Refuting the Protestant Self-Authenticating Canon (with Joe Heschmeyer)

[@SanctusApologetics]

Joe Heschmeyer is soo underrated, he’s such a great catholic apologist

[@Serquss]

Joe's channel is fire!

[@zuzaninha]

He is the best! (Catholic answers' apologists are very knowledgeable, humble, charitable, unpretentious, no-nonsense... I have a crush)

[@AJanae.]

I love his books! He knows how to dumb it down for us average readers 😎

[@RenegadeCatholic]

Agreed. He breaks it down in a very protestant-friendly way so that it really hits home for us converts, often making glaringly obvious points that somehow get totally missed. Though, I think Trent and Jimmy do a great job at this as well.

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

🙏100% Do you know how many Protestants have become Christian over the years because of Catholic Answers. It's probably thousands now. 🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦

[@michaelmasztal7871]

Two of the main apologists that were greatly influential in my return to Catholicism on one show!!!

[@twitherspoon8954]

Why did you decide to worship cannibalism and propitiatory human sacrifice?

[@michaelmasztal7871]

@@twitherspoon8954 Huh?

[@vintage53-coversandorigina37]

If the God who spoke creation into existence by his Word, couldn’t He change bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity while keeping the appearance of bread and wine? Jesus said “Your father’s ate the bread from Heaven in the desert, but they died. I am the true bread from Heaven, those who eat this bread will never die!” A New Testament fulfillment cannot be lesser than an Old Testament type! You underestimate the Power of God by claiming He cannot perform this miracle!

[@RenegadeCatholic]

@@twitherspoon8954 Cannibalism? So you admit that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ?

[@twitherspoon8954]

@@michaelmasztal7871 _"Huh?"_ Do you deny that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tenet of Christianity? You know, that cross thing and John 3:16... Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."

[@TTurmDawg]

9:35 F in the chat for the defeated look on Joe's face when Trent didn't laugh at his Star Wars reference. Absolutely tore me apart.

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

I'm beyond grateful that so many people are converting from Protestantism to Christianity and embracing the Eucharist and devotion to Mary.

[@4jgarner]

To *catholicism. Protestantism is quality recognized as a form of Christianity.

[@HerveyShmervy]

​@@4jgarnerhe hasn't read Vatican II don't fault him for that 😂😂😂

[@4jgarner]

@@HerveyShmervy I'm fully aware that I'm anathematized by the Catholic Church. But you're just in it to get that sweet sweet gotcha, so I don't fault you for that 😂😂😂

[@HerveyShmervy]

@@4jgarner i am protestant

[@HerveyShmervy]

I was just making a point about VatII

[@Alexander-fr1kk]

After being southern Baptist and Pentecostal we were brainwashed into not questioning what we were taught. When I scraped the scales off my eyes I came home. “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

[@MouseCheese2010]

I used to love Joe, but after learning he hates cheesecake I need to reflect on this more…

[@rhwinner]

True. I'm even considering converting.

[@JosephHeschmeyer]

With enemies like these, who needs friends? Cheesecake is gross.

[@johnmb69]

@@JosephHeschmeyer Ugh. Seriously Joe, say 10 Jesus prayers & 10 Hail Marys. I'm worried about you... 😉

[@domanicvaldez]

How can anyone not love cheesecake? Joe is a great apologist not a great food critique.

[@enderwiggen3638]

He’s just making sure there is more on the planet for you

[@christinemcguiness9356]

These two Apologist’s are incredible. Their knowledge blows me away and easy to listen to. God bless🙏

[@fantasia55]

They are credible, not incredible.

[@jackieo8693]

The self authenticating argument is so illogical. Atheists would laugh at it. Glad to see two great apologists together.

[@xravenx24fe]

True. I recall reading a community post where someone was suggesting that William Lane Craig should go on Joe Rogans podcast, and someone in the comments suggested Jeff Durbin should do it. I had the same reaction lol, like why would you suggest a presuppositionalist to talk to an agnostic? They'll reject their message immediately...

[@lufhopespeacefully2037]

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

[@bad_covfefe]

​@@lufhopespeacefully2037 because the Bible isn't a comprehensive list of all Christian doctrines.

[@Americanheld]

Trent and Joe together form an incredibly formidable team to defend the faith. I’ve seen both of them dialogue and debate with Gavin Ortlund, who (I believe) is the best Protestants have to offer. They have such deep knowledge on a variety of topics and they present it in a confident, yet gracious and winsome way, it’s hard to see how anyone can walk away not convinced by them. Not to mention both are incredible authors too and I’d highly recommend their books. They truly have a unique grace from God for apologetics. Please do more content together. Keep it up, gents!

[@andrewscotteames4718]

What convinced me of the emptiness of the idea of a self-authenticating canon was looking at other writings from the early church and reading the deuterocanonical books. When I examine writings from Clement, Ignatius, Barnabas, the “lost” epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, the Didache, or the apocalypse of Peter, I can’t tell why these books are not scripture. When I read wisdom, or Judith, or the additions to Daniel, I can’t tell why they don’t belong with the Old Testament Canon but something like Esther does.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

That’s because you’re getting your idea of self authenticating canon from Roman Catholics. Get it from a Protestant who defends it well. Canon Revisited by Michael Kruger is the best place to get it. And yes they mention him in the video but anyone who knows his works knows they didn’t even come close to target.

[@andrewscotteames4718]

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 I’ve read Kruger’s books the question of Canon and Canon Revisited. Do you have any other suggestions?

[@sivad1025]

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 Tent cites Kruger's book extensively in Case for Catholicism. How exactly is Trent misrepresenting Kruger's position?

[@lufhopespeacefully2037]

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

@@sivad1025 I have not read Trents book so I am not sure which book he interacts with. But going by what hes said in this video, if he thinks Krugers argument amounts to basically "I know the canon through my feelings" then he is most certainly not familiar with Krugers argument. Can you cite what Trent says in his book about Kruger? I am not wanting to buy the entire book just for that one section. But again, so far as Ive seen publicly he does a poor job interacting with his argument.

[@PatrickInCayman]

It's great to be Catholic, you always learn things even down to tarts vs cakes.

[@CatholicSamurai]

The biggest nail in the coffin imo against self-attestation is the historical reality that, across the first 4 centuries AD, the canon changed wildly. Some books were originally considered part of canon, but then removed. Others were later accepted as canon that weren’t as first. Most damningly, sole books start off as accepted, are later removed from the canon, then *added again* at a later date. Seems like such a long process of conflicting positions leading to the canon doesn’t square with the canon being “so easy even a caveman could identify it”

[@ancalagonyt]

The canon did not "change wildly". It took shape somewhat slowly over time, starting with the idea of a canon in the first place.

[@matthewoburke7202]

I wouldn't say the cannon "changed" but rather i would say it developed over time. There was debate over which books belonged, so there really wasn't an official cannon at all at this point. There was a 22 book "cannon" of the old testament, but this cannon was meant to be a list of books that could be used to evangelize the jews, because we shared those books with the jews. It wasn't meant to be a final list of all inspired books. The final list of all books inspired by God wasn't formulated until finally 2 synods settled the issue in the late 4th century. The Council of Rome 382 A.D held by Pope Damasus The Synod of Hippo 393 A.D Both synods gave the exact same cannon we have today. Your point still stands though, that the development of the cannon of scripture flies in the face of any notion that the cannon is "self attesting."

[@matthewoburke7202]

​@@ancalagonytYep

[@eddardgreybeard]

You can tell many Church fathers were familiar with the repose of Mary and also considered the shepherd Hermes to be scripture

[@Cklert]

@@matthewoburke7202 Don't also forget to include the Council of Carthage in 397.

