Jude’s epistle declaring that our faith was delivered down to us “once for all” by the saints also demonstrates that divine written revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. Perhaps if this Canadian Catholic would have given Geoff more than 5 seconds to respond to him, this could have been brought up.
@@lkae4 absolutely they can and often should , if someone's tone and overall demeanor is poor it speaks to their lack of charity which can be unbiblical.
The Canadian Catholic Guy constantly cuts Geoff off and comes off as the Grand Inquisitor. He seems to do all the questioning to try and put Geoff on the defensive.
I prefer the terminology "The Sufficiency of Scripture" For instance, 2Tim. 3 Verses 16 to 17 [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. This is solid to me. I know a Catholic will nit pick and say "it only says "Profitable" as if to imply that the author intends to leave room for extrabiblical. Thoroughly is synonymous with sufficient, complete, exhaustive, etc. So if Scripture thoroughly equips for ALL Good works and its profitable for teaching, instruction, correction etc. then its strong and sufficient on all matter of Doctrine and Practice for the Church.
Since Paul is referring primarily to the OT, and perhaps any NT writings then in circulation which weren't many, that would seem to imply that the rest of NT (which would include most if not all of the gospels) as being merely addons which seems highly improbable.
Hey Geoff!! 😊👋 Will be watching this one tmrw at work (got 8 hours to kill). Looking forward to it *edit: I don't think he did it maliciously but rather due to excitement, but i'm 20 minutes in & it is a little exhausting how he would not let you finish most thoughts. also thanks, now I'm gonna check out michael krueger
I respect that as a Catholic he has given some deep thought to the structure of his arguments, whether I agree with those structures or not he argues reasonably, albeit with the burden of assuming 3 authorities are easier to defend than a single infallible rule. I would have pulled him up on asserting that Justin Martyr held to baptismal regeneration in the way Catholics understand it. To begin with, Justin Martyr assumes that the individuals consent by their OWN free will is given to the act of baptism, which a Catholic view cannot even accommodate at this point. However, he also seemed to struggle with the concept of "mandating" that scripture should be believed without realising the solution is found in his own claimed tradition as well as from Jesus and the Apostles. THEY mandated it as "God breathed" - not just implicitly in Mark 7 which makes a very clear distinction between "commandments of God" and "human rules" - human rules are not presented as binding contrary to his position in Matt 23. Jesus disciples were ignoring these traditions. And Matt 23 also makes the same distinction "teachers of the LAW" connected directly to "Moses seat" vs the Catholic position he takes maintaining that it was a superimposed tradition which had to be believed. There is nothing that would support that view. The Apostles Paul and Peter both refer to scripture as breathed by God. Catholics struggle with this because their tradition/apologists have totally fudged 2 Peter 1 on the meaning of "private interpretation" - they don't understand what Peter was writing here at all. The whole point of this passage is that the words written down by the prophets were not from HUMAN REASON and underneath that is an assumption that this inspiration can be known. This is the word that is made more sure. I don't know if he is reading the comments or not. I respect his efforts, but there are some fundamental flaws in the Catholic system which are simply impossible to defend ... and I'm happy to defend that assertion 😄
@Canadian Catholic Excellent, nice to know you. // my argument is that the Sola Scriptura position is self undermining, since it stipulates that only what is found in scripture ought to be mandated // It would only seem so if you construct the argument in this specific way with its underlying assumptions. Your position is surely assuming that scripture which is God breathed, for some reason has no distinctive quality and cannot be know to be from God. This assumption isn't defensible in a way consistent with your own beliefs. There are multiple possible streams by which Gods word can be known vs man's words. They are God's words - thats the point. The assertion of Sola Scriptura is that nothing else is qualitatively, demonstrably or directly Gods word outside whats been written down from the original sources who heard from the original source. In saying this we uphold the standard that Jesus did when he lambasted the tradition of the elders. If scripture can be known qualitatively, the question moves on to why something NOT God breathed should be mandated? How is that defensible? Denying Gods word can be known is equivalent to denying creation - same source. Not only that, but to take the position that something not God breathed can be qualitatively the only means of determining what is God breathed? How does that work? Surely that is a position which is self undermining?
@Canadian Catholic No I'm not ignoring your argument. I'm saying your argument is a circular construction because it assumes that Scripture cannot be identified and isn't mandatory by virtue of its self identification. Genesis begins "in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" Now that I've read it - is it mandatory for me to believe it, or not? Can you please identify for me the persons who are exempted from believing this?
