The (Rare) Word That Refutes Sola Scriptura

[@PhilosopongKatoliko]

I am a Catholic convert, and one of the reasons why I left Protestantism is because of the inconsistencies of Sola Scriptura. May God bless you, Trent, from Philippines 🇵🇭 .

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

Welcome home. God bless you.

[@jamesrey3221]

US, Mexico, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Columbia, France, Poland, and the Philippines, are countries with a large Catholic population. Protestants are looking particularly the Philippines to convert the ripe pickings in this country.

[@jayehm8075]

only someone who doesn't study church history will make that claim.

[@AgapeJiuJitsu-nz4vj]

Welcome Home !!!

[@AgapeJiuJitsu-nz4vj]

​@jamesrey3221 let us press forward to teach our protestant brothers and sisters the truth which is the Holy catholic and Apostolic church. The Pilar of truth . The church Jesus Christ established himself in 33 AD .

[@GospelSimplicity]

Not sure if you edit these yourself, but shoutout to whomever dug up all those clips for this. Takes way more time than people realize

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Thanks! I actually do edit them myself and yes it can take some time to find all of them.

[@coachp12b]

Nice work sir

[@kiryu-chan577]

Yes we like short clips

[@Mkvine]

@GospelSimplicity - Looking forward to your Canon show brother! Hope you found a Catholic representative.

[@catkat740]

@@TheCounselofTrent. More muppet clips please. And/ or let’s get ourselves a Catholic Apologetics muppet 🤓🤓

[@AttackDog0500]

Protestant here, although I'm currently in the midst of a journey exploring Roman-Catholicism as of late, and I have a lot of respect for Roman-Catholicism. My personal view is that the strongest argument for Sola Scriptura is not necessarily a direct verse, but rather an inference from the overall thrust of the Biblical works, as is so with the Trinity. When Jesus was doing ministry He constantly comes into direct conflict with the traditions of the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, and Sadducess, and uses Scripture to refute them. It's not that Pharisees and Sadducees did not have authority to set rules and author traditions; Jesus Himself says "they sit in Moses' seat", but that their traditions obscured and set aside the Word of God (Scripture). Even well-meaning traditions attempting to reinforce Biblical principles can do damage to it. The "Magisterium" of the people of God at the tine (despite having real and God-given authority) were wrong in their additions and led people astray. Therefore, I see Sola Scriptura as the natural inference of how Jesus did ministry and taught. If we had video evidence of Paul or Peter or (obviously) Jesus speaking and teaching verbal tradition; I'd accept that as infallible and authoritative too as part of the deposit of Faith. We do not, therefore I see the writings which God has seen fit to preserve and hand down from the Apostles as authoritative.

[@JamesH-i9p]

Exactly! “As it is written” or close to that is used around 90 times in the NT. I don’t believe Jesus ever says “as it was said” or “how tradition used to be” etc

[@bernard9349]

I like and respect your open mindedness regarding the topic. 👍

[@StanleyPinchak]

To which of the Torah schools did God give the Holy Spirit in order to lead them to all truth. To which of the Rabbis did He give the keys to the kingdom? The magesterium has been necessary to defend the faith from heresy. Where does the Bible use the word Trinity or where does the word homoousios appear? Where are the two natures of Christ explicitly laid out in scripture to prevent Arianism, Nestorianism, Manachesim, and on and on? An ongoing, living Church, guided by the Holy Spirit is necessary to defend the true faith from contemporary heresy. “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Mat 28:20, DRC)

[@AttackDog0500]

@@StanleyPinchak God made a covenant with Abraham and Moses, that the Jews were God's chosen people. God promised David that David's "throne would be established forever". Did this mean that God lied when He allowed the Assyrians and Babylonians to crush the kingdoms of Israel and Judah? Or when Jesus did not establish a Messianic Earthly Kingdom? No. It means that God's promises are not always held to their absolute most straightforward interpretations. Just because I believe that Abraham, David, and Moses were guided by God, it does not follow that I believe that all who sit in their seat are thus guided by God. I believe 100% that the Church of those days were guided by God to ground those heresies into dust, but it does not follow that I believe that the Roman-Catholic church of today is similarly guided by God to ground Protestantism into dust. The exploitative and abusive practices of the medieval Roman-Catholic church were rightfully repudiated by Luther/Calvin/Zwingli and subsequently the Roman-Catholic church amended some of those practices. The fruit of the Reformation has not only reached millions of believers in Christ, but also has made the Church of Rome better. Heresies do not last; they are always relegated to the fringes of history and die out eventually. They sometimes come back in different forms (Jehovah's Witnesses might be considered heirs to the Arian heresy, for example, and "Progressive" Christianity might be the modern version of Marcionism) but they do not endure. Protestantism is alive 500 years later; it has endured. "Everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die."

[@StanleyPinchak]

@@AttackDog0500 That is an interesting take. It reasons similarly to Gamaliel in Acts 5. Jesus had a different measure. “Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known.” (Mat 12:33, DRC) Protestantism has produced fruit that runs counter to Jesus express wish in His high priestly prayer in John 17. “And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.” (Joh 17:11, DRC) Could there not be a better way to have one body than by fracturing that body into 40000 denominations? “One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling.” (Eph 4:4, DRC) “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph 4:5, DRC)

[@pattyserrano9339]

I love how I'm guaranteed to learn something new everytime I open one of Trent's videos! Thanks so much!😊

[@EdgeOfEntropy17]

Careful, friend. Nothing new under the sun.

[@tomtemple69]

yeah, learn something wrong lol

[@TheologicalAmatuer]

Thanks for coming back to this topic so often. It was one of the biggest reasons I converted to Catholicism as I was graduating from seminary.

[@themajesty]

If you read the Bible, Catholicism is not according to the scripture and the doctrine of Christ.

