Sola Scriptura Debate - Suan Sonna & Ty Nienke (Christian Theology Series) 

I received word the other day that a Catholic high school has been using my content, especially this debate, to train their students on Catholic apologetics. They invited me to come visit them next school year!

Great job Suan! Very strong arguments, presented in a classy, gentle way. Greetings from fellow Catholic convert;)

9:23 debate starts

I applaud your performance, Suan! The direction you went in your opening provides a more robust foundation for the Church.

Bro.SUAN you strengthen the Faith of many, and saved back them to the original church. Amen. God bless you my brother.

This quality is insane

This kid literally stole James White’s horrible debate arguments. I commend him for his enthusiasm, but this was embarrassing.

ty’s argument was a carbon copy of James White’s from 1999 against pat madrid

Great debate. I'm surprised by the pen analogy considering it failed so spectacularly when White used it.

43:37 A rabbi commentary about Moses high court highlight infallibility in OT (great, great find).

*holds up a pen. I reckon that Ty has seen a few James White debates haha.

I know this is going to sound horribly simplistic, but I'll say it anyway---it's a basic thought I have when watching Catholic-Protestant debates: It must be nice to ignore 1500 years of Christian history and suddenly think *your* position is right. You your small community or tradition has come to correct the mainstream Christian church---the church that is, in fact, the vast majority of Christians even today, when you consider not only the Catholic Church but all of the various Eastern communions and traditions.

James White's arguments didn't stand up to scrutiny 30 years ago, why rehash them (almost verbatim) again? The problem with Protestants attempting to define sola scriptura, is that there are so many different ways it is defined depending on one's theological tradition. There have been dozens of books written about this by Protestants.

Suan your man. The context of the Jewish tradition is vital to understanding Christianity. Like Jesus said in the gospel of Matthew “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them”

I think Ty failed to recognize that there is a distinction between the writing of St. Clement (or other fathers) having authority because they were the ones doing the writing vs. the tradition/dogma having authority because it was from Christ or the Apostles and we can trust that this actually is a tradition/dogma that is not of them but of the Apostles. The tradition recorded by St. Clement derives no authority from the person of St. Clement but derives its authority from Christ and the Apostles. It demands our recognition as a tradition of the Apostles because St. Clement knew and was taught by the Apostles and thus we can trust his records of "what's happening in the Church".

I couldn't possibly have handled this better Suan! Good job!

I think Suan did an excellent job in the cross-examination especially in how he directs Ty to agree or at least not deny substantially his premises. Suan exposes the true color of his opponent's position of nada Scriptura disguising as sola Scriptura.

This was amazing. I'm going to have to go back and take notes on Suan's opening statement and rebuttal. One argument I'd like to start hearing in debates is this: P1: truths necessary for salvation are contained implicitly in scripture P2: if a truth is implicit, the text needs interpretation to arrive at that truth C: the bible needs to be interpreted in order to extract all truths necessary for salvation P1: if the bible needs to be interpreted in order to extract all the truths it proposes, there must needs be an authoritative interpreter P2: the bible needs to be interpreted C: the bible has an authoritative interpreter P1: the authority to interpret the bible must be given either to one, whether a single person or a single group; or it is given generally to all P2: it cannot be said to be given generally to all, lest every man's judgment be said to be authoritative, which is manifestly false C: it is given to one Now the question becomes "which one?" And I think Suan does a great job at defending the Catholic answer to that question. One further thing I think Protestants often get in the mindset of is that they think Catholics believe they are not allowed to interpret scripture. As if having an *authoritative* interpreter somehow prevents non-authoritative individuals from also interpreting scripture. That issue needs to be addressed more in the ecumenical dialogues too.

Both did very well. But Suan Sonna is about to do something very big, important and powerful for the Church that Jesus built on Peter and the Apostles.

Suán, you stated your case excellently. I was confirmed last year (converted from Baptism) after studying church history with an open mind and listening to many debates. I didn't want to become Catholic but I had to accept the truth.

