Refuting Protestantism's Clarity Doctrine of Scripture

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

I respect the Reformers' idea that we should return to our roots. But since the Reformation, all of the best scholarship points to Reformation theology being disconnected from early Church theology, spirituality, practice etc... Sola Scriptura is a good example of that.

[@bobthebuildest6828]

Yeah this is something ive noticed as well Many of the historical data that Luther based so much on has been turned over with new, more recent discoveries, the most obvious one being the canon of scripture

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

Things like a man like Gary Michuta isnt an unearthed find that overturns evidence. He’s a man in the 21st century who dreams up assumptions of what else it means when a pre Augustinian father says « Bewear of books which preach heresy. Study these books are sacred Scripture. Here’s a list to memorize the books. Study these books, but it must be said, there are besides these other books to read. But have nothing to do with the apocrypha. »

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@isaakleillhikar8311 in english please

[@nathanadamson1364]

nothing could be further from the truth. the exact opposite is true. catholic doctrine has continually walked away from any kind of scriptural basis

[@ChristianTrinity411]

“And to him who does not work, but BELIEVES on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” Romans 4:5

[@sotem3608]

I couldn't really articulate it at the time, but this is exactly what I was running into while being Protestant, I couldn't see how Jesus was praying for us to be one like Him and the father, but then our denomination being "the right one" amongst the broadness of Protestantism. We where supposed to "test everything by scripture", and even our pastors; but then when you did, you where just misinterpreting. Thanks for your work gentlemen! I've been baptised into the Faith in a beautiful Easter Vigil yesterday!

[@Olc...]

Good thing Catholicism doesn't need to be tested by the scripture

[@dallasbrat81]

What protestant faith proclaim exclusively?

[@Olc...]

@Harley Mann The is no our scripture. There is only 1 word of God, and that's all.

[@Olc...]

@@dallasbrat81 Not sure what you mean?

[@dallasbrat81]

@@Olc... muslims say there are 99 names

[@ottovonbaden6353]

Timestamps 00:04 - Introduction and Book Endorsement 03:30 - Mr. Chalk's Reason for Writing 12:33 - Definition of Scriptural Clarity 18:30 - Main Thesis of the Book 20:58 - Evidences for Thesis 25:50 - Protestants Argue Like Atheists 28:47 - Practical Perspicuity Problems 48:20 - A Final Objection and Response 53:00 - Protestant Disunity vs Catholic Disunity 56:33 - Where to Find the Book and Closing Comments

[@wonderingpilgrim]

@ottovonbaden6353 Thank you for taking the time to make this. Timestamps are very helpful!

[@seanrodrigues12]

Trent appreciate your work but can you talk less than your interviewee in your interviews please?

[@drew1784]

Thanks

[@andrewwittemann9614]

@@seanrodrigues12 This guy isn't Trent.

[@bethanyjohnson8001]

I love that you quote Chesterton! I'm taking a class dedicated to him at Ave Maria University. I have read his books before, but this class has really demonstrated to me just what a brilliant man he was. I have been highlighting so much in Orthodoxy that I might as well have highlighted the enitre book!

[@julieelizabeth4856]

I just visited the town of Ave Maria a few weeks ago! There are so many things I like about it. (As an artist, I hope to see a gallery soon with Catholic art!) What do you think of the nondenominational church being there? I have to wonder why they even want to be there, other than for the purpose of pulling Catholics from their faith.

[@crusaderACR]

@@julieelizabeth4856 If any church makes less sense is the "non"-denominational stuff. There's no such thing lol.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

The earliest protestants understood that a succession of their beliefs from the early Church was necessary because otherwise how could you draw their beliefs out of such a multitude of possible interpretations. The problem was they asserted this succession with zero evidence, and it has become embarrassing so most protestants no longer argue for it. But despite not retaining one of the main reasons for separation, that doesn't give contemporary protestants pause to reexamine their faith. They don't even have the same beliefs as their immediate predecessors, yet that doesn't cause them to reexamine anything

[@beckanewell128]

This is so true. And the differences in beliefs are big ones.

[@peterzinya1]

@@beckanewell128 When one is born again, prot or catholic or what ever fades away. The born again follow the Lamb. The unsaved join sects or religions.

[@no-one-787]

@@peterzinya1 And how does one do that exactly? By interpreting the Scriptures in just the same way YOU interpret them, I gather? Good thing Peter Zinya came along to set the Church straight.

[@peterzinya1]

@@no-one-787 One isnt born again by interpreting scripture. So typical of you religion people. I dont interpret scripture. The bible ,means what it says and says what it means. Look at the way you interpret scripture. You take "no images" to mean make as many images as you possibly can and get on your knees in front of them. Theres tons more that i wont get into. You think your costume holymen own heaven and can reach up there and bring god down from off his throne. You guys really believe that madness.

[@OPiguy35]

Still in between Protestantism and Catholicism…not really signed onto either but grew up most of my life as a Protestant…this exact topic is one of the key things that had me abandon my membership in the Protestant church

[@ninjason57]

Follow Jesus. Don’t worry about these discrepancies

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@ninjason57 that's a completely nonsensical statement

[@Wildwest89]

Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church. Follow Jesus. “Who hears you hears me, and who hears me hears the one who sent me.”

[@gunsgalore7571]

Just curious, what kind of church do you attend right now?

[@jayschwartz6131]

​@@ninjason57 mormons, jehova's witnesses, SDA and even muslims claim they follow Jesus

[@KH-vp4ni]

I grew up protestant and my pastor was insane and interpreted scripture very dangerously. People got hurt. People followed him. He was a very bad shepherd. I can not for the life of me understand how people can get behind personal interpretation.

[@KH-vp4ni]

@ThoskaBrah but the magisterium corrected them or excommunicated them. My pastor castrated himself. Everyone beat there kids to save them from the devil. I'll never depend on any one man's interpretation of scripture and it's a shame anyone followed him. Fear driven and legalistic was my entire childhood thanks to that church.

[@justthink8952]

@ThoskaBrah There are indeed some reports that said some Catholic priest who offered Mass daily don't believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There are priests and Bishops who favour the agenda of LGBTQ. So, what you say is undeniable. The only difference is that the official teachings of the Church overrules the teaching errors of those wayward/ heretical teachers/ priests. Even the Pope could teach error but his personal opinion don't define the Catholic faith. Heretical Pope or Bishops or priests can't impose their personal opinion as the official teaching of the Church.

[@ponti5882]

@ThoskaBrah except logically under their respective frameworks individual Catholic priests who may preach heresy don’t define dogma. Individual Protestant pastors create a new congregation of belief, a new congregation of heresy, and new dogma for themselves. Under Catholicism, there is one universal, unchanging truth. Under Protestantism, truth is whatever the individual interprets it to be for themselves, and congregations begin and end with the people you agree or disagree with on any given doctrine. God and his Word for all practical purposes becomes made in man’s image.

[@johnyang1420]

@ThoskaBrahName them

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

I have a similar story. The Pastor in my Methodist church I grew up with had a very sincere faith which I didn't find anywhere else until I visited the Catholic church. He has since retired. When I returned home after my conversion to Catholicism while at College the new pastor was a simple heretic- he denied the authenticity of scripture, said 'Prayer doesn't really do anything', and that we have 'no real free will'... all in one sermon. I took that as my sign.

[@heaven9378]

I am an inquirer in the ROCOR in Japan from Protestantism and one of the reasons that made me realise I just am not a Protestant anymore is Sola Scriptura which leads to so called "liberty in Christ" in Bible interpretation. And when questioned the differences in the protestant churches the go to answer is always they are secondary issues, just follow Christ as if Christ didn't establish His church and set ways and bounds of how to worship Him and conduct ourselves.

[@soteriology400]

Hebrews 11:6, John 1:1 brother.

[@Olc...]

Yes, Jesus Christ established his church and ways and teaching. It's called Christianity. He didn't establish anything called Catholicism or papacy

[@soteriology400]

@@Olc... Exactly. I have studied hard, and also conclude Peter could not have stepped foot in Rome. This opened my eyes to the reality, there is rewritten church history. I believe it happened under Emperor Constantine.

[@orthodoxbox7004]

@@Olc... There's over 20,000 brands of Christianity so which one holds the truth? If its not Rome, then there is only one more apostolic option - the Orthodox Church.

[@orthodoxbox7004]

@@soteriology400 Where did you come up with that conclusion? And how did Constantine rewrite church history when he actually legitimized (and legalized) what Christians were already practicing before he (St. Constantine) was even a thought? Did not Christ say that the "gates of hell would not prevail against his church" (Matt. 16:17-19)

[@justinmartyr6454]

Thanks, Trent. Love this podcast. Keeps me on my apologetics toes!

[@MM22272]

Bear in mind that Protestants seem very comfortable with personal interpretation as being sufficient whereas Catholics seem to value highly a singulariy, coherent, and authoritative interpretation of the Bible. As a result, Protestants seem content with the contradictions that arise from libertine interpretation. In other words, anything goes, exegetical relativism. Coincidentally, that was a good point with the example of the rebellious German bishops, since Protestants may view the German Bishop's dissent in light of protestant exegetical relativism and conclude there's no difference in contrast to catholic official teaching which is binding.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Yes, protestants are indifferent

[@eddyrobichaud5832]

It's not personal interpretation, it's the right interpretation.

[@MM22272]

@@eddyrobichaud5832 That's precisely what they dispute, first with Catholics, Orthodox, and then among themselves. With them, anything goes and that's alright. After all, each man can be his own moral and theological authority.

[@eddyrobichaud5832]

@MM22272 If it doesn't correspond with the bible, they are false teachers

[@danielhaas9469]

@M M2 how difficult is it to practice love of neighbor? How difficult is it to believe in Christ the Lord the word made flesh who died and was raised so that by his resurrection we have been set free from thr slavery of sin and death of those who believe? How difficult is it also that with this faith comes love of God and neighbor? Which moral standard comes with harming your neighbor loving them?

[@7Archie4]

The most recent debate of Trent can be appreciated and appeals to those familiar w/ the art of debate/discussion.

[@johnnypop-tart335]

I was protestant for most of my life. I rejected the reformation when I found out where sola scriptura was coming from, martin luther. IMO you can't yell about "Bible alone" while also ripping out and editing books of the Bible. It just doesn't make any sense to me

[@georgwagner937]

"It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course. For that the former was better, God has made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since unto Noah, and unto Abraham, and unto his offspring, and unto Job, and unto Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their mind pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tables, and the admonition which is given by these. And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for "He," says our Lord, "shall bring all things to your remembrance." John 14:26 And that you may learn that this was far better, hear what He says by the Prophet: "I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them," and, "they shall be all taught of God." And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word." Chrysostom

[@EmberBright2077]

Well given that he didn't take any books out of the Bible, I would hope you can reexamine that conclusion.

[@johnnypop-tart335]

@EmberBright2077 It is a historical fact that Martin Luther ripped out 7 books from the Old Testament, and he would have gone for more in the New Testament if his friends didn't stop him

[@EmberBright2077]

@@johnnypop-tart335 It's a historical fact that the canon Martin Luther affirmed was held by many Church Fathers prior to his time. The additional books were added in the Council of Trent, directly in response to the Reformation.

[@johnnypop-tart335]

@EmberBright2077 That doesn't change the hypocrisy of saying "Bible alone" And then tearing books out. The people adding and removing books were not saying bible alone. Luther was and he had no authority to do so

[@stevenwall1964]

