Why Sola Scriptura Isn't Compatible with Other Protestant Beliefs w/ Suan Sonna 

This was a truly awesome interview! As a protestant currently avaluating the truth of Catholicism, this is a very thought prevoking interview. I am glad to find the truth, wherever it leads

Thanks to Suan and Matt for once again dropping a knowledge bomb on my Protestant brain. Happily in RCIA at this point.

Suan is impressive. Now, I have to watch the complete interview...

Looooved this interview

What a pint! God bless you Suan and Matt.

Chills....Suan is so knowledgeable. Just Wow! Thank you for your witness!!!!!

Wow I never knew this, thank you Suan, God bless you

It is very interesting that he quoted from the letter of 1 clement and place a high credibility over the letters. Sola Scriptura was never meant to stands on its own and most scholars admit its simplicity, but Sola Scriptura was one of the five Solas of the reformation and meant to be understood altogether. I also would argue that the letter of 1 clement advocating a concepts of "sola fide" instead of meritorious works (why not accepts that as well?) (1 Clem. 32:3-4): "All, therefore, were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous actions which they did, but through his will. And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our wisdom or understanding or piety or works, which we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense from the fact that it was by the divine authority of the Catholic Church, that is by the Holy Spirit, that the correct New Testament writings (written by people in the Catholic Church) were compiled together along with the Septuagint Old Testament. If Protestants today will not accept Catholic teachings, why should they accept what St. John, St. Paul, or St. Peter had written, because none of the Protestant churches have apostolic lineage at all that can link them to St. John or St. Peter or St. Paul; that is since the many Protestant denominations of today will not consider St. Paul or St. Peter as part of their denominations anyway, but the Catholic Church's college of Bishops and Seat of St. Peter are all handed down from the laying of hands beginning from the Apostles.

I have to say that's a great argument. And I'm a protestant.

You know, Matt, one of these days I know you're gonna crack open an actual beer instead of mountain water.

Wow - that is great. I’m going to go read the book of Clement now!

A 21 year old expert. I am duly impressed. 😎

A discussion between Suan and Dr. Jordan Cooper would be interesting.

Some hold St Clement of the letter of Clement as being in some of the early lists referred to as part of the cannon.

@3:03 Suan meant Philippians 4:3. I'm Orthodox. In the Orthodox Study Bible, it's also stated that we believe this Clement becomes the 4th bishop of Rome too.

Sola Scriptura is not "we only look to the Bible". The historic Protestants (Lutheran and Anglican) don't reject the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon. Anglicans hold to Apostolic Succession, as do many Lutherans. How does 1 Clement teach anything concerning the Papacy?

Great 👍🏼

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 01:11 📜 *Clement's writings, like 1 Clement, contain early claims about apostolic teachings and traditions, predating some New Testament texts and offering valuable insights.* 02:23 🕰️ *Recent scholarship suggests 1 Clement may have been written before 70 A.D., indicating its early origin and reliability as an eyewitness account of apostolic teachings.* 03:57 💬 *Clement affirms the doctrine of apostolic succession and the protection of the bishopric, aligning with the apostolic tradition mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, challenging the notion of Sola Scriptura.* 04:24 📖 *Acceptance of scripture's infallibility should extend to obeying the traditions handed down, as advocated by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, leaving no excuse to disregard apostolic traditions.*

I'm confused. The Clement passage doesn't say anything about "Apostolic" succession does it? It says leaders were chosen yes..but not Apostles..am I wrong? In what sense then do we speak of Apostolic succession?

Again, the issue is *not* over apostolic succession or the episcopate per se. Many Lutherans and all Anglicans accept apostolic succession and the episcopate. And the view of the Orthodox on the apocrypha is the view that most Anglicans hold as well: a second-tier canon (not just second in time but in rank). But we accept that there is theological authority in the apocrypha. How do we as Anglicans do that while also holding Sola Scriptura? Because we don't define Sola Scriptura as Nuda Scriptura; rather, we say that the texts that were canonized weren't done so arbitrarily. There were marks *in the canonical texts* that showed forth their divine authority. And while the church as a community was needed to discern these marks as an inter-subjective witness (so one person in a silo wouldn't say "these books are canonical and these aren't"), that's not a denial of Sola Scriptura--since the claim is that Scripture is the ultimate creaturely source of authority ("creaturely" being a recognition that God alone is the ultimate authority) from which all other authority derives itself and to which all other authorities must conform themselves.

No one denies the Apostles intended for there to be successors to the office of bishop. But this doesn’t address whether the bishops were successors of the Apostles or (most importantly) whether they had the same authority as the signs-and-wonders-performing (ie they were prophets in the OT sense) Apostles. Try as you might, nothing in Scripture makes those two connections.

