Defending Sola Scriptura from Trent Horn and Craig Truglia (w/ The Other Paul) (Part 1)

[@thecatechumen]

We should start a go fund me page to get an audio technician up in Fr. Jame's office

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

Maybe, but I think it may be his internet. I don't know if he has many options there.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

Haha 😂

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@Real_LiamOBryan while the most common issue is the internet (this area is notoriously bad with internet), that issue is more or less resolved now: I tend to use my phone as an hot spot for times when there is high internet traffic in my area. The issue on this stream is a frustratingly confusing way my PC connects the mic and headphones. It has multiple options for the headphones and mic, but doesn't elaborate which is which. I figured they were all redundant, but as I was trying to fix the issue during the stream I realized that I had to pick particular options for the mic and headphones (hence why my mic was bad; it apparently wasn't working properly). I don't think I've ever come across this particular problem before, or have done so so rarely that I forget about it, but I think the issue was that I started up streamyard without first connecting my microphone and headphones.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@barelyprotestant5365 Wow! Terrible.

[@iron_vicuna6784]

Love how Paul just started monotonously quoting The Bee Movie

[@thoughtfulchristianity]

Using the London Baptist Confession against Lutherans and Anglicans is like using the Papacy against Eastern Orthodox.... Loved this discussion. God bless you, gentlemen!

[@doubtingthomas9117]

Great point

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

Confessionalism exists in all three...papalism does not exist in Orthodoxy.

[@thoughtfulchristianity]

Ok... that is not the argument that I am making. Without going into a long refutation (because these comment sections are not the place to do it).... The point of the example is simply that bad Baptist theology is not a reason to dismiss Magisterial Protestant theology by the mere principle that they do not share the same systematic framework. Going back to the argument I originally made and using the same trail of thought you have in your reply: "It's like using the concept of the Papacy against Eastern Orthodox because they have Apostolic Succession." It's just not a fair critique because it takes too much for granted, and it dismisses any Orthodox theology from the start.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

@@thoughtfulchristianity Friend, "we are not baptists" is a non sequitur, as my video states, the fact that all Protestant traditions cherrypick pre-reformation traditions epistemically makes their relation to tradition the same.

[@thoughtfulchristianity]

@OrthodoxChristianTheology I understand what you mean, yet this and many other videos from other Anglicans and Lutherans explain why that's not really the case. On a side note, I really enjoyed your book. 😀

[@AttackDog0500]

2:27:10 it is so wild to hear Trent articulate my exact journey from Dispy Bapticostal to Anglican as though it's Bigfoot (rare and elusive) . The historic witness and tradition of the Church Catholic is precisely what caused me to rethink my whole paradigm, from Baptism to who is Israel to Apostolic Succession. Sometimes I joke that Catholic Answers made me Anglican, which has large amounts of truth to it because encountering Catholic apologists on KZbin forced me to reckon with church history and realize that large parts of the framework for how I viewed the faith was innovated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

[@etheretherether]

Funny, I'm also considering Anglicanism following the same trajectory.

[@doubtingthomas9117]

@@AttackDog0500 -yeah, reading a lot of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists over the years led me to Anglicanism as well 👍🏻

[@lkae4]

The majority of my 200 member Anglican church, including the priest, came from non-denominational churches.

[@doubtingthomas9117]

Yeah I grew up Southern Baptist, and after considering the claims of Rome and seriously exploring Eastern Orthodoxy, I became Anglican instead.

[@TheOtherPhilip]

Which person do you think would be most likely to better know and better understand apostolic teaching? A person who reads their Bible under a tree and never goes to church? Or a person who goes to church but never reads their Bible?

[@TheOtherPhilip]

For clarity, I don’t think either is optimal but clearly a person who reads the Bible should know the apostolic and prophetic teaching better than one who does not. So their whole “me and my Bible alone under a tree” point is honestly, not as bad as they’re trying to make out. Not that that person can’t come to erroneous conclusions, but I suspect they would be less likely to come to erroneous conclusions than the one who attends church and does not read their Bible.