There is one issue that never seems to come up but it should. Can anyone who considers themselves to be an educated Christian pick up their Bible and use the "Bible Alone" to show how it teaches the Doctrine of the Trinity which states that there is one God that exists in 3 persons; and while there are 3 persons there is only one divine will; and then on top of that the Doctrine of the Incarnation states that Jesus is both fully human and fully God and that his human will is united to the divine will by a hypostatic union; and that Christ is both fully human and fully divine ontologically and NOT morally. Can anyone honestly say that if they had the Bible Alone and nothing else, that they could formulate these doctrines? And even if you think you could do you think that if your 5 best Christian friends did the same thing and just looked at the Bible Alone and nothing else that they would all be able to come up with the same doctrine of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation? There is simply no way that one could think that a Christian could read the Bible Alone and decipher these doctrines. I know that I read the Bible as a skeptic 5 or 6 times (trying to debunk it) and I could have never come up with the exact doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. I would have absolutely had to trust the early church. I would have to trust the church and believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding the early church fathers. The fathers had to hold the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and then finally the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. Do we not have to absolutely trust the early church? At Chalcedon at least 500 and probably about 600 bishops were present representing the many conflicting views found within the church itself. After much debate the Chalcedonian creed was adopted which re-affirmed the divine and human natures of Christ recognized at Nicaea and further stated that the two natures of Christ were "without confusion, without conversion, without severance, and without division." Jesus was affirmed as being both fully divine and human. His two natures were combined in one person without his becoming less divine or less human. The work Christ did was the work of his whole person, not of one nature or another. In that day Pope Leo stated the Chalcedonian position that in Christ the "lowliness of man and the majesty of God perfectly pervade one another...the two natures make only one person." There is simply no way that we can determine this from the "Bible Alone." We have to trust that the early church got it right. And if we have to absolutely trust that church then "Sola Scriptura" cannot be a true doctrine. Jesus established a church. He said; 1) That the gates of hell would not prevail against it 2) That it would be persecuted and that its members would be killed. 3) That he wanted the church to be one so that the world would believe 4) That the church would go to all nations. 5). That the Holy Spirit would guide the church "forever" in all truth. Jesus said this to the apostles, but he said that the Holy Spirit would guide them "forever" and they are not going to live forever so he must have been promising to guide HIS church. Besides in Matthew 28 he states he will be with the church until the end of time. Paul said that the church was the pillar and foundation of the truth is "the church." So does not the New Testament say that Christ established a church and that we should be able to trust that church? That is how I read it and I had no religious upbringing and did not have any preconceived notions when I read the Bible. Maybe that just means I was just naive. Other people have pointed out that Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses all use the same Bible to argue against the Trinity and against the Doctrine of the Incarnation. How do we know that the early church got it right, unless we believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding the church? And if the Holy Spirit was guiding the church then should we not put our trust in that church? If there is a disagreement on the interpretation of Scripture should we not trust Christ's church? And if we trust Christ's church then Sola Scripture would have to be false. Can someone explain why I am wrong? I am relatively new to religion and Sola Scripture just does not make any sense. It seems we have to trust the early church. When the Protestant Reformers declared "Sola Scriptura!!" None of them practiced it. Luther rejected everyone that did not agree with his interpretation. Calvin and Zwingli did the same. Everyone was screaming "sole scriptura" but no one practiced it! How can people believe in a doctrine that obviously does not work? What am I missing? Even reading a Protestant historian like Oberman, he says this about Luther's claim to Sola Scriptura in his book called "Luther; Man Between God and the Devil: "Application of the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty [Luther] anticipated. It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretations that seem to render absurd any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures (page 220)." I am not a genius but I am not an idiot. I have a Masters Degree and PhD and I could have read the Bible a hundred times and never would have come up with the formulation of the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation. I have to trust that early church and I have to believe Jesus when he said that he would be with the church until the end of time. It makes no sense to me that Jesus would say that he would build HIS CHURCH and the gates of hell would not prevail against it and then he would turn right around and let it fail almost immediately. When I read the early fathers Clement, Ignatius, Martyr, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Athanasias, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome etc they are all Bishops in the "Catholic Church." They all see themselves as part of one "episcopate" that works together to declare orthodox doctrines. They work together, they held councils, they seem to agree on the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome played a role in determining the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. There is no way that I am smart enough in Bible study to be able to determine these doctrines and so if I cannot trust the church that Christ himself established then who should I believe? Luther? Calvin? Zwingli? John Smith? Joseph Smith? They are all so different. Ephesians 3:10 says that it was "the church" that was the instrument to teach the manifold wisdom of God. So if I cannot trust the church that Christ established then how can I trust anything? Ephesians 4 states that God did not want average people like me to have to be torn by every wind of doctrine. But when I read the history of the Reformation that is all I see is dozens of new proclamations about different doctrines. Luther says he is in disagreement with all the church fathers on some issues! Zwingli said his view of baptism was different than all the fathers and all the doctors of the early church! Don't I have to trust the church that Christ established even if I personally don't like some of the doctrines? If there is a truth there can only be one truth and if I cannot trust Christ's own words that he would build his church that I can trust, then I just don't know what to believe; except to go back to skepticism or agnosticism.

[@gabrielasanchez2028]

This is a really great comment... Shocked it has no responses yet. Waiting for others to share their thoughts because a lot of this is beyond me

[@stevenwall1964]

@@gabrielasanchez2028 Well thank you for responding. I have asked this question more or less all over the You Tube when there are debates over "sola scriptura" because it just makes no sense to me. I am new to religion and I don't believe the Bible is just a bunch of myths there actually is a lot of evidence that they do have a transcendent mind behind them. And the New Testament makes predictions about the church that actually come true. Jesus said that the he would build one church, that was united, that would be persecuted, but would go to all nations. And that is exactly what happened. There really was only one church for 1500 years. The schism of 1054 was over the smallest detail. Sometimes Protestants answer my question by pointing to the "Orthodox" schism but that does not answer my question. Christ predicted that the church would be "one," that it would be persecuted, that its members would be killed, but that it would go to all nations and that it would not fail. And all of that happened. But when you look at the church that did all those things in the first 500 years it was the Catholic Church. The early church fathers like Clement in 95 AD, Ignatius in 107 AD, Polycarp in 150 AD, Justin Martyr in 150 AD, Irenaeus in 170 AD, Tertullian and Origen in the the early 200's AD and Cyprian in 250 were all Bishops (except Justin Martyr) in the Catholic Church. They believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They believed in the baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. They viewed the Bishop of Rome as having authority to settle disputes. And this was all before they doctrine of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation were defined. Christian apologists point to the unity and growth of the early church as evidence for the resurrection. But how is it not absurd for people to come along n the 1500's people would come along and say that some of those things the early church was unified about were all wrong? That is saying that Jesus promised one unified church that would survive persecution and go to all nations; but for some reason many of the things the church was united about were false doctrines (according to Protestants). I would like to hear someone from the Protestant camp explain to me how that is not absurd. And if those people who started popping up in the 1500's were right about Christ letting his church teach false doctrines right off the bat, then which one of those people in the 1500's should I trust. They did not agree with each other about what the early church got wrong. If they cannot even agree on what the early church got wrong, then I question the evidence. I never get a straight answer. Someone responded to another similar question and said that the Catholic Church had "traditions of men." Can you see how absurd that is coming from a Protestant? There can only be one truth. And so if baptism is necessary for salvation like some Protestants say, then the other Protestants who say that baptism is not necessary have a "tradition of man." Only one of those can be true and the other is a "tradition of man" just by definition. Some Protestants say you can lose your salvation but other say that once one is saved then he or she cannot lose their salvation. Now only one of those can be right and the other has to be a "tradition of man." When you have 250 different denominations with different beliefs only one of them could possibly be true and all the others have to have at least some "traditions of men." I just don't get the Protestant argument and I am just asking for an earnest explanation. I am sure someone will dialog at some point. God bless you.

[@timmcvicker5775]

Maybe you can answer a couple of questions for me. Specifically, what are the oral traditions passed down to the early Church by the Apostles? Which Apostle or Apostles are credited with teaching a tradition not found in the Bible, and how do we know this? Thank you.

[@stevenwall1964]

​@@timmcvicker5775 You are asking me a question that you already know the answer to instead of just answering my question. What does the answer to the questions you are posing have to do with the questions I asked? I asked if we have to trust the early church that Christ established when it comes to the highly nuanced doctrines like the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation that took the entire church working through most all of its bishops and many councils over 400 years to define the highly nuanced doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation properly. They had to thread the needle in an extremely intricate and precise manner to define these doctrines that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture. You are asking the question that Protestants spring on Catholics when Catholics ask "where does the Bible teach “sola scriptura.” The Bible doesn’t say specifically anywhere that the sole rule of faith has to come from written scripture. Maybe it can be implied but to return the favor seemingly Protestants ask Catholics this type question of what oral traditions can be traced to the apostles that are not in Scripture? There are two things I would like to state about that. First that was not the point I am making or the question that I am asking. I was not trying to argue that Catholicism is true in my post. I was trying to point out that it seems like we have to trust the “early church’s decision on certain topics.” I was not trying to say the early church was today's Catholic Church. Secondly when the early church referred to “Traditions” it was not in the sense that your question digs at. There is not the claim that there are some oral traditions stashed away somewhere that the apostles stated which are not written in Scripture. The concept of “Tradition” is that the entire deposit of faith was given to “a church” that was established by Jesus Christ. It is clear that Scripture may have the smallest of seeds of Christian doctrines there but clearly, some doctrines are not fully nor even adequately developed in the pages of Scripture. That was my point about the highly nuanced doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Almost no Christian can read the Bible alone and come up with those formulations on their own. They have to trust the early church was guided by the Holy Spirit to clearly define those doctrines. It could be that the apostles said things about the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation which were not captured in writing - - OR - - it could be that Christ left it up to the early church to be led by the Holy Spirit to rightly interpret Christian doctrines. It is not an issue of some doctrines being written in scripture and some doctrines coming from only oral traditions as you hint at with your question. That is just not what scholars and church historians mean when they write about “Tradition.” It is not an oral vs written issue as I understand it but maybe you can explain what I am missing. The way I understand it it is the idea that everything obviously is not spelled out in Scripture and we need to trust that the early church got certain things right in expounding on them. Maybe the apostles wrote a few things in connection to the Trinity and the Incarnation but never fully described them in writing or even orally at all. We don’t know. But we know that the doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrines of the Incarnation are more finely tuned and defined more clearly after 400 years of struggle, dialogue and the holding of the many Councils I mentioned. So if we can set aside the argument about what church the early church was and just focus on whether or not we have to trust that church that would be great. We can’t make the assessment of whether we have to trust that early church if we hate what it was or what someone says it was. I referenced the Reformation because that is when “sola scriptura” was argued for heavily. But the point of my post was not to argue for Catholicism it was to show or ask if Christians have to trust the “early Christian Church.” And it seems like we absolutely have to trust it. I think Christians have to trust that Christ started a church that was guided by the Holy Spirit. So why is that? Well, what is one thing we know about the decision of the early church to create a new set of canonical documents that would be called the New Testament? One thing we know about that decision is that it’s: Not in the Bible Then once the decision was made that there should be a New Testament canon then how do we know which books were to be included? Well, one thing we know about the method that the church used to select which texts were inspired texts is that such a process is: Not in the Bible So where does the decision to create a New Testament come from? It comes from a church that Christians believe was guided by the Holy Spirit. And then why do we even have a case that the documents we have are truly inspired texts? It is because we believe that the men in the church that selected them were led by the Holy Spirit. So don’t we have to trust that church AND Scripture? Instead of just one in exclusion to the other? I don’t see how we can just trust one without the other. And all I would like to see or understand is a reasoned response from someone who believes in “Sola Scriptura.” How can one believe that Biblical documents have authority if they don’t trust that Holy Spirit guided the church to create the NT and select the texts for it. Since I am new to religion (meaning I have only studied it for the last 7 years and the last 2 years seriously). I feel like I missing something in this whole debate that I wish a sincere person would explain to me. And in addition, I brought up all the church councils that were held that discussed the very highly refined and nuanced doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation. There is simply no way that the average Christian could read the Bible and consistently come away with the official doctrine of the Trinity as 3 persons in one God who are each “consubstantial” or of the “same essence.” The Bible is certainly not clear about that and so we have to trust that the early church got it right. The same goes for the Doctrine of the Incarnation. The fact that Christ is fully God and fully human and that his human nature is combined with the one divine will that is shared by each person of the Trinity into a Hypostatic Union is mind blowing and not at all clear in Scripture. We have to trust that the early church over 400 years of discussions and work under the influence of the Holy Spirit got those doctrines correct. JDN Kelly’s “Early Christian Doctrines” is the book I read to learn about all those early church fathers and Councils that were held. It explains how the early church probably developed some parts of those doctrines from sources other than just written texts. And since these doctrines are anything but clear in Scripture, we have to trust that the church was led by the Holy Spirit. Kelly writes: “There is no reason to infer…that the primitive Church regarded the apostolic testimony as confined to written documents emanating from, or attributed to, the apostles. Rather, the early Church Fathers argued that the interpretations of the heretics were not in line with the “rule of faith,” passed on by the apostles to the bishops of the church.” So isn't it true that we have to trust the early church And we have to trust Scripture? I pray for Christian unity. Thank you.

[@marystone1526]

Thank you most kindly for your elaborations. I grew up Protestant but left, and when I returned to the faith, I was so confused by the Bible verses quoted to prove Sola Scriptura that I started questioning it all. I couldn't find Sola Scriptura in the Bible, and there was even a point where I questioned the Trinity because it was anything but obvious to me. (I can now find the Trinity in the Bible, but I could never decipher all the intricacies.)

[@tim_w]

I liked how Casey brings up new takes on the argument … not just the same rehashed takes … feels like we’re advancing and deepening the conversation

[@P-el4zd]

Luther’s Works In Luther’s Works, Luther calls Zwingli, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius, and Caspar Schwenkfeld-and by implication those who believe as they do-“fanatics and enemies of the sacrament” (LW, Vol.38, 287), men who are guilty of “blasphemies and deceitful heresy” (Vol. 38, 288), “loathsome fanatics” (Vol. 38, 291), “murderers of souls” (Vol. 38, 296), who “possess a bedeviled, thoroughly bedeviled, hyper-bedeviled heart and lying tongue” (Vol. 38, 296), and who “have incurred their penalty and are committing ‘sin which is mortal’,” (Vol. 38, 296), “blasphemers and enemies of Christ” (Vol. 38, 302), and “God’s and our condemned enemies” (Vol. 38, 316). He described Zwingli as a “full-blown heathen” (Vol. 38, 290), and wrote: “I am certain that Zwingli, as his last book testifies, died in a great many sins and in blasphemy of God” (Vol. 38, 302-303).

[@jonatasmachado7217]

Protestants agree on their rejection of Catholicism but they don't have anything positive to offer except a theological fruit salad. I was raised in a Baptist family full of Baptist Pastors (my father was one) and they had intense and heated theological debates between themselves during our family gatherings.