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

It's so nice to see so many Protestants learning from these videos and leaving Protestantism. May God bless them all. 😊

[@EvilXtianity]

_"It was one of the biggest reasons I converted to Catholicism..."_ So you chose to literally worship cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice?

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

​@@EvilXtianity"Worship cannibalism" ??? 😂

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

It's easier to pilot a submarine to see the Titanic than it is to defend sola scriptura. ⚓️

[@ericgatera7149]

This is probably the most important reflection on Sola scriptura from the epistle of Timothy found on youtube. Thanks Trent!

[@dylanschweitzer18]

So glad Trent did this episode because I cant afford to spend $120 on that book over ONE WORD. 😂

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

Or spend thousands of dollars going to a Protestant Seminary just to try and figure out which denomination has it right.

[@ScripturalMormonism]

There is a paperback ed. that is about 25 dollars (I say this as someone who dropped about 100 on the hardback when it first came out)

[@landomt8138]

What book?

[@onlylove556]

​@@landomt8138that's what I was thinking lol, but Im about to watch the video now to find out...

[@dylanschweitzer18]

@@landomt8138 it's in his sources under the notes of the video

[@omarvazquez3355]

Sola Scriptura is honestly the number one reason I could never be a protestant. As RC Sproul said "we have a fallible list of infallible books". That raises a ton of questions. Good work Trent ❤

[@adamsynowiec9864]

@@MrKingishere1 as opposed to the Protestant approach: thousands different 'churches' all claiming the correct interpretation of the Bible.

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

Correct. Sola scriptura is a doctrine from hell. It's honestly embarrassing when you see 10 Prots in a room with an atheist and all the Prots are fighting over their heresies.

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

​@@adamsynowiec9864Protestantism is a pathway to agnosticism and atheism.

[@javierperd2604]

As Trent Horn once admitted in his debate with Gavin Ortlund on Sola Scriptura: "Catholics have a fallible list of infallible Magisterial teachings." Roman Catholics face the same proposed issue that Protestants do when having to interpret the RC Magisterium: the Magidterium doesn't provide an appendix of all infallibly defined teachings. There's a reason why faithful Roman Catholics like Trent Horn and Ed Feser disagree on whether or not the righteousness of the death penalty for certain crimes is an infallibly defined teaching of the Roman Catholic Church or not. This is the same reason why different Roman Catholic Theologians and apologists have different numbers of Bible verses that they believe the RC Magisterium has infallibly interpreted. Rome has no infallible list of infallible magisterial teachings.

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

@@adamsynowiec9864 This is the reason many Protestants leave their heresies and convert to proper Christianity. I know many Christians who were former Protestants.

[@JamesBarber-cu5dz]

Prior to medieval Christian claims in regards to the Apostles, the Pharisees had already set an example of developing dogma based on an alleged authoritative oral tradition having been passed down alongside Scripture from Moses himself. And despite the fact that they were responsible for establishing the proper canon for Israel, much as Catholics claim for themselves, their assertions of tradition's authority was roundly condemned by none other than Jesus Himself: "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!" In all of Biblical history, not one mention is made about authoritative oral tradition as a compliment to Scripture. During the Apostolic Age, both Christ and the Apostles always appealed to Scripture as the final authority for any claims or practices under consideration. This is logical since only the Apostles and Prophets were understood as authoring Scripture and therefore having such authority. Priests, though appointed by God, were always commanded to follow Scripture rather than add traditions to it. Prominent early Church Fathers recognized this principle, asserting that the true Catholic Church must always act in harmony with Scripture whenever "small matters" of tradition, as St. Basil the Great (d. 379) identified such issues, aren't specifically addressed. Thus, anything truly alien to Scripture or its theological principles must be abandoned. For example, here is St. Basil describing such considerations as he experienced them in his era: "For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents" (The Holy Spirit, 27:66). Obviously, such "small matters" tradition alone can legitimately support as Scripture is not violated. However, St. Basil also says this about Scripture and doctrine: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Letter 283). St. Jerome (d. 420) also describes acceptable traditions in very harmonious and practical terms: in light if Scripture "Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? (Note that what he refers to here as a custom is actually described multiple times in the Book of Acts!). And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command (Obviously because of very clear consistency since he used a Scriptural example of what a Church custom might legitimately look like). For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, (a neutral practice implied by Jesus's "Great Commission" formula and later found in the Didache) and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy (Old Testament symbols); and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day (standing is in the Book of Ezra), and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked" (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8). Keeping these principles of relating tradition to Scripture in view, we can now make sense of the writings of other early Fathers.... Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 216) said, “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the information from the Scriptures themselves” (Stromata 7:16). Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) said, “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 9). Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367): “Everything that we ought to say and do, all that we need, is taught us by the Holy Scriptures ” (On the Trinity, 7:16). St. Athanasius (d. 375) said, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) “The holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (To the Bishops of Egypt 1:4)." "The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Exhort. ad Monachas). “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6). St. Basil of the Great (d. 379) said, “Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on which side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (Letter 189:3). St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, "We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say" (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff). St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) said, "What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius). St. Ambrose (d. 396) said, “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23). St. Augustine (d. 430) said, "For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine (Letters, 148.15). “For in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Do not even listen to me if I tell you anything that is not supported by or found in the Scriptures” (Exposition on Psalm 119). John Cassian (d. 435): “We ought not to believe in and to admit anything whatsoever which is not in the canon of Scripture or which is found to be contrary to it” (Conferences, 14.8).

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

Q: What does sola scriptura mean? A: Depends on which Prot you ask. They can't even agree on what it means or entails.

[@461weavile]

​@@MrKingishere1 and are any variations of Sola Scriptura true and/or are any variations of no salvation outside the Church true?