[@john-markharris6068]

Depends on the church lol

[@rexlion4510]

The evidence for the church, and the description, the duties, the signs, and the marks of the church all are detailed in the Scriptures. Thus the church itself is dependent upon the testimony of Scripture. This renders impossible Rome’s claim that the reliability of Scripture depends upon the testimony of the Roman church. If the Roman church is to be considered infallible, this claim can only be established by the testimony of the Scriptures, because it is the Scriptures which tell us about the church. Since Scripture does not support Rome’s claim of infallibility, the claim must be denied and rejected. They like to say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, by means of some Council. If that were true, then what were the N.T. Scriptures prior to that Council? Was the truth “not truth” before the Council? Was that which we now call “inspired” and “the written word of God” only rendered as such by the Council’s issuance of a formalized list of those books which the various churches had already received and were reading aloud? Did the Council have a “magic wand” to wave over some base, common books which had been bereft of authoritativeness, so as to transform them suddenly into authoritative Holy Scripture? From where could the Council even derive its authority to convene and discuss matters, if not from the Scripture? For it is in Scripture that we all read about the precedential example set by the Apostles at Jerusalem! If we are to believe the infallibility of the Scripture merely on the church’s authority, then that faith can be but a human faith, because it is founded on nothing better than the authority of men. Likewise, if we are to believe the infallibility of the church, then our faith in the church is a human faith founded upon mere human authority. When the Apostles spoke to people, they backed up what they were saying with Scripture. They always appealed to Scripture as their authority. When Peter got up to speak on the day of Pentecost he did not say, “You men of Judea and Jerusalem, I have been appointed pope of the church, and by the authority vested in me I tell you that you must join the Catholic Church.” No, instead Peter cited many O.T. Scriptures to show them their need to believe in Jesus as Messiah. He supported everything with Scripture. This is the example we should follow today.

[@The-Eastern-Papist]

James white did say SS started and made normative in the 4th once the cannon has been put together. I was shocked to hear that from him because that was not his position in other debates that I heard.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

With all due respect to my e-friends here, this is a pretty weak response stream to be honest. It was clearly made without having watched the whole video in advance they are responding to (Father James admits this as does TOP at @34:10). At @31:00 both critics criticize the citation of 2 Pet 1, not listening to how the passage is actually applied (I acknowledge the passage is not about interpretation per se, but its source, and then cross that to passages to the source of ecclesiastical disciplinary authority--a different argument than the one they began responding to). I can only take this attempt at such a rushed response without any preparation as a compliment, as the video I did with Trent is proving to be popular and this is just an attempt to ride its coattails. So be it. I suppose, more work can be put into part II. I recommend watching some of the response videos I have done, such as to Pastor Wallace's work--as I literally go through specific arguments the work makes and give refutations, not sort of "react" to it as it plays. Hence, I demonstrate I actually understand the arguments made when disagreeing.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

@27:00 Due to this response stream not being against Mathison, but popular ideas of him, to be fair, i don't see the issue of critiquing summaries. RC Sproul and Ligioniers, as well as James White, make the summarized arguments repeatedly as I remember from years ago. So, if the summaries are wrong or there is something additional to add, that is why I said it is fine to add it. But to say it is "problematic," without these things being the case, is not problematic unless I am claiming to be refuting Mathison's book as a whole. Pretty humorous that both critics then say they neither read the book (so cannot critique that the summaries used are inaccurate or useless for the general apologetic defense of "sola scriptura" vis a vis "solo scriptura) and then commit the "no true protsman" fallacy in @29:52.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

At @51:40, Fr James rightfully points out the pivot/conflating of disciplinary authority with interpretive authority. On the surface, these are different concepts. However, as Acts 15 shows, they are not independent of one another. Clearly, the Pharisee converts' interpretation of the Mosaic law was denounced, and the invoking if said Law as prophetic (as James uses it in the chapter) and as a "tutor to Christ" (as paul understands it in Gal 3) is how the Church used the Scriptures during that council.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

