The Fallacy in Almost Every Anti-Catholic Argument

[@fhblake04]

Christ is King.

[@chasnikisher7006]

You realize this is a Catholic site correct? What is your reasoning behind continually posting Christ is King?

[@MrAwesome457]

@@chasnikisher7006What’s your reason behind being a self centered narcissist?

[@Foxtayls]

​@MrAwesomeSolos how can he be a narcissist when he asked a question with no relation to himself? He asked a genuine question.

[@MrAwesome457]

@@Foxtayls He’s getting mad that there’s something above him.

[@haitaelpastor976]

King of Wraiths? That would be cool.

[@Mr_B_last]

This is so common. I don't think it's limited to just to theology.

[@AAA-qr8yy]

Catholics do the same thing all the time. They think if all they do is poke holes in protestantism then roman catholicism has to win by default. But that is based on a failure to understand their roman catholic position has even more pitfalls than what they are trying to attack.

[@CreeperTheNotable]

Hey also I have to say that most of Orthodox aren't against the Catholic faith. This coming from an Orthodox. We love you all guys

[@Hithereitsme32]

We need to come back together

[@ONIBlackBox]

Had an Ortho Bro the other day on this lovely platform tell me that the Catholic Church doesn't have the Eucharist and he proceeded to not explain further. He also said Catholics worship Baal.

[@CreeperTheNotable]

@@ONIBlackBox what?? 😭🙏he thinks catholics are another religion or something lol

[@jakewilliam15]

then they should not be orthodox but roman catholics, and to affirm that would likewise be affirming every protestant sect because youd have to go with the invisible church doctrine

[@ChrisLee1353-c6e]

@@ONIBlackBox It's semantics with the Eucharist on if it's okay to take it on the hand or not. The real "problem" with the Roman Catholic Eucharist is that you guys don't have the essence energies distinction in their view. My main problem with Roman Catholicism is that most Trad Catholic apologetics do a very good job of deconstructing the idea of Papal Infallibility and the Vatican II position. Taking the next step into an Eastern Uniate Parish that believes the Filioque is a heresy is an easy step to make after that. Then deconstructing the Vatican I position and Papal Supremacy naturally follows from that. That's been my journey anyway as just a humble inquirer of the faith. >He also said Catholics worship Baal That's actually kind of funny. That reminds me of my background in the Southern Baptist 1611 KJV-Only cult. You should read what they say about the Saints, Icons, Catholics and Mary Veneration if you're up for a good laugh. Take care buddy.

[@MilitantThomist]

Me: "Oh wow, I've been making this point for awhile...glad to see others saying the same thing." *Scrolls to **16:30*

[@PhillipCummingsUSA]

based

[@jwatson181]

It is a bad point. You do not need to establish your own world view to criticize another. Sadly, this is the state of popular level Catholics. It is just easily explained with a little thinking. Do you need to establish q to disprove x? It is silly.

[@ThouShouldst]

@@jwatson181sure but you do need to establish q to establish q lol

[@jwatson181]

@@ThouShouldst Obviously, I dont think anyone disagrees with that. With that said, the neat thing about Catholics if I disprove papal infallibility, they are pretty much protestants or EO at that point. Sadly, many Catholics throw the baby out with the bathwater. They worship their specific tradition over Jesus.

[@Heinrich.Denzinger]

@@jwatson181He's not saying you can't criticize another religion. The whole point of the video is that even if Catholicism was false, that does not mean another religion is automatically true

[@ApostolicZoomer]

Takes a lot of faith to be an atheist

[@clarkkent5442]

I believe that atheism is the most dogmatic of all faiths, primarily because they assume the negative before and (most of the time) during legitimate evidence of God's existence.

[@CYRUs-e5u]

I thought "faith" is a gift from god and without faith you can't please god. That is what is written in the Bible. How can an atheist have faith?. I always find it perplexing when you think you are abusing someone by claiming he has faith like the Christian or Muslim, or voodoo worshipper you desire to be

[@Simonm-jc]

​@@CYRUs-e5u faith just means trust. Atheists often trust in a lot of philosophical absurdities without realising it.

[@stevenhoyt]

it takes no faith at all to be an atheist. if atheism is the disposition that the proposition that god exists is false, and if faith is a term for a reliance on an epistemic judgment where there is a gap between epistemic confidence and psychological confidence, then merely being an atheist wouldn't imply anything about atheists and faith-having. if an atheist was completely unreflective about the proposition that god exists and it just seemed untrue for whatever reason, the atheist could not only be warranted in disbelief but also without any gap between an appropriate level of psychological confidence matching that warrant. for instance, if beliefs are caused and not chosen (which both are true) and the atheist reliably comes to believe true propositions, then the atheist has warrant for disbelief merely because the atheist disbelieves. to deny this reliabilst account would be self-defeating since if anyone cannot trust and rely on the beliefs that they form, then one cannot have warrant for disbelieving this account they'd be denying. the only reason the atheist should change their mind would be their having reasons they recognize as good reasons to do so. as a christian and philosopher, there are no satisfying reasons for believing or disbelieving, for mind-changing. that takes experience, and that's it. so for any person contemplating whether god exists, faith is never present when their disposition is available to change and tracks with whatever seems most likely the case. surely we can to better with apologetics than the kind of dim thinking and euphemisms of the likes of turek, strobel, sproul, et. al..

[@ShiniGuraiJoker]

Cliché insult. Do better.

[@thomasblackwell4229]

Hey that Christian Wagner guy seems cool, you should have him on

[@triciaworld]

Thank you in RCIA with my son now

[@statutesofthelord]

The Holy Bible is the final arbiter of all truth.

[@claudio-1896]

I am a [protestant] Christian, and Trent Horn is one of my favorites, more eloquent and effective apologists these days. Thank you for your work, brother!

[@brandonneilsta.teresa3494]

Wake up babe, new Trent Horn video just came up.

[@statutesofthelord]

The Bible is the unerring words of God.

[@giannimendoza]

Cringe

[@AD-in6qp]

Would love more orthodox/Catholic content!

[@davido3026]

If you knew the truth behind filioque you'd become catholic!!

[@Silvercrypto-xk4zy]

As a Protestant I’ll be very interested in your future videos regarding Protestantism. I’ll also have to watch this again to be sure I understand exactly what you’re saying

[@jwatson181]

There is no need to worry. Just be thankful you dont follow a pope that says all religious are equally valid ways to God.

[@alanking4836]

​@@jwatson181ah yes the protestant tradition of adding to what the Bible or someone from the Church said, very good

[@jwatson181]

@@alanking4836 ? Can you explain my friend? Do you agree with the pope that all religions are equally valid ways to God?

[@tommore3263]

@@jwatson181 The pope said no such thing at all. Watch out for people who try to deceive others. What absurdity.

[@alanking4836]

@@jwatson181 he was talking to a group of people that some of whom are pagans some Buddhist that I don't think they even believe in god he never said equally Valid or anything like that you got that from pope haters but he did say that there's only one god just after saying all religions are a path to God So I just meant that your adding the equally valid bit

[@stooch66]

Yes, yes, yes. All I ever see are Protestants challenging the Church’s teachings…and when asked what their beliefs are, they say, “I believe in the Bible…” or “I believe in Christ and His teachings.” I ask them to tell me what their essential beliefs are and it almost always comes back to the Church being wrong on something. I think the fact that the Church is the comparison for all arguments kinda proves something…

[@JamesS805]

It proves that the issue is with the church’s claim to authority.

[@bobinindiana]

Well, this video was wrong not to mention the 93,000 variations of the Quran that have silenced Muslims on their belief that the Quran was written by Allah and not man and therefore perfect. Muslims were shown 26 different hard copy volumes in public in London, and I believe the number now from all over the world is 40 hard copy different volumes. Muslims are faced with 93,000 textual variants.

[@TheZealotsDen]

@@stooch66 check out The Zealots Den!

[@BrewMeister27]

@@JamesS805 No, it proves that Protestantism is not a workable standalone belief system. Protestantism could not exist without Catholicism. Protestants rely on Catholic authority to know which documents are Scripture.

[@jackieo8693]

Right

[@user-sf8mn9ed3d]

To be fair to non-professional apologists, which is most of us, and most of the people we would debate with, I think the underlying idea behind the "you lose, I win" fallacy is that "Well, we share beliefs X and Y, but you have Z in addition. If I can make you lose on Z then I win because you agree on X and Y." I agree it is a fallacy, but I think it might be a pragmatic fallacy, in that apologists will mostly use it when they believe that their opponent's beliefs effectively contain the apologist's views but with some extra stuff that the apologist wants to strip away.

[@joshy3614]

I had similar thoughts, but in context it doesn’t make sense because often those agreed upon things are intertwined with the disagreed upon thing. For example, if a Muslim were to show me that the Bible is wrong and I shouldn’t believe in it, that doesn’t help their case because my belief in the one God who revealed Himself to the Jews and sent Jesus hinges on the Bible. So yes, we may agree on X and Y but not Z. That doesn’t mean, however, that by destroying Z, that I am left with X and Y. Instead I am often left with nothing.

[@elchivo3770]

Good point.

[@harrygarris6921]

I think this would only apply in debates between Christians. Not so much between a Christian and a Muslim or an atheist.

[@BrewMeister27]

@@joshy3614 Another example of this is the New Testament canon shared by Catholics and Protestants. I accept that canon on the authority of Catholic councils. But for Protestants that reject council authority, they need to provide an alternative explanation for the canon. It's not enough that we agree on the canon, they need to provide an alternative explanation for an infallible canon. But they never can.

[@jwatson181]

You do not need to establish your own view to disprove anther view. That is patently false. Trent has embarrassed himself. Why did he not consult with a higher level Catholic apologist like before posting this video. This is what popular level analysis gets you.

