The One Question Every Protestant MUST Answer

[@ElvisI97]

If Protestants can accept the Old Testament scriptures without adhering to all the Jewish traditions-specifically the mainstream ones like those of the Pharisees, rather than the outliers such as the Essenes or Samaritans who weren't considered true Jews-then it logically follows that Protestants can also accept the New Testament scriptures from the ancient and medieval church without being bound by all of its traditions.

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

No, because we are under one same covenant. Of course we don’t need to follow Jewish law because it’s a major thing in our religion…

[@ElvisI97]

@@PoppinPsinceAD33this is irrelevant

[@PoppinPsinceAD33]

@@ElvisI97 uhhhh seems to kind of make what you said much weaker

[@lyterman]

Christians didn't receive their Old Testament canon from the Jews. In fact, there wasn't a settled Jewish canon until the 2nd century AD. Christians receive both the Old and New Testament canons from the Church.

[@ElvisI97]

@@PoppinPsinceAD33 a change in covenant does not nullify previously held books of scripture or their responsibility to hand them down. God has made several covenants in the OT (Noah, Abraham, David) that doesn't mean the books accepted prior to each new one was no longer scripture or that they did not posses a responsibility to preserve and hand down these books. So being in a new covenant today doesn't have any affect on the canon and transmission of the OT books.

[@EloquentEagle]

As a Lutheran interested in the Catholic faith (though I am still a convinced Lutheran), I have a question: Why must the Church have infallible authority just because it assembled a list of infallible books? Sola Scriptura does not deny that the Church has any authority, just that the Bible stands higher.

[@joehouston2833]

Talk to Sam Shamoun

[@Getonthebusgus110]

I'm former Lutheran inquiring into Orthodoxy. I know for EO, the perspective is that the Holy Spirit is the only infallible source and works infallibly through the church and scriptures (on an even plane)

[@hugofernandes8545]

Where in the Bible says that the Bible stands higher than the church? What we call "The Bible" is a product of the Catholic church itself, so how can this be higher than the church? That doesn't make sense.

[@Mkvine]

It’s not because of the canon that the church is infallible, it’s because that’s how Christ set up his church. In order to answer questions that pertain to salvation that may be dividing the body of Christ, the Church was given authority to clarify disputes in a definitive manner. If the church is going to bind the conscience of all the faithful, it needs to be infallible, otherwise the bride of Christ would be leading its own members into damnable heresy. And it’s inconsistent for the body of Christ (the church), where Christ is head, to abandon its sheep to the doctrines of wolves. Remember, the Church is of divine institution - Christ himself built the church, where he is the chief cornerstone. God in his infinite wisdom set it up this way.

[@EloquentEagle]

@@Mkvine Thanks for taking your time with that elaborate answer. I think there has been a bit of miscommunication. I was wondering why the Church has to be infallible in order to assemble a list of infallible books (The Bible)?

[@Fern_Thaddeus]

Protestant strong (and grateful, no burns, drama nor hate) for 35 years, I’m in RCIA this year joyfully so (after a long journey learning) ❤ Love to you all my Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic family in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ❤ I follow some orthodox teachers too. Never stop learning! I love our one, real God. We have more similarities than differences 🙏🏻 focus on that friends, in Jesus. Jesus is King!

[@Spiritof76Catholic]

Welcome home. May I suggest that you follow only Catholic teachers to avoid conflicts no matter how small. God bless you

[@janglalgoupiak1891]

Good bye, former friend.

[@TheMOV13]

@@janglalgoupiak1891 Are you excommunicating him? 🤣

[@N1IA-4]

@@TheMOV13 LOL they can't excommunicate them even from their own congregation because they can just go down the road like nothing ever happened.

[@janglalgoupiak1891]

@@N1IA-4 Romans and insults are two sides of the same coin. Inseparable.

[@dylonbeamer]

Starting off by equating WLC to Mormon apologists based on your own subjective feelings without actually laying out and addressing the arguments of either side is certainly a choice.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

Both Mormons and WLC are polytheists, so it makes sense.

[@HaleStorm49]

@@dylonbeamer Yeah kind of funny because that is an argument I've heard Mormon Apologists make for discerning Apocryphal content but not the Book Of Mormon. He's clumping here to try and strengthen a weak position.

[@Steelblaidd]

@@HaleStorm49 He is conflating establishing cannon, which involves formally presenting a revelation to the body of the Church for acceptance, with acquiring a personal testimony of a particular revelations Truth and then vastly simplifying that process.

[@HaleStorm49]

@@Steelblaidd I'm curious, Do revelations from God have to be formally accepted to be valid?

[@Steelblaidd]

@@HaleStorm49 Sorry for the delay I thought I responded to this already. Formal acceptance is only needed for inclusion in the Cannon. Otherwise everyone is expected to seek and receive revelation for their stewardships (self, family, congregation etc.). The talks given at General Conference are considered revelatory and the most pertinent instruction for the next six months.

[@loveunlimited777]

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

[@brentcampbell459]

@@loveunlimited777 The only difficulty is that Paul wrote this to a confused church full of strife.

[@loveunlimited777]

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

[@brentcampbell459]

Amen.

[@brentcampbell459]

@rennidenni7792I take the force of the concern of your argument on an emotional level. It makes sense to me. But I’m not sure that I understand it on a more logical level. 1. Confusion is always a subjective personal state and it’s hard to imagine how the experience of confusion can be logically connected to the attempt to confuse. For example, if you write something in a language that I don’t understand, you haven’t authored confusion. I don’t read that language, and so I am confused. For you to have authored the confusion, you’d have to have been interested in me being confused rather than the mere fact that I became so. Case in point, the context for that verse is Paul explaining that God, by means of the Spirit, is speaking clearly but they are responding to it in ways that bring chaos and disorder (partly because of a lack of love). The letter is written to confirm that God isn’t happy about the ways their conduct is confusing both the body and onlookers.

[@Alexander-fr1kk]

Most Protestants don’t know the Luther wanted to remove Revelation, Hebrews, James and Jude from the New Testament.

[@kacgb5315]

And i say most protestants dont view luthera words like the catholics do with the pope, so ot doesnt matter what luther thought, u can agree with some.parts and disagree with what he said, luthers words arent law

[@dfwherbie8814]

Luther was a variant of Marcion. The only reason why his heresy lasted this long is due to colonialism. Another reason why that practice was evil

[@Alexander-fr1kk]

@@kacgb5315I agree, but the pope is fallible, as a former southern Baptist and Pentecostal I always thought Catholics thought the pope was infallible in everything. It troubled when that, when I started doing genuine research, I had been deceived for so long. I don’t think it was malicious always, but mostly by ignorance and/or laziness.

[@Alexander-fr1kk]

Also the 1611 KJV Bible has 73 books.

[@DarkHorseCrusader]

@@kacgb5315 Exactly! They’re free to pick and choose.

[@aldoism1455]

If the Catholic Church got many doctrinal teachings wrong, then how can we trust they got the canon of scripture correct? Edit: I'm Catholic, the answer is the Catholic Church is guided by The Holy Spirit and the Canon and the teachings are correct because of his influence.

[@RealNomadicus]

Here for the argument once someone points out the problem with this

[@HaleStorm49]

We can't. They did the best they could. We should acknowledge their efforts while recognizing they were acting on their own authority.

[@SandHater-t4m]

Did they though?

[@476429]

Martin Luther did not believe they got the canon correct (he rejected the deuterocanon as well as Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation). If he got the canon wrong, how can we trust that any of his other doctrinal teachings are correct? And make no mistake, Martin Luther assumed an authority greater than any single Pope. He decided what constituted canon, and he decided on doctrinal principles that do not come from scripture alone. For example, Sola Scriptura.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

This question presumes that 'the catholic church' is one entity; protestants would argue that it is not. The best I've heard it put is from Frank Turek- it's a list of authoritative books, not an authoritative list of books. We recognize that the table of contents is not inspired, but that these books led the church and are recognized as such.

[@DC-zz7fm]

God bless Cameron. And happy new year.

[@airpodman1259]

Not complaining about this content because I actually love it, but I knew this channel would become more of a Catholic apologetic lol. ☦️

[@danharte6645]

Truth has to be said

[@michaeldonovan4948]

Rather, I think that the journey towards Catholicism makes someone more comfortable asking questions considered "off limits" by other traditions in the Christian tree

[@alstroemeria227again4]

@@michaeldonovan4948what are those questions?

[@XxBlumannxX]

@@danharte6645 As much as I like this channel, "you can't use an argument because Mormons also try to use it" and "the Holy Spirit guiding the establishment of the Biblical canon is proof that the church is an infallible authority" are very, very, *very* poor arguments.

[@Servantof-X]

Anybody else remember when Cameron said he’d not get into catholic apologetics and he’d just stick to “mere Christianity” when he was making the move to Rome? I do. I’ve loved Cameron, but this is a sad moment of going back on his word.

[@redbearwarrior4859]

Messianic Jew here. Please forgive me for answering a question with a question. But how did a first century Jew before the coming of Yeshua know what books belonged in the canon? I think when you answer this you will have the answer to your question. Shalom.

[@Christ__is__King]

As a Jew, you should know that the Jewish canon was debated for centuries after the destruction of the temple.

[@ignatiusjackson235]

John the Baptist was almost certainly a member of the Essenes, whom we know for a fact used the deuterocanon because of the Dead Sea scrolls. Shalom!

[@Dan_Capone]

I don't think there was a 'canon' as we understand it now, but a series of writings that had various levels of recognition between the different sects, and that's why every time there's an archeological finding they find different books. Some were universally accepted, like the Torah, while others were accepted by only some people, like the Book of Enoch.

[@anon2867]

The septuaguint

[@faithalonesaves]

bingo

[@ptolemy91]

Im a protestant and I got an Orthodox study bible years ago because I wanted to read the septuigent. I found that I actually really enjoy reading the apocryphal books and include them when I read through the whole Bible

[@michael7144]

The Septuagint wasn't a book itself, it was a translation of all the Jewish books into greek

[@Getonthebusgus110]

The Septuigant has much more Christological OT references imo. Case in point, read Exodus 34:5 in the OSB 😃

[@Getonthebusgus110]

@michael7144 yes I'm aware. My point is the Septuigant manuscripts have certain portions that slightly vary compared to Masoretic text but those variations are more pro-Christ

[@Mkvine]

It’s interesting because the original King James Bible included the Deuterocanon.

[@Ohb777]

The apocryphal books aren’t inspired tho… the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God and they do not acknowledge these books are authoritative.

[@obcane3072]

Peter’s statement in 2 Peter 3:15-16 identifies Paul’s writings as Scripture, equating them with the Old Testament. This acknowledgment demonstrates that the apostles recognized divine inspiration in each other’s writings, binding the Church to them as authoritative. Peter’s comment also reveals that the apostles had access to each other’s writings and would have corrected any that were not inspired. This is particularly significant because it shows that the early Church did not rely on councils or institutions to define the canon but on the witness and discernment of the apostles themselves, guided by the Holy Spirit. Luke, as a close associate of Paul, authored his Gospel and Acts during Paul’s lifetime. If Luke’s writings had contained errors or lacked divine inspiration, Paul, or the other apostles, would have refuted them. Instead, these writings were accepted, further affirming their authenticity and divine origin. This apostolic foundation establishes a standard to test other books: they must have apostolic authorship, doctrinal consistency, and alignment with the already recognized Scriptures. This process mirrors how the Old Testament canon was recognized. Jewish leaders and communities discerned the canon based on prophetic authorship, divine inspiration, and widespread acceptance. They did not claim authority over the Scriptures but recognized their binding nature. No Jewish sect claimed to have exclusive authority to define Scripture, as doing so would have been considered heretical. All Jewish groups accepted that the Scriptures’ authority came directly from God, not from human institutions. In contrast, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches claim the authority to define the canon and interpret Scripture, placing human authority over God’s Word. This claim would have been heretical in Judaism, which held that the Scriptures were self-authenticating and binding on all. Protestants uphold this same principle, recognizing that the Church’s role is to discern and preserve Scripture, not to rule over it. This understanding safeguards the divine origin of Scripture and prevents its subordination to human institutions.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

Should be at the top- excellent summary.

[@Joker22593]

You have to first establish that 2 Peter 3:15-16 is infallible on faith and morals before using it in an argument.

[@Hound_of_God]

The early Christians debated 2 Peter's status as Scripture and its authorship.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

@@Joker22593 Just as you have to first establish that the catholic church is before using it in an argument. Crazy that this never occurred to you.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

@@Hound_of_God No, some of the early Christians did. Others did not. Which group was correct?

[@WePlugGOODMusic]

I thought he said this channel wouldn’t become a Catholic vs Protestant channel? Or was that just me?

[@houardtredmond9112]

It is an interesting question for ALL christians to think about. The Bible did not just fall out of the sky to every church on the world. This is a thinking exercise about how the Bible came to be what we have.