@1:27:10 Yes...which if you watched the video before you responded to it, you would have saw pictures of two icons with literal prayers to the saints' written on them...As for TOP's invoking of Augustine at @1:28:00, I already responded to him specifically on this in my debate on the topic with Turretinfan.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

@1:39:55 They make fun of historicity of the dormition tradition, when we have an authentic eye witness account to the event (in the authentic writing of Saint Dionysius), and arguably (as per scholarly dating) written accounts of the same in each subsequent century.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

@1:41:50--Correction taken, took almost 2 hours to make a single good critique (though not substantive, as the video is a general critique of ideas, not Mathison specifically). The "gotcha" smile is bizarre considering that this response video was made without even watching the video in advance...

[@ulty1472]

Yay two of my fav anglicans

[@doubtingthomas9117]

Yeah they’re pretty good blokes 👍🏻

[@etheretherether]

Been binging Scripture, Tradition, and Magesterium videos recently. It would be interesting to see how you guys would engage with the way Fr. Stephen De Young and Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick discuss how the canon was formed in the Lord of Spirits episode "As Delivered by Angels" One thing I've been struggling with that so far I haven't heard a good explanation from apologists from any tradition is "What, ontologically speaking, is scripture, and when does it cease to be scripture?" Does a poor translation count as scripture? Did oral teaching in the first 2 centuries count as scripture? Is scripture still scripture when it's being read and interpreted by a non-Christian?

[@barelyprotestant5365]

A poor translation of Scripture is just that: a poor translation of Scripture. No translation of Scripture is inspired, except for derivatively so in something like the Septuagint (as that is primarily the source for OT citations in the NT). We do not have the oral tradition, verbatim, right now, so we can only say, "Insofar as it says what Scripture exactly says, we can call it Scripture." No interpretation of Scripture is Scripture, even if interpreted by a godly man. It is still the reading of Scripture, and the interpretation (however poorly or rightly).

[@hexahexametermeter]

Just the fact that Catholic Answers exists proves that their papal "infallible authority" is not sufficient. They are not the magisterium. But they act as if they were.

[@bman5257]

That’s kind of a silly argument. The job of the magisterium is not to eradicate the need for catechesis and apologetics, but doctrine. Vatican II for example was not written primarily for the Hispanic granny to read from cover to cover. It’s meant for the theologians and the pastors of the Church which they then take into their catechesis and pastoring.

[@hexahexametermeter]

Ah but your catechetical and apologetics people are not infallible. Thus many interpretations are made by the various catechists and apologists. (By the way they also flat out lie and promote claims that are straight out false.) So how is granny or I supposed to know the REAL Roman Catholic doctrine? Any charge against not being able to understand the Scriptures themselves must be endured by your own people. Including yourself. You must endure your own pessimistic epistomology of Holy Scripture; that it is too obscure for anyone besides your Magisterium to understand. Now concerning the Scripture itself: John's gospel is far easier to understand than Vatican II. And John believes in an even more narrow view of the sufficiency of the Scriptures than the sola scriptura of the Protestants. John believed in sola Ioannes: "Many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written SO THAT YOU MAY BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that BY BELIEVING you YOU MAY HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME." You see that John wrote his Gospel with the inherent belief that even his Gospel ALONE is sufficient -- not only for belief -- but for eternal life. Goodnight.

[@EthanMiller-ul9sp]

@@bman5257how do I know the apologists are right?

