Sola Scriptura Debate Review (with Josh Schooping and Sean Luke) 

I agree👍

I went through that phase 3 years ago except our jurisdiction has evolved into grave idolatry and hyper marian theology so i know how that feels like I will definitely pray for you♥️

If your local churches in Germany are heretical, that really has nothing to do with Catholicism itself though. Even if the pope and Magisterium fail pastorally in denouncing heresy, that would be a pastoral failure, not a doctrinal one. Catholic moral doctrine would be that homosexual relations are intrinsically sinful, that all deliberately sought out sexual pleasure outside of valid marriage between a man and a woman is wrong, and that doctrine hasn't changed regardless of the failings of some of the clergy. I'm curious also, what infallible dogmas do you think have changed over the years? The current teaching on the death penalty is merely a prudential judgment that it's no longer necessary today, not a change of teaching regarding whether or not it's intrinsically moral or not.

@@Jay-et9hw "that would be a pastoral failure, not a doctrinal one." I disagree. Those so called pastoral failures clearly affect how the Magisterium interprets doctrine. And yes, even when it comes to the matter of sexual morality. For example, in 1950s when medical advancements allowed us to understand female reproductive cycle better, as a result contraception was first introduced into our society. Catholic Church, which has always held a position, since the early writings of the Fathers, that sexual activity for pleasure alone and without an intent to conceive a child is sinful, has "failed pastorally" to enforce this doctrine in the light of new sexual morality of the world and as a consequence, changed its doctrine soon after allowing for sexual activity for pleasure alone for the first time in Church history, hence, the NFP was introduced. And sure, at first it was Church's official position that "continual, incessant use of NFP is still sinful" but then it slowly but surely "failed pastorally" to enforce even that, and here were are in the XXI century, with continual use of NFP being the absolute norm of every Catholic marriage. When you tell me constant, unbroken pastoral failure of consecutive Popes to react to German heresies are not a doctrinal issue of Catholicism, I can't hope to just laugh in frustration. "Catholic moral doctrine would be that homosexual relations are intrinsically sinful" This is exactly what I tried to communicate to my bishop when he told me I'm homophobic for not acknowledging that "proper gay marriage is not the same as lust-based homosexuality described in the Bible". And you know what I heard from him? "There are more bishops that think like I do than you think. Even Pope Francis starts to think this way, and you will see that soon Church will include homosexual relationships as part of the doctrine. You won't have to wait long" and I believe him. Especially, when the German poll in 2021 showed that only 44% of all German Catholics support current stance of the doctrine on homosexuality. Even if it doesn't happen today, or tomorrow, or in 10 years, it just showed me, opened my eyes as to how Magisterium actually functions. Whenever the infallible teaching is no longer suitable for the current Magisterium, it is changed into whatever is necessary for modern time. If you look back at history you can plainly see that. This is exactly what sedevacantists say about Vatican II. That it openly denies several infallible statements made at Council of Trent. And they are right too ya know. Read Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and Council of Trent on how Catholics view Lutherans and their salvation. Read these two documents back to back and tell me doctrine doesn't change with a straight face. I'm sorry, I don't want to sound overly bitter or nasty... I have nothing against you, and if you find the Lord in your Catholic faith, and if your local Church holds up to all of this insanity, cheers to you man, and God bless you on your journey. This is just how I feel. To me, this is a farce. There is no reason to take this seriously.

@@andrew91734 If the Church hasn't officially changed a doctrine though, then it's by definition not a problem of doctrines changing, it's a problem with those in the hierarchy failing to submit to Church doctrine. When the majority of the hierarchy caved in to the Arian heresy, or at the least neglected to condemn it, that didn't mean the Church had changed its teaching on the divinity of Christ, it just meant that heresy was rampant. It was still a massive problem, but not because Church teaching had changed. Same thing today...yes, heresy is rampant, yes the hierarchy could and should do more to point out and condemn heresy where it arises, I couldn't agree more. But that's not a change in Church doctrine. Same with NFP...official Church teaching, which does align with the teaching of the Church Fathers (see John Chrysostom for example on marital relations still being good when procreation isn't possible), is that it's not wrong for a husband and wife to consensually abstain from sex at times, with the intent of avoiding a pregnancy (while still being naturally open to it), if there is "just cause". This is still intrinsically different than contraception, as one is still naturally open to conceive and the other is not...a bit like skipping a meal during a diet vs. forcing yourself to vomit after eating all you can eat. One is natural, one is not, even though the end result in both is still losing weight. It's not a doctrinal change, though it is a pastoral issue, and one of personal conscience. If it's done for selfish reasons it can still be gravely sinful, but it can't very well be "enforced" since it does require personal conscience based on personal circumstances...though I do agree they are often pastorally failing to help form people's consciences so they can make informed decisions. Regardless, the official teaching on the purpose of sex hasn't changed, and there are many, many Catholic families who are truly trying to make the best moral decisions they can in line with Church teaching, and do not use NFP without grave reason. We have never used it; we have 5 kids, and that's a small to average sized family for our parish. The JDDC was an attempt to find common ground with Lutheran beliefs, and due to differences in understanding and terminology, is filled with ambiguity. That's why, just as with ambiguous statements in Vatican II documents, some will interpret it as contradictory, some will interpret it in line with previous teaching, depending on how you stretch the meaning of the terms. Regardless, JDDC clearly didn't intend to teach anything infallibly, whereas Trent did...so if any interpretation of the JDDC contradicts Trent, Trent wins. Therefore my face is still straight when I say that Catholic doctrine didn't change with the JDDC. Same with any interpretation of ambiguity in Vatican II documents...if someone interprets them in a way that contradicts the constant teaching of the Church, then the constant teaching of the Church is the correct doctrine, not the novel interpretation. No need to apologize, I'm sorry you've had to experience so much scandal from wolves in shepherds' clothing that it's shaken your own faith...I haven't personally had to go through that, it would be difficult. It just seems to me that you're confusing infallibility with impeccability, false pastoral teaching with Church doctrine, and heretical or apostate clergy with the authoritative Magisterium. I agree these are confusing times...when the widespread heresy of modernism requires you to constantly compare what a cleric says with the constant teaching of the Church, it's damaging to a simple trust that should ideally be there. But none of what you listed are examples of Church doctrine changing, that was my long-winded point. God bless!

