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.” ************* “There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.” ************* “The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.” ************* “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.” Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart), German Roman Catholic Priest. “God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself. The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.” ************* “Worshippers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.” ************* “Each person’s apparently stable separate identity, each human’s sense of independent authorship of their actions, is part of the plan. It is how God plays, how God rolls, how God roles. God ‘dresses up’ as each person with their quirks, puts them in boring or interesting settings, and then experiences what happens. Far from being a screw up in need of fixing, it is how the universe experiences itself.” Ramesh S. Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.

Jimmy is on to the similarities. For instance Catholics believe you can walk away from God and some protestants say they were never truly saved to begin with. Then end result is exactly the same "a person who loses salvation" but the way we describe it sounds wildly different.

His cell phone went off at that point, so I re-stated the point I was making and we went on from there to wrap up. No doctrinal material was omitted. The only things missing are him apologizing for his cell phone going off and me saying not to worry, that I'd remote it in the editing.

@@JimmyAkin Awesome. Thank you for clarifying.

amen my brother

Right there you've demonstrated RC is false so well done 👍♥️. The scripture says, in the wisdom literature, 'the first person appears to be correct until he's challenged' see 11:45minutes also

Saying something is false, then immediately following it with your own false statement (the oft-repeated but blatantly mythical '30,000 denominations' urban legend) doesn't really do much for the reliability and trustworthiness of your case. If only you approached a desire for accuracy as diligently as either of these two gentlemen.

@@Mic1904 that's not what they did at all. When the thought they saw something that was not true, the would question ititerally, never accuse the power person spreading lies.

@@thomasdimattia3556 No idea which part of my comment that's a reply to, sorry

Hi Vincent, that's another area that I think could have been fleshed out more. I think generally the process of N.T. formation was a very organic process, that the body of believers in the first, second, third centures by and large were already aware of which books were authoritative. I believe there was some debate regarding a couple of the books in the final cannonisation process. Some Catholics (not all) would say that the Catholic Church decided what books were cannon and therefore the Roman Catholic church is authoritative, which I think is a misrepresentation of the process.

@@anthonywhitney634 To quote the (late) Protestant scholar. R.C. Sproul, “The Bible is a fallible list of infallible books.” How can a result be greater than its source? How can a fallible early Christian community (i.e. the Catholic Church, the only Christian Church in existence) determine an infallible Canon of Scripture? Differing lists of scripture were proposed by the early Catholic Christian community, but the official 73 book OT/NT canon we have today was defined by the Catholic Christian Bishops in union with the Pope in ecumenical Council in the late 4th century. Take it or leave it. It’s historical fact! The 73 book bible stood unchanged and unchallenged until the “reformers” in the 16th century deleted seven OT books. Why? Very faulty scholarship I’d say. They conformed their OT canon to the Jewish canon of the 2nd century. I’m a Christian and I don’t recognize any nonChristian authority.

It's here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eqySebdivtq4pIU.html Don't forget to subscribe to the channel for more! 🙂

This is my question exactly. Why do we even believe the New Testament Bible if not for the Church putting it together and declaring that it is infallible? I am desperate for an answer on this question. Catholics say the Church put the Bible together. Protestants say “NO the Bible revealed itself." Protestants say "the Church no more gave us the Bible than Newton gave us gravity.” For me not growing up in a religious home I just read the Bible until I was convinced that it was not a myth. I read it carefully many times, so I know the contents pretty well. So to the question as to why we should trust anything the early Church did; this is what the Bible says: Jesus said 1) He was going to build a single Church. 2) He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 3) He said that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. 4) He said that He was going to send the "Spirit of Truth" to guide the Church in all truth. Then Paul says 5) the pillar and bulwark of truth is “the church.” Okay so let us look in church history at the Canon. In 382 AD the Church had the Council at Rome and determined that the canon was 73 books. They chose which books are infallible. That would be a radically important thing right? So the question is why would we trust those 73 books? Well, the answer is that Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the age. He also said he would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. So we should trust what he says right? So from 382 AD to 1520 AD the Church that operated on the earth had the 73 book canon. But then Protestants come along and around 1520 AD and they claim that the early Church got the 73 book canon wrong. I am not being rude or belligerent but I really would like someone to explain - calmly and in simple language because I am slow - Please tell me how that is not absurd to say the Church got the 73 book Canon wrong based on Jesus promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and to send the “Spirit of Truth” to guide the church in All TRUTH. I am not being belligerent here really, I earnestly want to know. Did Jesus lie? Did He make a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make an error with the 73 book canon? I cannot for the life of me believe that the church which is described as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” was not even on the earth from 382 To 1520. But then let’s move on; let’s say that the Protestants are right and the Church errored in the 73 Book canon. If the Church errored in the 73 book canon did God wait from 382 AD until 1520 before He restored the real truth? Are we really going to believe that for 1200 years the true Christian Church was not there? You could not say the true church was there if they could not even get the correct books in the canon. And I don’t see any other church in history declaring anything different than the 73 book canon. So the real church with the correct Bible was not on earth if the Protestant claim is true. Can that make any sense? I am just a guy who read the Bible very closely and came down on the Catholic side only recently but now I have Protestants telling me I am going to hell. I am not being rude or accusatory. But please tell me how it is not absurd that Jesus says he would create one Church. He would be with the Church to the end of the age. He would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in ALL TRUTH. But then for one of the most important issues in all of Christianity the early Church gets 73 book canon wrong and so the real truth on this issue is not there until 1520. If that is true that would make me question the Christian truth claims entirely. Just a reasoned answer from a Protestant without it have to be a nasty debate would be good.