[@johnthetenor]

Cheesecake is a custard you barbarians

[@henrytucker7189]

Exactly. I’m now questioning my faith

[@scrapdog2113]

You refuted a 31 minute video with just 6 simple words Lol jkjk

[@sliglusamelius8578]

But we like being barbarians. If not for the German horde, what would have happened to mankind?

[@Will-ge7ri]

Because a cheesecake’s filling is custard-like, it does not therefore follow that it is a custard. Using classical hermeneutical approaches with the majority texts of the culinary arts, one finds that chef scholars agree that a cheesecake is, in fact, a tart.

[@Will-ge7ri]

Side note, I spent the majority of the video researching this and have no clue what the video is about😂

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

Now we wait for Gavin Ortlund and James White and a hundred other prots to make hour long videos with multiple 'guests' responding. 😂

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Can’t forget about the inevitable 4-hour responses to the response from the Catholic side. -Kyle

[@MrPeach1]

thats funny I see the same comments on Gavins videos about our 3 hour long rebuttals to his videos. I really do think Catholics are producing more rebuttals then Prots are and ours are longer. So they have a good point but it only takes 1 second to spill milk but it takes a much longer time to clean it up.

[@Danaluni59]

The Catholic rebuttals don’t rely upon logical fallacies.

[@whathappening5323]

@@Danaluni59 It's just a tennis match with these rebuttals, is the result already determined before the match begins. Are they ranked because they look the part? or are they ranked because they have proven themselves? The real ranked player proves himself on all surfaces, Most of these players play on one surface and then claim that are the number one player. There are too many variables that have to come into play to determine the actual Victor in this game of cat and mouse.

[@geoffrobinson]

how about a bunch of church fathers who affirm the self-authenticating nature of Scripture?

[@LaserFace23]

The more I learn about these topics and listen to Protestant arguments, the more strikingly similar to Islam Protestantism presents itself. There are so many assertions that are simply based on "Well my [religious leader/parents] TOLD me so!" which obviously fails miserably as an argument to those outside of that tradition, so they're forced to fall back on "Well it's just self-evident that this is from God, who else could've written it? See how beautiful it is?" Calvin's argument is literally a Muslim argument and has the exact same amount of weight behind it (at least on its face, since they, unlike Muslims, are at least correct in their assertions). Catholicism meanwhile has such a unique structure compared to other religions and has maintained that structure since the start; truth tends to manifest itself in more unique expressions, while falsehoods (Gnosticism, Arianism, Protestantism, etc) tend to take similar forms over and over again no matter how many times you prove them wrong.

[@starshipchris4518]

Indeed, I've had a similar conclusion. They also use a similar idea of abrogation of verses, except the Muslim acknowledges and has a word for it.

[@sivad1025]

As a Protestant, this is very true. I learned a lot about Islam from David Wood and had a whole slew of anti-Islam arguments that I'm finding are applicable to Protestantism. Another one: the Qur'an says that Jesus' disciples were made superior over the disbelievers, yet our records of the apostles have them at odds with the Qur'an. So I've argued to Muslims that they must think Jesus and his apostles to be the most incompetent religious leaders in history who couldn't even maintain the faith for a century. But then I see Ignatius (someone who I cited to Muslims to show belief that Jesus is God in the early church) talking about the authority of the bishops and later Iraneous about the authority of the Bishop of Rome. So am I as a Protestant doing the same thing Muslims do and attributing complete incompetence to Jesus and his disciples? I've asked other Protestants and they just shrug it off as the church fathers being fallible men who universally adopted some heresy. I honestly can't see how that's any different than what Islam claims

[@lufhopespeacefully2037]

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

[@jackieo8693]

Exactly 💯

[@jackieo8693]

@@sivad1025 you are amazingly brave and honest!

[@deanphilipsaunders775]

Huge, huge fan of Joe. He explains everything so easily with evidence that is so relevant to these topics. Awesome work.

[@BeingShari]

I’m so impressed with Trent’s setup these days compared to a few years ago! Great topic

[@MrPeach1]

I love Shamelss Potpourri probably one of the best apologetic Channels on you tube. Been subbed awhile.

[@fantasia55]

Popery

[@irishandscottish1829]

@@fantasia55 you need to watch Joes earliest videos to get the joke… Even Joe knows the joke of ‘shameless potpourri’ and speaks of it in his earliest videos

[@lufhopespeacefully2037]

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace peach

[@MrPeach1]

@@lufhopespeacefully2037 because it had not been fully discovered until later thought about the relationship between the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was done. The Apostles taught that Jesus was God but they had not formally defined details about the relationship until later issues came up that forced them to discern some of the details. The council of nicea was a good example of that happening and it was in 300AD. So in practice the church actually was able to operate for 300 years before the need for a formal understanding and definitive teaching where hammered out. I think the word trinity is found earlier than this though. According to the internets "The first recorded use of this Latin word was by Tertullian in about 200AD,"

[@fantasia55]

@@lufhopespeacefully2037 Not all Christian doctrine is in the Bible

[@treeckoniusconstantinus]

Joshua Charles on the Catholic Answers website has recently written three articles about the Calvin-LDS topic discussed early in the video. I'd recommend them.

[@cameronbyers5710]

Two of my favorite apologists teaming up! Couldn't wait to watch. 😃

[@From_Protestant_to_Christian]

These great apologetics videos by these theological titans have helped so many convert from the Calvinist and Baptist religion to Christianity.

[@twitherspoon8954]

_"...have helped so many convert from the Calvinist and Baptist religion to Christianity."_ Because the world needs more people to worship cannibalism and propitiatory human sacrifice.

[@twitherspoon8954]

@robertstephenson6806 _"...the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent"_ So should a father who used one of his sons as a human sacrifice to appease himself be condemned or worshiped?

[@twitherspoon8954]

@robertstephenson6806 _"Then you are on the right path."_ Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of human sacrifice is the core tenet of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16... Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."

[@michaelmasztal7871]

@@twitherspoon8954 You wrote, "Are you denying that the literal worship of human sacrifice is the core tenet of Christianity?" There is an error in your premise, "Human sacrifice" is not a core tenet of Christianity. Jesus was not merely human unless you subscribe to one of the early heresies in Christianity. You need to do your homework on the dual nature of Jesus.

[@twitherspoon8954]

@robertstephenson6806 _"Paul then spent 3 1/2 years being taught by Jesus before he began to evangelize gentiles."_ Source? Oh... Paul, right? And only Paul. You are using Paul to prove Paul. LOL

[@rootberg]

Thanks guys! Yesterday I finished reading Joe’s book ”The early church was the Catholic church”. Great read. The chapter on the four gospels dealt with some of these questions.

[@VoiceOfReason_]

So St. Augustine appealed to the ordinary & universal magisterium 😎

[@robertahagen6455]

Wow! What an amazing education I am getting from you two! So glad the Lord lead me to you two! Keep on keepin' on and may God bless you both!

[@lufhopespeacefully2037]

u too rob,Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

[@timboslice980]

I think Calvin gets a little hippie when he talks about real presense as well.... man i watch or liste to every episode of joes podcast. That one about protestants not really worshipping god was super eye opening. Coming from a protestant background it has me questioning how much more prot baggage i still have lol.

[@timothymcdonald7407]

Just excellent my friends. Thank God for both of you.

[@partydean17]

Dude knocked it out of the park. Super lucid and understandable thats a gift from god

[@tylerrossjcl]

The question we need to be asking (and answering) as Catholics is: how did the Church come to judge what books are in the canon? What standards were used?