I fully unterstand your frustration with the "Catholic" Church in Germany, I am very much myself and love Christian brothers like Gavin, yet for me bad bishops and popes are not sufficient reason to break ties with the ancient roots of the Church. In the history of Israel as recounted in the Old Testament there are so many weak and bad kings who fail to act against idolatry, pagan practises in the people of Israel etc., but it was still the chosen people, still the people from which the Messaiah would come, born of the Virgin Mary. I am always very much impressed by Jesus' family trees in the New Testament, of which David's adultery and even a prostitue is a part. Yet the gospels do not disconnect Our Lord from that sacred history. For me it's the same thing with the visible, universal, Catholic Church, that is not just based on a book, but on the Word of God, eventually Christ Himself, the Word made flesh, mysteriously present in the Eucharist, despite so many tares among the weeds... Our Lord's words are still very difficult and hard to accept: "Let both grow together until the harvest." Again, I feel your frustration with the Church in Germany and feel the temptation to break away and say: "I wash my hands in innocence, I have nothing to do with those people." God bless you!

I have always disliked the fact, and you are right about it, that often a strong and forceful attitude helps to shape people's perceptions of the cases presented. This is most easily seen in Islam where whoever shouts more and mocks more is deemed the winner.

Well, I don't think your conclusion is correct though. A fallible list of infallible teachings could mean that the list is missing teachings that SHOULD be fallible. For example, aren't you glad that one of our infallible teachings is that Jesus came to us as fully God and fully Man? Many Protestants don't believe this. In fact, it took the Magisterium hundreds of years to work that out. There are a gazillion examples of these types of issues. The point is that Jesus said He wouldn't leave us as orphans. Thank God we have a 2000-year old anchor the the Apostles.

@@enshala6401 the Bible teaches that Christ is fully God and fully man. Anyone who disagrees with this isn’t a Protestant since they don’t believe the scriptures. Just because someone says they believe the scriptures doesn’t mean they do if they go against the clear meaning of the text, or else you have to say that the text has no inherent meaning.

@@TheRoark Good to know WLC isn't a Protestant. Someone denying Christological dogmas defined by the councils because they believe those dogmas conflict with Scripture is perfectly justified given SS principles to do so. You're simply assuming your particular interpretation of the text is the "clear meaning". And it hardly follows because a text may be ambiguous that it has no inherent meaning. Even Protestants agree that Scripture's clarity lies along a spectrum and not all of Scripture is perspicuous (only the "essentials" which is hardly a given as Trent noted). Does that mean all the unclear and debated passages dealing with "non-essentials" have no inherent meaning? No.

@@cronmaker2 WLC affirms that Christ is fully God and fully man though, which was what my text says if you care to read it. I am not saying that every later dogma is clear in the text, just that the idea that Christ is fully God and fully man is clear in the text. You posited that protestants can deny this, and I am simply telling you anyone who denies it isn't a protestant. The text not only has a meaning, but isn't even ambiguous on this point.

Who was roman Catholic?

@@theknight8524 Good catch! I misheard Sean Luke at the beginning. He actually said that he dove into Roman Catholicism and wrestled with it while he was in seminary, but that he ended up a convinced High Church Anglican (or, as he called it, an Anglo-Catholic adjacent Protestant).

I think Trent was explaining the necessity of the Church and scripture rather than just stay home and read your Bible.(no offense intended) Another words as most protestants (former protestant 30yrs)believe you can stay home and have church as long as you have your Bible and spend time with God especially after this pandemic, now i'm not saying all but the majority. This is was the effects of sola scriptura without knowing. Scripture was insinuated this way not purposely, but these can be the effect of sola scriptura if not explained. I think with Dr Gavins help this can be explained the the protestant churches. Without understanding or explaining we would easily disagree with our Pastor's view on some passages( because studying at home and reading commentaries) because we read with the understanding of," Why is it only what the pastor teach?"Rather than explaining both the necessity of script and Church both very important. Im now an Orthodox Christian

And I think this pre-recorded debate review is the better way to do it in retrospect

@@ProfYaffle it was a little difficult logistically setting up a live stream, but I’d love to do that in the future sometime!

@Truth Unites as soon as the debate was over, I realised the livestream wouldn't work. But I loved the debate. I learned so much and am still trying to analyse it in depth myself.

It seems to me prima scriptura is a species, so to speak, of orthodox sola scriptura.

​@@lazaruscomeforth7646 Yes, my friend, that was a great point. Catholics forget that it's not necessary have infallibly for recognize a quality proper of the scriptures.