[@WePlugGOODMusic]

@ the title of the video suggests he is speaking directly to Protestants. If not he would have titled it “the one question every Christian must answer”, which is a better title the more you think about it right?

[@danielboone8256]

All Protestants ought to stop donating at this point.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

I don't think it has.

[@NeilTheCatholic]

The canon question is a Christian question. It's not a Catholic or a Protestant question.

[@danielr3127]

That the Church got the biblical canon right, as all Christians necessarily hold, does not necessarily imply that the Church must be authoritative, but at the very least, that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in making a true declaration. This then raises a question: if the Holy Spirit guided the Church to get the canon correct, why can’t He do the same in other areas related to faith and morals-a possibility which seems perfectly reasonable and even expected given the nature of the Christian God in wanting most of all for mankind to know and love Him, and which would, in turn, make the Church effectively authoritative (as is the Catholic view)?

[@danielr3127]

As a side note, the canon officially declared in the first millennium also includes the Deuterocanon, which Protestants happen to reject as apocryphal. You must, as a Christian, believe that the early Christians either got it right or got it wrong-both are problematic for Protestants as it either undermines their canon or undermines assurance in the validity of any process of canonization (as it would be an inherently fallible process).

[@jessefay4984]

Some people just hate the catholic church. 😂

[@danielr3127]

@@lukefantini9770 Brother, that is literally the point I’m making 😭. I structured it in response specifically to Protestants who think divine assistance doesn’t imply an authoritative Church. I think it does.

[@lukefantini9770]

@@danielr3127 oh sorry i completely agree my bad

[@brentcampbell459]

@@danielr3127 Hey! Protestant here trying to operate in good faith. I don’t think the average Protestant takes umbrage at anything you said. Clearly God can and does speak and guide his church. I think the issue isn’t that we “hate the Catholic Church” either. We just don’t find it exegetically warranted, and when we raise that concern we are normally dismissed as being arrogant people who lack the ability to humble themselves to authority-a collection of people who worship their own unique interpretation and operate as personal popes. Which, even if it was true (and it may be, considering if it was we’d be too blinded by arrogance to realize it), is not a very good way to reason with a brother or sister in Christ on their legitimate concerns. I’m sure many Catholics do not reason this way, but my experience has largely been one of either disinterest or dismissal. With that said, I would absolutely cherish the opportunity to talk with a Catholic person about my confusion on Catholicism. If anyone is interested in being a conversation partner, or knows someone who might be, I’d love to have a zoom call or something lol 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@Velakowitz]

People often forget that for the first 1500 years, most people were illiterate. The deposit of faith was put in the Church. Safeguarded, that the gates of hell would never prevail against her and they haven’t.

[@dezlovecraft5247]

who was the savior Jesus or luther? The Church HAS to have 2000 years at least, not 500.

[@Velakowitz]

@ The Holy Catholic Church which was started by Christ himself.

[@HaleStorm49]

@@Velakowitz define prevail

[@Velakowitz]

@@HaleStorm49 The destruction of the true faith, into heresy or by man.

[@kennynoNope]

@@Velakowitz why do you worship Allah?

[@5BBassist4Christ]

There's a big difference between recognizing Beethoven's 9th Symphony as among the greatest symphonies ever written and invoking my own interpretation on Beethoven's 9th. This argument that the Church (specifically the Roman Catholic Church) had authority to give us the cannon, therefore they have the authority to interpret the cannon is a bait and switch. The two are not akin. Recognizing the significance of a work does not merit your interpretation of that work, especially when some interpretations require less intuitive usage of the words rather than a more straightforward interpretation. Let's for argument's sake say the cannon is not accurate. Let's say 2nd Peter was not written by Peter, or Revelation was actually a Gnostic book originally. How does that change our theology? Do we thus say Jesus never rose from the dead? At worst, we're reading texts that aren't authoritative, but we do that every time we read a commentary, too. But it still gives us greater insight to the history. Let's say Clement should have been included. What does that change of our theology? At worst, we're just not as educated on certain books that we could be. But hey, even if they're not authoritative, why not go ahead and study them anyway? You're never better off for not knowing something. The Jews use this same argument: you can not properly understand the Tanakh without the Mishna and Talmud. Some Muslims say you can not properly understand the Quran without the Hadiths. Disney says they're the authority on the Star Wars cannon. What is ironic about all of this is the Pandora's Box of contradiction this method opens up. Jews can contradict the Tanakh all day, -you just have to have their interpretation (since it is the right one). Muslims can contradict the Quran with the "right interpretation." When your interpretation of a document is more important than the document, it becomes impossible for the document to hold you accountable. There comes a point when the source material is no longer authoritative if you can just interpret it enough.

[@MillionthUsername]

If the Church has no authority to teach and govern - as explicitly taught in the NT - then why accept the NT in the first place? If the Church has no authority, then you don't have a divinely revealed religion since He revealed it to the Church, not to you personally two thousand years after the fact.

[@John_Six]

How would they know they were inspired if they didn't have authority to interpret them? Do you think they just casted lots and said, yeah this one is inspired and this one isn't? Or did they eeny meeny miny moe it?

[@DavidJosephBoth]

@@MillionthUsername false. he didn't reveal it to a church (apart form it meaning the body of Christ, which is the one true church.. his body, not the RCC), he wrote to churches in revelation. and wrote epistles. and the Roman Catholic Church didn't even exist.

[@DavidJosephBoth]

@@John_Six if you have no problem interpreting - try this "i tell you call no man upon the earth your father...." hahahha let alone Holy Father!

[@7heHopeMan]

I noticed this bait and switch as well. Ok, let’s say I concede that I cannot have the canon without the church, why does that then mean you can infallibly interpret it? Many churches claim that unique authority of infallible interpretation. Why does yours have it? Eastern Orthodox, for example, claim unique authority to interpret. It is indeed a bait and switch without substantiation.

[@michaelp4834]

Just joined as a Member and watched your "The One Question Every Protestant MUST Answer" and, as a corollary, I would love for you to invite back Wes Huff for you both to discuss (polite debate perhaps) why Roman Catholics (I'm one) have 73 books versus 66 for Protestants. I think this would be awesome!

[@loganlyles]

Long-time Protestant subscriber of the channel here. I’m gonna 2nd the request for a reaction from or debate with @WesHuff (& @TruthUnites) on this topic. I bet some thoughtful conversations would be produced with those 2. Would love to watch.

[@JoyTheDigitalKnight]

Yes please invite @WesHuff. Would love to watch the discussion. ❤

[@TwinklingLights1]

MYTHICAL PHOENIX? 🐦‍⬛ ❝ While 1 Clement contains a treasury of truth and wisdom, Clement apparently believed in the mythical phoenix, a winged creature that arose from its own ashes (1 Clement 25:1-26:1). The mention of this immortal bird from Greek mythology is proof that 1 Clement was rightly deemed not part of the canon of Scripture. ❞ ❝ Second Clement stresses the need for good works in the church: “So then, brethren, let us confess Him in our works, by loving one another, by not committing adultery nor speaking evil one against another nor envying, but being temperate, merciful, kindly. And we ought to have fellow-feeling one with another and not to be covetous. By these works let us confess Him, and not by the contrary” (2 Clement 4:3, Hoole, trans.). But 2 Clement goes beyond what the Bible says, even saying that “fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving better than both” and “almsgiving lifteth off the burden of sin” (2 Clement 16:4, Hoole, trans.). Such teaching is unbiblical. ❞ ❝ Second Clement was not written by Clement. It is of historical interest as a post-apostolic sermon, but not of much spiritual value. ❞

[@coopahtroopah1175]

Can’t wait for Gavin Ortlund to make a well-reasoned response to this

[@__rezin__7819]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qIOwmIyJZrmUm9U

[@fantasia55]

@__rezin__7819 at least he tried...

[@andys3035]

Ugh. He will just say everyone but his Calvinism has accretions and the early church was Protestant. What’s new in his arguments?

[@matthewoburke7202]

"Well-reasoned" lol no.

[@andys3035]

Plus, if you want a "well reasoned" response, just watch his debate against Trent Horn on the subject of Sola Scriptura. Hint: it didn't fare well for him.

[@wayneburchell6346]

Why is this a question for Protestants only? Your solution is no solution at all - are we to trust that tradition got it right when indulgences are granted? Is there a problem with adding 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas to the list of canonical books - do they add something that we should avoid? What about taking out 2 Peter does it remove something that is vitally important? I think the answer is no. The early church fathers discussed the books that should be included and the ones that should not and all seem to be in broad agreement about what is in and what is out. The grey 'books' could have been included or excluded but we ended up with the ones we did somewhat organically... not by tradition.

[@JonathanDavidDummar]

Do you know what an indulgence is?

[@Nexarae]

I've been reading all those "grey" books lately and comparing them to canonized scripture. I want to be "studied to show myself approved unto God" so I can "rightly divide the word of truth" and all that. A few of the apocrapha really seem true, like extensions of Revelations

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

You're literally the case example of why Protestantism has to go.

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

Uhh ok? If some could be added and some removed, then tell us which, and stop appealing to Sola Scriptura. Obviously nowhere in Scripture does it say anything about adding or removing books, thus to do so, one must appeal thecthe authority of The Church (or to yourself or your sect). If you're going to just remove books, then Sola Scriptura is dead. As with the Deuterocanon, that was apart of the Septuagint that Jesus referred to as Scripture, that Protestants decided to remove, you may as well remove the others that don't agree with your sect leaders. That's exactly what Martin Luther wanted to do. I'd probably start with James because it says "faith without works is dead", and that one has really been a pain in the neck for all of the Protestant sects.

[@RightCross22]

First of all you have indulgences completely wrong, and they still exist today in fact. They weren’t just a “pay to win” gimmick that most people today assume. It was much deeper than that, but I won’t discuss it here. No, I’m more concerned with the part of your comment where you said it was ok to remove 2 Peter from the Bible. Do you not realize how dangerous that line of thinking is? Luther thought the same thing, he wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Revelation, etc. The Bible literally warns us to not add or remove from God’s word and you say “it’s no big deal.” If that doesn’t show you where Protestantism ultimately leads them I cannot help you. Protestantism is a slow and steady vice on Christianity which ultimately leads to secular humanism. Want women clergy members ? Just remove the scriptures that say you can’t have them. Want gay marriage ? Remove the scriptures that say you can’t do it. Want to be an atheist ? Remove all the scriptures that speak of God Almighty. Or worse, say those passages are just “metaphors” or “analogies.” Jesus didn’t really mean that there is a God, what He really meant was that we can all find God within ourselves by doing what we want! By being “our true selves.” That is where your Protestantism will lead. Indeed that is where it already has lead, just look around.

[@JH_Phillips]

Very well done, Cameron! Loved the video.

[@ryanjonbrown]

Why do Protestants have to answer this when Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura? I understand why we (Protestants) should have an answer to this amongst ourselves but for a Catholic to throw stones at us when you don't even believe the Bible has final authority doesn't make sense to me. Please help me understand this. Thanks.

[@grond21]

I believe his point is that everyone has to answer, but the Protestants don't actually have an answer for this whereas the Catholics do

[@frankovstovski]

Because Sola scriptura was founded on throwing stones at the Catholic Church, it was the sole reason for this ideology, yet is found nowhere in scripture.

[@joshwatson5561]

@@grond21That seems to be his point…it’s just wrong. No wonder he converted to RC.

[@Altair1904]

It's an epistemological problem for your position.. you don't need to answer as you can believe everything you want but this shows it's not a robust belief and thus Protestantism is just another cult

[@Seanph25]

You completely missed the point and in doing so proved it

[@YuGiOhDuelChannel]

"The church guided by the Holy Spirit" one can easily say it is not that I trust the Church, but the Holy Spirit to guide her church. And granting church a measure of authority does not equal infalliblity, which is what Sola Scriptura claims, not that Scripture is the only authority, but the only infallible authority.

[@RealCaptainAwesome]

Exactly.

[@BensWorkshop]

But scripture isn't an infallible authority. It can't be, it is inerrant, that is without error. You can tell this, next time you have disagreement with a fellow Protestant by putting a copy of the Bible between you, and asking it questions. This is why Saint Paul says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

[@ultimateoriginalgod]

But how do we know that happened? It seems ad hoc to claim divine inspiration without granting the authority which these men thought they were working with.

[@Hound_of_God]

The Holy Ghost guided the Church's *bishops,* since they were the ones who made the relevant decisions and engaged in the relevant debates. The problem is that many Christians don't recognize their offices and believe that they preached a false gospel. In other words, pretenders captured the Church but then God guided the pretenders so that they wouldn't err on this question.

[@hugofernandes8545]

But that's the point, the Scripture is NOT the ONLY infallible authority. The New Testement is a product of the Catholic church.

[@BruisedReedofTas]

The only reason you could possibly think this is a gotcha for protestants is if you don't understand protestant ecclesiology.