[@Matt-1926]

Theological fruit salad. 🤣🤣🤣

[@caseycardenas1668]

You're making a mute point, if you're Catholic you should know that the same thing happens within catholicism. They're many disagreements and theological debates that two Catholics can have with one another and HAVE had with one another for 2,000 years now.

[@trevorjordan5256]

I once heard a phrase. “It’s easy for a person to say an egg is rotten. It’s difficult for them to lay one of their own.”

[@RealSeanithan]

Whether or not Scripture is obviously understood, I think any severe heresy (Arianism, Unitarianism, Oneness Pentecostalism, Calvinism, etc.) by necessity is influenced by the devil, given that all spiritual things must have some spiritual influence, and I guarantee that God wasn't the influence there. That doesn't need to imply that the man who comes up with the heresy has evil motives himself.

[@RealSeanithan]

​@ThoskaBrah Of course it was. There's a difference between disagreement and division, and the devil is obviously ultimately behind any division within the Church. The devil can do nothing to weaken the Church, but the Church can weaken herself. There's an argument to be made about whether or not the Protestants were right to challenge Catholic teachings of the time, but I'm sure we can all agree they were wrong to divide the Church.

[@silentsoul6233]

what is arianism?

[@RealSeanithan]

@@silentsoul6233 the belief that the Son is neither coeternal nor cosubstantial with the Father.

[@hilohilo9539]

Calvinism, a heresy? Are you a Roman Catholic? If you are, do you call Augustine a heretic?

[@RealSeanithan]

@@hilohilo9539 I'm not, thanks for asking.

[@joshuabenes]

You guys just need to stop with all of this nonsense... You make far too reasonable an argument here. I continue to watch you and Matt Fradd and others, and I have really come to see how we need to seek to actually understand the other side and to be open and willing to change. I've been a Protestant for most of my adult life and I've only recently realized how much of Catholicism is made too look false because another Protestant "said so", sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice. When I actually investigate Catholicism, from Catholics that know what they're talking about, then it becomes a much more reasonable view of Christianity than what I originally understood. There are a great many things I still struggle with regarding Catholicism, but I'll continue my investigation with an open mind for what is the truth.

[@Matt-1926]

Well said. Thank you for your openness. God Bless

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

I dont feel the same. Not only are they painting a rose colored picture of Catholicism here, but I fail to see how I cannot understand what Salvation is from Scripture. The Bible tells me I am a sinner, and it tells me that Jesus died for me. It also tells me to believe and follow Christ. I dont need a Magisterium to understand that and thats what perspecuity deals with. I think what Trent really means is that if one wants some advanced metaphysics explained to them about the nature of Christ, or the Trinity, THEN you need a "magisterium". Ok fine. But thats not what perspecuity is speaking to. But to say I need it in order to understand the Gospel message? No man. That is just a bait and switch.

[@Matt-1926]

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 *_But to say I need it in order to understand the Gospel message? No man. That is just a bait and switch._* I think bait and switch is a little harsh. I think your statement above is the issue they are trying to address. You said "It also tells me to believe and follow Christ." I believe that word follow is the big issue. What does it mean to follow Christ? Also, is the meaning of this part of the Gospel message or just something extra? There are so many opinions on what it means to follow Christ also some say it is part of the Gospel and I've even run into some that claim you only have to accept Jesus once and don't even have to follow him to be saved. What does it mean to follow Christ? For instance Christ says in Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Is being baptized part of the Gospel message or not? Because I've run into so many today that claim Baptism isn't necessary even though Jesus says it right here. Just one more... John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you Part of the Gospel message and necessary for salvation or not? Some say yes some say no. God Bless

[@irishmclass2042]

@Joshua Benes - This (your path) sounds very similar to many protestants who begin to take a look backwards beyond the Reformation, and the discovery down the rabbit hole speeds up toward the Catholic Doctrine, viz a viz, the Catholic Catechism Book. Plumbing the depths of Catholicism makes for more deep rabbit holes to develop. The easiest way is to make a commitment to attend a well-taught RCIA Class (takes 1 year), with zero commitment to convert, so that ALL of your questions can be answered in an objective way. Additionally, you will soon be reading a Catholic Bible (many to choose from) which opens up more sacred Scripture that is highly valuable in further answering complex questions. All the while, the Holy Spirit is guiding the journey and process toward possible conversion. I was a life-long Protestant (Episcopalian), and considered the possibility of conversion 30 years ago, while attempting to avoid conversion. Reading the great ancient Theologians (St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa, and more modern-day Theologians, such as GK Chesterton), plus scrutiny of the Catholic Catechism, taken from Scripture, enabled my journey toward being fully received into the Catholic Church several years ago. Happy to be Home now! That is 'WHY' all Catholics will say, "Welcome Home!" Best wishes on your quest for the truth.

[@jon6car]

​@@theosophicalwanderings7696 In what way are they painting a rose colored version of Catholicism? And a lot of what you said begs many questions. Like previously noted what does it mean to follow Christ?

[@marvalice3455]

I came out of the Jehovah's witnesses. They are a large group of people, both educated and not, who read the bible every day and insist it definitely, clearly says 1. Christ is not God, but only a creature. 2. The holy spirit is a thing, not a person. 3. Christians are sorted into two flocks, and only one will go to heaven. 4. There is no afterlife, only a resurrection to this life. 5. The devil really controls the world. God has no direct influence over the nations, he only interferes occasionally and it's the devil who decides all the rulers and the policies. 6. God has mostly abandoned men to their own devices and to the tricks of the devil. 7. Christ's second coming happened in the early 20th century, and everyone just missed it. 8. Those who die in their sin get a second chance at redemption in the resurrection. 9. Christ did not resurrect bodily, but only spiritually, 10. The whole church was destroyed by Satan in the early second century, so it had to be reestablished in the 19th. 11. God didn't know it was destroyed until than, because his "omniscience" is like a Library, and he only knows something if he actively checks, 12. Baptism doesn't forgive personal sins, only original sin. So basically, they use the bible to contest every aspect of the creeds except "God the father" and "the resurrection of the dead" and they still get those wrong. I've got a feeling these are all necessary issues, yet they have been using scripture to undermine Christian's faith in them for a hundred and fifty years. The mere existence of this cult is itself a condemnation of the doctrine of the clarity of scripture.

[@jackieo8693]

That's a perfect example of why "sola scriptura" is so crazy.

[@hilohilo9539]

Luther said that it is every Christians responsibility to read and interpret the scriptures *correctly* . This is a cult which gets its doctrines from its founders, not the Bible.

[@jackieo8693]

@@hilohilo9539 maybe you're in a cult started by Luther. Who made him the authority?

[@hilohilo9539]

@@jackieo8693 By correctly, he meant that their interpretations were to be guided by church tradition and the holy spirit. Sola Scriptura does not mean we reject church tradition as being authoritative, it's just less authoritative that the Bible.

[@MackBŗislawn]

And evangelicals get their doctrines from their founders, Luther and Calvin, not the Bible.@@hilohilo9539

[@OPiguy35]

Will this book be available on Audiobook? (Busy parent here)

[@jennyohanlon5380]

Love stuff like this trent. Trying ty speak to my protestant in laws about these issues

[@eddyrobichaud5832]

2 John 1:9 is clear that Sola scriptura is biblical.

[@jennyohanlon5380]

​@@eddyrobichaud5832 I disagree because that is talking about a teaching which Paul clarifies can be written or a tradition. It is not talking about sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not found anywhere in the Bible which makes it a tradition which in itself contradicts sola scriptura ❤

[@eddyrobichaud5832]

@jennyohanlon5380 2 John 1:9 (KJV) Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son If the traditions contradict the bible than the traditions gotta go in the garbage. 😕

[@jennyohanlon5380]

​@@eddyrobichaud5832 I know the verse, the word doctrine there in greek doesn't mean the scripture it means teaching or instruction which again can mean written or tradition. I agree with you 100% that if a doctrine contradicts scripture it has to go in the bin which is why sola scriptura needs to go in the bin because it contradicts the Bible which teaches scripture plus tradition.

[@eddyrobichaud5832]

@jennyohanlon5380 Sola scriptura can not go in the bin , Sola scriptura means bible alone the bible is the word of God the word is Jesus read John chapter 1. Catholic religion is full of unbiblical traditions and doctrine. It's your choice to let yourself blinded by your religion.

[@tonyl3762]

God does make Scripture clear...through the Catholic Church's magisterium. Not through some individual's opinion the Holy Spirit has supposedly guided them.

[@patrickchapko6693]

The problem with sola scriptura is Protestants want to be their own authority and use personal interpretation of scripture to fit their agenda. This belief has resulted in to thousands of different denominations.

[@dirtysink373]

I used to do that myself. Now I have accepted know nothing and went to my first Mass.

[@Gerschwin]

hey Trent. Something I've been thinking about is the issue of Sunday worship. Do protestants have a way of justifying worship on Sunday?

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

Of course. Because we see Jesus rising up on the day after Sabbath day, then we see people gathering on the Mia Savaton « first day from the sabbath. »

[@Gerschwin]

@@isaakleillhikar8311 Hi Isaak. I can't see how this follows. "we see Jesus rising up on the day after Sabbath day, then we see people gathering on the Mia Savaton « first day from the sabbath" therefore Sunday worship.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@isaakleillhikar8311 where does the Bible say you should worship on the day of the week Jesus was raised?

[@paulkelly1162]

The resurrection is the eschatological fulfillment of the Sabbath--thus, it's not a "change", it's a transformation. There's plenty of instances where the New Testament talks about meeting on the Sunday, and carrying out all of the crucial church practices. This must have been an issue for the early christians, as Paul says not to judge each other based on Sabath worship (also showing the validity of reinterpretring the commandment). Finally, all of the earliest Christian documents outside of the New Testament report Sunday observance as the standard. Even if you're a protestant, this should be evidence for Sunday worship. Personally, I rate the testimony of the early church significantly higher. The Bible is just a product of the larger Christian community. Sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible, and therefore the doctrine refutes itself.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

It's less of a problem than say polygamy since the Bible documents worship and partaking of the eucharist on Sunday. So protestants would be more at the problem of Church authority preceding the Bible and the Church creating and authorizing the Bible.

[@LHWakefield]

Trent, first I want to say thank you for attending rigorously to the Protestant claim of Sola Scriptura. If we love our Protestant brothers, we should be concerned when we see a major error in the source of their Christianity and engage with it. Sola Scriptura might be the greatest unrecognized obstacle to unity and coherence within Protestantism, so if we actually want truth and unity, we should confront what’s keeping us from it. What’s more, I wanted to comment on the repeated claim that, “saying Protestants can’t agree on essentials is the exact same as saying Catholics can’t agree.” I think the criticism keeps being misrepresented. It’s not that individual Christians may differ in theological and moral opinions within their respective churches, which they do. Instead it is that to be a Protestant is to belong to a system with intrinsic and perpetual contradictions affirmed equally authoritatively (an unintended consequence of Sola Scriptura). This is essentially the logic that forced me out of my Protestantism, if I had to distill it into an argument: If it is the Truth, Authentic Christianity cannot have intrinsic or perpetual contradictions. Protestantism intrinsically generates perpetual contradictions with the affirmation of equal and valid authorities. Therefore, Protestantism is not Authentic Christianity.

[@benjaminshirley]

I'm going to use this syllogism. 👍

[@EmberBright2077]

The church contradicts itself all the time what are you talking about

[@mariomene2051]

Speaking as a Protestant (but not Sola Fide), it really is one of the most insulting lies that "Scripture is clear". Scripture is the most complex document in history bar none. We're in disagreement over the NT dogmas ALONE (thank goodness we aren't very interested in the OT) 2000 years later! Peter even warned Paul's writing are difficult to understand. How is it "clear"?

[@jackieo8693]

Good point!

[@MackBŗislawn]

Scripture is clear to those who have already been taught the faith. That is, those who are not ignorant as Peter says in his warning.

[@mariomene2051]

@@MackBŗislawn Even Paul says "how far past finding out" about God's Word--Scripture is not clear.

[@robertopacheco2997]

I have a question: if the Bible is perspicuous then how could there be false prophets and factions? Are both false prophets and factions not perspicuously warned against in the Bible?

[@alandoughty6320]

Very good point , that would have to make one wonder !

[@dave_ecclectic]

Even when Jesus taught His students there were times He had to explain. He explained to ONLY the Apostles the parable of the seeds. Everyone else apparently had to 'wait for the movie' to find out the meaning. When the movie came out it still had teachers rather than an army of copyists. St. Paul takes a lot of effort on explaining things that were obvious but apparently were not to some.

[@brutus896]

The bible is perspicuous. The problem is that people read the bible in light of their religion. That causes much confusion. The bible is supposed to be read in light of the scriptures. Rightly dividing the word of truth.

[@robertopacheco2997]

@@brutus896 That's not biblical! Not only does the Bible never claim to be perspicuous, there are many verses to the contrary. Read what I posted below for some of those verses. Who determines who's rightly dividing the word? JN Darby?

[@brutus896]

@robertopacheco2997 No verse in the Bible says that scripture is perspicous. But it is perspicous when you rightly divide. Like, I said, read scripture in light of scripture. That is what determines the word rightly divided.