[@crusaderACR]

The most important factor was ultimately how widely accepted those books _already were_ among the major Dioceses. This criterion wouldn't be palatable to the Reformers, however. Edit: Just to note, it wasn't completely blind either. But it was a major factor. The Didache was anonymous and probably not the best fit, but Hebrews was also anonymous and they still included it because of its wide acceptance. Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement, and others are hard to argue. Clement may be because it wasn't directly about Christ, however III John would fail that. John was Apostolic though. It was tough work, took years to iron out that's for sure. And we trust the Church.

[@tonyl3762]

The canon is the Achilles heel of sola Scriptura and thus Protestantism.

[@sivad1025]

Not necessarily protestantism but it is a huge blow. I personally am in the boat that God defined heresy in the early church but the magisterium doesn't have an ongoing authority. This would reconsile the canon problem. Although I concede that it's entirely arbitrary and thin. The fact that the first reformers all believed in sola scriptura has really shaken my protestantism

[@lufhopespeacefully2037]

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

[@tonyl3762]

@@sivad1025 So God only preserved His Church for a certain period of time? For how long? On what basis/evidence do you hold this belief?

[@tonyl3762]

@@lufhopespeacefully2037 Pretty sure all three persons of the Trinity can be found in the Bible where each is identified as God. Trinity is there implicitly, but clearly the Church had to authoritatively settle the issue.

[@lufhopespeacefully2037]

@@tonyl3762 ,,,as far as i know trinity is an old worshipping for some an egyptians who have worshipped ezice,authorice&hurce ,later on the church has abducted the notion&also The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The much older Hindu Vedas had a holy trinity,peace

[@TheGenFem]

These two feel like they’re best friends, even outside of work. I love it!

[@ksink74]

That's also the same argument a Muslim would make about the Koran or a Latter Day Saint would make about the Book of Mormon. Edit: That feeling when you wait for ten minutes, and they bring up the point in your comment.

[@ijn2252]

I see the comparison, but I think Latter-day Saint ideas of testimony or the reception of truth from God are a little more nuanced than they're often portrayed. While emotion is part of it, logic and consideration are also considered important in that process. Some Latter-day Saints do use a self-authenticating argument, that's not the majority of the rhetoric.

[@kevindelcid3430]

My 2 favorite Apologists! What a treat!

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

“Some people say debating Protestants is easy”. It’s more like convincing a blind person that sight exists but they’ve made up their mind that only four senses exist and their whole identity hinges on maintaining this belief.

[@Danaluni59]

It is easier to fool a person than it is to convince him that he has been fooled.

[@lufhopespeacefully2037]

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

[@jackieo8693]

Yup

[@lufhopespeacefully2037]

@@jackieo8693 , ,hi there.hola hooray hey. here we go the truth coming up,actually turah&bible were from god but they had been corrupted afterwards as a result god sent down quran upon prophet muhammed&i going to preserved the quran thereby god had fulfilled his promise ,let me show u friendly&honestly the truth,okee dokee.shedding the light over christianity to know the truth first of all there is no original bible the 4 main bible are contradicted to each other yet there is 1 quran but who is the writer of bible the answer is paul the jewish who hates jesus let us discuss about the significant event which is crucifixion why does your would claimed god left his only son to crucify without any sin he had committed the disaster reached its uttermost when u found bible said on the tongue of jesus my god my god why do u forsaken me means jesus has never crucified willingly have u an idea why do they `ve crucified jesus because it`s a penalty of an impure &particularly crucifixion because dindn`t touched the earth make it an impured that what paul said jesus gets impure for the sake of us &see the authentic god what does said in quran chapter 3 verse 55 by the name of god the most gracious&most merciful , O Jesus, I will take you and raise you up to me, and had purified you from those who disbelieve, and He will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection, then to Me is your return, so I will judge between you regarding that in which you differed,the authentic god rose jesus to the sky before they kill him in addition he had purified him from a false accusation of he was an impure . quran verse is comply with the bible itself :So they lifted up stones to stone him. But Jesus did and went out of the temple, passing through them." ( John 8:59 ),let alone of many verses in the bible incites to violence thus u found the largest massacres had happened in history the ww1&2 christian countries against christian countries 100 millions had been killed not to mention the sex stories in the bible nay u never found a single sex word in quran,don`t take it in personal just i clarify u the plain truth,bible said woman when she during the menstruation she gets impure &any thing she would touched it will be impure &should stay at her room till had done of it don`t see that an insulting to woman &how does the claimed god in bible said so he demeans& underrates his own creatures, yet islam honored the woman &she has a complete chapter its name women show us her rights,let us look at modern medicine which refutes the bible, ovulalation happens every 28 days from overy next month from other ovary when fertilization fails to happen mestrual bleading happens it always stops when a female gets pregnant ,menstrual cycle ovulation the female genital system consists of one uterus to overuse vagine& externat genital organs ,,the blood during menstruation could cause diseases to spread and that’s why does a woman during her menstruation needed to isolate so the blood would not be passed around to other people & diseases not be spread that`s what god has said in quran and they ask you about menstruation say, isolate women don't come near them untill they get purified verse 222 chapter 2,why there are priests,pastors&nuns are reverted daily to islam,yet u `ve never a muslim clergy left islam as per western media said that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world,i didn`t like to push islam onto u god said no compulsion in religion verse 256 chapter 2,figure it out then make up your mind,peace

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

@@lufhopespeacefully2037 you’re in the wrong comment section with that question. Catholics believe that the idea of the trinity is in the Bible but we know with confidence it is true because the apostolic church teaches it is true. What religion and interpretation are you trying to sell us?🤔 I’m always open to hear a new pitch.

[@Forester-]

Trent (or Kyle), I'd love to see you guys engage more directly with Kruger's work. On this and Joe's earlier video on this topic many of the comments from Protestants are more concerned with Kruger than Calvin. Joe replied to a comment on his video explaining why he didn't engage Kruger but I think enough people are bringing it up that it needs to be done. Thanks

[@arsenicrice9990]

Joe's series on Mormonism is so great!!!

[@Anthony-fk2zu]

I came here to say that Joe should get his books on audible, I won’t jump on the cheesecake wagon. Yet. Really great video though, guys, keep it up!

[@bradleytarr2482]

To paraphrase the Sci-Fi Genre: "Within every American MegaChurch lies the seeds of its own destruction."

[@Grace4rever]

As a protestant who holds a partial self authentication model for the cannon, I was not swayed in the least but appreciated the conversation.

[@concrete3030]

At 28.10... "because scripture is the Word of God you can't use anything else to prove it or else you are putting some other authority above the word of God." I hear this all the time when prodestants can not reason their interpretations although most of them use personal interpretation or have even written bias, guided questions books that they are allowed to do but the Church Father's and the Church are not allowed to do

[@jackneals5585]

Great discussion. Please have this man on again.

[@starshipchris4518]

Perspicuity is another idea thrown out there that's manifestly disprovable, yet unshakbly held.

[@ProjectMysticApostolate]

We need more of these. I learned so much. God bless you both! 👍

[@llla_german_ewoklll6413]

Joe is perhaps my favorite apologist on youtube (sorry trent (not sorry)).

[@pattyserrano9339]

I've had Joe's books on my tbr list for months now, I'm moving them up!!

[@crusaderACR]

What's tbr?

[@pattyserrano9339]

@@crusaderACR to be read

[@Millingtorres]

It's easy to argue which books belong in the Bible when you're working backwards from an already agreed historical Canon.