Matt could you please have Al Fadi from CIRA International in your show. Best regards from an 18 yr old Protestant with an attitude of a Mere Christian.

Would love to ear your thoughts / celebrations regarding the Pakistani, Muslim born, former Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali converting to Catholicism?

When were the four gospels actually written down?

That is a misinterpretation of what Clement said. “And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the AFORESAID persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if THESE should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to THEIR ministration.” He is clearly speaking about the bishop office. Also, I see many Catholics who make arguments from authority misrepresenting the early church fathers. “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” ‭‭Galatians‬ ‭1‬:‭8‬ ‭

What are your thoughts on sspx? I want to follow tradition, but I cannot stand the thought of hurting Christ by supporting something against His Church

Mu elder son Jonathan used Scripture to defend Apostolic Succession in a YT debate with Dr. Gavin Ortlund. Pax.

The real division that should be discussed should be, Who believes the book of Revelations has already happened and who thinks it is happening. Rev 17:14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings-and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.” Are you a follower of an Israelite who is coming to establish the messianic age, or are you a follower of a line of priests that has existed for 2000 years in harmony with money and power.

What is his basis for placing 1 Clement in the 60s AD and for stating that the Clement of the letter is identical to the 4th bishop of Rome?

Accept the traditions - there goes, as mentioned, Protestants trying to do without bishops or Apostolic succession, but of course _also_ Theistic Evolution.

Why not let scripture speak for itself? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 [15] So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. 1 Thessalonians 2:1-4 Paul’s Ministry to the Thessalonians [1] For you yourselves know, brothers, that our coming to you was not in vain. [2] But though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict. [3] For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, [4] but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.

Some Protestant streams believe that some are still being called by God to be apostles. Being an apostle doesn’t equal Pope.

After the death of Judas, the apostles could have let Bishops be apostles and not go through the trouble of calling another apostle. It’s because a Bishop doesn’t automatically assume the role of Apostle they ordained Mathias as an Apostle in Acts 1:22. Twelve can be found in 187 places in the Bible. In the Old Testament, For example, Jacob (Israel) had twelve sons, each of which represented a tribe begun by Royal princes for 12 total. Ishmael, who was born to Abraham through Hagar, also had twelve princes. In the New Testament, Revelation alone has 22 occurrences of the number including 12 gates and 12 angels. The twelve as I study its patterns in the scriptures symbolizes God's power and authority, as well as serving as a perfect governmental foundation of his Church consistently across the Bible and it does so in Christ’s Latter Day Church as well.

Amen!!! RCC is the church founded by Jesus!!! Sola scrittura is circle !!! authority comes by church that interpretd bible!!! Who listen you listen me (Jesus)

Ok, so what you're saying is that Sola Scriptura is right... as long as you include things that are outside of the canon of scripture as being scripture. That is a clever use of the Circular Argument fallacy: Sola Scriptura is rejected by Catholicism, which holds to an open canon with the Pope's words spoken ex-cathedra having the same authority as scripture; you are therefore misinterpreting a verse in scripture to presuppose an open canon then using a text outside of the canon of scripture to support the papacy which itself is only outside of scripture. 10/10 - For effort and creativity 0/10 - For logical consistency and Biblical accuracy

At the end: "and we have the Traditions, there's no excuse." 😐 Catholics: 2 Protestants: 1

One way to bolster your case? Change dates to support your case..lol.. 😂

What's your excuse for ignoring the Didache then?

By their fruits you will know them. Since the Catholic Church has been doing so well after they lost control of the State I'd take anything they say with a MINE of Salt.

Suan is going off of the assumption that sola scriptura is inherently opposed to apostolic succession, yet we in the Anglican church hold to both. I think there seems to be a misunderstanding among many (protestant and catholic alike) that sola scriptura means scripture is the only authority, when in fact sola scriptura means that scripture is the only *infallible* authority. We can have bishops, priests, and a church with God-given authority, but acknowledge that men can/will make mistakes and so we have the word of God as a standard to hold them against.

This is making such a mountain out of a mole hill though. Clement, who might have been very early, taught that the Apostles said they should have successors. Okay, what does that have to do with sola scriptura? Why would that be an issue for protestantism? What is the doctrine of succession here, aside from that they (the apostles) should have them? It doesn't even establish a continuous succession, let alone the later sacramental, maunual succession doctrine. But even Clement really does mean that, you can just beleive in Apostolic Succession and sola scriputra. Plently of protestant churches beleive precisely that. The argument seems be be thus: 1. Clement (might) be an eye witness to the Apostles, knowing what they say. 2. He says Bishops in succession to the Apostles exist, with no specific theology of them to be gleaned. 3. Paul says to someone, prior to most of NT scripture being written, to obey the correct doctrine communicated verbally. 4. Therefore, all of Rome's traditions are correct, and (it must follow not all of them are in scripture, a strange admission but required for the argument): 5. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false. I'm struggling to figure out how this argument is actually supposed to work to get from 1-3 to 4. Are people genuinely convinced by this?