[@TheMOV13]

Protestantism is an extremely broad category with many different ecclesiologies, surely?

[@BruisedReedofTas]

@TheMOV13 Yes, of course. But it's the common elements that are most relevant in this case, not the distinctives.

[@TheMOV13]

@@BruisedReedofTas Well, even there, I'd say, what common elements? I was born and raised in the brethren assemblies, no clergy, no liturgy, and The Church is simply there where "Two or three"gather together in the name of Christ - in contrast, the Anglican church has a clearly defined hierarchy, clergy, priests, bishops and a specific institution they would call church - but both of these extremes fall within the category "protestantism" - or what do you see as common elements?

[@kevinhicks9160]

I spent 45 years in various Protestant churches, reading widely and thinking about these issues with increasing confusion and bewilderment over time. It's possible I missed it in the series of Pentecostal, Calvinist, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, (etc) churches that I attended weekly for decades, but I very much did miss any protestant ecclesiology which answers the objection. I'd be happy to hear the simple answer.

[@BruisedReedofTas]

Protestants broadly agree on the nature of the visible and invisible Church. They generally do not arrogate for their particular denomination the title of the one true church. They recognize there are multiple visible institutions who do claim to be inheritors of the original apostolic tradition, but they are in schism with one another, and therefore each in error in their own particular way. They reject the claims of the bishop of Rome to a) be the vicar of Christ on earth b) to be the universal bishop c) to have the ability to speak infallibly ex-cathedra. Consequently, Protestants are conscious of inheriting the faith including the canon from the whole church that Christ has preserved through the ages, not just one particular schismatic error-ridden branch of it.

[@franciscoarturoriveranajer2500]

Protestant answer Is kind of simple: "My sheep hear my voice" (Jn 10:27) In summary, cannonical books were inspired since the very moment they were written. So, inspired books do not rely in a magisterial pronuncement. On the other hand, the whole people of God, in kind of consensus, would be able to recognice the Word of God. That Is why the lists of cannonical books between christhendom Is pretty similar. Main difference with deutherocannonicals Is that protestants bring logical arguments for keeping them in an inferior cathegory (as it was the case historically) but Roman catholicism appeals to authorithy. For details, go to: Roger T. Beckwith; 2008. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: and its Background in Early Judaism Michael J. Kruger; 2012. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books

[@ronaldignacio3574]

Inspired books does not need magisterial pronouncement. Are you joking ? Or are you a joke?.

[@franciscoarturoriveranajer2500]

@ronaldignacio3574 Again... Inspired books were inspired since the very moment they were written... They do not became inspired until XVI century, once you had an infalible magisterial declaration regarding the cannon list.

[@BonyT2768]

I’m sure you’ve already seen it, Cameron, but Gavin Ortland gave a very thoughtful, reasoned (though brief) response to your question. The most significant part of that response (it seems to me) was a realization of the actual nature of how the historical process of canonization unfolded-namely, that it was a bottom-up process, not the top-down process that many Catholics, whose focus is on councils, seem to believe it was.

[@toddvoss52]

Was the focus of Cameron's video on Councils? No. That "bottom up process" involved the authority of the Bishop's to determine what was read as part of the Liturgy. Yes it was gradual and organic with disagreements, but as unanimous agreement was reached (even without an ecumenical council "stamping it"), then the canon was settled with the authority of at least the "ordinary magisterium" until Trent. And Trent arguably recognized an already existing infallible authority because it was universally taught by the Bishops dispersed outside a Council in their Liturgical Traditions which were for many centuries before definitive in the books that could be read in Sunday Liturgy and Divine Office.

[@haronsmith8974]

The bottom up process of development is what Catholics means as doctrinal development that John Henry Newman is talking about. Tradition is the transmission of the faith throughout the ages and the magisterium is the one that prunes and forms it as it goes.

[@toddvoss52]

@@haronsmith8974 agree!!

[@BonyT2768]

@@toddvoss52 no, Cameron’s focus wasn’t on councils-nor did I state that it was. And it seems like we’re both saying essentially the same thing: that the recognition of what was NT canon came as a result of the Spirit leading individual Christians and local churches, and the Catholic councils only recognized what had already been virtually universally settled long before among Christians. I wasn’t in any way attacking Cameron, or even disagreeing with what he’d said. I was simply pointing to Gavin’s very reasonable answer to Cameron’s question.

[@toddvoss52]

@ leading Bishops, not just Christians. And what had long been settled by Bishops and Metropolitans in their liturgies (including through local councils). No I am not agreeing with Gavin except I agree with his narrow point that it didn’t all depend upon ecumenical councils . The local authority of a Bishop in his diocese was the lowest level building block and a “necessary” one . I make a much longer comment over at his video. I know you aren’t trying to be argumentative and are in good faith; I am just pointing out that the common ground with Gavin’s view only goes so far and does not lead where he would like to go. Gavin is a wonderful Christian and Pastor but as he says it is “Truth” that must unite . We have a great deal of common ground and he is right to point out some of the cruder and weaker Catholic arguments, but that that is the beginning of the analysis, not the end of it

[@ChipKempston]

This is nowhere near as difficult a question as, "How do Catholics know when a Pope is speaking infallibly?" In fact, Catholics have to ultimately answer both questions, and "because the church says so" doesn't resolve the mystery. Also, what's the source of the claim that Dr. Craig "even suggested that the Holy Spirit sort of ultimately guides Christians to discern which books belong in the Bible?" I'm skeptical this claim accurately represents what he actually said. I'm certain there is way more to that answer. Certainly, the Holy Spirit's witness is AN aspect of confirming the canon, but it is not the "*ultimate*" factor.

[@fantasia55]

last time was 74 years ago

[@regis_red]

The question of infallibility has already been answered, in the very definition of infallibility actually. It is not a difficult question.

[@JJ-cw3nf]

You see how you have change the subject (which you’re also wrong about). Protestantism is built off ‘sola scriptura’ If sola scriptura is false then Protestantism is dead.

[@N1IA-4]

@@ChipKempston the alternative is your own private interpretation to know what denomination is correct. Doesn’t sound promising to me

[@N1IA-4]

@@JJ-cw3nf Sola Scriptura isn’t in the Bible so the argument is truly over before it begins

[@joelterry4359]

I do accept that God guided the early Church to make these decisions. I and I think most all Protestants were happy to go along with the Church's authority until the Church began doing things that were clearly opposed to the scriptures they themselves had affirmed. Just because I accept the Church's authority at the time to decide what was Canon does not mean that I should accept the Church's authority if they begin Teaching another gospel that we were instructed to deny even if taught by an Angel. When the early Reformers brought concerns to Rome they were excommunicated and burnt at the stake. The Church's authority is valuable, but not infallible. It is possible for the Church to make mistakes. I think any clear headed evaluation of the past makes this obviously clear.

[@susand3668]

But, in fact, that is not how things turned out historically -- it is not because the "Church began doing things that were clearly opposed to the scriptures" that caused the rebellion in the 1500s. Church members have been doing sin from the beginning (and changing denominations doesn't change the fact that sinners will sin, whatever denomination you re in -- which is why "faithful" Christians become atheists.) Please, if you will recognize that the Church has never taught anything that is not supported by the Bible, then you can see better the depths of Truth that are in the Bible. The Church LIVES the life of the Bible, because it still has the Bread of Life.

[@somemedic8482]

Thank you for common sense. If baffles how people can't recognize the atrocities committed by the catholic church in the past.

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

Sola Scriptura is untenable. But most people hold to it because they have bave no other choice, they've been told the Catholic Church is apostate. This used to be me.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

Sola Scriptura is untenable No it's not- who told you that?

[@faithalonesaves]

Sola Scriptura is a Catholic term made to strawman and generalize Protestantism. I don't know what Sola Scriptura even means, everyone defines it way differently. Anyone who uses the term must define it or they're being dishonest. I just believe the truth. If you can convince me something is true, I'll believe it. Whether by logic, reason, or through showing me something is true. Catholic infalliblity is demonstrably false and impossible though and must not be believed.

[@BensWorkshop]

Welcome home!

[@romanocancellieri8500]

Where is sola scriptura in the Bible? Another important point is that the Canon came from an apostate church according to protestants so if that church was in error for everything else why shouldn't it be in error of the canon too, I mean isn't just a fallible list of infallible books? Why can't I just reform the Canon? Removing books from the Bible has already happened with the successors of Luther and with Luther himself removing the deuterocanon and almost removing James I think a great book that every protestant should read is Rock and Sand

[@romanocancellieri8500]

​@@faithalonesavesWhere was faith alone first said? And by who? Oh right Luther in the 1500, you really think that Christ would let his church become apostate? I'm not saying you should become catholic but maybe you should look into orthodoxy which is the church that never errored, starting by reading Rock and Sand and watching Jay Dyer and Orthodox Kyle

[@AdventuresinCritterland]

Excellent video! Of all your formats this is by far my favorite

[@Capturing_christianity_fanpage]

Thanks for your time! As hyped as i am about getting more good content out! Don’t forget to like the video 🤍🤍sᴇɴᴅ🤍🤍ᴍᴇ🤍🤍ᴀ🤍🤍ᴅɪʀᴇᴄᴛ🤍🤍ᴛᴇxᴛ🤍±𝟷𝟽𝟻𝟺𝟸𝟸𝟿𝟹𝟼𝟽𝟹

[@theignorantcatholic]

This was fantastic! Thanks mate. ❤

[@nickmartin6116]

As a protestant, i love watching videos like this and seeing other protestants answer questions from incorrect positions before even seeinf them in the video so they know what arguments are made against them. This, with C.C. responding "please watch the video" since they cannot have watched a video posted 14 minutes ago when they replied 5 minutes ago and its longer... Good video, great points. I'll have to think through it and work out an understanding for myself as a protestant. However, I'm not anti-catholic or anti-orthodox, and I am willing to say the "extra" books catholics and orthodox carry could be admissable in scripture, but I focus more on christ than all else. I do not hold to sola scriptura as a "foundational issue of faith" as some might, but I believe Christ should be the center of our focus in growing in relationship and love of God, as he first loved us. I believe the bible is an authority on our lives, but advice from christian wisdom is important in a lesser regard. I will consider this issue, however. Thanks Cameron, good video, God Bless.

[@Dylan_Devine]

Hey there, I'm a Catholic who converted from Protestantism myself, and I just wanted to say that our New Testaments are the same, it's our Old Testament's that differ. The deuterocanonical books which Martin Luther called "apocrypha" are Old Testament books. I'd highly reccomend reading Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach and Tobit; Wisdom of Solomon in particular contains a highly-detailed prophesy of Christ's Passion in Wisdom chapter 2 that is comparable to Isaiah 53.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

Here’s a brief introductory video on how to answer as a Protestant: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX3XiKmfdtdpes0si=yKmefqM4Zi16aL1r For a fuller treatment I highly recommend the book Canon Revisited by Michael Kruger. It really helps answer the epistemological question from a Protestant framework!

[@rlee1185]

2x speed

[@faithalonesaves]

you don't need to know which books are in the NT to be saved. Origen had a different canon than us, still saved. When Paul got people saved the book of John wasn't written yet, but the people were still saved. No canon list is needed for salvation, just faith alone in Christ alone... It's very simple.

[@BensWorkshop]

The issue (other than the one of the Cannon raised here which is a great point) is less of the authority of the Bible but more the authority over how it is interpreted. You will for example find some who interpret the Epistles of Paul as preaching a different gospel to the one preached by Jesus in the Gospels.

[@ora_et_labora1095]

”LuThEr wAnTeD tO rEmOvE bOoKs!! hErEtIc!! 😭” Catholics, are you tired of hearing you worship Mary? Well, we hear the removing books-argument every day. You, on the other hand, tend to forget that Cardinal Cajetan, during Luther’s time, also questioned the canonicity of James, Hebrews, and Revelation. And as mentioned in the video, several Church Fathers also debated the canonicity of these books. ”hErEtIcS!!’”

[@FourKidsNoMoney]

Cardinal Cajetan didn't create our conception of Christianity. Luther did create yours, even though your particular tradition may have originated many schisms after his.

