The Best Biblical Argument for the Catholic Magisterium (w/ Michael Lofton) 

This part of the interview was so good. The biblical levels of succession was very convincing. And Michael's clarification of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium, and how they interact, was superb.

Man Michael was firing on all cylinders in this interview!

Austin is an excellent interviewer. His style reminds me of that of Brian Lamb of C-SPAN. He sets up the topic and gets out of the way. So many interviewers compete with their guests so as to distract and destroy the thread. Excellent work. Always interesting, polite exchanges.

For anyone, Catholic or non-catholic wondering what Michael Lofton means when we affirm a type of prima scriptura in a qualified sense as Catholics, first and foremost watching the full video on Gospel Simplicity's channel - but I will offer what I understand Michael to be saying which is completely in-line with the Church's teaching. There is a distinction between what has been called the "two-modes" view as opposed to the "two source" view of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition which together form the Apostolic Tradition (in it's written and non-written form). Jimmy Akin summarises it nicely: As the Second Vatican Council stressed in its constitution Dei Verbum, “it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence” (DV 9). One of the principal architects of Dei Verbum was the French theologian Yves Congar, who thought Catholics could acknowledge a substantial element of truth in sola scriptura. He wrote that “we can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation” (Tradition and Traditions, 410). He encapsulated this idea with the slogan Totum in scriptura, totum in traditione (“All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition”), which he attributes to Cardinal Newman. According to this theory, Scripture and Tradition would not be two sources containing different material but two modes of transmitting the same deposit of faith. We might call it the “two modes” view as opposed to the “two source” view. The decrees of Trent and Vatican II allow Catholics to hold the two-mode idea, but they do not require it. A Catholic is still free to hold the two-source view. Now as Michael clearly reiterates multiple times in the original video, the successors of the apostles - in a qualified sense - have the same authority of the apostles. One qualification that must be made is that the Apostles can give God-breathed revelation, as Christ clearly teaches In John 16:12-14: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. So, as the Church definitively teaches, public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle Saint John. The successors of the apostles, although they can teach infallibly, they do not teach that which is new, but rather expound the deposit of faith with the same certainty as the Apostles delivered the faith itself. So we might be able to draw a parallel with scripture and tradition, whilst of course it is not perfect - as Michael clearly mentions, Tradition - unlike Scripture - is not totally inspired word for word. For example take Saint John and his teaching on baptismal regeneration contained in John 3:5. What was handed on to the second generation of Christians after John (Polycarp being the intermediary) was this: “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit , they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ ” (First Apology 61 ). Saint Justin Martyr “‘And dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ . It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (Fragment 34 ). Saint Irenaeus. We can imagine Saint John answering questions about his teaching in John 3:5, questions like "What is being born again" and precisely because the Earliest Christians all agreed and taught that it was baptism, we know that it is an infallible teaching [in virtue of Vatican 1's understanding that the consensus of the Fathers is infallible and there 100% is a consensus here]. Nevertheless, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr here we could even hypothetically suppose that their words were an exact reiteration of what Saint John might have said word for word, but Saint John's oral teaching, even word for word handed on, is not word for word infallible, rather that which he is asserting is. In that sense tradition, whilst it is equally from God, is not identical in the kind of inspiration that goes on in Sacred Scripture. And so in a similar way to how we obtain certain teaching from the apostles and their successors, but there is not an identical equivalence between the two, so too we obtain certain teaching from Scripture and Tradition, both being from God, but not with an identical equivalence between the two.

Proud to have you in Catholic Church brother.

Another great video! Thanks so much.

After reading many of the comments, I was about to respond individually. However, doing so would become too time consuming. Therefore, for those interested in researching this further, I suggest performing a Google search of the Catechism of the Catholic Church beginning with, "CCC 74". Continue through to, "CCC 141".

Great topic again there Austin. Amazing guest. Your videos are always so interesting.

bible alone is the like having a bunch of ingredients, but no measurements or directions on how to prepare the food

Beautifully explained,noted for my notes

This was really good.

The Magisterium is the teaching Authority of the Church! Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition IS DIVINE REVELATION. You need both to be "the" Word of God! Don't always "use" the remote rule of Faith! You NEED the proximate rule of Faith!

