A Neglected Argument against Sola Scriptura 

Trent, you have done a fantastic job and you are instrumental in me converting from Lutheranism to Catholicism. Your debate with Gavin Ortlund pretty much sealed the deal for me. Thanks again!

My experience with trying to debate with many non Catholics is that they refuse to even acknowledge the evidence given. They fall back in the never ending loop of "but this verse says this" followed by my rebuttal, "well this says this" followed by my rebuttal until we are back at the very beginning. Their mentality won't let them looks at things on the whole or see the big picture. It is weird and kind of sad. They treat the sculpture like a deck of cards. I even brought that up to a few and they of course said that wasn't true then commenced to start their whole game over again.

One thing I’ve noticed is that while citing the “church fathers” to make or prove a given point of theirs, Protestants NEVER admit anywhere that those same fathers of the Faith were CATHOLIC. Saints Jerome, Augustine and others are repeatedly referred to as “fathers” of Christianity without any admission related to their Catholicity, the result of which is that few Protestants have any real understanding of their Catholic heritage.

I was reformed, but now being chrismated into the Orthodox Church, but I’ve been immensely blessed by ur break down of the not so air tight sola scriptura. You’ve brought me much clarity GodBless

Good stuff! This is a really good supplement to the debate. It was great meeting you Trent!

Thank you. I am a reformed Baptist pastor and I appreciate your content.

Trent now tallking in past tense about an argument he presented a debate he said he did, in a video he recorded before said debate. That was the most complex 1 minute introduction I have seen.

William Albrecht and Father Christian Kappes, have provided Early Church Fathers that taught the Assumption of the Mother of God, even as early as the 200's. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

I saw the debate. I’m still Catholic. However I ended up really liking Gavin. A good guy. However, TH and Jimmy Aiken are the two best apologists on the planet.

Thanks Trent for this podcast, at least I gain more knowledge about Catholic Church and this will for sure deepen my faith, I am from the Philippines and I always watch all your videos , keep the faith alive, God bless the RCC and God bless you Trent🙏😊

Protestant paradigm shift sounds like desperate shiftiness from those who are losing the argument, wiggling like a worm on a hook of truth, trying to wiggle off. You nailed it, Trent! Excellent counselling.

Sorry, it just makes logical and historical sense that sola scriptura was impossible. All the separate churches would only have the letters that were sent to them. Yes, those letters would be viewed highly…but they were mostly just used in the LITURGY to teach. It’s so obvious that it is frustrating we keep having to discuss it.

How has "sola Scriptura" fared in church history? Did the "Bible alone" Judaizers win the day in Acts 15?! Did the "where's that in the Bible" Arians prove their case against the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son at Nicaea?! How has "sola Scriptura" fared in Protestant history? Did it resolve the theological debates between Arminius and Calvin on free will vs. predestination, or between Luther and Zwingli on the Real Presence vs. symbolic memorial in the Eucharist, or between Zwingli and the Anabaptists on infant baptism?! How did the "Bible alone" do more recently in the discussions between Zane Hodges and John MacArthur on "Lordship Salvation"? The "Bible alone" doctrine has created way more schisms in the church than it's healed, and if there's anything the Bible alone denounces it's schisms and factions!

I see 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as a slam dunk to sola scriptura... Thank you, Trent, I love these Early Church Fathers!

Great Trent. Having seen the debate, which was truly great, fast-moving, well articulated, and irenic on both sides, as a fairly new former Protestant ex-pastor and apologist (3 years ago this coming Easter), I more or less called it a draw. (Gavin is pretty awesome). But this really helps. Too bad there wasn't time in the debate itself to develop this line of reasoning. Another powerful and easy to grasp apologetic is if Jesus intended for there to be the 3rd paradigm shift Protestants glommed unto He would have clued His disciples on the need to get their thoughts and experiences written down. But for the vast majority of them...not one jot or tittle.

In all my time as a protestant adhering to sola scriptura (lets face it I had no other choice or I would cease to be protestant) I came to realize the Scripture was being used in this way. 1. Make a statement of faith (eg Sola Scriptura or something else that one believes extraneous to Scripture). 2. Then stick a Book Chapter Verse in brackets at the end which sounds like it might work. 3. Hope like crazy that people believe you and don't ask questions or say hang on a minute. I have also yet to meet the person who can truly claim to be Sola Scriptura, for if I did meet them they could no longer claim Sola Scriptura.

I'm still looking for that list of books in the bible saying what books should be in the bible..man this sola scriptura is confusing

You made a mistake in your references. In Mortal Kombat, what he’s actually saying is “Toasty” in a high falsetto that many people confuse for him saying “Whoopsie”

Watched the debate, twice. I think this vid & the information shared in it was better than the debate. Gavin is just too likable.