[@Satarack]

Who cares about Luther? This isn't about Luther, this is about the current 66 book Protestant bible and its fatal flaw. Later protestants realized Luther was being completely silly to remove all the books he did (he didn't merely 'want' to remove books, he actually removed over 20 books from his German Bible including the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John). But they decided to make the Masoretic Text, a post-Christian Jewish canon that was created centuries after, and in reaction to, the apostolic adoption of the Septuagint, their official canon of the Old Testament. It's deeply ironic that this decision, made because Protestants felt they were removing Judaising heresies of the Catholic church, made an anti-Christian Jewish canon the authority of the Protestant Old Testament canon. In reality this was an enormous and obvious error, and the passage of time has only made this error even more glaring. The Reformers presupposed the Masoretic text was the original Hebrew, and that the Jewish canon was formalized by the time of Jesus. This led some to even declare the apocrypha, including books quoted and referenced by the apostles in the New Testament, were not inspired scripture (e.g. the Westminster confession). Both of these presuppositions are false, though you can still find protestants repeating them despite all the evidence disproving them. The Masoretic text has a very late origin, being compiled sometime around the 7th century with the earliest extant fragment from the 9th century. The Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls were contemporary with Jesus and the apostles, and both include "Apocryphal" books rejected by the Masoretes. You only need to read chapter 2 of the Wisdom of Solomon to realize why Jews rejected it after Jesus, it's an incredibly on the nose prophecy of Jesus being rejected by the Jews. And the Jewish leaders in the 1st century certainly weren't of one mind about what was scripture. The Sadducees only regarded the books of Moses as scripture, Rabbinic sources show the Pharisees had doubts about some books, like the Song of Solomon. Protestants hypothesized that there was a 1st century council, the Council of Jamniah, to settle these matters; but this supposed council never had any real support for its existence. What is clear from all the available evidence is that Apostles used the Septuagint as their Old Testament in evangelizing to the Gentiles, and the fatal flaw of the 66 book Protestant Bible is that, by choosing the Masoretic text, the Protestants rejected the judgement of the Apostles.

[@richlopez5896]

The Bible has always had 73 books. Luther had zero authority to remove a single verse of canonized scripture. Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382] Council of Hippo “It has been decided]that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393] Council of Carthage III “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397] When examining the question of which books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings-that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings.

[@RuruRuru145]

Tu quoque is not actually an argument. Will you agree that Catholic is a valid Christian and do not worhip Mary if Catholic stop saying that Luther removed the books? I don't think you will because both are entirely different arguments addrssing different points and it is entirely possible that either do that exact same thing the other side accuse them of so each should be addressed differently. When it comes to worshipping Mary, Catholics can point the flaw in protestant argument about Catholics worshipping Mary by pointing out the shallowness of protestant's understanding of worship. On the other hand, almost all protestant would agree that the deuterocanon is not part of bible canon while Protestant has no way to define the bible canon. Only the Church established by Jesus Christ can. Not even St. Jerome. Not even St. Augustine. Not even St. John, Jesus' beloved disciple can. Let alone Cardinal Cajetan which is why he doesn't make his own translation relegating James to the appendix even when he questioned the canonicity.

[@FiatVoluntasTuaAmen]

Questioning and debating is perfectly fine. Everyone should do that. Granting yourself the divine authority to modify the Canon of Scripture is a big no no

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

Question: When did the Roman Catholic Church choose the books of the Bible and make it exclusive canon?

[@RightCross22]

In the 300s

[@John_Six]

Rome 382, Hippo 393, Carthage 397 and Trent 1546.

[@RightCross22]

@@John_Six this is technically true, but a Protestant seeing this might believe we changed the canon on every date you listed. What actually happened was we decided the canon in the late 300s, and the other dates you posted were just us clarifying what we meant by “these books are canon.” But the list of canon books has not changed since the Council of Rome.

[@richlopez5896]

In 382 at the council of Rome. Later councils reaffirmed the canon of scripture. It was Pope Siricius who coined the term "Bible" for the Christian canon of scripture. Below is just the list of Old Testament books. Council of Rome “Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382] Council of Hippo “It has been decided that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393] Council of Carthage III “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397] Pope Innocent I “A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books” (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]

[@joshbohn2884]

Not to mention that the Eucharist, the Trinity, along with Baptismal Regeneration, were universally held by the church prior to the development of the biblical canon. In fact, they used these customs (apostolic tradition/ liturgy/lectionaries) to decide which books should be included or excluded in the Orthodox Catholic canon.

[@CapturingChristianityfan-page]

Thanks for your time! As hyped as i am about getting more good content out! Don’t forget to like the video 🤍🤍sᴇɴᴅ🤍🤍ᴍᴇ🤍🤍ᴀ🤍🤍ᴅɪʀᴇᴄᴛ🤍🤍ᴛᴇxᴛ🤍±𝟷𝟽𝟻𝟺𝟸𝟸𝟿𝟹𝟼𝟽𝟹

[@bryang3044]

Excellent video. I've never seen someone break it down like this. Loved the format!

[@Capturing_christianity_fanpage]

Thanks for your time! As hyped as i am about getting more good content out! Don’t forget to like the video 🤍🤍sᴇɴᴅ🤍🤍ᴍᴇ🤍🤍ᴀ🤍🤍ᴅɪʀᴇᴄᴛ🤍🤍ᴛᴇxᴛ🤍±𝟷𝟽𝟻𝟺𝟸𝟸𝟿𝟹𝟼𝟽𝟹

[@vinxit]

Hi Cameron, where's the Papacy/Catholic Bayesian analysis spreadsheet you said you'd release?

[@Steelblaidd]

ooooohh that sounds cooooooool!

[@johnbrion4565]

Very interesting topic. Great presentation on this topic. Thanks.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

This question has been answered for 500 years.

[@matthewoburke7202]

poorly

[@marcuswilliams7448]

@@matthewoburke7202 Guarantee you've never read The Examination of the Council of Trent or Johann Gerhard on this question. Papist apologetics are against pop American Christianity.

[@Bbos2383]

@@matthewoburke7202 well enough to see protestantism continously growing faster than catholicism worldwide. "You will know them by your fruits."

[@marcuswilliams7448]

@matthewoburke7202 I guarantee you have read none of the source material. Also, the question of Canon is a separate matter from Sola Scriptura. Cameron, like all papists, had recycled a non sequitur, thinking that if the Church recognized and colated the Canon, it follows that Sola Scriptura is false. It misunderstands the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and counts the formation of the Canon an article of faith itself, which it is not. It also assumes recognizing an infallible source requires infallibility itself, which is absurd and self-effacing.

[@charlesudoh6034]

Care to tell us what the answer is?

[@faithfulacresfarmhouse]

Great video! Will you be doing more on the canon? Do you recommend any books on this? Thanks!

[@peterku9022]

Great video Cameron! Glory to Jesus Christ

[@nonameyoutubenomad2918]

As a protestant who has not exactly gone deep into the doctrine of canonicity, here is my answer: God may have given the church the authority to preserve and even interpret the Bible, but that doesn't mean church leadership has authority to lead ethics (This belief is why I don't listen to what the Pope has to say). It seems like the books were chosen by if each document molds with each other. For instance the gospels of Thomas and Peter contradict the other gospels in their eyewitness, even if not in ethics. Either these two gospels written much later are wrong or the other 4 are. And since Paul draws upon the 4 gospels in his theology, I understand why these other 2 were rejected. It probably isn't that easy with the other documents, but that is my interpretation. The church obviously had debate as to which books were good ave which were not. Even Jesus' own disciples in His view constantly debated each other. Just a quirk of the church.

[@iwansaputra1890]

that basic definition of heresy. PICK AND CHOOSE

[@nonameyoutubenomad2918]

@iwansaputra1890 No it isn't. Not every book that claims to be inspired by God is actually so. To believe that is idiotic. For instance, the gospel of Peter completely contradicts the account by the 4 other gospels in regards to what was seen at the empty tomb and who saw it. There is no way to reconcile it, so as any good reader does, one assumes it is not reliable.

[@lyterman]

But why do you get to decide that the Church was guided on this issue and not on others? That's the issue: it leads to double standards. If the Church's authority is enough to trust with respect to the canon, it is enough to trust its earlier, more unanimous teachings on the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, baptismal regeneration, episcopal polity, the sacrifice of the mass, Mary's perpetual virginity, etc.

[@micahwatz1148]

Heres your RC problem. Youre assuming that the church which compiled the canon is the exact same church that is the Roman Catholic church today. The church that compiled the canon was The RC, Ortho, and Protestant church. There wasnt any of those branches yet. We were all just the church at that point in time. The Church compiling the canon doesnt prove that the Current RC church was exact the same thing as the church was then. And the Church does have authority. Its just not entirely held by rome.

[@stinkymouse2304]

The Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397, 419)- which affirmed the canon of Scripture-were convened by Catholic bishops under the authority of the Pope, it wasn't just "the church"

[@pragmaticoptimist46]

@@stinkymouse2304the Roman Bishop didn’t have any greater authority than any other bishop in the early church.

[@stinkymouse2304]

@pragmaticoptimist46 that is hilariously false, we have church fathers acknowledging the primacy of rome, ignatious of Antioch, irenaeus of Lyon, tertullain, eusebias literally writes "The Bishop of Rome was established as the presiding authority over the universal Church by apostolic succession"

[@MrKylesvids]

⁠@@stinkymouse2304the RC canon is it exists today didn’t come about until the council of Trent, in response to the Protestant Reformation, which means Christians for the majority of church history didn’t have a completed canon, if you think the Pope had to define it. But it gets worse, since very very few texts have been infallibly interpreted by your supreme pontiff, having a completed canon isn’t much use to you anyway. Not to mention the issue of having to interpret the infallible interpretation. All of this is smoke screen to sneak in all of Rome’s patently unbiblical practices and ultimately a system of works that cannot save.

[@fantasia55]

The canon was established more than a thousand years before there were any Protestants.

[@dmjones1956]

Also Protestants leave out Wisdom of Solomon and Ben Sirach from their Bibles but don’t realise how much the content of these books is actually paraphrased and used in the NT.

[@yidiandianpang]

Good point but Paul's quoting of Epimenides and Menander in Titus 1:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:33 does not mean those should be included. Good parts of non scriptural material can be quoted without giving authority to the entire work.

[@whatsinaname691]

Not a tenth as much as 1 Enoch, but you’re not ready for that conversation

[@PrayerInPractice]

@@yidiandianpang Except wisdom and Sirach are used in such a way that they are integral to NT theology and they do not contradict the rest of scripture. They are not just referenced by Paul but by Jesus in the gospels such as when the Lords prayer contains forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us which is found in Sirach 28 verse 2. Wisdom Chapter 2 contains a clear prophecy about Jesus. All this I say as a Lutheran protestant, never the less I believe the deterocannon are scripture because once you read them and then read the NT it is really obvious that the NT authors relied on them and mention them A LOT. Referencing alone does not make something scripture but when the reference is directly the basis of a theological concept it is clear that it is viewed with authority. Such examples include the one mentioned about Sirach and the Lords prayer, Jesus celebrated the festival of lights in the gospel of John which comes from the books of the macabees and the book of Revelation confirms the 7 spirits of God mentioned in the book of Tobit compare Revelation 1 verse 4 and Tobit 12 verse 15. There are dozens more examples, clearly they were more related to the scriptures than just the poets Paul quotes.

[@yidiandianpang]

@@PrayerInPractice Good points. I'm fine with all that (was aware of some of it) but don't need those books to be Scripture. I'll have a look at the specifics you point out.

[@TwinklingLights1]

MYTHICAL PHOENIX? 🐦‍⬛ ❝ While 1 Clement contains a treasury of truth and wisdom, Clement apparently believed in the mythical phoenix, a winged creature that arose from its own ashes (1 Clement 25:1-26:1). The mention of this immortal bird from Greek mythology is proof that 1 Clement was rightly deemed not part of the canon of Scripture. ❞ ❝ Second Clement stresses the need for good works in the church: “So then, brethren, let us confess Him in our works, by loving one another, by not committing adultery nor speaking evil one against another nor envying, but being temperate, merciful, kindly. And we ought to have fellow-feeling one with another and not to be covetous. By these works let us confess Him, and not by the contrary” (2 Clement 4:3, Hoole, trans.). But 2 Clement goes beyond what the Bible says, even saying that “fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving better than both” and “almsgiving lifteth off the burden of sin” (2 Clement 16:4, Hoole, trans.). Such teaching is unbiblical. ❞ ❝ Second Clement was not written by Clement. It is of historical interest as a post-apostolic sermon, but not of much spiritual value. ❞

[@mkl2237]

Love the discussion and passion this topic brings out. Even more than atheist friction. Shalom to both Catholics and Protestants

[@kirstenfondren9226]

Excellent work Cameron

[@hap1678]

Ex Protestant, now Catholic ✝️🇻🇦

[@AndyfromPBG1]

Nobody's perfect. Ha- what made you do that?

[@hap1678]

@@AndyfromPBG1Because I studying God’s word and history and found the Protestant revolution that Martin Luther started was completely false, read the Church Fathers, Protestantism wasn’t even close to what the early church had.

[@universalflamethrower6342]

Same bro, DEUS VULT!

[@danielbrowniel]

@@hap1678 so you read a book written by a Catholic and you appealed to their self proclaimed authority? Sounds very Catholic, yeah you should be a Catholic.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

@@hap1678 the Protestant revolution that Martin Luther started was completely false You're asserting that the entire revolution was false? What does that mean? He had literally no good points? Indulgences were fine? This is a broad sweeping statement, meant to prevent you from having to engage with dissent. I've not seen a Christian > catholic convert who didn't exhibit this, including our very intelligent video host.