Did you manage to catch the debate between Pastor Bruce Bennett and William Albrecht on Reason & Theology?

In addition to the Biblical references so ably brought to our attention by Michael, there is another Biblical reference supporting the authority of the Chrch in both discipline and teaching. The account of the First Apostolic Council given in Acts 15 tells of how the bishohps, meeting in council under the guidance of the Spirt defined for the entire Church whether or not a Gentile becoming a Christian had to be circumcised as a Jew in order for his assimilation into the ekklesia would be ocmplete or recognized. They had very forceful discussions, and one of the Apostles even "withstood Peter to his face." The outcome was an apostolic consensus that circumcision was not necessary in the initiation of a new Christian. Then letters were sent out to all the churches to advise them of this decision AND to bind them to it. That is magisterial authority in definitively deciding a teaching. So the Bible gives us very clear indications of both conciliar apostolic authority as well as the first example of the manifestation of magisterium. Again, not something claimed by the Apostes for themselves, but their exercising of authority that had been GIVEN to them. Binding and loosing. This decision was bound on the entire church.

Love Michael Lofton. Very smart and concise.

Hey Austin, hope all is well. For a more in-depth Scriptural Look at the Papacy check out a channel called "Intellectual Conservatism" it's run by Suan Sonna who has appeared on Reason & Theology before. Lots of excellent scholarship both Protestant and Catholic used.

The apostles were foundational in some sense in Ephesians. In Revelation the 12 layers of the cities had 12 apostle names not one for each pope.

Wow!

Did Mr. Lofton really order his Great Books by colour (kind) not number? They really do things differently across the Tiber.

Ooooh this excellent particularly the point about Judas.

Only the RC interpretation of Mat 16:18-19 could be used specifically for the RC conception of 'magisterium'. The rest is just a general defense of authority in the Church that could be used by the Orthodox as well without the specific interpretation of 'magisterium' that a RC would use. That all of this is 'implicit' and the implication can only be derived by begging the question has been the criticism for give or take 1100 years. Does anyone else notice this?

AUSTIN PLEASE POST YOUR GOSPEL SIMPLICITY VIDEOS TO GABTV ALSO.

Awsome

Except for the fact that Scripture is not the highest authority, it was a very complete answer. And, by the way, I hope you "come back home" soon. ;)

We need more of these discussion among Christians. Catholic vs Protestant was a luxury when the west, particular the US, was a Christian society. Now that the atheist left has taken its gloves off against the Lord and ALL of his followers, we must find common ground and love one another as brothers in Christ, brothers in arms.

we don't go to Scripture first... we go to the witness of the ancient Church first, because the Catholic faith is BY DEFINITION the one that was transmitted in the begining.... but to gain a good perspective on things, clarify ideas, to verify if our faithfulness to God's revelation is real, let us be questioned by the Lortd, we certainly go to Scriture

Read the works of the apostolic fathers. That's where the magisterium gets their information from this area of the episcopate was covered well by Ignatius of Antioch, because at the time Gnostics were claiming that they were teachers. But they didn't come from a LINE of anointed teachers. Who were made so by the laying on of hands by the apostles and the apostolic fathers. Ignatius of Antioch was taught by John the apostle and took over Antioch when Peter went to Rome. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

Scripture is our highest authority?! Where is that in Scripture?

2 Timothy 3:16, the Douay-Rheims, all Scripture, INSPIRED OF GOD, is profitable to teach, e.t.c. That which is Inspired of God is the Magisterium-the Teaching Authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Scripture is not the highest authority.

Scripture is higher than the Magisterium? What?

This man is not careful of his mouth " scripture is the highest authority " but he mention the authority given to the apostles by Jesus " can the scripture judge all by itself alone ? Can the scripture baptize converts? In the Catholic Tradition , the scriptures, the Magisterium,and the Sacred Tradition are the bases in teaching and evangelization and on matters of settling issues in matters ofFaith and Doctrine and current issues concerning problems face by the faithful Christians.

More like we can’t point to another infallible source of God’s Word so we haven’t disproven Sola Scriptura.