[@bman5257]

@@EthanMiller-ul9sp I think you’re mistaking a popular level misconception and exposition of the role of the magisterium with the actual role of the magisterium as understood by its theologians. It would be absurd to argue that the Catholic magisterium provides the faithful with an infallible epistemology as opposed to a non infallible epistemology from a Protestant framework. Given the Munchhausen trillemma, and the Gödel incompleteness theorem, there’s no such thing as an infallible epistemology because you can always ask how do you know such and such is infallible. The value is derived from the fact that the normative authority of the magisterium provides clarity in synthesizing doctrine out of the demonstrably not perspicuous biblical data. And the proof is in the pudding when you compare the enormous doctrinal variety within Protestantism. Two devout Catholics will agree on: The Eucharist, the seven sacraments, the threefold office of the clergy, apostolic succession, the role of grace, faith and works as they relate to initial justification and final justification, original sin, baptismal regeneration, the morality of modern issues like contraception IVF, abortion, and divorce and remarriage. A devout Anglican and a devout Southern Baptist may disagree wildly on these issues, while they both earnestly try to formulate doctrine out of the biblical data.

[@bman5257]

@@hexahexametermeter So what if the catechists aren’t infallible. Their formation by the magisterium produces a far greater doctrinal consistency than the dogmatic expositions of Protestant communities. If I am wrong and you are right, then this fallibility of the catechists should lead many grannies to proclaim heresies inconsistent with the magisterium. But this does not happen. If it does name me a doctrine that Catholic grannies are deceived into, due to the fallibility of the catechists, apologists, and pastors that the Magisterium teaches the opposite of? Meanwhile I can show you many things Martin Luther believed with ferocity that most American Protestants reject: The Real Presence, the necessity of Baptism for salvation, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

[@AisElliott]

The Other Paul is a "Theological Arms Manufacturer" that allows his opponents to take each other out.

[@jamiecharles8334]

The Brian cross manoeuvre won’t work… because how many Catholics did that with FS… you have a recent example right there Side note; I often point out to SVs who still try to hold to sacred tradition that they are technically Protestant too

[@Casey-cs5pu]

It’s true though. How do Protestants determine “true traditions?” Their interpretation of the Bible. What happens if people disagree about interpretations? They choose different “traditions”

[@carpediem5526]

What true traditions are you referring?

[@WittenbergScholastic]

I​@@carpediem5526 It's like they don't even watch the video 😭

[@thoughtfulchristianity]

@OrdoConcordis that's usually the case. They see the title and write a gargantuan essay in the comments with the video on mute. Or start writing the essay when they get triggered by a single comment from a 2 hour video and proceed to write nonstop, ignoring the rest of the conversation.

[@petros810]

The anglican response is that we do actually look at the church's consensual tradition. Indeed, our articles of faith, our formularies, and our liturgy all reflect that. Also your last question can be also asked of the RC. What happens if people have different interpretations of the the RC Teachings? Does one Taylor Marshal (sppx trad), Michael Lofton (pro-vatican II Moderate), or Fr. James Martin (progressive). The all claim to be faithful interpreters of the RC Teaching and to the best of my knowledge none of them has been ex-cummunicated as dissenter

[@EthanMiller-ul9sp]

Please watch the video through, or see the mountain of content that has been put out over the last three years on this subject

[@ministeriosemmanuel638]

Truth is, the Church Fathers have a very high view of Scripture and a low view of Ecumenical Councils.

[@haronsmith8974]

Church Fathers had a high view of both.

[@doubtingthomas9117]

The Church Fathers employed scriptural exegesis, in the context of the Rule of Faith (which itself coheres with scripture), in arriving at their conciliar decisions/creeds

[@ashleysbored6710]

Sideways Jesus disproves Eastern Orthodoxy

[@EthanMiller-ul9sp]

Lol, i saw the video but at this point i dont think those criticisms land

[@dan_m7774]

Thousands of denominations all reading scripture differently clearly demonstrates why Scripture points to sending Phillip to the Eneuch.

[@petros810]

Sola scriptura does not deny preachers and teachers to expound the the Scriptures. Sola scripture is not "nuda (naked) Scriptura.

[@dan_m7774]

@@petros810 I would disagree, Luther defined scripture as if his opinion was God Spoken. How does any Denomination act differently? They all claim a preachers opinion is what scripture clearly says and they are being guided by the Holy Spirit. Same with the church across the street who holds to opposite beliefs. I see them all falsely teaching their errors as truth.