[@b.melakail]

Really like JP2's "two lungs" metaphor. The master is not being properly served because her emissaries are fighting amongst each other

[@carakerr4081]

Amen 🙏

[@catholic_zoomer_bro]

Autoimmune issue

[@rujotheone]

Same. That is a deep quote.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

This assumes both are her emissaries.

[@b.melakail]

@@johnnotrealname8168 yes which I do assume/believe

[@dominicluke7]

Excellent video Trent, especially with the mention of Christian Wagner. We would love a collaboration between you too. May God bless you and Our Lady keep you and your family.

[@bumble3851]

Christian Wagner vid let’s go. I thought of his video when I saw the title

[@End_Democracy]

Same

[@videonmode8649]

Same

[@starshipchris4518]

Same.

[@2righthands816]

Double W

[@MilitantThomist]

[@bookishbrendan8875]

I’m 1 month into OCIA and loving it! Can’t wait to be confirmed! 🙏

[@tonyl3762]

I think I first heard Erick Ybarra point out this fallacy, though it could've been Lofton. Eastern Orthodoxy serves as a great example of how Protestants using the fallacy have gained very little, which probably explains why some Protestants go the EO route to avoid Rome.

[@statutesofthelord]

Why has the RCC burned more Bibles and Bible translators than any other organization?

[@Western-Supremacist]

The only thing Protestants actually agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong 😂 Raised as a Protestant I believed that the Catholic Church was inherently evil for the majority of my life. And I mean I truly believed it as much as I believed in God. I was baptised into the Catholic Church in 2021.

[@GranMaese]

That's awesome, my brother!!

[@lordwife]

Welcome! 🎉

[@statutesofthelord]

Catholicism doesn't even teach biblical baptism. What did you get baptized into?

[@tenabrae18]

Welcome home.

[@wonderfulfebruary]

I mean, the Catholics here think the vast majority of Catholics in the world are inherently evil. Don't get them started on the guy with papal infallibility. Nobody is as anti-Catholic as Catholics who use the word anti-Catholicism.

[@TheCh1212]

Hey, Trent, Protestant here. Awesome video, as always, Definitely gets me thinking and considering. That said, would love to hear you go deeper into how, despite the supposed "other authors" of the scripture text, that this does not impede upon the Bible as being the definitive revelation of God to man, especially as we consider all this in relation to the "authority" of modern scholarship. Thanks again for everything!

[@itsjustaryde1802]

It's funny you had Jay Dyer in there because "You lose so I win" is basically his whole gimmick.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

I interacted with him years ago about evolution, and he got pissed when I wasn't even putting forward a position, just askint basic questions about how he justified his views

[@SirBlackReeds]

Give him credit for exposing just how superficial Nick Fuentes's own understanding of Catholicism truly is. He's a living, breathing insult to Mexican Catholics everywhere.

[@hrvad]

He's no way near the worst of them. I've even heard him say that belief in Christ is a valid intellectual position to hold. Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins' however ...

[@kennynoNope]

That’s not true at all. He actually reads the Vatican documents and makes a coherent argument. If your catholic do you think you worship the same god as Muslims? Like your church teaches In Vatican 2

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

@@kennynoNope Do you think there is an immanent God who draws people to him where some may be nearly totally correct, while others may be pointed in the right direction but generally wrong headed? Dyer argues like a Calvinist where there is no natural theology contra Paul, and if you're a little wrong it makes no difference because only those who God has provided the exact right answers to matter. It's very funny because this is quite similar to what Muslims believe

[@miyojewoltsnasonth2159]

Saw this video as a YT suggestion, clicked on it because of the fantastic name. I smiled big when I clicked o the channel description and saw your name is Trent Horn.

[@Ineedtruth1]

This video reminds me of a distinct point in my conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism where I told my dad, “If you want me to remain Protestant, it’s not enough to convince me that Catholicism is false, you also have to convince me that Protestantism is true.”

[@etiennedevignolles7538]

This is where *every* New Atheist falls down, including that chump Hitchens, and Dicky Dawkins.

[@Maranatha99]

What is true is the inspired Word of God.

[@Ineedtruth1]

@@Maranatha99 That’s something that Catholics and Protestants both believe…

[@Doc-Holliday1851]

So he was able to convince you that Catholicism was false?

[@Ineedtruth1]

@@Doc-Holliday1851 Definitely not. He was attempting to and I explained to him that even if he did convince me, it wouldn’t result in me returning to Protestantism.

[@horonin]

Very interesting video. I was raised Lutheran, and until High School never questioned it. Once I started asking questions it led me on a very long, very dangerous, and very convoluted path to seeking conversion to Roman Catholicism a little over a year ago. What really flicked the switch for me was when I stopped arguing from the point of a Protestant and started arguing from the point of a Christian. It is easy when you are raised as a Protestant to view what you know as the foundation of Christianity and everyone else just has extra stuff rather than actually going back and reading through our history. Sola Scriptura is self defeating if you take it to its logical conclusion, and at least for me it did eventually lead me home once I got past the Agnostic and Pagan beliefs it led me to.

[@stephenkneller9318]

ELCA, or one of the small synods that formed into the ELCA?

[@horonin]

@@stephenkneller9318 LCMS was how I was raised. I then kept branching out to other denominations till I got the wise idea that they were all the same, got into the wrong crowd of 'spirituality over religion' type folks, and praise God eventually was brought back to Him with an Evangelical 'non-denomentational' church. Then one night spending time with my dad we got talking about the book of Enoch, and that led me to researching why the Deuterocanonical books weren't accepted by Protestants, and a few months later I was looking into converting to Catholicism.

[@stephenkneller9318]

@@horonin They very much are accepted by Lutherans. Luther himself said they are “nevertheless are useful and good to readnevertheless are useful and good to read”. He translated them into German when he published his German Bible. But, the key difference is, Lutherans do not hold them as canon. For example, 2 Maccabees speaks of a noble suicide, violating both Roman and Protestant beliefs that suicide is a sin. And while the typical Roman story is that Luther and the Protestants took these books from the Bible, that is laughably false. Rome never established her official Biblical canon until Trent, over a decade after Luther published his German Bible. The big question at the time was whether one should use the version of the Jewish Scriptures in Hebrew (this is the “Protestant Bible”), or whether to use the Jewish Greek Septuagint (this is the “Roman Bible”). Because different versions of the Septuagint contained some of, all of, or extra Apocryphal books, Protestants reached the logical conclusion that these books were added later and not canon. And this was an old debate in the Western Church. St. Jerome, who made the first translation of the Bible into the Latin Vulgate. He argued that the Apocryphal books should not be included as canon. (St. Augustine disagreed with him.) And even when St. Jerome was ordered to include them, he refused to add Baruch or Letter of Jeremiah. Eventually Rome did add these to the Vulgate. And even until Trent, Roman churches continued to use version of the Bible that had some, none, and all Apocryphal books, with some even having extra Apocryphal books like 3rd and 4th Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, and 1 Esdras. I understand the lure of the Apocryphal books and how they are “nevertheless useful and good to read.” But this reason shouldn’t be as settling to one’s conscience once one knows the real history. May God bless you.

[@horonin]

@@stephenkneller9318 Yes all of what you say above matches very closely to my own research. I didn't mean to say that was what caused my conversion, only that was the door that first made me peek into the world of Catholicism. Doing that research led to more and that is where I came to where I am now. Thank you for caring enough to share all of that, and may God Bless you as well :)

[@SeabraPaulo]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. While I don't believe in God, I've been against the lack of belief defense for like ten years now. It reminds me of when my little nephew and niece are running around playing some game until one of them yells force field! to instantly become immune to swords and fire or whatever.

[@JonathanAcierto]

Thank you for pointing out this fallacy. I have had debates with a Mennonite coworker of mine and I noticed this fallacy was his general approach to our debates, but I never knew what to call it.

[@ghostlylover99123]

It was the hatred in atheism, (which is something you don't see unless you live around them long enough), that eventually led me to becoming Christian.

[@mattraspo9912]

Excellent video, Trent! I am a baptized Eastern Orthodox and confirmed Catholic that has been most recently in a Reformed Church until I felt the shame and guilt of not being able to live up to what I felt were high standards in that church. There was no formal confession process…”taking communion” felt really unimportant without any formal process except for being discouraged from taking if we were engaged in “high sin” as they’d say. There was also the low-key jabs at the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that didn’t really make any sense…now I am understanding why I felt the way I did by watching your video. I think you are absolutely correct to say that most Protestants believe that if they find any fallible doctrine in the Catholic or Orthodox Church history, they go by default to implicitly believing that THEIR interpretation of THEIR selected canon is the ONE authoritative church rule. Thank you for explaining this in such a simple way.

[@DJ_Frankfurter]

This is one of the best videos you've ever made. ❤

[@Talancir]

I think this is a fair critique. However, we must also remind ourselves that just because a claim has been poorly argued, or that a fallacy has been identified, does not necessarily invalidate the claim.

[@BeskeDagmar]

My daily affirmation is this: God, i receive your written and spoken promises for me and my household. And with an influx of $86,000 every 2 weeks, God has kept to his words for me. Hallelujah!

[@Harveygorge]

God is more than enough for us, and his mercy is new every morning. Hallelujah🎉🎉❤️

[@nekiroystyan2692]

Isaiah 45:3 speaks of a transference of riches from the heathen to the righteous... will give you the treasures of darkness and the riches hidden in secret... I received this for my household in Jesus' name. Amen!

[@DuxburyGolec]

What a testimony! I'm glad you have recovered your life❤️

[@DuxburyGolec]

But then, how do you get all that in that period of time? What is it you do please, mind sharing?