When Jesus said "I am the door" in John 10:7, is he saying he is literally a door?

@@grantgooch5834 When Jesus Christ said He is Greater than the Temple, did He really mean it? So, again, for those who teach Scripture ALONE, can one possibly know for certain what Jesus Christ meant when He said, "this is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26), as no other source or interpretation is infallible? God's grace and peace to you!

Can you define the mission of the church Scripturally?

No. Arius was clearly a heretic. Nestorius died in communion with the Church.

He lived following the Torah

We are saved from sin and death when we trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross and his bodily resurrection. His sinless blood pays for our sins, earns forgiveness, and gives us eternal life. Salvation is the gift of God by grace. It is not a product of: * - Prayer * - Popes * - Baptism * - Confession * - Good works * - Turning from sin * - Commandments * - Church membership * - Mass or the Lord’s Supper Salvation is free to the ungodly who will put their faith in the death, blood, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for their sins (Romans 4:5; Romans 4:24-25; 1 Cor 15:1-4).

With regard to Jimmy's statement in 15:00 to 15:35, there is reason to think something radical and drastic changed. Namely, there are no longer any living Apostles who can given fresh inspired revelation or can infallibly (via inspiration) tell us which oral traditions are genuine and binding. They all died. What made the 1st century church magisterium and councils infallible was precisely because of the presence of inspired Apostles who could speak on Christ's behalf with inspired revelational authority. Whereas in Catholic "Apostolic Succession, the alleged "Successors" don't have all of the prerogatives of the original Apostles [and that by the admission of the Catholic Church]. So, what use is it to call them Successors of the Apostles if they don't have all the rights and privileges/prerogatives of the 12 Apostles and Paul? Like writing Scripture. Or making divinely inspired decisions and decrees like Moses. That's just playing word games.

With regard to 17:32 there is no parallel reverence for oral tradition in the OT on with it's reverence for written Scripture. Why don't Roman Catholic accept Jewish claims of the oral law that came down from Moses [which are parallel to Catholic claims of oral apostolic tradition]? Why don't they add the alleged Jewish Oral Law to their Canon Law or to Scripture? The priority of Scripture over oral tradition in the OT age should be paralleled in the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic age [i.e. Sola Scriptura]. Just as the wariness of OT oral traditions under Christ and the Apostles should be paralleled with wariness of alleged Apostolic oral tradition in the Post-Apostolic age. See Messianic Jew Eitan Bar's books refuting the Jewish Oral Law. The same type of arguments should be applied to alleged Apostolic oral tradition. Or watch his debate with rabbi Chaim Sheitrit where he lists many of the arguments in his books during the course of the debate.

Regrading the dilemma Jimmy refers to in 57:44 , I would say that what Jimmy said about Jesus and the Jews who had different canons. Like how the Lord held the Sadducees accountable to the canon they accepted which seems to have been very truncated. This is why as a Protestant I don't think that Sola Scriptura depends or requires one have the correct canon. I think Sola Scriptura can function even with an imperfect canon. The priority of Scripture in the OT [which wasn't exactly Sola Scriptura] functioned even when the OT canon wasn't complete, yet God could judge the Jews based on their incomplete canon. I believe something similar is the case under the New Covenant regarding Sola Scriptura and an imperfect knowledge of the OT and NT canon..

I agree that this is a concern, and it is one I share. I am conscious of the issue of trying to provide balanced time for both dialogue partners. Part of the issue is that I needed to summarize the points Gavin made in his initial video and provide a response before asking for his response in return. I then tried not to interrupt him EXCEPT to agree with him and support what he was saying. Some of Gavin's answers were shorter than I expected, and I would have been happy for him to speak more at length. However, I wish that there was more of a time balance, and I will work toward this in the future. The balance would have been closer in this one if we had a moderator who could have summarized points in Gavin's initial video before asking me for a response and then asking Gavin for his response in return. God bless you!

@@JimmyAkin Sorry for the blast. As I said in the other video, you're very kind and charitable but, like myself, long-winded, lol. Maybe that's why I was thinking "Hurry up already." It was a good discussion, though.

@@marcuswilliams7448 No problem! Like I said, it's a legitimate concern, and I hope to do better in the future!