I would say prima scriptura is necessarily true because of the reality that Jesus said and did things on Earth that were not recorded in the gospels. It may never be possible for us to know what those teachings were and how the apostles imparted them to the churches but they did happen. So no, the written text in the Bible can’t be the only source of divine revelation that has ever existed. But it is what we have available to us today.

​@@harrygarris6921 It seems your view of prima scriptura is different from Sean's. Are you actually a Protestant? If you suggest that there is something outside of the Bible equally infallible to the Bible such as Councils, Church Fathers, magisterium, and etc I don't know how that can be reconciled to protestantism.

@@junkim5853 No, I'm not a protestant. But I don't agree with this idea that we have sources of authority from "outside the Bible". The church councils aren't infallible outside of scripture, the reason they're authoritative is they are interpreting scripture. Take the first council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. for example. The main purpose of this council was to establish that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were equally God along with the Father. This council is where we get the idea of the trinity from. The proofs and arguments made for the trinity came almost exclusively from scripture itself. Prior to this council, the trinity wasn't an established Christian doctrine. It was still kind of up for debate, and a whole lot of heretical groups were created due to a disagreement over whether Jesus and the Holy Spirit were fully and eternally God along with the Father. Yet most protestants today are trinitarian. And the ones who are would say its heretical to claim otherwise. Where do you get the idea that it's wrong to question the trinity from? In effect - you guys are accepting this church council as authoritative whether it's intentional or not. Because there's an agreed upon understanding that it is the "correct" way to interpret scripture.

"He has to argue that there are not good reasons to accept the infallibility of Scripture and the Biblical canon apart from the authority of the Catholic Church." Question for Trent: how does he determine that the Catholic Church is that authority? What sort of reasoning does he use? Church tradition? How do I know that that church tradition is infallible? Scripture? Then we have proven nothing...other than a circular path that has not really proven anything. I guess what he would say is that the church self-authenticates. Okay...why does the church self-authenticate and not scripture? "It's like he's determined to make all of his beliefs are circular, without any way to argue up to them without the starting point of the Church's authority." Boom, baby!

When he introduced himself and didn't say "Picard", my brain threw up an error message box.

I think you missed his point. He sights leftists not because he necessarily agrees with them rather to show in this case disagreement over the canon which undermines Gavin's position. When he says the Gospel isn't clearly seen. He is saying the essence of what are the essential elements of the gospel. There is no verse or verses that say this is these are the essential elements of the Gospel. I remember years ago listening to a panel at. John Piper pastors conference discussing what are the minimum essential elements of the Gospel. They couldn't agree.

@@jonathanbohl good deal. I will go read up on what Pope Francis has to say to get a little more clarity.

@@jonathanbohl asking for a specific verse that outlines “The Gospel” is nonsensical. It’s like asking “what verse says who Jesus is?” You might find a Gospel *summary,* and Gavin listed a few immediately in answer to Trent. But the full, 3D picture of the Gospel is the totality of the story of Israel and the world finding fulfillment in Jesus Christ. You need to read the whole Bible, just like you need the whole Bible to know who Jesus is.

Well, I understand what you are saying, but I would counter that we Catholic Christians are more focused being united in Christ per His prayer to the Father in John 17. We don't love God's gifts, including the Bible and the Magisterium, more than we love Jesus. God's gifts, including the Bible, the Sacraments, the Church, etc. are there to serve a purpose, which is to bring us closer to Christ. It is from this premise that all other positions emerge.

Not really - the private judgment objection against SS is not that we all fallibly interpret - that's just being human. It's that there is no mechanism given SS to issue irreformable binding judgments upon believers, it is perpetual private judgment. There is no principled way to distinguish between divine revelation (infallible by definition) and provisional human opinion; no SS body claims divine authority to do so, hence "semper reformanda" as Gavin extolled in debate. In RCism, following submission to church's authority, one is obligated to assent to dogmas even as they might conflict with one's private interpretation of Scripture. One doesn't need to be infallible to identify infallible RC dogmas - RCs and Protestants (who have written against such dogmas for 500 years) alike have no problem doing so. So the SS-follower and RC are not in the same boat. An NT-era follower of Christ and the Apostles submitting to their authority in which they offered infallible interpretations of the OT is not in the same boat as an NT Jew following some random rabbi offering self-admitted provisional interpretations of the OT, even though both followers fallibly interpret their teachers. Or in a secular example, Joe reading Finnegan's Wake with James Joyce sitting next to him offering clarification and feedback as needed obviously has an advantage in understanding FW over Bob reading FW by himself - there is no infinite regress needed.

So all this being said would you agree that the Catholic Church teaches the assumption of Mary?

@@cronmaker2 ​ @a "Not really - the private judgment objection against SS is not that we all fallibly interpret - that's just being human. It's that there is no mechanism given SS to issue irreformable binding judgments upon believers, it is perpetual private judgment. There is no principled way to distinguish between divine revelation (infallible by definition) and provisional human opinion; no SS body claims divine authority to do so, hence "semper reformanda" as Gavin extolled in debate. In RCism, following submission to church's authority, one is obligated to assent to dogmas even as they might conflict with one's private interpretation of Scripture. In theory, a binding authority with zero capacity for error on teaching is a wonderful and efficacious utility for us. The problem is that belief in this incapacity to err requires itself a separate act of faith from the belief in the Trinity, the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and the various other preceding entries in the hierarchy of truths. The Catholic position I've most engaged with seems to conflate this separate assertion as a necessary given of believing the previous assertions, and that conflation comes from the regressive characterization of infallible authorities. This is not to say that one cannot coherently affirm the infallibility of the Magisterium and its absolute binding authority, but doing so logically requires different methodology than what I've seen most often in these comments. That proper methodology cannot be used against Sola Scriptura in such a manner. "Or in a secular example, Joe reading Finnegan's Wake with James Joyce sitting next to him offering clarification and feedback as needed obviously has an advantage in understanding FW over Bob reading FW by himself - there is no infinite regress needed." Certainly there is an advantage for Joe in understanding authorial intent if James Joyce is truly there and willing to offer such explication. My concern is whether the chap sitting next to Joe is actually James Joyce or a ghostwriter hired to write the sequel.