[@EmberBright2077]

Is there any reason why I shouldn't just reject the canon outright then?

[@dynamic9016]

Very insightful conversation.

[@joelpenley9791]

Trent: “Thank you for your podcast which is not useless banter.” Talks about cheesecake right after 🤣😂🤣

[@Matt-1926]

Joe must be a hot commodity, seems to be making the rounds to all the great podcasts.

[@christopher19894]

Its hard to take someone seriously who uses a cheesecake analogy- but its even harder to take someone seriously who doesnt like cheesecake. What a weird way to start a convo 😄 🤣 😂

[@andyfisher2403]

Love your content. I miss the 40+ minute episodes

[@Ban-mw9vl]

Agreed!! Conversational episodes are superior in regard to entertainment and comprehension 🙂 .. not to say scripted content doesn’t have its place though.

[@eddardgreybeard]

Nothing better than self authenticating Canon when you are your own Pope and magisterium

[@billymays7958]

What exactly are you saying?

[@EmberBright2077]

Not sure why you made this comment, since no one actually believes that.

[@eddardgreybeard]

@@billymays7958 Are you guys Protestants or Christians?

[@jonatasmachado7217]

As Augustine would say, Evangelicals, like Donatists, think, indeed, that it matters not in what communion they hold the faith of Christ; but thanks to the Lord, who wants to gather them in from a state of schism, and has taught us that it is fitting that the one God be worshipped in unity.

[@robertotapia8086]

@TheCounselofTrent @Joe Heschmeyer you guys should tag team more often we learn so much from you guys please 🙏 do more content together. @Joe love your channel praying for others to SUBSCRIBE.

[@edwardmccarthy6422]

Both of you guys are such a blessing!! And Tim Staples, and Jimmy. Your defense is ALWAYS with charity. A model of apologetics. Anyway, this particular Protestant assertion doesn't pass the starting gate of logic. The proposition, "Scripture authenticates itself" is a "do-loop"; the conclusion is in the premise. It assumes "Scripture" as a premise, like Scripture is just sitting there, on a table, ALREADY determined TO BE Scripture, and then we come along and are asking ourselves, "is this authentic", even though it has ALREADY been determined to be Scripture by some entity NOT using this criteria to determine it. It presumes a "self" already exists that authenticates itSELF. It actually seems to be saying, "this is how I recognize what the Church has determined to be Scripture.". Or, perhaps more simply and honestly, "this is how I FEEL or REACT when I read what the Church has determined to be Sacred Scripture.".

[@henrymalinowski5125]

So John Calvin relies on the old “burning in the bosom”? Got it. Edit: Watched more and they pointed it out.

[@gnomeresearch1666]

I love these two guys.

[@concrete3030]

It's also funny how many prodestants think their interpretations of the Bible is infallible but then they criticize the Church's infallibility.. it's all so hypocritical and most of all PRIDEFUL

[@EmberBright2077]

I've never met a Protestant who thinks their interpretation is infallible. Please stop speaking out of ignorance and malice.

[@turkey3gwiddle]

This idea of "Bible washes up shore on desert island and you read it" is interesting from the perspective, in my eyes, of having people with no exposure to Christianity read it and then hearing their opinions on things like the Eucharist, salvation, etc. I think it'd actually be a great experiment, because admittedly such a person truly would be unbiased. Protestants adhering to "sola scriptural" could get a feel of the conclusions an unbiased person with no inherited tradition interprets scripture alone, because it may be contrary to other Protestant beliefs.

[@littledrummergirl_19]

The pastor at my parish makes a really good point similar to this topic - Let’s say we put a newspaper clipping in a time capsule, the headline reads “_____ High School baseball player ____ steals home plate in last week’s game!” Or “woman breaks glass ceiling being voted first class president of _____ High School” People 200 years in the future with no or limited knowledge of our culture would read this and say “woah they stole plates? Weird. Women broke glass ceilings? That’s a good thing? That’s so strange” because they don’t have the cultural knowledge to properly interpret the headlines without context. That context/guidance what the church is for the Bible. I’d argue that’s actually a lot of what Protestantism is, that scenario where you just pick up the Bible and try to take it at face value with no context, and limited consideration of related outside texts/traditions, though of course with some bias introduced from the early reformers. But Catholicism provides the historical context of apostolic succession and tradition so we understand the “stealing home plate” and “breaking the glass ceiling” types of cultural statements in the Bible, with the authority of the church to back up the interpretations. Anyway yeah my point is I think the Bible on the island would turn out similar to Protestantism today, but probably even more drastically so. Would be interesting though!

[@bradleytarr2482]

Makes me chuckle when people think that St. Jerome was going directly against the authority of the wider Catholic Church. I've seen a Protestant Apologist cherry-pick St. Augustine to try and disprove the veneration/invocation of Saints.

[@Justas399]

Anyone venerate a saint in the NT?

[@Anthony-fk2zu]

It is indeed strange when people try to use the Church Fathers, who were unabashedly Catholic, as a proof against Catholicism.

[@bradleytarr2482]

@@Justas399 They venerated Peter's shadow, and cloths/handkerchiefs that were blessed by Peter, in the Book of Acts. So there you have veneration of a Saint themself, and relics that had been touched to them.

[@Justas399]

@@bradleytarr2482 they were not venerating Peter. God used physical objects at times to do a miracle.

[@Justas399]

@@Anthony-fk2zu many of the church fathers did not believe what you believe.

[@perhael]

Need more of these conversations

[@ToddJambon]

Joe will be the referee for the Horn/Marshall fight card. One day only at the Catholic University of Steubenville.

[@DanyTV79]

Great video!

[@aosidh]

Thanks for tackling this! I've always been puzzled how anyone can start with a book. If anything, the bible disavows itself without the help of dogma - the emperor IS naked!

[@aosidh]

@trollpatrol7215 exactly! You have to decide for yourself, even if you are deciding to trust authority figures. To me, the particular book is sort of irrelevant (but you should still probably find a more accurate translation than KJV!!)

[@aosidh]

@trollpatrol7215 I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like you've thought about this before

[@aosidh]

@trollpatrol7215 aaaah, the Catholic RE didn't take for me, and god didn't bother to intervene. It's supposed to be a spiritual thing, right? The intellectual side does not work, no matter how many heretics Rome burnt. Listen, I didn't bring up murderers, but let's talk about conscience. The bible depicts the slaughter of children as a moral imperative on many occasions. My conscience tells me that that is wrong. Whoops!! Am I being convicted by a different spirit?

[@Jwarrior123]

Sitting on a branch of a tree and sawing off the branch while facing the trunk. That's the self-authenticating canon!

[@raiynepaige]

I’m sure Trent is always looking for better ways to procure content and I’d like to suggest something that I think I would be very interested in and would pay significant amount of money for due to its worth. I would love for Trent to do almost like a master class on apologetics. (His book is basically that but I mean more like a class like formation) I find that I read and watch content regarding catholic apologetics but have a hard time retaining all the information. I also think that by having something like a very slow and in depth “masterclass” it would provide the opportunity to do things like take notes and really learn all the different nuances of these apologetics. It is difficult to do this from scattered videos across KZbin even in just one KZbin account. I would go even farther to say that I would pay tuition like prices to learn from someone like Trent one on one to answer any questions and teach me directly. Or even for something like a weekly hour long call. I hope Trent sees this and considers some of this because it would be a huge gift for some of us and would serve Gods Church and at the same time it is a financial opportunity for Trent.

[@IG88AAA]

Catholic answers has a school of apologetics!