[@DrDipwad]

Here's how I define the Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture: "The canonical scriptures teach the required doctrinal content of the Christian religion with _sufficient_ clarity that, if Jesus intended Sola Scriptura as _the_ Doctrinal Epistemology of Christianity, that intent wouldn't falsify Jesus' claim to be God." You see, it's pretty straightforward to demonstrate that only someone LESS wise than God could possibly have intended Sola Scriptura to be the Doctrinal Epistemology of Christianity...not only because of the canon problem, but also because sincere practitioners of Sola Scriptura can't figure out amongst themselves what doctrinal content the scriptures teach! Once that's demonstrated, defenders of Sola Scriptura have a choice: They can either hold that it _was_ what Jesus intended, and that He is therefore, _not_ God; or, they can hold that He _is_ God, and that He must not have ever intended something so bone-headedly unworkable to be the Doctrinal Epistemology of the Christian religion. That's why I think it makes sense to define the Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture as I do: It puts front-and-center the requirement that Jesus give us an Epistemology for discovering what the required content of Christianity _actually is,_ with sufficient certainty that we can take action upon that content, with confidence that we're thereby _obeying Jesus_ and not just _obeying some dumb theory about what Jesus might possibly have meant._ Now, Sola Scriptura does not, in practice, meet that requirement. (And we have 500 years' history to prove that.) And only someone who was less-than-divine would give the Christian faithful a non-functional Epistemology with which to know "the truth," so that they could be "set free." (Or, perhaps, a wicked little-g "god" might do that.) So, if Jesus intended Sola Scriptura, then Jesus is not "God" as understood by the Judeo-Christian/Classical-Theist definition of "God."

[@pattyb6003]

For Sola Scriptura to be true, the principles not only need to be evident as commandments in scripture, but must be stated to account for the fact that scripture is not complete until Revelation has been written. A present tense statement in the New Testament that "everything you need to know IS in scripture" (paraphrasing) does not support Sola Scriptura if scripture was not completed immediately after that entry, since not everything necessary could be said to be in scripture at that point. For the same reason, any case in the New Testament where Sola Scriptura is "demonstrated by example" in people's actions cannot support Sola Scriptura, since that part of scripture is written after the example occurred, and therefore that part of scripture cannot have informed the actions of those people.

[@EmberBright2077]

That's an arbitrary standard that you made up.

[@High_Goblin_King]

Love you guys, thank you for your work!

[@JayRedding12_12]

I really hate when prots use the Sola Scriptoria heresy with us. Our Church and our sister Church, Orthodox is founded by Christ and the teachings of the Apostles. Not what we personally can make Scripture mean.

[@joshuacooley1417]

Expanding upon the point in response to the question "if scripture is not clear enough for every individual to understand it, has God failed in his self-revelation?" I would actually argue that God could not have established the economy of salvation in a purely individualistic, each person being their own authority and own magisterium etc, because that is contrary to God's very nature. God is not an individual, nor is He individualistic. He is a family, God is, in his most fundamental identity relational. Thus I would argue that it follows that his economy of salvation MUST also be familial and relational, not individualistic. The fact that God established the need for the Church forces us into the familial nature of the covenant. It also establishes the need for obedience. If you are only ever required to "be obedient" to your own understanding of scripture, it is not much different than saying you must only ever be obedient to your own mind. That is an extremely low standard, and does not build much virtue. Regarding Trent's statement that Protestants argue like Atheists... I strongly suspect (as a former Protestant) that this because both Protestants and Atheists are fundamentally modernists. Their worldview is born out of Modern thought. That root worldview forms more of their thought than they realize.

[@GarthDomokos]

Bible alone leads to intellectual pride, and then cutting down others who don't agree with your interpretation.

[@timetravlin4450]

You don’t believe you can know what the original writers were originally saying unless the Catholic Church tells you? The Catholics don’t have in writing the meaning of every single text.

[@JohnVILXIII]

_"This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."_ - Joshua "The prideful" 🙄

[@marvalice3455]

That's what it did to me

[@marvalice3455]

​@@JohnVILXIII Joshua didn't believe in sola scriptura. He believed the law was legitimate * because it came from God through Moses* who he personally knew.

[@JohnVILXIII]

@@marvalice3455 Everything that was revealed unto Moses is written in the book of the Law Joshua is talking about, a.k.a. the Pentateuch or Torah. There is no other personal or private revelation he is referring to. This is Sola Scriptura.

[@dannisivoccia2712]

"Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89. One thing we know for certain is that the written word of God (logos) is forever settled in heaven; the rhema word of God, breathed by the Holy Spirit, is forever settled in heaven; the word of God who became flesh (Jesus) is forever settled in heaven. The logos, the rhema, and Jesus comprise the word of God, and these three agree in One. Unless a church tradition is substantiated by the word of God, it cannot righteously be made a church doctrine. God warns not to add or take away from His word.

[@coffeeanddavid]

32:30 - I got a pretty good chuckle out of this. I thought, "Yeah, this is how it works when talking to Catholics about Sola Script. They have this misconception about it, ignoring what's historically written and affirmed from the Reformation, and then base a whole argument on their modern view, which inevitably doesn't work because they got Sola Script wrong." For an example of this, we go 34:30 lol. 37:20 - while it might be "newer" it is closer to what it's historical (though, still not accurate). What is Sola Scriptura? READ CAREFULLY: Here is the true definition of it (it is clear, it is accurate and quite literally from the earliest years of the Reformation, the Solid Declarations): Sola Scriptura is: "God's Word alone should be and remain the only standard rule of doctrine, to which the writings of no man should be regarded as equal. Everything should be subjected to God's Word. Other good, useful, pure books, expositions of the Holy Scriptures, refutations of errors and explanations of doctrinal articles are not rejected at this point. As long as they are consistent with the above-mentioned type of doctrine, these works are considered useful expositions and explanations." Sola Scriptura IS NOT defined as Trent or Casey have claimed. It IS NOT defined as other Prots have claimed. It IS defined as above ^.

[@jayschwartz6131]

Where in the Bible is such definition?

[@coffeeanddavid]

@@jayschwartz6131 Queue average Catholic response: "SoLA ScRIpt mEAns Bible ALonE WHerE's tHat iN tHE Bible?!"

[@jon6car]

What you just wrote is basically the Catholic view. CCC paragraph 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

[@jayschwartz6131]

@@coffeeanddavid so does that mean there could be other definitions as well besides Sola Scriptura because certain truths are not found in it?

[@petardraganov3716]

I like your zeal, but I am confused as to the whole "it's not defined as other protestants have claimed" part. What Trent is engaging is the version of Sola Scriptura he finds in Protestant churches and apologetics today. If no one brings the Solid Declarations definition into the conversation, it remains beside the point. If protestants don't believe it, there is no point to criticizing it.

[@petergreen8477]

If scripture was as perspicacious as is claimed, the need for Biblical commentaries would be, at best, minimal. Calvin, of course, was clear about the correct interpretation: it was HIS interpretation and no other.

[@FonkyMonk3359]

Hi Trent! I was hoping that you would be able to do a rebuttal to the video Christianity's fatal error by the channel Holy Kool aid? Watching his videos I feel as if he misrepresents Christianity as a whole, focusing on fundamentalists and televangelists, the bottom of the barrel, to make us look bad. I would appreciate it if you would do a rebuttal, but if you don't have the time I understand. Keep up the good work!

[@freda7961]

What are your thoughts about Erick Ybarra’s latest comment on this, Trent?

[@Doug8521]

I admire your patience on going over the same issue over and over

[@Silvercrypto-xk4zy]

2 Tim 3:14-17 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom[a] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[b] may be complete, equipped for every good work." this seems to defend th doctrine o both Sola Scriptura as well as perspicuity. according to paul the bibl is all we need

[@mortalkombaty7960]

The best argument in favor of Sola Scriptura is Textual Criticism. We only need people like James White to be sure what text belong to each book

[@freda7961]

This has got to be a joke, right?

[@ponti5882]

Textual criticism doesn’t prove Sola Scriptura at all though. Being able to identify what text belongs where doesn’t even do anything to address what scripture even is infallible, much less the idea that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. For Sola scripture, it begs the question.

[@smartgirlsunite]

@@freda7961 😂

[@jackieo8693]

So James White is the Pope lol

[@ilonkastille2993]

The Church instituted by Christ makes us understand what is written in the Scriptures. Even if we cannot read, but go to Church every week, we will have heard and understood everything written. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ , teaching us .

[@papercartridges6705]

As a Calvinist Protestant, and I say this with all love and charity to my Catholic friends, the obstacle to Catholicism to me is that there doesn’t seem to be one Catholic Church… the catechism teaches one thing and the church does (or allows) things in stark opposition. I don’t see unity, coherence, clarity in the Catholic system, when it seems to be so inconsistently applied. A person can publicly, vehemently support abortion and other behaviors and acts , and be totally unrepentant and unwilling to submit to the teachings of the Catholic Church (things that we all would agree are sinful), yet they are admitted to the Mass. I simply don’t see unity, clarity, consistency in this system. Again, I say this in love, and appreciate so much of what Trent does.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

The weakness of the Church is indeed scandalous. They are not allowed to receive and are usually not allowed to do so.

[@49erfanaticfromnm30]

To be fair, that sort of relativism is the foundation of Protestantism.

[@timetravlin4450]

@@49erfanaticfromnm30 the foundation of Protestantism is Martin Luther finding inconsistencies within the church. Having had to debate Erasmus of the will of man and many other issues. At that time not many Catholics had their own bible they had to go to the church to get scripture. The amount of unbiblical things the catholics taught was a big part in the reformation.

[@49erfanaticfromnm30]

​@Timetravlin His perceived inconsistencies are merely relative. Simply his opinion. He wasn't reforming, he was restructuring the church to his subjectivity.

[@jotunman627]

All Catholics whatever their politics or their social learnings are bound by the CCC and the Code of Canon Law, anyone who goes againts this are out of church, or in some cases are commiting a sin. (abrtn, artificial birth control, sex outside marriage, deliberatly missing Sunday mass, etc. are all sins.....There is no debate about the doctrines of morals in the chruch. The church is not a democracy. Catholics in a state of mortal sin cannot recieve the Holy Eucharist, doing so will be sacrilege and that is a grave sin, a sin that is fatal to the soul. Sins can only be absolved by a priest in the sacrament of confession. Note: Anyone can celebrate the mass, but only people in a state of grace (no mortals sin) can partake of the Holy Eucharist. Mass follows a calendar that would make all masses in any part of the world read the same bible verses and gospels for the day. A church in Greenland will be reading an identical bible verse and gospel with a church in Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. for the day. Mass is celebrated everyday in all parts of the world.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Is he a smart guy? Because the irony is that by saying you may not need a particular individual to walk you through the book to infer its meaning actually undermines protestantism. It is precisely because language is so social and does not rely on any particular individual per se for its meaning yet there is so much implicit knowledge, things we take for granted, that the individualistic, just me and my Bible attitude, of protestantism is false. The meaning of the Bible was in fact transmitted to you socially, so you might want to make sure that the authority of the institution that transmitted it to you, formal or not, is sound.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

Trent what’s your opinion on “Muslims and Christians worship the same god” is this an apostolic teaching ? Do muslims worship the Trinity ? we understand old testament references to worshipping the same God, but the new Testament is clear that you don’t have access to the Father if its not through Christ alone. Muslims deny Jesus is God, so how are we able to worship the same God?

[@dave_ecclectic]

Jews Christians and Muslims all worship one God. As there are not many One Gods we must worship the same God. (There is only one God to worship) For some reason when this question is raised it always leaves out the Jews. They don't believe in the Trinity. (Neither do some Protestants) They don't believe that Jesus was is God. If they (Jews) worship a different God than Christians, then just where did the God that Christians worship come from? Later come Muslims. I could take this further and ask how many different Gods do Christian's worship? Does a Baptist worship the same God as a Lutheran? and do they worship the same God as a Catholic.... and so on and so on. BTW this is a Catholic teaching. Islam comes around 700 AD, far too late for the Apostles to directly address. Where does this come from? There is only one God.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

@@dave_ecclectic You are lying, we worship JESUS CHRIST. If you try to separate Jesus from the father let me tell you, you don’t know God.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

@@dave_ecclectic Matter a fact have you ever read the Quran ? Is Jesus God for you ? Do you know how “Allah” the greatest deceiver acts in the Quran? Jews don’t know God matter a fact they don’t even worship him they don’t know Jesus. Yo it heretical church washed your brain

[@dave_ecclectic]

@@internautaoriginal9951 The Father, The Son, and the _Holy Spirit._ Are all persons of God. You may know God, but you are deficient in knowing the Trinity, Now I ask you, as the Jews do not believe in the Trinity... do they believe in the same God we, as Christians, do?

[@HungryManticore]

We do not worship the same God. The doctrine of Trinity is the most obvious difference, but there's many more. Our God loves all his people unconditionally; the Muslim god Allah will love you only if you love him first. Our God calls us His children, whilst the highest relationship a Muslim can have with their god is a master-slave relationship. Our God commands us to love our enemies, pray for them, and respond to hate with love; Allah commands Muslims to fight those who do not believe in him. There's also things like Allah being described as "the best of deceivers" in the Quran, a title that would be unthinkable of our triune God. There's many other differences, I just listed a few of them. Saying that "there is only one real God, so we obviously must worship the same God" is ridiculous, when the teachings of our God and Allah are so vastly different. They simply couldn't be the same deity. Allah is a product of Mohammed's imagination at best, or a demon masquerading as god at worst.