​@@ottovonbaden6353 "My concern is whether the chap sitting next to Joe is actually James Joyce" Certainly. There indeed could be and are false claimants to divine authority. But SS churches don't even make the claim in the first place, thus they don't even get out of the gate in the first place as worthy of consideration for proposing articles of faith or identifying divine revelation. The claimants to divine authority (e.g. RCC, EOxy, Mormonism, Streetcorner Bill the Prophet) at least are viable contenders, and thus the credibility of their claims then needs to be evaluated. The same would apply under the NT era scenario where there were multiple people claiming to be prophets, apostles, messiahs. This is where things like the motives of credibility come into play for the RCC under which one gives the assent of faith to its authority after which the issue of perpetual private judgment that plagues SS bodies does not obtain.

Trent lied and made false analogies, also quoted leftist that don’t believe the scripture is God breathed.

@@internautaoriginal9951 You watched the dividing line by James White. It doesn’t bother me if Trent’s source is a modernist or a secularist. Truth is truth. The dude who is doing most of the talking this vid is a great demonstration of “protestants” not understanding Catholic claims. It is like we are using the same words but have completely different definitions for those words. Many are reading into and expanding what Catholics and Catholic doctrine is saying well beyond what is meant. The more I read the reformers and their confessions the more I notice this issue. This is a problem from the start. I would think it was a problem of translating Latin into German but this problem persists even when both side are speaking English.

@@alpha4IV So the Bible is not reliable, there’s evidence against who wrote hebrews and that God doesn’t exist but that’s the truth ? Wow I never though Catholics would turn atheist. Non of the prophecy’s of Jesus are true because they are inaccurate

@@alpha4IV Secularist also said the the apostle Paul didn’t wrote the letters. The same dude Trent cited.

@@internautaoriginal9951 I would argue that there is strong evidence against traditional authorship at least in the literal sense, luckily we believe in inspiration so really doesn’t matter who the mortal authors were but I think their attributions are important and I wouldn’t change the name of the book if turned out (let’s use Matthew since that’s were you started) Matthew’s oral version began with a historical Matthew but its written form came from a Mathew school or Matthean Church tradition that was then later written down between 65 & 90 AD. By the way, Origen, Jerome, & Aquinas in their commentaries on Mathew are open to both theories of how the text came to be, though each Father leans more one way or the other. As for there being historical anachronisms and inaccuracies in the Bible as a whole this is undeniable. How we treat the genre and conventions of each book will guide us in how we reconcile the apparent contradiction. But camels before they inhabited a region, light before the existence of a sun, where the canaanites destroyed or not, Bart Ehrman has a list of apparent New Testament contradictions and historical inaccuracies. That we accept them and can answer them doesn’t mean that they are not there. Both Gavin and Horn acknowledge as much. Unless we are going to say that the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark were always there and demonstrably really happened in physical history. Catholics have a 5 fold method for understanding these things, we can say it is True & Inspired and mean it, but what we mean by those words might be saying something different than what you are saying when you say the same thing.

I don't think you will get an answer to your question because they don't want to admit that every pastor becomes in that sense an infallible source.

D. advocate here.. holy spirit goes where it wills? Each interpretation could be whats needed at that time. On the opposing side we have infallible popes who disagree and overturn other “infallible” pope’s interpretations and decisions showing this happens jn RC as well. Hence Gavins point the Protestant church can fix things quicker than the RC church as they need to wait for a new pope or new council etc.. The point of scripture i think is missed here. The good news is preached not read. The purpose of scripture is to solidify and standardize the gospel as an authoritative document, a witness to the Christian life. And the purpose of a christian life is to become like Christ. I think outside of this view we end up with what we have, people arguing over their own literature and not living it. The orthodox church at least considers the Saints, someone who has become most Christlike as having the better interpretation. Imagine learning about how to build a house from people who talk about building a house vs those who actually build them. Too many people nitpicking about scriptural passages while ignoring the wider scope just to be inflate their ego.

@Bee Cee You said it correctly! The point here is the "good news." Sadly, for Protestants, the "good news" depends on who you're listening to, is like a buffet you pick and choose what to believe and if you don't like that just go to another church with a different "good news". And if you can provide an infallible statement given by a Pope that was contradicted by another Pope later. Sometimes, people get confused on what is infallible and what's not. I would like to look in to it.

Thanks for the feedback - I have concerns from years of ministry - and that is to say the diversity of theological thought that leaves Protestantism broken and fractured does not acknowledge or honors our Lord’s Prayer. It is a serious concern of many and it has massive implications and if we are honest ‘keep reforming’ often means ‘keep splitting’ - apparently we’ve decided make light of it but this drives people (some) to heresy and theological error that damages people. Yes God is sovereign and He is so sovereign that our Lord disciplines the churches so He cares very much. It’s tough but in my sincere opinion our kryptonite is our lack of unity. We have unity in our gospel presentation - but that’s it. We differ on Calvinism / Arminianism / losing salvation / Mary / baptism / divorce and remarriage / women deacons / liturgy / music / sacrament to name just a few. These aren’t nonessentials or tier 3 issues.