[@TruthHasSpoken]

" a master class on apologetics" Read the bible ... over and over. IMO, pick a Catholic protestant debate and make an outline of all the points. Picking the same subject, watch another debate doing the same. You've now probably covered 99% of protestant apologetic points. Offer now to teach a class at your parish on the topic. As Mitch Pacwa has said, paraphrasing, you learn the most when you teach. I always ask protestants to cite who in history taught their interpretation of scripture on : - Faith alone - Bible alone (and always, where is the table of contents in the bible?; if not in the bible, who first listed the New Testament and what did they say about the Old Testament?) - Eternal Security, Once Saved Always Saved. - Symbolic only Baptism, Eucharist - Baptism delayed to the age of reason - Rejection of intercessory prayer - That Mary gave birth to children other than Jesus and that she sinned The burden is on them to prove that they are right, as they hold beliefs not found in Christianity for 1500+ years.

[@whathappening5323]

@@TruthHasSpoken You wouldn't know the truth if you heard it from the Lord himself. You start with the preconceived notion you are right. The CC History you don't read shows you something not right about the way it handles those that didn't agree with it Dogma. Now if you want to read some of that History try looking at this ## Project Gutenberg from the first century until 1830## then let us know if you have understood anything about Christianity. Remember this is irrefutable evidence of how the CC Dogma kept the people in the slave camp. Those who had the audacity to say no didn't get the brotherly Love of turning the other cheek.

[@LauraMonge1974]

This is the best crossover ever

[@lufhopespeacefully2037]

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

[@pete8684]

It is only by the account of God using human instruments that His word can be fully understood. Even as Moses is appointed as an authority to teach and govern God’s people, Aaron is placed under Moses. In Ex 4:16 we see the first fruits of hierarchical obedience whereby Aaron will speak on behalf of Moses and he (Moses) will be as if he were a God to him (Aaron). It is clear in OT that a hierarchical authority is gifted to men from God and not to sacred scripture. Sacred scripture is the storage of God’s truth given to us by God’s servants. Moses didn’t pass on his authority of the people of Israel to only obey scripture. The laying of hands was the passing on of authority but also the gift of God to teach. In much the same way, the same concept is evident in the NT when Paul states that Titus received the “Gift of God’ by laying off the hands. Not only that, but Paul also advises him to teach, exhort and reprove with all authority. (2 Tit 1:15). This is also noted in (1 Tim:4:14). Timothy and Titus are neither apostles nor successors of apostles yet are given the gift to teach with authority by laying of the hands. It is evident that in the history of Israel and the Catholic Church, authority was always, without exception, either passed on through the existing hierarchy (the Levitical priesthood in the Old, the succession from the Apostles in the New by laying of the hands). If there was a break outside of the hierarchy, that person always without exception, came bearing “miracles” to verify that their extraordinary ministry was truly from God. Martin Luther broke away from the Church that he was ordained in. Given that he performed no miracles to testify that his new teachings were from God, his teachings can only be considered heretical to the authentic Catholic Church. Even if you are not convinced by the authority of the Catholic Church, you are then by default accepting a doctrine promulgated by fallible men from the 16th century who could not prove that any authority was granted to them by God to teach His Church.

[@EmberBright2077]

If you can prove the Catholic Church is infallible, you might have a point.

[@pete8684]

@@EmberBright2077 What if an atheist asks to prove the existence of God and that the bible wasn't just written by men without any inspiration from God? If you’re an atheist, please disregard as we would have to back it up even further. I just proved to you the existence of hierarchical authority as established by God. It is not that men speak infallibly on their own accord but by the gift of God provided it is within the authority of God's people (google the Hebrew word “qahal” or Greek “ekklesia” which now translates to church). On what grounds do you exalt and lean on your own understanding rather than the Church? For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itchy ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths (2Tim 4:3-4). Sound teaching is not something Scripture leaves to our itching ears to determine. We do not hear our Shepherd if our obedience is rendered finally to own judgment. Rather, it’s the Church who is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth (1Tim.3:15). To know the truth of Christ, one must know the Church. Faith is trusting the teaching authority that God has given us. Do you think that he is unable to protect this authority even when given to sinners? The amount of times that Christ said, “what little faith you have”. Christ himself gives instructions to obey those sitting in the seat of Moses (Matt 23:2). He nevertheless criticizes the men for their hypocrisy in their acts but he doesn’t rebuke them of their teaching authority. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true, why didn't Christ rebuke them entirely of their authority and refer God's people to live their lives only according to scripture? Consider yourself in the times of Moses… It was on the account of his prophecies coming true and also by the “miracles'' performed by God that he truly was recognised as an agent of God. You would have thought that It would have been difficult for anyone to challenge Moses and prove that he actually wasn’t an Agent of God? Yet, it is revealed that a large part of the Israelites constantly complained and doubted God during each stage of their Exodus and thereafter. If men argued and complained against an agent of God whilst God was actively performing miracles and speaking his word through Moses, then how much more would it be difficult to accept the teachings of God with no divine guidance other than text which can be interpreted into many different ways i.e Sola Scriptura. It is typically considered that Moses is a prefiguration of Christ. We must ask ourselves then, does Christ delegate any authority in a similar way as Moses? It would seem hard to argue that he didn’t dispense with any authority when scripture affirms He gave His apostles power not only to cast out evil spirits and heal people but he also gave them a power, never given to anyone before, to forgive sins. What is even more important is revealed in Matt 16:16-19 where Christ first declares Peter the Rock on which he will build his Church. Some want to argue that based on the Greek translation, the word petra and petros have different meanings (this only differs because of language constructs using masculine-feminine noun classification). This can simply be refuted by Christ calling Peter ‘Kephas’ in Jn 1:42 which is Aramaic for rock. Even Paul calls Peter the rock ‘Kephas’' numerous times. Now Christ goes on to say that he will give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven and power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. The significance of this is seen in the typology of the OT Davidic empire. The king appointed a prime minister who was second in authority only to the king. He was also given the keys in a similar way to open and shut the doors to the kingdom (Is22:22). Analogous to the OT, Christ is the new and everlasting King whilst Peter is the first of many successive prime ministers. If it were to be argued that Peter’s appointment is not successive, then how are the keys of the kingdom exercised after his earthly tenure? A further subordinate authority is also given to the apostles by Christ but in a collective/joint capacity (the concept of the Magisterium) (Matt:18:15-20). It is evident that Christ not only gives them power to bind and loose but instructs those refusing to listen to them to be taken to the Church? Many protestant denominations describe an invisible church but how can a church discipline if it's invisible and hasn't got any authority? It is commonly said that the biggest trick that the devil ever pulled was convincing mankind that he doesn't exist. In my opinion, the next would have to be the illusion that Christ doesn't have a church which requires obedience to His authority given to men on earth. One of the first examples of authority being exercised was when we see the apostles making the first type of extraordinary magisterial judgement regarding circumcision of gentile followers and Peter making the final decision. Does the succession of apostles' authority cease with them only. If it does then why was Judas replaced? Does the same logic not apply to other apostles when each apostle finishes his earthly tenure. Christ tells his apostles to teach mankind to obey everything and that he also will be with “them” until the end of time (Matt 28:18-20). He is addressing the apostles so then how can he be with them until the end of time when their time in the world is short. Also consider that after Christ's resurrection He breathed onto his apostles the power to forgive sins, how does one assert that they can be forgiven of their sins without the apostles being with us? This also begs the question whether repentance inwardly alone is sufficient for sins to be forgiven without the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation (confession). Simply making an assertion that apostolic succession isn’t true seems baseless when there is evidence that strongly weighs more towards it then the non-existent evidence against it. The devil himself used words from scripture to twist and promote false beliefs/teachings with Christ in the desert. Whilst it is easy to take the side of Christ in such instances, the devil is far more intelligent than any man. Without God helping us by his teaching authority, you fall victim to your own prideful nature which is one of many different interpretations of scripture seeking to divide the one truth of Christ. Why do I submit to the belief that the Catholic Church has the authority to teach infallibly rather than believe in Sola Scriptura? (Jonn 17:21) “I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one, as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me”. If Christ's will is for those who believe in him to be united, then I trust that he has provided the means to do so. If He hasn’t then what hope do we all have to be united as one in Christ. As Christ said, a kingdom divided against itself will not stand. So what is causing division? God Bless

[@jhoughjr1]

Yeah I’ve been listening to his podcasts lately

[@richvestal767]

The ideological bias that says that the Bible is "self-authenticating" is literally no different than the ideological bias that says that something like the scientific article "Drag Queen Story Time" is "self-authenticating" for Queer Theory. There's literally no means of falsification for this belief either.