[@DuxburyGolec]

What is it you do?

[@minasoliman]

As an Oriental Orthodox, I felt a bit defensive only to hear the last part and it made me rub my chin a little. I think you will appreciate Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck’s book “His Broken Body” for taking a similar approach to your “meeting in the middle.” I also desire the same “meeting in the middle” from an OO perspective.

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

Trent set up a debate on the reliability of resurrection claims with *Rabbi Tovia Singer.* That would be a classic!

[@SanctuaryofSteel]

Historical and theological critiques are important and can reveal weaknesses in a belief system, but they must be accompanied by a positive alternative. Simply showing that a doctrine developed over time doesn’t necessarily discredit it-there must be a reason why such development is problematic within the context of the worldview. For instance, if one critiques the papacy, they must also explain why their alternative structure provides a more coherent or functional form of Christian authority.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

You need to speak with Sam Shamoun again, like you once did during the spicy cough years. He's closer than ever to Catholicism. Edit: There's a lot of misunderstanding in the comments. Sam was baptised into the Assyrian Church of the East (ACoE), and due to the Catholic Church's recognition of the ACoE sacraments (Sam's baptism and others), he merely attends the Catholic Church to access the Eucharist. That does not make him a Catholic. This is like if a Catholic went to an Eastern Orthodox Church to receive Eucharist (assuming the EO Church permits this) because there was no Catholic Mass available; this mere attendance at the Orthodox Church did not mean an automatic conversion to Orthodoxy. Hope this helps.

[@chasnikisher7006]

I think he has converted.

[@GiftofGod289]

He is definitely a works truster, so that would make sense that “he’s closer than ever to Catholicism.”

[@MarilynnMonaco]

Pretty sure he has admitted the Catholic Church is the true church

[@justsainting]

He’s definitely converted but he’s on the fence and ready to jump ship if the third legged stool is proven fallible. Go watch some of his videos, he mentioned many times. You’ll gather more info (besides sitting on the fence) from horse’s mouth.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

He needs to stop using nasty foul language at the slightest inconvenience. He’s a bully.

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

All Trent is saying here is that actual dialogue among people you disagree with is not a formal debate where the other side has the burden of proof and you don't. Pointing to flaws in the other person's position does not automatically mean your position is right. Many times people assume a false dichotomy and stop right before doing the hard work of actually positively supporting their own position.

[@wjtruax]

I find it stunning how Protestants will gloss over doctrinal differences among each other by casually stating, "Our differences are not salvation issues, so we can agree to disagree," but will vociferously argue against any doctrine that they see as uniquely "Catholic." Are any Protestants here interested in commenting on this observation?

[@thetimeninja2178]

Yeah, some of us Protestants are wild. I’m barely an adult and I find myself having to rebuke people for being so vicious when it comes to matters of tradition that aren’t core issues (in my perspective of course). It is what it is 🤷‍♂️

[@wjtruax]

@@thetimeninja2178 don’t forget sarcasm. 😜

[@duathellto1460]

Not a Protestant, but I've observed this too. This actually occurs with the exact same doctrine: the Protestants don't mind them among other Protestants (Eucharist and Marian devotion among Lutherans and Anglicans, Anglican Confession and bishops, denial of Sola Scriptura and OSAS among non-Evangelicals), and as far as I can tell, they don't mind them among the Orthodox either, but will attack them among Catholics. I am interested in Protestant feedback on this. It seems like some are simply anti-Catholic by upbringing and habit, but I don't think most are. Possibly some are actually reacting to the Catholics, since we say all our defined doctrines are core issues and so they respond as though they are, regardless of what they themselves believe. Protestants don't exactly have a way of determining which doctrines are non-negotiable, besides private opinion, so it makes some sense that they'd shift around depending on their circumstances and who they *feel* is on the same team. How can they tell whether they are rightly defending a core doctrine, or just being uncharitable and nit-picky and Pharisaical?

[@wjtruax]

@@duathellto1460 thank you for commenting. I'm interested in responses to your questions as well.

[@dionysian222]

The difference might be that Protestants mostly disagree on scriptural interpretation. They might be vicious about Catholic extra biblical traditions because it’s not Sola scriptura.

[@MrBulbasaurlover]

This happened to me just the other day. A muslim made some claim against Christianity so I first asked if he believed in the claims of Mohamet's great morality and then if he also believed he married a 9 year old. I then asked for evidence of his claim. Guess I kind of walked in to that one, letting him get on the offensive.

[@Narikku]

This video was wonderful, Trent. I really appreciate the time, effort and care you put into this video. I believe your criticisms are fair, and you are absolutely right that Protestants need to make their case about the Bible being an infallible rule of faith. I think where the problem in this discussion, however, is that the assumption that all claims need to be *proven* to be true, which gets into the criterion problem of Philosophy. In short, one can always critique a fundamental claim and ask, "How do you know that?" At the end of the day, you have to make some assumptions. When a Protestant is speaking to a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and uses the argument that "The Bible is one infallible rule or faith", the Protestant is relying on a few shared assumptions. Namely: 1.) Anything that God authors through inspiration is infallible. 2.) The Holy Spirit, God, is an author to the Bible through inspiration. This isn't a logical fallacy, and is, in and of itself, is sufficient to drive the case, given that you accept the above assumptions. At the same time, it is also valid to say: "I accept that the Bible is authored by God through inspiration BECAUSE I believe the Church is infallible. If the Church isn't infallible, then I have no reason to accept that the Bible is authored by God through inspiration." If you want to go this route, then the burden of proof is suddenly shifted: the surface agreement has now shifted to disagreement because you are now making the claim that Sola Scriptura's agreement doesn't work because of a deeper, more fundamental disagreement. While in essence, I agree with what you are saying, the critique that you have against Sola Scriptura places the burden on the Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox ***because*** of the established agreement. In order to reject the previously established agreement, you need to make your case. That's a fine thing to do, but it places the burden of proof on you. Failure to make your case leaves you in the same position that you've just accused the Protestant of: Protestants are wrong because they haven't answered X, therefore, Catholicism is true.

[@jackieo8693]

@@Narikku except that the Catholic Church has historical evidence of being founded by Christ which gives it the authority

[@Narikku]

@@jackieo8693 I'm not saying you can't make the case. My point is, if you've established an agreement in a conversation, and now you want to break a previously shared agreement due a deeper, more fundamental point, then the burden of proof is on you. I'm not at all saying that Catholicism hasn't, can't, or won't make the case. But the burden of proof in this scenario is pointedly not on the Protestant!

[@onajifortune2967]

​@@NarikkuIf Protestants want to convince Catholics that of their faith, they can't just say an already established surface level fact and call it a day, especially if both part already agree on that surface level fact.

[@onajifortune2967]

​@@NarikkuWe're not making the case that we have historical evidence, We're telling you that we DO in fact have historical evidence. It's left to you to fact check

[@jackieo8693]

@@Narikku the protestant should prove that he got the scriptures from Judaism and not from the Catholic Church.

[@covertjoy4021]

Trent, I’d love the chance to speak with you someday. In December of last year at 29, I began reading the Word of God and, by His grace, knew He was real. At the time I was living as a transgender “woman”, having gone through the full surgical process of transitioning. I sought a way to continue in the lie for months until the old man died in June of this year. I started out in a non-denominational “church” and had strong anti-Catholic biases until, seeking to disprove a friend who was leaning toward the Faith, I attended a Mass a few weeks ago. Well, I am now in RCIA and am on fire for Him in a fresh way, falling in love with the Faith of His Bride! You, Matt, and others have been key in my transition (no pun intended). I am even discerning a call to the Priesthood. I was one step away from beginning as a Protestant minister. God certainly had other plans and pumped the brakes real quick!

[@Sousabird]

I will say, I think the thing that makes it especially insane with Islam is that according to *the Quran* and therefore their god and prophet, the Gospel is the word of God and is authoritative (Surah 3:3 amongst others). Therefore, if a Muslim were to disprove Christianity, it would literally disprove the Quran.

[@Bellatrys]

I wonder what the Torah and Talmund say about Christianity

[@Spencer-u2t]

@@Bellatrys​Hi friend, the Torah, that is the first 5 books of the Old Testament, also called the five Books of Moses, does not mention Christianity, as the Christ who is Jesus, had not yet come. In fact, the Torah supports Christianity, and Christian’s include the five Books of Moses in their canon. As for the Talmud, this was written after the Incarnation of Jesus and the Gospels, just like the Quran.. so the flawed reasoning the original comment points out could be in the Talmud, but the Talmud is not used by Christians, unlike how Muslims believe the Gospel was revealed to them. So your response to the original comment you responded to does not logically conclude.

[@misstuffsy4536]

Hey Trent, it would be really interesting to hear a rebuttal to Real Talk with Jordan Riley's video "The TWISTED Teaching of Catholicism EXPOSED" or "Proof Catholicism is false". I'd love to hear how you respond to his arguments! Great video, I love your work!

[@cazwalt9013]

So basically: You're ugly therefore I'm beautiful You're fat therefore I'm skinny You're smelly therfore I'm fresh . . . Cheap

[@MrGoodwell]

Another excellent video, Trent. God bless you!

[@defendusinbattle907]

Concerning the concept of Sola Scriptura, I like to ask the Protestant, "Number one, why does it have to be in the Bible? Number two, what makes the Bible valid to begin with?" If the answer is, "It's the Word of God," then it's the Word of God that has authority, regardless of the source.