[@hglundahl]

17:42 St. James is clear that priests have to confess to each other. And whether laymen should confess to other laymen or laymen also should confess to priests, and whether it is about all sins or about mortal (optionally also venial) sins after baptism, is a precision, which he leaves up to the successors to provide for the converts.

[@petardraganov3716]

The more I speak with protestants, the more I become concerned whether they want the fullness of Truth. Christ did not come here just to offer you a message that would get you over the line from unrepentant sin to justification. Christ wants you to drink deeply of life, to participate joyfully in His life. This idea of a distinction between "essential" and "secondary" doctrines for salvation seems to be a Protestant invention. You don't need any doctrine for salvation - you can be saved without any Gospel by just following your conscience. I don't see how you can square the division of "essential" and "secondary" doctrines with the fact that people who haven't heard of Christ can be saved(Romans 12-16). You can't just ask "Given that you have heard of Christ, what can you reject and still be saved?" That is such an insidious, desperate question, as if there is some truth too tough to bear. If you have the faith bestowed by Jesus to the apostles, you can reject none of it. "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me."(Luke 10:16) And, by the same verse, if your faith doesn't come entirely through the apostles, it can't be entirely from God. There is one faith, it is continuously being clarified by the college of bishops(successors to the apostles), and internalizing every dogma is good and will bring you closer to Christ. God ordered me to love Him with my "whole heart, mind, body and soul." I was not surprised to find that His Church makes demands commensurate with such extraordinary self-denial.

[@mariomene2051]

Romans 2 actually refers to saved Gentiles (v14 the law is written on their hearts by the Spirit, a fulfillment of the New Covenant promise in Jer 31:31-34, and v29 says these Gentiles are "circumcised in the heart by the Spirit")--of unsaved Gentiles, it says they have all gone their own way, the wrong way, and they don't seek after God. To read Romans 2 as referring to unbelieving Gentiles would be even worse than saying Jews can be saved by following the Law, which is explicitly condemned in the verse "if righteousness were by the Law, then Christ died in vain". To say Romans 2 refers to unbelieving, not believing, Gentiles doesn't make sense at all.

[@hglundahl]

0:47 Please note, while sola scriptura is technically condemned by the definition of Trent Session IV stating necessity of bowing down to magisterium and consensus of Church Fathers, this was never motivated by "obscurity of Scripture" in general.

[@robertopacheco2997]

The logical fallacy of unwarranted assumptions is very common to many anti-Catholic arguments as commonly argued by many anti-Catholics.

[@hglundahl]

20:45 That Christ founded His Church as a perpetual presence (Matthew 28:16-20, "all days"), that's arguably hierarchic (verse 16), that's clearly visible, not just dispersed souls having the right faith ("teach nations" + Mt 5:15), that it has a guarantee against doctrinal error ("teach all I have commanded" + "I am with you") can be found very clearly. Casey is really overestimating the extent to which Protestants can be in invincible ignorance.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

OK, so here's a rebuttal to the main argument. The argument for the perspectuity of Scripture is an empirical claim, not a strictly theological claim--which means you have to evaluate the actual strength of the Scriptural arguments. Disagreements don't disprove the clarity of Scripture anymore than disagreements over the existence of God disprove the strength of those reasons Now with respect to sin, yes, it's a fair point that we have to say sin obscures people's reading, and I'd affirm this with respect to Issues like homosexuality. But so would you with respect to the reasons for God's existence. We don't have to resort to the polemics of Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation, though, by acknowledging that sin works in complex ways beyond just a willful and self conscious rejection of clear teaching and reason.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

What do you mean by " the actual strength of the Scriptural arguments"? Are you talking about those for perspicuity or for doctrines Protestants disagree about?

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

So you hold that Scripture's main doctrines are as clear to christians as God is to humams in general? That's what I gather from your comment...

[@anglicanaesthetics]

​@@TheCounselofTrent Good question--and I just edited my above comment heads up. I mean over those doctrines necessary to salvation--the ones that perspecuity covers.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

My point is to say that disagreement itself doesn't signal epistemic obscurity. There is at least one case where we don't think it does (e.g. the human community disagrees over whether God exists, and that says nothing as to the clarity or objective strength of those reasons). So disagreement must be replaced or supplemented by other considerations to substantiate epistemic unclarity; it by itself doesn't signal such unclarity.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

But it's not the ink on the page that matters it's this semantic web that must be maintained by a living tradition to remain coherent. A random person picking up a Bible normally or especially if they have no Christian tradition they're familiar with and draw out all the proper doctrines. Protestants take for granted all the implicit knowledge of their tradition without recognizing for it to be correct, it has to terminate with some authority that is correct. Saying it's the holy spirit guiding individual believers to the correct interpretation doesn't track with the wide diversity of interpretations, including the liberal way contemporary evangelicals do "exegesis," or the indifferentism that has always plagued protestantism especially Anglicanism. The first protestant revolutionaries also thought that a succession of belief was necessary to have proper interpretation.

[@hglundahl]

51:13 It may be mentioned that the councils decided because Scripture was clear. Once a sufficient number of bishops in sufficient state of grace (none of them even material schismatics) had sifted a sufficient number of passages with the ordinary means available to them. When the Catechism of Trent explains "traditiones non scriptas" the examples are pretty banale, like sign of the cross or fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays or hallowing Sundays. A tradition cannot be considered totally "non scripta" if the tradition is like the exegetic tradition of Scripture.

[@eddyrobichaud5832]

God is not powerful enough to preserve His book and leave it to us with enough information for our eternity ?

[@brianfarley926]

Well ask JW and Mormons about salvation and what you know. There’s obvious differences. What about baptizing infants? Necessary or no? Early Church Fathers said it was, pretty unanimous but some Protestants deny this. And baptism if it saves like St. Peter says IS essential. Protestants have serious disagreements amongst each other and are all over the map. Women pastors? Divorce? Abortion? Homosexual so called marriage? So these issues show how far apart they are with one another on serious issues It’s not a question of God. God doesn’t need anything from us. It’s a question of humans and these issues show our failings

[@jackieo8693]

He is powerful but we are too sinful. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible. But people don't want to submit to the authority of Christ s Church.

[@MackBŗislawn]

God preserved His book by means of the Catholic Church. The monks of the Catholic Church translated and copied by hand, letter by letter, copies of the Scriptures. The original scrolls written by the apostles and early evangelists no longer exist. But by virtue of the Catholic Church who recognized the Scriptures and then copied them and thereby preserved the Scriptures from being lost and forgotten, we have them today. So, yes, God is powerful enough! And He left enough information in His Church for us to understand His book for our salvation. It is easy for us to forget, now that we have printing presses and copy machines, how rare and expensive it was in past ages to possess a copy of Scripture. Individuals couldn't dream of having their own copy. And they probably were unlettered and couldn't read to begin with, so it didn't matter if they had Scripture or not. So what was it for the faithful to do? Simple. They belonged to a group (the Church) that did have copies of Scripture, and they met every week and had Scripture read to them. Notice that Scripture was an aural experience. They heard and listened to the Word, as a group, together. (Definitely not like someone reading a Gideon bible in the loneliness of their hotel room.)

[@aajaifenn]

All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, Homily III).

[@rickydettmer2003]

He also says in that same homily that the apostles left both written and unwritten tradition and that both should be rigorously followed

[@aajaifenn]

@@rickydettmer2003 He definetly does not subscribe to the obscurity of Scripture That was my point.

[@MackBŗislawn]

Scripture is not obscure of you have already been taught the Gospel through tradition. @@aajaifenn

[@shamounian]

Why is Trent talking more than the guest? We want to hear the guest speak more, not Trent.

[@lyterman]

What gives? Rather rude, Sam. It is his show after all.

[@freda7961]

It’s a discussion, not an interview. I’m still watching it but so far I think the guest is being given enough time and opportunity to answer.

[@robertopacheco2997]

Another useful resource is Christian Smith's "The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism in Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture" (Brazos Press, 2012).

[@micahhenley589]

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

[@petardraganov3716]

I think that is a false dichotomy. Jesus says to His disciples "Whoever hears you, hears me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent me."(Luke 10:16) You have people speaking the word of God. So then the question really is this: How do I know if what this man speaks is from God?(or if he is speaking from his own mind?)

[@micahhenley589]

@@petardraganov3716 Yes, the disciples did preach the word of God and thus we must believe what they said. If someone chooses to despise the word of God then they will reject the disciples but as you already said, anyone who rejects the disciples rejects Jesus and anyone who rejects Jesus rejects the One who sent Him. Next you asked an extremely important question. You asked how can we tell if someone is speaking from God or not. We can tell by this: anyone who is from God is a completely new creature. They are nothing like their old selves in any way, shape, or form. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold the new has come." Also you can trust people who love *Christ alone.* John the Baptist said "He must increase; I must decrease." John 3:30

[@jackieo8693]

Jesus Christ gave the authority to His apostles who were our first bishops. So yes man meaning Jesus is the authority, the word.

[@micahhenley589]

@@jackieo8693 By God's grace the apostles were humble followers of Jesus Christ. They were not power hungry, money loving false converts. Anyone who is from God is a completely new creature. They are nothing like their old selves in any way, shape, or form. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold the new has come." John the Baptist said *"He* must increase; I must decrease." John 3:30

[@jackieo8693]

@@micahhenley589 well, since you know everything, please don't become a Catholic. We already have a Pope!

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

I love how you both argue like liberal Episcopalians while accusing Protestants of arguing like atheists. Also; what's the current position of Rome on remarried people receiving Communion? The Death Penalty? NFP? Papal Infallibility? The Immaculate Conception? The Assumption?

[@cronmaker2]

How is noting SS adherents disagree on essentials arguing like a liberal Episcopalian? Are all liberal Protestants who interpret Scripture differently from conservative Anglicans not following SS? "Rome on remarried people receiving Communion?" Anyone in mortal sin shouldn't receive communion. "The Death Penalty?" Not intrinsically evil. May be opposed given circumstances. "NFP?" Compatible with church's teaching on contraception. "Papal Infallibility? The Immaculate Conception? The Assumption?" All dogmatic with the qualifiers in their definitions (e.g. no ultramontanism for PI, free to hold Mary died or did not before Assumption, etc). So, what's the current Protestant position on baptism? lord's supper? justification? sanctification? grace? free will? atonement? predestination? loss of salvation? law and gospel? christology (hi WLC)? trinity (hi James White)? images (hi R Scott Clark)? evolution? salvation of RC/EOs? church govt? miracles/gifts? universalism? inerrancy? NPP and FV? authenticity of disputed passages? ordained women? birth control? lgbtq? divorce/remarriage?

[@brandeezy83]

I love this video because I’m having this problem right now. I’m in a church that will take almost zero outside sources to interpret scripture, and if they do it’s selective and it has to confirm their view. For example Our church’s stance is that the canon was finished at the time of Ezra without much justification

[@robertopacheco2997]

Not only does Scripture not teach about its own perspicuity, it actually teaches the opposite. In addition to the already cited verse in the video of 2 Peter 3: 15-16, there's also the fact that the depth of the Bible is such that even the angels can be perplexed by it (1 Peter 1:12). Scripture can also confound not only the learned apostles but especially new or potential converts to the faith (Acts 8: 30-35). In addition, among all Christians, whether new to or old in the faith, there must be growth in grace to try to understand it (Hebrews 5: 11-14) , and, even then, the Bible requires adept teachers to explain it (2 Timothy 2: 2). Without these special teachers or magisters, and given the Bible's complexity, false prophets or teachers can distort its meanings (1 Timothy 1: 7). If the Bible were as perspicuous as I once believed as an erstwhile evangelical, such verses should not exist in Scripture and many more affirming its clarity should be present!

[@internautaoriginal9951]

There is no such a thing as a “Special teacher” since the Holy spirit is the one that teaches 14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Now you say that we need an infallible magisterium for this (which clearly doesn’t exist and it doesn’t interpret itself, that’s why we use hermeneutics) Your infallible magisterium contradicts scripture and early teachings of the Church

[@robertopacheco2997]

@@internautaoriginal9951 Did I quote anything other than the Bible?! Just because you disagree with my interpretation doesn't make yours right. And, in fact, it only proves the point being made that the Bible is not perspicuous. Nice try, though.

[@dave_ecclectic]

@@robertopacheco2997 Something else comes to mind. If the Bible was so easy to understand then there wouldn't be scribes and pharisees, neither of who are authoritive. BUT the "High Priest" was authoritive. Why does he have authority if nothing needs to be explained?

[@dave_ecclectic]

@@internautaoriginal9951 The Holy Spirit taught through the Apostles and later through the Bishops. St. Paul asks a few if they have the Holy Spirit. Acts 19:1-16

[@georgwagner937]

Any catholic willing to help: Where can I find the list of essentials of the faith Trent talked about? I found different answers on different websites. So is there this list somewhere, maybe in Vatican Website?

[@ryanbeaver6080]

As a Christian, why in the world would you title a book like that? I understand Catholics believe in Pope, but don’t you also find scripture to be “authoritative”, “God breathed”?