In the beginning all the caveats from the Protestant caused me to chuckle. What the Protestant is saying is “I WILL NOT SERVE the church! I will create my one.”

An interesting addendum to this debate could be one entitled, "How do we know the Bible is the Word of God?" Now I know this gets to the canon debate which you mentioned in response to a previous comment on but outlining the methodologically approaches of both sides explicitly may be fruitful. Btw I am a protestant, but Suan clearly won. Ty has been watching too much James White.

Great job Suan! You won this one hands down. He couldnt handle the seat of Moses argument.

Body language says it all. Ty seemed very uncomfortable.....tell the Truth and the Holy Spirit will set you free.As for Suan I pray that God will use His worthy servant to continue His Mission, back to Tradition 🙏

Suan incredible debate between you and Ty. Ty did well from a Protestant perspective as well but I do believe without the context of church history, creeds, ecumenical councils, and righting of the early fathers, I think Christianity would be in a much worse state today and perhaps eradicated from the Earth. You almost persuade me to become Roman Catholic. Very impressed by this debate. To God be praise for Christ' promises that His church would remain till the end!

Mr. Suan Sonna is added to my favorite Catholic Apologists.✌🏼 Ty was good too.

Awesome debate! From a non biased view, Suan won hands down. How do you know which books are in the canon without tradition? Where does it in the Bible say which books belong in the canon? Again great debate and I look forward to the next one

Thank you Suan Sonna for your amazing apologetic work, you're truly a great defender of Christ's Church! Please put Intellectual Catholicism on spotify so I can have more opportunities to listen to it!

One of my hobbies is listening to Catholic Apologetics videos while doing some other stuff, like cooking, doing the dishes, eating, etc... I use my free time to keep on learning Catholicism.

Welcome Home, Brother Suan. You clearly won/win this which so references given. . This is actually not a debate but a teaching moment for me (others) and Ty. Suan filled with back ups references not just from the Bible but from early writings which many brethren christians do not reference much; hence, creating limited understanding n creating many "nons" bcoz to deepen our Faith is not by Bible alone. Rather, a combo of TRADITION (rooted from the teachings of Christ pass down to the Apostles then to the Disciples) and the Bible (writings inspired by The Holy Spirit. God's peace be with us. 🙏✌️⛪

I appreciate both of these young men and their diligence in study and presentation. Thanks to both of them for this debate. I'd love to see more of this among Christians.

Debates like these are such great resources. Thank you!

The problem with these debates is the lack of the original language of the text A Bishop is a translation of the Greek word episkapos. The same word is also translated elder, pastor, or overseer. All of these words refer to the same role of the leader of a local church. It's irrelevant what men want to add to the infallible text unfortunately. The Apostles were elect by Christ not by men. Men cannot know the true heart of other men.

This is how Clement viewed his own words at the END of his letter: "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him [God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin.... [S]ubmit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us...."

43:36 - Siftei Chakhamim is a 17th/18th century source from Rabbi Shabbethai Bass. Although, as I stated in the video, based on the scholarship of Craig S. Keener, Jewish people even during the time of Christ felt that the high court could ratify the decisions of the heavenly Sanhedrin. My point being is that I cite a later source that has roots in a more ancient tradition, and because Rabbi Bass is a pre-Vatican I rabbi who is the most explicit about the concept of Rabbinic infallibility. Moreover, Keener has directed me to other earlier sources on the heavenly Sanhedrin backing the rulings of the earthly one. I hope this clears up any confusion, and I promise in the future to be more clear and careful. Some thought I was saying the Siftei Chakhamim is from the first century - which I have never said in my public work.

Very high quality debate, with the exception of the rhetoric from the protestant side. Other than that though, I think sola scriptura was well defended. One overall observation is that although Ty began with a definition of Sola Scriptura that seemed very respectable and nuanced, Suan's questions and arguments backed him further and further into nuda scriptura in order to deny the mounting historical evidence and context Suan was providing. Another thing I'd like to mention is that an adequate response to the "bereans" argument is that they were proofing scripture to ensure that Paul really was an apostle.