[@stephenkneller9318]

True. But God promises His Word would be preserved for Christians. (Psalms 12:6-8, Isaiah 40:6-8) As such, all believers can look to His unchanging truth (Jn. 16:13-14) in His Word and the Holy Spirit will guide us to His truth. (1Cor 2:13-15) And because His Word is constant and unchanging, one can use His Word to judge the validity of all traditions and leaders. This is because God himself tells us that His Word is sufficient enough to make a Christian complete. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

[@defendusinbattle907]

@@stephenkneller9318 Yes, God did promise His Word would be preserved, but never stated that it would be solely in the Bible. "He who hears you, hears me (Lk 10:16)." The Word of God is the Word of God, whether it is written, spoken, or otherwise.

[@stephenkneller9318]

I would agree. But you must admit that since the only provable Word which is available is the Bible. And since it is, we agree, infallible, we can judge all other revelations by the God’s infallible Word. If they contract God’s word, then those other revelations cannot be infallible or even applicable to believers. Furthermore, since God says in His Holy Scripture that the Bible is sufficient to make a Christian complete (2 Tim. 3:16-17), no tradition or Bishop can require and a Believer to adhere to a dogma for one’s salvation which isn’t in the Bible.

[@defendusinbattle907]

@@stephenkneller9318 Scripture is no more proven than Tradition and Church. Your argument against Tradition and Church is the same argument non-believers use against the validity of Scripture. You can’t trust an infallible Bible unless you acknowledge an infallible source that determined what belongs in the Bible. That means there’s something equally (or even more) infallible as Scripture. If you get rid of the infallible source, you get rid of any of its determinations.

[@stephenkneller9318]

@@defendusinbattle907 What a biased response. You presuppose infallibility of tradition and Rome, then frame the argument from this. That doesn’t work in any logical discussion. Christ’s Church, not Rome, is of course infallible. The Bible tells us this. You are conflating the Roman tradition with Christ’s Church of all Believers. History clearly demonstrates that Rome has been unholy in ways that would make Babylon even blush. Christ’s Church would never have such a stained and sinful past. If we are true Believers, we must confess God’s Word is infallible. If we don’t, then we are heretics. Knowing this, we have a common point to start with, God’s infallible Word. And since God himself promises us that Scripture is sufficient to make a Christian complete (2 Tim. 3:16-17), we can trust that all things needed for salvation, as spoke by God (2 Tim. 3:16-17) through the Holy Spirit’s inspiration (1 Corinthians 2:10), will be present in the Bible. As such, all dogmas or traditions must be found in Scripture if Rome or another group tradition states they are required for salvation. Just because we hold as an article of Faith that Bible is infallible, we cannot assume any other tradition not present in Scripture is infallible. That is adding to God’s Word, and is damnable. (Deuteronomy 4:2, Galatians 1:6-9, Revelations 22:18-19)

[@kingof95694]

There's only a couple of issues I have with the catholic church. 1. Changing God's commandments for convenience. 2. Equating their pagan tradition with scripture. 3. Idolatry and worship of saints and of a demon who had a church built for herself. 4. Controlled who had access to scripture in the middle ages. 5. Papal equality to The Lord, Vicar of Christ, Vicar of Peter made more sense. 6. Just making shyt up because Jesus gave Simon Peter the keys. 7. Complete ignorance of the bible by most of their followers, and thats how the church likes it. But none of this matters, so long as you do the will of GOD, to acknowledge, accept, and obey The Lord Jesus Christ. We are all bad people and sinners who deserve judgment. It is through YHWH and his devine mercy and the sacrifice of Christ we are saved.

[@eingilddeclaro6171]

Hi Trent. I would love to hear your take on the Essenes’s writings found in the dead sea scrolls and it’s parallelism with Catholic tradition such as breaking of the bread

[@carolzappa1804]

🤯 I'm so glad I can save this video and rewatch it over and over again.😅 It's alot to absorb, Very Quickly spoken, in a short amount of time. 🤔 So well thought out and articulated. 🤓 Excellent as usual! Thank you!

[@jacoblee5796]

This is a horrible take, you can prove something false without having to prove something else right. For instance, if you have a murder suspect but the evidence doesn’t support your murder suspect, that doesn’t mean I have to have a murder suspect of my own in order to disprove your suspect.

[@Doc-Holliday1851]

Trent is going for an Ace Attorney approach to theology.

[@markrutledge5855]

I don't think your analogy quite works. There were several Sherlock Holmes stories where different Scotland Yard detectives had their own respective suspects for the murder. Just because one hypothesis was disproved doesn't make the others more likely. So even if we proved that Roman Catholicism was wrong that doesn't make any other form of Christianity any more likely to be true.

[@Cklert]

You can prove something wrong by asserting positive evidence that contradicts it. This is typically what's called proving a negative. I think you're actually agreeing with Trent on this point. Proving something wrong, does not automatically equate that the alternative is correct.

[@jacoblee5796]

@@Cklert Yes, I would be agreeing with Trent if that was his point but it’s not. What Trents really saying is “you can’t just prove my world view wrong, you have to prove your world view is right.” And this is complete nonsense, you can prove something is wrong without proving something else is correct.

[@ThatElephantSeal]

In the case of Catholicism I would actually go so far as to take the proverbial "nuclear option" and say that if Catholicism is totally false, than so is basically all Christianity. But thats just my rationale. (Of course everyone else has their take, but that would be my decision.)

[@Reclaimtherainbow_Gen9]

You should do a collab with Scholastic Answers! Very knowledgeable brother!

[@ClergetMusic]

Atheism is content with the "lack-theism" side because they both get to the same goal: live your live your way without a transcendent judge to tell you you're wrong.

[@creatinechris]

lol and Catholics are just weak minded and need a sky daddy to tell them how to behave…..don’t straw man your opponent

[@91Albertus]

Hmm, I don't think that's entirely true. Unless you are positively sure there is no afterlife, there will always be the notion of "what if", which, even subcounciously, will have to some degree an influence on your decisions ("what if there will be some consequences after I die?" "what if there is some truth in these religions?" "better safe than sorry" etc.)

[@ClergetMusic]

@@91Albertus But atheists and "lack-theists" positively claim that there is no afterlife or transcendent judge. It's not "what if" to them.

[@ClergetMusic]

@@91Albertus but atheists and "lack-theists" both positively claim that there is no God. It's not "what if" for them.

[@GranMaese]

@@ClergetMusic Which showcases their fallacious hypocrisy. Just saying.

[@sandradiaz4366]

I love how the stills of all the videos you put out have you with an exasperated expression on your face.

[@SacredReason]

GLORY BE TO THE FATHER, TO THE SON, AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, ONE GOD ALMIGHTY. HALLELUJAH. AMEN.

[@nickfiorello3916]

As usual; cogent, impactful and timely. Thank you Trent for consistently imparting useful information.

[@Tylerstrodtman]

I don’t disagree with a word of this, even as a protestant, so this was really helpful. On the issue of authority to determine true doctrine: One thing that I’ve heard many Catholics say is that without the papacy, every man becomes his own pope. But I actually think that that creates a similar issue. That implies the necessity of a pope to begin with. I think there are ways of understanding the paper historically that don’t require full acceptance of what modern Catholicism asserts. I’m actually okay with the position that confirmation of the truth is not based necessarily on a universally accepted set of rules that one’s worldview must clear in order to be valid. God speaks to each of us about Christ by the Holy Spirit. This is foolishness to the unbelieving world, so I tolerate not being able to “prove” what I believe. But what th at also does is free me up to not hold so strongly to sola scriptura like I am pressured to as a Protestant, because I understand your point that it’s an assertion without any real grounding. I don’t even consider myself a liberal, as I anticipate many might say. I do believe the scriptures, I see the relevance of tradition, and so I’m working through those issues.

[@ZarliwyOskarzyciel]

With the atheist one, while it is true that idea of any God existing is impossible to prove wrong, it is possible to falsify a God portrayed by a particular religion based on the traits this religion claims such God has. You can prove, for example, that theres no Dandruff-removing deity who exists eternally and who instantly removes all dandruff that happens to form, because we observe dandruff existing.

[@PetarStamenkovic]

I loved the video as an EO. Naturally, I do have an objection :D It is impossible not to bring innovations into the church as long as we, humans- remain alive. We change and (hope) we deepen our understanding of reality. Changes we bring into the Church are reflections of that. This is not the issue. The problem is by who's authority you change things? Can a random monk, like say- Luther, improve and restore Christianity to what it should be? Does he have the authority to do so? Who has the authority? Does the first among the successor of the apostles have the authority? Or do all of the successors to the apostles have it united? Does any one man have the authority to change the Church teaching?

[@markrutledge5855]

I should point our that Luther was not a random monk but a recognized doctor of theology at a major teaching university. I might also point out that God has raised up prophets throughout history to challenged established religious authority. The OT is full of such stories. I might also point out that Luther offered his 95 Theses as a critique of the practices of the then Roman Catholic church and intended that his theses be a focal point of debate. That the RC authorities responded with death threats and excommunication points out that depths of the corruption of the institution. When religious authority cannot hear criticism and responds with overt power it is has fallen far from the traditions of its founder. I might also point out that Luther was not the first reformer to face the brutality of the magisterium.

[@Cklert]

@@markrutledge5855 "That the RC authorities responded with death threats and excommunication points out that depths of the corruption of the institution. " This isn't quite true. Or at least not fully. Matin Luther debated Prelate Johann Eck. It was in this debate, that Luther revealed himself to enspoused in heresy far greater than his Theses. Eck went back to Rome, brought forth the theses to Pope. Luther actually made some good points in his theses and those points would be addressed at Trent later on. But a lot of it was riddled with errors. The Pope sent out a papal bull to Luther. Highlighting the errors within his theses, and asking him correct and recant his views. Giving him a fair amount of time to do so. Luther responded, by waiting the full extent of time given, and then on the last day burning the Papal Bull in public and rallying people to his cause. Luther's similarities to the OT are akin to the judges or perhaps King Solomon. Most end up falling due to their pride. And Luther by all his works demonstrated that he was very...stubborn and egotistical.