[@461weavile]

​@@MrKingishere1 but you're right it doesn't matter if people claim differing definitions. I should've led with that.

[@richvestal767]

​@@MrKingishere1 Except Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus doesn't even rise to the level of being a foundational doctrine of the Church. Without Sola Scriptura protestantism has no foundation to stand on. Thus your comparison fails.

[@SonOfThineHandmaid]

​@@MrKingishere1you may get a bunch of different answers, but the difference is, there is a "right" answer as per Catholicism. The same cannot be said for sola scriptura as per Protestantism per se. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Keep trying.

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

That’s like Papal infallibility though.

[@MelanieBarrozo-u7s]

Not Catholic but now I am thoroughly confused as to whether I’ve falsely believed sola scriptura all this time so thank you for sending me down the rabbit hole, Trent. 😅

[@firewall8095]

Hope you find your way to Catholicism brother. We’d love to have you! Trust in Christ!

[@genebaker6964]

No, you haven’t. Without sola scriptura it’s a free-for-all or anything goes hence the never-ending dogmas.

[@MelanieBarrozo-u7s]

@@genebaker6964 Update: I am still Lutheran. I am utterly unconvinced of the Catholic Church’s claim that it’s the one, true church and just using the words “church Catholic” doesn’t really prove anything that explains away major doctrinal issues. That being said, I think my understanding of sola scriptura was a bit off and I suppose I’m still learning but there is of course a tension in Christianity that always exists. We are saints and sinners. We need both law and gospel. Scripture and tradition to help us interpret scripture are indeed both important. Scripture, however, is the only source which we are promised has authority and the church cannot take away from that or it becomes opposed to Christ. That being said, on a practical level I think sometimes it is a difficult concept to explain or debate upon without a very thorough understanding so I can see why people get confused on the issue but after all these months of speaking to my own pastor (LCMS) and to both an Eastern and Roman Catholic priest, I do believe Lutheranism is doctrinally in-line with scripture in a way the Catholic Church can’t be in part because of the church’s own authority structure.

[@genebaker6964]

@@MelanieBarrozo-u7s You might find fellow Lutheran Dr Jordan B Copper of interest. Admittedly being a reformed Baptist I’ve only listened to small excerpts of his channel. He has a video on sola scriptura.

[@philliphoyle5848]

@@MelanieBarrozo-u7sinterested to hear how you came to that conclusion!or rather point in the journey. What do you reject regarding the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? (I’m a convert from Baptist, non-denom, agnostic atheist background)

[@samuelaguilar9668]

Last January, we had a Bible Month celebration here in my town in the Philippines. The Speaker is a Roman Catholic Priest. And he affirmed the Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Scriptures.

[@cyberfist6568]

I couldn't figure out why anyone needed a pastor if they could read and interpret Scripture if this was true.

[@markrome9702]

This was fascinating and enlightening. Thank you! I never questioned the definition "God breathed" before.

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

James White, Gavin Ortlund, Allie Beth Stuckey all define sola scriptura differently 😂

[@javierperd2604]

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox define the Tradition of the Apostles and of the Church Fathers differently -- and yet, they both lay claim to it. Can priests be clean-shaven or must they have beards? Can we use unleavened bread for the Lord's Supper or must the bread always have leaven in order for the eucharist to be valid? Does the Spirit proceed from the Son also or just from the Father? All of these are issues that these 2 claimants to the same, extra-biblical "deposit of faith" differ on and anathematize each other over -- and there's a ton of other churches with claims to Antiquity that differ on way more than just that.

[@ElijahMiller-x2n]

Allie isn’t even an apologist and James and Gavin define it the same. Nice try

[@jacobrodriguez7771]

@@javierperd2604 I could pick two prot "churches" at random and they would have FAR more differences in practice and belief than Catholic/Orthodox/Coptics. Real Apostolic Churches recognize each other's Apostolic succession, baptize infants, have seven sacraments, have the deuterocanonical books, and are liturgical. I could walk into one prot church and see snakes and people speaking gobbly gook, another and find a rock concert happening, and another and see them using wonder bread and grape juice for "communion"....absolute clown show.

[@SonOfThineHandmaid]

​​​@@ElijahMiller-x2nwhat does not being an apologist have to do with anything? She's a Christian right?

[@SonOfThineHandmaid]

​@@javierperd2604duh, hence the Schism. There is still only one Catholic Church led by the successor of Saint Peter, so what exactly is your point?

[@ChipKempston]

Protestant here (Restorationist). Thanks for this video. Very insightful to consider theopneustos as active rather than passive, which reminds me of Hebrews 4:12 where "the Word of God is living and ACTIVE....IT penetrates...." The whole/part issue also seems relevant to understanding the passage and I had never heard that argument before.

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

I think restorationists are the most consistent Protestants.

[@ChipKempston]

@catholic_bible_studies It's puzzling to see Protestants claim sola scriptura when their principal distinction (faith alone) is not even explicitly taught in Scripture. A Restoration church is the most consistent place for me to be, but I'm sympathetic to Catholic theology. Hard not to be if one reads the early fathers.

[@Cklert]

@@ChipKempston In all fairness, Martin Luther added the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28 and I still see some Protestants quoting translations with that addition.

[@Alfredo8059]

@@ChipKempston , It is not that faith alone is not even explicitly taught in Scriptute; it is that faith alone contradicts Scripture itself: " and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2; " If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." 1 Cor. 16:22; " Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." Jn 14:23; " Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;" 1 Thess 1:3; " Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2: 24, etc, etc

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

@@ChipKempston even if we grant Trent's definition of "theopneustos" for the sake of argument, Trent's argument is still problematic for the following reasons: 1. The case for Sola Scriptura doesnt rely *only* on 2 Tim. The Biblical data as a whole *still* indicates that scripture is the *speech of God* (Acts 1:16, John 10:35, Psalm 119:11, etc) And this is all the Protestant needs to make a case for Sola Scriptura. 2. Trent's own church says that scripture is "inspired" and that "God is the author" of scripture. You see this said in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and it uses 2 Tim 3:16 to support this. The RCC does not use this "life-giving" definition. So its odd how Trent is contradicting his own Catechism just to make an argument against Protestants.