[@janglalgoupiak1891]

A moment of silence to all those non-Roman catholics (especially Protestants) who still donate and support this channel. Let's support our fellow Protestant brothers and sisters before we enrich the Roman apologists.

[@fantasia55]

Protestants invented the term Roman Catholic, to deny the Church's universality.

[@babloojai6553]

this is what 99%of people do, it doesn't matter it is religion or politics they don't want to listen to the other side of the argument, they simply love to live in their comfort zone, i'm neither a Catholic nor a protestant

[@janglalgoupiak1891]

@@babloojai6553 you are not fooling anyone with your pretense.

[@Altair1904]

What a silly point... God will provide, we don't need money from heretics

[@TwinklingLights1]

MYTHICAL PHOENIX? 🐦‍⬛ ❝ While 1 Clement contains a treasury of truth and wisdom, Clement apparently believed in the mythical phoenix, a winged creature that arose from its own ashes (1 Clement 25:1-26:1). The mention of this immortal bird from Greek mythology is proof that 1 Clement was rightly deemed not part of the canon of Scripture. ❞ ❝ Second Clement stresses the need for good works in the church: “So then, brethren, let us confess Him in our works, by loving one another, by not committing adultery nor speaking evil one against another nor envying, but being temperate, merciful, kindly. And we ought to have fellow-feeling one with another and not to be covetous. By these works let us confess Him, and not by the contrary” (2 Clement 4:3, Hoole, trans.). But 2 Clement goes beyond what the Bible says, even saying that “fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving better than both” and “almsgiving lifteth off the burden of sin” (2 Clement 16:4, Hoole, trans.). Such teaching is unbiblical. ❞ ❝ Second Clement was not written by Clement. It is of historical interest as a post-apostolic sermon, but not of much spiritual value. ❞

[@joeshaer777]

Does this mean Christians did not know their scripture until 300+ years after Jesus ?

[@2ndtoJohn]

In a more thoroughly complete sense, yes. That isn’t a problem if the faith isn’t about reading and memorizing Scripture and more about being united to Christ and his body through word and deed.

[@Dustin_Quick_Holy_Smokes]

Great summary of the issues brother!

[@MrPeach1]

Super video Cameron

[@bendecidospr]

The answer is all of the above. In fact, each one of those answers are the very criteria that the church used to make that determination. They didn’t just get together and say, infallibly, “These are the books because we say so.” The mistake catholics make is to confuse authority with infallibility or sole authority, and they are simply not the same. Furthermore, we can ask the same question (how do we know what Scripture is?) as to the authority of the church. How do we know the church is authoritative and infallible? Either we point to Scripture, thereby undermining the church’s authority (I only say this because you make that claim about Scripture, namely that recognizing the church’s authority undermines the sole authority of Scripture). Or we say the church, in which case its circular. I think we have to come to grips with the fact that pointing to some authority doesn’t put that authority over Scripture. And we must also understand that infallibility and certainty are not requirements of truth and assurance (faith). The church can be right about any and everything, and still not be on par with Scripture. That is a logical leap that must be justified.

[@darkfoxwillie]

Authority was given to the disciples (persons). Their successors (persons) then decided which should be the cannon (text) for christians, this is why scripture is part of the Tradition of the church. As you can see no circular logic, just logic following the events that happened.

[@charlesudoh6034]

If you don't grant that the authority the church used in deciding on the canon is an infallible one (which if true will disprove sola scriptura), then you have to grant the possibility that the church could have been wrong on the canon. Its one or the other. Either they were infallible or they were fallible. You will have to entertain the possibility that some books included were not divinely inspired or that some divinely inspired books were left out.

[@charlesudoh6034]

Asking how we know about the authority of the church as being infallible is an interesting question. You gave us two options, either we refer to scripture which then makes scripture the sole infallible authority (sola scriptura) or we refer back to the church which makes it circular reasoning and a case of “because we said so”. The thing is it is neither of those two. We can attest to the infallibility of the church due to historical reasons. It begins with the person of Jesus who was recognized as divine and with the authority of God (especially after He rose from the dead). To the witness of the people at the time, He called twelve apostles and gave them his authority. To the witness of other people, these authoritative apostles passed on their offices to others (Bishops). To the witness of other people down the line, these Bishops passed on their offices to other Bishops and so on. Even if we didn't have the scripture, we would still have the witness of people who can testify to the passing on of the authoritative office that originally started with Jesus. We don't have to point to ourselves, we only have to point to the historical witness of this succession that originated in Jesus.

[@bendecidospr]

@ Where did you get the idea that authority was given to the disciples, etc.?

[@bendecidospr]

@ Not at all. In one sense, yes, the church could have been wrong. But, that does’t mean they were wrong. Again, infallibility is not a requirement for truth. Me knowing, for example, that 1+1=2 does not require infallibility, nor does it make me infallible in math. Its a logical leap that isn’t applied anywhere else in life.

[@PokeLogic]

Cam finally dropping some heat. LFG 🔥🔥🔥

[@AndyfromPBG1]

I think you're missing with Solo Scriptura means- too much Horn, ha. It does not mean that there is no metadata; it means that scripture is the final authority and everything else is measured against it- there is no authority above scripture. Pointing out that we're relying on those who were closest to be correct isn't demonstrating that we value their opinion above scripture. Frank Turek says it best- it's a list of authoritative books, not an authoritative list of books. Assuming that the early church got it right doesn't require us to assume that the church is one body and that one body got everything right forever.

[@anthonymarchetta8796]

Okay, but this actually doesn't address the central question at all. You skipped ahead to something Cameron wasn't addressing

[@kyrptonite1825]

Might be the most dumb response I’ve ever heard. You admit that you assume that the early Churxh got it right, and don’t know for sure. So what, do you just assume what the early Church got right and what the early Churcch got wrong? What if I assume that the early church got the canon wrong? And there isn’t really a “best” evidence for a canon, historical evidence is always changing, and it has remained unclear for centuries. You are basically admitting that your source you hold above everything else, is something that you can’t even know for sure.

[@danielboone8256]

@@kyrptonite1825 Yes. Stop looking for certainty where there is none. You should be satisfied with not knowing for sure.

[@DaveH8905]

⁠@@kyrptonite1825you are strangely hostile towards the original poster for no reason, and it doesn’t appear that you understand what the poster is saying.

[@aldencole6714]

I think you might be confusing solo and sola scriptura.

[@taylorbarrett384]

Catholic here. Actually Protestants have a very simple way of answering this. Unfortunately my fellow Catholics interested in apologetics misrepresent the Catholic teaching here. In Catholic epistemology, we discern religious truth through faith and reason. Just like there are motives of credibility for the divine institution of the Church, there are motives of credibility for the inspiration of Scripture. It is true, of course, that these evidences do not amount to proof/certainty. In either case (in any case), actual knowledge can only come by grace-infused faith. That is how a Protestant can know Scripture is inspired: just like we Catholics can look at the evidence for the Church, find good support but not proof, and then receive faith from God, so too can anyone look at the evidence for the Bible, find good support, and receive faith from God.

[@ottovonbaden6353]

Lutheran here. Very well put, sir.

[@patrickambler749]

Seems like a good question for anyone who calls himself a Christian to ask and learn about, not just protestants. I think a more specific denominational question would be something like, "what's up with the pope and pachamama," or "Do Catholics agree with the pope that all religions are paths to God."

[@IndonesianProtestant]

This question HAS BEEN ANSWERED for 500 years

[@dreistheman7797]

The answer of continuous division into opposing doctrines: Baptismal Regeneration vs Symbolic, Eucharist as the Body of Christ vs Symbolic, Eternal Security, Easy Believism? We judge it by its fruits, it's a model that CONTINUOUSLY divides.

[@FourKidsNoMoney]

So then kindly show us, because I've never seen a convincing argument that isn't either circular or full of major holes and logical inconsistencies

[@dezlovecraft5247]

So? what is the answer?

[@FiatVoluntasTuaAmen]

What is the answer then?

[@IndonesianProtestant]

@@dezlovecraft5247 Watch Gavin Ortlund's reply to this video

[@vedinthorn]

1 clement isnt scripture if for no other reason that clement SAID IT WASN'T.

[@jordanmiller3927]

I’m not very familiar with first clement, where does it say that?

[@yidiandianpang]

Where does he say that?

[@vedinthorn]

@@yidiandianpang I heard a scholar make that claim in the last year, but I'm having trouble finding the source of it or the exact reference he made. Until or unless I can find it, consider my statement retracted.

[@TwinklingLights1]

MYTHICAL PHOENIX? 🐦‍⬛ ❝ While 1 Clement contains a treasury of truth and wisdom, Clement apparently believed in the mythical phoenix, a winged creature that arose from its own ashes (1 Clement 25:1-26:1). The mention of this immortal bird from Greek mythology is proof that 1 Clement was rightly deemed not part of the canon of Scripture. ❞ ❝ Second Clement stresses the need for good works in the church: “So then, brethren, let us confess Him in our works, by loving one another, by not committing adultery nor speaking evil one against another nor envying, but being temperate, merciful, kindly. And we ought to have fellow-feeling one with another and not to be covetous. By these works let us confess Him, and not by the contrary” (2 Clement 4:3, Hoole, trans.). But 2 Clement goes beyond what the Bible says, even saying that “fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving better than both” and “almsgiving lifteth off the burden of sin” (2 Clement 16:4, Hoole, trans.). Such teaching is unbiblical. ❞ ❝ Second Clement was not written by Clement. It is of historical interest as a post-apostolic sermon, but not of much spiritual value. ❞

[@tonyl3762]

Clement DOES claim his letter is inspired. He claims the words he's written are those of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

[@MRAGFT7]

Cameron doing God's work! May you be blessed tenfold! ❤

[@Enel-nz3yz]

Even if we removed all the books that are questionable, we still have enough to live as Christ wanted us to live. And enough to have solid theological beliefs

[@CapturingChristianity_fan_page]

Thanks for your time! As hyped as i am about getting more good content out! Don’t forget to like the video 🤍🤍sᴇɴᴅ🤍🤍ᴍᴇ🤍🤍ᴀ🤍🤍ᴅɪʀᴇᴄᴛ🤍🤍ᴛᴇxᴛ🤍±𝟷𝟽𝟻𝟺𝟸𝟸𝟿𝟹𝟼𝟽𝟹

[@dfwherbie8814]

They must answer quite a few questions. A lot of them are great people who love Christ. I just wish they could see that loving God is never on our terms, it’s on His.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

I'm surprised you'd think that Protestants think that loving God is on their terms- who told you that?

[@dfwherbie8814]

@ it’s simply the consequence. when you approach Scriptural interpretation [solely] individualistically, you disregard thousands of years of church interpretation that was passed from Jesus, to the apostles, and the early church fathers. You inadvertently disregard Jesus’s own discernment in who He chose to spread His church in favor of yourself. That’s why I made my comment.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

​@@dfwherbie8814 you approach Scriptural interpretation [solely] individualistically This isn't what protestants do. They do not interpret Scripture individually. thousands of years of church interpretation that was passed from Jesus Oddly, there's no support for this interpretation existing outside of the Catholic church; the NT precludes the possibility of it existing. disregard Jesus’s own discernment in who He chose to spread His church No, that's false. in favor of yourself There's no indication that I've done that; indeed, I have not. This was a poor response. You'd have been better not responding.

[@vedinthorn]

​@@dfwherbie8814 But when you hold to an evolved understanding of Scripture rather than sticking to the historical grammatical method you make scripture say things that the authors couldn't possibly have thought. Or otherwise you read it through a lens of tradition instead of how the original audience would have read it. The only valid way to understand the new testament is how a first century hellenized jew would have.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

@@dfwherbie8814 you approach Scriptural interpretation [solely] individualistically This isn't what protestants do. church interpretation that was passed from Jesus There's no indication beyond the claims of the catholic church (and in spite of evidence to the contrary) this this exists. Also, even if this were true, it wouldn't mean that protestants demand to love God on their terms, only that they'd be incorrect about what God's terms are. You inadvertently disregard Jesus’s own discernment No, I don't- there's no indication that protestants put their own ideas above those of the early church fathers. Indeed, that's what the catholic church is accused of. It'd have bene better to not reply.

[@taylorjohnson4327]

Sola Scriptura does not mean that no truth can be found outside of scripture. I’m aware that many SS adherents would frame it that way but it just doesn’t. At the end of the day we have to have faith that God guided the process of putting the cannon together. And no, I don’t have to be Catholic to accept that part of that process involved Catholic counsels and the like

[@ed6601]

What’s a point to be a protestant then?

[@thomasfryxelius5526]

I agree mostly, but to say that the process involved catholic councils is giving too much credit to Rome. The early Church later split into Eastern orthodoxy, protestantism and Roman catholicism. And the RCC has no more claim of being the early Church than the EO or even the protestants do. The church that decided the canon issue didn´t have the structure, doctrines or beliefs that the modern RCC does. Again, I agree with your point.

