Sola Apostolica - A Proposal for an Ecumenical Principle of Authority 

Watched most of the debate and was thinking of you. Wondering if a review of the debate, 30 mins, where you select and give commentary, would be helpful!

This video... I keep coming back to it. I think it may be flawless *chef's kiss*

Excellent! This was very helpful!

This is so fantastic. I think I agreed with every syllable of this video.

Really enjoyed this, and I myself am pretty lockstep in terms of how we view Scripture. One question I had was around the 33:10 mark, in dealing with the unwritten traditions that don’t contradict Scripture, are apostolic, and are universal. How would we treat something like the Invocation of Saints? For me personally, it looks like a pretty universal practice that the Church used early on, but in the way that it developed in the medieval period doesn’t seem apostolic or can be draw from Scripture. So how would be go about addressing that?

Hi @anglicanaesthetics, quick question. You say here that your “sola apostolica” view admits as the only infallible creaturely rule “the apostolic teaching,” by which you mean the teaching of the prophets and the apostles. I assume you think the early undivided would agree with this (right?). A concern I have is that it seems to me that the early undivided church might have regarded *itself* as infallible when it decided a matter with effective unanimity (e.g., at Nicaea). And I think that it probably regarded this idea that the whole church, being the body of Christ, could not unanimously teach error itself as an apostolic teaching. It seems like that might make sola apostolica incoherent as stated (since it says that the sole infallible rule is the apostolic teaching, but the apostolic teaching is that the unanimous decision of the church is also infallible, which means the ‘apostolic teaching’ per se isn’t really the *only* infallible rule). Do you have any thoughts about that? Thanks.

Excellent. Keep up the good work!

I know this is its own debate but consider (for argument's sake) a case in which a doctrine like Mary's Perpetual Virginity was to have been believed by the very earliest in the Church, yet being a doctrine which receives little testimony (or perhaps contrary testimony) from within Scripture. Chemnitz says "Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church". Would your view of sola apostolica be like the approach put forward by Chemnitz (and to thereby defer judgment about the Perpetual Virginity not to Scripture ""alone"" but to the consensus of Tradition - which culminates in Chemnitz's assent to the perpetual virginity?) I see three options: 1. Reject perpetual virginity for it violates the "clear passages". This would seem to lead to 'solo scriptura'. Any tradition can be overturned 2. Reject perpetual virginity based on it being unsatisfactorily represented in catholic (lower c) tradition - of course, there is the 'danger' that the "clear passages" motivate/bias historical inquiry 3. Accept perpetual virginity despite it seeming to go against "clear passages", for the mere fact that catholic tradition *seems* to have always taught I see problems with each of the three ways here, but I personally lean toward option #1 - solo scriptura, very low church.

i don't get why religists "struggle" with their belief, isn't god PERSONAL, right there next to you 24 / 7 (whether you want him or not?) how come you're struggling when you can ask god to his face what's what? or is it there is no god right next to you?

This is a really interesting video!

Thanks Sean. Do you have a link to your article?

Anglican Aesthetics, I do want to make a suggestion, is it possible for you to make a response to a heretical "Catholic" named Kyle Alander of Christian Idealism views on Universalism? He just published a video announcing his heresy.

I like this. Thanks for your work. How do you think about the deuterocanonical books? How do you know Job is a prophet? Is it because his writing was accepted as Scripture? If we know someone was a prophet because we have accepted their writing as Scripture, then, are the apocryphal books scripture and therefore from prophets because most Christians have accepted them as scripture throughout the ages? (If that is true that they have?)

What about the Old Testament, and the Deuterocanon? You didn't really address how those fit into Sola Apostolica.

so stupid when you using word sola for christian teaching because all christian teaching not based on sola but holistic. same like nation wee ned land, we need rule of law, and we need goverment.