[@alpha4IV]

Three great videos in a row! Keep it up. May you find time to rest and keep the content fresh and at the level of quality you have been firing on lately.

[@YajunYuanSDA]

Do you accept Trent Horn's speculation that Mary may have been bodily assumed after *all* of the NT books were written?

[@alpha4IV]

@@YajunYuanSDA Hey buddy, haven’t heard from you in a while. The traditions of Mary’s assumption or dormition are ancient enough for me to accept as Orthodox Tradition, before we get to both the Eastern & Western Church“ratifying” the particular Tradition. Besides that, accepting the Pope & the Magisterium in my Western leanings & the Ecumenical Councils and Holy Tradition in my Eastern Leanings there are enough threads in both the councils and the church fathers late & desert, that I can string together a probable narrative of how a niche belief became a dominant capital T tradition. For my anti-apologetics stance, which I know you appreciate, that meets the bar for acceptance. I’m sure it does not for you, but for me, Trent’s case or defense of the Tradition has nothing to do with why I accept & submit to it.

[@YajunYuanSDA]

@@alpha4IV "The traditions of Mary’s assumption or dormition are ancient enough for me to accept as Orthodox Tradition" Out of curiosity, what would be your approximate cut off date for when someone could no longer be plausibly apostolic?

[@alpha4IV]

@@YajunYuanSDA Well, the wording there gets tricky for me. If we are talking strictly I would say anything developing after 500 without at least a seed or implication arriving before 400 I would be hard press to defend as part of the Early or Ancient Church’s collective understanding. But, and this is a big “BUT.” I don’t believe private revelation is closed, and I hold that the Bishops both Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox do have valid apostolic succession, even if the branches have been severely trimmed; and as you know, as you have watched my channel before, I accept development and refinement of Dogma as holding to Dogma, even if our current understanding doesn’t match what the human recorders/reporters of the dogma would have intended. Kind of a Framers of the constitution perspective thing I got going on when it comes to an analogy between the Bible and the Church with the Magisterium compared with the US constitution and the US with the 3 branches of government. Yet, to be clear, I don’t think private revelation, especially if rejected by the Church body as an improper understanding, can override Doctrine let alone “unchanging” Dogma. Much as how one senator or congressperson submitting a law to change the constitution doesn’t actually change anything if the People through their elected officials vote against the proposed change. I think of how probation was rejected in the US. Or how Arianism infected the Church for so long, eventually the body itself rejected it. The body Catholic (both big C & small c) has not rejected the typology that supports the Marian dogmas. If it ever does, then you might have a stronger case for the belief being an “accretion” as our dear brother Ourtland likes to put things.

[@YajunYuanSDA]

@@alpha4IV Could you review my definitive video on Epiphanius statements about Mary? He fits at that 400AD mark.

[@timrichardson4018]

Whether cheescake is a tart or custart, i know not. But it is most certainly disordered to not like cheesecake, and rejection of it a sin. Joe, I say this as a concerned Christian brother. You should take this to confession.

[@IG88AAA]

This should be grounds for excommunication

[@cinnamondan4984]

What I find interesting about the LDS Bible is that it designates one of the OT books at not canonical: Song or Solomon.

[@travispelletier3352]

It would have been really nice if you guys had focused on Kruger's actual model in some detail. You spent a lot of time talking about Calvin, and then dismiss Kruger by saying that it's basically "the Catholic Model", But then you contradict yourselves by arguing that Kruger's model doesn't work. So which is it? Is Kruger's model just the Catholic model? Or is it the John Calvin fuzzy feelings model that doesn't work? Having read Kruger, I know that it's not the latter, and I know that his view contradicts the Catholic model. So neither of your two contradictory summations of him actually fit his perspective. It would have been worthwhile for you both to work through his view in detail before you straw man and dismiss it.

[@davidgamboa9567]

Catholic Seth Rogen. Joe is great!

[@hacker4chn841]

This issue sounds a lot like how Muslims will argue the Koran is so beautiful, it's a miracle and therefore proves Mohammad was a prophet.

[@timbradson1267]

@hacker4chn841 - Muslins say that the bible has to be rejected because it contradicts the bible.. What!!! Wait!!! But how can that be since the bible came first. I asked that question to a Muslin once in a forum many years ago and there was silence.

[@EmberBright2077]

Which is fine by me, since I've never heard a Protestant actually make this argument.

[@hacker4chn841]

@@EmberBright2077 I've heard very similar arguments. It's generally hard-line calvinists making this type of claim in my experience.

[@lolobabes8653]

great work guys

[@galaxyn3214]

Sola scriptura = Sola circularis ratio

[@daviddabrowski01]

What’s the spiritual equivalent of lactose intolerance? 🤣🤣🤣kidding of course. Love this duo. The oneness Pentecostal video had me 😭😭

[@ultron3693]

Hey Trent, can you address the claims and arguments made by a tiktoker/youtuber named "Dan Mcclellan"?

[@keksteig387]

Yes, please! I even thought he's an atheist, but apparently he's a believing Mormon.

[@holyromanemperor420]

@@keksteig387 Yeah, I too was shocked to learn that

[@albertoascari2542]

If your in a Church that denies post Appostolic Miracles how would explain the Miracle of God Hearing and Answering Prayers.

[@TheChurchofBreadandCheese]

I feel the fact that most scholars including catholic scholars (Fr Brown, Mark s smith etc) believe the gospels were original anonymous is enough to destroy sola scriptura.

[@jackdaw6359]

But they would be wrong unfortunately. Brant Pitre demolishes this idea. However, the fact that they definitely were not anonymous does not discount Holy tradition

[@dylanschweitzer18]

Disagree, we can affirm traditional authorship and reject Sola Scriptura

[@Forester-]

I think Paul's lost letters pretty much cripple the argument about apostolic authorship. Its a pretty big deal if we have two lost books of the New Testament. Not to mention Hebrews.

[@TheChurchofBreadandCheese]

@@jackdaw6359 interesting I haven't read his scholarly work but his book case for Jesus certainly doesn't do anything to help traditional authorship what other book of his do you recommend?