[@Jessica-rb3ci]

Trent, as a protestant discerning catholicism I am on the hunt for work reg the authority of the priesthood particularly as to how it relates to consecrating the eucharist! Would love to see something about this from you!

[@TheCounselofTrent]

That's great to hear! While we can't promise any specific topics on upcoming videos, I can direct you to some good resources. First, I'd recommend looking into crossthetiber.org if you're looking for a community that's dedicated to answering questions about Catholicism. - Kyle

[@Jessica-rb3ci]

@@TheCounselofTrent thanks Kyle! Love the work you guys do. Trent's work has played a huge roll in how I got to where I am.

[@PatrickInCayman]

@drjanitor3747 lol! Interesting, you dont feel the need to provide supporting evidence for your accusations. Basic decency would require that of someone.

[@HillbillyBlack]

@@TheCounselofTrent Church revelation is not contained simply in scripture. scripture is the only God breathed source that is infallible and any extra biblical revelation must be filtered through scripture. That is the truth sola Scriptura doctrin. An example would be the very obvious Holy Spirit, derived tradition that keeps the church in the same service every day. I could have a conversation with someone all the way across the world over the same readings each day. That is clearly an extra biblical practice that was clearly influence by the Holy Spirit because it’s exemplified by scripture in the harmony of the church. My issue with the criticism that scripture is not made plain within its own self is that scripture itself describes the mind of those who believe versus those who don’t believe. And through scripture we can gather that when someone is in unbelief they’re completely blind and isolated from the truth of God. And if the truth of God is found only in the infallible Scriptures, then we can assume that those who believe are far less challenged to the Scriptures by comparison. I’ll demonstrate. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Clearly, when you have the mind of Christ, you have the understanding of Christ so there’s some understanding here that a spirit indwells the believer. So then one must ask, what is the benefit of the spirit? To answer this, we have to understand the disadvantages of not having the spirit. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. So, without the spirit, there’s clearly a type of antagonism from the unbeliever. Even though they “know” the truth, they’re not only antagonistic, but they purposefully suppress the truth of God with malice. They’re blind. They suppress the truth. So let’s look at the traits of those with the spirit. No one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. So, if we are driven by the spirit when we believe, then the benefits of the spirit is having the mind of God, and basically being unable to profess anything but belief in God. The implication of this is that once one is sealed and renewed by the radical transformation of salvation they’re completely unable to undo this action. In the same action, the unbeliever cannot choose righteousness. They’re incapable of choosing God by themselves. We must understand the extreme contrast and the label of intensity on both sides. If the unbeliever is unable to approach God on their own and the believer is unable to renounce God, then this is the action of a spirit within vs spirit without. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it CANNOT. So here’s the assurance of those who are truly radically transformed by the renewing of the mind. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God The spirit also groans and intercedes for us by leading us out of Temptations, sin, and towards obedience, and overcoming the world the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. We know the spirit works in this way, because we are promised a completion in Christ by an action that is independent of human will. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you/us will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Death) And because of this wonderful truth, we have a certainty that we cannot lose the gift of the spirit of God. Not even created things which includes YOU can undo this gift. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Without the Holy Spirit, no one can understand scripture not even Rome. This is one of the key benefits of true belief. It’s not just the fact that you’re going to heaven, but it’s the fact that you possess a quality of understanding that is supernatural. It’s a revealed truth that’s given to us overtime as were obedient and diligently, read the scriptures and pray for understanding. The natural man can’t do this. Only the believer in Christ into work by the Holy Spirit who has experience the radical transformation of the renewed mind can make any sense of scripture by themselves. Does this mean that they will interpret scripture perfectly? Nope. But it says that they possess a spiritual understanding that they did not possess as unbelievers. If they weren’t saved, they wouldn’t get it at all. If you’ve gotten this far, I have purposefully withheld the scriptural book, chapter and verse callouts to prove how easy it is to understand scripture for those who challenge the contrary. If you got this far and you understood every ounce of this, then the idea that you can’t understand scripture is completely bogus. And if you didn’t understand it, then you lack the inner Holy Spirit and need to resolve that with Christ immediately.

[@FirstLast-po8oz]

I feel like I'm remembering God breathing on the Apostles when he gives them their authority to bind and loose.

[@jbchoc]

The burden of the proof is on YOU that that is the case. 😆

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Jesus breated on the Apostles when He ordained then as priests and gave then the power to absolve and retain sin

[@TheologicalAmatuer]

Thanks for pointing that out

[@markv1974]

@@jbchocbut its proven that Jesus had a copy of the bible where he breathed on 😂😂.

[@nathanielalderson9111]

​@@jbchoc The proof of the claim is it's recorded as such in the Bible. He's directly quoting. You're asking for more, I think, which is not necessary.

[@TheJewishCatholic]

Absolutely excellent, Trent. I’ve been wanting someone to tackle the issues of basically hanging a whole theological concept on a single word.