[@shaambabaashdi]

The ironic part in all this is there wasn't even one council that did such. It was a decentralized, gradual "awareness" of what the canon might be. Hell, even today you still have differences among Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, I think some Oriental Orthodox, and especially the Ethiopians! All it shows is that the canon evolved like some organism through liturgy and bishops, not that church councils created or defined it (Carthage, Rome, and Laodicea are not defeaters to my argument, btw). But some Protestants have those things anyway!

[@shaambabaashdi]

@@thomasfryxelius5526 I don't know I agree in saying there's an equal claim to "ancestry" with Catholicism as Protestantism, but you're 100% right in noting that the early Church did not have the hierarchy the Catholic Church has today! Where was contraception forbidden but NFP allowed? Where was remarriage universally forbidden? Where was Papal Supremacy defined and believed by all? Where was the Tridentine Mass, fasting only on Fridays (and only for land meat [excluding capybaras...]), baptism by sprinkling, communion wafers and no wine offered, and so many more _bona fide_ Catholic doctrines and practices? Nowhere! And Newman cannot save the Church in that regard, either, as there are a few examples I can give of the Church flat-out changing (not "developing!") its teachings.

[@fantasia55]

Sola means only.

[@WorldRenounced]

Based, nice job Cameron

[@kennynoNope]

@@WorldRenounced is it based to worship Allah and not Jesus ?

[@Groovenheit22]

It is interesting that at ~6:35 in your video you say that The letter of Clement is "dripping with cross references to the Gospels and most of Paul's letters". Those referenced books and letters were well in play before Clement wrote his work. There have been many anointed books, letters, etc. up to present day that have been similarly profound commentaries. BTW , congratulations on your recent conversation to Roman Catholicism. I myself am a recovering Catholic. Things got really off the rails for me when you trace that so called "Roman Bishop authority" through the times of the Borgias Popes (in particular Pope Alexander VI) during the late 15th and early 16th century.

[@HeyGloria]

Great video.

[@mkprr]

The idea of sola scriptura isn’t that nothing outside the Bible is inspired, it is that the books of the Bible can be relied on to use as measuring sticks to judge all other teachings by. 1st Clement is good. His teachings can be easily reconciled. He may or might not be inspired but he aligns with scripture. Same with the didache. The shepherd of Hermas does seem to contradict the New Testament in places which is why I don’t find it as valuable as other early writings. Still edifying and interesting though.

[@KeithOlbermannn]

How come then, do the people disagree on infant baptism, real eucharistic presence, prayer to saints, post death purgation, Mary's sinlessness & Perpetual Virginity. All of the early church believed this yet most modern protestants don't. If the Bible can be relied as a measuring stick how come we don't all agree on these things?

[@24psmith]

​@KeithOlbermannn The Marian dogmas and prayers to saints were most certainly not affirmed by "All of the early church". There's little mention of Mary prior to the fourth century, save for the Gnostic "Evangelium of James", and a survey of the Fathers shows a complex view of attitudes towards practices involving celebration of martyrs, a pool from which most early saints are drawn. I'm less familiar with infant baptism and purgatory, but the real presence doctrine was not discarded by many of the original Protestants and the dearth of it in modern Evangelical Christianity was likely due to a later overreaction born of anti-Catholic sentiment.

[@mkprr]

@ there is disagreement on those things because they aren’t clearly laid out in scripture. We don’t have convincing evidence they were taught by Jesus or his apostles.

[@KeithOlbermannn]

@@mkprr You don't have convincing evidence, lol. The Assyrian Church of the East, The Eastern Orthodox, The Coptic Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Catholics. All these churches are in schism from one another, yet they all teach these things. Funny how all the Churches with Apostolic succession teach something you claim you don't have convincing evidence that it was taught by Jesus or the Apostles. Maybe the problem is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that is an invention from 600yr ago or less.

[@newcovenantguy610]

You papists act like no evangelical or Protestant scholar has answered this. Wes Huff gives reasons in his video on this subject. Dr. James White has addressed this as have other scholars.

[@lo5182]

But they're wrong.

[@ignatiusjackson235]

Lol, you take James White seriously? 🤣

[@AveChristusRex789]

James White? You serious?

[@catholicrusader7]

James White? LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO “papists” okay pROT💀 “scholars” Jesus did not give authority to 21st century “scholars” He gave it to His CHURCH.

[@avibenavraham]

the presence of a rebuttal doesn't make the rebuttal correct... Mormons have rebuttals and answers to every Christian argument against them, and they're all laughable

[@pragmaticoptimist46]

0:41 Mormons base their entire faith on “trust me bro.” The life and death of Christ is THE most historically attested event in history. And the evidence that many people saw him after resurrection is strong too. I think at some point when you accept this supernatural event, and see the common themes flowing through all scripture, you don’t need the school board to give you hundreds of rules and dogma explaining recipe for Salvation, Scripture itself is attesting to the Power, Glory and atonement in Christ Jesus. It’s is not greater, nor even equal (unlike how the Quran is explained).

[@hugofernandes8545]

The point is that there is no such thing as "Scripture" without the Catholic church and its tradition. The "Scripture" itself is a product of the Catholic church and within the bible itself says to believe the church and the Papacy. If you don't do that you are not really following Scripture.

[@aldencole6714]

@@hugofernandes8545 Scripture is a result of the Early Church, the catholic church, but not of the Roman Catholic Church. I am a member of the church of Christ, which, though it has split and has accreted many things over the years, is still alive and thriving under the direction of our Lord.

[@HaleStorm49]

@@pragmaticoptimist46 Mormons base their entire faith on trust me bro? That sounds a little crazy cray, not sure I trust you bro.

[@pragmaticoptimist46]

@@HaleStorm49you probably shouldn’t - I’m just a random person on the internet.

[@johnnyg.5499]

Cameron, this is among THE BEST of your presentations. Of course #1 is the ONLY common-sense answer.

[@non-calvinist]

Just recently read 1 Clement myself, so glad to be learning more about it!

[@TwinklingLights1]

MYTHICAL PHOENIX? 🐦‍⬛ ❝ While 1 Clement contains a treasury of truth and wisdom, Clement apparently believed in the mythical phoenix, a winged creature that arose from its own ashes (1 Clement 25:1-26:1). The mention of this immortal bird from Greek mythology is proof that 1 Clement was rightly deemed not part of the canon of Scripture. ❞ ❝ Second Clement stresses the need for good works in the church: “So then, brethren, let us confess Him in our works, by loving one another, by not committing adultery nor speaking evil one against another nor envying, but being temperate, merciful, kindly. And we ought to have fellow-feeling one with another and not to be covetous. By these works let us confess Him, and not by the contrary” (2 Clement 4:3, Hoole, trans.). But 2 Clement goes beyond what the Bible says, even saying that “fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving better than both” and “almsgiving lifteth off the burden of sin” (2 Clement 16:4, Hoole, trans.). Such teaching is unbiblical. ❞ ❝ Second Clement was not written by Clement. It is of historical interest as a post-apostolic sermon, but not of much spiritual value. ❞

[@non-calvinist]

@@TwinklingLights1 Has 2 Clement used by any theologians?

[@TwinklingLights1]

@@non-calvinist Nope. 1 Clement: This is an important early Christian document, but it is considered deuterocanonical by some Christian traditions, meaning it is highly respected but not part of the official canon. 2 Clement: This document is generally considered pseudepigraphical, meaning it was likely written by someone other than the person it is attributed to (in this case, Clement).

[@Bbos2383]

Protestants have already answered this a million times.

[@albertito77]

And what's that answer?

[@NJ-ju8fr]

As a Protestant this makes me want to go to a Catholic Church and try to get the priest saved.

[@Flyingcircustailwheel]

Brother Catholics are Christians 😂

[@NJ-ju8fr]

@ Catholics: The early church shared the scriptures, read them together, grew in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus. Tyndale: That sounds wonderful. Let’s make it happen in England. Catholics: Pass the kindling.

[@essafats5728]

Worry bout yourself 1st bcoz u are not God. Only Jesus saves. and surely not any sanctimonious self-righteous Protty, u included.

[@notdisclosed]

@@NJ-ju8fr That's not at all what happened. Not all translations are equal.

[@NJ-ju8fr]

@ You’re admitting you burnt him. Name a verse he got wrong.

[@kylecityy]

Hey cameron you are making a category error. You are asking for an ontological answer to an epistemological question! You are asking how we can come to know to an ontological infallible canon. We discern the canon through a fallible basis because we are fallible humans, however the canon will still he infallible by its ontological nature! With that in mind, any christian will agree that our epistemology coming to believe will always be fallible because we are humans and have biases, fallen nature, etc. The issue you raise still is an issue from a catholic epistemology. Sure you can say you can come to know an infallible canon through an alleged infallible means, but then you must ask yourself how can you know the church infallibility through infallible means. That is circular reasoning, which is the church is infallibly declaring itself infallible. You can not do that, you must rely on a fallible foundation to come to the conclusion the church, church history/tradition is infallible. Your own epstemology is the same as the protestant epistemology, you just are asking the wrong questions from a foundational basis which leads to diferrent answers To answer it better also, the protestant does not have to deny the church indefectibility role on the canon without assuming that the church is infallible. These terms get confusing however its essentially saying the spirit can guide the church through the ages, without saying the church has an authority to never error. Another thing to note is fallibility does not mean wrong, so the protestant can say, sure theres a theoretical possibility of error, but there is no error due to the gradual and careful development throughout church history on the canon.

[@richardcastro8785]

@@kylecityy well put.

[@AK-ZL1]

You are assuming it to be a category error, but simply stating it to be a category error doesn't make it so. Your incorrect categorization is why you can lay the ground work for the circularity argument, but it is based on a wrong premise. The church is not infallible because it says so, it's because it was founded by Christ and his promise to lead it into all truth. It is an objective historical claim, not an ontological or epistemological one. An assistant manager is not assistant manager because they say so, it's because they've been appointed by a manager who then vests their authority into them. This can be verified by checking the company employment record, much in the same way the authority of the Catholic Church can be verified by apostolic succession (hence why it's such a big deal to the Church). "the protestant does not have to deny the church indefectibility role on the canon without assuming that the church is infallible. These terms get confusing however its essentially saying the spirit can guide the church through the ages, without saying the church has an authority to never error." This can only be true because Protestant is a later invention that inherits the deposit of faith from Catholicism. This structure simply cannot lay a foundation that would survive from the time of the apostles to today. What about the time before scripture was even written? What about when debating the trinity? By what standard does one agree with the infallibility of the church about the canon only but then deny it later for other dogmas and doctrines? You state that there is a careful development throughout church history on the canon, but was there? The canon had remained unchanged until the Protestant reformation. By what standard do you determine the later Protestant canon correct and the earlier Catholic canon wrong? Fundamentally, it's these questions that beg the question, who gets to make the call? When we look at simply who made the call since the very beginning, it seems clear that historically, it was the Catholic Church. I have yet to hear an objective historical claim from Protestantism that can answer this, all arguments seem to start with an invalid presupposition, followed by an argument debunking the incorrect Protestant presupposition rather than the actual historical argument.

[@alexs.5107]

​​@AK-ZL1 Great response bro to a good objection!

[@kylecityy]

@@AK-ZL1 I don't think you fully articulated my circular argument because you still seem to fall under it, here is the longer version of it. “How do you know the church is infallible? Because Christ said so and his words are an historic fact. Well, how do you know that? Because scripture and tradition say so? Well, how do you know your interpretation of scripture and tradition say so? Because the church infallibly declares that to say so, therefore the church is infallible” this is textbook circularity, you cant escape, the only way to do so is to accept that we rely on a fallible authority to believe in an infallible source.. But to do that you have to admit the common apologetic argument against Protestantism now fails. There is a reason why this argument isn't actually found in academic literature, George salmon has responded to this centuries ago. “It is an objective historical claim, not an ontological or epistemological one.“ it is a historical claim on authority, sure, however it is an ontological vs epistemological claim on substance/characteristic. What it means for an authority to be “Infallible” and “fallible” and “coming to know” characteristics of authority make that clear. For example, Nasa is an historic authority for knowledge in science, it was founded in x years ago, however it is “fallible” as it can be in error on claims. “an assistant manager is not assistant manager because they say so, it's because they've been appointed by a manager who then vests their authority into them. This can be verified by checking the company employment record, much in the same way the authority of the Catholic Church can be verified by apostolic succession (hence why it's such a big deal to the Church).” this comment assumes Protestantism denies apostolic succession and it assumes modern day Catholicism, that is the theology and claims of authority we see today by the church of Rome is the same as the ages of the other early church. Which you can make that claim, but that's where we fundamentally are going to disagree about from a historical basis.