I am a relative new comer to the Christian faith. I converted from atheism because I began to believe that the Bible had to have a transcendent mind behind it. There were too many authors who did not know each other who each told a small part of a larger story. And I wondered how could a brain whose thoughts are just chemical accidents selected for their survival value (according to Darwin) who could each one of those brains write a small part of a larger story? It could not have happened by chance unless there are an infinite number of universe and we just happen to live in the one where 30 different men who thought are chemical accidents selected for their survival value just happened to each tell a small part of a larger story by complete random chance. And since I did not want to stake my soul on a multiverse I came to believe that the Bible was inspired. But with that since I have no bias toward Catholic or Protestant I would like to ask a question as to how the idea of “Sola Scriptura” does not completely contradict Matthew 18. Jesus clearly says that if someone sins and you cannot get them to stop you should take two or three witnesses and if they will not listen to them then you are supposed to take it to THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH decides. So if sola scriptura was true the that would completely nullify this teaching of Christ himself would it not? In this situation Whenever the “alleged culprit” who is accused of sin is taken to THE CHURCH as that scripture says, no matter what THE CHURCH says; if Sola Scriptura is true that could just say: "Hey I believe in sola scriptura, and I just don’t think that what I am doing is sinful! And if sola scriptura is a dogma of the faith, then you have to let me interpret the scripture to my own conscience. " How does that not totally contradict Matthew 18? Take a silly but possibly real example. Suppose a guy name “George” a good Christian confronts me with flirting with his wife. And I respond to George and say that I don’t believe flirting with your with wife is a sin. I am not committing adultery. The Bible says adultery is a sin. But I just like your wife; I am attracted to her and obviously she is attracted to me because she flirts back. Sometimes we hold hands and sometimes we even kiss each other , but so what? That is not a sin the way I read the Bible. Your wife George still loves you and I still love my own wife so this flirting and kissing every now and then is just a part of life. But the Bible doesn’t say it is a sin. So George in this example who is rightfully upset at me brings two or three Christian witnesses as Jesus instructs and they tell me that that they think what I am doing is sinful. They quote passages where Jesus says that if a man looks on a woman with lust he commits adultery in his heart. But I respond that I am not doing that. I am not thinking about that. I am not trying to steal this woman away from George. I am just flirting and occasionally holding hands and maybe once in while there is some kissing. But that is it. I have no plans to do anything more than that. So you two or three witness guys should leave me alone because “sola scriptura” says I am entitled to my own private interpretation. Matthew 18 then says if the person will not listen to the witnesses, then take it to THE CHURCH. And so George and the witnesses take me to THE CHURCH. And THE CHURCH tells me that what I am doing by flirting and kissing George’s wife is sinful. Then I could respond that I just do not see it anywhere in the Bible where it says that what I am doing is sinful. I just earnestly disagree with you even though you are THE CHURCH and I can legitimately disagree with THE CHURCH because of Reformers dogma of “sola scriptura.” If “sola scriptura” is true then Matthew 18, something established by Christ himself is utterly worthless is it not? Because whoever THE CHURCH confronts could always push back and claim “sola scriptura!” If you go by “sola Scriptura” it actually contracts scriptura itself in Matthew 18 because that little pericope says THE CHURCH is the ultimate authority for determining sin. By logical extension “false teaching” is sin. So if someone gives “false teaching” that would be sinful. And so I think someone is giving sinful false teaching Matthew 18 says take it to THE CHURCH. And is that not exactly what happens in Acts 15? In Acts 15 we see there that some false teachers called Judaizers were giving a false teaching that Non Jews had to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses. So what happened. They took the issue to “THE CHURCH. “ It was THE CHURCH who made the decision that Non Jewish converts did not have to get circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. THE CHURCH in Acts 15 followed Jesus teachings to the “T.” Jesus says in John 14 that the Holy Spirit will guide the church “forever.” John 17 says that when the Holy Spirit guides the church it guides it in “all truth.” And in Acts 15:25 we see that very thing happening. THE CHURCH there made a decision about the false teachers who were the Judaizers. THE CHURCH wrote a letter that says “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” and they made a ruling. THE CHURCH in Acts 15 following exactly what Jesus teaches in Matthew 18. And is that not what we see with Arius in 318 AD? He gave a false teaching. Arius said that Jesus was not God. THE CHURCH confronted him and held the Council of Nicaea and rejected Arius. THE CHURCH had the authority and specifically not “sola scriptura.” Arius used what he believed to be scripture to argue against the deity of Christ. Since I was new to religion I had no biases about Catholic vs. Protestants coming in, but I cannot see how believing in “sola scriptura” does not contradict with scriptura in Matthew 18. In the debate with Gavin I saw Trent bring up Paul when he said that “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” but Protestants just brush that off like Paul must have been drunk when he wrote that and did not really mean that “the church” is the pillar of truth. But Matthew 18 just seems like it is a direct and obvious contradiction to “sola scriptura.” Either “sola scriptura’ is the final authority or “THE CHURCH” is. And even if the Protestant wants to say the scripture is superior it still remains that the ultimate authority in interpreting scripture for what is “Sinful” and what is not is THE CHURCH. It says it right there in scripture. How much more clear does it have to be? Like I said I am pretty new to this whole debate and I realize that puts me in the “stupid category” but I have asked this question over and over to Protestants and I never get an answer. I would like to hear the Protestant perspective on this. Or maybe there is a Catholic who could tell me why this logic is faulty.

Great work. I wrote a similar letter years ago to a protestant friend. It was 30 pages long and I called it "the Epistle of Frank to the Lutherans." Can you guess my name?

Thank you for defending our Church Trent Horn, God bless you

Anyone that believes in solo scriptura is by default in violation of that belief if they get up to preach or teach because they are adding to the words

Nice work Trent! It would be interesting to see this same breakdown on what the OT was comprised of for the issue of the OT canon, since it and sola scriptura seem to go so hand-in-hand.

Congratulations. Precise, useful and balanced as always. Love your style.

15:26 Trent, according to Michael W. Holmes' "The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations," 1 Clement 42:5 is quoting Isaiah 60:17 LXX; the footnote states "LXX only, which here mistranslates the Hebrew." For comparison, Isaiah 60:17 LXX in the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) reads as follows: "And I will appoint your rulers in peace and your overseers [bishops] in righteousness." Meanwhile, the RSV-CE, translating from the Hebrew, has "I will make your overseers peace and your taskmasters righteousness." Also, comparing the Greek LXX text to the Greek of Clement's quote, he indeed appears to be paraphrasing the LXX. Here's the Scripture quotation in Greek as it appears in 1 Clement: Καταστήσω τοὺς ἐπισκόπους αὐτῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ τοὺς διακόνους αὐτῶν ἐν πίστει. And here's the same portion from Isaiah 60:17 LXX (per Rahlfs' LXX): καὶ δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ. Hope this helps!

Here's the sad part When you are conversing with a protestant who states that they only follow the word of God and dont need men/a church, you present them with the point that "the early Christians didn't have the bible for 300 years so what did they follow"? This response is backed really by everything Trent states in this video. It shows that christians believed in a authority. The sad part is protestants will completely ignore this. Sometimes i question if it is worth even debating prots.

When st jerome put the together the Latin vulgate there was 25 gospels and the church decided what was authentic and what was not the protestants believe the church and there decisions on the the 4 gospels etc yet they deny the councils and the church on everything else

Thank you for omitting the ritual praise for Gavin Ortlund.

The Mass was and is The New Testament before the New Testament became a document. Mt. 26:28 “For this is my blood of the NEW TESTAMENT , which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” ‭ Lk. 22:20 “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the NEW TESTAMENT in my blood, which is shed for you.” ‭‭

Excellent video. Very informative. Keep showing us those early fathers on many Protestant and other issues.

Gavin mentioned multiple times that you need to be an infallible interpreter to interpret the Magisterium's interpretations of the Bible. The problem with this view is that the Magisterium is *living* and can directly address bad interpretations of tradition; in a clear are concise way. You don't need to be an infallible interpreter of tradition because the Magisterium can address misunderstandings of doctrine in a fundamentally living way.