[@petros810]

@@dan_m7774 Your taking Luther out of context but never the less Luther is not the Protestant pope contrary to RC polemics. You still continue with this bad argument that because there is differences that means sola scriptura is not true. Yet I have point out that you have the same issue that you are in denial about. The following statements shows the weakness in Your logic: There are so many different interpretations of Christ by Christian’s that this proves that Christianity can’t be true- Muslim The monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have conflicting beliefs so this proves that there really isn’t one God,must be many- Hindus The various religions hold conflicting beliefs and yet each claim they have the truth. This proves the futility of all religion- agnostic or atheist Do you see now see the problem in your position?

[@dan_m7774]

@@petros810 the five Solas are an invention of Luther. Yet every protestant must accept them to claim their existence is by the bible. To say join my church because my pastor has this opnion of scripture for your salvation, people would say I will not trust any man with my salvation. Yet claiming we are a Bible only lies that it is only a man's interpersonal claiming it is God Spoken. What is this infallible Bible Denomination? You know it does not exist because you would be claiming all other Protestants must abandon their false teaching and join the true teacher. Not one Denomination does this. Only the Catholic Church states we are that church. We are the pillar and Bulwark of the truth Christ established evidenced by our foundation, our history, our preservation of Scripture, the Apostles buried in our Churches, the witness of the saints,and the continuation of miracles.

[@dan_m7774]

Sola scriptura eventually leads only to Solo scriptura as any Church authority, biblical scholar, preachers teaching can all be rejected by any individual claiming his solo interpretation of scripture is the highest authority.

[@carpediem5526]

Like the papacy does.

[@dan_m7774]

@@carpediem5526 When an Apostle taught, were they not the final authority or would you today say my interpretation of scripture matters more. They were given authority to teach without error, you are not.

[@carpediem5526]

@@dan_m7774 by that logic no one should be involved in biblical scholarship except the Bishops and magisterium. Catholic Answers should shut down.

[@carpediem5526]

@@dan_m7774 I’m not the authority. I did learn how to study scripture in seminary though. How many verses has the magisterium officially and dogmatically interpreted for you?

[@pete3397]

@@dan_m7774 You would need to demonstrate what parts of the Traditions of the Apostles were not included in Scripture and from which Apostle any given unscriptural Tradition is the source. Or are you simply saying that the role of Tradition is to support the interpretation of Scripture?

[@gianthebaptist]

3:18 incredibly based and true

[@regostMMA]

What's a Fr James stream without good old technical difficulties ?

[@dan_m7774]

Is Christ not an infallible authority. Are the Apostles not an infallible authority. Are the acts of the Apostles not an infallible authority.

[@pete3397]

Are they not included in Scripture?

[@dan_m7774]

@@pete3397 People creating their own churches based on scripture interpretation is not traditional.

[@pete3397]

@@dan_m7774 But Rome creating its own traditions is traditional?

[@dan_m7774]

@@pete3397 There are traditions that can be created such as a matter of form and can be changed. Other Apostolic traditions are set.

[@hexahexametermeter]

@@dan_m7774 You cant invent additions to a sacrament that Christ has ordained. You cant take the eucharist which is the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to the One God and put it in a monstrance to be worshipped. Noone has the authority to do such a thing.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

The ecclesiology of angclianism (branch theory), presbyterianism, and etc are all not patristic and novel to the second millennium.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

What is the core difference between, say, conciliarism and branch theory? What is wrong with branch theory?

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

@@barelyprotestant5365 Conciliarism establishes a consensus within a singular, non-schismatic body. Branch theory doesn't.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@OrthodoxChristianTheology so Eastern Orthodoxy is not Conciliar, but holds to Branch Theory now? Given that Eastern Orthodoxy is in schism at this moment, this would seem to be the case.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

@@barelyprotestant5365 father, you are poo posting

[@barelyprotestant5365]

I'm not. It's a legitimate question.