@@elreyhats That's simply not true. There is more consistency and clarity around the Good News of the Gospel in Protestantism. Gavin made the point that he had asked 10 Catholics how to be saved or how to know and had about 8 different answers. Even a good friend of mine who is a convert to catholicism couldn't answer me on how I could be saved. I meet with the evangelical pastors of my town once a month. We all agree on the Gospel. We differ on minor issues such as style of worship music, preaching topics on expositionally, elder led or congregational, if the gifts of the Spirit have ceased, but we do not disagree about the Gospel.

If we going by that route then you wi have to remove all your images.

@@internautaoriginal9951I don’t think you’ve been keeping up with that debate. The Christian churches from extremely early on were using images. The question is not about whether it’s ok to paint an image for theological instructional purposes it’s whether veneration was happening within the first 300 years of the church or whether that was developed later.

@@harrygarris6921 The apostolic church did not use images, as they clearly knew that it violated God's very clear prohibition in the 2nd Commandment where it reads that His followers are not to make any physical representations of _anything_ that exists in Heaven. It doesn't matter what the counterfeit groups did. Christians are to follow the example of the _apostolic_ church.

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 My man that just isn't accurate. There are still surviving paintings in the catacombs under Rome that were painted by Christians who gathered there to escape persecution that you can go see today. The second commandment was referring to pagan idols, which if you understand what the purpose and intent of an idol is in paganism it's pretty obvious that a painting of Jesus or of a biblical event is not one.

Each individual can turn off the live chat. It's not fair to those who can effectively manage their attention to deprive them of this feature of the debate.

@@enshala6401 I don't think fairness has anything to do with it. A live chat isn't a requirement for a debate and all the people who attended the debate in person did not have an opportunity to talk during the debate. I think if we're honest, generally internet commentary is poor quality and serves to incite rather than educate.

@Frank Norton The Christian approach is to believe the best about anyone or anything (1 Cor 13:4-7). Yes, people will fall short of charity, and they will be held accountable in accordance with Jesus' will. It's so weird that Protestants would try to micromanage the lives of anyone. I thought the Holy Spirit freed you from human micromanagement. What is it, "free assembly for me, but not for thee!"? Live and let live, man.

Contrary to your claim, God only revealed things through His Church, and only His Church has the revelation because it has God's church government. That is why Hebrews specifically mentions the ark containing the law of God, Aaron's rod, and the jar of manna. A church that does not have God's government is not given the revelation. The _true_ God does not operate in any other way.

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 I apologize for how I worded that, I didn't intend it to sound so pointed. I agree God revealed things to His people and through His people, that it was recorded and that it was ultimately meant for all people (Acts 10). I agree the Church is essential. I just do not agree with the division I see over this issue nor do I agree the Church is entirely free from error (thus I do not agree it is infallible in an earthly sense) by Christ's own words (Matthew 13). I also do not think it needs to be infallible to carry the infallible truth of the Gospel. The Israelites were some of the most despicable people to walk the face of the Earth (by God's own words - see Ezekiel) and yet were the vessel on Earth for God's revelation. I do not believe Christ blesses for anything to override or overrule the Scriptures themselves and I believe that is precisely what has been done for centuries in many churches (of all traditions). Sola Scriptura is not saying "everyone agrees" just that "this is the only authoritative and infallible rule of Doctrine for the Church". Anyone and everyone can misinterpret that, the danger is then going and claiming that your interpretation is as infallible as the Scriptures themselves.

Please send the information, or give us the Link

I don’t think that was it. I think what you are talking about is the dissent on the “partum partum” proposition: that some of revelation is contained in the scriptures and some in tradition. I don’t think they were advocating anything about equality or elevation or anything. But idk m

​​@@internautaoriginal9951 You can find the following journal article online in pdf. It is primarily about the canon discussion (and dispells some of the modern apologetic rhetoric) but has some information on the discussions that took place on the role of tradition at Trent. Really interesting. I'd say it largely confirms the comment above, if memory serves me well. I was really surprised to see that it was even discussed. Duncker, Peter G. “The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953): 277-99.

You're assuming quite a bit. Who counts in the "body of Spirit-filled annointed believers" in recognizing doctrinal truth? Do the Pelagians, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, etc count who thought they were spirit-filled? Do the early church fathers who accepted the deuterocanonicals count? It is true that the church did not need to wait 1500 years to "give" the church the canon, it had already received it (indeed the church does not create the canon, merely recognizes it) and used it in liturgies universally for over a millenium before Trent (i.e. part of Tradition). But the council was necessary to definitively settle the issue as a normative irreformable binding judgment upon all.

@@cronmaker2 Just trace back who the Roman Catholic church burned. You'll figure it out.

@@cronmaker2 you know they can add more books and the canon is not closed right ?

@@TheChadPad Ah yes the Reformed countries were bastions of religious tolerance and freedom.

@@internautaoriginal9951 If Paul's missing letter was discovered, would it be added to your canon? The point is it's irreformably settled in RCism that Romans and Sirach are inspired. Such does not and cannot obtain in Protestantism given its principles, any book's acceptance or disputed passage within a book is revisable.