Prior to medieval Christian claims in regards to the Apostles, the Pharisees had already set an example of developing dogma based on an alleged authoritative oral tradition having been passed down alongside Scripture from Moses himself. Moreover, despite the fact that the Pharisees were responsible for establishing the proper canon for Israel, much as later Catholics claim for themselves, their assertions of tradition's authority was roundly condemned by none other than Jesus Himself: "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!" In all of Biblical history, not one mention is made about authoritative oral tradition as a compliment to Scripture. During the Apostolic Age, both Christ and the Apostles always appealed to Scripture as the final authority for any claims or practices under consideration. This is logical since only the Apostles and Prophets were understood as authoring Scripture and therefore having such authority. Priests, though appointed by God, were always commanded to follow Scripture rather than extraneous customs. Prominent early Church Fathers recognized this principle, asserting that the true Catholic Church must always act in harmony with Scripture whenever "small matters" of tradition, as St. Basil the Great (d. 379) identified such issues, aren't specifically addressed. Thus, anything truly alien to Scripture or its theological principles must be abandoned. For example, here is St. Basil describing such considerations as he experienced them in the 4th-century: "For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents" (The Holy Spirit, 27:66). Obviously, it makes good sense that such "small matters" of tradition can be legitimately supported since Scripture and its clear principles are not violated. However, St. Basil also has this to say about Scripture and Church doctrine: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Letter 283). St. Jerome (d. 420), writing in the 5th-century, likewise describes acceptable traditions as being very harmonious with Scripture: "Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? (Note that what he refers to here as a custom is actually described multiple times in the Book of Acts!). And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command (Obviously because of very clear consistency since he used a Scriptural example of what a legitimate Church custom looks like). For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, (A neutral practice implied by Jesus's "Great Commission" formula and later found in the Didache) and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy (Old Testament symbols); and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day (Standing is in the Book of Ezra), and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked" (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8). Keeping these principles of maintaining traditions that merely illuminates explicit Scriptural doctrines in view, we can now make sense of what other early Fathers write about Scripture's unique authority.... Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 216) said, “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the information from the Scriptures themselves” (Stromata 7:16). Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) said, “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 9). Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367): “Everything that we ought to say and do, all that we need, is taught us by the Holy Scriptures ” (On the Trinity, 7:16). St. Athanasius (d. 375) said, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) “The holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (To the Bishops of Egypt 1:4)." "The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Exhort. ad Monachas). “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6). St. Basil of the Great (d. 379) said, “Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on which side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (Letter 189:3). St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, "We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say" (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff). St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) said, "What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius). St. Ambrose (d. 396) said, “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23). St. Augustine (d. 430) said, "For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine (Letters, 148.15). “For in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Do not even listen to me if I tell you anything that is not supported by or found in the Scriptures” (Exposition on Psalm 119). John Cassian (d. 435): “We ought not to believe in and to admit anything whatsoever which is not in the canon of Scripture or which is found to be contrary to it” (Conferences, 14.8).

I find it hard to believe that when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, much less to Titus and Timothy, that he thought he was writing "sacred scripture" as in "the word of God" in the same way as the Law and the Prophets are the word of God. Even Luke merely calls his writing "an ordered account", not "sacred scripture". And we know that the early church debated about which Christian texts would be part of a "canon" well into the fourth century. I think the early church focused on Jesus as the "Incarnate Word/Logos of God", the embodied revelation of God. The kerygma more than the written form it would eventually acquire was the "locus" and the "vehicle" of the "word" that was "handed on" (tradere) as the living tradition. Sola scriptura is just a pseudo-theological way of saying "we don't want the pope or the clergy telling us what to believe, we can work it out for ourselves, thank you!"

I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. He didn’t say pick your own denomination that fits your interpretation of what I am saying because who cares. Trent at the debate made a good point. What is required to believe salvation and which Protestant churches stand on the other side of it? Please point me to the church that matches your interpretation so I may be saved.

Bishop is a synonym for Elder. It's amazing that this know-it-all does NOT know this. Bishop = Elder. Here's how we know: Titus 1:5-7 - For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; Simple reading comprehension skills, that I learned by the sixth grade, tell me that "elder" is a synonym of "bishop". These are presbyters of the church. (Presbyter/overseer being other synonyms.)

These deceivers aren't stupid, they're just evil.

Bonus, nice

This argument can also cut at the heart of protestants defense of their particular traditions. Protestants who argue tradition is okay, it's just subordinate to scripture and you can adhere to what ever as long as it's in line, falls apart at the time of the apostles. Like, martin Luther's tradition would be beneath scripture. Your tradition, and mine, and whoever, could be subordinate. However, if you turn the clock back far enough to the apostles the source of tradition and infallible scripture becomes identical. The apostles tradition, as every Christian theoretically has one to offer, is objectively the greatest. For example, who's commentary would you read on Romans: Luther or St. Paul himself? Obviously, if we have questions about the scriptures it's only reasonable the first Christians probed the apostles about their letters. If they even had to do that. Where did this superior tradition of the first authorities of the church go? Lost completely? If they wrote it all down then why would we accept any other tradition? The paradigm shift has to be clear for sola scriptura. It's too crucial for the church for the apostles not to articulate.

45:12 That was a very good oopsie. (but in mk its actually toasty!)

If the Church is founded on the Gospel and the Gospel is according to the Scriptures, then the Scriptures are a given from the start. By focusing exclusively on the New Testament, your premise artificially centers the argument beyond where Christ and the Apostles would otherwise agree with the hypothesis, namely the Old Testament. Here I am deeply indebted to Orthodox Father John Behr, who has helped me better understand the Gospel as it relates to Scripture and the Church. He once said this. “We automatically think the Church chose what’s Scripture. Well, maybe with regard to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but did it choose whether to accept the five books of Moses, Isaiah, the Psalms? Remember that the Gospel from the beginning is proclaimed in accordance with the Scriptures. The Scriptures are given from the beginning. ‘Moses and all the prophets spoke about me.’ So, the Scriptures, meaning the Old Testament, at least the core of it, yes, the edges are fuzzy, Enoch, but the core of it is a given from the beginning. The church didn’t choose whether to accept the five books of Moses or choose whether to accept Isaiah. It’s a given and it’s only because we’ve got those books that the Gospel can be proclaimed. It’s only because we’ve got those books that the Disciples could know who Christ is. They didn’t know by being there with him. They didn’t know by seeing him on the cross. They didn’t know by seeing the empty tomb. They didn’t get it. It’s only when these books are opened (Lk.24) that they get it. So, there is not, certainly speaking from the point of view of proclamation of the Gospel, there is no period before which there is no reference to Scripture. Scripture is a given from the beginning...We say, well the Church came into existence before Paul even wrote his letters or before the Gospels are written and so Paul and his letters are written within the Church and the Church could choose which ones. We’ve completely forgotten that the Gospel was proclaimed in accordance with Scripture from the beginning.”