[@dan_m7774]

Luther's sola scriptura was his solo opnion of scripture being the final authority. Then other reformers used their Solo interpretation to refute Luther.

[@petros810]

Newsflash! Martin Luther was not the first one or the only one to teach scripture being the final authority. There are host of church father's that taught this, that is why Luther's position was not novel. "Then other reformers used their Solo interpretation to refute Luther". What your point? Their are other sola ecclialists like your self who use their solo interpretation to refute You (If you'r Rc, then EO's with do that )

[@dan_m7774]

@@petros810 The early church Father's taught beliefs could not contradict Scripture, not Sola scriptura. Opinion of scripture is not truth, or the word of God, or God spoken. The Lord's supper, some say is the very presence of Christ, others say it is symbolic. Sola Scriptura does not solve the issue as those using it have come to both conclusions.

[@petros810]

@@dan_m7774 I would be glad to provide you several quotes from the church fathers where they clearly advocate the supreme authority of Scripture and not just contra-scripture. Also sola ecclesia doesn’t resolve the infallibility of the pope because both rc and EO follow sola ecclesia but differ on papal infallibility.

[@dan_m7774]

@@petros810 Scripture is very important. Sola scriptura is opnion. EO is suffering because it can not even demonstrate the ability to call an ecumenical Council, let alone make it binding to other EO. They separated themselves and now find themselves losing the authority they once had when they were in union with the Roman rite. If they were to return they would immediately be able to be in a valid ecumenical Council. They are currently being reduced to only making decisions for their individual rite and none others. The Church Christ established is universal.

[@petros810]

@@dan_m7774 scripture is not Just important it where God speaks. Scripture sufficiently reveals all that is for salvation. We don’t need to look outside of scripture for extra revelation for salvation. The church’s tradition is important for interpretation of scripture. The EO believes that you guys separated from them. They have argued fiercely that the have kept the faith where as Rome has fallen to-modernism. Your current pope believes on can go to heaven as an atheist, prescribes blessings for men engaging in sodomy, kisses the Koran, and his for reverence to the pagan goddess pachamama. Then is the pro lgbtq agenda of the German synod which should have been shut down by the pope but was not. So I don’t really think you should be throwing your stones at EO in light of the mess you now have in the RC.

[@KadenGreen-eg1cz]

To be fair the other paul argues like an Arian when quotes their councils doesn’t he? 😮

[@coffeehousedialogue]

How?

[@KadenGreen-eg1cz]

@@coffeehousedialogue if you watch the video you’ll get what i mean.

[@TheOtherPaul]

🤨

[@KadenGreen-eg1cz]

@@TheOtherPaul haven’t you done that before? I thought you did that and admitted it on Allan Ruhl’s live?

[@TheOtherPaul]

@@KadenGreen-eg1cz I really don't know what you're referring to. What Ruhl stream is this and what's the timestamp?

[@dan_m7774]

Thought the discussion was the ability of Sola scriptura not why we should ignore Baptists as Protestants and therefore their use of sola scriptura must be ignored.

[@coffeehousedialogue]

Why should Anglicans care what a Baptist says? Just because Scripture should be held to a higher authority does not mean we are against traditions or (truly) ecumenical councils & creeds.

[@dan_m7774]

@@coffeehousedialogue Doesn't matter what you prefer, the issue does truth come from private interpretation of scripture, or is it just opinion. To me Baptists exist because Sola scriptura exists. Even within Baptists there are those who hold to a gospel of Calvinism and others call it evil. I see it pure nonsense that scripture is a final authority. I definitely see opnion as what people think is authority.

[@Joshua12w2o]

@@dan_m7774there are those who hold to thomism within Roman “Catholicism” and others who call it evil we know that Ecclesialism is the reason for that

[@Joshua12w2o]

@@dan_m7774this is just one example within Roman “Catholicism” itself imagine if I give examples from other Ecclesialist denominations!