@Canadian Catholic Do you accept that Genesis as an example identifies itself and issues a mandatory teaching in its first sentence? Do you see where I'm going with this? Could you please demonstrate with an example the beliefs mandatory for believers which are not found in scripture and how those beliefs support themselves?
@Canadian Catholic I'm sorry if its confusing. Is "in the beginning" not a teaching of Scripture? I am directly addressing your assertion that Scripture doesn't identify itself and now you are refusing to answer the question you yourself begged.
@Canadian Catholic I'm not actually unsure if you really understand your own argument. You specifically claimed that (in your view) for Sola Scriptura to function Scripture must be "mandated" by Scripture. In fact you even created a requirement that verses must "mandate" other verses - this is not how Scripture functions in the first place, so the argument is essentially a strawman, but I'm hoping you will recognise that and engage with WHY Scripture is Scripture no matter what anyone else thinks - and eventually this will lead to why books we reject are NOT Scripture in the same sense. In a nutshell asking for Scripture to mandate itself is asking for Scripture to IDENTIFY itself AS Scripture. There is no actual debate that believing Scripture is mandatory, your claim is that Sola Scriptura means Scripture must identify itself as such. My argument is that Scripture is mandatory to be believed by NATURE of being God breathed and qualitatively recognisable as such in the same way the creator is recognised in Creation, which deals with your original claim. Hence I asked if you would accept that Genesis 1:1 identifies itself as mandatory to be believed, as in - who do you claim SHOULDN'T believe it? If everyone ought to believe Genesis 1:1 then it is MANDATORY. And we can go from there. I understand you are anticipating that someone must deal with your arguments circular construction, but it is not my burden to satisfy the deliberately circular construction of your argument, which I also reject, but to demonstrate why that construction you believe to be necessary is actually unnecessary. If I accepted the construction of your argument, then logically I would simply agree with you. Then shouldn't you have the burden to defend the position from which you reject Sola Scriptura? Please read my argument - it deals with the "mandatory" and "identification" of Scripture. I have used Gen 1:1 as a starting point - do you reject that Gen 1:1 is mandatory to be believed? Of course, I can also appeal to the early church for many statements along the lines of Hippolytus "There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from NO OTHER source", which clearly show the Catholic position is absurd, but we haven't gotten to the Catholic position yet 🙂
Sorry Geoff, normally I watch your videos, but after trying to endure 15 minutes of it I couldn't take anymore. The Canadian catholic guy constantly kept interrupting. Bottom line is, is that while I can grant the fact that the church [whatever that's supposed to be] recognized what was scripture. The bottom line is, that they don't follow their own book. The Jews wrote the old testament, and we wouldn't have it without them. And the new testament is a product of the teachings of the Jewish Messiah, written all by Jews, minus Luke, and Acts, which was written by a gentile, receiving information from Jews. And we wouldn't even have any scripture if not for the Jews. Catholics wrote nothing. The church universal may be credited for recognizing what was scripture, but the church is the recipients of divine Revelation, not the initial cause. I suppose one can recognize that the new testament was written by some of the apostles which were leaders of the church, but if their successors failed to preserve truth, then it's irrelevant. The church was understood to be catholic in it's early days, but the church has changed and evolved into a hot mess of confusion and liberalism. The only thing we have that is sure is scripture
This Catholic guy is getting annoying. He asks a question and then interrupts Geoff before he can finish a sentence. Did he take a lesson from William Albrecht?
@@jrb2565 yeah, that was a bit rough. But he does like to interrupt & talk over people like Albrecht does. However, unlike Albrecht, I don't know if he ever had to be rebuked by the moderator (twice!) or had to be placed on hold when he called into a show, because he wouldn't stop talking over the host like Albrecht had to be.
@@BornAgainRN Yeah I've not engaged with a lot of his material because I'm not an Albrecht fan to be honest. I don't think I've heard him make a decent argument ever. But I think the most "annoying" thing I've heard was for me, Sam Shamoun trying to defend Catholic Mariology. Painful!
I have now changed my position. He is definitely going for the prestigious William Albrecht award and considers himself the Grand Inquisitor who is the one asking the questions here (ironically unaware of how ignorant Inquisitors were shown to be). Galileo anyone?