[@anthonym.7653]

Exactly. When we try to downplay or lessen God's Word, the enemy wins.

[@menonenemoi]

​@@anthonym.7653 Scripture is Authoritative and God breathed. No denying. The problem is in saying that scripture is the ONLY authority. Because Jesus founded an Authoritative Church ( Mathew 18:17). It is the "pillar and foundation of Truth" ( 1 Tim 3:15) ❤

[@jackieo8693]

It's authoritative because the Catholic Church which Christ founded says it is. A book does not have authority by itself.

[@MackBŗislawn]

You must thank the Catholic Church for our having the NT at all.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

47:28 Wow that's actually a great Sola Scriptura point against Sola Scriptura!! Thanks.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

People getting things wrong means sola scriptura is not true ?

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

@@internautaoriginal9951 No, after that bit. What he starts saying at 47:28. Weirdly it took me back a second or two earlier just now when I clicked the time stamp too but then it was fine when I tried again.

[@crusaderACR]

@@internautaoriginal9951 Yes, because if some people get things so horribly wrong, then Jesus either didn't die for the unlearned (which is ludicrous) or He expects us to rely on somewhere to make sure we are getting XYZ correctly. Preferably a large community of experts, who keep close to them the interpretations of the best and greatest throughout history, and do their utmost care to keep things clean and tidy for us. I think you know where I'm going.

[@georgwagner937]

"Whatever this sole infallible rule of faith is, it should be clear to understand." Why? It's not a catechism. It's a rule of faith. Now, are magisterial teachings clear to understand? If yes, why have apologists, who are not part of the magisterium, explain them?

[@cronmaker2]

So a rule of faith shouldn't be clear to understand? Yet it dictates the clarity of other teachings? Very strange. Magisterial clarity lies along a spectrum (that's why and how doctrine develops and the church grows in understanding). But it's obvious many magisterial teachings are clearly understood by RCs and non-RCs alike. There is no dispute on what RCism teaches on things like baptism, eucharist, loss of salvation, grace, justification, episcopacy, Mary, icons, trinity, christology, the rule of faith (STM-triad), etc. Under Protestantism given SS principles, everything is revisable and open to disagreement according to one's private judgment of Scripture.

[@georgwagner937]

@@cronmaker2 "magisterial clarity lies along a spectrum" Why can't scripture's clarity lie along a spectrum? Why should it be clear to understand in every aspect? I don't understand the criticism that's raised here.

[@cronmaker2]

@@georgwagner937 Scripture's clarity does lie along a spectrum. RCism (and Trent and Casey here) doesn't argue it's hopelessly obscure or a wax nose. No one argues Scripture talks about Big Bird for example. That doesn't entail Protestant perspicuity though, which argues Scripture is clear and formally sufficient on the essentials (which implies it is not necessarily clear on non-essentials, so it's not as if asserting Scripture is unclear is impious and God-dishonoring contra some Protestant polemics).

[@georgwagner937]

@@cronmaker2 do you think industrious persons can attain knowledge about salvation from holy scripture alone? Let's say a Bible lands on an island with 100 people, they read it, they discuss it, the Holy Spirit honors their hard-working hearts and they attain all the knowledge that is contained in scripture, do they now know how to be saved or do they lack something to know how to be saved?

[@cronmaker2]

@@georgwagner937 I think this hypothetical is a bit imprecise. What Bible lands on the island? Marcion's? RC/EO one with the deuteros? The NWT translated one of the JWs? One supplemented with the book of mormon? One with asterisks next to any disputed passages? Already the question sidesteps the issue of authority regarding the scope and extent of the canon, which ties to perspicuity. Secondly, "all knowledge that is contained in Scripture" is a very grand claim. I would posit this is impossible as the depths of Scripture are inexhaustible and the church will always be growing in understanding as it reflects. And we actually already had this experiment in history. It was called the Reformation and we see the HS did not choose to guide all those rejecting infallible ecclesial authority to reach doctrinal agreement (even the first generation had Reformed and Lutherans and Anabaptists throwing harsh words at each other), thus this video. Let's put it this way - let's assume SS and perspicuity is true. What would be different about the state of Protestantism if perspicuity was not true? But to the meat of your question, certainly non-RCs can come to correct conclusions on certain teachings. The RC rule of faith provides a principled way (STM-triad) to distinguish opinion from articles of faith. Even if a non-RC is unaware of this principled basis and mistakenly thinks Scripture is sole way divine revelation is given to us and erroneously interprets it to some extent, he can still assent to actual divine revelation (if only in part) in Scripture and have faith. A non-RC might be unable to articulate a principled basis for distinguishing divine revelation from opinion, but that doesn't exclude possibility of faith in the divine revelation in Scripture. Just as some have true faith in God, but cannot give a good argument for His existence.

[@francissimpson3904]

Concerning biblical perpiscuity - G.K. Chesterton once remarked that 'the Mormon reads his bible and finds polygamy, while the Christian Scientist reads his and finds we have no arms or legs"! Perpiscuity, it would seem, is not enough because perpiscuity has yielded a thousand contradictory systems! It is evident that we need a guide in these matters - the Church.

[@marcuswilliams7448]

RCs: It is *clear* the Sacred Scripture is *obscure.* So, and uninspired author can write a clear treatise about how the Holy Spirit cannot inspire a clear text. Amazin'. This is an age-old assertion by Gnostics, against which St. Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies, Book III.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Are there some passages of scripture that are obscure or hard to understand? Peter seemed to think so (2 Peter 3:16). If so, do any of them relate to what we could call "essential doctrines"? If so, then you have a good justification for the book's title.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@TheCounselofTrent it seems the Roman Catholics are the untaught and unstable who distort Paul's teachings! They just outright reject many of Paul's statements in his letters: even substituting Roman Catholic traditions for Paul's traditions in your proof text verse of 2 Thessaionians 2: 15. An Eisegesis application if I ever heard one by you and similar Eisegesis of John 3, & 6 ; Matthew 16. Missing Jesus Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology from the Old testament and 2nd temple Biblical Judaism.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

@@TheCounselofTrent “Some Roman Catholics claim that the Scriptures, like any text, need an authoritative interpreter. I think this claim is too broad. There are context-free meanings. These context-free meanings are sufficient to fix the central doctrines of the Gospel. (Moreover, the idea that every text requires an authoritative interpreter would apply with equal force to papal and conciliar writings. Indeed, it would seem to apply to oral pronouncements as well, leading to a vicious infinite regress.)” - Koons, A Lutheran's Case for Roman Catholicism: Finding a Lost Path Home

[@jdoe97]

​@@TheCounselofTrent Who gets to decide what is essential? And who gets to decide what a problem text is? If the proto-Pope who walked with Jesus for years couldn't understand Paul then who can?

[@cronmaker2]

​@@theosophicalwanderings7696 koons and Trent's statements are compatible. RCism denies Protestant perspicuity, but doesn't claim scripture is hopelessly obscure and a wax nose (some overzealous RCs may imply that). Scriptures clarity lies along a spectrum, you don't need the magisterium to know Scripture doesn't talk about Mickey Mouse (and if RCism tmrw defined that it did, that would falsify it. As vat2 said, magisterium is servant of Scripture).

[@hglundahl]

42:26 Very important point. Scripture needs to be read within the hermeneutic of the Church herself. There are various ways to make sure of that and some have been legally, that is canonically binding, but the fact that asking a bishop (back when your local Catholic bishop actually was Catholic) if you could publish a book is such a strategy, doesn't make this strategy _the_ basic requirement of Catholic hermeneutics. If you actually agree with both all infallible teaching and with all Church Fathers on a topic, this in and of itself is sufficient to make your interpretation Catholic. And it can _often enough_ be reached by the Scripture itself being perspicuous. This is not a recommendation to bypass tradition when you have access to it - in order to do that, you would have to actually twist some Scripture in ways that are _perspicuously_ unwarranted.

[@billbridgeforth]

Groups who follow sola scriptura: Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists. Groups who follow sola ecclesia: Roman Catholics, Mormons, Eastern Orthodox. Plenty of "disagreement" in either camp. Not a compelling argument to say there's disunity, therefore the Bible isn't clear.

[@cronmaker2]

There are far more groups that follow SS than the 3 you mentioned. RCism rule of faith is not sola ecclesia but sola STM-triad which is unique to it, so no, you can't lump them in with EO or Mormons as having same rule of faith. It would be like lumping SS adherents with other religious groups who hold any text to be sole infallible authority as sharing same rule of faith. Obviously they don't.

[@MackBŗislawn]

The thing is, Scripture is a product of the Church. That is, members of the Church (household of faith) wrote Scripture, by, to, and for members of the Church. Scripture was not written to those who were not already part of the household of faith, the ecclesia. Church exists chronologically prior to Scripture making the infallibility of Scriptures dependent upon the infallibility of the Church that wrote them. Scriptures cannot be divorced from the Church that made them. Even though many try to do that, and witness the chaos resulting. @@cronmaker2

[@halcyonzenith4411]

How can you have sola scriptura when the scripture itself comes from numerous sources, and wasn't codified until a millenia after the last of the apostles died. The Bible is meaningless without church tradition to guide it's interpretation.

[@ChristianTrinity411]

“And to him who does not work, but BELIEVES on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” Romans 4:5

[@tabandken8562]

You guys always cherry pick Scriptures. You pluck them out of context and make them say what you want. The Bible is not your final Authority, YOU are your final Authority. That's why you all ignore the True meanings meant in verses you quote. Paul is continuing in chapter 4 what he was saying in chapter 3. The point being, what does it profit being a Jew. He's talking about Jewish works, not good works.

[@ChristianTrinity411]

@@tabandken8562 kzbin.infohIAVbck93pc?feature=share

[@ChristianTrinity411]

@@tabandken8562 kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3LSf5l-Ztd5qqc

[@JohnVILXIII]

@@tabandken8562 The Letter is addressed to the Romans. There is no difference between the Jew and the Greek. Paul is rebuking the jews because did not believe on him who justifies the ungodly, as Abraham did. But went out their way to establish their own righteousness instead of God’s righteousness. Just read Chapter 3. *Romans 3* _19 "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God._ _20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin._ _21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;_ _22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:_ _23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;_ _24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:_ _25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;_ _26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus._ _27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith._ _28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law._ _29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:_ _30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith."_

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

This verse does not mean all you have to do is think the right things in your mind and you're locked in or that good works don't matter

[@Corolla97ww]

Excellent interview.

[@MrFisher210]

Yea if you pick a wrong church you could land in one that gives latria to Mary or kisses icons and worships images. The Procrustean chair of the pope as a living voice is painting a target around blasphemy and calling it piety, mariology et all Irenaeus condemned the living voice of the gnostics because they were painting targets over all their heresies. The protestants hold to the unchanging canon that is apostolic and cannot change. Their material principle is scripture and they formulate a second principle in creeds that can be changed only back to the root of scripture. This is Nicea Chalcedon et all the blasphemes of Rome is a unknown gnostic voice when where who is speaking ex cathedra?

[@internautaoriginal9951]

@Anomie You need Icons to worship Christ, that’s what Nicea 2 teached

[@MrFisher210]

@Anomie yes the papal distinction between latria and dulia is there but it is wrong because it is not apostolic teaching ie Biblical distinction any cult can redefine terms and arrive at a different Christ or a different atonement or a different “worship” read the glories of Mary and realize who is bearing false witness when the papacy says they do not worship it is not a misrepresentation. I am refusing to answer the fool according to his folly and accept the pagan traditions of Rome on their terms

[@MrFisher210]

@Anomie these very acts the scriptures define as worship

[@MrFisher210]

This is pure blaspheme I am not misrepresenting catholic heresy we are a temple for Christ not Mary these things are inflammatory and should cause great reverence and fear toward the trice holy Godkzbin.infoP5Xo3ZS0VFM?feature=share

[@anthonym.7653]

As the mary doctrines rose in importance, the attack on Scripture did as well. Coincidence?

[@petergreen8477]

In British legal custom, the “dock” is where a criminal defendant is placed in court. The defendant does not sit behind a table next to his/her counsel/barrister/solicitor. If you’re “in the dock” then you’re on trial: you are the accused.

[@mathiasweil3507]

Jesus said : "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." I know that sometimes Jesus uses hyperbole to make his point, but if even children are able to understand the revelation of God, how much more are we able to do so ! So there is no reason not to understand the scripture of God for those who want to follow Jesus with all their heart.

[@hglundahl]

32:14 _"we as Catholics always need to be assuming the best of our opponents"_ As individuals, yes, in collective behaviours, no.

[@Pete_B_773]

Why is Francis and the Magisterium silent on the German synod which voted on blessings homosexual couples????????? Where's the "unity"???

[@TheCounselofTrent]

I ask Casey about that objection at 53:10

[@PatrickInCayman]

The Unity in Catholicism doesn't mean there can't be any disagreements whatsoever and that we all have the same thoughts. It refers to unity in Dogmatic matters and teachings. Also, at no point did Pope Francis say it was OK to bless same sex unions, rather the German Bishops are acting in defiance. In fact Pope Francis explicitly said sin cannot be blessed on this subject. The unity also doesn't not mean Bishop or priests are incapable to splinter or go rogue... they can schism from the Church. This should be evident. *Your religion* comes form a rogue priest that went into schism and splintered form the Church, Martin Luther, former Catholic priest that was excommunicated. As these German Bishops should be, if they stay on this path of defiance.