[@jvlp2046]

Why did St. Paul say, "Hold on to both the Spoken/Oral Tradition and Written (Epistles/letters) Tradition?"... (ref. 2 Thessa 2:15)... because St. Paul knew he would not see the Final Completion of the WRITTEN TRADITION after his martyred down (beheaded) in around 64 A.D. ... The Last to be written down were the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation in around 110 A.D. According to John 21:25... there were many EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done but were not written down for the whole world can not contain them... Therefore, God had summarized all the EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done and had chosen only those with GREAT IMPORTANCE to Mankind's SALVATION to be written down by Inspired MEN (not women) guided by the Holy Spirit and completed them in around 110 A.D. Other written books after the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation around 110 A.D. onward were no longer included in the WORD OF GOD (Holy Scriptures)... such as the written Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Magdalene, Mary, Judas, Enoch, Pontius Pilate, etc... After the Written WORD of God was COMPLETED in around 110 A.D., it became more AUTHORITATIVE than the Oral Tradition... As long as the Oral Tradition does not contradict the Written Tradition, that means, God still wanted them to be practiced... However, if not, the Written Tradition must supersede, overrule, and remove that particular Oral Tradition to be practiced by True Christians... This was God's WILL (Prerogative), for if it is still required/needed, God would allow them to be written down in the first place... logically speaking. The Oral and Written Traditions must be UNITED as ONE w/o Division/Confusion... One (United) God, One WORD (Scripture), and One (Spiritual) TRUTH... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen..

[@theneighborguy]

Dude, the muppet caught me off gaurd lol.

[@joelfrombethlehem]

Thank you for clearing up this issue with Catholic Teaching

[@thecatholicmarine]

Trent please keep doing videos on Sola Scripturta. It's extremely helpful!!!

[@shlamallama6433]

I think this is a good idea.

[@peterzinya1]

Yeah, keep justifying why catholics hate the bible.

[@haronsmith8974]

@@peterzinya1 why would we hate something we wrote?

[@peterzinya1]

@@haronsmith8974 you wrote the bible. you catholics are hysterical.

[@geoffjs]

@@peterzinya1the inspired writers were Catholic!

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📖 *Introduction to Sola Scriptura* - Definition of Sola Scriptura: Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith. - Individual interpretation: Acknowledges other rules but places them under individual interpretation. - Questioning the basis: Examining why scripture is considered the sole infallible rule of faith. 01:09 🧐 *Key Word: Theophnustos (God-Breathed)* - Theophnustos in Second Timothy 3:16: Examination of the key word in the context of Sola Scriptura. - Different translations: Variations in translation, such as "God-breathed," "breathed out by God," or "inspired." - Argument for uniqueness: Protestants argue that the uniqueness of theophnustos makes scripture the sole infallible rule of faith. 03:09 🤔 *Challenges to the Assumption* - Root fallacy: Caution against determining a word's meaning solely from its root or constituent parts. - Lack of biblical occurrences: Theophnustos appears only once, making its interpretation challenging. - Active vs. passive sense: Questioning whether the word means "God-breathing" or "God-breathed" affects the argument. 06:38 📚 *Solo Scriptura Argument & Burden of Proof* - Solo Scriptura argument: The belief that only scripture is God-breathed and, therefore, the supreme authority. - Burden of proof: The challenge to demonstrate that nothing else can be God-breathed or have a similar divine authority. - Uniqueness of scripture: Asserting that scripture's uniqueness establishes its exclusive authority. 08:43 📖 *Theopnustos as Divine Effects* - Theopnustos as divine effects: Arguing that the term describes the divine effects of scripture on individuals. - Spiritual life-giving: The focus on scripture's ability to give spiritual life rather than its divine origin. - Paul's context in 2 Timothy 3:16: Emphasizing the salvific meaning within the context of warning about imposters. 14:32 📜 *Early Christian Usage of Theopnustos* - Early Christian usage: Exploring how early Christians applied the term to non-biblical writings and the Christian community. - Inspiration beyond scriptures: Recognition that inspiration was not limited to canonical writings. - Lack of evidence for exclusivity: The absence of evidence that early Christians confined inspiration to specific writings. 18:27 🧐 *Salvivic Meaning in Context of 2 Timothy 3:16* - Salvivic meaning in context: Interpreting theopnustos as spiritually life-giving within the context of 2 Timothy 3:16. - Usefulness of scripture: Highlighting that scripture is useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. - Absence of sufficiency claim: Noting that the text does not explicitly claim scripture's sufficiency. 22:52 🤯 *Challenge to Solo Scriptura's Comprehensive Content Claim* - Theopnustos and comprehensive content: Arguing against the claim that everything God wants the church to know is explicitly set down in scripture. - Individual books' limitations: Highlighting that individual books don't contain all necessary information for faith and practice. - Reevaluating the Solo Scriptura claim: Suggesting that theopnustos does not imply comprehensive content but spiritual life-giving qualities. 23:07 📚 *The Meaning of "Theopnustos" in Second Timothy 3:16* - Theopnustos analyzed in the context of Second Timothy 3:16. - Trent Horn addresses James White's objection and clarifies his position on biblical authorship. - Highlights the inconsistency in James White's use of liberal Catholic scholars in arguments. 25:07 📖 *Biblical Scholars and Canonical Authority* - Trent Horn discusses the importance of biblical authorship in Protestant arguments. - Points out the inconsistency in relying on biblical scholars for canonical authority. - Emphasizes the need for an external authority, like the Church, to confirm the canonical status of biblical books. 26:39 🔄 *The Genetic Fallacy in Evaluating Poirier's Argument* - Addresses the genetic fallacy in evaluating Poirier's argument. - Illustrates how the validity of an argument stands independently of the author's other beliefs. - Trent Horn cites Lee Martin McDonald as an additional scholar supporting the analysis of "theopnustos." 28:02 🚫 *Second Timothy 3:16 Does Not Prove Sola Scriptura* - Summarizes the main argument and evidence against using Second Timothy 3:16 to support Sola Scriptura. - Highlights the unwarranted assumptions and overextensions made in claiming scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith. - Emphasizes the need for a careful examination of biblical and historical evidence.

[@Gerschwin]

I've started pointing out to protestant brothers that we can definitely agree with what the Bible says... but once they start telling me what it means, I start asking "So, is your interpretation infallible?"

