A Neglected Argument against Sola Scriptura

[@N1IA-4]

Trent, you have done a fantastic job and you are instrumental in me converting from Lutheranism to Catholicism. Your debate with Gavin Ortlund pretty much sealed the deal for me. Thanks again!

[@P-el4zd]

The good thing coming from Lutheranism to Catholicism it’s not much of a jump. It should be an easy transition for confessional Lutherans.

[@N1IA-4]

@@P-el4zd Perhaps in its liturgical expression yes. But the theological underpinnings of Lutheranism - namely, the Solas - makes it a large paradigm shift. Which I am making...but it takes time.

[@P-el4zd]

@@N1IA-4 What Lutheran Church body did you leave?

[@tbojai]

Huge congrats! You won’t regret it!

[@N1IA-4]

@@P-el4zd I am in transition. LCMS. But it truly doesn't matter because it all falls under the Sola - or Prima - umbrella

[@windowsscreen]

I was reformed, but now being chrismated into the Orthodox Church, but I’ve been immensely blessed by ur break down of the not so air tight sola scriptura. You’ve brought me much clarity GodBless

[@jamessalerno4234]

Can I ask what was the first thing that led you away from reformed theology? I’m a catholic convert and I’ve known several reformed friends and they can’t get off justification. To me, it’s the cart before the horse, but they can’t seem to accept any role for man, even in having the free will to decide to love God…it’s so alien to me.

[@windowsscreen]

@@jamessalerno4234 it all started with James 2:24. That was a big one, reading it believing it. In its whole context of course. Then with sola scriptura not being taught in the Bible itself but assumed…as well as the question of which books are canonical and who the authority to say they were “Scripture “. Then the historical reason to why are we so cerebral and almost gnostic with Christianity in the west. Where many things aren’t literal or are explained away with reason or down played or watered down to some spiritual meaning. That’s summarizing but I can go all day lol

[@albertoascari2542]

Trouble is with Sola Scriptura is its open to so much interpretation that no one's gets it definitively right..I heard a former Protestant says at a theological conference Pastors were giving different interpretations although of the same denomination

[@joycegreer9391]

@@albertoascari2542 That is the trouble with Catholicism. They think they have some divine authority to interpret. They couldn't be more wrong in every way.

[@joycegreer9391]

@@windowsscreen Apparently you don't have any real understanding of James, though. I'm surprised it's not the East that you find being so cerebral and almost gnostic. They are all about mysticism, mystical meaning/experience. It's the Holy Spirit who leads to understanding scripture and what writings are inspired. Yes, we do assume that God, His Word is supreme and over any word of man (sola scriptura).

[@dasan9178]

One thing I’ve noticed is that while citing the “church fathers” to make or prove a given point of theirs, Protestants NEVER admit anywhere that those same fathers of the Faith were CATHOLIC. Saints Jerome, Augustine and others are repeatedly referred to as “fathers” of Christianity without any admission related to their Catholicity, the result of which is that few Protestants have any real understanding of their Catholic heritage.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Good observation. In fact, I was raised in the Catholic Church but I knew very little about the early history and heritage of the religion. I myself often use the phrase "Fathers of the church" without being cognizant of the religion they professed. To be honest, I personally dislike using certain words in my conversations such as "religion" and "Catholic". My preference is to concentrate on Jesus Himself. However I understand that in a podcast such as this, the words "religion" and "Catholic" and "Protestant" are a necessary part of the discussion. So I'm not trying to negate what you said. I try to be respectful of people of most religions ( and atheists too ). Peace of God to you....

[@dasan9178]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 I believe that being truthful about our Catholic beliefs and traditions, why we have them and what they mean, especially in regard to saving our souls, IS being kind. How much would we have to hate someone to have the true Faith (and knowledge of the terrible consequences of not having it), but not honestly and openly share it? That was me at one time…motivated by fear…until I realized how wrong I was. Jesus himself was a stumbling block to heretics and sinners, a point of contradiction to unbelievers, a sword that divides the sheep from the goats. Did perceived unkindness stop Him? Did Jesus and His disciples slack off or quit for fear of persecution, torture and death? What if they had? Christianity would have died in its infancy. How great a debt we owe them for their courage, perseverance and love! That’s why it comes down to one question: how much do we love Jesus? If we don’t love Him enough to risk everything for Him as so many others have done, we don’t love Him enough at all, nor are we worthy of Him. Sometimes bringing Jesus to others online requires not being afraid to bring up a point of contention … not to be unkind but to share an important truth … ESPECIALLY when Satan (and much of modern society) would prefer we remain politely quiet.

[@PatrickSteil]

@@johnbrzykcy3076Unfortunately the label “Christian” no longer had meaning as it can mean anything under the sun. So the word Catholic becomes necessary to highlight the differences.

[@gfujigo]

This is a really good point. We as Protestants need to really recognize that point.

[@dasan9178]

@@gfujigo Since you agree, I hope you’ll spend some time looking into our mutual Fathers of the Church, who they were, and what they actually said, wrote and believed. No need to learn from a third party when their original writings are so inexpensive, easily accessible and searchable through ebooks.

[@cjr4497]

My experience with trying to debate with many non Catholics is that they refuse to even acknowledge the evidence given. They fall back in the never ending loop of "but this verse says this" followed by my rebuttal, "well this says this" followed by my rebuttal until we are back at the very beginning. Their mentality won't let them looks at things on the whole or see the big picture. It is weird and kind of sad. They treat the sculpture like a deck of cards. I even brought that up to a few and they of course said that wasn't true then commenced to start their whole game over again.

[@bengoolie5197]

Catholics worship God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Holy Trinity is our God! But it certainly seems that the god that Protestants worship is the bible. I have mentioned this to Protestants, and it kind of fun to watch the look on their face.

[@joecastillo8798]

@cjr4497 CJ, I agree. Asking a Protestant to show where in the Bible is taught that 'the Bible' is "the pillar and foundation of truth", will generate another circular response which has nothing to do with "biblical" evidence. God bless.

[@duckymomo7935]

Did the Old Testament cease to exist until the RC came along and recreated it existence?? Thus it clearly shows you have no business debating about sola scriptura

[@derekdaniel3566]

Certainly so, I have encountered the same. I was told that ultimately the Holy Spirit is needed. Nothing will happen initially many times but the seeds have been planted. Stay cool, learn Catholic responses. These are all "old" concerns or questions. Protestants have more Catholic ancestors than Protestant; consequently, they would not have the Bible where it not for the Catholic church. God Bless

[@eddardgreybeard]

When they actually do consider the evidence, they end up redefining Sola scriptura like Jeff durbin did.

[@jaikelr]

Thank you Trent! You truly are a God’s instrument for his Church!

[@EstudiaLaPalabra]

Thank you. I am a reformed Baptist pastor and I appreciate your content.

[@thecatechumen]

Good stuff! This is a really good supplement to the debate. It was great meeting you Trent!

[@lois2997]

@YAJUN YUAN why do you troll catholic sites

[@kyriosbooks8400]

@YAJUN YUAN Sam Shamoun is still waiting for you - you loudmouth cringe coward.

[@hollywoodburford]

@YAJUN YUAN cool

[@edweber9847]

I read that liturgical use in the Church was the primary reason the Church Fathers determined which books were Scripture, in the Fourth Century. Justin the Martyr describing the liturgy in 155 says on Sunday "all those who live in the cities or ... countryside gather in a common meeting, and as long as there is time the Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read." Liturgy ("public worship") requires someone to lead it. Those leaders have to be appointed ("ordained") by those given authority. Jesus "appointed twelve [whom he also named apostles] that they might be with him and he might send them forth to preach and to have authority to drive out demons" and to forgive sins." Saint Paul appointed Timothy to lead the Church at Ephesus. Paul told him "Command and teach these things" and "do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate." Finally, a book doesn't exercise authority. It may be "authoritative," but authority would be exercised by the author, who can give authority to those who follow him.

[@Sheilamarie2]

Wow, great commentary; I love Justin the Martyr! God Bless You!

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@Sheilamarie2 I agree that is a great commentary. Have you read any good books about the early Church fathers? Peace of God to you...

[@Sheilamarie2]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Yes, but there are so many converts with content about the Early Church Fathers, you can also view on YT. Steve Ray (convert) has a great book, Crossing The Tiber with arguments, using the Early Church Fathers. Peace.

[@edweber9847]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 "The Faith of the Early Church Fathers" by William Jurgens and "The Fathers Know Best" by Jimmy Akin.

[@juliannacodde8633]

Trent - you are killing it lately! Also, you look great in dark colors and the new studio is looking great too. Excellent job on the debate!

[@bobbyrice2858]

kzbin.info_JbaQHVkBs4?feature=share

[@juliannacodde8633]

@@bobbyrice2858 amen, being Catholic is awesome! Isn’t it so wonderful that God knows us so well and knows that as physical beings we would need to sacrament of reconciliation to really feel his forgiveness for us? Beautiful! Also isn’t purgatory amazing that we can be in heaven and be purified of our attachment to sin before we enter the beatific vision of our lord God??? Amazing, glory to God!

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@juliannacodde8633 I like the way you explain your perspective of the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic but I don't recall hearing an explanation as good as you gave. Peace of God to you. ( By the way, I simply call myself a Christian believer ).

[@bobbyrice2858]

@@juliannacodde8633 in that day they will say “Lord Lord did we not pray to your mother or participate in the Eucharist” and the Lord will say “depart from me you workers of iniquity for I never knew you” Those that believe in purgatory do not understand the nature of the new Holy Spirit placed within the believer described in Hebrews 12. You are an unbelieving deceived individual. I pray to God you find true belief as described and John 6:40.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@bobbyrice2858 I also want to find "true belief" but I struggle with the concept of faith itself. Sounds weird? I'm a Christian believer yet I dislike to be confrontational with people of other religions ( or even with Christians). Muslims often tell me that I'm "deceived" by my belief in Jesus Christ as the One who died for my sins. Yet I try to be respectful of Muslims and listen to them For one thing, I don't know it all. Only God is all-knowing. And only God knows our hearts. I appreciate your sharing of Jesus' words. I think I understand what Jesus meant but I do need ( and will always need ) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I hope you don't mind that I read your comments to someone else. Basically I tend to be non-confrontational. May God open our hearts and enable us to desire Him more. I'm nothing without the mercy of God. May I stand before the cross where Jesus was crucified and accept God's love for me. Peace...

[@chicken-911]

Trent now tallking in past tense about an argument he presented a debate he said he did, in a video he recorded before said debate. That was the most complex 1 minute introduction I have seen.

[@lyterman]

This must have taken a ton of work. Well done, Trent. May your work bear fruit.

[@johnmendez3028]

🙏🙏🙏

[@bobbyrice2858]

indeed, well done lassie boy. Numerous passages infer the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. While the Bible never uses the term “Scripture alone,” this teaching can be inferred from Scripture. Consider a number of reasons for this view: First, the Bible teaches not to add or take away from Scripture. Paul writes that we should not “exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). John writes, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19). Likewise, Moses writes, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it” (Deut. 4:2; cf. 12:32). If another authority could either add or take away from Scripture, then this would invalidate these passages of Scripture. Second, Scripture is the litmus test for discerning truth. Every time Jesus needs to answer a doctrinal question, he cites Scripture-not tradition. The phrase “It is written…” occurs some 90 times in the NT. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees saying, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures” (Mt. 22:29). He also rebuked the Jewish leaders for what was “said” (Mt. 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) versus what was “written” (Mt. 4:4, 7, 10). Moreover, we have nothing in the Bible to suggest that we need something in addition to Scripture. Third, the Bible does not allow for tradition to be equal or superior to Scripture. Jesus said, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? … by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Mt. 15:3, 6). Here Jesus judges their accepted human tradition by the superior authority of Scripture. Likewise, Paul writes, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men” (Col. 2:8). As we noted above, this does not mean that all tradition is ungodly, anymore than all philosophy is ungodly. However, this does teach that human tradition is not equal or more authoritative than Scripture. If tradition ever disagrees with Scripture, then this tradition is always wrong. Catholic apologist Jim Blackburn writes, “Jesus rightfully condemned [false tradition], but his condemnation was not meant to be applied to every tradition.”[5] However, we feel that Blackburn has missed the point here. The Pharisees were placing tradition above the Bible, and Jesus was using the Bible as a higher standard for correcting their false view. Fourth, Luke calls the Bereans “noble-minded” for “examining the Scriptures daily” to see if the gospel was true (Acts 17:11). That is, the Bereans compared the message of the apostles with the Bible itself. If the apostles were the supreme authority, then the Bereans would have been considered unbelieving for trying to interpret the Bible by themselves-apart from the interpretation and instruction of the apostles. But instead, they were encouraged for doing this. Fifth, Timothy was able to come to faith through the OT Scriptures as a child (2 Tim. 3:14-15). If a little child could come to faith through the OT Scriptures, how much more could a fully grown adult come to faith with the completed canon? Sixth, Paul tells Timothy that Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Paul writes: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Catholic apologist Tim Staples objects that 2 Timothy 3 “says that Scripture is inspired and necessary-a rule of faith-but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church.”[6] Of course, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn’t state that it is the only rule of faith. But it does say that it is a sufficient rule. Paul writes that Scripture makes us “equipped for every good work” (v.17). This is why we would define Scripture as sufficient for faith and morals. If Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals, we shouldn’t look for any other standard. Note also that this passage comes in the context of battling false teaching. Paul writes, “But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). What is our guard against false teaching? Paul tells us that Scripture is the final authority that equips us for “every good work” (v.17). Seventh, tradition is not a reliable way to transmit truth. Catholic apologists often appeal to the Church Fathers to defend doctrines, but we see no reason to believe in the early Church Fathers. In fact, false traditions were even appearing in the first century. Paul writes, “You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me” (2 Tim. 1:15). No doubt, some of these men were Paul’s personal disciples in Ephesus, whom he predicted would lose their faith (Acts 20:29-30). John had to correct false teaching in his gospel (Jn. 21:22-23), and Paul had to correct false teaching, too (2 Thess. 2:2). In fact, from one end of the NT to the other, we see contrary false teaching. If they had false traditions in the first century already, wouldn’t we expect more false traditions today? Even though the Church Fathers were closer to the apostolic age, this doesn’t make them more orthodox. Eighth, Sola Scriptura is not an invention of the Reformation. While we do not ultimately hang our argument on history, it is verifiable that this view has been present throughout the history of the Christian Church. A few quotations will suffice to demonstrate this historical point: - Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) - Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3) - Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) - Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.) - Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16) - John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians) - Basil the Great (AD 329-379): Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189 to Eustathius the physician)

[@ironymatt]

Gotta love how Trent constantly steelmans protestant objections with citations from protestant scholars - taking down the adversary with their own ammunition

[@bobbyrice2858]

@@ironymatt mmmm does he???