@Anomie he was spitting facts, now Catholics are behaving like atheists

I just finished that dividing line...quite interesting....its obvious Francis and the "magisterium " are woke leftists, progressivists etc but I don't think that's per say the direction trent is going with his reference to another way to interpret theonoustas God breathed....I suspect Trent was just grasping for straws or trying to throw out whatever and see what can stick...but when you reject the authority and sufficiency of Scripture for Romanism it's not surprising that a Roman apologists would throw that out there.

He’s lying because the greek word said Theos

I think that matter is addressed in this video.

Good question! In principle, I'd actually argue that if we could show a given tradition to likely stem from the apostles' teaching, we should hold to it. But then, whether something goes back to the apostles has to be demonstrated on historical grounds, not just assumed. (So to give two examples of things I think do go back to the apostles: the episcopate and infant baptism. But I think both doctrines are either implied by Scripture (the latter) or fitting with Scripture (the former))

@@anglicanaesthetics Ok, that makes sense. But then Gavin would, and has, given a defense against infant baptism using Scripture.

There is a canon that Jesus used and it was the same canon protestants use, Apocrypha was never canonized because most of this are historical books.

Hi Greg. I don't think Protestants are inconsistent for accepting the Canon, and at the same time rejecting the Marian dogmas or Icon veneration. Because the Canon can be proved to be Apostolic, while those other tradition can not. Therefore Christians should be free to reject them. We don't accept the Canon solely because it _is_ tradition, we accept it because _through_ the tradition we know the Canon to be Apostolic. Remember, Protestants accept the Church's tradition as _A_ authority, but we don't hold it to be infallible. Is the Church's recognition of the Canon infallible? As a protestant I'd say no, and the Roman Church is an example of that, I believe that Roman Catholics are part of Christ's Church, but it's Canon is incorrect. It Canonized books that are not inspired scripture. Catholics are part of the Church, part of the Church's tradition, as are Protestants. But the Catholic Canon is incorrect and my collusion is that Church tradition is fallible. That's how I see it as a Protestant myself. I hope it's useful. 🙂 I like what you say about other traditions such as the date of Easter. 🙂 As a Lutheran we do hold to and like tradition. Such as the date of Easter, Christmas, the liturgy, vestments, the sign of the Cross and probably more. And I think we are closer on this point, we hold them as good and useful, but not strictly necessary. 🙂

Sola scriptura is a doctrine though. The doctrine of bibliology

Of course SS is a doctrine. Perspicuity, formal sufficiency, Scripture as sole infall authority are not properly basic or presuppositional beliefs. They are proposed as divinely revealed truths believers should submit to.

Agreed. How does he explain the removing of 7 books from the Bible too?

He has

Not necessary, we got a gay dude painting God the father in the 15 century

No Sola Scriptura will lead to extremism and misuse of authority like anaethamizing those who don't kiss icons and sending young children to wars.

The problem with Protestants isn't that they believe that scripture should be a Christian's only guide for their beliefs and traditions. The problem is that despite that belief, Protestants elevate their human reasoning above what is actually taught in the Bible.

Trent just showed he has better skills at giving answers on the spot. Dr ortlund just needed more time to get around trent questions. trent has better debating skills.

Or perhaps it is that Horn's argument holds the truth, which can be found in 2,000 years of history.

@@bluecomb5376 Trent horn quoted an atheist.

@@internautaoriginal9951 Did the atheist say something inherently wrong? Aristotle believed in greek gods but that doesn't mean his philosophy can't help us understand real objective truth.

@YAJUN YUAN Lets be honest hear and to the point, Roman Catholic Theologians like Justin Martyr , Irenaeus, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, and others were far before Martin Luther and the reformation These men existed a couple of thousand of years ago. This is what I meant with history behind him. Trent Horn uses these men to argue his understanding. ,

the claim of Scripture's infallibility is rooted in passages like John 10:35, Psalm 119, and theological inferences from the nature of God; but since it's a point of agreement in this debate, it's not as necessary to justify it.

@@TruthUnites , yes. I understand that an argument/claim can be made that Scripture claims to infallible. I also understand that both you and Horn agree that Scripture has a kind of infallibility (though I think the Roman Catholic term is more often inerrancy), and so it was not a topic of debate. I just think it is interesting to explore on what basis we could actually sensibly claim that Scripture is inerrant at all. Why should anyone believe that it is?

I agree, such as faith alone not taught in Holy Scripture, or Scripture ALONE actually, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@philoalethia The Scripture is God breathed and it’s inspired by God, that should be enough. The scripture is one of the tools to defend satan so this power goes beyond of the physical world. And it’s the only way to know the full truth, without the scriptures how would we know Jesus was the messiah ?

@@matthewbroderick6287 Are you a Vatican paid account ?

The New Testament is very clear that the Church is to be governed by a plurality of elders (pastors) (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 5:1-4). The history of the Church has been full of God using fallible people to accomplish His purposes. Blessings.

People listen to fallible pastors so that they can understand scripture better and learn how to apply it to their lives. It's the same reason that I discuss what God's been teaching me with my friends, so that I can learn from them and they can learn from me and together we can become better Christians. I don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

@Tim Leonard Which Fallible Protestant Pastors do we listen to, such as the Fallible Protestant Pastors Martin Luther and John Calvin, who disagreed with each other on what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", and on the need for water baptism or not, and once saved always saved, and on the need to persevere or not? Why do we just let the infallible Holy Scriptures teach us? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@matthewbroderick6287 Protestants are not Catholics, we don’t excommunicate each other for this neither we deny that another person can be saved. While catholics false teachings can directly lead you to hell.

@@matthewbroderick6287 which fallible Priest are U Following!