Hi, you mentioned Saint Ignatius of Antioch. I have heard that his relics lay in the basilica to Saint Clements in Rome. Could anyone tell me if this is true and where he is located within the basilica ,thank you very much.

Many prominent church fathers seem to argue for something closer to what you describe as the 3rd phase claimed by Protestants, but in different terms. Especially since the qualifications of an Apostle as an eyewitness (Ac.1.21-22) could not be met beyond that first generation, it makes sense that their writings would stand in for them in a unique and codified way. “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 point in 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.” Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, Doctor of Unity of the Roman Church (Against Herises 3.1.1, 180 A.D.) "These [having just enumerated the Divine Scriptures of the Old and New Treatments] are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these." - Archbishop Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, Doctor of the Roman Church (39th Festal Letter, 367 A.D.) “Of these [the Divine Scriptures of the Septuagint] read the 22 books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the 22 books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them...Then of the New Testament...But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by yourself, as you have heard me say.” - Archbishop Cyril, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Roman Church (Catechetical Lectures 4.33-4, 350 A.D.) "It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments [listed in 4.17].” - Father John of Damascus, Doctor of the Roman Church (On the Orthodox Faith 1.2, 700s A.D.) Finally, it is quite surprising to learn just what books these three later fathers claim to be the Divine Scriptures of the Old and New Treatments. By tight consensus it is almost exactly the Protestant/Protocanon to the explicit exclusion of almost every Deuterocanonical work as similar in status to the Didache or Shepherd).

Extremaly good, thank you!

He - Gavin - needs to be a convert.

As a Byzantine Catholic who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition, this was a good debate. In my opinion it is better to frame the debate not on the category of infallibility because for Protestants anything infallible doesn't need further clarification. For an example how Second Constantinople need to condemn Ibas' letter and certain writings of St Theodoret a century after Chalcedon. It is better to frame it to be about material or formal sufficiency. That way both Protestants and Catholics are agree that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith materially. Jimmy Akin used an argument that Scripture is analogous to the logs that God use to build His Church. Magisterium is founded and built using Scripture as the sole constitution. This bypass the infallibility debate. Granted James White insist on formal sufficiency but this is minority in mainstream Protestantism. Martin Luther himself and later Philip Melanchthon affirm material sufficiency of Scripture. Because Scripture need interpreter. Constitution cannot interpret itself. By discussing Scripture as the sole constitution both Protestants and Catholics agree that in this particular sense it is dogmatically binding to us all that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith materially. Because Holy Tradition is not another constitution. We only have one constitution the Scripture alone. God bless you all.

The New Testament tells us that we should follow the elders (bishops, presbyters, overseers). Sola scriptura does not mean that the scriptures are the ONLY authority but that the scriptures are the FINAL authority. If you have a bishop who is doing something unscriptural then you need to rebuke him. We don't just look the other way and let an errant elder go astray. Sola scriptura doesn't mean that the scriptures are the ONLY authority but it does mean that the scriptures are the FINAL authority.

How could sola scriptura make logical sense? It seems obvious that of course we have an interpretive tradition and it should be backed up with authority. This is why imo the only real alternative is Calvinists who are basically saying people are deluded due to a fallen nature and fated by God to be damned.

Why did St. Paul say, "Hold on to both the Spoken/Oral Tradition and Written (Epistles/letters) Tradition?"... (ref. 2 Thessa. 2:15)... because St. Paul knew he would not see the Final Completion of the WRITTEN TRADITION after his martyred down (beheaded) in around 64 A.D. ... The Last to be written down to complete the Written Tradition of the Word of God were the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation between 100 to 110 A.D. after John died of old age. According to John 21:25... there were many EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done but were not written down for the whole world can not contain them... Therefore, God had summarized all the EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done and had chosen only those with GREAT IMPORTANCE to Mankind's SALVATION to be written down by Inspired MEN (not women) guided by the Holy Spirit and completed them in around 110 A.D. Other written books after the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation around 110 A.D. onward were no longer included in the WORD OF GOD (Holy Scriptures)... such as the written Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Magdalene, Mary, Judas, Enoch, Pontius Pilate, etc... After the Written WORD of God was Finally COMPLETED in around 110 A.D., it became more AUTHORITATIVE than the Oral Tradition, by which all written Scripture is given Inspiration of God, profitable for doctrines, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction of righteousness... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)... As long as the Oral Tradition does not contradict the Written Tradition, that means, God still wanted them to be practiced... However, if not, the Written Tradition must supersede, overrule, and remove that particular Oral Tradition to be practiced by True Christian Worshipper in Spirit and in Truth... This was God's WILL (Prerogative), for if it (Oral) is still required/needed, God would allow them to be written down in the first place... logically speaking. The Oral and Written Traditions must be UNITED as ONE w/o Division/Confusion... One (United) God, One WORD (Scripture), and One (Spiritual) TRUTH... St. Paul warned all True Christians, "DO NOT GO/EXCEED WHAT IS WRITTEN," and God's CURSE for those who will DO. (ref. 1 Corin. 4:6 & Gal. 1:8)... Facts and Truth, Biblically and logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

This is an odd argument for Trent Horn to make against Protestantism and Sola Scriptura. 1. The ECF’s not referring to the NT as scripture also seems to hurt the Catholic paradigm as they say Christ gave us three authorities, among those three is scripture. If this is true we would also not expect this either. 2. Sola Scriptura just collapses into the idea that Christ and the Apostles have ultimate authority over the Church. We listen to them because they are inspired. Whether this authority was written or oral it’s still the same substance: theopneustos. It was God-breathed. And that’s why it has authority. 3. Does Trent really think 2 was not the operating authority in the ECFs? No. He grants that it was! This is essentially the point of SS! What Christ and the Apostles taught is the highest authority that everything else is to be measured against! 4. The Apostles referred to what they wrote *as* Scripture. Paul for instance says in 1 Cor 14:37-38 that “the things I am writing to you are the command of the Lord”. 5. The sheer fact that the NT *is* Scripture! If anything, this just shows that the early Church can get things wrong.

I wish the usual trolls that prowl Catholic channels like Yajun or Justas would actually pay attention to all of the content they’re commenting on. For all of the time they spend in these circles they repeat the same long-refuted arguments.

Marcion, Valentinus, the Docetists, and the Arians were not defeated by Scripture Alone.

The “scriptura” part of sola scriptura is not the problem, it’s the “sola.” I think that sola scriptura was made up by Luther to defend sola fide. It makes sense given Luther’s personal history.