Jesus literally breaths on the Apostles

Just started to watch and already like it. The beginning looks like a movie. I'm excited to watch the whole video.

The quality of this video is superb. Suan, the guests on your show often have awful equipment, making it hard to follow. Even Dr Bergsma, who is a smart cookie as well. Well done on this debate!

Ty is inspired by James White here. However, Suan provided more concrete argument.

Ty is correct in his assessment that Scripture is not the cause of division within Protestantism but rather it is the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The early reformers live long enough to see the disastrous consequence of their newly invented doctrine which denies one of the pillars of historic Christianity of a living teaching authority within the Church and in preferring one's own private interpretation of Scriptures over that of the magisterial interpretation.

the one with the deeper understanding wins...sola scriptura will lose everytime

Ok, I finished this. This is what I'd say: In the opening, rebuttal and closing statements Suan's case are better. But in the cross examination, Ty was very clever. His quick, witty response "seems" to stop Suan on his track. "Seem" because it would take ample time to respond, which is not available. Witty answers are loaded statements that need a lot of unpacking. You can counter them with witty responses (those guys at TFP trained with many witty responses to counter pro-choicer) but it needs training.

Bruh. Ty couldn't just give a simple Yes or No. Quite different when he was the one requiring Suan to answer him with just Yes or No. 1:30

Yes! We know what Theopneustos means. We got it the first time. How many more times must you say it? 🤦‍♀️ We should take a shot everytime he says it.

Suan may the Holy Spirit continue guiding you!

This is worth its weight in gold!

I missed this live!!!!

Amazing Suan

The one thing I have found pretty much universally with Protestants is that their understanding of Scripture is clearer 2000 years later then first century Christianity who actually spoke with the Apostles personally or were only a couple hundred years removed.

Love the intro!

My Suan is back😍

Proud to be Catholic!!! Honestly to me the historical facts that there is a succession of Popes and Bishops from the very early days of Christianity and what it says in scripture about binding and loosing and God breathing on them and what it says in Mt 16 should be enough to show that's the Church to follow. Sola scriptura just doesn't work way to easy for humans to misunderstand scripture. Scripture is sufficient but humans are not. So only a God breathed magisterium makes sense to me.