[@kylecityy]

@@AK-ZL1 “This structure simply cannot lay a foundation that would survive from the time of the apostles to today. What about the time before scripture was even written?” Protestantism does not deny church authority or tradition or even oral tradition by word of mouth, it simply is saying that these sources of truth are fallible and have the possibility to error. “What about when debating the trinity?” “By what standard does one agree with the infallibility of the church about the canon only but then deny it later for other dogmas and doctrines?” trinity is rooted in scripture and is echoed by the early church from scripture. i don't agree with the infallibility of the church, I use the early church is a tool to understand truth, and I believe in church indefectibility that says the church will continue to exist through the ages, despite error within it, because the spirit can overcome error, not that the church can never error when it speaks. A coach can make a promise " my wrestler will win" even though the wrestler may make a mistake, the wrestler will still win. “You state that there is a careful development throughout church history on the canon, but was there? The canon had remained unchanged until the Protestant reformation.” Yes, there was careful and gradual development as the centuries went on, from church fathers to provincial councils. There was no ecumenical council until the council of Florence a millennium later, are you saying no christian could actually know the canon until then because the church had not make an infallible claim on it? “By what standard do you determine the later Protestant canon correct and the earlier Catholic canon wrong? Fundamentally, it's these questions that beg the question, who gets to make the call? When we look at simply who made the call since the very beginning, it seems clear that historically, it was the Catholic Church. I have yet to hear an objective historical claim from Protestantism that can answer this, all arguments seem to start with an invalid presupposition, followed by an argument debunking the incorrect Protestant presupposition rather than the actual historical argument.” First thing to flag is I think you have a presupposition of the early church viewing themselves to be infallible, and perhaps a presupposition that Protestantism denies church authority within the early church. The difference in the canon stems from two traditions within the early church. Jerome vs Augustine. Christians and councils in ages afterwards are influenced by their views. There was no universal canon and then protestants later changed, rather the protestant canon is rooted from previous Christians before, just like the catholic canon is. From Gregory the great in the 6th centuries to William of Ockham in the 13th century. The authority I use to determine which tradition is right is, firstly I separate the question with ontological nature of the canon vs epistemological recognition of the canon so that it changes the level of importance on the matter. I then see what the historic position from the Jewish leaders is, and they used the protestant canon, as claimed by Jerome. I also can recognize that some books in the early church were viewed to be canonical majority of the time, such as the New Testament. I use fallible authority in church history to get to my conclusion, I don't see an issue doing so, just like i use fallible nasa to know the earth is round.

[@joek9578]

The early father books are great to see how the very early church practiced.

[@KevinPJoseph]

The early Church Fathers had limited access to manuscripts but were close to the disciples, yet some of their views were incorrect. Over time, the Bible was compiled to preserve and protect the faith. Today, growing in the knowledge of God through Scripture is vital. Sadly, many Roman Catholics in India seem to lack this understanding, while Protestants, even those less devout, often display greater biblical knowledge.

[@MarcLarocque]

the arrogance to think you know more about Christianity than the Church Fathers who received it directly from the Apostles

[@bradsmith9189]

Please do not pit Catholic vs Protestants against one another in any capacity however minor in appearance. Our Christian faith is on too shaken a ground to not stick together in every capacity

[@jperello001]

We can stand together to fight the evils of our society, but we should not want to pursue the Truth. Only Satan wants us to follow flawed doctrines.

[@justinmartyr6454]

Really?! Do you know how many anti catholic videos are made a week? A lot! Are you saying this to James White? How about any other Protestant that does this?

[@JoanPrzada]

Christ did not leave a book. He left the church

[@billbrown1353]

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” ‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭63‬ ‭KJV‬‬ The church comes AFTER the word my friend. Christ left a word, which is “the word” that has all the power. It is by this “word” that the church was invented, founded, and maintained. WORD first, CHURCH second.

[@fantasia55]

​@billbrown1353 The Church existed more than three centuries before the Bible.

[@bigjoegamer]

@@billbrown1353, you said "WORD first, CHURCH second." But you forgot one: "Bible third." God's word was spoken (Creation of the heavens and earth, oral teachings, sermons, prophecies, etc.), and then written (Old Testament writings, New Testament writings), not the other way around. First was the Word, then came the Church, and last came the book called the Bible which was put together by the Catholic Church while the Catholic Church was (and still is) being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. If any Catholic finds something wrong with what I said, feel free to correct me. I'm not as knowledgable about this as Catholic theologians or Catholic apologists.

[@AveChristusRex789]

⁠@@billbrown1353you’re conflating the “Word” with the Bible.

[@billbrown1353]

@@AveChristusRex789 The Bible is the “paper printed and ink”, sure. But the WORD OF GOD is the message contained therein. To this end, there is no conflation. The POWER of Gods word (words) causes, AND IS, “life” (defined as connection) and “spirit” (defined as animating force aka power aka ability). You cannot separate Gods words from God himself. The word is equivalent to Gods mind {Jeremiah19:5, 1Corinthians2:11} Engaging with the biblical text is engaging with divinity. Engaging with the biblical text is engaging with the mind of God. Engaging with the biblical text is engaging with the power of God.

[@jroark101]

Why do you think so little of God that he couldn’t facilitate the Canon as we have today? So sad

[@shamelesspopery]

Obviously, he thinks that God somehow facilitated the canon. The question is HOW. Immediately jumping into personal attacks (Cameron doesn't trust God!) instead of answering the question is not the usual hallmark of having a good position.

[@juld55]

He did facilitate the canon, via the Catholic Church.

[@King01589]

Same line of argument RCs use when certain weird practices are being pointed out. Ie. God said in scripture he will use the Holy Spirit as a means of preserving his church, even from errors. With this they’ll throw the question to the Protestant who made the observation; “so do you mean god failed in his act of preserving the church as described in scripture” ? Just to justify that their position can’t be wrong, cause the Holy Spirit was guiding the church throughout the centuries. Now, let’s see how RCs do in the face of their own argument.

[@juld55]

@@King01589 God did and does use the Holy Spirit to preserve the Church from error, as promised in Matthew 16.

[@King01589]

@@juld55 Be mindful how you interpret scriptures, with this line of argument every orthodox Christian denomination can make the case that their denomination is perfect. Why ? Cause god promised in Matthew 16 he will preserve his church from errors. Meanwhile, we are humans, and humans err-even concerning doctrinal matters.

[@flintlock4302]

I think there's a much stronger version of option 3, namely: either written by the apostles *or* commissioned/ blessed by the apostles for use in the church. Mark is widely recognized in the early church as the approved recollections of Peter. A decent argument can be made that Luke-Acts was commissioned under Paul's authority (I would also put Hebrews in this category). James and Jude were obviously tightly connected to the apostolic community, and Jude is very similar in content to 2 Peter, so a relationship there is not at all a stretch.

[@BenKincaid-b6u]

Read First Clement Ch. 25 and it's obvious why it wasn't included; Clement apparently believed in the mythical phoenix (1 Clement 25:1-26:1), and references a pagan altar in Heliopolis where it supposedly rose from the ashes every 500 years. Referencing immortal creatures from Greek mythology is proof that 1 Clement was rightly deemed not part of the "canon of Scripture." The Shepard of Hermas has problems with adoptionism and other heresies. But notice Cameron never mentions these reasons or any other reason why it was excluded. This is deceptive.

[@OktavKoine]

I love how Cameron's channel has developed more interesting and fascinating contents for lay viewers after his conversion to Catholicism. It's very enriching and strengthening the faith.

[@ajmartinez1470]

It really helps as a Christian to remember that our faith is not based on a book like muhamadanism but rather on The Person Christ Jesus and that as The Body of Christ, The Church was divinely guided in compiling the Holy Scriptures we enjoy today ☦️

[@MultiSky7]

It is based on Jesus Christ, and in that "BOOK" as you call it comparing it and, by it, degrading it to the level of Quran that is compiled out of all sorts of gnostic bs writings and twists of the Bible... in that Book are the teachings of Jesus Christ, given to us by the disciples. So we can infallibly say that the Bible is His manual given to us. 2 Timothy 3:16-17. And no, the RCC was not "divinely guided in compiling the Holy Scripture" cause all of the 4 Gospels and many other writings (epistles and letters) were in circulation and cited as an authoritative (i.e. God breathed), since, let's say, mid 2nd century .. meaning, long before your church ever existed.

[@ajmartinez1470]

@MultiSky7 the RCC is not the original church. The Eastern Orthodox Church is The Church our Lord founded which guided the early christians for hundreds of years before the new testament was codifed ☦️

[@MultiSky7]

@@ajmartinez1470 Neither is. All of these churches that "Jesus personally started" are man made, top-down centralized, power grabbing hybrids. After Jesus died, the disciples were called "followers of the Way". (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) Jesus instituted a church which was a movement (a personal relationship) not a institutionalized religion. The Veil in the Holy of Holies was torn from the top to the bottom - world doesn't need pharisees 2.0, we have it all in Jesus Christ. When looking on earth, I think that Jesus is sick of what humans have done to His church.

[@susand3668]

@@ajmartinez1470 Excuse me, but weren't they both one and the same church for a thousand years? We both find our origins in the original Apostles and their being breathed on by the Risen Christ.

[@ajmartinez1470]

@@susand3668 the RCC and the EOC were one church officially until the schism of 1054. Apostolic succession is also not just the ability to trace your priesthood back to the apostles historically as the RCC does, but also doctrinally and dogmatically which is what The Eastern Orthodox Church maintains. This is the key component of apostolic succession.

[@BP26P]

The very notion of “the New Testament” as the binding collection of post-Resurrection writings containing the Word of God is a tradition of the Church.

[@Polynuttery]

Um, no. God decided the books he warned in the Bible. Not Rome.

[@BP26P]

@@Polynuttery @Polynuttery Of course God decided it. The question is, *How* do you know that God decided *this* ? In none of the New Testament writings does the term “New Testament” ever refer to a collection of books, much less *this* particular 27-book collection. In none of the New Testament writings is there even a table of contents, where each and every text in that 27-book collection is authoritatively identified. For example, *How* do you know the “Letter to the Hebrews” belongs in there and contains the Word of God? The fact is, if you hold that this Letter is inspired and canonical it’s because you have received it as such - a tradition - from the Church that transmits it from generation to generation as inspired and canonical. Unless you want to abandon the canonicity of any of the 27 books, you’ll have to concede that the Church’s tradition of the canon of the “New Testament” is ultimately derived from divine Providence. God decided the books, but you can’t know what those books are apart from His Church.

[@isahelhernandez]

Great question! Hope everyone takes this to heart and don’t put their walls up immediately. Instead of answering right away. Do some research with an open mind. There’s nothing wrong with challenging your assumptions. If they are true, they will stand to any scrutiny.

[@AmaliahMairin]

Bravo. Resubscribed, shared and following. Continued prayers.

[@Capturing_christianity_fanpage]

Thanks for your time! As hyped as i am about getting more good content out! Don’t forget to like the video 🤍🤍sᴇɴᴅ🤍🤍ᴍᴇ🤍🤍ᴀ🤍🤍ᴅɪʀᴇᴄᴛ🤍🤍ᴛᴇxᴛ🤍±𝟷𝟽𝟻𝟺𝟸𝟸𝟿𝟹𝟼𝟽𝟹

[@fernandomiranda4714]

They had three principles to determine which books would be part of the Word of God: 1) Apostolicity, the book had to be written by an apostle or based upon a apostle 2) Rule of faith, the book had to be consistent with the teachings that the churches received from the apostles 3) Catholicity, the book had to be accepted by all or most of the churches. None of these principles are founded on the papacy or the authority of a single church or bishop.

[@Hound_of_God]

If "they" is the Church, why do you trust that the Church identified all and only the correct criteria?

[@beththepotato2475]

What about the OT canon

[@476429]

1. Who decided those were the criteria? 2. Who had the authority to ensure those criteria were met? 3. Martin Luther did not believe the canon was correct. Besides the deuterocanon, he rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Why do Protestants accept his authority to define Sola Scriptura as a foundational principle but reject his authority to determine what constitutes scripture?

[@fernandomiranda4714]

@@476429 1. No body "decided" that those were the criteria in the same way we, as an ontological authority, don't decide the criteria of cooking books or comic books. The Church recognized the authority of the Scripture because they debated with those criterias in mind. The criteria of Martin Luther was bad simple because it was based on his theological preferences and not on those 3 I mentioned.