[@ironymatt]

@@bobbyrice2858 four "m"s and three "?"s does not a rebuttal make

[@heidiaraneta1660]

Thanks Trent for this podcast, at least I gain more knowledge about Catholic Church and this will for sure deepen my faith, I am from the Philippines and I always watch all your videos , keep the faith alive, God bless the RCC and God bless you Trent🙏😊

[@asgrey22]

This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks! In Epsicopate and the Primacy by Rahner / Ratzinger, Ratzinger made this point (that there is a long way to go between apostolic writings and the view of them AS Scripture) and I was looking to do a deep dive on it. It was written 1961 so I was looking for a more recent exploration

[@bobbyrice2858]

kzbin.info_JbaQHVkBs4?feature=share

[@darrylbatchem8985]

In all my time as a protestant adhering to sola scriptura (lets face it I had no other choice or I would cease to be protestant) I came to realize the Scripture was being used in this way. 1. Make a statement of faith (eg Sola Scriptura or something else that one believes extraneous to Scripture). 2. Then stick a Book Chapter Verse in brackets at the end which sounds like it might work. 3. Hope like crazy that people believe you and don't ask questions or say hang on a minute. I have also yet to meet the person who can truly claim to be Sola Scriptura, for if I did meet them they could no longer claim Sola Scriptura.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

It’s not extraneous to Scripture. It flows from it as Scripture does not indicate that anything other than God himself is infallible. And scripture are the words of God. The church is not God so the church can go wrong. But scripture, since it is the word of God, cannot. Scripture indicates nothing else.

[@darrylbatchem8985]

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 Oh I agree sometimes the church can go wrong and that is called protestantism. I guess the difference between you and me is that I believe that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and as the Head of the Church He has not left us comfortless. And at the same time I guess the difference between you and I is that I am not going to tell Jesus the Christ that He failed to keep His promise and I have to take things into my own hands to fix His mistakes ie usurp. And at the same time I guess the difference between you and I is that I believe Scripture needs to be viewed through the lens of the Church not vice versa because you will only fail outside the context of the Church. You are doomed to fail if you take Scripture outside the Church.

[@garygornowicz3863]

I really think the Amish are the closest holders of Sola Scritura

[@duckymomo7935]

You clearly don’t understand sola scriptura Sola scriptura doesn’t work like that so such a person in your imagination cannot possibly exist because they don’t

[@MythwrightWorkshop]

wait a minute... I see what you did there!

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Before I was Catholic and appreciated protestant people, I thought there's no way they _actually_ believe you can just read the Bible without some authority providing the proper interpretation, right? Today I would understand they have their own traditions they follow even if they nominally deny it: sola scriptura is a semantic game. And historically protestants rested their views on succesionism and accretionism they had zero evidence for. You can see after it became embarrassing to hold to such false history why so many retreated to more of a me and my Bible low church attitude that takes their tradition even more for granted

[@Justas399]

Where has the Roman Catholic church infallibly-officially interpreted Scripture?

[@jackdaw6359]

​@@Justas399in its Holy Magisterium that quotes Scripture in support of its Doctrines. This includes, the Magisterial ruling that the consensus of the Fathers cannot be denied, Papal declarations, ecumenical councils and the catechism that was officially promulgated by the Magisterium. These often quote scripture and when they do it on a universally binding level, it is declared. One such example would be John 6, of which Protestants often deny the obvious Eucharistic meaning.

[@ironymatt]

​@@Justas399a better question to ask yourself is where have all the protestant denominations fallibly interpreted scripture? Answer: they've been doing it non-stop for 500 years, starting with the removal of seven books by Luther

[@brutus896]

​@@jackdaw6359Where does the Magisterium get "sinless" Mary teaching from?

[@Justas399]

@@ironymatt Luther never took any books out of the Bible. Council of Trent added books.

[@MM22272]

Protestant paradigm shift sounds like desperate shiftiness from those who are losing the argument, wiggling like a worm on a hook of truth, trying to wiggle off. You nailed it, Trent! Excellent counselling.

[@HannahClapham]

@MM22272. We think the exact same thing about Catholics. When it comes to understanding another person’s religious beliefs, it’s an “occupational hazard.”

[@MM22272]

@@HannahClapham That's understandably mutual. After listening to years of debates how about this and other such issues, ultimately the debate comes down to and will be finally settled by appealing to and accepting Father Martin's interpretation of the Bible or that of the Catholic Church's 1500 years of interpretation that preceded him. Anyway, it's not something that will be settled immediately or between our brief exchange of comments. Blessings upon you and your family. Happy Easter!

[@stooch66]

Sorry, it just makes logical and historical sense that sola scriptura was impossible. All the separate churches would only have the letters that were sent to them. Yes, those letters would be viewed highly…but they were mostly just used in the LITURGY to teach. It’s so obvious that it is frustrating we keep having to discuss it.

[@ironymatt]

The other reason it's not credible is that Luther plucked it from his rear

[@Ttcopp12rt]

That's not evidence or an argument - that's speculation lol

[@stooch66]

@@Ttcopp12rt no, it’s historical fact. I don’t have to write it out all here. You can read about it yourself. How would the church in Alexandria, or the church in Assyria even know about the letters of Paul to the Colossians until a long time after they were written? And, would the church in Corinth even recognize immediately that the letter Paul sent them was “scripture.” I know it is hard to take a clear look at it, but it really is impossible to ignore. If you truly seek the Truth, you will explore this idea more…

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@stooch66 I really like and appreciate your comments. I never thought much about "Sola Scriptura" because I was raised Catholic. I now just call myself a Christian believer. But I wonder if we seemingly give Sola Scriptura a less important place in our hearts, does that work against our discussion with Muslims who believe that every word in the Quran is God inspired and preserved? What do you think? I'm not trying to negate your views. Because honestly you make some valid points that we tend to ignore. Did people 2,000 years ago first hear the words/teaching of Jesus Christ orally and accept what they heard as "scriptures" inspired by God? Thought provoking. And to think that we are reading scriptures a long, long time after they were written. I'm not trying to negate the doctrine that the New Testament is inspired by God. But how do we correlate the human aspects of time, travel and culture with inspiration? What do you think? Peace of God to you

[@stooch66]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 there is a lot there to unpack, and I don’t fancy myself an apologist. I just believe wholly that Christ is God, that God is a Trinity, and that he established a Church to teach us and unite us in Christ. Christ is the head and the Church is the body, or better, He is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride. I believe the Church was established to teach us. Divorcing the scriptures from the Church leaves us all to figure out the meaning on our own and I believe that Christ left the Church so that we would always know what he meant when he taught. I have no concerns about the timing of the writing of scripture. God is outside of time and eternal. What is 2000 years for Him? It is but a blip, but even less…it is not even a measurable moment. Humans are not different now from humans then…sure, societies are, but humans are not. We all have an innate longing for the divine, whether we recognize it or not. I think sometimes (most times), humans think the world exists only in their time…not consciously, but subconsciously. Just pondering these questions humbles me in a way I cannot explain. God bless you.

[@mulipolatuuumataafatiufeaa4964]

It is not sufficient from me personally to say thank you so very much Trent Horn for speaking out the original apostolic faith of the Church up to these days. I would have loved to watch the debate if availble on KZbin. Your talks and debates are a manfestation of what Jesus has promised: I will be with you till the end of age as well as: Do not worry when you are being brought before courts - (this time debates) for I will give you words to say. So it's true at any debate. Debates these days are a Court of the pharacees and scripes in the early days of the Church. Any apologetic or apologist or baptised Catholic for that purpose ,we believe that Jesus gives you the right words to say. Simply means that Jesus is talking on your nd my behalf. So let us be grateful to our Lord for being faithful to His Words and Promses.

[@alpha4IV]

Watched the debate, twice. I think this vid & the information shared in it was better than the debate. Gavin is just too likable.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

William Albrecht and Father Christian Kappes, have provided Early Church Fathers that taught the Assumption of the Mother of God, even as early as the 200's. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@Justas399]

In regards to Mary’s supposed assumption the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words: But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40). In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact: In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought-as some theologians still do today under one form or another-to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@Justas399 Mary is the Woman in Revelation, she who gave birth to the male child born to rule the nations, she the Queen Mother of the Davidic King, Jesus Christ. There are several Church Fathers who taught the Assumption of the Mother of God, even as early as the 200s. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@Justas399]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Catholic scholars Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482): a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications. In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the Old Testament ”.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

@Justas399 Once again, several Church Fathers taught the Assumption of the Mother of God, as Mary is the Woman in Revelation 12, she who gave birth to the male child born to rule the nations, she the Queen Mother of the Davidic King, Jesus Christ! What is so funny is, the Protestants whi claim the Woman in Revelation 12 is NOT Mary, have absolutely no clue who it is, for Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

[@Justas399]

@@matthewbroderick6287 Those church fathers that supposedly taught it were teaching a false doctrine. Even catholic scholars tell us the woman of Rev 12 is not Mary.

[@robertopacheco2997]

How has "sola Scriptura" fared in church history? Did the "Bible alone" Judaizers win the day in Acts 15?! Did the "where's that in the Bible" Arians prove their case against the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son at Nicaea?! How has "sola Scriptura" fared in Protestant history? Did it resolve the theological debates between Arminius and Calvin on free will vs. predestination, or between Luther and Zwingli on the Real Presence vs. symbolic memorial in the Eucharist, or between Zwingli and the Anabaptists on infant baptism?! How did the "Bible alone" do more recently in the discussions between Zane Hodges and John MacArthur on "Lordship Salvation"? The "Bible alone" doctrine has created way more schisms in the church than it's healed, and if there's anything the Bible alone denounces it's schisms and factions!

[@Justas399]

Do you think there is absolute unity in the Roman catholic church with its infallible popes and magisterium's?

[@robertopacheco2997]

@@Justas399 Are you dense or just a troll? How about this? Just admit you can't answer any of my challenges and then I'll reply. But I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of an answer until you say "uncle"!

[@robertopacheco2997]

Besides, perhaps a Catholic should reply.

[@robertopacheco2997]

@@Justas399 Again, asking a question instead of giving an answer. This classic ruse of the feeble-minded or con-men. At this point you're just embarrassing yourself with your denseness and "troll-ness"!

[@Justas399]

@@robertopacheco2997 Just countering the claim that there is unity in the RCc.

[@jesus_is_my_spotter]

I read your book "why we're Catholic" while I was in jail many years ago. I was already Catholic, but you got me interested in apologetics and early Church writings. Now as I shephard my wife towards a deeper life of faith I use apologetics throughout our discussions. I feel called to help more Catholics deepen their understanding of the Church. It saddens my heart when someone says "I use to be Catholic, but now I have a real relationship wirh Jesus as a (insert protestant tradition)"

[@Sheilamarie2]

I see 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as a slam dunk to sola scriptura... Thank you, Trent, I love these Early Church Fathers!

[@bobbyrice2858]

kzbin.info_JbaQHVkBs4?feature=share

[@lupelo8819]

Catholic theologians run 🤣 to the early "church fathers" plainly because the Bible does not support their teachings.

[@lupelo8819]

Tradition has to agree 👍 with the Word of God not contradict it..! The Catholic Church contradicts the Holy Scriptures 😳 🙄 of God.Repent and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour alone.

[@lupelo8819]

Born again believers don't have to run to the "church fathers" to explain the Holy Scriptures 🤔 for them. The Holy Spirit of God will guide the born again believer into "ALL TRUTH"..!

[@bobbyrice2858]

@@lupelo8819 tradition was always subservient to the authority of scripture until the 1500s. The council of Trent elevated tradition to the same standing as scripture as infallible. But it was never like that before that.

[@mbphorseback7709]

Thank you for defending our Church Trent Horn, God bless you

[@sdboyd]

I saw the debate. I’m still Catholic. However I ended up really liking Gavin. A good guy. However, TH and Jimmy Aiken are the two best apologists on the planet.

[@ironymatt]

He's very likeable, but liking someone doesn't make them right

[@sdboyd]

@@ironymatt I never implied that was the case.

[@ironymatt]

@@sdboyd I know. I wasn't intending to be critical of your particular comment, rather the more general notion that likeability confers some kind of quasi-authority. It sways a lot of people.

[@sdboyd]

@@ironymatt That it does.

[@brutus896]

​@ironymatt I like him, and he's right.