[@PetarStamenkovic]

@@markrutledge5855 Thank you for your reply. I did not chose my words carefully. I shouldn't have called Luther a random monk. He had great impact on history and Christianity and deserves more respect. I think I understand your position. You are correct that God has always raised prophets throughout time. However, we are also warned that many false prophets will come and deceive many. Mohamed and Joseph Smith come to mind here. Why would you elevate Luther above them? I would. I don't think he was a false prophet out to deceive, but I also don't think he was restoring Christianity either.

[@markrutledge5855]

@@Cklert I think you are being selective in your telling of the story. After the Eck debated Pope Leo X demanded that Luther recant ALL his writings, something which Luther was obviously not prepared to do. It is that demand for all that is the issue for me and confirms that the RC church was corrupted by its own power. You talk about heresy but let me ask you this, can the Magisterium engage in heresy?

[@chrishorton8213]

Thank you for the breakdown here. So helpful. 🙏

[@CMVBrielman]

1:52 I don’t know, based on the babies I’ve known…

[@sometimesIcook]

😂😂😂

[@tomasmurcu]

Really enjoyed this video, Trent. Thanks as always for your hard work

[@timmcvicker5775]

I think Protestants and Catholics would agree that Scripture is infalliable. It is fine to have traditions that supplement Scripture, but traditions can not be equal to Scripture. All denominations have traditions. However, the problem with any tradition, and in the case of the RCC, the Magesterium, is that they are influenced by man and therein is the problem. Man will never be infalliable. There are problems in all denominations but not with Scripture. Scripture can not change and never will. Like other denominations, the Roman Catholic Church is plagued with issues. Look at the condemning controversies surrounding the Pope, the alleged shortcomings of Vatican 2, the Synod of Synodality, the Latin Mass vs. the Novus Ordo Mass, traditional Catholics vs. progressive Catholics, proposals for women deacons, priests being removed from office and Cardinal Radcliff's position of homosexuality. The list goes on and on. These are all existing or potential traditions in the making. Scripture is unshakable. It is the goto source of faith and hope in Christ. The Bible is not so complex that it needs to be interpreted by a select group of men. It is God’s letter to mankind. Everything else is secondary and should remain as such ... in any denomination.

[@loveisaiah622]

Sacred Tradition is what gave you scripture.

[@admiralbob7797]

Why not? The only reason you have scripture is because church patriarchs decided what is in and what is out. There were all kinds of gospels and epistles floating around the early church. Catholic/Orthodox traditions helped pick which ones rose to the level of scripture.

[@timmcvicker5775]

​Scripture became Scripture the moment pen went to parchment. The early churches, centuries before the Council of Trent, received letters from Paul and the apostles, and they were encouraged to share the written Good News with other churches. Look at the Macurian fragment. The Muratorian fragment, also known as the Muratorian Canon is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. Scholastic consensus dates the fragment to have been written around 170-200 AD. The Macurian fragment was, therefore, in use just shortly after the New Testament books were written and 1,345 years before the Council of Trent's adoption of the Biblical canon. Think about that! That is a long time!! The work of the Council of Trent was more of an academic exercise as the historical evidence shows use of the New Testament Canon well before Trent. If there had been any problems they were pretty well ironed out by 1345. However, if you want to say that the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for the Canon, that's OK. It doesn't change anything. It's also OK to identify it as a tradition. Identification of Canon (or recognization of the Canon based on 1345 years of use and circulation) does not elevate recognition of the Canon to be equal with the written Word of God. Two entirely different issues. Nothing is greater than or equal to the Word. In praying to the Father (John 17: 6-8) Jesus stated that he gave the Word of God the Father to us. That is all we need as it is the ultimate authority. 6 “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. God bless!

[@williamthrasher7961]

@@loveisaiah622 What did Jesus say concerning tradition? This teaching from Jesus would apply to both Catholic and Protestant religions. Both Catholic and Protestant have rejected the Father who Jesus revealed and hold to excepting the god Yahweh as their father.

[@RoachMartel]

Uh, no. We aren’t the same. Wolves and Dogs aren’t the same.

[@Stahlfresser]

You need to do more on the topic of Orthodoxy and Catholicism!

[@Keep.It.Simple-23]

I’ve noticed this especially with Islam, not to say I haven’t seen it elsewhere just more so from Muslim apologist, that they can’t defend a position like the historical reliability of Islam and then just jump to “well X,Y,X” and I can’t help but always think at worse both sides are wrong and something else is true. Always enjoy the material Trent!

[@BensWorkshop]

The thing to remember is that there are 30 "readings" of the Qoran. As in 30 versions with differences between them.

[@bobinindiana]

@@BensWorkshopI think it is about 40 now with 93,000 textual variants. This video was done with doing the homework reading, sadly.

[@BensWorkshop]

@@bobinindiana Until I stumbled on Jay and Al-Fadi I had no idea there were so many either. You have to delve a bit to find out about the variants. I as aware of 30 readings and 7 variants of the Hafs.... Not any more.

[@Quis-ut-Deus-]

Great video! Thanks for that, makes it easier to understand certain debating tricks and inconsitencies for sb not proficient in debating. Also, a huge ❤ for giving Sam Shamoun a shout 💪😇

[@kianoghuz1033]

The things that were the "kill shots" to the Roman Catholic argument for me when I was determining whether the East or West was right in the Great Schism: 1. Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Even though Rome at first rejected it because it changed the ancient order of the Churches, Rome eventually adopted the ordering in the 4th Lateran Council which has Ecumenical authority in RCcism. However, the real point of why canon 28 is significant is the fact that the eastern Churches believed that the Roman Church had been "granted privileges from the fathers", and that the Roman Church had preeminece among the Churches because it was situated in the capital. The eastern bishops did not believe the bishop of Rome had a special divine charism above other bishops. While RCs reject this reasoning the fact remains the eastern Churches believed this and thus didn't have a Papal mindset that RCcism eventually came to have of the Church of Rome. 2. Pope Vigilius was suspended and Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic. The eastern Churches understood that their authority, when gathered in Ecumenical Council, was above the Pope to the point that they could suspend him and/or excommunicate him for heresy. This is in contradiction to Vatican I which claims the Pope's authority is above an Ecumenical Council, and canon 1404 of Roman Catholic canon law that states, "The First See is judged by no one." Again, this shows that the Churches of the East didn't have a Papal mindset. 3. Constantinople I was convened without the participation of Rome and seen as dogmatically authoritative in the Christian East long before Rome signed off on it. Furthermore, the Council was presided over by Meletios who was not in communion with Rome at the time, and even died out of communion with Rome, and yet is considered a Saint in the Church. This demonstrates that for the eastern Sees Rome's approval of an Ecumenical Council, while certainly sought for due to Christian unity, ultimately was not a deciding factor as to whether a Council was authoritative for the Church in the East. 4. The Lateran Council of 649, was at the time an attempt for the Pope to convoke an ecumenical council at the time. It condemned monothelitism by the Pope, and despite it all, it received no recognition as ecumenical and the emperor convoked an ecumenical council 30 years later These, as well as other things such as Rome accusing the East of changing the Creed by removing the filioque clause (false), Rome changing the Apostolic Tradition of communing in both kinds and not communing infants, led me to conclude that the Orthodox position was the correct position of remaining more faithful to the beliefs and practices of the first millennium Church. EDIT: Also why are all Catholic Answer apologists going to a Byzantine rite church or a Traditional Latin rite mass? It seems kinda funny that they always defend catholicism just to go every sunday to a church that venerates Gregory Palamas (Which actually contradicts infallible magisterium lol)

[@warriorgoat5939]

Wow, that’s a lot of things to think and pray about. But, the real question that precedes all of these councils and ideas is “Did King Jesus establish a governing body (just like God did with Moses, Aaron and the Sanhedrin) for the New Covenant/Kingdom that has evidence in Sacred Scripture? Did He start the Office of a Prime Minister? Well, yes. Jesus only gave the Keys to the Kingdom to one apostle. He gave authority to all the Twelve, but only the Keys to Peter. When you can get around this historical truth, this biblical truth, then I’ll take into account your other arguments. I haven’t heard an argument from an Orthodox that can get around this simple reality (Matthew 16). If the Orthodox are correct, then you basically just have a more hierarchical democracy than Protestantism. The Office of Peter was established, with logic and wisdom, by God Himself. Would a wise God leave His Family on earth with no one ultimately in charge?

[@MrISkater]

Read

[@kianoghuz1033]

@@warriorgoat5939 The office of Peter was not exclusively Roman. Even the church fathers speak of this

[@kianoghuz1033]

@@MrISkater Is that your reply?

[@kianoghuz1033]

@@warriorgoat5939 On “this stone” [petra], is on that which thou sayest: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” it is on this thy confession I build My Church. Wherefore the “thou art Peter”: it is from the “stone” [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the “stone” [petra] is, just as the Christian is from Christ, and not Christ from the Christian…Therefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person. The Keys, according to augustine and other church fathers, pertains to thr church.

[@AndrewLane-pm2ro]

The distinct lack of intellectual rigour was a major factor in me becoming thoroughly disullusioned with Protestantism. I thank God for leading me out of that circus and into his one, true Church - the Catholic Church. 🙏

[@mattdaraitis4253]

Common Trent W

[@stephenkneller9318]

This is only a win to those who don’t realized that he hypocritically used the same method he criticized the atheists and Muslims for against Protestants and the Orthodox. Those who recognized this fact realized the absolute hypocrisy of his argument against all he spoke of.