[@jm505]

Try that with the Trinity

[@sivad1025]

In fairness to the Protestant side, why does every interpretation have to be infallible? Clearly the Jews did not have infallible teachings on Old Testament scripture before Jesus came and clarified. God seems to intentionally leave aspects of his word vague so that the believers can struggle through interpretation as part of the faith. A better question to ask Protestants is "What makes you a believing Christian?" and is _"That_ interpretation infallible?" There you start to get into muddy territory

[@kiryu-chan577]

​@sivad1025 excellent way to form the question 👏🏽

[@JW_______]

So...is your belief in the infallibility of the magisterium's teaching on the interpretation of scripture infallible? You're chasing a level of certitude that is impossible in this life.

[@coachp12b]

Or how about what is scripture? And how do we know ?

[@Jay_in_Japan]

With sola scriptura, how do you determine the canon of Scripture? There's no book of the Bible that says, "these are the (66/73/81) books of the Bible". So you wind up relying on Tradition anyways, to determine the canon.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

And the Divine Inspiration of the Church Fathers like Jerome who compiled it.

[@lutheraholicism]

With magisterial authority, how do you determine whose authority is valid? There are all sorts of groups that claim descent from the Apostles, not just the bishop of Rome. It's almost as if ultimate authorities are self-attesting, otherwise they wouldn't be ultimate.

[@mzmPACman]

This is a shallow and fallacious argument that Catholics just cant get enough of. The canon defining itself logically impossible; because even if it did, we could then argue on what authority does X book or author define the whole canon of scripture? It came too early, it came too late, it was written by so-and-so, etc. The canon was discerned, divinely, by the early church. God's hand was absolutely present there, but the canonization of the Bible was a discovery, like an archeologist unearthing a fossil, rather than a council of men simply asserting tradition. Even if we look at the canon today alongside contemporary apostolic-era writings, it is *evident* why it is scripture. The internal consistency, the supporting scholarship, the corroboration of other sources, the number of manuscripts., etc. It's more than pure tradition, it's self-attesting.

[@donhaddix3770]

tradition is human, thus unreliable. you dismiss God in the process, thus you rely on yourself, a sad anchor

[@anthonymarimpietri8409]

⁠​⁠@@donhaddix3770as stated in this video, protestants rely on their own interpretation of scripture which is unreliable since scripture claims that “there is no prophesy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.” ( 2 Peter 1:20). And so you dismiss God in the process because Christ gave you a teaching authority and scripture teaches Christians to defer to their leaders. “All power in Heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20. “Remember your leaders who spoke (not wrote) the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.” Hebrews 13:7. “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Hebrews 13:17.

[@terryhartman9522]

Thank you for your clear teaching on this topic. I left the Lutheran (ELCA) church 3 years ago and I am very happy to be Catholic now. The 3 Solas no longer seemed logical to me since there have been so many splits within the Protestant denominations. I am thankful for the magisterium and Pope for being the rudder that keeps the Catholic church steady. It’s obvious the Holy Spirit is her guide.

[@HillbillyBlack]

Church revelation is not contained simply in scripture. scripture is the only God breathed source that is infallible and any extra biblical revelation must be filtered through scripture. That is the truth sola Scriptura doctrin. An example would be the very obvious Holy Spirit, derived tradition that keeps the church in the same service every day. I could have a conversation with someone all the way across the world over the same readings each day. That is clearly an extra biblical practice that was clearly influence by the Holy Spirit because it’s exemplified by scripture in the harmony of the church. My issue with the criticism that scripture is not made plain within its own self is that scripture itself describes the mind of those who believe versus those who don’t believe. And through scripture we can gather that when someone is in unbelief they’re completely blind and isolated from the truth of God. And if the truth of God is found only in the infallible Scriptures, then we can assume that those who believe are far less challenged to the Scriptures by comparison. I’ll demonstrate. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Clearly, when you have the mind of Christ, you have the understanding of Christ so there’s some understanding here that a spirit indwells the believer. So then one must ask, what is the benefit of the spirit? To answer this, we have to understand the disadvantages of not having the spirit. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. So, without the spirit, there’s clearly a type of antagonism from the unbeliever. Even though they “know” the truth, they’re not only antagonistic, but they purposefully suppress the truth of God with malice. They’re blind. They suppress the truth. So let’s look at the traits of those with the spirit. No one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. So, if we are driven by the spirit when we believe, then the benefits of the spirit is having the mind of God, and basically being unable to profess anything but belief in God. The implication of this is that once one is sealed and renewed by the radical transformation of salvation they’re completely unable to undo this action. In the same action, the unbeliever cannot choose righteousness. They’re incapable of choosing God by themselves. We must understand the extreme contrast and the label of intensity on both sides. If the unbeliever is unable to approach God on their own and the believer is unable to renounce God, then this is the action of a spirit within vs spirit without. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it CANNOT. So here’s the assurance of those who are truly radically transformed by the renewing of the mind. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God The spirit also groans and intercedes for us by leading us out of Temptations, sin, and towards obedience, and overcoming the world the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. We know the spirit works in this way, because we are promised a completion in Christ by an action that is independent of human will. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you/us will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Death) And because of this wonderful truth, we have a certainty that we cannot lose the gift of the spirit of God. Not even created things which includes YOU can undo this gift. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Without the Holy Spirit, no one can understand scripture not even Rome. This is one of the key benefits of true belief. It’s not just the fact that you’re going to heaven, but it’s the fact that you possess a quality of understanding that is supernatural. It’s a revealed truth that’s given to us overtime as were obedient and diligently, read the scriptures and pray for understanding. The natural man can’t do this. Only the believer in Christ into work by the Holy Spirit who has experience the radical transformation of the renewed mind can make any sense of scripture by themselves. Does this mean that they will interpret scripture perfectly? Nope. But it says that they possess a spiritual understanding that they did not possess as unbelievers. If they weren’t saved, they wouldn’t get it at all. If you’ve gotten this far, I have purposefully withheld the scriptural book, chapter and verse callouts to prove how easy it is to understand scripture for those who challenge the contrary. If you got this far and you understood every ounce of this, then the idea that you can’t understand scripture is completely bogus. And if you didn’t understand it, then you lack the inner Holy Spirit and need to resolve that with Christ immediately.