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📜 *Historical Data Behind Solo Scriptura Argument* - Trent introduces the historical data behind an argument against sola scriptura presented in a debate with Gavin Ortlund. 01:38 🔄 *Paradigm Shift Argument* - Trent explains the paradigm shift argument, suggesting that the Church's authority transitioned from oral teachings of the apostles to a combination of oral and written rules, challenging the idea of a subsequent shift to written rules alone. 03:39 📜 *Modern New Testament Scholarship* - Discussion on modern biblical scholarship's claim that the earliest Christians didn't consider the New Testament as scripture until later, challenging the sola scriptura paradigm. 05:18 📚 *Early Christian Writers and New Testament* - Examining quotes from early Christian writers and how their views align with or differ from the sola scriptura paradigm, focusing on the scarcity of explicit New Testament scripture citations. 08:07 📜 *Clement of Rome: Authority in Old Testament and Church* - Clement of Rome's reliance on the Old Testament as scripture, citing it over 20 times, and his emphasis on the authority structure of the Church, specifically the Bishops and deacons. 17:32 📖 *The Didache: Connecting Old Testament Prophecy to Eucharist* - The Didache's citation of the Old Testament prophecy (Malachi) as divinely inspired, connecting it to the Eucharist, and its reference to Bishops and deacons as authorities in the Church. 21:23 📜 *Ignatius of Antioch: Quoting New Testament Without Calling It Scripture* - Ignatius of Antioch's formal citation of the Old Testament as scripture twice, his quoting of the New Testament without labeling it as scripture, and his emphasis on Church authority. 21:51 📜 *Ignatius and Authority in the Church* - Ignatius responds to critics questioning the absence of Christ's teachings in ancient scriptures. - Ignatius emphasizes the authority of Jesus Christ, the cross, and resurrection over Old Testament prophecies. - Ignatius supports Church authority, stating, "Without the bishop, you should do nothing." 23:53 🤔 *Aristides: Ambiguous Authority References* - Aristides does not quote Old or New Testament as divine scripture. - Acknowledges oral proclamations of Christians as binding but doesn't clarify their status. - Ambiguity in Aristides regarding the authority structure within the Church. 24:47 📖 *Polycarp's Letter to the Philadelphians* - Polycarp, a disciple of Saint John, cites theNew Testament over a dozen times. - Ambiguous citation of Ephesians 4:26 as a possible New Testament scripture. - Polycarp emphasizes church authority: "Being subject to the presbyters and deacons as unto God and Christ." 30:03 📜 *Epistle of Barnabas: Focused on Old Testament* - The Epistle of Barnabas extensively quotes the Old Testament, presenting allegorical descriptions. - Ambiguous reference to Matthew 22:14, potentially recognizing the New Testament as scripture. - No explicit mention of Church authority; the emphasis is on interpreting the Old Testament. 33:45 🐑 *Second Clement: Acknowledgment of Church Authority* - Second Clement references the Old Testament about five times, with fewer New Testament citations. - Clear citation of Luke 5:32, possibly recognizing it as New Testament scripture. - Expresses ambiguous views on the Church, mentioning presiders and authoritative leaders. 35:34 📜 *The Shepherd of Hermes: No Explicit Scripture Citations* - The Shepherd of Hermes doesn't explicitly cite Old or New Testament scriptures. - Recognized references to an authoritative Church, highlighting those who preside. - The uneven development of the idea of the Canon during the second century is noted. 37:43 ⚖️ *Martyrdom of Polycarp: Limited Scriptural Citations* - The Martyrdom of Polycarp contains no citations of Old or New Testament as divine scripture. - Recognizable references to the Church of God and acknowledgment of authoritative leaders. - Ambiguous references to the authoritative status of the Catholic Church. 38:40 🗣️ *Justin Martyr: Emphasis on Old Testament* - Justin Martyr extensively cites the Old Testament, over a hundred cases in dialogue with Trifo. - Ambiguous references to the New Testament, with possible recognition of Revelation. - Describes the Eucharistic service structure, but unclear on broader Church authority. 41:38 🤷‍♂️ *Epistle to Diognetus: Limited Explicit Citations* - The Epistle to Diognetus doesn't explicitly cite Old or New Testament as divine scripture. - Alludes to 1 Corinthians 8:1 without calling it scripture, implying reliance on oral tradition. - Ambiguous references to Church Authority, leaning towards reliance on apostolic tradition. 42:06 📖 *Molito of Sardis: Mixed Citations and Church References* - Molito of Sardis cites the Old Testament but never explicitly as divine scripture. - Possible references to New Testament scriptures, with ambiguity in their status. - Limited insight into Church authority, as Molito emphasizes the Church as the bridegroom. 43:40 📜 *Early Christian Views on Authority* - Early Christian authors like Hegesippus cited scripture, referring to the Old Testament and possibly the New Testament. - Hegesippus emphasized an authoritative Church structure, listing the succession of bishops as a key aspect of orthodoxy. - Recognition of authority in scripture and the teaching office of the Church, passed down from apostolic succession. 45:15 📖 *Athenagoras: Views on Scripture and Christ* - Athenagoras referred to the Old Testament as divine scripture and mentioned the prophetic Spirit's influence, resembling musical notes. - Limited reference to the New Testament, quoting Jesus's sayings but avoiding explicit mention of Jesus or Christ. - Critique of icons, emphasizing the invisibility and immaterial nature of God, raising questions about the belief in the Incarnation. 47:21 📚 *Theophilus of Antioch: Old Testament Emphasis* - Theophilus considered the Old Testament as scripture, citing it about eight times and referring to the spirit-inspired men, including John. - Limited emphasis on the New Testament, with only two references, raising questions about a clear belief in the Incarnation. - Lack of explicit mention of Jesus or Christ in connection to the Christian identity, with a focus on anointing with the oil of God. 48:43 🕊️ *Authority in Early Church Fathers* - Summarization of findings regarding early Church Fathers' views on authority, specifically in relation to Sola Scriptura. - Assertion that the early Christians recognized authority in the words of Jesus and the Apostles, transmitted through the Church's succession. - A challenge to the idea of Sola Scriptura, highlighting the importance early Christians placed on the message rather than the written medium.

[@ericholmberg2963]

Great Trent. Having seen the debate, which was truly great, fast-moving, well articulated, and irenic on both sides, as a fairly new former Protestant ex-pastor and apologist (3 years ago this coming Easter), I more or less called it a draw. (Gavin is pretty awesome). But this really helps. Too bad there wasn't time in the debate itself to develop this line of reasoning. Another powerful and easy to grasp apologetic is if Jesus intended for there to be the 3rd paradigm shift Protestants glommed unto He would have clued His disciples on the need to get their thoughts and experiences written down. But for the vast majority of them...not one jot or tittle.

[@enniomojica7812]

@YAJUN YUAN God intended the third shift into sola scriptura? There needed to be? That’s a giant assumption you are making on the fist claim and bad reasoning on the second. You didn’t converse with God and recieve a direct revelation from him. And for God to just leave scripture would make God responsible for all the errant denominations running about like jehovas witnesses. Mormans. Oneness pentecostals. Once saved always saved. Etc. no Gods intention are in the New Testament. He left us 12 apostles to teach guide and correct. And those apostles he breathed on them authority to forgive sins and perpetuate his memorial sacrifice. And these apostles left new apostles in their place to continue the model Jesus Christ left in the New Testament.

[@conservativecatholic9030]

Yeah, but that was a Lincoln-Douglas style debate where the affirmative (Ortlund) is supposed to prove their claim and the Negative (Horn) does not have to prove anything but to show that they did not prove it. Horn had the lower standard. If you think it was a tie, by the standards of the debate form, then Horn won. I generally think those styles of debates should be done in a series where both people should take the affirmative an equal amount of times.

[@Justas399]

@@enniomojica7812 There is no record of any apostle offering a mass.

[@enniomojica7812]

@@Justas399 oh no? Aside from the fact that Jesus told them to “do this in memory of me” (the last supper is the first Mass officiated by the high priest/king/victim himself). it’s mentioned in the New Testament . Acts 20:7. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. Acts 2:42. 1 Corinthians 11:23-34. Also remember Jesus on the way to emaus that follows the basic liturgical form we follow for the mass to this day. Luke 24:13-35. By perpetuating the one sacrifice of Christ the apostles were also priests. And they deputized presbyters or (priests) to continue it as well.

[@Justas399]

@@enniomojica7812 Do this in memory of Me does not mean Jesus turned himself into a piece of bread. Rather it means to remember when you eat the bread that you remember what He did on the cross. Presbyter and priest are not the same things. They mean different things; Here is what priest means in Greek- "hiereus Definition: a priest Usage: a priest, one who offers sacrifice to a god (in Jewish and pagan religions; of Christians only met.). presbuteros: elder Original Word: πρεσβύτερος, α, ον Part of Speech: Adjective Transliteration: presbuteros Phonetic Spelling: (pres-boo'-ter-os) Definition: elder Usage: elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly.

[@davidf5089]

Nice work Trent! It would be interesting to see this same breakdown on what the OT was comprised of for the issue of the OT canon, since it and sola scriptura seem to go so hand-in-hand.

[@ellobo4211]

I'm still looking for that list of books in the bible saying what books should be in the bible..man this sola scriptura is confusing

[@ellobo4211]

@ThoskaBrah so out of the hundreds of church fathers writings we can just add or subtract anything from the Canons..we would be arguing like muslims with there hadiths because they dont have a central magesterium..what's sahih what's not sahih..what's weak what's strong..who ultimatley confirms what is what in Canon..

[@JamesBarber-cu5dz]

Prior to medieval Christian claims in regards to the Apostles, the Pharisees had already set an example of developing dogma based on an alleged authoritative oral tradition having been passed down alongside Scripture from Moses himself. Moreover, despite the fact that the Pharisees were responsible for establishing the proper canon for Israel, much as later Catholics claim for themselves, their assertions of tradition's authority was roundly condemned by none other than Jesus Himself: "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!" In all of Biblical history, not one mention is made about authoritative oral tradition as a compliment to Scripture. During the Apostolic Age, both Christ and the Apostles always appealed to Scripture as the final authority for any claims or practices under consideration. This is logical since only the Apostles and Prophets were understood as authoring Scripture and therefore having such authority. Priests, though appointed by God, were always commanded to follow Scripture rather than extraneous customs. Prominent early Church Fathers recognized this principle, asserting that the true Catholic Church must always act in harmony with Scripture whenever "small matters" of tradition, as St. Basil the Great (d. 379) identified such issues, aren't specifically addressed. Thus, anything truly alien to Scripture or its theological principles must be abandoned. For example, here is St. Basil describing such considerations as he experienced them in the 4th-century: "For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents" (The Holy Spirit, 27:66). Obviously, it makes good sense that such "small matters" of tradition can be legitimately supported since Scripture and its clear principles are not violated. However, St. Basil also has this to say about Scripture and Church doctrine: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Letter 283). St. Jerome (d. 420), writing in the 5th-century, likewise describes acceptable traditions as being very harmonious with Scripture: "Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? (Note that what he refers to here as a custom is actually described multiple times in the Book of Acts!). And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command (Obviously because of very clear consistency since he used a Scriptural example of what a legitimate Church custom looks like). For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, (A neutral practice implied by Jesus's "Great Commission" formula and later found in the Didache) and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy (Old Testament symbols); and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day (Standing is in the Book of Ezra), and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked" (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8). Keeping these principles of maintaining traditions that merely illuminates explicit Scriptural doctrines in view, we can now make sense of what other early Fathers write about Scripture's unique authority.... Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 216) said, “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the information from the Scriptures themselves” (Stromata 7:16). Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) said, “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 9). Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367): “Everything that we ought to say and do, all that we need, is taught us by the Holy Scriptures ” (On the Trinity, 7:16). St. Athanasius (d. 375) said, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) “The holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (To the Bishops of Egypt 1:4)." "The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Exhort. ad Monachas). “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6). St. Basil of the Great (d. 379) said, “Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on which side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (Letter 189:3). St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, "We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say" (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff). St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) said, "What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius). St. Ambrose (d. 396) said, “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23). St. Augustine (d. 430) said, "For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine (Letters, 148.15). “For in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Do not even listen to me if I tell you anything that is not supported by or found in the Scriptures” (Exposition on Psalm 119). John Cassian (d. 435): “We ought not to believe in and to admit anything whatsoever which is not in the canon of Scripture or which is found to be contrary to it” (Conferences, 14.8).

[@Giant_Meteor]

'Graphe', as a Greek word, simply means "writings", or "scripture" in the generic sense. Just because someone referred to a letter as 'graphe' does not necessarily mean that they were denoting it as sacred or divinely inspired. To write is 'grapho'; what is written is called 'graphe'.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Thanks. I've tried to study Greek but understanding eludes me. So I appreciate your comments. That's one thing that we also need to consider, how did the early Church fathers try to communicate to people with the Greek language? Were all the early Church fathers "on the same page" when it came to communicating the meaning of words ?? Seemingly, even the apostles and followers of Jesus sometimes misunderstood what Jesus was teaching. Let us desire to understand better the words of Jesus, so that we can be examples of love and compassion to others.

[@Giant_Meteor]

​​@@johnbrzykcy3076 don't mean to be too critical of Trent in this video, but at around [4:20], the sources he cites are a little misleading, and he definitely makes a mistake here that could use a subtle point of clarification. In the present age, Christians tend to call the writings in the canon "scripture", and not as mere "writings". But this is a modern way of designating a distinction between the sacred and profane that doesn't exist in the Greek word itself. It requires context to discover whether an author was calling something divinely inspired, or not... not just whether they happened to use the Greek word 'graphe' in regard to a certain text. For example, Trent's source cites Irenaeus as being a chief influence in having the New Testament regarded as scripture with the same stature as the Old Testament. There is some truth in this, but not merely on the basis that he referred to the New Testament writings as 'graphe'. Irenaeus also referred to The Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement, the Epistle of Polycarp, and the Exposition by Papias as 'graphe', too. If you re-watch this portion of the video, with this in mind, you will see that Trent has the mistaken idea that the word 'graphe' itself means something along the lines of authorative or inspired scripture, which it does not. The other source at this point in the video says that "the term 'Scripture' meant only the Old Testament for Christians until the end of the second century". This, too, is a bit sloppy. Yes, the Christians looked to the Old Testament as authoritative and inspired, and yes, perhaps relied on it with greater weight than they did the New Testament writings. But, no, the idea of canon really wasn't a thing just yet, historically. Again, it wasn't the _term_ 'scripture' that was used as a means to distinguish sacred from otherwise. It requires a contextual reading of the fathers to get a sense of how they regarded each 'graphe' they cited.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@Giant_Meteor I tend to agree with you, especially in regards to the context where a church father was writing. I was kind of thinking the same way. From the few manuscripts that are extant, can scholars even decide the appropriate context? And can scholars determine exactly who the church fathers were writing to? On a slightly different idea, I wonder why the Shepherd of Hermas was supposedly considered as authoritative or something good for Christians to read ( or listen to )? From my understanding, some Biblical manuscripts ( books ) included the Shepherd of Hermas. Are you familiar with those? Thanks again for your clarification. If only we had a time machine to go back to 2nd century where we could listen to various sermons by the church fathers. God bless..