[@jackdaw6359]

@@TheChurchofBreadandCheese interesting, what would you say was faulty about his argument that none of the earliest copies were anonymous? Pure argument from silence? Or how about the fact that the names all match always. (No copies worldwide were named differently)

[@josh39684]

Haven't officially converted to catholicism yet but will be doing so once I move out of my parents house. Your videos have opened my eyes on catholicism truly is. Which is the church of early Christian and the one Jesus established. The other day I was giving my mom a history of how we got the biblical cannon and how it is different than the Bible she uses (NASB and I have been using the 1611 KJV) after I told her she said "doesn't this devalue the word of God?" Not sure how to respond to that. Also is the 1611 KJV Bible a good translation to use? Thanks

[@mikelopez8564]

Great questions. God inspired scripture, we all agree. All the Church did was discern what writings were inspired; they made the table of contents. I do not think that in any way diminishes scripture. If mom is consistent then when the British and Foreign Bible Society removed books in the early 1800’s, she would have to think that diminishes scripture as well. But it really doesn’t, as scripture is scripture and it is of God. The RSV Catholic Edition seems to be the fave for Catholic apologists. If you really dig your old time KJV, there is the Douay Rheims Bible. It is a word for word translation. Ignatius Press is where I got mine; love it. The NAB is what they read at mass. Best wishes to you

[@travispelletier3352]

Only five minutes in and, Oof, these misrepresentations are pretty bad. 1) Calvin never called Baruch scripture, nor did he cite it as inspired scripture. He called Baruch a prophet, and of course, held to the canonicity of the book of Jeremiah (which Baruch arguably scribed for Jeremiah). But he never called the book of Baruch scripture. 2) Martin Luther never argued that any of the canonical books be removed from the New Testament. That's a common myth. He argued for a 2-tier system of scripture by which to distinguish books which were more or less valuable in their teachings, and he was critical of James in comparison to the rest, but all of them were included in his German translation of the NT, with the less valuable books placed at the end. I hope that Joe will correct these statements since they're simply historically false. I was a little surprised to hear him repeat these falsehoods.

[@fooberdooge3103]

Regardless, Luther still wanted to lower the level of those books for the fact they disagreed with his theology. Not sure about Calvin, I’m from a Lutheran background, so I’m more familiar with him.

[@travispelletier3352]

​@@fooberdooge3103 "regardless . . . etc" I mean, Joe's repeated statements are that Luther said we should throw these books out of the canon. That's just false. If he had said, "Luther agreed that these were scripture but didn't hold them in as high esteem as other scriptural books," then I wouldn't have commented because his statement would have been accurate.

[@spottedstars4521]

Sweet episode! 🥧

[@mj6493]

I really hate to be the troll here, but I could hardly watch this video for all the distortion and misinformation of Protestantism. Self-authentication, doesn't mean that we don't need the Church. The Church, including the councils, collectively recognizes the unique character of the scriptures, but it's the Holy Spirit actively working through them that ultimately asserts the scripture's authority. It's the Word of God in action that matters, just like when "God said" at Creation. Calvin wasn't wrong that individuals can also recognize in the scriptures their unique character, but that in no way is an infallible guide to determine the canon. During the Reformation era, opinions varied on the canon, even among notable Catholics. And, sure, Martin Luther felt that parts of the NT didn't proclaim the gospel with the same clarity as, say, Romans or Galatians, but he never removed them. Just look at his German translation. It's all there. From Martin Luther's Small Catechism: The Eighth Commandment You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not tell lies about our neighbor, betray him, slander him, or hurt his reputation, but defend him, speak well of him, and explain everything in the kindest way.

[@johnyang1420]

Jesus started Catholic church. Join

[@chrishiles8524]

I just read "Forty Reasons I am a Catholic" by Peter Kreeft and I like what he says, If I believe the Bible is infallible then the Catholic Church must be infallible. The Bible did not cause itself to come into being, it was brought into being by the Church. The infallible is always greater than the fallible, and no Effect can be greater than its Cause. So either The Church is fallible or infallible. If The Church is fallible then the Bible is fallible. If The Church is infallible then the Bible is infallible. The Church cannot produce something She is not. (I paraphrased a little)

[@anglicanaesthetics]

I really think this badly, badly misrepresents Calvin's position and, frankly, just has a number of blatant falsehoods. Response coming soon

[@R.C.425]

Thank you

[@KevinDay]

This is why I think Anglicans are better at defending the Canon... We are fine admitting the Church testifies to the Canon, we don't think it has to be infallible to do that.

[@nathanp.claiborne8276]

So Anglicans believe that their church body can infallibly define sacred scriptures without being infallible themselves? Or am I misreading this?

[@KevinDay]

@@nathanp.claiborne8276 Some Anglo-Catholics might put it that way, but most of the more reformed-leaning Anglicans I've heard would rather say we just don't need the Canon list to be infallible in order for the contents of Scripture to be infallible. We don't need epistemic certainty on exactly which books are Scripture and which are not. We're comfortable having just a reasonably high level of confidence.

[@nathanp.claiborne8276]

@@KevinDay Doesn't seem a very comfortable position to be in

[@KevinDay]

@@nathanp.claiborne8276 Do you personally infallibly know that the Roman Magisterium is infallible? If so, wouldn't that make you the magisterium? If not, then you admit you don't have to be infallible to recognize something as infallible.

[@MrPeach1]

@@KevinDay If the church fallibly testifies the Cannon then I guess you still have an open Cannon. Maybe the book of mormon is still in play for you guys.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

How can Protestants defend Sola Scriptura and claim that the Bible is self-authenticating if their own canon only came about in the XVI century?

[@MW-eg4gu]

The other day I thought of something so simple it might be thought a no-brainer, so why bring it up? What I mean is everytime a Protestant (or whatever they call themselves, Restorationist. etc.) says the seemingly innocent, "My Bible tells me ..." or "I read in my Bible that ..." or "When I began to read the Bible I realized I had to leave the Catholic Church ..." or the myraid times Billy Graham said, "The Bible says ..." (that voice of his, I must admit, did sound like the Voice of Authority), everytime, they expose themselves. Because it is always Me, Myself, and I figuring out what the Bible is saying. Their very words tell us Catholics how for 500 years they have replaced individual interpretations - and thus created a myraid of differing denominations - with Catholic Church authority. What should be said, especially if you are Catholic and know what you are doing, is - "The Church tells us this scripture passage means ..." or the even stronger - "Holy Mother Church tells us this means ..." or "the Church Fathers say this is about ..." The moment you express this reminder it is Church authority first a whole lot of Protestants are hit with this "foreign" concept. They are so used to approaching the Bible with individualistic authority they are taken aback. Of course, seconds later get ready for a lecture.

[@gentlecatholic]

Joshua Charles recently published a series of articles on this very topic on Catholic Answers. Im surprised you guys didn't mention him :) "John Calvin, the gnostic Protestant?"

[@lufhopespeacefully2037]

Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;,,,

[@ijn2252]

I appreciate the book of Mormon being quoted, but i don't think most Latter-day Saints would take that interpretation of Moroni 10:4. I see it as something of a reference to Galatians 5 and the fruit of the spirit. Furthermore, Latter-day Saint Scripture also talks about knowing in your mind and heart (Doctrine and covenants 8:2). The idea of being chosen to receive isn't really a part of it at all. It takes the sysnce that you can ask God if it is true and he will tell you yes or no. I think it's fair enough to be skeptical of trusting the method of knowing, but its a little more fleshed out than just a burning in the bosom.

[@roseg1333]

Ooo that event takes place on my 5th wedding anniversary 😃 September 21st

[@concrete3030]

When prodestants get to the point of believing or regurgitating their church's tradition as Catholics admittingly believe in scripture and tradition they will just start saying, "yeah but the Catholic Church fell away from God's grace..Constantine took it over.etc etc etc..