[@davidmccarroll8274]

The basic reason that there are many denominations ( with the exception of the C of E ) is that over time more man made traditions become more important than god's word and so a new denomination forms to get back to scripture and god's word .Sadly over time the cycle repeats itself .When I initially became a Christian in my 40s the holy spirits mane message that was continually reinforced was ( BELIEVE MY WORD ) It could not have been made any more clear .Anyone who undermines or contradicts scripture is calling Jesus a Liar.I trust god's word and if I misunderstand or mis interpret something I am happy to apologize to god and ask discernment to see what god wants me to see .god bless

[@HillbillyBlack]

@@davidmccarroll8274 amen it is not the will of human ability that we are made alive and new, but rather we are made alive and knew by God alone. Colossians 2:13 ESV And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, Ephesians 2:5 ESV even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- Who made you alive??? Jesus said John 14:15 "If you love me, you WILL keep my commandments. Did he say you can keep? Is it optional? No, he said you WILL keep. Look further… John 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he WILL keep my word, and my Father WILL love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Christ reconciles us to the Father for this benefit. Even when we were dead in our trespasses, he made us alive together with Christ-For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is NOT YOUR own doing; it is the GIFT of God, [9] not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

[@HillbillyBlack]

@@masinaverde901 Buddy, I’m a fan of exegesis and context, rather than taking a single passage and exploding it out of context. compare John 6:40 with John 6:54. beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35: (Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.”

[@HillbillyBlack]

@@masinaverde901 anything that I say that I believe from scripture, I believe is not me interpreting through my brain, rather the app flowing of the inner spirit. I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. Therefore, I can rely on nothing else but the spirit within. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. So, how can we trust anything we read? First, do you ask God for revelation? And what does your conscience tell you inside? You can trust your conscience if you’re guided by the Holy Spirit.

[@wthibeau]

One of the best CoT episodes. Share with the Prots!

[@Orthocurious]

Hey Trent! I left Protestantism partly from your help from your KZbin Channel. I was convinced to go the Eastern Orthodox route, but nonetheless, within our areas of overlap your videos and debates have been greatly helpful!

[@zachpatterson434]

I think there is stability in the fact that the words are on the page (in the original languages) in the order the Author/author intended them to be. Though we may come to better understand the meaning and interpretation there is stability in knowing this is unchangeable. It adds an element of reliability that could be seen as a higher quality than that of human interpretation. That being said, Sola Scriptura may be untenable in that it was the Holy Spirit working through the early church that decided which books were Scripture to begin with.

[@stevenharder308]

I was raised a fundamentalist Evangelical, and I never heard anything but slander about Catholics. Within that context, I came to realize that Sola Scriptura was a profoundly stupid and disingenuous doctrine, but I blindly assumed that Catholics held it too. My own ignorance and stupidity led me to conclude that scriptural inerrancy was false, which, of course, makes the history of the “church” and even Jesus’ attitude toward scripture mostly ridiculous. Seeing that needle threaded by the Catholic Church was an eye opener, and it utterly destroyed any illusions I had left about supposed “biblical” authority in Protestantism. In large part I was overjoyed to discover the truth, but there are no words to describe my fury at the stupidity of my upbringing (other than “stupid”) and the knowledge that everything I experienced is still commonplace. So, you know, pray for me.

[@davidmccarroll8274]

If you think that sole scripture is disingenuous and stupid I would respectfully remind you that Jesus is the word made flesh and Jesus is god incarnate !!!

[@stevenharder308]

@@davidmccarroll8274 let me see if I understand you. Since Jesus is called “the Word made flesh” and people refer to scripture as “the Word of God” you think this means that Jesus is the living incarnation of the Bible?

[@davidmccarroll8274]

@@stevenharder308 no not quit what I was saying .I was told that solar scripture is disingenuous .My response was that Jesus is the word made flesh and he is also god .Therefore to call solar scripture disingenuous is an insult both to Jesus and god .Anything that contradicts scripture is calling god a liar.

[@stevenharder308]

@@davidmccarroll8274 we agree on scripture and disagree on “scripture alone.” I’m contradicting the latter, mostly because I think it contradicts scripture.

[@davidmccarroll8274]

@@stevenharder308 Given the hypothetical that someone of high authority in the Catholic church says something in direct contradiction to scripture which is right and why ?

[@TuckerFinch]

If I may, this video is theopneustos (spiritually life giving). You did a great job at refuting the classic protestant talking points. The extra-biblical evidence of the word's use makes your case open and shut if you ask me. Thanks for all your great work. I do have a point to make, and I'm not sure if it makes all that much sense, but I thought I could run it by you, Trent. Protestants will cite 2nd Timothy 3:16 to prove that sola scriptura is true, but they are referring to something that Paul was likely not referring to. Paul would have been referring to the Old Testament scriptures, maybe some of the early gospel writings, correct? I think the case from 2nd Timothy 3:16 sorta falls apart because Paul was not referring to that letter itself as inspired by God. I feel like if you were to challenge a protestant on this, they would have to say that it was recognised as inspired later in time, but doesn't that just prove the catholic position? Interested to get your thoughts on this as I'm new to the apologetics game ;) Take care and God bless!