@The Counsel of Trent, what do you think of the following outline of an argument? ... *Premise 1:* Christ intends us to have and use a particular _Epistemology of Faith,_ that is, a way we can know, and know that we know, with adequately-grounded and principled confidence, what the "required content of the Christian religion" is, so that we may then either obey it, or dissent from it; *Premise 2:* Sola Scriptura, having been tested historically, _fails_ to allow its users to know (and know that they know, with adequately-grounded and principled confidence) what the "required content of the Christian religion" is (and further logical examination shows how, in a fallen world, it is too flawed _even in principle_ to ever be a workable Epistemology of Faith); *Premise 3:* God, being kindly and infallible, would not give us a guaranteed-to-fail method as our Epistemology of Faith; *Conclusion:* If Christ gave us Sola Scriptura, intending it to be our Epistemology of Faith, then He was-and-is not God. (But, He rose from the dead; so, He is God; so, He does not intend us to use Sola Scriptura as our Epistemology of Faith.) Obviously the work in this argument is being done by Premises 1 & 2. They must therefore be elaborated. I think Premise 2 can be elaborated by reflecting on the history of doctrinal divisions amongst those groups which _attempt_ to use Sola Scriptura as their Epistemology of Faith, and find it produces unresolvable doctrinal divisions, not when it is abused, but when it is used normatively. (In response to this divisive reality, Sola Scriptura Christians begin to define an ever-shrinking number of doctrines as "required," so as to prevent every individual from saying to every other individual, "Well, if you believe _that,_ you don't even qualify as a Christian any more." But persons of different eras find different parts of the faith hard to accept. As more and more eras pass us by, and new divisions arise, producing new reductions in the scope of what Christians still regard as "required," it is easy to foresee what will eventually happen!) But Premise 1 does the most work in the argument, and _not_ by necessarily winning the argument. A person may or may not be convinced by the argument _as such,_ BUT, it will allow him to see the real, practical difference between the Catholic Epistemology of Faith, and any Epistemology of Faith which is built around Sola Scriptura! And this is the difference: The Catholic Epistemology of Faith does make _real,_ adequately-grounded _knowledge_ of the "required" content of the Christian faith possible. But anyone using an Epistemology of Faith containing Sola Scriptura cannot simultaneously... - claim to confidently know what the _required_ content of Christianity is; - claim that his knowledge is _adequately grounded and informed_ (such that his claim to "confidently know" can't be shown to be implausible overconfidence); and, - exercise intellectual humility and awareness of the divisions amongst Sola Scriptura Christians about basic doctrines.

What Protestant's will say is that it doesn't matter what the post Apostolic writers said, that the ECF's were not writing inspired Scripture like the Apostles were, so you cannot look to the ECF's for help in defending the Catholic view of Sola Scriptura not being Biblical. As far as the Protestant's are concerned, the Bible taught Sola Scriptura and anyone who taught otherwise who came after the Apostles should not be trusted. They usually will quote one of many verses which speak of the coming of false teachers who teach another Gospel or something to that effect. I would be interested to hear the thought's of other Catholic's about this, and how they have dealt with the same when engaging Protestant's. God Bless!

Can you make a video that proves Catholic Ecclesiology from the Early Fathers as well?

The question really comes down to this: Will I trust God's word or man's word? Who has the ultimate authority? Is it the Creator or the creature? Jesus said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away." (Luke 21:33)

So something to remember here is that the question is not if magisterium (the church) can be an authority. Protestants agree that the magisterium(church) is an authority in Christian life. However, they don't believe it is an infallible authority. I don't think scripture has to be the most prominent authority either. Trent is right that we have magisterium(church), scripture, tradition(history), as authorities [Although I would also include reason, observation, and the internal witness of the holy spirit in that list]. The question is the nature and fallibility of each authority not their existance.

Even Peter, who your erroneously dub the first pope, lumped in Paul’s writings with THE REST OF SCRIPTURE, “and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” I am guessing that since the apostolic line has no laid hands on me I can’t properly interpret that and it means something else. Of course the teachings of Jesus were taught orally for the first several years! The NT had not been peened yet, and OT scriptures in written form were hard to come by. The entire idea that oral tradition contains something outside of scripture, that can freely contradict what the apostles (who you think had divine authority vested in them) themselves wrote. Listening to Catholic “scholarship” might be even more dizzying than trying to listen to Calvinist “scholarship.”

Sola Scriptura guarantees documental disunity and confusion … this is why everyone should be Orthodox.

additionally if scripture was the sole authority and it was clear in its application then why were the Church Fathers writing letters giving additional direction and deepening their understanding of Tradition. Why wouldn't they just continue to quote scripture and let that speak for itself?

The apostolic and patristic fathers quoted the examples from OT scripture constantly, used it to support their writings. They also used examples and citations from the writings which became the NT, including the fourfold gospel. That's not to say that all the writers in the first two centuries had all the Christian writings. But they could discern, by the Spirit's help, those which were in line with the received gospel and those which were not. By God's grace, those writings were passed on to us. Sola scriptura doesn't mean the fathers' writings were unimportant. Just that the apostolic gospel contained in the NT are sufficient for all things to do with salvation.

Didn’t think I’d ever come across an apologist making Mortal Kombat references. 😂

2 John 1:9. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

2 Thessalonians 2:15. As a thorough person and an apologist is wise to mention as many reasons or proofs as possible. However, that scripture passage is all you need and sola scriptura is in the trash. Glory alleluia. This isn't a critique of your video btw, just sharing.

"I'm only human". Wow... I wish I was 1% as good of a human example of excellent scholarship as you are ! ( Of course the ultimate example of truth for us to follow is Jesus the Lord ! )

since Jesus and Paul regarded the OT as 'scripture', and synagogues existed from well before Paul, and literacy was always part of the Jewish faith, no discussion of Sola Scriptura can avoid these topics

Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 12:32 KJV "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Revelation 22:18 KJV "For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Mr. Horn perhaps change the "X" in the chart to a check mark instead. The visual impression of the "X" on the chart is that the early sources don't acknowledge church authority. Thank you for your labors!

Trent, A 3rd paradigm shift in the second century to scripture alone, seems highly unlikely. 1) Greater than 90% of the known world was illiterate for many centuries. 2) it took several months to commit one copy of scripture to parchment. 3) it seems obvious that there will always be a need even now, for many inspired, scriptural scholars to break open God's Word.