[@giovanibenjamin9655]

U do know that just about every Protestant scholar appeal to the authority of the church fathers for the reliability of the Bible right. Without the church fathers u do know we’d have almost knowing to stand on

[@stephenkneller9318]

I find it interesting that Romans, who still hold that God given miracles occur at a frequent rate, cannot accept that the answer to this question is quite simple and provided by the Bible itself. Psalms 12:6-8 and Isaiah 40:6-8 tells us God preserves His Word for all times. This is proven by the New Testament itself. St. Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:14-16 about St. Paul’s writings. This is an infallible statement demonstrating that the Apostles were not only aware of each other’s writings, but also were aware of these writings contents. This clearly demonstrates that the books of the New Testament were being copied and shared in the Early Church even while St. Peter and St. Paul were alive. And this occurred between Western and Eastern rites, without a unified church wide leadership that would not begin to exist until Constantine became Emperor. This was also at the same time when bishops and presbyters were held to be the same office, but using different names. Furthermore, it is absolutely incredible that the Early Church’s compilation of the New Testament Scripture was as uniformed as it was despite the vast separation of the different churches around the Mediterranean. Obviously God was using the Holy Spirit to help these churches arrive at the same conclusion of what was Scripture and what was not, before Constantine legalized Christianity centuries later. And it is even more astonishing when you consider the different traditions in the West, the East, and the South (North Africa), already separating by languages, local liturgies, and traditions. Your answer number one fails outright. These books were already being used consistently throughout the Early Church centuries before there was anything like a unified authority of the Early Church, which itself wasn’t anything like the monarchal leadership Rome falsely claims it always had. This is easily disproven by historical fact and even Roman scholars like Eamon Duffy, as well as many honored and trusted early scholars such as St. Jerome. Rome claiming for itself what God Himself done is absolutely arrogant, demonstrating the Roman delusion of itself being, in a way, godlike itself. Answer two is a good answer. While we still cannot answer who wrote Hebrews, relying on the argument of critical scholars, who also hold the Bible is not infallible, is sad. If you have to side with those arguing against the infallibility of Scripture to make your point, you merely demonstrate the weakness of your argument. See the answer to answer four for more support for this argument. Your answer three argument is wrong. While one may be proximately close to the Apostles, proximity does not correlate to infallibility. So your argument about Clement’s writing, makes no sense. Answer four is a a good argument. Yes, it could be using circular logic. But, on the other hand, it could also clearly demonstrate these books are Canon. Since we know these writing were already circulating at the same time the Apostles were teaching and preaching the Gospel, we can also conclude that these writing were confirmed as true by the Apostles own teachings. Furthermore, this answer and that of answer two would also demonstrate the Holy Spirit’s inspiration fulfilling God’s promise to preserve His Word. Your return to appealing that some accepted other works as Canon does not really apply. Just because some have an outlaying view merely demonstrates their difference. One should instead look to the overall universal consistency of the early adoption of the Canon instead. And as far as some claiming certain works should be read despite being Scripture, as a Roman, you should rage against them like you do Luther. After all, Luther not only translated the books of the Apocrypha and included them in his German translation of the Bible, he too said these books should be read by Christians despite not being Scripture. Answer five is the only completely viable answer and would be the basis demonstrating together with answers two and four, that the Holy Spirit was fulfilling God’s promise given in Psalm 12:6-8 and Isaiah 40:6-8. Yes, the Early Church, like the Bible teaches the real presence in the Eucharist and that congregations should recognize the “authority of Bishops”. Remember, in the Early Church, Bishops and Presbyters were different names for the same office. So the most correct way to say this is that congregations should recognized the authority of the preachers over them. But also, in the Early Church, these preachers held no secular authority, because they were members of a banned religion in the Empire.

[@thomasfryxelius5526]

Hello Cameron! I think this argument is extremely weak for the catholic side for many reasons: 1) The papacy, especially it´s very powerful version, arose over time. So the papacy didn´t give us the Bible. The canon was acknowledged long before that by a church that was very unlike the modern catholic church. 2) One very important and often repeated argument in the early church is that they followed the OT Canon of the jews, that was identical in number to the jewish alphabet, so many did not accept the Apocrypha as canon. So the RCC chose a canon in conflict with many in the early church. Some even give stern warnings about those books. So you don´t follow the lead of the early church but that of the later roman hierarchy. 3) If we look at the OT Canon as a guide in how God gives Scriptures to the people, we can see that He gave the Scriptures through the prophets and that they were received by a process of accknowledgement of divine authority, ie the people of God recognize the Word of God over time. It didn´t become the Word of God by any action the jewish leaders took. The same happened in the NT era. So what is the argument here? That we need the Catholic Church authority (that didn´t exist at the time) to tell us which books are included in the Canon (which they didn´t do in reality) so we can know they are the right ones (even if they include books that were widely rejected in the early Church as canon and never used by Jesus or the apostles as authoritative). And even if you accept that the Church had authority to establish the Canon, this is not a problem for Sola Scriptura, since Sola Scriptura does not mean, and never have meant, we have no other authorities. Sola Scriptura only claims Scripture alone is infallible and above all other authorities.

[@alstroemeria227again4]

My thoughts exactly!!!

[@joelblessing1532]

Exact same you hit the exact point how was the OT “canon” established before the Catholic Church and how come Jesus didn’t question it? We know they had that in place at the time of Jesus, how did that happen. If feel like it’s disingenuous to discuss the topic without address this.

[@Stanzan52]

The church fallibly recognizes infallible books, just as you fallibly recognize infallible magisterial teachings

[@ImagoDigest]

Solid closing statement. If the Faith is true, it will hold up to the doubts and the questions.

[@NeilTheCatholic]

The issue of the canon is why I cannot fully accept Protestantism.

[@kliniac3564]

@@NeilTheCatholic well, if you’re getting your info from videos like this, it’s no wonder. You should read Michael Kruger’s book the question of canon and Piper’s book a peculiar glory.

[@NeilTheCatholic]

@@kliniac3564 I am familiar with Kruger and I am extremely unimpressed. Haven't gone through Pipers book though. I'll check it out.

[@NeilTheCatholic]

@@kliniac3564 And no, my critique of both Rome and Protestantism is different from Cameron. There are points of agreements but also points of disagreements. We are different is all.

[@AndyfromPBG1]

@@NeilTheCatholic I suggest you read the book, not just be familiar with the guy. You being unimpressed doesn't have a reflection on the book- it answers your questions.

[@kliniac3564]

@ what does “familiar” mean? What is your refutation of his work?

[@TheClaudius07]

So many issues with his arguments but the most glaring one is that it can easily be flipped right back at hime. If the Jews had the authority to define the boundaries of the Old Testament , how do you account for the process by which the Jewish leaders Authoritatively recognized the scriptures? And since Jewish people preceded scripture and had the authority to resolve dispute, then you should listen to them in matters of scripture. How do you account for the fact that you now use their authority to recognized the old testament , which you received from them but now reject their authority in other aspects?? Im not even smart and I could see the giant flaws in Mr Capturing Christianity's arguments

[@stinkymouse2304]

Christians do not rely solely on Jewish authority for the Old Testament, the canon was affirmed by Christ and the Apostles, who frequently quoted the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Scriptures

[@iwansaputra1890]

mat 16: 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" that authority given to the church by Jesus christ

[@jonathanstensberg]

There was no settled Hebrew canon at the time of Christ. While Christ and the NT authors quote from the now-recognized OT, they also quote from non-OT sources. Ultimately, the canon of the OT was established by the same process that established the canon of the NT. In fact, the Hebrew canon was partially defined in reaction against the Christian OT canon.

[@hubertagamasu6283]

The church was trustworthy enough to create the canon so it must be trustworthy enough to interpret it. By your logic, the Jewish church created the Old Testament canon so we must trust their interpretation of it (like their denial of Christ's messiahship and God's triunity). You can create the cannon and still be wrong if your interpretation goes against what is in the word of God. The Bible interprets itself, not men.

[@patriot524]

This is a false dichotomy between Jews and the early Christians. The earliest Christians were Jews. Christianity is the true continuation of Judaism. Those Jews became the first Christians by their interpretation of the Old Testament and learning from Jesus. The canon of Scripture that Catholics and Orthodox use is from the Septuagint. The Septuagint was in Greek (not Hebrew) and was the most widely used version of the Scriptures by Jews at the time of Jesus. That canon is what the first Christians (i.e. true Jews) used. Most of the quotes of the Old Testament in the New Testament come from the Septuagint. The New Testament is even found quoting the Septuagint where such quotes and prophecies did not even exist in the Hebrew versions. The now authoritative Jewish (i.e. Christ denier) version of the Old Testament, the Masoretic Text, was decided upon by the non-faithful Jews centuries after Christ. The formulated this canon in reaction the Christians who used the Septuagint. The Masoretic text is used as the foundation for the Protestant formulation of the Old Testament. Catholics and Orthodox use the Septuagint

[@patriot524]

Additionally, it is very much worth mentioning that the Jews did not have a settled canon of Scripture. The Sadducees only considered the Torah scriptural. The Pharisees considered the Torah, Prophets, Psalms, and oral tradition authoritative. Essenes had an even larger canon. There was no general consensus. However, in Christianity, there was a general consensus around the Septuagint. Yet, this question could not be solved without the Church

[@HarrisonTheGrey]

Gavin answered you pretty clearly.

[@HenryBonesJr]

Unless, he's since shifted his position, Gavin has already articulated his position in the past. William Albrecht, Gary Michuta and Suan Sonna have rebutted him. Suan has a recent video on it.

[@DavidTextle]

This would be a much more compelling argument if sola scriptura truly was the belief that the ONLY authority is the Bible Fortunately, it is merely the only ULTIMATE authority, meaning minor authorities can have a say in what we believe just that they have to align with scripture or at least not contradict it.

[@fantasia55]

Sola means only.

[@DavidTextle]

@@fantasia55 Only INFALLIBLE authority yes. only authority “period” would be a strawman of the Protestant position, unfortunately many Catholic channels attack the strawman to feel triumphant. Addressing the actual Protestant belief might actually make a difference, but that’s a harder one

[@fantasia55]

@DavidTextle YOUR interpretation of Scripture as the only infallible authority

[@DavidTextle]

@@fantasia55not an interpretation as much as a logical conclusion Can’t say I interpret 1+1 =2 God is infalliable = his word in infalliable If we have anything else to the level of Gods word then that’s also infallible but it must be proven, not assumed ✅

[@fantasia55]

@@DavidTextle So you're the only one to interpret correctly. Impressive!

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Hi Cameron, I've defended this at length in my channel: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpCWgnloYrOsp5osi=0KpXnwE25lRxCI-o Happy to come on the channel to dialogue about this with a Roman Catholic. Or to have you on my channel to dialogue.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

Answer: Because the word of God informed the church on how to recognize canonical books. Here's a brief introductory video explaining how: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX3XiKmfdtdpes0

[@TheChurchofBreadandCheese]

What if it turns out that the Gospel of John for example wasn't written by an apostle at all? Or that Paul didn't write some of his letters?

[@hap1678]

The term “word of God” assumes the canon, your answering a question with the thing in question.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

@@TheChurchofBreadandCheese what if it turns out that Cameron is wrong about Roman Catholicism? There are always what-ifs.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

@@hap1678the word of God is what started the church. Christ taught and the church began. The church begins with the “canon” ie “the word of God”. Don’t see the problem.

[@TheChurchofBreadandCheese]

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 well yes but I'm asking you how your argument would stand I don't care about arguments for roman Catholicism

[@BiblicalUnderstanding]

13:24 The exact same argument could be made to argue for the Pharisees' exclusive authority to interpret the Old Testament. By this logic, are we obligated to consider the Pharisees an infallible authority simply because they correctly recognized the Old Testament canon?

[@GusDeavel]

Tell me how u know the pharisees got the old testament correct

[@Simonm-jc]

The pharisees DID have the authority to interpret scripture and teach the lay folk. That's why Jesus instructed his followers to listen to the pharisees' teachings but not to follow their example - because they were hypocrites. The teaching authority of the pharisees was made null when Jesus passed the authority to bind and loosen to the apostles. Either way, the pharisees never defined a strict canon for the old testament, so the burden is also on you to show which old testament they got "right", and how you know they got it right.

[@kyrptonite1825]

to a certain extent, they were. Of course the system wasn’t that simple. However, Jesus actually said they say on Moses’s seat, which was something that meant a succession of teaching authority

[@rougepilot5513]

@@Simonm-jc The Pharisees had their canon of scripture, which differed from the canon held by the Sadducees and the Essenes (Dead Sea Scrool Community)

[@ProLifeChloe]

this was one question that lead me OUT of Protestantism… being Catholic (Maronite) is so liberating! Lizzie also blocked me on twitter when I refuted her😂 God bless!

[@Capturing_christianity_fanpage]

Thanks for your time! As hyped as i am about getting more good content out! Don’t forget to like the video 🤍🤍sᴇɴᴅ🤍🤍ᴍᴇ🤍🤍ᴀ🤍🤍ᴅɪʀᴇᴄᴛ🤍🤍ᴛᴇxᴛ🤍±𝟷𝟽𝟻𝟺𝟸𝟸𝟿𝟹𝟼𝟽𝟹

[@ZoombiniMystic]

Lizzie is so notorious that even people on KZbin talk about her lol. She needs both a psychiatrist and an exorcist

[@bencorley8687]

Solid video and solid advice. Good work.