[@Giant_Meteor]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Most of the time, I think you can get an some sort of sense of who various fathers were addressing in their letters, and what the topic they were addressing was. For example, Ignatius was writing to churches under his care on the way to martyrdom, Justin Martyr was arguing against a Jewish guy named Trypho, Irenaeus argued against heresies principally for the benefit of those Christians that were having to confront those heresies. A lot of the time, we don't have both sides of the back-and-forth exchange, but we can get an approximation of what view was being opposed. The social and situational context isn't really what I was referring to. I just mean the written context itself. When Irenaeus refers to the writing, say, in Shepherd of Hermas, I don't see any immediate contextual reason to suppose he is suggesting it should be regarded as canonical... though I am aware of those who read him that way, seeing as how he had also just been citing some verses from the Bible. There is a fairly recent book, The Way to Nicaea, by Fr. John Behr, that I think makes a really good point. The way orthodox doctrine came about, historically, was frequently as _a reaction_ to heresy. It wasn't the case that if we were to time machine back to 200a.d. that we would find is a church as it exists today. Just as you are the same person you were when you were five years old, you have developed since then. The proto-orthodox Christians who first encountered Shepherd might have been comfortable with it, even relying on it to support a certain argument they happened to be making at a given time (just like Trent cites a source). It does have some good material. But, as happened in this particular bit of history, the Docetist heresy emerged, claiming that Jesus only _seemed_ to be God, that he became "divine" at his baptism. And the docetists made heavy reliance on this text to demonstrate their claim. Thus, Shepherd fell out of use in the church. The orthodox _reaction to heresy_ is what came to crystallize orthodox doctrine as such. This same, basic story can be told again and again, regarding any number of other dogmas, including the more complete declarations of the Holy Trinity. It was only after the church had to wrestle with a variety of heterodox propositions that she ultimately declared what is, and is not, true, in the fourth century. It is not as though the concept of the Trinity had not existed earlier, but the details of the doctrine had not been hammered out, and declared as constituting the true faith. In those cases in which heresies emerged from within the church, the heretics were tossed out. Prior to the abuses of the docetists, Shepherd of Hermas was sometimes regarded as a beneficial read. Afterward, not so much. Yes, Shepherd does appear in an ancient codex from Sinai, but again, the very idea of 'canon' is a late development. As I look at it, it wasn't until ~398a.d.at the Council of Carthage that a canon was formally stated, and the decision of that local council was not confirmed as being universally authoritative until some time later, at the sixth ecumenical council. Point is, _even if_ earlier, very competent, orthodox, and relied-upon fathers might have personally regarded a certain text as good, or even "inspired", it is only the later, universally-agreed upon decision of the church that ultimately makes the determination, not a prior opinion of an individual. And, yes, I have read the Shepherd of Hermas, some years ago. It is pretty strange.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@Giant_Meteor Thanks so much for your time and your efforts to clarify some historical aspects regarding the Church fathers and the Canon of scriptures. I might try to read that book you suggested. Were you raised Catholic? I was but I never seemed to be cognizant of Sola Scriptura or what the early Church fathers wrote. So I appreciate your comments. It seems like there's much more to church history than we acknowledge. I don't negate the foundational principles of Jesus Christ and Christianity but it seems like I do need to study early church history to get a better grasp of some of the important events. God bless...

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video n also the debate too..

[@treeckoniusconstantinus]

15:26 Trent, according to Michael W. Holmes' "The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations," 1 Clement 42:5 is quoting Isaiah 60:17 LXX; the footnote states "LXX only, which here mistranslates the Hebrew." For comparison, Isaiah 60:17 LXX in the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) reads as follows: "And I will appoint your rulers in peace and your overseers [bishops] in righteousness." Meanwhile, the RSV-CE, translating from the Hebrew, has "I will make your overseers peace and your taskmasters righteousness." Also, comparing the Greek LXX text to the Greek of Clement's quote, he indeed appears to be paraphrasing the LXX. Here's the Scripture quotation in Greek as it appears in 1 Clement: Καταστήσω τοὺς ἐπισκόπους αὐτῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ τοὺς διακόνους αὐτῶν ἐν πίστει. And here's the same portion from Isaiah 60:17 LXX (per Rahlfs' LXX): καὶ δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ. Hope this helps!

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I wish I understood Greek !

[@jvlp2046]

Why did St. Paul say, "Hold on to both the Spoken/Oral Tradition and Written (Epistles/letters) Tradition?"... (ref. 2 Thessa. 2:15)... because St. Paul knew he would not see the Final Completion of the WRITTEN TRADITION after his martyred down (beheaded) in around 64 A.D. ... The Last to be written down to complete the Written Tradition of the Word of God were the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation between 100 to 110 A.D. after John died of old age. According to John 21:25... there were many EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done but were not written down for the whole world can not contain them... Therefore, God had summarized all the EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done and had chosen only those with GREAT IMPORTANCE to Mankind's SALVATION to be written down by Inspired MEN (not women) guided by the Holy Spirit and completed them in around 110 A.D. Other written books after the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation around 110 A.D. onward were no longer included in the WORD OF GOD (Holy Scriptures)... such as the written Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Magdalene, Mary, Judas, Enoch, Pontius Pilate, etc... After the Written WORD of God was Finally COMPLETED in around 110 A.D., it became more AUTHORITATIVE than the Oral Tradition, by which all written Scripture is given Inspiration of God, profitable for doctrines, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction of righteousness... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)... As long as the Oral Tradition does not contradict the Written Tradition, that means, God still wanted them to be practiced... However, if not, the Written Tradition must supersede, overrule, and remove that particular Oral Tradition to be practiced by True Christian Worshipper in Spirit and in Truth... This was God's WILL (Prerogative), for if it (Oral) is still required/needed, God would allow them to be written down in the first place... logically speaking. The Oral and Written Traditions must be UNITED as ONE w/o Division/Confusion... One (United) God, One WORD (Scripture), and One (Spiritual) TRUTH... St. Paul warned all True Christians, "DO NOT GO/EXCEED WHAT IS WRITTEN," and God's CURSE for those who will DO. (ref. 1 Corin. 4:6 & Gal. 1:8)... Facts and Truth, Biblically and logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

[@stevenwall1964]

I am a relative new comer to the Christian faith. I converted from atheism because I began to believe that the Bible had to have a transcendent mind behind it. There were too many authors who did not know each other who each told a small part of a larger story. And I wondered how could a brain whose thoughts are just chemical accidents selected for their survival value (according to Darwin) who could each one of those brains write a small part of a larger story? It could not have happened by chance unless there are an infinite number of universe and we just happen to live in the one where 30 different men who thought are chemical accidents selected for their survival value just happened to each tell a small part of a larger story by complete random chance. And since I did not want to stake my soul on a multiverse I came to believe that the Bible was inspired. But with that since I have no bias toward Catholic or Protestant I would like to ask a question as to how the idea of “Sola Scriptura” does not completely contradict Matthew 18. Jesus clearly says that if someone sins and you cannot get them to stop you should take two or three witnesses and if they will not listen to them then you are supposed to take it to THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH decides. So if sola scriptura was true the that would completely nullify this teaching of Christ himself would it not? In this situation Whenever the “alleged culprit” who is accused of sin is taken to THE CHURCH as that scripture says, no matter what THE CHURCH says; if Sola Scriptura is true that could just say: "Hey I believe in sola scriptura, and I just don’t think that what I am doing is sinful! And if sola scriptura is a dogma of the faith, then you have to let me interpret the scripture to my own conscience. " How does that not totally contradict Matthew 18? Take a silly but possibly real example. Suppose a guy name “George” a good Christian confronts me with flirting with his wife. And I respond to George and say that I don’t believe flirting with your with wife is a sin. I am not committing adultery. The Bible says adultery is a sin. But I just like your wife; I am attracted to her and obviously she is attracted to me because she flirts back. Sometimes we hold hands and sometimes we even kiss each other , but so what? That is not a sin the way I read the Bible. Your wife George still loves you and I still love my own wife so this flirting and kissing every now and then is just a part of life. But the Bible doesn’t say it is a sin. So George in this example who is rightfully upset at me brings two or three Christian witnesses as Jesus instructs and they tell me that that they think what I am doing is sinful. They quote passages where Jesus says that if a man looks on a woman with lust he commits adultery in his heart. But I respond that I am not doing that. I am not thinking about that. I am not trying to steal this woman away from George. I am just flirting and occasionally holding hands and maybe once in while there is some kissing. But that is it. I have no plans to do anything more than that. So you two or three witness guys should leave me alone because “sola scriptura” says I am entitled to my own private interpretation. Matthew 18 then says if the person will not listen to the witnesses, then take it to THE CHURCH. And so George and the witnesses take me to THE CHURCH. And THE CHURCH tells me that what I am doing by flirting and kissing George’s wife is sinful. Then I could respond that I just do not see it anywhere in the Bible where it says that what I am doing is sinful. I just earnestly disagree with you even though you are THE CHURCH and I can legitimately disagree with THE CHURCH because of Reformers dogma of “sola scriptura.” If “sola scriptura” is true then Matthew 18, something established by Christ himself is utterly worthless is it not? Because whoever THE CHURCH confronts could always push back and claim “sola scriptura!” If you go by “sola Scriptura” it actually contracts scriptura itself in Matthew 18 because that little pericope says THE CHURCH is the ultimate authority for determining sin. By logical extension “false teaching” is sin. So if someone gives “false teaching” that would be sinful. And so I think someone is giving sinful false teaching Matthew 18 says take it to THE CHURCH. And is that not exactly what happens in Acts 15? In Acts 15 we see there that some false teachers called Judaizers were giving a false teaching that Non Jews had to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses. So what happened. They took the issue to “THE CHURCH. “ It was THE CHURCH who made the decision that Non Jewish converts did not have to get circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. THE CHURCH in Acts 15 followed Jesus teachings to the “T.” Jesus says in John 14 that the Holy Spirit will guide the church “forever.” John 17 says that when the Holy Spirit guides the church it guides it in “all truth.” And in Acts 15:25 we see that very thing happening. THE CHURCH there made a decision about the false teachers who were the Judaizers. THE CHURCH wrote a letter that says “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” and they made a ruling. THE CHURCH in Acts 15 following exactly what Jesus teaches in Matthew 18. And is that not what we see with Arius in 318 AD? He gave a false teaching. Arius said that Jesus was not God. THE CHURCH confronted him and held the Council of Nicaea and rejected Arius. THE CHURCH had the authority and specifically not “sola scriptura.” Arius used what he believed to be scripture to argue against the deity of Christ. Since I was new to religion I had no biases about Catholic vs. Protestants coming in, but I cannot see how believing in “sola scriptura” does not contradict with scriptura in Matthew 18. In the debate with Gavin I saw Trent bring up Paul when he said that “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” but Protestants just brush that off like Paul must have been drunk when he wrote that and did not really mean that “the church” is the pillar of truth. But Matthew 18 just seems like it is a direct and obvious contradiction to “sola scriptura.” Either “sola scriptura’ is the final authority or “THE CHURCH” is. And even if the Protestant wants to say the scripture is superior it still remains that the ultimate authority in interpreting scripture for what is “Sinful” and what is not is THE CHURCH. It says it right there in scripture. How much more clear does it have to be? Like I said I am pretty new to this whole debate and I realize that puts me in the “stupid category” but I have asked this question over and over to Protestants and I never get an answer. I would like to hear the Protestant perspective on this. Or maybe there is a Catholic who could tell me why this logic is faulty.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Hey.. I don't see you in the "stupid category." I was raised in the Catholic Church but I never encountered Sola Scriptura as most Protestants recite. I'm just a simple Christian believer although I've been questioning things as I get older. I personally don't believe Sola Scriptura gives any individual a reason to say that his interpretation of scriptures is correct. Our perception of the meaning of scriptures is influenced by many factors. Even scholars debate the correct interpretation of various scriptures. I think it's good to listen to the reasoning behind any interpretation. Anyhow... you make some valid points. In fact, I need to reread Matthew 18. So don't worry about your questions. I'm no scholar so I can't answer you at this time. In fact, I don't know it all. But God is all-knowing and if he established the one true faith through Jesus Christ, then we need patience to listen and we need the holy Spirit to guide us. I wish I could answer your questions better. But I do appreciate your comments and honesty. Peace of God to you...

[@tomlabooks3263]

Congratulations. Precise, useful and balanced as always. Love your style.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I'm not very familiar with Trent's channel but this was a good podcast. In fact, his presentation was very scholarly. One of the problems I face is understanding what the Church fathers were saying in the context of their culture, especially to the early Christians. I also wish I knew Biblical Greek. God bless..

[@frankrosenbloom]

Great work. I wrote a similar letter years ago to a protestant friend. It was 30 pages long and I called it "the Epistle of Frank to the Lutherans." Can you guess my name?

[@ComandoWitty]

I wanna say it's frank....but i could be wrong.

[@frankrosenbloom]

@@ComandoWitty OMG you guessed!

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@frankrosenbloom May God bless you Frank and blessings to each of us who seek or need to seek the Almighty and All knowing God.

[@frankrosenbloom]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 thank you brother

[@JohnusSmittinis]

Do you still have a copy?

[@steelytemplar]

This is an excellent video and extremely helpful as a survey of how scripture and authority were approached in the early Church. Along the same lines, I have never heard of early Church writers emphasizing things like literacy, the translation of scripture to a wide range of languages, or the large-scale production and distribution of scripture collections (what would have been their equivalent of the Bible). If the early Church had followed Sola Scriptura, they would have placed a prime importance on distribution of the scripture to be read by as many Christians as possible. But I have never seen anything like this mentioned in the writings of the early Church.

[@jackieo8693]

I like how ortlund quoted Augustine who was a Catholic!

[@Dark-or6bn]

some of these protestants are so delusional (not saying Gavin is) actually believe that the Saints hold their baptist/reformed views lol

[@Poland805]

@YAJUNYUAN Augustine wouldn't recognize any Protestant churches as the Church. Quote mining him won't change that

[@clintonwilcox4690]

And what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. In fact, it can be quite convincing to quote favorable sources to your interlocutor to show they actually agree with a point you are making. I mean, I'm a pro-life apologist, and I quote pro-choice writers, I'll quote Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood's research organization) for statistics, etc.