"Whoopsie, as you would say in Mortal Kombat" is not something often heard in apologetic lecture, but I don't mind :D

The Didache is a later document - post-apostolic. It refers to the Lord's Supper as "Eucharist" (Lit. Thanksgiving). The New Testament never uses that term to refer to the Paschal meal. Eucharist was a term invented after the first century. Therefore, using textual criticism, the Didache had to be written after the apostolic age. From a doctrinal standpoint, the Didache ignores the symbolism of baptism by authorizing a sprinkling of water. Baptism is a burial (Romans 6). If a person dies, you don't just sprinkle a little dirt on him and call him buried. In fact, you would say that such a corps was indeed NOT buried. We are buried with Him by baptism into death... - Romans 6:4a

Thank you brother

It's actually "Toasty!" not "Oopsie!" in Mortal Kombat. Love ya, Trent!

This is confusing. Protestants don’t argue that it is the medium that matters. It is the message. The reason for Sola Scriptura is that it contains the words of Jesus and of the Apostles, which are infallible and trustworthy. The focus of Sola Scriptura is on who is able to say things infallibly (only Jesus and the Apostles, according to Protestants) and not about the medium. Sola Scriptura is a 15th century doctrine developed by the Reformers. They were trying to settle the questions of authority for their time, and this continues to apply to us today. But of course, if you go back to the 1st and 2nd century, the words of Jesus and the Apostles were still fresh in many people’s minds or transmitted orally. The point is, whose words were they citing and who were they considering as infallible?

Great explanation .

Do you have any videos on "Faith alone?"

Authority only comes from a higher Authority from living beings! Like God to Christ and Christ to apostles. Faith comes from a faithful person. Faith and spirit come from God the Father, his Son, through the holy spirit into our hearts. Written texts are only a result of what happened or occurred in the community of living people of faith. Would you concur with this TH?

Interesting and useful presentation. However, the framework is too rigid and biases the results. 1. "Sola scriptura" is a gnomic way of saying "apostolic tradition that is objectively accessible trumps any source that contradicts it." There is an historical aspect to it, in that the lively memory of the apostles' teaching would have functioned normatively during a certain fuzzy transition period, when scripture was being made and distributed. Gradually, the confusions, subjective interpolations, and possibility of errant memory made it so the written form replaced the oral. So when early writers quote a gospel or epistle to clinch an argument, they are functioning in the air of sola scriptura; it is not necessary to use some formula like "as the scripture says..." 2. Since scripture requires church offices and obedience, attesting to the latter does not give weight per se to a non-sola scriptura outlook. At best, you could say it is neutral. 3. a fortiori, passages that just speak in lofty terms of the church. We can also speak that way. 4. Likewise, apostolic succession is granted, but we believe we have it also. So this is not per se counter to the idea of sola scriptura. Only if a father tried to clinch an argument by saying "No, Bishop Marcus has ordination and he contradicts you, therefore you are wrong" would there be clear evidence of a principle other than sola scriptura at work: and just this is something that you never showed.

Someone needs to edit St. Polycarps wiki page because it looks like some scripture alone Christians got in there that he quoted the New Testament as scripture dozens of times. It should read as Trent has said here. He mentions them, but does not distinguish them on the same level as the Old Testament.

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Sola fide points to Jesus Christ, no works can save you it is only through Christ alone who is the way, the truth and the life

1 Clement44is talking about the bishopric of the Corinthian church, which that congregation expelled from their office. He was in no wise talking about some Romanesque "Apostolic Succession" theology that the Roman religion concocted as a power grab strategy. This kind of out-of-context reading of the text is typical of the deceivers of Rome. The Apostle Paul used very similar language in his epistle to both Timothy and Titus. Multiple presbyters were to rule over each congregation of the church of God. This was the apostolic pattern and NOT what the Roman religion invented a hundred or more years later.

Mamma mia! What do I do with that?! 🤦🏻

The authority of the "teaching office of the Magesterium through the successors of the apostles". That was slipped in almost as a "given" but this is exactly the question. God has to be absolutely schizophrenic if we believe that He authorized Paul (for example) to write what he wrote only for others to come along and, with equal authority, contradict his teaching. Remember, just because it's believed by somebody doesn't automatically make it so. There is no support in Paul's teaching for a "Magesterium of successors". In fact, he taught that if anyone taught contrary to his teaching they were to be considered accursed. The doctrine of the New Testament insists itself on you. People who know the New Testament and believe it, cannot come to any other conclusion. Again, just because someone believes that Jesus was just a man doesn't make it true. There have been FAR MORE "Christians" (including Muslim "Christians") who believe and teach that Jesus was just some dude. Does that make them right? Is this a democracy?

​ @NeoMo24 *Jews do use some historical writings. Citing them does not prove Jews treat them as doctrines. Jews still follow Mosaic Law as doctrines. What is Mosaic Law? Scriptures. Sola Scriptura stands unchallenged.* you said Extra-biblical Jewish tradition is indeed mentioned and approved of: Matthew 23:2-3 - Jesus acknowledges the authority of the Pharisees: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." The concept of "the seat of Moses" is not found in the Old Testament but was a known tradition referring to the authority of Jewish teachers. Matthew 2:23 - Referring to a prophecy about Jesus being called a Nazarene: "And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene." This prophecy is not found verbatim in the Old Testament but is thought to be derived from a combination of prophetic themes or oral tradition. Jude 1:9 - The reference to Michael the archangel contending with the devil over Moses' body: "But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'" This story is not found in the Old Testament but is recorded in Jewish apocryphal literature, such as the Assumption of Moses. Acts 7:22 - Stephen's speech referring to Moses being educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians: "And Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action." This detail about Moses' education is not found in the Old Testament but aligns with Jewish traditions. 1 Corinthians 10:4 - Paul refers to a rock that followed the Israelites: "And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ." The Old Testament does not explicitly mention a rock that followed the Israelites, but this idea is found in Jewish tradition. This extends to John 10:22-23 (Hanukkah), Hebrews 11:37 (details about the prophets sawn in two, not found in OT)

Where does Clement refer to himself as a "priest"? The office of "priest" didn't exist in the New Testament church.