[@dan_m7774]

​@@Joshua12w2oPersonal opinions in the Catholic Church do not change church teaching, just as those who were following Christ but rejected his teachings on eating his flesh. With Sola scriptura disagreement is another Denomination

[@dan_m7774]

Where in Scripture is the definition of sola scripture? If it is not found by sola Scripture you can reject it.

[@carpediem5526]

Where in scripture is the definition of papal infallibility?

[@dan_m7774]

@@carpediem5526 What do you claim the Apostles taught falsely in Scripture. If they didn't, state the verse.

[@pete3397]

So, by that logic we can reject the Trinity.

[@dan_m7774]

@@pete3397 By personal interpretation there definitely are those who reject the Trinity.

[@carpediem5526]

@@pete3397 huh? The trinity is in scripture.

[@haronsmith8974]

You guys are defending an incredible minority view of Sola Scriptura.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

On what basis do you make that claim? Also, why does a show of hands matter in this?

[@haronsmith8974]

@@barelyprotestant5365 because according to the gospels the Church is a city on a hill that cannot be hid(Matthew 5:v14-16), and according to Timothy the Church is a pillar of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15) If the Church IS protestant in nature and protestants are gravely non-Anglican then creeds don't matter. The largest protestant church in America is the SBC and the SBC doesn't abide by Nicene as a whole. If someone left Roman Catholicism and became just a random evangelical you guys would celebrate that. I know that I have seen that in your comments. So obviously the creeds don't matter to you until they do for a useful straw man.

[@bloomhop]

@@haronsmith8974I don’t think they’d celebrate that at all. Did you watch the same video?

[@barelyprotestant5365]

@@haronsmith8974 your last comment is wildly ignorant of what we believe, say, and celebrate. I have long ceased being impressed with the amount of ignorance Papists and Easterners show online.

[@codywork-us7wu]

@@barelyprotestant5365 Cry harder

[@dan_m7774]

How by sola scriptura Christ states you have heard it said, but I say to you.

[@pete3397]

So, what Christ said wasn't written down? What other important teachings and sayings of Jesus were not written down and not included in Scripture?

[@dan_m7774]

@@pete3397 Do you think Christ quit being an authority when a man didn't write it down?

[@pete3397]

​@@dan_m7774 Are you arguing for continued revelation from God outside Scripture? When Scripture says that it is sufficient to thoroughly equip the believer, you hold that the Holy Spirit didn't actually mean "thoroughly" and that subsequent revelations directly to others will be necessary? What other parts of Scripture don't mean what they say? Did Christ actually die on the cross? Was he resurrected? We don't know do we, if we cannot count on Scripture to be accurate in what it says. You've not only thrown out sola scriptura in doing so, you've basically thrown out Scripture. Thus, the only thing you have is a malleable and ever inf flux appeal to tradition.

[@pete3397]

@@dan_m7774 And answer the question: what did Christ say that wasn't preserved in Scripture but has been preserved in Tradition? And how can you prove that something that was not inspired by the Holy Spirit is actually something Christ said?

[@dan_m7774]

@@pete3397 There are different kinds of revelations from God that are revealed or worked out in keeping with scripture. Some of the beliefs of early church were not mature understanding. Other times in history common understanding becomes questioned and Heresy teaching arise and the Church guided by the Holy Spirit determines the correct understanding. Other times new issues arise that are never mentioned in Scripture and the proper teaching can be determined. What is clear is that Sola scriptura is not being guided by the Holy Spirit. No one claims this Denomination is the one true infallible teaching, yet every Denomination claims it is following clear scripture and is guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth. They lack authority to make such a claim.

[@MankinaZoomer]

This review is so weak. Other Paul always has the worst arguments. They aren’t going to make and argument against each of the thousands of Protestants denoms.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

I can’t tell if this is serious or satire.

[@doubtingthomas9117]

And yet the tendency among Romanist apologists is to lump all “Protestants” together when convenient while specifically attacking the particular viewpoints of non-sacramental, low church neo-evangelicals.