[@mattdaraitis4253]

@@stephenkneller9318 sure what specific example do you have?

[@stephenkneller9318]

@@mattdaraitis4253 While Mr. Horn starts by saying that the approach to these discussion should start from a neutral point of view without presupposed framing, at least for atheists and Muslims, he hypocritically uses this exact approach of a biased point of view with presupposed framing against Protestants and Orthodox. As a result, he is not only hypocritical, he absolutely destroys his own argument against all. He should pick an argument and remake the video. If he agrees with the neutral point of view without presupposed framing, he must completely readdress his arguments against Protestants and the Orthodox. However, if he chooses to start with a biased point of view and presupposed framing, then he must completely readdress his arguments against atheists or the Muslims.

[@mattdaraitis4253]

@@stephenkneller9318 yeah, I guess I’m asking how he biased his point of view when talking about orthodox and Protestants, could you give me an example?

[@stephenkneller9318]

@@mattdaraitis4253 when he addresses talking with atheists and Muslims, he properly states that they frame the discussion on biased perceptions. He also properly states that such discussions must be framed in a neutral context. From there, one can address the subjects raised in a way that requires both parties to provide evidence and counter evidence to their arguments. It also allows for some consensus to be reached by both parties. However, the moment he addresses talking with Protestants and the Orthodox, he immediately frames the discussion in a Roman context, which is biased. In effect, he uses the debate tactics he previously and correctly stated were wrong. It makes the discussion one where Protestants and Orthodox are saddled with disproving the Roman framing, or conceding the argument. It also benefits Mr. Horn by forcing the discussion to only address the Roman position, while drastically reducing the opposition’s ability to put forward their own points in a neutral manner, making the points often appear to be out of context or or a deflection from the discussion.

[@Brrbank]

Sola scriptura believers are more liable to be converted or secularized by people who misinterpret the Bible without using tradition (similar to Protestants)

[@gentlegiants1974]

Where I live in rural Ontario the Orthodox churches are widely scattered exclusive culturally based community clubs, you have to be a visibly identifiable card carrying member of that variety to really belong. Catholic parishes Mass looks like Noah's Ark with all colours and people from everywhere. The identifying feature of Orthodox is cultural origins, the identifying feature of Catholicism at the parish level is love of Jesus. At least in my observations where I live. Clannishness is opposed to the Gospel. Perhaps there are "pure" Orthodox somewhere who do not self-identify as Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, Ethiopian or some other far-away Soviet-bloc place but not around here. There is zero market appeal for normal folks to become Orthodox...way too many non-essential hurdles. The market appeal for Catholicism is not good either these days given the state of things, but cultural hurdles are not a factor. A mainstream Anglican can enter a Catholic church and feel right at home before he even opens a book, as the culture is the same externally. Oversimplified, but if I were looking to buy a franchise I'd go for RC before EO around here. Rather be a Ford dealer than a Bugatti dealer... The market is there on the one hand and not on the other. I don't have any reason to wish the Orthodox ill, I just feel that their brand of Christianity is an even harder sell than Catholicism, which is hard enough to defend given the events of the last half century. A reunion is desirable but as we approach the end of the second millennium, almost half of which has seen the church rent asunder, it seems more likely that judgement or chastisement will arrive before any union at an institutional level is forthcoming. It seems like enormous ecclesiastical upheavals come in roughly 500 year intervals, the decline of the Roman Empire followed by barbarian invasions, the fall of the East to Islamic forces followed by the schism, the Protestant revolt tearing the West apart, and now what is next? We are 500 years on from the last giant earthquake and due for another...

[@aureum7479]

Good grief, that is a terrible argument against Eastern Orthodoxy. I suppose that makes you “AnTi OrThOdOx”

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Diversity destroys social capital among Catholics just like it does with everyone else. Believing anyone can be a Catholic doesn't mean destroying cohesive communities. Tons of Catholics I know complain about how parishes have no real community, people don't stay after mass, and a big part of that is social pressure where white people aren't allowed to have anything of their own

[@BaneOfLogicalFallacies]

Presbyterian here. You should look into the accusations that the SDA church has against specifically catholics but also other protestants as a whole

[@CosmicSeptic1]

What I've observed from more thoughtful Protestants (and some atheists as well) is a more conservative claim than, "I win by default if you're wrong." More often the argument is, "Well, you're wrong, so (usually given certain presuppositions) the probability of my position has appeared to increase." But that's not as fun of an argument, so they hyperbolize a bit to make the point seem like more of an ultimate defeater, when really it's a rebutting defeater. For Protestants: given that EOs, RCs, and certain protestants already hold to Scripture being an infallible rule of faith (so we're presupposing this - 0 is already not a live option and more than 3 is absurd) - if RCs are wrong, then the options for correctness on the issue have gone from 3 to 2. The probability of a protestant being correct has just gone up without ever having to make a positive case for Sola Scriptura. Could all 3 groups be wrong? Sure, but not given the presuppositions that are already on the table. I don't see why protestants should have to argue like we have a neutral starting point when the presuppositions going into this specific discussion are universal to all 3 groups and obvious. I get that it's not as easy to fight uphill (and no offense intended), but it seems like Trent just wants a softball here.

[@markrutledge5855]

I agree. I don't think the Protestant has a responsibility for an affirmative case in this instance. I do think when one moves from being a generic Protestant (ie. not a Roman Catholic) to being affirmative member of a specific denomination/tradition that he does have the same burden as others.

[@duathellto1460]

The probability of the Protestant being correct regarding Scripture being an inerrant rule of Faith could be said to go up as EOs, RCs, and most Protestants agree. The probability of SOLA Scriptura hasn't budged. EOs, RCs, and many Protestants do not believe that. I have noticed that some Protestants argue valiantly for positions that we agree on, and then assume that their odd extensions to that position are somehow obvious from that argument, simply because they think that is the default setting. One of the reasons "ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." somehow gets used to argue for ONLY Scripture, even though it doesn't say that at all. It's like a person getting you to agree that all chocolate is delicious, and then claiming that you must be utterly unreasonable if you don't see the plain meaning that chocolate is the only delicious food. That's a different statement, and requires a separate argument - and a separate probability.

[@markrutledge5855]

@@duathellto1460 The church has from the very beginning always placed itself under the authority of scripture. There is nothing remarkable in that. It should be noted that Jesus was critical of the Pharisees for holding to the unwritten or oral Torah that became the Mishnah. So it seems quite reasonable to hold a position that affirms written Christian texts of the 1st century that were widely used throughout the church as the prime source for authority in the 21st century.

[@duathellto1460]

​@@markrutledge5855 The oral Torah developed after Moses, based on the law he received from God and judgments rendered according to it, and on the basis of rabbinical opinion, not Divine Revelation. Apostolic Tradition contains Divine Revelation, and predated the writing of the New Testament. The New Testament was actually based on the Apostolic Tradition (particularly Mark, Luke, and the letters of St. Paul). The unwritten rules of the Pharisees are not in the same category as Apostolic Tradition. The derivation of authority for Divine Revelation always has to end up with God. Scripture is inspired by God, and collected and canonized by the Magisterium and Tradition. Tradition comes from the Apostles, who get their authority from God. the bishops get their Magisterial authority from their predecessors, who ultimately got it from the Apostles, who got it from God. That Magisterial authority is at the service of Divine Revelation, as found in Scripture and Tradition. It is quite reasonable to affirm Scripture. It is quite unreasonable to reject other sources of Divine Revelation.

[@markrutledge5855]

@@duathellto1460 The Mishnah is considered in the Jewish tradition to be have been given to Moses with the Torah at Mount Sinai. It is an exact parallel to what RCs claims about the unwritten apostolic traditions. I find it ironic that you reject the one and affirm the other. I agree that there was an early oral apostolic teaching but there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the written version we have today in the New Testament is anyway distinct or different from this oral tradition. That means, of course, any later teaching must conform to written scripture since it is the embodiment of the oral apostolic tradition. I respect the early church's collation of Christian scripture but it is important to remember that this collation occurred very early in the development of its life and practice. The later Councils only marked out the outer limit of the canon. The core canon was in existence by the end of the 2nd century and included the 4 Gospels, Acts and the 13 letters of Paul. And most importantly, the church submitted itself to the authority of scripture from its very conception. There was no time from the Resurrection onwards when the church was not under the authority of the written word. It began with the OT and later continued with the recognized inspired writings of Paul and the Gospels.

[@mav.-]

as a Protestant, I’ve never seen sola scriptura being described as “the Bible is the only single infallible authority and any other authority is false”. Rather, it’s seen that scripture is the highest infallible source of authority, and that anything that goes against that is false teaching. So for example, I think most Protestants could agree that if the pope claims abortion is a sin, that claim would be infallible as brought by the Holy Spirit, in the same way that scripture is infallible through the church because of the Holy Spirit. But, if the pope claims that Mary never sinned, this contradicts the Bible and therefore can’t be taken as infallible simply because it came from someone in a certain position. It’s the same idea as “Moses gave us infallible scriptures for the first books of the Bible, but that doesn’t mean that Moses is infallible as he himself would state in his writings”

[@vtaylor21]

If a fallible authority was able to infallibly determine the cannon of scripture, why couldn't infallibly declare doctrine (especially when Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church in John 14 and 16)?

[@creatinechris]

@@vtaylor21 how do you know John is quoting Jesus?

[@vtaylor21]

@@creatinechris John was one of the apostles of Jesus that took care of Jesus’ mother after He died. It is more probable he would remember what Jesus said. If he didn't quote Jesus verbatim, John accurately wrote the main point. What makes you doubt that Jesus never said what is stated in John’s gospel?