The 50 fatal flaws of sola Scriptura (s.S) * While God gave us intellects and reason, unfortunately the Bible could not be described as perspicuous (sorry Dr Luther) anymore than the challenge of someone trying to understand the many works of Shakespeare, or a book on physical chemistry, by personal study alone. Right? * The Bible just didn't suddenly appear. In order of events, God is the ultimate source of Revelation and authority, not scripture. God created and chose holy human voices whom he inspired. Through their minds and hearts and a deep reflection on that inspiration,they then preached God's truths to their followers. Eventually unguided by any divine instructions to do so, these truths were written down for prosperity some decades later. Every holy book we have, followed this same timeline *To infer or imply that Scripture is somehow the direct "Word of God" is to deny the important role of all those holy men and the human contributions, through whom it was handed down. *if every doctrine must be provable from the Bible, then sola scriptura if it is to be a doctrine, must also be so provable. If it isn’t, then sola scriptura is self defeating. * By reducing the definition of sS to "the only infallible rule of faith", the easier it would be to defend. Instead of needing to produce verses of Scripture that state or imply sola scriptura, the proponent can simply say, “Name another infallible rule of faith,” thus putting the burden of proof back on the critic. * But the London Baptist Confession is much broader: “ Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience” (1:1). *Even if Scripture were our sole infallible source of authoritative information about the Faith, that doesn’t require it to contain everything God wants us to know. Such a restrictive belief denies any future role for God's Church, his heavenly kingdom, or future discoveries of His natural revelation. * "A rule of faith” is something that is authoritative for faith, and we have two infallible authorities for the Faith in addition to Scripture. Apostolic Tradition is an infallible source of information regarding it, and the Magisterium is an infallible interpretive authority. * If someone is needed to tell what a passage means that someone else would have ultimate authority. not scripture. * Sola Scriptura straight out denies the authority Jesus gave to Peter and his Church to bind, loose law sand preach Scripture. * It denies the role of God's messengers, the angels and saints in his heavenly kingdom: It is not a heresy but a scriptural doctrine that we all, including Protestant Christians, have a personal Guardian angel to protect and guide us against the snares of the devil 😈. In fact praying to and for us and each other (1 Cor 3:9) is also the role of God's heavenly Kingdom. Said the Lord's Prayer recently? That we should also pray for those souls who die in a temporally "unclean" state "until the last debt is paid" should be a given. That the church should have used it as a means to raise funds in poor economic times is certainly debatable however. That the Church has overcome far more troublesome crises in its 2000 yrs is part of Dr. David Anders' PhD thesis. But then Jesus vowed to be with us to the end of days, right? * Sola S may be "sufficient for every good work", it could not be God's "complete" Revelation in the sense that a) only a tiny fraction of what Jesus preached from age 12, was actually recorded some decades later (just 1500 words, about a day's worth in his life) cf. John 21:25 *. Jesus never wrote anything himself or told his mostly illiterate followers to, he instituted a Church telling his followers to carry his message into the world teaching and preaching. Most of them assumed he would return in their lifetime . *. Paul's referral to Scripture in 2Tim 3:16 was all the OT, plus what he learnt orally from a few disciples which was the oral tradition. Paul died circa 62AD before little of the NT was put to parchment. *. Jesus gave authority to his Church to identify, compile (Canon), interpret and preach his Word. *. S/S denies the existence of our creative right brain, the role of natural theology, the beauty, joy and inspiration of nature, of God's glory revealed in the heavens, the rational intelligibility of the universe, in the inspiration and joy of art and music, the role of guardian angels (his messengers) and God's promise and pledge to be with His Church to reveal His doctrines, to bind and loose the Gospel, to forgive sin, to the end of days. ----

Put simply 'you can't appeal to the authority of the church fathers to show that they are the authority. Logically speaking, you can't ask the question "Is Sola scriptura true?" then appeal to what the church fathers said about sola scriptura when the "church fathers' are the ones whom you are claiming are as authoritative as scripture. Said in another way, you can't use the church fathers writings as evidence against sola scriptura because sola scritura is asking the question "Are the church fathers writings authoritative?". That's test book 'begging the question'.

Very interesting. I am still wrestling things out as I see both sides to a point. I think "sola scriptura" came about due to corruption in the church. Should it be taken in context or applied universally? Early church fathers are trying to figure things out because of all the heresies coming up. Where to draw standards, what is scripture, etc. They seem to draw from councils. Letter to Timothy where it says scripture is God breathed ... is probably not referring to anything but OT. Paul wouldn't equate himself to the OT most likely. But it is mostly the apostles' teaching. Some of my thoughts as I wrestle things out. I've read some of the comments and agree with a lot of them. I don't agree with all of them though. I've seen church leaders be wrong. I've seen people rely on themselves apart from church and go off too. I'm glad we have the Holy Spirit who guides and convicts. Not all have scripture and not all have Church readily available. So what do they do? 🤔 Saturday morning thoughts. Thanks for the presentation. I'll keep learning and processing.

Honestly, how does a Protestant respond to this? It seems literally undeniable that they 1) adhered to church hierarchy and 2) did not have the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Jesus directs us individually by His Spirit in us. We do not need thousands of men in robes. We need Him. He guides each person where He wants them to be. We put our trust IN HIM. I am catholic in the universal sense, but I do not trust the Roman church. You all argue who has the power, but I agree with the Lord. He is on the throne. That being said, I have respect for all who believe in the Lord and teach His ways. I listen to Pope Francis and pray for him. Repent daily everyone! Pray always! Seek the Lord! Read his Word! Attend church wherever He sends you! Walk humbly with God!🕊

I always thought that the book with the Latin title of : PASTOR HERMÆ, translated to : 'The Pastor of Hermas'.

Can you dissect Cdl. McElroy's recent essays?

Hello and greetings from Florida. I just was thinking... ( and my thinking is sometimes weird ). One problem I see is that even the apostles and followers of Jesus often didn't comprehend what Jesus meant in his words/teachings. So if the apostles themselves had difficulty understanding Jesus, how could the later church traditions, handed down from the apostles and the students of the apostles ( early Church fathers), have been correct in stating the truth? But then even "Sola Scriptura" is seemingly dependent on the understanding of the apostles. Is this possible? Any observations that can help me? Peace of God to all...

Hi Tent. If possible make a reaction from an apoligist Ravi Zacharias. Thanks in advance. Informative video btw.