Protestants seem to forget that Paul points Timothy FIRST to Paul's own teaching, i.e. Paul's oral tradition and magisterium, and then to Scripture: "...continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God...." They also seem to forget that Paul is talking to a bishop, a "man of God." Paul does not speak similarly to all the faithful generally. "Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven.... Then, after examining him, they expelled him from the Church. And he was carried to such a pitch of pride, that he established a school.... Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven...." -Hippolytus, Against Noetus (same work quoted by Ty) Athanasius clearly upheld the authority of the councils. “But, beyond these sayings [of Scripture], let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept.” (To Serapion 1:28; after citing biblical passages concerning the deity of the Holy Spirit) Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to show their misunderstanding of the passages they then alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now *consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture.* For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled (Romans 9:32) on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think…. Had Christ’s enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the *ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith,* they would not have made shipwreck of the faith, nor been so shameless as to resist those who would fain recover them from their fall, and to deem those as enemies who are admonishing them to be religious.” (Discourse Against the Arians 3:28, 58) “[H]old fast, every one, the faith we have received from the Fathers, which they who assembled at Nicæa recorded in writing, and endure not those who endeavor to innovate thereon. And however they may write phrases out of the Scripture, endure not their writings; however they may speak the language of the orthodox, yet attend not to what they say; for they speak not with an upright mind, but putting on such language like sheeps’ clothing, in their hearts they think with Arius, after the manner of the devil, who is the author of all heresies. For he too made use of the words of Scripture, but was put to silence by our Savior. For if he had indeed meant them as he used them, he would not have fallen from heaven; but now having fallen through his pride, he artfully dissembles in his speech, and oftentimes maliciously endeavours to lead men astray by the subtleties and sophistries of the Gentiles. Had these expositions of theirs proceeded from the orthodox, from such as the great Confessor Hosius, and Maximinus of Gaul, or his successor , or from such as Philogonius and Eustathius , Bishops of the East , or Julius and Liberius of Rome...with others of the same opinions as these-there would then have been nothing to suspect in their statements….” (Circular to Bishops of Egypt and Libya 8; NPNF 2, Vol. IV) “I thought that all vain talk of all heretics, many as they may be, had been stopped by the Synod which was held at Nicæa. For the Faith there confessed by the Fathers according to the divine Scriptures is enough by itself at once to overthrow all impiety, and to establish the religious belief in Christ. For this reason at the present time, at the assembling of diverse synods, both in Gaul and Spain, and great Rome , all who came together, as though moved by one spirit, unanimously anathematised those who still were secretly holding with Arius.... And they wrote everywhere, that, whereas the above-said were devising the names of synods to cite on their side, no synod should be cited in the Catholic Church save only that which was held at Nicæa, which was a monument of victory over all heresy, but especially the Arian, which was the main reason of the synod assembling when it did. How then, after all this, are some attempting to raise doubts or questions?… *It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this.* But lest the ‘inventors of evil things’ (Romans 1:30) make entire silence on our part a pretext for shamelessness, it will be well to mention a few points from Holy Scripture, in case they may even thus be put to shame, and cease from these foul devices…. But the fathers who also assembled at Nicæa say that.... if you wish to be children of the fathers, do not hold the contrary of what they wrote.” (Letter LIX to Epictetus, 1, 3; NPNF 2, Vol. IV) "Afterwards, because there were men who used his words, but chose to hear them as suited their lusts, and dared to pervert them...he immediately proceeded to say, 'And as I have delivered to you traditions, hold them fast.' That means, indeed, that we should think not otherwise than as the teacher has delivered.... But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such *opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men,* err, because they do not rightly know them nor their (Matthew 22:29) power. Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:2), because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions.... Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common" -Athanasius, Festal letter 2 "But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able." - Athanasius, Fragment (possibly to Festal Letter 29) "...to set before you the books included in the Canon, and *handed down, and accredited as Divine* .... for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews.... But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd." -Athanasius, Festal Letter 39 (same quoted by Ty)

The main issue with Sola Scriptura is not with inspiration it's the matter of authority!

that bottle squeak doe... ty sure loves water!

Beautifully done, Suan

Ty a clone of Dr.James White.

Great job Suan!

Great job Suan you represent the Catholic faith well. Ty didn’t have a chance.

The splintering with Protestantism is in large part due to Sola Scriptura. Human autonomy and their worldview and level of understanding becomes their tradition and lens by which they then interpret Scripture. They’ve rejected the early church fathers and their tradition for their own autonomous tradition. Tye is blind and can’t see this. I’m a Protestant for now and see this.

can you recommend a scholarly work that discusses the rabbinic backdrop of Matthew 16:19?

Dear Suan, kindly tell me the exact spellings of " Herbert Baxter " and " Marsha cohen" book of Matthew,, i tried to find their name and their work on the internet, but couldn't find, may i missed the name as you pronounced, kindly correct me.

I think Ty definitely did better in the question and answer phase. Suan seemed to struggle to concede anything and felt he had to defend all points all the time. I really appreciate Suan's approach to this debate and his calling back to early Judaism and what a first century person would have gathered from the Bible. It is an interesting argument and I look forward to the day he writes a book about it. I think Suan closing was a bit of low ball he claims Ty agreed with him on his 7 principles which is not a whole truth. I despise Ty's argument and the end when he frames protestant as a church. Protestantism is not a church and has never been one. These debates really need to move to Catholic apologetics vs Anglican, Lutheran, Southern Baptist, etc.... I believe those debates where a church vs a church would be much more fruitful for both. Overall great debate.