[@creatinechris]

@@vtaylor21 we don’t know who authored John. Therefore it’s suspect that the author is quoting Jesus correctly. Also most scholars date John to approx 90 AD (aka 60 years after Jesus’s death). Would you remember word for word what your buddy 60 years said after he said something? Also would you still be alive to write said words? Seems easily doubtable. Do these seem like a reasonable concerns?

[@markrutledge5855]

@@creatinechris Do you agree that the Gospel of John was written around 90 AD? If yes, why do you believe that? I'd be curious to know your rationale. As an aside, if John was a very young man when he became a disciple of Jesus and lived an to old age that would make him an original witness. I think you are underestimating the ability to remember words and facts from earlier times in life. This is especially true in a oral culture like 1st century Judea. And who's to say that this John didn't write down some things from his past decades much earlier. It should be noted that the Johannine scholar Raymond Brown believed that the Gospel of John was written in several stages with the first stage being in the early 60s.

[@creatinechris]

​@@markrutledge5855 I am convinced from the overwhelming consensus of biblical scholars that John was written around 90AD. Yes, you can find dissenters for any position (ie Raymond Brown). Evidence includes: - writing style appears more like end of 1st century style - john's writings are referenced by other ancient historians (therefore probably prior to 100 AD) - various fragments date the authorship before 110 AD That said, I am not an expert (and neither are you), therefore we are in no position to sway too far from academic consensus without really compelling evidence. With all due respect, a bunch of convenient "what-ifs" that would fit more squarely for an apologist than an academic is not very compelling. The fact of the matter is, you dont know how old John was when he followed Jesus, you don't know how old he was when/if he wrote John, etc. Also, even if John was the author of John, AND wrote his gospel the NEXT DAY after Jesus' claimed resurrection, this is not more or less evidence of a resurrection. Does an account of seeing BigFoot yesterday make it any more likely that BigFoot exists compared to account of seeing BigFoot 50 years ago?

[@rangle_t.i7413]

Based

[@kainech]

So, now I'm imagining Trent troubleshooting his computer with tech support: "The computer won't boot." "Have you verified it's plugged in?" "It's a laptop and has a battery." "But you haven't proven to me that this is the problem. Just because it's the last one on your troubleshooting list, doesn't mean it accurately describes reality. I need you to prove your explanation of why my computer won't start." In most of our life, we don't know for certain what is true. We have a range of possibilities, narrow it down, then act once we feel it's sufficiently narrowed, and generally these are all possibilities that fit some positive evidence. This is just the human condition. Both Protestant and Orthodox Christians are operating with an assumption Christianity is true, and they likely have eliminated progressive Christianity already. There are finite options. If we take as a given that Christianity is true, then we can act on the assumption the last one standing is true, just like we can with troubleshooting. We may find that wrong later, but there's nothing wrong with that approach.

[@vtaylor21]

At times, a lack of belief shows you don't have confidence in how you view things.

[@chrishyde5903]

Confidence in a thing is unrelated to whether the thing is true.

[@PhillipCummingsUSA]

@@chrishyde5903 Incorrect. You can be confident in plenty of things because they are true. And visa versa. An example is any basic scientific fact that can then be applied to all kinds of different things. Time being consistent is a life example.

[@chrishyde5903]

@@PhillipCummingsUSA There's a misunderstanding. Confidence does not determine truth. Confidence in time being consistent does not determine whether time is consistent.

[@vtaylor21]

@@chrishyde5903 We are not talking about what is true. A belief means you are CONFIDENT on what you think is true. The reason why some people are not confident is because of the fear of being wrong. Fear holds some people from being confident in the evidence.

[@ecta9604]

It can, but belief is also pretty much involuntary. Quick - make yourself believe that Al Gore was president of the United States on July 16th, 2003. You can’t. At bedrock, belief is often less about confidence and more about a sort of ‘sense of reality’. Whether or not someone develops this sense of reality about one belief or another seems pretty much involuntary.

[@FROGfish03]

10:08 as a Protestant I want to clarify this explanation. There is no “infallible” knowledge of scripture within humanity, there is a correct interpretation of the texts, which can be acknowledged by a fallible church. The scripture is infallible, the best humans can ever be is correct, this is why we need debate from the actual text of scripture. This also eliminates the conundrum that is given afterwords.

[@FROGfish03]

There is also no infallible list of books that ought to be in the Bible, there is a correct list which can be argued over. Correct and infallible are not the same.

[@tommore3263]

Chesterton taught C S Lewis that mindless matter in meaningless motion is an impossible basis for affirming ones ability to know anything about anything. The absurdity of atheism is so obvious.

[@legacyandlegend]

As a protestant, I have a question. How many supposed infallible authorities have stood the test of time and have not been in error or caused heresy? The traditions and the pope caused the reformation. Selling indulgences was an abuse of authority. Having fallible men run supposed infallible offices cause abuse. The only supposed infallible authority that meets that is the bible. A RC might say so who is supposed to interpret it? That's the point. There's no infallible authority to interpret it. We're all fallible men and subject to error. That's why the bible is the only thing you can trust. I'd rather have a fallible interpretation of an infallible authority than someone else telling me what the infallible authority is and lead me into heresy. That's why I'm protestant.

[@DerrickSeaborne-d2j]

Well said 👏

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Bravo!

[@aquabit25]

The problem with this is thinking the bible itself is also infallible. The first few hundred years after the apostles the bible wasn't even canonized yet. Different Christian Churches scattered all throughout the Mediterranean had differing texts they used to teach the scriptures and it would take several councils to establish a minimal canon of the bible (Something that Protestant Bibles does not meet). So it was humans/tradition that compiled the bible. There were a few hundred years where the Christian Church survived WITHOUT the bible. Also translation of the bible falls to human bias as well. Every time the bible has been translated in history there were inherent biases that seeped through. Especially during the rise of Protestantism. Example would be the KJV translation of the Anglican Church where King James specifically ordered to somewhat censor the anti-monarchy tones of the bible in order to use the Anglican Church to pacify the masses for the English Monarchy. So if humans are fallible and even the bible is also fallible, where should you believe. For me the most logical conclusion would be to at least believe in a church that can trace their lineage back to the apostles and has hold unto tradition as best as they can. Whether that be Catholic, Orthodox, or Oriental.

[@legacyandlegend]

@angelodevera4857 You must accept that the bible is infallible. Otherwise, you're not a Christian. The church also wasn't in need of reformation prior to the bible being canonized. Your problem is you refuse to accept that these so-called infallible churches lost their rights to claim infallibility due to heresy. Heresy isn't of God. It's of Satan. Therefore, the bible is the only infallible authority.

[@yalechuk6714]

​@@legacyandlegend You must accept the bible as infallible because.....

[@MartialNico]

Oh my God, this is exactly what Christians do! The "You lose, so I win"-concept is core to every and all God of the gaps arguments. And almost every proof of God ís a God of the gaps argument.

[@creatinechris]

@@MartialNico very true! Do you have an objective moral standard? Who is your uncaused cause? How was the universe created? What is the purpose of life?

[@Oneocna]

Im so glad someone else pointed this out. By definition religion has to take part in the fallacy because the basis of faith that their views are right. A timeless space less immaterial god can’t be proven

[@mrscharmless]

⁠@@OneocnaAtheism can’t be proven in that way either, though.

[@Oneocna]

@@mrscharmless yes it can atheism is the lack of belief in god atheist start with that position and can maintain it for any reason

[@stephengalanis]

@@mrscharmless If I tell you there's a dragon in my garage, and you don't believe me (good job, there's no reason to), that's totally valid. It would be absurd for me to say, like you say to atheists, "but you can't prove your position of non belief in the dragon". So don't say that.

[@Horndawg65]

Christian Wagner + Trent Horn collab when?

[@MilitantThomist]

👀

[@ecta9604]

I don’t think this is necessarily a valid critique. Say that you and I were detectives, looking at scene. I propose some sort of very detailed, absolutely wacky explanation for the scene that fails to take into account multiple lines of evidence. You say, very carefully because you’ve just realized your partner is insane, “…well, good job, very creative, and I hear you. I don’t know how this happened, but I don’t think your theory works for X and Y reason”. I think this is a perfectly valid response to someone making a precise, detailed, profound, ambitious and controversial claim about how the universe works. Such a claim has multiple points where it can fail, and the existence of those weak points isn’t affected by whether or not the person noticing their weaknesses is presenting an alternative explanation.

[@Daniel-ov5bd]

It seems like a perfectly valid response because (whether you realise it or not) you're going off presuppositions that you believe that you share with the other person. Taking your example. if the scene was an accident and the other person's explanation was that the car flew there and caused the accident. Obviously, you'll point out that "Cars don't fly so it can't possibly be true". Some of the underlying assumptions are: "There are no commercial cars that can fly" "cars are simply to heavy to fly on their own" "heavy things like cars don't fly on their own without significant assistance" But what happens if someone challenges one of your presuppositions like: "There are no commercial cars that can fly" The problem is that Lack-theists/Agnostic-Atheists will immediately cry foul and accuse the other side of trying to shift the burden of proof to them when they're simply saying "I don't know". If you can evaluate an argument and determine it to be weak. Then you're already having some pre-requisite knowledge/presuppositions. If Atheists truly didn't know. They'd be more interested or at least be more sympathetic towards theists. but that's not what we see My comment focused on Atheists because this time of critique is quite common among Atheists. Theists rarely accuse each other of shifting the burden of proof/saying "I don't know"

[@ecta9604]

@@Daniel-ov5bd​​⁠I’d suggest you may be speaking with the wrong sorts of atheists or agnostic-atheists :) The agnostic-atheists and agnostic-theists have the best conversations about this sort of thing imo. We definitely all have presuppositions - that’s 100% true. But going from “some foundational assumptions are required” to “all foundational assumptions are equally valid” is an unwarranted leap imo. A presupposition like ‘There are no commercial cars that can fly’ or ‘the sun will rise tomorrow’ is based off of a series of observations that have been made about the world. Presuppositions like ‘there are secret commercial cars that fly’ or ‘the sun won’t rise tomorrow’ aren’t based on those sorts of observations - their foundations are rotten.