[@Justas399]

Augustine was not a roman catholic.

[@Justas399]

@YAJUN YUAN Didn't Augustine believe Mary was a sinner?

[@FIRE0KING]

I truly wish you could have met and spoke with Dr. Michael Heiser. His work is so important. He was an evangelical old testament scholar. His work could go great lengths to bringing church unity again.

[@atgred]

The Mass was and is The New Testament before the New Testament became a document. Mt. 26:28 “For this is my blood of the NEW TESTAMENT , which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” ‭ Lk. 22:20 “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the NEW TESTAMENT in my blood, which is shed for you.” ‭‭

[@Justas399]

“There were four views of the Eucharist in the early church. In his magnum opus, History of the Christian Church, historian Philip Schaff (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 241-245; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 494-500) documents the four views the early church held in regards to the way in which Christ was associated with the bread and wine. You had the (1) mystical view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Cyril of Jerusalem which said the body and blood of Jesus are mystically in union with the elements leading to a sort of repetition of the incarnation, though no change in substance actually takes place as in later Romanism; (2) the symbolic view of Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Macarius the Elder, Theodoret, Augustine and Gelasius which said the Eucharist symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus and is a commemoration, not Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation; (3) the allegorical or spiritual view of Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius which said the believer receives the spiritual but not physical blood and life of Jesus at Mass; and (4) the literalistic view of Hilary, Ambrose and Gaudentius which affirmed the bread and wine as being the literal transformed body and blood of Jesus which is basically in line with the modern Roman Catholic system. The Roman view is in the minority, while the symbolic and mystical views seem to be the most primitive and popular.”

[@atgred]

@@Justas399 Whatever Philp Schaff had to say, by being a Protestant he was being biased. The original view of the Eucharist has ALWAYS been THE REAL PRESENCE. Paul is emphatic on that (1 Cor. 10:17, 11 23-28) even when he compares it to what the pagans were doing (1 Cor. 10:20) And the modern Eucharist miracles which scientists have studied proves that Christ has always been present in the Host, body, blood, soul and divinity. God bless!!

[@rooforlife]

@@Justas399 Ignatius of Antioch Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]). Justin Martyr We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Irenaeus He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life - flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]). Clement of Alexandria “Eat my flesh)” [Jesus] says, “and drink my blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]). Athanasius You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ…(Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches [A.D. 295-373]). Aphraahat After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]). Cyril of Jerusalem The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). Ephraim the Syrian After the disciples had eaten the new and holy bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own blood, which was about to be poured out (Homilies 4:6 [ante A.D. 373]). Gregory of Nyssa The bread again is at first common bread, but when the sacramental action consecrates it, it is called, and becomes, the Body of Christ (On the Baptism of Christ [A.D. 383]). Ambrose of Milan Perhaps you may be saying, “I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?” It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]). John Chrysostom The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ? Very trustworthily and awesomely does He say it. For what He is saying is this: “What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it” (On First Corinthians 24:1:3 [A.D. 392]).

[@Justas399]

@@atgred what makes you think Roman Catholic apologists are not biased? The Roman Catholic view is just one of many different views on the nature of the supper. The book of Hebrews refutes the theology of the mass.

[@Justas399]

@@rooforlife we know by e exegesis of the passages on the supper accounts that the Roman Catholic view is false.

[@geogabegalan]

Excellent video. Very informative. Keep showing us those early fathers on many Protestant and other issues.

[@jacoblee5796]

What a surprise, early church leaders painted themselves as authority figures. Throughout human history this has never happened. People taking advantage of the situation to give themselves power over others!?

[@Fisher97]

You made a mistake in your references. In Mortal Kombat, what he’s actually saying is “Toasty” in a high falsetto that many people confuse for him saying “Whoopsie”

[@chernobylcoleslaw6698]

#canon

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

I just can't allow that in my heart.

[@ComandoWitty]

Here's the sad part When you are conversing with a protestant who states that they only follow the word of God and dont need men/a church, you present them with the point that "the early Christians didn't have the bible for 300 years so what did they follow"? This response is backed really by everything Trent states in this video. It shows that christians believed in a authority. The sad part is protestants will completely ignore this. Sometimes i question if it is worth even debating prots.

[@Justas399]

Christians have always had the OT Scriptures.

[@ComandoWitty]

@@Justas399 even during the times of the jews, tho they had a type of canon, they didn't rely on it as sola scriptura. They went to the rabbis.

[@andrealmoseley6575]

Not all

[@ComandoWitty]

@@andrealmoseley6575 an overwhelming majority. 99/100. Out of every protestant I've ever spoke to, roughy 3 were reasonable. And that is over 3 years of talking

[@KatieKat3388]

Not to mention that it wasn't until recently historically speaking that people were literate. How can scripture be the only authority for all 2000 years of A.D. history without some other means of authority to share/teach it. Why should that magisterial authority even be believed up until the point of literacy if sola scriptura is true? Who's to say they're right if not by a tradition to prove it.

[@bmw635csi]

Trent made sure Gavin stays on topic instead of jumping to other topics like most "Veiled Muslims " do . A brilliant debate, also further detailed review by Sam Shamounion yesterday in his channel TRENT HORN VS. GAVIN ORTLUND .

[@kadeshswanson3991]

It's funny because I had written a paper on New Testament development in the first two centuries for one of my Christian history classes. And what I noticed was the paradigm shift that you're talking about. In the first two centuries from various writers, we can see that prominence was given to living memory of the apostles. Papyas of hierapolis was a bishop in the early 2nd late 1st century and we have some scraps of his writings, but it was interesting that he had some New Testament writings and he specifically says that they're not as important as the in living memory. It's not until arenaeus as you mentioned that you see this shift in authority due to the gnostics. Not only that, but in first and second century writings, no one specifically mentions any new testament documents. It's general motifs from some New Testament documents. That's how scholars go about it is they will read and they have to look for echoes of New Testament documents within their writings. Only the New Testament is cited as as scripture or even mentioned by name certain books of the Old Testament mentioned by name. But the New Testament documents are not. It's usually remember the words of Paul or whoever is the author of whatever letter. This paradigm shift really happens in terms of the written word of the New Testament having authority in the face of gnostic groups

[@juaninglis6466]

Anyone that believes in solo scriptura is by default in violation of that belief if they get up to preach or teach because they are adding to the words

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

Trent, I saw the debate. It was a great discussion but with no time to get deeper in the several arguments raised, it was clearly a tie. A little disappointing because it seems to me you had two clear match points and, for some reason, you missed them. Gavin twice admitted that he trusts the NT canon because he believes the Holy Spirit led the early church to recognize it correctly. You replied by asking him why he would then trust the church with this declaration but not with other doctrines/traditions. Good question but Gavin was able to get out of it by saying that of course it depends on the doctrine, etc. And the match point was waisted. I was waiting for you to ask him the question that no Protestant can answer: if you believe the Holy Spirit led the early church to recognize the right NT canon, why do you believe that the same Holy Spirit led that same early church in those same councils to recognize the wrong OT canon? That would have been game over.

[@stephengalanis]

I think you need to do a bit more reading on the historical status of the deuterocanon. It's history, who used it, why they used it, how they used it, why it's called the deuterocanon. When was it first seen as on the same level as the rest of the OT canon such that it could establish dogma? What was the social and political situation at the time? The term "deuterocanonical books" was only coined in 1566. That's a long time after Christ, no? And even then, after one thousand five hundred years, it's making a clear distinction between those books and the rest. Why? And you think Gavin ought to just shut up and accept that now they ought to be in the OT, and establish dogma like the rest? Because Rome says so? The status of the NT canon is no grounds for accepting the Catholic OT canon. Those paths of development are wildly different in significant ways. What do you make of this paragraph on wiki? [quote] ... and was sanctioned by the Council of Trent at its fourth session, although as the Catholic Encyclopedia reports, "in the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. ... Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity," but that the countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Roman Catholic Old Testament. Subsequent research qualifies this latter statement, in that a distinct tradition of large format pandect bibles has been identified as having been promoted by the 11th and 12th century reforming Papacy for presentation to monasteries in Italy; and now commonly termed 'Atlantic Bibles' on account of their very great size. While not all these bibles present a consistent reformed Vulgate text, they generally exclude the deuterocanonical books. [end quote] The Catholic Encyclopedia is whitewashing history. "Subsequent research qualifies this latter statement", no kidding. The picture is not a church that has settled the canon, much less one that consistently includes the deuterocanonicals. And even more removed than that, it certainly doesn't show any willingness to use them doctrinally, if they're generally excluded from Bibles altogether. You wrote that Gavin must accept the decision about the OT canon because its made by "the same early church in those same councils". That's just factually wrong on many levels. Not even Rome acted like those councils recognized the definitive OT canon. I don't have the source at my fingertips, but I have high confidence that Luther's opponent Cardinal Cajetan can be quoted as rejecting the deuterocanonical books. And he's not unique, it was an open question in the early 16the century. It was in fact common to reject those books. Search "Our Beans: Cajetan on the OT Canon" and you can find further links down the rabbit hole concerning the status of the OT canon in the 16th century. Outright rejection of the deuterocanon was normal. It was not settled by the early councils, and per Catholic doctrine the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. And that decision was not given until Trent. You can't have that double standard and claim the early councils for the OT when it suits you. You are wrong. So what changed within Catholicism? Why did Rome need to lean on those books more and more. Why are they defended so vigorously now by internet Catholics? (Well, on a psychological level it's an identity marker. Just for that point of difference to separate the ingroup from the outgroup post-Reformation, it has that utility.) Is there any great theology in 2 Maccabees, for example? No, it's a BS trainwreck of a book. It's really a propaganda text made up out of whole cloth. There's a letter at the start of the book that doesn't belong with the rest of the text, and clearly wasn't part of it, and is laughably wrong in many details. And my precise question about that book is this: at the Council of Trent when formally ratifying the canon, why didn't the bishops then take the chance to say about the opening chapter of 2 Maccabees "it's made up. It's fake. It's inaccurate. It has so many mistakes that calling it divinely inspired is an insult to God, and anyway it wasn't written as part of the rest of the book. Let's not canonize it". Why didn't Trent reject that part of 2 Maccabees? Why didn't they also take out the bit about the ambush killing Antiochus IV, which directly contradicts how he dies later in the same book, and 1 Maccabees? But these are top quality books that deserve to be in Bible? Really? Why //didn't// the Council of Trent in it's wisdom cut out the rotten parts of the deuterocanon? Instead they validate it. It almost like there was another motivation at play, something other than identifying supernaturally inspired writing. I'm just not sure you can say "hah, Gavin! why don't you accept Rome on the OT canon!" Thinking that's a "match point" is amateur hour. Gavin isn't at all acknowledging any ecclesial authority in accepting the NT canon. If you watch a kid doing math, and they're doing 5+5=? when they get the right answer, 10, you can see how they got there and agree it's the right answer. It's not the right answer //because// Rome says so. No, Protestants look at the canon, they look at the history, and their believing the early church to be right about the canon confers no authority on Rome. Me believing the kids to be right that 5+5=10 doesn't set up the kid as an authority, the answer we both arrive at flows from the evidence, not ipse dixit table thumping. Gavin would not say it's Rome that //makes// the NT canon true. His agreement on the NT implies no submission to Rome. If the kid is confused and multiplies instead of adds -- and they think 5+5=25 -- then again you can even understand the mistake that was made to get to the wrong answer with all the accretions. Sure you can just submit and believe 25 is the answer, but that's preventing you from ever knowing if what you believe is true is actually true. Gavin compares the Catholic OT to history and sees the mistakes and says "no thanks". But what do I care. I'm an atheist.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

@@stephengalanisOh really? Identifying the correct NT canon is now as obvious as doing 5+5? That’s probably why it took only 400 years of debates among the finest scholars and theologians. Nothing you said is even relevant to my point. If Protestants trust the early Church to have made the right call on the NT canon just because they believe the early Church was led by the Holy Spirit in those councils, they obviously must believe that the same Holy Spirit in those same councils led the early Church to recognize the wrong OT canon. My point is not about whether the deuterocanonical books should be included or not. It is about Protestants believing in a sort of Holy Spirit schizophrenia.

[@beckanewell128]

@@thejerichoconnection3473 I think you have a really good point here. If they trust the Church to have picked the right books for the NT why would they be rejecting other decisions made by the same group - & here I'm thinking more of the traditional place & interpretation of the the Scriptures as being within the Church, rather than Sola Scriptura, rather than which books should be part of the OT, though obvioulsy it includes that.

[@marcumititelu2631]

The logic of Sola Scriptura, requires that all the believers should arrive at the same conclusion because there is one guiding Holy Spirit, one Scripture and there are the sincere believers that accept Jesus as Lord, there should be the same conclusions drawn on theological issues, but there are not and as a result of divergent interpretations you have 6000 theologically different denominations. They weasel out by saying the differences are non essential. But Luther's teaching of the Eucharist is closer to the Catholic understanding than to Huldrich Zwingli, who was the first blasphemer who said the Eucharist is a symbol. Non essential differences, huh? Worse, even if one grants them the weasel arguments about non essential differences, at least one cannot be nonessential, the understanding of the Triune God. After the Reformation, Luther, Calvin,even Zwingli recognized the Trinity, while Servetus, David Ferencz , the Socians, the Polish Brethren and later Jehova's Witness rejected it. If Sola Scriptura was supposed to be true, such divergent results, while being guided by the same Holy Spirit and reading the same Bible should be impossible.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I appreciate your scholarly information but what do you mean by "at least one cannot be nonessential , the understanding of the Triune God"? What do you mean by "non essential " in reference to a theistic view or belief? I appreciate your time. Thanks.

[@user-hj8vd2od9h]

Gavin mentioned multiple times that you need to be an infallible interpreter to interpret the Magisterium's interpretations of the Bible. The problem with this view is that the Magisterium is *living* and can directly address bad interpretations of tradition; in a clear are concise way. You don't need to be an infallible interpreter of tradition because the Magisterium can address misunderstandings of doctrine in a fundamentally living way.