Dear Friends and especially you Austin, a person, who refuses to engage in the exchange of thoughts with me despite what you advertise about yourself: "I am a Bible nerd that loves getting to dialogue with others about this." Not very honest on your part I have to say. This is my challenge for Austin: Mr. Lofton is clearly wrong here. If I agree to treat one of the Texts (Avesta, Vedas, Hebrew Bible, Quran etc.) as a letter from an Allmighty Parent to his children then it means that this letter is for my personal reading. Mr. Lofton, of course, as my sibling is reading the same letter from our Parent; the Christian Bible. Having read the Bible we both realise that we have understood the letter in a contradictory fashion. For instance, I've understood that all will be saved and Mr. Lofton has understood that not all will be saved. That's a major difference in our understanding of the letter sent to us from our Parent. My challenge to Austin: Who is going to be the teacher in this situation and on whose authority? I can even quote our Parent's letter to show Mr. Lofton that my question is of the utmost importance: Matthew 23:8 "You are all siblings. You are not to be called Rabbi (master, instructor), because you have only one Teacher, God." Two more quotes in the same vein for a good measure: 1) Psalm 86:11 "Teach me your way, LORD, that I may rely on Your faithfulness.", 2) 1 Corinthians 2-15 "The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to human judgments." So in a nutshell, when a human reads a letter from the Parent of all humans, he/she is guided in their understanding of the letter by the Parent himself/herself. There is no room, in this context, for any teaching, any magisterium, any theology, any metaphysics; the Parent is simply writting the letter to each one on His children for them to read it on their own. The concept of the letter from the God-Parent makes sense only, when the reader reads it individually and the Allmighty Parent guides the reader towards the understanding. The only other option would be a kind of game of deciphering the letter from the Parent (that's what mankind have been witnessing for millenia, of course, to no avail), but then one would have to prove that he/she possesses the right key, which, of course, can never be done. Simple as that. I think my reasoning is quite sound, but I am open to any corrections, please. Kind regards.

I felt he made a better argument for Sola Scriptura ☺️

even peter had to lay his hands on paul

#Pachamama

No Magisterium in the Scripture. You have to read it in. Like most Catholic doctrines.

Why would any rational person believe that scripture was 'divinely inspired'...it was composed by clergy

In all honesty, all christains ever do is argue and make a mockery of the gospel. The name of God is blasphemed among the heathen because of us. People can run around all they want debating the papacy wether it is true or not. But the bottom line is, is that the current papacy is a complete disaster. No amount of arguing, or counter arguing is gonna change that! Christians can argue till the cows come home as to wether sola scriptura is true or, not. Or wether tradition has an equal footing or not. But the bottom line is, is that with all the mess of confusion with Catholics and protestants, (and yes Catholicism is just as confusing, and a mental gymnastic mine field) the scriptures are the only thing that have remained the same throughout history, while tradition has evolved. And Catholics cannot even agree half the time amongst themselves! Wether sola scriptura is true or false, either way your not gonna find the gospel in the current liberal, woke, globalistic, communistic papacy nor will you find it in the mess of woke protestantism, or really the majority of so called churches. If you cannot believe the scriptures at its own word, at face value, then frankly you have no business calling yourself a Christian. And you have no business believing in God, nor Jesus Christ. There is no reason for you to believe anything it says at all. I will not debate any response to this. Either you believe God, or you do not! Either the scriptures are God breathed ( theopneustos ) as 2 Timothy 3:16 says, or they are not! If they are then that means they are Gods very words. Either they are true or they are not! Either men were moved by the Holy Spirit, or they weren't, as 2 Peter 1:21 says. Enough is enough! And to you, wether you are catholic or protestant...to hell with your debates! Go learn what this means... Isaiah 66:1-2 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: BUT TO THIS MAN WILL I LOOK, even to him that is POOR AND OF A CONTRITE SPIRIT, AND TREMBLETH AT MY WORD. KJV Micah 6:6-8 Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? HE HATH SHOWED THEE, O MAN, WHAT IS GOOD; AND WHAT DOTH THE LORD REQUIRE OF THEE, BUT TO DO JUSTLY, AND TO LOVE MERCY, AND TO WALK HUMBLY WITH THY GOD? KJV

Can we just work backwards? Rome has heretical errors therefore we know these arguments don’t work.

Same weak arguments as always

What haha