Insane Suan. Well done. Do you plan on having these arguments on written form to read them more thoroughly?

The Ty Nienke method of avoiding questions: "you'll have to rephrase that", "which [insert word here]?", "I can't remember what you said on X," or demand definitions to literally every word. Between this, his lack of understanding of the opposing position, and his blatant plagiarism of James White I hope he gives up the debate game.

Darn Suan, you blew that off the lid.

Ty basically plagiarized his opening statement from James White in his debate with Patrick Madrid.

Ty's quote was from Cyril of Jerusalem, not Alexandria, who calls Peter the "chiefest and foremost of the apostles" and the one "who carries the keys of heaven" and again "the chief of the apostles and the bearer of the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Ton of sacramental theology in his Catechetical Lectures too. “Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings….”(Catechetical Lectures, IV, 33; NPNF 2, Vol. VII) “Now these things we teach, not of our own invention, but having learned them out of the divine Scriptures used in the Church, and chiefly from the prophecy of Daniel just now read; as Gabriel also the Archangel interpreted it, speaking thus: The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall surpass all kingdoms. And that this kingdom is that of the Romans, has been the tradition of the Church’s interpreters.” (Catechetical Lectures, XV, 13; NPNF 2, Vol. VII) “But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines.... So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed , and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you.” (Catechetical Lectures, V, 12-13; NPNF 2, Vol. VII) “Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article, ‘In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly ; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts…. Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth‘ (1 Timothy 3:15)…. And while the kings of particular nations have bounds set to their authority, the Holy Church Catholic alone extends her power without limit over the whole world…. In this Holy Catholic Church receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit eternal life; for which also we endure all toils, that we may be made partakers thereof from the Lord.” (Catechetical Lectures, XVIII, 23, 25, 27, 28; NPNF 2, Vol. VII) So many Catholic quotes from Augustine, plus he accepted the Catholic canon. “[I]f you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognize that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all.” (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 33:9; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 345) “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, ‘I do not believe’? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent?” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, Ch 5) “To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you; thus, since Holy Scripture cannot be mistaken, anyone fearing to be misled by the obscurity of this question has only to consult on this same subject this very Church which the Holy Scriptures point out without ambiguity.” (Against Cresconius I:33; in Eno, 134) “But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.” (On the Trinity, 4,6:10; NPNF 1, Vol. III, 75) “[L]et the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church….” (On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2; NPNF 1, Vol. II, 557) “The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.” (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 13:5; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 201) “As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established…. For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity or superstitious vacillation of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church….” (Letter to Januarius, 54, 1, 1; 54, 2, 3; cf. NPNF 1, I, 301)

I love this intro

Suan, you are the GOAT

Ty says if something is only mentioned once it is obscure and not important yet born again is mentioned only once in the NT in John when Jesus explained it to Nicodemus.

Clearly, there were things Paul taught orally that he did not teach by letter. Otherwise, there would be no need for him to mention both in 2 Thes. The burden is on Ty to show that they contained the exact same body of teachings, despite Paul explicitly distinguishing the two modes of communication. Ty mischaracterizes Irenaeus: “Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behooves us to learn the truth, [namely,] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets.” (Against Heresies, 4, 26, 2, 5; Ch. 26 is entitled “THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHURCH ALONE“) “And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.” (Against Heresies, 4, 32, 1) “Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” (Against Heresies 3,4, 1) “These things, too, were preached to the Gentiles by word, without [the aid of] the Scriptures: wherefore, also, they who preached among the Gentiles underwent greater labour. But, on the other hand, the faith of the Gentiles is proved to be of a more noble description, since they followed the word of God without the instruction [derived] from the [sacred] writings (sine instructione literarum).” (Against Heresies, 4, 24, 2) “[W]e refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.” (Against Heresies, 3, 21, 3) “True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy….” (Against Heresies, 4, 33, 8; Chapter 33 is entitled “WHOSOEVER…DILIGENTLY READS THE SCRIPTURES IN COMPANY WITH THE PRESBYTERS OF THE CHURCH, IS A TRUE SPIRITUAL DISCIPLE; AND HE WILL RIGHTLY UNDERSTAND AND INTERPRET ALL THAT THE PROPHETS HAVE DECLARED RESPECTING CHRIST AND THE LIBERTY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT”) “When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce…. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth…. It comes to this, therefore, that these men [heretics] do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition” (Against Heresies 3, 2, 1-2)

Protestant got wrecked.