Posted this on Facebook we will see if I am banned

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📜 *Historical Data Behind Solo Scriptura Argument* - Trent introduces the historical data behind an argument against sola scriptura presented in a debate with Gavin Ortlund. 01:38 🔄 *Paradigm Shift Argument* - Trent explains the paradigm shift argument, suggesting that the Church's authority transitioned from oral teachings of the apostles to a combination of oral and written rules, challenging the idea of a subsequent shift to written rules alone. 03:39 📜 *Modern New Testament Scholarship* - Discussion on modern biblical scholarship's claim that the earliest Christians didn't consider the New Testament as scripture until later, challenging the sola scriptura paradigm. 05:18 📚 *Early Christian Writers and New Testament* - Examining quotes from early Christian writers and how their views align with or differ from the sola scriptura paradigm, focusing on the scarcity of explicit New Testament scripture citations. 08:07 📜 *Clement of Rome: Authority in Old Testament and Church* - Clement of Rome's reliance on the Old Testament as scripture, citing it over 20 times, and his emphasis on the authority structure of the Church, specifically the Bishops and deacons. 17:32 📖 *The Didache: Connecting Old Testament Prophecy to Eucharist* - The Didache's citation of the Old Testament prophecy (Malachi) as divinely inspired, connecting it to the Eucharist, and its reference to Bishops and deacons as authorities in the Church. 21:23 📜 *Ignatius of Antioch: Quoting New Testament Without Calling It Scripture* - Ignatius of Antioch's formal citation of the Old Testament as scripture twice, his quoting of the New Testament without labeling it as scripture, and his emphasis on Church authority. 21:51 📜 *Ignatius and Authority in the Church* - Ignatius responds to critics questioning the absence of Christ's teachings in ancient scriptures. - Ignatius emphasizes the authority of Jesus Christ, the cross, and resurrection over Old Testament prophecies. - Ignatius supports Church authority, stating, "Without the bishop, you should do nothing." 23:53 🤔 *Aristides: Ambiguous Authority References* - Aristides does not quote Old or New Testament as divine scripture. - Acknowledges oral proclamations of Christians as binding but doesn't clarify their status. - Ambiguity in Aristides regarding the authority structure within the Church. 24:47 📖 *Polycarp's Letter to the Philadelphians* - Polycarp, a disciple of Saint John, cites theNew Testament over a dozen times. - Ambiguous citation of Ephesians 4:26 as a possible New Testament scripture. - Polycarp emphasizes church authority: "Being subject to the presbyters and deacons as unto God and Christ." 30:03 📜 *Epistle of Barnabas: Focused on Old Testament* - The Epistle of Barnabas extensively quotes the Old Testament, presenting allegorical descriptions. - Ambiguous reference to Matthew 22:14, potentially recognizing the New Testament as scripture. - No explicit mention of Church authority; the emphasis is on interpreting the Old Testament. 33:45 🐑 *Second Clement: Acknowledgment of Church Authority* - Second Clement references the Old Testament about five times, with fewer New Testament citations. - Clear citation of Luke 5:32, possibly recognizing it as New Testament scripture. - Expresses ambiguous views on the Church, mentioning presiders and authoritative leaders. 35:34 📜 *The Shepherd of Hermes: No Explicit Scripture Citations* - The Shepherd of Hermes doesn't explicitly cite Old or New Testament scriptures. - Recognized references to an authoritative Church, highlighting those who preside. - The uneven development of the idea of the Canon during the second century is noted. 37:43 ⚖️ *Martyrdom of Polycarp: Limited Scriptural Citations* - The Martyrdom of Polycarp contains no citations of Old or New Testament as divine scripture. - Recognizable references to the Church of God and acknowledgment of authoritative leaders. - Ambiguous references to the authoritative status of the Catholic Church. 38:40 🗣️ *Justin Martyr: Emphasis on Old Testament* - Justin Martyr extensively cites the Old Testament, over a hundred cases in dialogue with Trifo. - Ambiguous references to the New Testament, with possible recognition of Revelation. - Describes the Eucharistic service structure, but unclear on broader Church authority. 41:38 🤷‍♂️ *Epistle to Diognetus: Limited Explicit Citations* - The Epistle to Diognetus doesn't explicitly cite Old or New Testament as divine scripture. - Alludes to 1 Corinthians 8:1 without calling it scripture, implying reliance on oral tradition. - Ambiguous references to Church Authority, leaning towards reliance on apostolic tradition. 42:06 📖 *Molito of Sardis: Mixed Citations and Church References* - Molito of Sardis cites the Old Testament but never explicitly as divine scripture. - Possible references to New Testament scriptures, with ambiguity in their status. - Limited insight into Church authority, as Molito emphasizes the Church as the bridegroom. 43:40 📜 *Early Christian Views on Authority* - Early Christian authors like Hegesippus cited scripture, referring to the Old Testament and possibly the New Testament. - Hegesippus emphasized an authoritative Church structure, listing the succession of bishops as a key aspect of orthodoxy. - Recognition of authority in scripture and the teaching office of the Church, passed down from apostolic succession. 45:15 📖 *Athenagoras: Views on Scripture and Christ* - Athenagoras referred to the Old Testament as divine scripture and mentioned the prophetic Spirit's influence, resembling musical notes. - Limited reference to the New Testament, quoting Jesus's sayings but avoiding explicit mention of Jesus or Christ. - Critique of icons, emphasizing the invisibility and immaterial nature of God, raising questions about the belief in the Incarnation. 47:21 📚 *Theophilus of Antioch: Old Testament Emphasis* - Theophilus considered the Old Testament as scripture, citing it about eight times and referring to the spirit-inspired men, including John. - Limited emphasis on the New Testament, with only two references, raising questions about a clear belief in the Incarnation. - Lack of explicit mention of Jesus or Christ in connection to the Christian identity, with a focus on anointing with the oil of God. 48:43 🕊️ *Authority in Early Church Fathers* - Summarization of findings regarding early Church Fathers' views on authority, specifically in relation to Sola Scriptura. - Assertion that the early Christians recognized authority in the words of Jesus and the Apostles, transmitted through the Church's succession. - A challenge to the idea of Sola Scriptura, highlighting the importance early Christians placed on the message rather than the written medium.

The Bible itself says that there are many things Jesus did which were not written and if all his deeds were written then the world could not contain the books that should be written. It’s pretty clear that there is scripture outside the Bible. The Bible references teachings from epistles not found in the Bible- the apostles say to heed the teachings of those epistles. If we were to find them- many would turn their nose up at it.

Yay church fathers fighting heresy

Can I offer your readers a more appropriate analogy that may help make you reject the false doctrine of Sola S's, as witnessed by some 20,000 competing denominations according to the Oxford Christian encyclopedia. Think of a score of music. Any average musician can try to interpret lyrics and a music score but such a recital may provide little inspiration or beauty of what the composer is actually expressing. We will know however if and when someone appropriately talented touches our soul and brings it alive. We have all been blessed by a brain with two halves, the verbal and the non verbal. Moreover, everything that truly inspires us is transcendent and cannot always be put into words, like beauty Joy, love, hope, meaning, wisdom , charity, justice and truth. Protestants wrongly assert that God's divine Revelation can only be accurately discovered, in His written Word. Even worse when they scorn religious icons, art and even music. But many outsiders and non believers come to find Him in the beauty, joy and rational intelligibility revealed in nature and the heavens, as the Psalm and Paul say. Did I mention the Shroud of Turin? We will always need a DIVINELY INSPIRED Church to break open the Word and reveal its absolute truth, just as we need a talented musician to bring "alive" a profoundly moving score of music.🎶🎵🎹 Gerard Denaro