[@Pete_B_773]

@@TheCounselofTrent yes, I saw that, but it's not really an answer. Again, there is Pope Francis and the Magisterium on the German synod?!?!?

[@Pete_B_773]

@Patrick again Pope Francis and the Magisterium are silent on the German synod. Homosexual couples is a Dogmatic matter! Sorry but you can't excuse your way out of this one. And don't red-herring with Luther and the other reformers, because there were heretical popes, like Honorius I and many others.

[@charlesudoh6034]

I don’t know why protestants keep making this mistake. The unity in the Catholic Church doesn’t mean the absence of disagreements, it means there is a mechanism through which disagreements can be settled thereby making it easy to identify those who express ideas contrary to what the church has settled on as being in error. Our critique of protestantism is not simply that there is disagreement. There is disagreement everywhere, even in the early church as far back as the days of the apostles as seen in the book of Acts. Our critique of protestantism is that there is no mechanism that can provide a principle of unity in the midst of disagreements. Our argument is that the scriptures alone can’t be that principle of unity and that God having known that gave us an infallible Magisterium. If the scriptures alone were that principle of unity, then we wouldn’t have thousand of protestant churches now, would we?

[@hglundahl]

46:33 Given St. Peter was arguably in Rome, it's pretty clear that _Romans_ may involve passages more difficult than Ephesians ...

[@hglundahl]

46:44 Galatians, Ephesians or Romans? Galatians very perspicuously is talking of the Mosaic law as not justifying, i e circumcision and by extension kashrut. Ephesians? Have you even watched Protestants argue "faith alone" from Ephesians? Does it not strike you as very bad faith to cite: *8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory.* and then to omit the immediate continuation: *10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.* I'm reminded of Protestants and Orthodox who cite Matthew 16 from 17 to 18 and then say "but the rock is Jesus, you see!" and than fail to continue to verse 19 and watch who's given the keys ....

[@hglundahl]

Though, Bishop Witham thought that St. Peter referred to Hebrews ...

[@danielhaas9469]

You keep bringing up Baptism as being an essential to being saved. The problem with this view becomes if you are saved by baptism then why dose it take 6 to 8 months to be confirmed? If for example, you die during the Catchesis period are you saved? You might answer well they had a desire to join the church and thus most likely will be saved. This still starts with a matter of faith. Think about this, God tells you that if you call upon the name of the Lord you will be saved then what more is there? But you say that isn't enough, you must be baptized, you must be part of the RCC, you must believe ALL these things to be saved. You have spring loaded thr gospel into something that it isn't. Should you be baptized? Yes, but if you believe and then die then we have the same hope and confidence in Christ that those who were baptized. Remember God seeks a heart wanting to obey and love him not from outside appearances only. For the law became the tool of self-righteousness and not a tool of humility based upon ceremonial processes and sacrifices that could not save anybody. But now those who believe and love God are saved on the work the Lord did for us. And by his death and resurrection we have been given a new heart and a renewal of the mind to love God and our neighbor . You do that and you have the hope of salvation because of Christ.

[@MuttonBiryani1994]

Because confirmation corresponds to growth, while baptism corresponds to life itself. Baptism is more directly neccessary for salvation. Calling upon the name of the Lord presupposes being a justified believer (ie a baptized person).

[@danielhaas9469]

@DanielAbdallah so, if a person were to die not baptized but going through the Catchesis would they be saved?

[@anthonym.7653]

Why don't they baptize babies right away after they are born? Why do many catholic families wait months to have them baptized?

[@MuttonBiryani1994]

@@danielhaas9469 If they desired to be baptized they would be saved, but they would have to go through purgatory first.

[@MuttonBiryani1994]

@@anthonym.7653 Unfortunately many catholics fell into man-made traditions of waiting 40 or 80 or other number of days, but the Church declared a long time ago that babies should be baptized as soon as possible. From the Ecumenical Council Of Ferrara-Florence 1439-1445 ”Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians.”

[@hglundahl]

48:01 For Pauline epistles, especially Romans, you have a point. For Scripture generally, not so much. For Pauline epistles, St. Peter himself said *in which are certain things hard to be understood,* then we get a comment on that *which the unlearned and unstable wrest, ... to their own destruction.* which includes the further comment *as they do also the other scriptures,* For "the other scriptures" he was not saying that same thing.

[@hglundahl]

Only that they are treated the same by the unlearned and unstable.

[@Theunspokentruth77]

When Roman Catholicism promote that all religions lead to the same God, Christians have no option than to rely on the words of God for righteousness, correction and guidance.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Defend your own position, don't deflect the question with lies. So how can you hold to the clarity of Scripture given what was brought up in the video?

[@YiriUbic3793]

Can you give me where that dogma is in the Catholic church? You protestants, Muslim and the left are the same always lying and twisting the subject

[@DrownedinDesigner]

Protestants constantly lie about Catholics, why is that?

[@masterchief8179]

That’s utterly false. And my guess is that you know it.

[@Theunspokentruth77]

@@masterchief8179 No, Roman Catholicism is trying to build one world religion. Do muslims worship the Father of Jesus Christ?

[@anthonytan7134]

Great subject to write on, Gbu guys

[@Pete_B_773]

It's hilarious he talks about Sola Scriptura being "circular reasoning" when Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18, is the very definition of circular reasoning; why was Peter the "first Pope"....because the Catholic Church said so.

[@bobthebuildest6828]

If you think this is the only basis for the papacy you show your ignorance

[@Pete_B_773]

@BobtheBuildest if you don’t know that the Catholic Church bases "papacy" on that, YOU ARE the ignorant one!

[@Pete_B_773]

@Barsabbas what's the other ones then, from the Scriptures ofcourse

[@PatrickInCayman]

No, because it is explicitly stated in Mathew 16:18, which is part of the canon of the Bible, the Catholic Church canonized.

[@jackieo8693]

Because Jesus said so. And because of apostolic succession.

[@colepriceguitar1153]

So if the Bible is as vague about doctrine as Catholics claim, how are we supposed to interpret it?

[@Matt-1926]

The way Christ intended. Jesus commanded the Apostles to go out and teach. More of the Bible points to what we shouldn't do instead of what we should do. It was never intended to be an instruction manual Yes we can read the Bible ourselves but we were never meant to interpret doctrine on our own. Doctrine was always intended to be taught through the teaching lens of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. God Bless

[@harrygarris6921]

I don’t think the Bible is all that vague about doctrine. Jesus pretty plainly says that you have to take communion, you have to get baptized, you need to pray and to fast, and you have to repent of sin. Some Protestant groups have read those verses and come to the conclusion that Jesus couldn’t have actually meant that and pretty much everything other than your mental belief in Jesus’s existence is optional. With respect to the protestants who do believe in a simple reading of scripture, it’s not the Catholics who have a weird, abstract, completely symbolic and detached from reality interpretation.

[@colepriceguitar1153]

@@Matt-1926 and who is going to interpret the Church’s teaching?

[@cronmaker2]

@@colepriceguitar1153 The church of course. The Magisterium can obviously iteratively clarify its teachings as things become disputed - that's part of development. Magisterial teaching, just like Scripture, lies along a spectrum of clarity. No one disputes for example the RCC teaches loss of salvation or real presence (as one of many obvious examples where Protestantism has many conflicting and differing positions).

[@colepriceguitar1153]

@@cronmaker2 Well the Catholic Church will give you different answers on some subjects depending on the time period. Sometimes its a complete U-turn, not just a development.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

Imagine saying you cant even understand the simple Gospel message without a magisterium. Like, I cant even understand that I am a sinner? I cant know that I need to believe in Christ's work on my behalf? I cant know that I need to repent and follow Christ? Only Rome would tell you something like that. Don't buy into it. At best, a magisterium is good if you need an advanced level metaphysics course about the two natures of Christ and that sort of thing. But that's not the Gospel.

[@petardraganov3716]

What is necessary for salvation and the Gospel are two different things. "When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all." Romans: 12-16

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

@@petardraganov3716 the Gospel is Christ dying for your sins. You don’t think this is necessary for Salvation?

[@hglundahl]

14:40 I would actually basically _agree_ with the quote from Westminister Confession - with the proviso that a Church reaching back to the writing of Scripture and preserving tradition from those times is not just _clearly_ taught in Scripture, but is also one of the "ordinary means" (see quote) which it would be culpable to neglect once one grasps it is such a thing. If a Calvinist said "the early Church was Calvinist, but deteriorated to Catholic, so it is no longer that ordinary means, except where restored by the Reformation" I would answer this is against the _plain_ and _perspicuous_ meaning of Matthew 28:16-20. If he said instead "given the necessity of Apostolic succession, should I take RCC, EOC or other?" I would answer that was a next question, fine he came so far, and it needed to be settled on other grounds, but given that is five different confessions, it's not a needle in a haystack.

[@hglundahl]

22:58 "7th Article" (of chapter 1) "of the Westminister confession" _All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them._ As said, if "ordinary means" involves having an Apostolic Church or rather _the_ Apostolic Church, and taking magisterium and Church Fathers, this is actually, verbally, tenable. The problem is, those commending that confession were precisely _depriving_ the flock of this ordinary means.

[@ServantofGOD__]

The vague generalization across the Protestant disagreements seems disingenuous when contrasted with Catholic denominations and disagreements. Vatican One vs Vatican Two - Catholics. The Great Schism Latin Rite Coptic Catholic Ethiopian Catholic Arminian Catholic Byzantine Church Anglican Catholic And so many more. Mix in liberal Catholic variations that affirm homosexual affirming priests, etc between the named and unnamed above. Secondly, There is a difference between virtuous circular reasoning and viscous circular reasoning. To say that referring to the authority of scripture is just “circular reasoning” and is begging the question is ignoring the virtuousness of that claim. Example: Claim: Logic exists Evidence: Proving logic does exist, or does not exist requires you to use logic. Conclusion: You cannot deny logic exists without using logic Point: VIRTUOUS CIRCULAR REASONING

[@ninodjuras]

They are not denominations, but different liturgies, all united with the pope, there is disagreements between common people but not teachings of the Church, everything is clearly stated in cathechism.

[@ServantofGOD__]

@@ninodjuras I implore you to do you research. Ecumenical Catholic Communion, the American Catholic Church, the American Apostolic Communion, the Independent Catholic Church of the West, the Catholic Apostolic Church in North America and the National Catholic Church of America support full LGBTQ equality, affirmation and support in their congregations including same-sex union in marriage, and homosexual priests.

[@internautaoriginal9951]

@@Link25 So You under the Papacy and you can do whatever you want ?

[@peter_hobbs]

@@Link25 thank you for responding so well to that comment. I came back here to do so. But now no longer have to.

[@hglundahl]

23:01 Hermeneutics doesn't work that way. A text is assumed clear until proven obscure.

[@hglundahl]

23:10 There is a big difference here. Being the word of God is not a _normal_ attribute of a text because it is a text. Being clear is.

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

I think recent history has shown the magisterium isn’t exactly perspicuous either.

[@davidw.5185]

1580 Book of Concord evangelical catholic (Lutheran) here. One of the things that I have a difficult time wrapping my brain around is the "appeal to tradition". If we are not to rely on Scripture as THE rule or norm; which tradition are we to prefer? Rome? Constantinople? Coptic? Syrian? Other equally ancient traditions? Why is one superior to another when none agree on major issues? Also, I've read through Trent years ago; have you guys read through The Book of Concord? In regard to Calvinists and Arminians; the Lutheran Fathers didn't take them seriously either...

[@cronmaker2]

There were multiple claimants to prophets, apostles, and messiahs in biblical times as well. Doesn't mean none were valid. "Why is one superior to another when none agree on major issues?" Actually they agree on quite a bit - rejection of SS as the rule of faith, infused righteousness as justification, the sacraments, expanded canon, invocation/communion of saints, etc. Sure there are also significant differences, but the fact that there is widespread agreement amongst apostolic churches spanning and developing separately in many diverse regions in rejecting core Protestant doctrines should give those who think the Reformers returned things back to the "true" apostolic and patristic faith pause (and it pretty much dismisses the common anti-Catholic polemic that the papacy corrupted everything).

[@davidw.5185]

@@cronmaker2 The author refers to the "Obscurity of Scripture" the same thing could be written in book form entitled the "Obscurity of Tradition". The Orthodox and other very ancient churches and all their bishops and arch bishops reject many of the claims of the Papacy. The Curia has evolved their traditions over the centuries, demanding obedience to Rome. It is not enough to be first among equals as an honor, but the Bishop of Rome demands Primacy, thus the triple tiara. The Obscurity of Tradition is that none agree with Rome's demands on this and many other issues. So again, I say, if all disagree on the tradition of authority; what is to guide us other than God's Holy Word? It astonishes me that such a claim could be made attempting to undermine the authority of Holy Writ.