Y’all confused worshipping the same god as muslims

@@internautaoriginal9951 prove it coward

@@internautaoriginal9951 heretic

@@waseemhermiz7565 CCC 841, quoting the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 16, from Vatican II, declared: *The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.*

@Internauta Original ah yes a vatican 2 heresy. Like I said prove it. The Catholic Church hasn't changed for 2k years until freemasons infiltrated her. Why? She is the TRUTH of course that's why. There is definitely a remnant left who worship the same way but as far as the NEW teachings we REJECT

He is not infallible. Only the Scripture is.

@Anomie Protestants are far more catholic than RCC, it will be apologetics of sola scriptura and why we don’t pray to saints or venérate icons

@Anomie No probably not, you wanna explain a little further, I could see some kind of case to be made for that but I may be interpreting it differently

It's nice to see a younger generation stepping up to the plate now with all the old timers passing away.

@Anomie it seems even those who submit to a magisterium have privately judged that it has the authority to judge for them

@@Norbingel Exactly. And the members of the magisterium do the same.

I’m praying for you my friend. May God bless you and keep you all the days of your life; May the spirit fill your heart with joy and peace.

Take it easy, you are not going to hell just for this, both sides affirm that. Just relax and find the truth peacefully, I'll be praying

If you can't trust the Word of God, how can you trust the God who gave it to you?

@@brich2542 its not the word of God he is struggling with, it whether it is the sole infallible rule of faith. So in essence, whether sola scriptura is true.

Keep reading Scripture.

If possible, I'd love to see a discussion between the three of you on divine authorship, text criticism, and the perspecuity of the human artifact that's divinely purposed for giving us the Word.

Trent won the debate. Quite convincingly, might I add.

@YAJUN YUAN watch the debate.

​@Alex Jurado Agreed. I kind of felt bad for him, especially during the second rebuttal and the cross-exam, because his body language looked very stressed. It's good to hear that he enjoyed it. Props to Gavin for taking the affirmative on the virtually-impossible job of defending Sola Scriptura while maintaining a gentle disposition. I just think he was in over his head, with his leg bouncing and papers shaking in his hands as he was clutching to them for dear life. I know chat got routy about it, and a couple of us were trying to settle it down because we felt bad for him. I'm not sure, but I got the sense that maybe Trent felt a little bad for him too, because he seemed to show Gavin some mercy by slowing down his questioning about essential doctrines. Anyway, I learned a bunch and hope others did too. Pax...

@@enshala6401 my impression was entirely different. I think both men were competent, but I also don’t know if either would convince any convinced adherent of the other side. Great stuff to chew on though. What do you feel was unanswered by Gavin that Trent raised? I felt that the audience’s perception of who has the burden in the debate is key to interpreting who had the better case. Reminds me of Bahnsen and Sproul debating approaches in apologetics.

It does seem like Trent has to start attacking Scripture itself in order to argue against Sola Scriptura.

@@roman_warlord It's ironic then that Trent is the one who started the Catholic catch phrase that protestants argue like atheists. We hold the bible in the highest esteem, nothing like atheists. It's just an ad hominum.

It's a fundamental mistake to think that a word's meaning can automatically be discerned by examining the roots of its parts. That approach is known as the "etymological fallacy," and it's universally rejected by scholars. The correct method is called "philology," and it consists of collecting the uses of a word within history. In that vein, I would point out that theopneustos appears in the Testament of Abraham (rec. A), in the fifth Sibylline Oracle (twice), in a fragment of Aetius, in the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, in the Anthologies of the astrologer Vettius Valens, and in a writing falsely attributed to Plutarch. This profile can be extended by including the cognate term theopnous, which is really an alternate spelling, and which appears in the Poimandres, in a fragment of the neo-Pythagorean Numenius (preserved by Porphyry), in an inscription at the Great Sphinx of Giza, and in a fragment discovered at a nymphaeum in Laodicea on the Lycus. Theopneustos also appears six times in Clement of Alexandria. In every instance prior to Clement, theopneustos/theopnous clearly means "life-giving." Things change drastically, however, with Origen, for whom the word takes on the meaning now universally ascribed to it ("inspired by God"). And it is not insignificant, of course, that the context of 2 Tim 3:16 supports a vivificationist understanding of the term as well, as rendering theopneustos as "life-giving" brings into focus an otherwise obscure development of thought from v. 15 to v. 16: "… from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [For] all scripture is life-giving, and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." The development depends on a resonant parallelism-Scripture is "life-giving" precisely because it is "able to instruct … for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." And it scarcely needs to be said that this is in no way an "atheistic perspective." It is simply a commitment to what the philological record actually says about the word theopneustos.

That’s Romanism for you

@@repentantrevenant9776that’s what he has to do to denigrate scripture and elevate his traditions. He can’t pull any historical or biblical evidence for his doctrines, so there is only 1 way to go

@YAJUN YUAN I don't generally use the term "Prima Scriptura"; not in a long time, at least. Regardless, I agree with how he is defining it.

@YAJUN YUAN I think "Prima Scriptura" is a better name for "Sola Scriptura", but I use "Sola Scriptura" in large part because that's the historic term used for it.

Properly speaking, the bible is both inerrant and inspired. Infallibility is a charism of the Church to declare without error, what is true and false.

Sean Luke was great here. Havent heard from him much, gonna follow his stuff more.