[@MankinaZoomer]

@@doubtingthomas9117 I’m not Roman Catholic. Also most people aren’t high church Protestants so they are engaging the majority

[@coffeehousedialogue]

@@MankinaZoomer Okay, atheist. By that logic, all of Christianity should just be lumped together with the Chicago Statement when convenient to attack the religion as a whole. How does that sound?

[@MankinaZoomer]

@@coffeehousedialogue chill out😂. Address a mainline view of sola scriptora is not disingenuous especially when the Anglican view leads to the same conclusion. Reformed Baptist mop the floor with any other Protestant who holds to the Solas

[@dan_m7774]

Since both the Luthern and Anglican church is split on Female clergy and Gay Marriage based on their reading of scripture. Thus scripture is not the final authority. You need an authority like the Apostles who said only our teaching and understanding is truth.

[@coffeehousedialogue]

Bull. The papal office flip-flopped on liturgy in the 1960's from what it was in the 16th century. If it can change its mind at the drop of the hat, the pope is no better.

[@etheretherether]

So we can not know truth from scripture at all apart from an authority? Does the authority use scripture in it's decisions are does it just know things inherently? Catholic apologists have a lower view of scripture then almost any pope throughout history.

[@dan_m7774]

@@etheretherether In 500 years which denomination are you claiming is the scripture truth? What we claim is you have an incomplete understanding.

[@petros810]

Confessional Lutherans and orthodox Anglicans are not spiit on this issue. It was the liberals who actually deny or undermine the historical understanding of sola scriptura who propagated this stuff. Also your logic is flawed and boomerangs back into your court and eventually unravels. You believe the church is the final authority yet both RC and EO disagree on not only what the church says they can't even agree on what the church is (both affirm that they alone are the church). Even within both communions you have a variety of different interpretations of what that communion teaches. So even if you have an infallible interpreter for the Scriptures you will still end up with fallible interpretations of the infallible interpreter. As James whites says, You only kicking it up a notch thats all.

[@petros810]

@@dan_m7774We claim that your arguments backfire. Who has been the true church for last 1,000years? The RC or EO? To make that decision requires personal judgement the same thing you condemn about sola scriptura. As an Anglican, it roots actually go back to the first century not 16th century.

[@dan_m7774]

Sola scriptura denies that the Apostles or Christ could teach orally with authority. Sola scriptura only makes man's opnion of scripture as if God spoken. All Denominations using sola scriptura admit they have no infallible understanding of Scripture, yet they present their opinion as more than opnion.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

I love it when you troll my videos; it helps the algorithm and brings more people to my channel.

[@dan_m7774]

@@barelyprotestant5365 Glad to help.

[@pete3397]

"Sola scriptura denies that the Apostles or Christ could teach orally with authority." No. It says that only Scripture claims for itself to be "God-breathed." Oral tradition cannot validly make the same claim. As St. Augustine notes, Scripture is of a different order than oral tradition. Does Rome make the claim that its rulings and judgments regarding Scripture are infallible? Or is its only claim to authority regarding the interpretation of Scripture itself? How does Rome resolve this circular reasoning? How do denominations - apparently other than Rome - present their opinion as more than opinion? What constitutes "opinion" and what makes something "more than opnion (sic)"?

[@dan_m7774]

​@@pete3397For the Apostles to be in scripture as well as their acts, they also are God Breathed. Christ asking the Apostles who do you say I am, give their opinion. Yet only Peter spoke from knowledge given from God.

[@pete3397]

@@dan_m7774 So, again, what teachings of the Apostles were deemed important for doctrine but were deemed to be not so important as to be written down? What teachings of the Apostles did the Holy Spirit determine needed to be passed down but didn't need to be written down? And if the Holy Spirit didn't see fit to have things written down how do you justify elevating those things to the level of infallibility which He himself did not see fit to elevate?

[@OnuignoKenneth]

Outer nonsense from the above Elizabethans ...hope they realize they have

[@EthanMiller-ul9sp]

R u gonna elaborate or is this cope