[@cronmaker2]

@@davidw.5185 Rome and EO do not share the same rule of faith, even if Tradition is claimed by both (similarly, Rome, EO, Protestants don't share the same canon of Scripture even as all claim it authoritative). Rome's RoF is Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium triad. And yes, that RoF offers more clarity than Sola Scriptura as the RoF (e.g. compare the wide variety of SS views on baptism, lord's supper, justification, sanctification, eternal security, church govt, christology, trinity, etc. to Rome's view on same doctrines). And it is hardly "undermining" Scripture's authority to assert it is obscure to some extent. Protestants themselves claim as much - Protestant perspicuity only applies to the "essentials" for salvation - it's readily acknowledged by most Protestants that Scripture is less clear in other matters. Does that mean SS churches are undermining its authority? Scripture's clarity lies along a spectrum - all parties agree to that - it's not a wax nose or hopelessly obscure. Rome/EO disagree with Protestant perspicuity/formal sufficiency, but that does not denigrate its authority, any more than Peter's assertion Paul's writings are difficult does. Rather it points to the need for a divinely authorized interpretive community in which its authority can be properly exercised.

[@r.c4914]

First the Catholic doesn't claim that scripture doesnt have any weight that is wrong . Its Scripture ,Tradition ,and the Magisterium the old three legged stool . The Church uses all three and is a must in order to not distort the truth the deposit of faith that Jesus instrusted the Church. Put the puzzle together and see the better evidence . Go read the Early Church Fathers that can definitively help you.

[@MackBŗislawn]

What is interesting to me is that the authority of Holy Writ is simply a tradition! @@davidw.5185

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Works for me. No problem. I am a 69 year old Christian. Got saved by the blood of the perfect Lamb of God about 50 years ago. God's Word is perfect. Roman doctrines, beliefs and dogmas are not. "For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the Word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe." 1 Thessalonians 2:13 I just plain ol' don't trust the word of men. No thanks. I have been so blessed all my Christian life following the actual literal Word of God. Not so with my Catholic family, relatives, friends and aquaintances. One other thing. I heard Michael Voris say the other day that for every one Catholic convert, about six walk away (leave). And of those that leave, half join conservative Protestant denominations. I suspect that they are simply looking for the Truth. Jesus is the Truth. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God... In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John 1:1‭-‬2‭, ‬4‭-‬5 Jesus is "the Way, the Truth and the Life". The problem is that "... the darkness did not comprehend it."

[@GarthDomokos]

good point. However, if I ever met you, I would never be able to tell if you were Christian or not. In fact, by what you wrote, you are too busy looking at the speck in your brothers eye, instead of removing the log in your own. So your a 69 year old supposed Christian, based on????? If Gods word ifs perfect, then why don't you try to actually follow it? You unrepented intellectual pride will not give you entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

[@AveChristusRex]

You fall under the 'if you disagree with my interpretation of Scripture, then you must be of bad will' category talked about in the video.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Great, so you're just being a narcissist and almost explicitly acknowledging you're taking protestant tradition for granted.

[@JohnVILXIII]

God bless you brother. People will accuse you just because you hear the voice of the good shepperd instead of vain philosophies, fables and traditions of men. The Word of God is our only light and guide in this fallen world. Jesus is the truth and everything he says is true. There is no lie on him. Trust him only. Trust God only.🙏

[@JohnVILXIII]

@@AveChristusRex The irony of this is that RCC would have kill you if you were to disagree with their interpreation of Scripture 😆

[@hglundahl]

22:44 _Nor_ is there any Bible passage saying the Scripture is generally speaking obscure. St. Peter says that _some_ things in St. Paul are obscure. He was probably referring to Romans, given his audience. That should be a warning against taking the "Romans' road" as a clear Scriptural proof.

[@hglundahl]

But confer the Haydock comment: *Ver. 15-16.* _As also our most dear brother, Paul, . . . hath written to you._ He seems to mean in his epistle to the Hebrews or converted Jews, (C. x. 37.) where he says: _yet a little while, . . . and he that is to come, will come, and will not delay. - In which are some things hard to understand,_ especially by unlearned, ignorant people, _unstable,_ inconstant, not well grounded in faith, and which they _wrest,[2] as_ they do _also the other scriptures,_ by their private interpretations, _to their own perdition._ Wi. [2] V. 16. Depravant, streblousin, detorquent. It is a speech, says Mr. Legh, on streblow, borrowed from torturers, when they put an innocent man on the rack, and make him speak what he never thought. They deal, says he, with the Scriptures as chemists sometimes deal with natural bodies, torturing them to extract out of them what God and nature never put in them.

[@MackBŗislawn]

Peter goes on to say that the ignorant (those untaught in the Christian gospel and unaware of the apostolic tradition) wrest the REST of the scriptures to their own destruction. Not just Paul's writings. This is a serious warning. Do you want to take a chance that you are not wresting the scriptures to your destruction? Are you so assured of yourself and your interpretation? Furthermore, Paul tells Timothy that the man of God is equipped and completed by the scriptures. Notice that scripture completes the Man of God. Not just anybody. You have to be already a Man of God before scripture is able to complete you. You do not become a Man of God by means of the scriptures. Timothy was a Man of God because Paul taught him to be so. We become Men of God by means of the teaching of the Church founded by Jesus and the apostles.

[@hglundahl]

@@MackBŗislawn _"You have to be already a Man of God before scripture is able to complete you."_ For all good works. A "man of God" is a technical term. It would involve a bishop or a priest or a monk, in some sense also a nun or a deacon. St. Timothy was a man of God because he was ordained. This does not mean the Scriptures are useless to everyone else, since that's not how the Catholic Church exposes the mention in Peter. Also, "the rest" doesn't so much mean "everything at once" (that's humanly impossible), as "anything" ... a Scopts would distort "cut off your hand" and "whoever looketh at a woman and lusts" and a Lutheran or Anglican distorts Romans 13, while an Iconoclast distorts an OT ritual instruction attached to the ban against strange gods in Exodus 20.

[@hglundahl]

@@MackBŗislawn _"You have to be already a Man of God before scripture is able to complete you."_ Not true for each and every good work. A lay apologist is not in that sense a "man of God" ... Scriptures nevertheless prefect him in _his_ specific good work. _"We become Men of God by means of the teaching of the Church founded by Jesus and the apostles."_ No, laymen are not in the technical sense "men of God" and they also have access to this teaching. One becomes a man of God _according to_ that teaching, by for instance eternal monastic vows or ordination, at the very least tonsure. And, obviously, laymen do _not_ engage in _every_ good work, for instance we abstain from ordaining or from celebrating Mass or from hearing confession. We also abstain from dedicating 9 days of fasting to 1800 hours in a monastery where we set the schedual to pray for some specific thing, over 7 day hours and 1 night hour and one Mass and one full Rosary per day. Those good works are for "men of God"

[@hglundahl]

One more@@MackBŗislawn : _"the ignorant (those untaught in the Christian gospel and unaware of the apostolic tradition) wrest the REST of the scriptures to their own destruction."_ He actually doesn't say "the ignorant" he says "the ignorant and unstable" ... some start out ignorant, but are stable in faithfulness to what they know, and God leads them to the fulness of Apostolic Tradition. They are often called "Converts" these days.

[@Bigchickens]

My question is where else you gonna go to find truth? Your church has made up, changed, and flat up contradictions in what it’s taught. I don’t trust your church or traditions bc there’s evidence to not trust them. I trust God’s word.

[@tabandken8562]

You can't Trust the bible without somewhat Trusting the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the bible.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

So in a head to head of protestant man-made tradition where every man is his pope and there's no sense of magisterium and proper interpretation vs the Church, which has a better provenance, a better pedigree, more historical evidence? I'm going to go out on a limb and say the random interpretations of lying virtue signalers 16th century specifically designed to be anti-Catholic with historical claims that have been disproven aren't correct

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

What you consider God's word is just your tradition that you take for granted. Whatever or God's intention is being properly interpreted there, you got from the Church. In fact, that's where you got your whole Bible

[@freda7961]

Definitely not in Protestantism, the denominations comprising the same contradict each other (that’s a fact). If you want to reduce it to their common points that they all agree on, assuming there is any, then you’d have an extremely diluted gospel. That’s another fact. But that the Catholic Church “made up, changed and flat out contradict in what it’s taught” is not a fact. That’s just your narrative.

[@lois2997]

Nobody cares protestant cry harder

[@cyndephillipshohbein8232]

“Proof Texts…” SDA flashback with shivers.

[@Cathologia]

First 🎉

[@jennyohanlon5380]

Third 😂

[@mrscharmless]

810th 😏

[@hglundahl]

34:09 I have always thought it was clear that infant baptism is OK, since "so and so was baptised with all of his household" ... The opposite view is not due to lack of clarity, but to overestimating God's agreement with one's own moral idealism ...

[@hglundahl]

Or possibly to the idea that a _command_ always applies in such a way that it only applies when involving all the factors as stated, whereas we know about levirate it could apply to others than actual siblings, from Ruth.

[@Justas399]

Rome does not offer clarity on Scripture nor on its doctrines. Rome has never infallibly interpreted the Scriptures. Not even officially. So that leaves the RC is a state of confusion because they can never know the true interpretation of a passage of Scripture.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

This is not true. Vatican I interpreted the establishment of the Papacy in various parts of the New Testament. Papal Infallibility too. It also establishes barriers for interpretation.

[@tabandken8562]

The True interpretation of Scripture is the Catechism. Scripture verses should never be interpreted by themselves.

[@Justas399]

@@johnnotrealname8168 then they are incorrect. No office of a chief shepherd pope in the New Testament. No bishops in the 1st century claimed to be the chief shepherd pope of the entire Church.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@Justas399 Hold on wait are we having a debate on the interpretation of that quote and the historicity of the Papacy or whether the Church has definitively interpreted the Bible? You just deflected course masterfully.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

You constantly lie in the over 1000 hate comments you have left. Seek help. And even if the Church never offered any infallible interpretations of any one verse, it could still give infallible doctrine drawn from scripture. It could also still say what particular verses _can't_ mean

[@hglundahl]

52:11 I think a Church Father exposed it like this: * usually one is bound to baptise "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" * but the Apostles had a special privilege, so they, but no one else could baptise "in the name of Jesus" Others have said "baptised in the name of Jesus" refers to "on His commission" and not to the formula. It is pretty obvious for any text exegesis to contact whoever is heir of whoever said sth and hear what it meant, if one thinks it available, and hear what they have to say - unless one has a valid suspicion they changed their mind (like Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith obviously did on Genesis 1 to 11 from 90's).

[@stefang.9763]

that debate went so bad for you that you are still in damage control mode ? :)

[@rickydettmer2003]

Even as a non catholic, it’s clear Trent still won. Gavin did not substantiate the thesis of the debate

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

Trent won but if you look up the usage of quotes, Gavin was right. Trent’s opening statement was dissapointing. I’m shocked. He is the Catholic James White. He reads great books he finds and doesn’t go to the primary sources. That Ireneaus quote makes Me, David Falk, Lizzy Answers smirk and the other people who actually read Against Heresies smirk. He also quoted Poirier who is an scholar who doesn’t believe that Verse was written by Paul and is 2nd Century. And he quotes Lee McDonald where he is mistaken.

[@georgwagner937]

"The criticism that I'm leveling in this book is more that uh in order to put together a coherent and uh systematic framework for understanding all of divine revelation what God, who God is uh in his person uhm how he uh brings about our salvation and then how he establishes his church that all those things cannot be found in scripture just by an individual person uhm prayerfully humbly asking the Holy Spirit to guide uh him or her in uh in understanding you know uh those kinds of questions." (timestamp 20:20 ) I don't understand this criticism, I don't understand what is being said and I don't understand how it refutes the protestant doctrine. The doctrine is simple: "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." So to refute this doctrine you have to show that a doctrine that is necessary for salvation is not clearly found in scripture. You tried it with infant baptism, which raises the question: Do you think it is necessary for their salvation to baptize infants, or to re-formulate: Do children go to hell if they don't get baptized? If not, you refuted nothing and protestants can disagree on infant/credo baptism and the doctrine of the clearity of scripture is not broken.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

We don't know what happens to infants who die without baptism though we can hope for their salvation. But there is a big difference between saying baptism is the way to spiritually regenerate my child so that is the ordinary means they can be saved (as some paedobaptists teach) and nothing needs to be done to save an infant, we have complete confidence they are saved.

[@georgwagner937]

@@TheCounselofTrent Is there a solid reason to think infants who die without baptism are not saved? I ask this because you said "We can hope for their salvation." Is there a good reason to fear their damnation? [edit: or to put this very same question into a topic of the bible: Do you think, and this is a false dichotomy, there can be many other reasons, but I'm still going to ask, Do you think that God ordered Saul to kill infants because God wanted them in hell, or do you think that God wanted Amalek's infants to never adopt Amalek's sins and enjoy eternal life?]

[@kevinmc62]

@@georgwagner937 hey George, what does the Bible say are the reasons God allowed children to be killed? If it says so that their burning parents in hell can see their offspring are in a better place or something then you have a point. But where is it in the Bible?

[@georgwagner937]

@@kevinmc62 I'm not a teacher. Go somewhere else to get an answer to your questions.

[@MackBŗislawn]

The doctrine is merely an assertion, a postulate. An assumption given without evidence nor proof. When in fact all empirical evidence is against it. All experience using this man-made doctrine shows it to be false. The thousands of contradictory notions arising from this human doctrine bely its validity. How can one possibly defend it?