[@sidneygray51]

Anyone who has written fan-fiction, even on the level of Dante's Divine Comedy, knows by instinct (and some grace!) there's something holy and inspired in true scripture. But a lot of unholy works have a similar vibe, otherworldly in the wrong way.

[@jonathanhnosko7563]

How do we know that we have the right Scriptures? The unparalleled historical consensus of the Early Church on the identity of the Divine Books. It did my heart good to learn that this was Augustine’s recommended approach 9:12 , though his conclusions were not in keeping with it. “Old Testament” Examples (a.k.a. “the Scriptures” of the New Testament Church) “Genesis + Exodus + Numbers + Leviticus + Deuteronomy + Joshua + Judges + Ruth + Kingdoms 1-4 (Samuel 1-2 + Kings 1-2) + Chronicles 1-2 + the Psalms of David + Solomon’s Proverbs and/or Wisdom + Ecclesiastes + Song of Songs + Job + Isaiah + Jeremiah + the Twelve (Hosea-Malachi) + Daniel + Ezekiel + Esdras." - Bishop Melito of Sardis (100s AD) "Genesis + Exodus + Leviticus + Numbers + Deuteronomy + Joshua + Judges with Ruth + Kings 1-2 (Samuel 1-2) + Kings 3-4 (Kings 1-2) + Chronicles 1-2 + Esdras 1-2 (Ezra-Nehemiah) + Esther + Job + Psalms + Proverbs + Ecclesiastes + Song of Songs + the Twelve Prophets (Hosea-Malachi) + Isaiah + Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle + Ezekiel + Daniel." - Patriarch Cyril of Jerusalem (300s AD) "Genesis + Exodus + Leviticus + Numbers + Deuteronomy + Joshua + Judges + Ruth + Kings 1-4 (Samuel 1-2 + Kings 1-2) + Chronicles 1-2 + Ezra 1-2 (Ezra-Nehemiah) + Psalms + Proverbs + Ecclesiastes + Song of Songs + Job + the Twelve (Hosea-Malachi) + Isaiah + Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle + Ezekiel + Daniel." - Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria (300s AD) "Genesis + Exodus + Leviticus + Numbers + Deuteronomy + Joshua + Judges + Ruth + Acts of the Kings 1-2 (Samuel 1-2 + Kings 1-2) + Chronicles 1-2 + Ezra + Job + David (Psalms) + Solomon’s [3 books of] Ecclesiastes + Song of Songs + Proverbs + the Twelve [in 1 book of] Hosea + Amos + Micah + Joel + Jonah + Obadiah + Nahum + Habakkuk + Zephaniah + Haggai + Zechariah + Malachi + Isaiah + Jeremiah + Ezekiel + Daniel." - Patriarch Gregory the Theologian of Constantinople (300s AD) "Genesis + Exodus + Leviticus + Numbers + Deuteronomy + Joshua + Judges with Ruth + Kings 1-2 (Samuel 1-2) + Kings 3-4 (Kings 1-2) + Isaiah + Jeremiah with Lamentations + Ezekiel + the Twelve Prophets (Hosea-Malachi) + Job + David [in 5 books of Psalms] + Solomon [in 3 books of] Proverbs + Ecclesiastes + Song of Songs + Daniel + Chronicles 1-2 + Ezra 1-2 (Ezra-Nehemiah) + Esther." - Jerome (400s AD) "Genesis + Exodus + Leviticus + Numbers + Deuteronomy + Joshua + Judges with Ruth + Kings 1-4 (Samuel 1-2 + Kings 1-2) + Chronicles 1-2 + Ezra 1-2 (Ezra and Nehemiah) + Esther + Isaiah + Jeremiah + Ezekiel + Daniel + the Twelve Prophets (Hosea-Malachi) + Job + the Psalms of David + Solomon’s [3 books of] Proverbs + Ecclesiastes + Canticles (Song of Songs)." - Rufinus (400s AD) “Genesis + Exodus + Leviticus + Numbers + Deuteronomy + Joshua + Judges with Ruth + Kings 1-2 (Samuel 1-2) + Kings 3-4 (Kings 1-2) + Paralipomena 1-2 (Chronicles 1-2) + Job + Psalms + Proverbs of Solomon + Ecclesiastes of Solomon + Song of Songs of Solomon + the Twelve Prophets (Hosea-Malachi) + Isaiah + Jeremiah + Ezekiel + Daniel + Esdras 1-2 (Ezra and Nehemiah) + Esther.” - John of Damascus (700s AD) General Conclusions So, should the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Twelve (Hosea to Malachi) be included? Without a doubt! What about the books of Ezra (solidly identified as Ezra and Nehemiah), Esther (a reasonable majority), and Lamentations (unanimously part of Jeremiah when inclusions are mentioned)? With strong confidence! What about Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah (not always mentioned with inclusions to Jeremiah)? Quite possibly! Though their professed authorship is unlikely being written in Greek. What about Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, 1-4 Maccabees (declared by many as worth reading but of different status than the Old Testament), 1-2 Esdras (3-4 Ezra), the Prayer of Manasseh, or Psalm 151 (not unanimous even among Catholics and Orthodox)? Doubtful! What about Enoch, Jubilees, 2-4 Baruch, the Psalms of Solomon, or the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs (included in volumes of the Septuagint and/or sparsely in Christian communities)? Highly unlikely!

[@memememe843]

I like Trent a lot. But there is an important place for those who are both sincerely faithful and earnestly calling out church corruption. They are critical of the human failings in the church, and not the church itself. This is important. Protecting the flock and the church may be second only to embracing the church and seeking a deeper understanding of it, which is Trents much appreciated specialty. Or so it seems to me.

[@cat.nova74]

Loved the Star Wars reference

[@TruthHasSpoken]

I love how Michael Kruger in his book, Canon Revisited, repeated quotes Catholics, including Catholic Bishops, as he creates his narrative. Yet, these Catholics repeatedly disagree - and universally so, with many of Michael's beliefs including the nature of the Lord's Supper. And throughout his book, he never addresses nor even notes, his repeated doctrinal inconsistencies to theirs. So Michael appeals to the Church to have known scripture, yet this Church doesn't look anything like his. Here's who he quotes: St. Jerome (Catholic Priest, theologian) Origen (Catholic theologian) St. Clement of Alexandria (Catholic theologian) Tatian (Catholic apologist) Justin Martyr (Catholic apologist) St. Clement of Alexandria (Catholic apologist) St. Serapion (Catholic Bishop of Antioch) St. Irenaeus (Catholic Bishop of Lyons) St. Melito of Sardis (Catholic Bishop of Sardis) Tertullian (Catholic apologist) St. Papia (Catholic Bishop of Hierapolis) St. Serapion (Catholic Bishop of Antioch) Eusebius of Caesarea (Catholic Bishop of Caesarea) St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Catholic Arch Bishop of Nazianzus) St. Athanasius (Catholic Bishop of Alexandria) St. Augustine (Catholic Bishop of Hippo) St. Polycarp (Catholic Bishop of Smyrna)

[@PieMaster2425]

Saying first second century church fathers are catholic is highly disingenuous.

[@Mach15-20]

@@PieMaster2425”Where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church” St Ignatius Of Antioch

[@ancalagonyt]

Those were all church fathers, not catholics.

[@Mach15-20]

@@ancalagonyt The Church fathers were catholics. They called themselves catholics.

[@ancalagonyt]

@@Mach15-20 It's misleading to say that they called themselves catholic. Catholic means "universal". The modern Roman Catholic denomination didn't arise until after 1000 AD, with the split from the Eastern Orthodox. They said that they were part of the universal church, but they did not claim to be part of your denomination, which didn't exist yet.