Did you see Jimmy Akin's debate with The Other Paul? Why aren't you using Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus to prove authoritative teachings from bishops and apostolic succession (from apostle to bishop)?

This is the tradition that was passed on from Jews to Gentiles. “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭17:10-12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Bringing up a new argument is cross-examination (especially when it’s because you forgot or ran out of time) is a huge no-no in debate.

Around 52:20... What about what Irenaeus said about the need for Tradition in his AGAINST HERESIES 3.4.1?

One problem during Ty's first talk: Athenasia did believe in sacred tradition.

Thank Jesus for Suan. He is a blessing of the new bred of apologetists.

sir can you tell me what are these exact words as I can understand plz 45:43 (time line ) : in the " petterette musha "

Where does it say I’m scripture that God left us a 2 column book?

Long live debates

The controversy about sola scriptura is closed if the catholic position can prove that the apostles gave their authority as the "mouthpiece" of Jesus to the elders and bishops to the next generation of the church and I've never seen such an argument.

How can 2 Timothy 3:16 scream sola Scriptura when at the time of its writing and for hundreds of years after, no one had access? Maybe it was silent until the printing press was invented and then it started screaming.

Well done Ty. Suan read the Bible without Catholic presupposition........

"Theopneustos" is only used once in Scripture and seems much less clear than the seat of Moses, which Jesus at least partially explains in that same passage. This is a double standard by Ty.

Act 17 he says, but am confused. There was not a Bible in Act 17. Act 17 became a Bible Scripture centuries later. So if Sola Scriptura is the ultimate authority and in Act 17, they do not yet have the Bible, by what authority were the acting on? Without a Bible in the Early Church, what was the authority then?

James White in young age. True story.

We believe Bible is The word of God We belive Bible is infallible We believe bible is an authority But human interpretation of that infallible, authoritative, word of God is not. But out of Church otodox belive, faith and practice, canon of the Bible become one. And what ever anyone claim, state or believe, and holy spirit guides him and at the same time takes that from pope, who has Christ authority, is either blind or hypocrite. How can any pastor be against pope and at the same time be pope of that church

You mentioned towards the concluding remarks that Moses handed over his mother to Joshua. Where is this tradition found?

Two words: righteous indignation - Ty, your borderline anger shown through, unfortunately. Not of God.

The Berean Jews were "more noble" than those of Thessalonica because the Bereans did not attack an drive out Paul/Silas/Christians like those in Thessalonica. See Jimmy Akin's video "Sola Scriptura & The Bereans." Also, the only Scriptures the Bereans had would be Old Testament, so would prove too much. Your reply was not as strong as it could have been.

Which school of pharisees would have had infallibility ex cathedra in their judicial rulings . The school of Hillel or the school of Shammai . They were often at odds with each other in their rulings and we're bitterly opposed to each other.

Abide in me 💚💚💚

how circular is the arguing of proving the authority of scripture using scripture!! haha.

The pen analogy doesn't work because whoever went to school with only a pan? I'm sure you have brought number 2 pencils and highlighters, no? Maybe you had a blue pen, red pen, and even a green pen? What needs to be proven is that the Unique one of a kind and the whole universe ballpoint pen is the only writing utensil allowed.

Suan, you did not go for the canon debate. Why is that? Also, do you think that it is a good argument for Catholics to point out that not only Catholics, but Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians reject sola scriptura and affirm apostolic succession?

I'm listening to just the audio and when Ty talks I can only picture Grant Gustin's The Flash. 🤣⚡

love the intro