[@jackdaw6359]

@YAJUNYUAN not all passages have been definitively ruled on. We have clear implicit rulings when Scripture is quoted to support our doctrines and dogmas and some are explicit. Catholics are free to multiple opinions. However, there is a binding authority and to deny this is just dishonest

[@mmbtalk]

The Bible is living too Hebrews 4:12

[@user-hj8vd2od9h]

@@mmbtalk No it is not. Imagine receiving a 10 page letter from a friend before he dies. There was something he said in the letter that wasn't clear. You can objectively exogete the letter to try to interpret exactly what he meant by the passage, but all exegetical methods are prone to error. Now, imagine your friend was still alive when you received his letter. There is a 100% certain way to know what he meant in the ambiguous passage of his letter; You can simply ask him what he meant. You dont need to be an infallible interpreter to know what he meant because he *alive* and can simply tell you what he meant. The letter itself is not alive, and does *not* have the power to do this; you *need* an infallible interpreter for the letter. You do not need an infallible interpreter for your friend who is alive. The text in the Bible is not alive in this sense; it needs to be interpreted through exegetical means.

[@mmbtalk]

@@user-hj8vd2od9h The problem with your assumption is that you limit the Holy Spirit to the magisterium, suggesting that we cannot interact with God dynamically. For goodness sake," those who received Him, gave He the power to become children of God. Unless God designed the magisterium to be the only super children with the privilege to communicate with God! However such notion is to contrary to the teaching of the Old Testament and let alone in the New Testament where we are even at a superior level (2 Corinthians 5:17 1 Corinthians 2 :10-14 Jeremiah 31:33,34). Of course there are those who are more gifted in some aspects and as we observe, Apollos was eloquent and convincing but required the intervention of Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18: 26) to get some details right. So our walk with God is relational and it is not a question of ticking a few rules. Even in normal families, we don't get older siblings creating a presiding magisterium over the younger ones to convey the parents teaching to the younger. God has blessed the church with variety of capabilities not to make some superior rulers over others but the entire church should grow more into Christ and it is vi this route that unity is eventually achieved(Ephesians 4:11-16). Tell your RCC friends that they are working too hard trying to accomplish what only God can accomplish!

[@user-hj8vd2od9h]

@@mmbtalk Good job expertly avoiding the arguement👌

[@danielmeadows3712]

Hi, you mentioned Saint Ignatius of Antioch. I have heard that his relics lay in the basilica to Saint Clements in Rome. Could anyone tell me if this is true and where he is located within the basilica ,thank you very much.

[@robertclark6992]

Very helpful! Nothing but the facts. That the Gospels were named after apostles lends weight to the prominence of church fathers. These writings were only taken seriously because they were attributed to an apostle or one of his disciples.

[@jeremysmith7176]

Bonus, nice

[@conservativecatholic9030]

I think you should debate Ortlund again and take an affirmative position. Perhaps on icons or development of doctrine? I say this because you had a great debate. I think by the rules of the Lincoln-Douglas style, Ortlund failed to prove Sola Scriptura so you won. But I think both of you were extremely compelling. (I’m biased towards you, but I do think you were slightly better) Out of the spirit of fairness, I think you should debate him again in the affirmative position.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

We have discussed doing a second debate where I take the affirmative on apostolic succession

[@conservativecatholic9030]

@@TheCounselofTrent awesome!

[@conservativecatholic9030]

@@MrKingishere1 are you talking about me or Trent Horn? Because I know I can tell you some of Ortlund’s compelling points.

[@brutus896]

​@user-bj5dp6nz4y May God bless you for leaving the church. Best decision ever. Make sure you lock the door behind you and DONT GO BACK!

[@conservativecatholic9030]

@@TheCounselofTrent I hope you’re going to do that in Ortlund’s home territory. (I say that because Ojai is a reasonable drive and I would love to attend such a debate)

[@martinmartin1363]

When st jerome put the together the Latin vulgate there was 25 gospels and the church decided what was authentic and what was not the protestants believe the church and there decisions on the the 4 gospels etc yet they deny the councils and the church on everything else

[@ChristopherWentling]

I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. He didn’t say pick your own denomination that fits your interpretation of what I am saying because who cares. Trent at the debate made a good point. What is required to believe salvation and which Protestant churches stand on the other side of it? Please point me to the church that matches your interpretation so I may be saved.

[@gunnerkobra]

45:12 That was a very good oopsie. (but in mk its actually toasty!)

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Whoopsie!

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

I have reservations about this approach because it opens Christians up to atheist attacks on the formation and authority of the NT. BTW, I am a Greek Orthodox Christian.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I also have been thinking similar to you. In fact, these arguments and debates provide another opportunity for Muslims to attack Christianity and the authority of the New Testament. I'm not trying to disrespect Muslims but their strong belief that Jesus was not the Son of God nor did He die for our sins, is based on the Quran. And the Quran is the ultimate Holy book for Islam. Are you familiar with the Quran? So if we argue and fight about the authority of our New Testament, we become a target similar to the way that Jesus was "attacked" by the religious leaders of His day. Unfortunately, these debates have divided us for centuries and I don't see any reconciliation in the future. Do you? Peace of God to you from Florida...

[@cw-on-yt]

@The Counsel of Trent, what do you think of the following outline of an argument? ... *Premise 1:* Christ intends us to have and use a particular _Epistemology of Faith,_ that is, a way we can know, and know that we know, with adequately-grounded and principled confidence, what the "required content of the Christian religion" is, so that we may then either obey it, or dissent from it; *Premise 2:* Sola Scriptura, having been tested historically, _fails_ to allow its users to know (and know that they know, with adequately-grounded and principled confidence) what the "required content of the Christian religion" is (and further logical examination shows how, in a fallen world, it is too flawed _even in principle_ to ever be a workable Epistemology of Faith); *Premise 3:* God, being kindly and infallible, would not give us a guaranteed-to-fail method as our Epistemology of Faith; *Conclusion:* If Christ gave us Sola Scriptura, intending it to be our Epistemology of Faith, then He was-and-is not God. (But, He rose from the dead; so, He is God; so, He does not intend us to use Sola Scriptura as our Epistemology of Faith.) Obviously the work in this argument is being done by Premises 1 & 2. They must therefore be elaborated. I think Premise 2 can be elaborated by reflecting on the history of doctrinal divisions amongst those groups which _attempt_ to use Sola Scriptura as their Epistemology of Faith, and find it produces unresolvable doctrinal divisions, not when it is abused, but when it is used normatively. (In response to this divisive reality, Sola Scriptura Christians begin to define an ever-shrinking number of doctrines as "required," so as to prevent every individual from saying to every other individual, "Well, if you believe _that,_ you don't even qualify as a Christian any more." But persons of different eras find different parts of the faith hard to accept. As more and more eras pass us by, and new divisions arise, producing new reductions in the scope of what Christians still regard as "required," it is easy to foresee what will eventually happen!) But Premise 1 does the most work in the argument, and _not_ by necessarily winning the argument. A person may or may not be convinced by the argument _as such,_ BUT, it will allow him to see the real, practical difference between the Catholic Epistemology of Faith, and any Epistemology of Faith which is built around Sola Scriptura! And this is the difference: The Catholic Epistemology of Faith does make _real,_ adequately-grounded _knowledge_ of the "required" content of the Christian faith possible. But anyone using an Epistemology of Faith containing Sola Scriptura cannot simultaneously... - claim to confidently know what the _required_ content of Christianity is; - claim that his knowledge is _adequately grounded and informed_ (such that his claim to "confidently know" can't be shown to be implausible overconfidence); and, - exercise intellectual humility and awareness of the divisions amongst Sola Scriptura Christians about basic doctrines.

[@ClassicPhilosophyFTW]

@cordsworks this is a very good argument, thank for sharing it. I have *long* thought Protestantism can be objected to on philosophical grounds more strongly than theological grounds. My only issue with it is that I think it can be developed into an even stronger set of claims than you provide. Let's extend it out a bit: Divine revelation is God's perfect communication of truths concerning Himself and His creation, which man must know in order to be saved. In order to know a truth as divinely revealed, man must have certainty as to its source (ie whether it is human or divine). So God provides such certainty with respect to Christ since He rose again from the dead, thus confirming the status of His teaching as divine revelation. Christ imparted that revelation to the Church through the Apostles, giving them His authority. The Apostles then preached and wrote Christ's teaching via oral tradition and scripture. A book is not literally alive such that it can answer questions on its own contents, so the sacred scriptures cannot answer all questions as regards its contents, that is, it does not provde the *certainty* mentioned above that is necessary for man to believe in it as divine revelation. Therefore, the notion that Christ set up the Church such that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith cannot be true. It's not a matter so much of sola scriptura historically presenting practical difficulties of realisation; it's rather that *in principle* it does not do the work it needs to given background truths on God's nature and man's nature.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Where did you get premise 1 from? I'm still trying to read your comments. Peace

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@ClassicPhilosophyFTW "A book is not literally alive." Especially a book ( books ) written in Biblical Greek ! Peace

[@cw-on-yt]

​@@johnbrzykcy3076: Hey, John! I think both premises need some additional work to demonstrate. But I suspect Premise 1 is logically necessary in some fashion, given some set of premises that both Catholics and Protestants would equally grant. Let me take a stab at selecting some, and trying to exhibit the that Premise 1 follows from them: (a.) God wants us to "know the truth" so that the truth "will set us free"; (b.) Having a false opinion about the truth isn't the same as knowing the truth; (c.) It is notoriously easy to err in attempting to arrive at religious truth, and some cultures make some errors more likely; (d.) If, therefore, we are to "know the truth" so that the truth will "set us free," God must provide us some _way_ of knowing the truth (since no _way_ to do so means we _won't_ do so); (e.) A _way_ of knowing the truth is called an "Epistemology"; (f.) There are many epistemologies that many epistemologists propose humans ought to use, including epistemologies for arriving at religious truth; (g.) But, in a world rife with religious error, it's clear that many, or possibly all, conventional epistemologies for arriving at religious truth are unreliable; (h.) So, to allow us to arrive reliably at religious truth (and be "set free"), God will need to provide not just _any_ epistemology, but one which is unusually good and arriving at religious truth; (i.) Furthermore, to "know" the truth" is more than merely to _happen to have correct opinions,_ since one can have the correct opinions without claiming to "know" that they're correct; (j.) The difference between having an opinion and claiming to "know" something is, _at minimum,_ the confidence with which the proposition is known...but it's _more_ than mere additional confidence, since people can be confidently _mistaken,_ or even if they're correct, they can have ill-grounded (or ungrounded) confidence which is out-of-proportion to the reliability of the epistemology or data which produced it; (k.) Therefore, if God is to allow us to "know" the truth so that the truth can "set us free," He must provide a uniquely reliable epistemology of religious truth which gives well-grounded principled confidence in its conclusions, such that the person can claim to "know," and not merely be holding an opinion. (l.) Furthermore, to "be set free" appears to require some kind of freedom to choose one's actions; (m.) One isn't "free" either to disobey, or obey God, if one has no clue what God desires of us...but if one _knows_ what God desires us to affirm and to do, then one is thereby empowered to _choose_ to obey God or not; (n.) Christians also believe that Christianity -- _true_ Christianity, but not some of its false near-beer substitutes -- provides a Christian with salvation from their sins: Not merely forgiveness, but _also_ liberation from slavery to sin; (o.) It seems, therefore, that for the "truth to set us free" we need to arrive at true Christianity so as to have the freedom to choose to obey God (or not), and also to have access to the truth which can produce liberation from slavery to sin; (p.) Therefore, it appears that if God is to allow us to "know the truth" so that the truth will "set us free," He must point us towards some _unusually reliable_ Epistemology of Faith. There. There's probably some way to make that shorter than I've made it. But that's the general idea.

[@cw-on-yt]

@@ClassicPhilosophyFTW: Thanks! Look at my reply to John, I think it's along similar lines. Perhaps what you said can be combined with what I'm saying about Premise 1?

[@fantasia55]

Thank you for omitting the ritual praise for Gavin Ortlund.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

This is an odd argument for Trent Horn to make against Protestantism and Sola Scriptura. 1. The ECF’s not referring to the NT as scripture also seems to hurt the Catholic paradigm as they say Christ gave us three authorities, among those three is scripture. If this is true we would also not expect this either. 2. Sola Scriptura just collapses into the idea that Christ and the Apostles have ultimate authority over the Church. We listen to them because they are inspired. Whether this authority was written or oral it’s still the same substance: theopneustos. It was God-breathed. And that’s why it has authority. 3. Does Trent really think 2 was not the operating authority in the ECFs? No. He grants that it was! This is essentially the point of SS! What Christ and the Apostles taught is the highest authority that everything else is to be measured against! 4. The Apostles referred to what they wrote *as* Scripture. Paul for instance says in 1 Cor 14:37-38 that “the things I am writing to you are the command of the Lord”. 5. The sheer fact that the NT *is* Scripture! If anything, this just shows that the early Church can get things wrong.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

But what do you mean by "the early Church can get things wrong"? Don't worry... I'm no scholar, especially of theology or Scripture. I think this podcast is thought - provoking, at least for me. I'm basically here to listen and not argue. Peace of God to you from Florida.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 I only mean that if they thought these books were not scripture then they’d be wrong. But the fact they are silent on this doesn’t mean they thought that.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@theosophicalwanderings7696 Okay. You seemingly have a valid point because "silence" is not necessarily an accurate way to interpret a person's belief or worldviews. However an accumulation of such absence could point to the probability that a specific belief was not held by a church father. So it can be confusing because there are various things to consider, such as how many writings do we have by an individual church father? And from the writing extant, who was the recipient of the manuscript? So although I don't negate all the information that Trent made available, we need to consider other aspects too. Thanks for sharing because your comments help me to think better. Peace of God to you from Florida.

[@embmaxim.3340]

Great explanation .