I think your take is good. Trent Horn is a great communicator and very quick thinker. However, if you rewatch the cross examination and the questions Gavin asked, you'll see that Trent was never able to substantiate another infallible authority outside of Scripture. If you follow the logic, you will see that as both agreed and Gavin demonstrated that Scripture is inspired and infallible, and no other infallible authority was clearly presented, you're by default left with Sola Scriptura. At least that was my take. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate.

Theo is God in Greek.

@ThoskaBrahyes and I believe he shot himself in the foot with that statement.

@ThoskaBrah Romans 10:9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Notice: Thou shalt be saved

​@ThoskaBrah John 25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." The Bible literally says that the Gospel is not fully represented in writing. You guys are mistaking the Bible for the Gospel when the Gospel is actually Jesus Himself. JESUS is The Word. >.>

@@enshala6401 based on your logic, that would rule out tradition as well. Just because not everything He said or did was recorded in the gospel does not mean that the gospel itself is not complete. What we need to know in order to be saved is there. Also, there is no John 25. John 2030 says “these things have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. And that by believing you may have life in hHs name.” That means that everything we need for salvation has been recorded scriptures otherwise John could not make that claim.

That's an interesting thought/question indeed. It seems to me those acting in that scenario would not be intellectually honest though...if one believes Sola they should be going to a Sola believing church...An attraction to high liturgy should not override the most important truths (and Sola would be one of those I think if one believes in it should not be compromised for other preferences).

There have been studies in ex Roman Catholics that become conservative Bible believing Christians, it's because of the Scriptures as a major reason. For those who join Rome from Protestantism, a major reason is marrying someone who happens to be Roman Catholic. And those who become Protestant vastly out number by 3 to 1 those who join Roman Catholicism. From what I remember from looking at various statistical studies. Lots of ex Roman Catholics become secular or become liberal Protestants but many become Bible believing Protestants

@Godsgirl001 Ah, Discord is a lot of fun. We actually have the Catholic Diocese of Discord. The membership is massive. There are group prayers around the clock. And of course we have a myriad of channels on games, movies, memes, prayer requests, book reviews, apologetics, ask a priest, etc. It's a great community. 🙏❤️😇

That's lovely. I just love when we can recognize and embrace each other as brethren.

Its always the same answer. "WELL PETER"

@@dann285 Indeed, but it's a giant stretch from Matthew 16:18 to the institution in Rome.

@@doctorg.k.spoderminsr.2588 Yeah I know. My claim "well Peter" is sacrcasm. Im saying they most absudly go back to their foundational claim that Peter is the rock.

I agree, would love to see more content from him.

The RC rule of faith is not sola ecclesia, but sola STM-triad. The church validates the proper interpretation of the greater authorities.

@Bb Dl they address this in the video. Also do you have an infallible list of infallible papal pronouncements? No? Then we don’t need one either.

@Bb Dl I swear, this is where your reliance on philosophical probabilities and logical rabbit holes gets you in so much trouble. How do we know that Aristotle really existed? How do we know that Plato really wrote “The Cave”? How do we know that the American Revolution really occurred? Is there a methodology that determines the veracity of historical claims? Yes. And the methodology is not, “What does the church say?”.

@Bb Dl So strange that you put that on Protestants as if Protestants would not agree with you. The reality is that I was converted by the words of the Apostles, the same as the people who were converted by Peter on Pentecost. The Holy Spirit has removed my heart of stone, given me a heart of flesh, dwelt within me and caused me to walk in the Lord’s statutes. Through my faith in Jesus Christ, given to me by the grace of God, I have been adopted by the Father and will be a co-heir with Christ. The same spirit which converted Paul has converted me and I know the words of the Bible are true because the same spirit which caused those words to be written dwells within me. That same spirit has empowered me to hear the voice of Christ and has brought me into His fold. Empowered by the Holy Spirit within me, I listen to that which I KNOW to be true, which are the words of God Himself, delivered to us through the prophets and the Apostles. From there, I follow the commands of the Apostles and test what I don’t know by what I do know. Historical claims such as, “the Apostles taught…” require evidence. If you don’t have any, fine. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but it doesn’t mean you’re right either. And nobody should bind Christians to believe what cannot be proven under the curse of anathema. That’s spiritual tyranny akin to what the Pharisees were guilty of doing. The Apostles never did that and neither did Christ. Testing church authorities by what is written in the scripture is a good and reliable thing to do. We have an Apostolic witness and an Apostolic “atta-boy” to the Bereans for testing even the Apostle Paul’s message by what scripture says. Paul goes further to say that if he or an angel from heaven preach a different Gospel, then they are cursed. The Gospel is a fixed, objective thing. It cannot change, it is etched in stone. If your Pope or magisterium preach a different Gospel, then Paul’s curse applies to them. Paul’s teachings have been recorded and preserved for us, by God’s most gracious and merciful providence. You would do well to weigh what your church officials say against what Paul said. And if you see a discrepancy, then it is necessary to side with Paul every time. Also, your church does not believe that the canon was revealed by divine revelation. They’ll say that the magisterium was divinely inspired to believe that certain texts were canonical. Well, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I was too. So we’re in the same boat.

thanks Jacque, so great to meet you! thanks for coming! :)

What do you think is wrong with Sola Scriptura?

@@colepriceguitar1153 It's a delusion

@@Ninos-j2c why do you think that?

he also has some stunners on the perspicuity of Scripture!

@@TruthUnites ... Those were actually serious ?!! I thought they were hypothetical points.

@@TruthUnites Here ya go, I put the Irenaeus in context. Share, subscribe etc. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KvC0qJz4Fmg.html