Suan, you actually failed to quote the first part of 2:15. Paul said "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye HAVE BEEN TAUGHT". The church uses that to defend the traditions that have been developed by the church since then. But it says stand fast and hold the ones you have been taught, not traditions you will develop or will be taught. Paul actually repeats that in scripture when he says "KEEP the traditions AS I DELIVERED them unto you". Does keep, stand fast and hold need explaining? Then Jude says I urge you to contend for the faith that was ONCE for all entrusted to God's holy people. Now I don't think ONCE needs explaining does it? Then finally Jesus was not to fond of traditions either. Jesus said You make the word of God of no effect because of your traditions. Jesus also said In vain they do worship me, teaching as doctrines the traditions of men. But as usual, leave it to the church to twist scripture to defend their traditions. Many of which are no longer in use because they were heretical to begin with. One such tradition was suicide. Which the church taught was a fast way to go be with the Lord. There were many priests that killed themselves. Then the church said hold on, we're gonna run out of priests. So the church did away with it. So why is that no longer valid if it was "supported" by scripture? Like Jesus said, "traditions of men" make God's word of no effect. Nice try Suan. Maybe you should devote yourself more to scripture like your pope suggested. Lastly Sola Scriptura does not support apostolic succession. If you read in the book of Acts you will see that the requirements for apostles makes any modern day apostles basically frauds. There can't be any more apostles if you follow those requirements.

Philippians 4:13? I can do all things through Christ…. Nothing about clement

What if the Catholic tradition says that the God of the Bible and the god of Islam are one in the same? If Muslims don’t worship the God-man Jesus Christ, then they don’t worship the Creator. Those who agree with the Catholic catechism have departed from God’s word have not upheld the faith that was given to us by the Eyewitnesses of Jesus (the Apostles). 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "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."

The channel argues via thumbnails; if sola scriptura is true then apostolic succession is true; then argues elsewhere... sola scriptura is not true...oops, I just proved apostolic succession is not true. I am convinced. Otherwise, great channel!

Susan is how old…..??????😳😳😳

Sure, we have scripture. But our track record with it isnt very good. How well do we humans really understand the written word? Take this simple phrase: I need to find a place to call home. What do I mean? Am I currently in the market for a new house? Am I stranded and need to find a telephone? What if I got lost while trying to meet friends at a restaraunt called "a place to call home"? All possibilities. If a simple phrase, written in modern language, and in our native tongue can cause so much confusion, its no wonder we struggle with scripture. Ancient Israel had this problem. Though the Hebrew Bible is full of references to the Messiah, they completely missed the mark when he came. Are we today really any different? Would we have understood the scriptures? Probably not - for christians haven't fared much better. How many councils, how many divisions, how many denominations are there? If everyone uses the same scripture, why are we so divided? If humans don't do well with written scripture, as history has illustrated, where are we to turn? To answer this we should consider what scripture really is. We refer to it as the word of God, but that isnt the complete picture. The finger of God penned scripture only once - the ten commandments - on tablets of stone. All other was penned by humans, albeit inspired ones. So scripture is the word of God THRU prophets and apostles. Thats the key. Prophets have always been the messengers of God. When Israel needed deliverance, God sent Moses. When Nineveh needed correction, God sent Jonah. When the people had turned to Baal, God sent Elijah. To prepare the way for Christ, God sent John the baptist. When the world needed the gospel, God sent Paul. Every age had its messanger and every day had its message. Why did God send living prophets and not just send them written scripture? We have already seen why. Clearly God wants to send the best. He doesn't want confusion. Prophets speak, but they also interact - its two way communication. Having a living messenger leaves nothing to misinterpretation. And that is how God has chosen to communicate since the beginning of time. In fact, the message through prophets (Amos 3:7) is that God will always communicate that way. So while ancient prophets are relevant and instructive for us, they weren't sent specifically to us. They delivered messages to people in ages past. Scripture is just their story. It wasnt scripture at the time, but it came to be considered that because they were prophets. Therefore, it's not scripture that is so important. It is prophets, and the message they bring from God. We should expect that as God does his work among us, he will surely treat us the same - for he does not change. He will reveal his secrets to us through his prophets. Some say that there is no such thing as a prophet in our day? Why? Is God no longer able to communicate? Is he no longer all powerful? Has he ceased to be God? Clearly that can't be it. He isnt limited. He could send all the prophets he wants. Perhaps he just doesn't want to. Maybe he no longer loves us. For 4000 years he lovingly sheparded his children, but he does no more. Has he abandoned the human race? That's not the God that I believe in. I know he loves me more than that. Perhaps we dont need them. We have reached perfection. God does not need to correct us because we never stray. He does not need to teach us because we already know. Heaven forbid we make such a claim. So then, there is only one option. Its not God. The problem must be with us. Interestingly many prophets whose words we consider scripture, were not accepted in their day. Many were even silenced through death. Would we have been any different? Have humans really changed that much? Probably not. Ancient Israel could not accept their prophets, and clearly we cannot accept ours. We likely aren't even looking. And that's the problem. Seek and ye shall find. Joseph Smith American Prophet ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6zdQ3XZ98-c.htmlfeature=shared

Well, it also say that the Torah/Moses Law is still in place for everyone who claims to believe in Jesus, so...