[@Daniel-ov5bd]

@@ecta9604 What if the presupposition is not based on Observation or something verifiable or it is based on another presupposition that is demonstrably false ? What happens then ? (This is a rhetorical question. I already have an answer based on what I've observed but I want to hear your answer)

[@ecta9604]

@@Daniel-ov5bd​​⁠​⁠ I’d say that a presupposition that’s not based on observation (whether that’s direct or indirect observation) is not necessarily false, but may be on fairly shaky ground. A presupposition that’s based on something demonstrably false (say, a presupposition that the earth is flat) is maybe on the shakiest ground there is. EDIT: Overall, I think that a foundational presupposition that starts with a question rather than an answer is probably going to be fairly valid - that’s what I mean by observation. I think a huge issue with the presuppositions of revealed religions is that they start with an infallible founding document. They assume they have the answer, and then they then look around for evidence to support it rather than starting with the world as it is and trying to explain it as well as possible.

[@Daniel-ov5bd]

​@@ecta9604 I agree with you but from my experience. What I see with Atheists when this situation occurs (Specifically Lack-theists) is to either: 1. Cry foul like I explained earlier 2. Say "I don't know" but not in a honest way where they really don't know but as (for lack of a better explanation) an impenetrable force field that deflects all criticisms *EDIT: Overall, I think that a foundational presupposition that starts with a question rather than an answer is probably going to be fairly valid - that’s what I mean by observation.* Agreed *They assume they have the answer, and then they then look around for evidence to support it rather than starting with the world as it is and trying to explain it as well as possible.* Agreed again, I agree with this but theists from my experience are usually honest with their presuppositions (or they admit it when confronted) but Atheists aren't. That's my fundamental problem I'm not even making an accusation that Atheists are doing it dishonestly. Most aren't aware of their own presuppositions (they assume them as the default position and think the Theist is dodging or being dishonest when they try to point it out). My point is, No one is immune to that and Everyone does it/has done it at some point but Atheists always seem to think that they're Immune from this sort of fallacy and believe they are "just following the Evidence"

[@imadmoussa1998]

Im curious what are your thoughts on the simulation hypothesis namely the one proposed by David Chalmers in reality+

[@reviewspiteras]

I have many times come across atheist which tell me that I have the "burden of proof" or outright tell me they have nothing to prove because atheism doesn't make a statement or that is not a world view. What a way to not engage in debate and still thinking they won

[@etiennedevignolles7538]

An Atheist is somebody who asserts that Atheism is true (the assertion that God does not exist). They have a burden of proof just as much as a Theist has a burden of proof for Theism. If anybody claims Atheism is a "lack of belief", don't bother talking to them. By their definition, Atheism and Theism can both be true at the same time. Lacking a belief in God does not mean God does not exist.

[@yvonetubla7682]

@@etiennedevignolles7538 its funny when they say "i lack a belief in gods or Gods" oh really? well christians also lack a belief in gods or Gods

[@Thunderjerky]

This is hardly unique to those arguing against Catholics. Of course we *see* it more because we're Catholics and see it happening to us. But the Hindu guy who's out there doing whatever likely comes across countless people arguing against Hinduism and assuming the truth of their position. The fundamental issue is that apologetics isn't a serious philosophical position and people who practice it are really interested in dunking on the other rather than seeking truth as such.

[@slideGMD]

I think this one is the most popular by far in apostolic churches

[@austinbradley8635]

Trent platforming a holocaust denier after saying its bad is certainly a choice

[@JackStraw-d8b]

18 minutes of setting your own goal posts and still missing.

[@EmberBright2077]

Explain?

[@stephengalanis]

Okay, let's agree on the starting point. Let's agree on the position before proof. I don't mind whatsoever what we label that. Maybe Carl Sagan would have been a good launching point for this discussion. "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle - but no dragon. "Where's the dragon?" you ask. "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. --That's Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World. Belief in the dragon in my garage will never be the default, the default is non-belief. Whether that's Islam or your flavour of Christianity.

[@Thunderjerky]

You should read Aristotle's Metaphysics - the God of philosophy is not some being among others; He is that being that is necessary for all other beings to be. Aristotle could argue the existence of said God centuries before Christianity became popular. Jumping from the God of philosophy to the God of Christianity is a different question, of course, but Sagan misunderstands the entire premise of what that God is. For an actual competent critique of the God of philosophy, read some Heidegger or 'Heidegger's Atheism' by Laurence Hemming. There you will find the assertion that God is not the object of philosophy as such for a variety of reasons. Take it or leave it but it's infinitely more compelling than Sagan.

[@westongunningham7151]

Goat

[@lumoculargetsu6971]

I think as a protestant I'd say that Im agnostic on how many infallible rules of faith there are

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

There is one. Holy scripture

[@GranMaese]

@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Holy Scripture was canonized by the Church who recognized which books were inspired to begin with, though. Therefore there's at least two. However the Church also used Tradition to know it. Therefore there are three infallible rules of faith: Holy Tradition, Magisterium and Scripture.

[@lumoculargetsu6971]

@@GranMaese who decided tradition was infallible? genuinely asking

[@GranMaese]

@@lumoculargetsu6971 the people who recognized Holy Tradition is infallible is the very same people that recognized Scripture is infallible.

[@nicholasm2469]

10 or so years ago, I had a protestant friend. They didn't exactly know what they believed, but they knew they weren't Catholic. And they asked me to convert out of Catholicism.

[@seanpierce9386]

There’s a problem here that I think is best illustrated by an analogy: Let’s say we’re trying to determine the possible values of a variable x, which we know is bounded above. We know for certain that x < 1 is valid. - Alice says that x < 1. - Bob says that x

[@Andre_V_S]

I'm proud to be a protestant that doesn't use the fallacy You specified.

[@BrewMeister27]

@@Andre_V_S As a Protestant, can you explain how you know which documents are inspired Scripture?

[@Andre_V_S]

@@BrewMeister27 Through EARLY tradition being faithfully followed. After some time, many additional catholic church laws we're given, but we cannot discern if they're God inspired or man made. Because of this, we should use the Bible to help us discern.

[@BrewMeister27]

@@Andre_V_S Do you accept all beliefs that were universally held in the early Church?

[@GiftofGod289]

Same.

[@Andre_V_S]

@@BrewMeister27 If there's clear evidence that the belief is part of those faithful traditions being followed OR that they go back to the apostles, sure. I can pounder on anything You bring.

[@Darth_Vader258]

It takes a lot more *Faith* to be an Atheist ⚛️ than to be a Christian. And Evangelical Atheists are more Religious than Christians.

[@lordwife]

Truth. The number of times I’ve been told to have faith in “The Science”, that I been to believe in it is ridiculous. I shouldn’t need to believe in facts I should be able to know them.

[@ChipKempston]

This is ridiculous. What a bad faith argument. In a debate or discussion between Catholics and Protestants, the question, "Why are you Protestant?" is obviously going to be answered IN THAT CONTEXT. If you just walked up to one of these Protestants on the street and asked them, "Why are you a Christian?" then you would get more of the answer you are looking for here.

[@bobinindiana]

Good point. This video should have left out Protestants and taken on Hindus or Buddhists or communists.

[@AndrewDolder]

@ChipKempston On that note, are you Protestant? If so, do you love being a Protestant? Why?

[@AndrewDolder]

On that note, why are you Protestant?

[@AndrewDolder]

Why is Protestantism true?

[@Darksouls184]

At 12:04 :"And even worse, modern scholarship calls into question Pauline authorship of his letters, like 2 Timothy..." I think we need a book titled "When Catholics argue like atheists"

[@Thatoneguy-pu8ty]

Yes.

[@clintonwilcox4690]

It seems to me that it's a bad move for Trent to use his radio segments to try and prove Protestants use this fallacy he speaks of in his video here. After all, those are short segments and Protestants only have a minute or so to explain why they're Protestant, then the rest of the time is Trent explaining why that's not a good reason to reject Catholicism. I called in to the program once to explain one reason why I'm not Catholic. But it would be fallacious, in itself, to think that I have no positive reasons for Protestantism just based on that three-minute interaction in which I wasn't allowed to give a rejoinder because Trent has to get to other callers. A discussion isn't allowed in those segments because he wants to get to as many callers as possible.

[@User_5tjk42gj9]

Truth doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is looking correct for the lowest common denominator.

[@ecta9604]

Trent has some bad habits when it comes to these sorts of things - for example, he’s said in the past that his main goal in debates is to convince people to switch to his prescriptions rather than to fully explore the ideas so that people can make an educated decision. This was most explicit during an abortion debate on Whatever, where Trent said that he was going to give two pro-life arguments - one that was fairly unsound but superficially convincing, and one that was less superficially convincing but more logically valid. He said that the reason for his giving two arguments was that he wanted as many people as possible to become pro life. Apparently for Trent the actual *reason* why someone agrees with him is of secondary concern to them agreeing with him in the first place. I think this makes him pretty vulnerable to making poor arguments or engaging with questions in bad faith. It’s a very ends-justify-the-means sort of position.

[@zita-lein]

Loved this! ❤️💙

[@TheZealotsDen]

Like this comment to get The Zealots Den on the council of Trent! # Catholic creator 2025

[@Catholicguy2727]

Yes!! Would love to see that!!

[@Zealotintheden]

Yessss!!!!!