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

How could sola scriptura make logical sense? It seems obvious that of course we have an interpretive tradition and it should be backed up with authority. This is why imo the only real alternative is Calvinists who are basically saying people are deluded due to a fallen nature and fated by God to be damned.

[@Justas399]

Where did Christ give the bishops of Rome the authority to interpret Scripture?

[@jackdaw6359]

@@Justas399 He gave the authority of the church to Peter. Peter gave it to his successor at Rome.

[@georgepierson4920]

​@@Justas399 Where did Jesus say that only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are to be his official Gospel writers?

[@Justas399]

@@georgepierson4920 He didn't.

[@georgepierson4920]

@@Justas399 Are you absolutely sure that Jesus only wanted four men to officially write his life story?

[@AdithiaKusno]

As a Byzantine Catholic who grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition, this was a good debate. In my opinion it is better to frame the debate not on the category of infallibility because for Protestants anything infallible doesn't need further clarification. For an example how Second Constantinople need to condemn Ibas' letter and certain writings of St Theodoret a century after Chalcedon. It is better to frame it to be about material or formal sufficiency. That way both Protestants and Catholics are agree that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith materially. Jimmy Akin used an argument that Scripture is analogous to the logs that God use to build His Church. Magisterium is founded and built using Scripture as the sole constitution. This bypass the infallibility debate. Granted James White insist on formal sufficiency but this is minority in mainstream Protestantism. Martin Luther himself and later Philip Melanchthon affirm material sufficiency of Scripture. Because Scripture need interpreter. Constitution cannot interpret itself. By discussing Scripture as the sole constitution both Protestants and Catholics agree that in this particular sense it is dogmatically binding to us all that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith materially. Because Holy Tradition is not another constitution. We only have one constitution the Scripture alone. God bless you all.

[@robertopacheco2997]

For the sake of argument, let's say "sola Scriptura" is true and the Catholic Church is wrong, then whose interpretation of the infallible book is infallibly true?! JN Darby, Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, William Miller, Charles Taze Russell, Ellen Gould White, Mary Eddy Baker, Charles Fox Parham, etc.? Then show me from Scripture alone where I'm specifically told that this particular person is God's chosen prophet to speak His infallible truth infallibly.

[@Justas399]

Where has the Roman Catholic church infallibly interpreted the Scriptures? Where is this work to be found?

[@robertopacheco2997]

@@Justas399 Answering a question with a question is always a sure sign you can't answer the original question as posed. Nice try, though!

[@Justas399]

@@robertopacheco2997 Just pointing out one the weaknesses of some of the claims of catholics.

[@robertopacheco2997]

@@Justas399 Where has the Roman Catholic Church infallibly interpreted Scripture? I don't know, but perhaps, just perhaps, mind you, a Catholic would respond in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church". That you wouldn't agree isn't proof that they're wrong.

[@robertopacheco2997]

@@Justas399 You did no such thing, at least in the reply to my post. That you don't think the Catholic Church is right about anything doesn't make it so. You might just think the earth is flat or just 6000 years old. That doesn't make you a geologist!

[@janekkulis]

Extremaly good, thank you!

[@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν]

Marcion, Valentinus, the Docetists, and the Arians were not defeated by Scripture Alone.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Interesting comment. Thanks.

[@malcolmtas5601]

Actually, they were. The great Christological debates of the early centuries all involved citing the scriptures.

[@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν]

@@malcolmtas5601 agreed that they involved scripture. However, not scripture alone. All the other groups used scripture as well.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν Again, this is thought provoking. Have you read any of the historical accounts regarding these Christological debates? Peace

[@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 yes I have. Ignatius’ Seven genuine epistles deal with the Docetae. Irenaeus delt with the Gnostics in Against Heresies. This was particularly interesting due to the Gnostic’s way of interpreting scripture. Both these early Fathers are worth checking out if you haven’t already. I was also very surprised years ago to learn how dependent Arianism was on scripture. God bless.

[@mememe1468]

This argument can also cut at the heart of protestants defense of their particular traditions. Protestants who argue tradition is okay, it's just subordinate to scripture and you can adhere to what ever as long as it's in line, falls apart at the time of the apostles. Like, martin Luther's tradition would be beneath scripture. Your tradition, and mine, and whoever, could be subordinate. However, if you turn the clock back far enough to the apostles the source of tradition and infallible scripture becomes identical. The apostles tradition, as every Christian theoretically has one to offer, is objectively the greatest. For example, who's commentary would you read on Romans: Luther or St. Paul himself? Obviously, if we have questions about the scriptures it's only reasonable the first Christians probed the apostles about their letters. If they even had to do that. Where did this superior tradition of the first authorities of the church go? Lost completely? If they wrote it all down then why would we accept any other tradition? The paradigm shift has to be clear for sola scriptura. It's too crucial for the church for the apostles not to articulate.

[@julielabrecque6416]

He - Gavin - needs to be a convert.

[@Justas399]

convert to what?

[@america998]

Convert to stop his great paying business of being a pastor, olsteen…

[@sird2333]

Bible alone, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. No fallen man.

[@P-el4zd]

Sola Scriptura guarantees documental disunity and confusion … this is why everyone should be Orthodox.

[@truthsayer6414]

The 50 fatal flaws of sola Scriptura (s.S) * While God gave us intellects and reason, unfortunately the Bible could not be described as perspicuous (sorry Dr Luther) anymore than the challenge of someone trying to understand the many works of Shakespeare, or a book on physical chemistry, by personal study alone. Right? * The Bible just didn't suddenly appear. In order of events, God is the ultimate source of Revelation and authority, not scripture. God created and chose holy human voices whom he inspired. Through their minds and hearts and a deep reflection on that inspiration,they then preached God's truths to their followers. Eventually unguided by any divine instructions to do so, these truths were written down for prosperity some decades later. Every holy book we have, followed this same timeline *To infer or imply that Scripture is somehow the direct "Word of God" is to deny the important role of all those holy men and the human contributions, through whom it was handed down. *if every doctrine must be provable from the Bible, then sola scriptura if it is to be a doctrine, must also be so provable. If it isn’t, then sola scriptura is self defeating. * By reducing the definition of sS to "the only infallible rule of faith", the easier it would be to defend. Instead of needing to produce verses of Scripture that state or imply sola scriptura, the proponent can simply say, “Name another infallible rule of faith,” thus putting the burden of proof back on the critic. * But the London Baptist Confession is much broader: “ Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience” (1:1). *Even if Scripture were our sole infallible source of authoritative information about the Faith, that doesn’t require it to contain everything God wants us to know. Such a restrictive belief denies any future role for God's Church, his heavenly kingdom, or future discoveries of His natural revelation. * "A rule of faith” is something that is authoritative for faith, and we have two infallible authorities for the Faith in addition to Scripture. Apostolic Tradition is an infallible source of information regarding it, and the Magisterium is an infallible interpretive authority. * If someone is needed to tell what a passage means that someone else would have ultimate authority. not scripture. * Sola Scriptura straight out denies the authority Jesus gave to Peter and his Church to bind, loose law sand preach Scripture. * It denies the role of God's messengers, the angels and saints in his heavenly kingdom: It is not a heresy but a scriptural doctrine that we all, including Protestant Christians, have a personal Guardian angel to protect and guide us against the snares of the devil 😈. In fact praying to and for us and each other (1 Cor 3:9) is also the role of God's heavenly Kingdom. Said the Lord's Prayer recently? That we should also pray for those souls who die in a temporally "unclean" state "until the last debt is paid" should be a given. That the church should have used it as a means to raise funds in poor economic times is certainly debatable however. That the Church has overcome far more troublesome crises in its 2000 yrs is part of Dr. David Anders' PhD thesis. But then Jesus vowed to be with us to the end of days, right? * Sola S may be "sufficient for every good work", it could not be God's "complete" Revelation in the sense that a) only a tiny fraction of what Jesus preached from age 12, was actually recorded some decades later (just 1500 words, about a day's worth in his life) cf. John 21:25 *. Jesus never wrote anything himself or told his mostly illiterate followers to, he instituted a Church telling his followers to carry his message into the world teaching and preaching. Most of them assumed he would return in their lifetime . *. Paul's referral to Scripture in 2Tim 3:16 was all the OT, plus what he learnt orally from a few disciples which was the oral tradition. Paul died circa 62AD before little of the NT was put to parchment. *. Jesus gave authority to his Church to identify, compile (Canon), interpret and preach his Word. *. S/S denies the existence of our creative right brain, the role of natural theology, the beauty, joy and inspiration of nature, of God's glory revealed in the heavens, the rational intelligibility of the universe, in the inspiration and joy of art and music, the role of guardian angels (his messengers) and God's promise and pledge to be with His Church to reveal His doctrines, to bind and loose the Gospel, to forgive sin, to the end of days. ----

[@truthsayer6414]

Continued 39* Jesus didn’t give us a Bible, nor tell his followers to write anything down, he gave us a Church 40* What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. “For 23 years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]). 41* If we compare 1 Thess. 2:13). with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous: “Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). 42* it took several decades for scribes to commit the bible to parchment. The printing press was not invented until the 15th century, but even then literacy was rare among Christians. 43* Only a formal, divine-endorsed authority can decide what is Scripture and what is not. Yes to 2 Peter, no to 1 Clement. Yes to Revelation, no to The Shepherd of Hermas. Etc. The New Testament itself does not and cannot provide a guide - nor does the New Testament provide a list of what belongs in the O.T.\ 44* an authoritative Canon which did not assemble itself or fall from the sky necessitates an authoritative compiler. 45* Seeing as Christ did not define a biblical Canon, let alone write anything himself, it logically follows He must have given authority to mere human beings to decide what texts God actually inspired! 46* An appeal to Scripture to prove the authority of Scripture is perfectly circular. There is no a priori need for “Scripture” as an authority at all, let alone as the sole authority. 47* Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory. It is an invention of Martin Luther, a mere man, and by those following him: also mere men. By obeying those who teach Sola Scriptura, the very doctrine is violated. 48* Would God really leave us orphans in this way? Did the Word really in practice just become more Words? God did not abandon us, leaving only a special book behind… That is a bleak doctrine indeed. 49* Peter declared, “No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, 50* All Scripture is “profitable for teaching and correcting.” That is why the whole of both Testaments must be studied, not just a few verses like 2 Tim 3: 16 51* There were local churches set up in many regions for a long time with little to no Christian Scriptures available, relying on the oral tradition of the apostles and their immediate disciples.

[@jeffreybomba]

Even Peter, who your erroneously dub the first pope, lumped in Paul’s writings with THE REST OF SCRIPTURE, “and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” I am guessing that since the apostolic line has no laid hands on me I can’t properly interpret that and it means something else. Of course the teachings of Jesus were taught orally for the first several years! The NT had not been peened yet, and OT scriptures in written form were hard to come by. The entire idea that oral tradition contains something outside of scripture, that can freely contradict what the apostles (who you think had divine authority vested in them) themselves wrote. Listening to Catholic “scholarship” might be even more dizzying than trying to listen to Calvinist “scholarship.”

[@thefuckinglindo]

who said 2 Peter was written by Peter?

[@7349yt]

I find it hard to believe that when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, much less to Titus and Timothy, that he thought he was writing "sacred scripture" as in "the word of God" in the same way as the Law and the Prophets are the word of God. Even Luke merely calls his writing "an ordered account", not "sacred scripture". And we know that the early church debated about which Christian texts would be part of a "canon" well into the fourth century. I think the early church focused on Jesus as the "Incarnate Word/Logos of God", the embodied revelation of God. The kerygma more than the written form it would eventually acquire was the "locus" and the "vehicle" of the "word" that was "handed on" (tradere) as the living tradition. Sola scriptura is just a pseudo-theological way of saying "we don't want the pope or the clergy telling us what to believe, we can work it out for ourselves, thank you!"

[@micahhenley589]

The question really comes down to this: Will I trust God's word or man's word? Who has the ultimate authority? Is it the Creator or the creature? Jesus said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away." (Luke 21:33)

[@NevetsWC1134]

The real question is will you trust yourself to read Gods word as he intends? Or will you see what you want to see?

[@micahhenley589]

@@NevetsWC1134 I don't trust myself at all. That is why I need the Holy Spirit to guide me wherever I go. His word is a lamp to my feet and light for my path.

[@andonedave]

Micah, “ I don't trust myself at all. That is why I need the Holy Spirit to guide me wherever I go. His word is a lamp to my feet and light for my path” How do you explain people who disagree with you on what the Bible teaches? Do they not have the Holy Spirit? And how would you know?

[@micahhenley589]

@@andonedave Make no mistake, anyone one who calls Jesus a liar does not have the Holy Spirit. Anyone who rejects the word of God does not have the Holy Spirit. After all, it was the Spirit who inspired the authors of the bible what to write. Please consider the words of 2 Peter 1:20-21 "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the *Holy Spirit.*

[@andonedave]

Micah, Can you clarify? Are you advocating individual interpretation of scripture “guided by the Holy Spirit”?

[@martinabdalla8766]

Thank you brother

[@barelyprotestant5365]

Less than eight minutes in, and I'm realizing I'll need to do a rebuttal to this.

[@N1IA-4]

Facts are stubborn things, though. I am still waiting for evidence of Sola Scriptura believers prior to Luther.

[@tom6812]

no one cares about your opinion.

[@ironymatt]

There's no valid rebuttal. Sola scriptura didn't exist until Martin Luther pulled it from his rear, some 1000+ years after it would've been necessary if there was any legitimacy to the idea at all.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@tom6812 I get the sense you wouldn't say that to my face; that you'd be far more respectful to me in person. Anonymity online does bring out the worst in us.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@N1IA-4 facts are stubborn things; one of the things that made me desire to do a response video was Horn's double standard. He's essentially making arguments that would invalidate the Papacy.

[@alonzomuncy6871]

So something to remember here is that the question is not if magisterium (the church) can be an authority. Protestants agree that the magisterium(church) is an authority in Christian life. However, they don't believe it is an infallible authority. I don't think scripture has to be the most prominent authority either. Trent is right that we have magisterium(church), scripture, tradition(history), as authorities [Although I would also include reason, observation, and the internal witness of the holy spirit in that list]. The question is the nature and fallibility of each authority not their existance.