For the first hundred years (and even longer after that) there wasn’t any scripture. Not to mention ppl that didn’t have access to the gospels OR were even literate. Are the all earliest Christians going to hell bc of that? Sola Sc. Is silly

Another Protestant response: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X25PIFr-SvI.html

Sola Scriptura holds that all teaching must be taught (explicitly or implicitly) in Scripture. Sola Scriptura is a teaching. Therefore, if Sola Scriptura is true, it must be taught in scripture. Sola Scriptura is not taught in scripture. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false; it is an extra-Biblical, self-refuting tradition of men.

I enjoy this podcast as a protestant who holds to the 5 Solas. I love consuming knowledge so I am always intrigued to learn more from other views. I disagree though that sola scriptura is debunked by taking 2 Thessalonians 2:15 out of context. It talks about the last days, Christ coming back and those who will be deceived by other doctrines and how God will give them over to those doctrines but for those who are in Christ, to stand firm on the saving doctrines that they have heard or seen in letters from the apostles. Not just from anyone saying something convincing that goes against scripture that sweeps people up which we see a lot of today.

2:38 Even the current date is around the traditional date of John

I am a protestant who affirms sola scriptura, and I have a hard time understanding the jump from "stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter" to "accept whatever teachings the roman catholic church will in the future define". I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that what Paul means by oral traditions is to accept those doctrines which have not yet been considered by the church catholic but will one day become the majority view. Maybe you're working under the impression that modern catholic dogma is the unanimous testimony of the early church, but I feel like you're working more from Newman's development hypothesis rather than the traditional Tridentine view of tradition, in which case the appeal doesn't really work. God bless!

But, history shows there were no sole bishops of Rome prior to mid- 2nd sentury.

sola scriptura is about obeying God. Jesus himself said He is the word.

Yet another catholic apologist who misunderstands and misrepresents sola scriptura extending it beyond what it says.

Problem is, if you deny Sola Scriptura, that opens the door to all kinds of error and man made doctrine. Which is exactly what the Roman Church has done. Doctrines of very imperfect men. No thanks. God's Word is way more than sufficient.

🤔 special pleading 🥺. Philippians 4:3 does not assert that Clement is the future Bishop of Rome, only a a helper. It is church tradition that the anonymous unknown author of the first “epistle of Clement” of Rome to Corinth was written by Clement. Most modern scholarship date the letter of Clement at ca. 96AD.

Sola Scriptura demonstrated by Christ Jesus, Jesus standing on the authority of Holy Scripture, can anyone point to Christ discussing secret traditions to rebuke satan? Matthew 4:4 [4] But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Matthew 4:7 [7] Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ Matthew 4:10 [10] Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “ ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”

Thought there would be evidence from the guest ☹️

We know it was the Gospel, not some secret traditions. 1 Thessalonians 2:1-4 Paul’s Ministry to the Thessalonians. [1] For you yourselves know, brothers, that our coming to you was not in vain. [2] But though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict. [3] For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, [4] but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.

Philippians 3:18 KJV - (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

well spoken and sounds compelling... but when you actually dig into what he is saying here there's nothing there. 1 Clement 44 is talking about strife over the leadership in one specific Church. It's saying bishops who have served honorably and done nothing wrong, should not be thrust out of their position. Rather once they die or leave the position, a new bishop will be appointed by men of good repute and with consent of their Church. That's pretty much how any good Church operates. You can't pull justification for a Pope out of this.

Wait so I’m supposed to be catholic?

Marian dogmas are not taught in the Bible, Sola Scriptura is demonstrated by Christ.

Nope hated that clip. Just an extension of gotcha 90s apologetics.

You said Phil 4:13 twice. Its Phil 4:3. Clement ch 44 speaks of the episcopate, not papacy if thats where you were going. Apostolic succession isn't a list of people but teaching. Lots of people teach the wrong things, if so then they arent teaching apostolic teaching. And 2 thess 2 has nothing to do with rc sacred tradition, which doesn't exist. Simply saying tradition doesn't equal sacred tradition. I've never seen a catholic give any details of Paul or anyone elses 'tradition' not found in scripture but given orally and necessary to be believed.