[@Traven158]

Exactly. As a Protestant, I've always felt 'Sola Scriptura' was never about scripture itself but instead about how we view the nature and role of the church and its authority. I have not yet seen a discussion on this end (I will be finishing this video, though!), but so far, the main arguments I've seen for the Catholic position on the infallibility of the Magesterium have been a) an interpretation of Jesus' commands and blessings on the apostles which bequeathed this infallibility (which most Protestants see as either not giving infallibility or otherwise not applying beyond the apostles) and b) an argument from a negative of "Here's why an infallible Magesterium is necessary, therefore we have an infallible Magesterium." I'm hoping to find some additional proofs for and discussions of this idea of an infallible Magesterium. If nothing else, I at least want to understand this core assumption as I feel this could help dialogue between Catholics and Protestants in the future.

[@brianfarley926]

Umm the Magisterium does many teachings, in fact most of those teachings aren’t infallible. Seems to be a really big misunderstanding of the Magisterium. Yes some of the teachings that are dogmas are infallibly taught sure, but that number is minuscule to the amount of doctrines and other teachings in the Church So there’s this constant straw man argument from Protestants about the Magisterium because they don’t understand it really When it does speak officially, the Magisterium can exercise its authority in different degrees. At the low end, the Magisterium may merely propose an idea for the consideration of the faithful without imposing it authoritatively. At the high end, the Magisterium may infallibly teach a truth, binding the faithful to definitively believe or hold it. It can also exercise any degree of authority between these levels. A particular mistake to be avoided is thinking that, just because something has not been taught infallibly, it is optional. This is not the case, and the degree of authority with which the Magisterium has taught must be recognized. When considering the authority that statements in magisterial documents have, one must make a careful assessment. The degree of authority “becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Veritatis 24).

[@Justas399]

Keep in mind no church father speaks for the entire church but only express their own opinions.

[@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν]

However, the Church Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit did copy original scripture and compile what we now call the Bible. So in a sense yes, some of them spoke and acted for all of Christianity. God bless

[@Justas399]

@@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν You don't know if any church father was guided by the Holy Spirit. You don't know if they had the "copy original scripture". You are making stuff up.

[@georgepierson4920]

​@@Justas399 And you are making assumptions based on no evidence.

[@Justas399]

@@georgepierson4920 I made no assumptions. He did.

[@ironymatt]

@@Justas399 your original post is an assumption

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

Bishop is a synonym for Elder. It's amazing that this know-it-all does NOT know this. Bishop = Elder. Here's how we know: Titus 1:5-7 - For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; Simple reading comprehension skills, that I learned by the sixth grade, tell me that "elder" is a synonym of "bishop". These are presbyters of the church. (Presbyter/overseer being other synonyms.)

[@robertopacheco2997]

Mr. Horn perhaps change the "X" in the chart to a check mark instead. The visual impression of the "X" on the chart is that the early sources don't acknowledge church authority. Thank you for your labors!

[@codysmith7038]

Agreed, why did he not give a number like he did the other columns ?

[@robertopacheco2997]

@@codysmith7038 Have you ever seen penalty kick shoot outs in soccer? When they keep score, usually the "O" is for a made PK and "X" is for a missed kick. It just looks weird. Like the "X" means the church father spoke out against church authority or were at least silent. Of course, Horn is making the exact opposite point!

[@bethanyann1060]

LOL Thank you. I was so confused about the X's too. I knew they couldn't mean zero because he used zeros too, so I was scratching my head feeling like a dummy.

[@purplelegendxd6024]

Can you make a video that proves Catholic Ecclesiology from the Early Fathers as well?

[@jonathanhnosko7563]

Many prominent church fathers seem to argue for something closer to what you describe as the 3rd phase claimed by Protestants, but in different terms. Especially since the qualifications of an Apostle as an eyewitness (Ac.1.21-22) could not be met beyond that first generation, it makes sense that their writings would stand in for them in a unique and codified way. “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one point in time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, Doctor of Unity of the Roman Church (Against Herises 3.1.1, 180 A.D.) "These [having just enumerated the Divine Scriptures of the Old and New Treatments] are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these." - Archbishop Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, Doctor of the Roman Church (39th Festal Letter, 367 A.D.) “Of these [the Divine Scriptures of the Septuagint] read the 22 books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than yourself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the 22 books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them...Then of the New Testament...But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by yourself, as you have heard me say.” - Archbishop Cyril, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Roman Church (Catechetical Lectures 4.33-4, 350 A.D.) "It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments [listed in 4.17].” - Father John of Damascus, Doctor of the Roman Church (On the Orthodox Faith 1.2, 700s A.D.) Finally, it is quite surprising to learn just what books these three later fathers claim to be the Divine Scriptures of the Old and New Treatments. By tight consensus it is almost exactly the Protestant/Protocanon to the explicit exclusion of almost every Deuterocanonical work as similar in status to the Didache or Shepherd).

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

"I'm only human". Wow... I wish I was 1% as good of a human example of excellent scholarship as you are ! ( Of course the ultimate example of truth for us to follow is Jesus the Lord ! )

[@thegamesninja3119]

Why would the earliest Christians consider scripture to be anything but the Old Testament? Not all text were available to all groups. Different groups had different text.

[@thegamesninja3119]

Part 2... I there there is problems when someone who find something valid tries to apply it universally to the entire Church. If one person holds Sola Scriptura, it is a problem to say all must. Others need other things. There is a minefield when navigating this area. Those who hold believe baptism and do evangelism and make disciples that stand do a good work. But... they run into problems when they have children. I have bounced around. I was Orthodox Church awhile but cannot now because I am not near one so I went back Catholic. I conversed with someone saying that they were an ExOrthodox, and had a site up going into it. Infant baptism was discussed with them saying Protestants all opposed infant baptism. I told them do research on it further and look at the Reform tradition. I believe they pulled the site and decided to reevaluate things. People need to tread carefully. I have my own quirks and fusion. I fit a lot of places but also nowhere. I do Catholic mass now out of practical reality that if I am not going to fit anywhere, I might as well be with the largest group I do not fit in. Ironic part was that I mirrored Catholic Church teaching outside the Church in opposition to Evangelical issues while even being antiCatholic while doing this. Go figure. Reading the updated Catachism, I really only had objection to particular judgement and also the idea that the goal is to get to heaven and not to be part of the return of Christ. This is also I hold salvation is a process, nor a destination. I have my roll my own version of it, that has issues, but errors that points to greater truth. The assumption of Mary is of greater issue for me because of this. Everyone who places everyone in heaven immediately does not. But it goes on. I think holders of Sola Scriptura need to do it as a personal thing. Just my take.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Hello and greetings from Florida. I just was thinking... ( and my thinking is sometimes weird ). One problem I see is that even the apostles and followers of Jesus often didn't comprehend what Jesus meant in his words/teachings. So if the apostles themselves had difficulty understanding Jesus, how could the later church traditions, handed down from the apostles and the students of the apostles ( early Church fathers), have been correct in stating the truth? But then even "Sola Scriptura" is seemingly dependent on the understanding of the apostles. Is this possible? Any observations that can help me? Peace of God to all...

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

since Jesus and Paul regarded the OT as 'scripture', and synagogues existed from well before Paul, and literacy was always part of the Jewish faith, no discussion of Sola Scriptura can avoid these topics

[@andrealmoseley6575]

Very interesting. I am still wrestling things out as I see both sides to a point. I think "sola scriptura" came about due to corruption in the church. Should it be taken in context or applied universally? Early church fathers are trying to figure things out because of all the heresies coming up. Where to draw standards, what is scripture, etc. They seem to draw from councils. Letter to Timothy where it says scripture is God breathed ... is probably not referring to anything but OT. Paul wouldn't equate himself to the OT most likely. But it is mostly the apostles' teaching. Some of my thoughts as I wrestle things out. I've read some of the comments and agree with a lot of them. I don't agree with all of them though. I've seen church leaders be wrong. I've seen people rely on themselves apart from church and go off too. I'm glad we have the Holy Spirit who guides and convicts. Not all have scripture and not all have Church readily available. So what do they do? 🤔 Saturday morning thoughts. Thanks for the presentation. I'll keep learning and processing.

[@Gericho49]

Trent, A 3rd paradigm shift in the second century to scripture alone, seems highly unlikely. 1) Greater than 90% of the known world was illiterate for many centuries. 2) it took several months to commit one copy of scripture to parchment. 3) it seems obvious that there will always be a need even now, for many inspired, scriptural scholars to break open God's Word.

[@helentiernan8363]

I have read that by 125AD there were 27 "gospels" in circulation. It was only after the end of the persecution in 313 that the bishops could start meeting to develop the codex which included the old n new testament.

[@igorlopes7589]

Actually 4 Gospels was already the consensus of the Fathers way before 313. St Irenaeus himself talks with the highest insistence that there are only 4 gospels, and that like, in the end of the second century. He didn't get this insistence out of thin air, so the "only 4 Gospels" position was already there before him in a very strong state. And all the gnostic gospels are from either the late second century or third century.

[@liquiddw2]

Do you have any videos on "Faith alone?"

[@bernardauberson7218]

La foi seule est morte! Voir Épître de Saint Jacques 2;24 et 25

[@adammatemba1207]

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Sola fide points to Jesus Christ, no works can save you it is only through Christ alone who is the way, the truth and the life

[@christiancorona5640]

Can you dissect Cdl. McElroy's recent essays?

[@jonathanhnosko7563]

If the Church is founded on the Gospel and the Gospel is according to the Scriptures, then the Scriptures are a given from the start. By focusing exclusively on the New Testament, your premise artificially centers the argument beyond where Christ and the Apostles would otherwise agree with the hypothesis, namely the Old Testament. Here I am deeply indebted to Orthodox Father John Behr, who has helped me better understand the Gospel as it relates to Scripture and the Church. He once said this. “We automatically think the Church chose what’s Scripture. Well, maybe with regard to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but did it choose whether to accept the five books of Moses, Isaiah, the Psalms? Remember that the Gospel from the beginning is proclaimed in accordance with the Scriptures. The Scriptures are given from the beginning. ‘Moses and all the prophets spoke about me.’ So, the Scriptures, meaning the Old Testament, at least the core of it, yes, the edges are fuzzy, Enoch, but the core of it is a given from the beginning. The church didn’t choose whether to accept the five books of Moses or choose whether to accept Isaiah. It’s a given and it’s only because we’ve got those books that the Gospel can be proclaimed. It’s only because we’ve got those books that the Disciples could know who Christ is. They didn’t know by being there with him. They didn’t know by seeing him on the cross. They didn’t know by seeing the empty tomb. They didn’t get it. It’s only when these books are opened (Lk.24) that they get it. So, there is not, certainly speaking from the point of view of proclamation of the Gospel, there is no period before which there is no reference to Scripture. Scripture is a given from the beginning...We say, well the Church came into existence before Paul even wrote his letters or before the Gospels are written and so Paul and his letters are written within the Church and the Church could choose which ones. We’ve completely forgotten that the Gospel was proclaimed in accordance with Scripture from the beginning.”

[@angrypotato_fz]

"Whoopsie, as you would say in Mortal Kombat" is not something often heard in apologetic lecture, but I don't mind :D

[@jacktracy8356]

Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 12:32 KJV "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Revelation 22:18 KJV "For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

[@rooforlife]

Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." So are you saying that the rest of the Bible is not inspired and not part of the Bible? Seems like a lot of books of the Bible are added after Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 12:32 KJV "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." The Catholic Bible was compiled way before KJV what many Protestants don't know is they TOOK out books from their own Bible. the KJV 1611 had ALL the books Catholics have plus it included the Saint's feast days list. I learned that from Dr. Brante Pitre's "The Origins of the Bible part 1" AND it's true because you can find a pdf version of the KJV 1611 Bible on the archive website. The Pitre's video is in my Understanding the Scriptures playlist. The Catholic Rheims New Testament was finished in 1582, and the Catholic Douay Old Testament was finished in 1610 both were English translated from The Vulgate a late-4th-century Latin translation. Many topics are covered in my playlist dealing with Mary, the Eucharist, Sacraments, the Bible, faith alone, scripture alone, etc for anyone interested in the truth on what the CC really teaches and Scripture that shows it check them out.

[@jacktracy8356]

@@rooforlife They took out heretical books or books in question but there's no sense talking about that since the fact remains that you as a catholic cannot tell me where your spirit would go if you died this very minute. You cannot. Therefore, you deny Christ by denying that He died for the forgiveness of all your sins once for all on the cross. Isn't Christ and Him crucified in your catholic Bible???

[@jayschwartz6131]

​​@@jacktracy8356 which validly appointed Christian authority determined them to be heretical and made the call to remove them? They were still in the Protestant Bible until the 1820s. That means 300 years after the Reformation Bibles contained heretical books?

[@jacktracy8356]

@@jayschwartz6131 How does your Bible read on the listed verses I gave??? And does your Bible teach that GOD doesn't care if sinners add or take away from His Word???

[@jayschwartz6131]

@@jacktracy8356 seriously. That is why those responsible of removing those books without any authority to do so most likely ended in Satan's realm. The sad part is that protestants believe they did good

[@TheLordUrban]

Didn’t think I’d ever come across an apologist making Mortal Kombat references. 😂

[@xrendezv0usx]

This is why the ancient Hebrews were so careful with Torah. They understood that there is something unique about the Word of God, that as the very spoken Word of God, Scripture stands alone and has the highest level of authority, above even the pronouncements of priests and kings. I appreciate this information but I still cannot see why I should treat something which is not the Word of God as equal to the Word of God in infallibility? All human institutions are prone to errors and corruption, that is what it means to be human. But the Word of God stands alone above all in its perfection and infallibility. A big heartfelt thank you to my catholic brothers for preserving and compiling the Word of God!

[@Derek-le4er]

It's actually "Toasty!" not "Oopsie!" in Mortal Kombat. Love ya, Trent!

[@ClergetMusic]

Also, the Didache was almost included in the Bible. The Didache contains almost everything Catholics believe even today, and it was written before 100 AD.