[@tfr2602]

You are correct, it actually does. Quite interesting, and I take Trent's apologetics classes and this makes perfect sense.

[@TuckerFinch]

@@tfr2602 Cool, thank you! It's cool that when you watch a bunch of videos over time on apologetics you really start to pick certain things up. The Catholic faith really is the total and complete truth!!!

[@AnastasiaR]

Wow, that's a really good point. You still need someone to have the authority to later say which scripture is theopneustos, including the very letter in which this word appears.

[@Steven_piedra]

Trent you should do a book on Sola Scriptura. Greetings from Costa Rica

[@jesusmarywillsaveyou]

Wow, i have only grasped the full depth of this video after coming back to it again. Definitely one to save and share with others, both Cath's and Prot's. Really great one, Trent. Also, a simple point for all Prot's: "ALL Scripture..." (2 Tim 3.16), does not mean, "ONLY Scripture..." "ALL tigers are orange and black", cannot mean ONLY they are. Or, "all apples are round" definitely cannot mean only they are. That's why in John 20:22 Our Lord literally breathed (i.e. God breathed) also on the Apostles the Holy Ghost, the very same Apostles who not only transmitted Sacred Scripture but also passed on oral teachings to us, which is transmitted through their enduring "bishoprick" (viz. office of bishop, Acts 1.20) which has continued to this day. In other words, just there we have valid support that Scripture is not the only thing God breathed/inspired/salvific. And yes, Acts 1.20 demonstrates Apostolic Succession, meaning their bishops office (not apostolic office) has continued till today because Christ wanted it that way, read Matt 28:16-20.

[@jaikelr]

Thank you Trent. Keep the good work!

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

Learning that sola-scriptura is false is what often helps Protestants leave their sects and become fully Christian.

[@ElijahMiller-x2n]

You’re not Christian. Mary isn’t sinless talk about false teachings

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

​@@ElijahMiller-x2nI am Christian now. I used to be Protestant.

[@jacobrodriguez7771]

@@ElijahMiller-x2n Of course she's sinless. Your Church was started by some random guy, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ. Catholic Church = Fullness of truth. Protestantism = Heresy.

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

​@@MrKingishere1You're not understanding my brother.

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

​@@jacobrodriguez7771SOLA SCRIPTURA = 666 × 666 Prot denominations 😂😂😂

[@robertajaycart3491]

I read and studied the Scriptures and they led me to Catholicism, how do others not see this.

[@Olc...]

Show me how scripture led you to Catholicism. Thanks.

[@Olc...]

@DudeNamedDuncan because of" how do others not see this". What others don't see?

[@crisgon9552]

​@oc301 I would say to read John 6. Then to begin to study what the Early Church believed it meant because they were taught by the Apostles themselves. Would you die for a lie? The Early Church believed in the Real Presence.

[@Olc...]

@@crisgon9552 Tell me what John 6 means?

[@crisgon9552]

@@Olc... I would really urge you to read it yourself. I will give you the same advice a lot of great Protestant pastor have told me, read the Bible with an open heart and pray. Pray that God leads you and for His will be done. God Bless.

[@oldmovieman7550]

I’m a former Catholic now reformed Protestant. To me the best argument for the Catholic understanding of authority is that there needs to be a final arbiter of what scripture is teaching. Ironically I suppose, that’s also my biggest hang up with Catholic teaching because it seems, in effect, to put the Pope or the magisterium above the scriptures.

[@danielmeadows3712]

Hi oldmovieman, hope you and your family are well. I am sorry to hear that you have left the church, this truly saddens me. As a former Catholic I assume you have an understanding of Papal authority regarding our lord temporarily handing the keys to heaven until his return. This does not infer a higher authority than scripture but does state a definitive interpretation and deposit of the faith. A pope does not have authority to change Dogma , only to define correct teachings that may come into question as is the case with councils throughout history to correct heretical ideas. For example, the question of Christs divinity was defined in the council of Nicea to counter argue Arianism in the fourth century. That is , Christ divinity was always Catholic belief, unfortunately it had to be defined due to false teachings creeping into the Church. If this problem arose within a Protestant Church I not sure we would of had the same outcome? I hope that one day you will return to Gods holy Church, God bless you and your family.

[@jerome2642]

Not really. The fact is that there would always be moments when controversies would arise among christians over the correct interpretation of a particular passage in the Bible. At such moments, it is the responsibility of the CHURCH (i.e the leadership/hierarchy of the church) to step in and settle the matter by giving the TRUE interpretation of the Bible passage in question. This is because God has ensured that the CHURCH would ALWAYS uphold the TRUTH (that is why Paul referred to the CHURCH as the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH. 1 Timothy 3:15) In this way, the church is not placing itself ABOVE scripture but at the SERVICE of scripture.

[@Ourlady898]

Me too Former Catholic to evangelical Christian.

[@MrPeach1]

I do think that is the hang up. Especially when you read something that you think the Catholic church does that contradict scripture. Unfortunately whether something contradicts scripture or not is a matter of personal reading comprehension. For instance the commandment to have no graven images. People either understand the Catholic position in the 10 commandments or they read the 10 commandments differently. As a Catholic I look to understand the churches interpretation and see how it harmonizes with scripture.

[@acTioNFLp]

In a sense, the Church IS above Scripture, because it is the Church that defines what Scripture is. And the Bible itself points to the Church being the pillar and foundation of truth in 1 Timothy 3:15.

[@Fitzn]

I remember in highschool, debating one of my friends on why us Catholics weren't worshiping the anti-christ... everything was met by "Where's that in the bible!?". Finally I said, "Where did Jesus say he left us a Bible, in the bible!?" That wasnt a "valid" question Still couldnt really get through. I pray our exchanges stick with him to this day, as it did with me. He had great faith in our Lord, and I knew he would make a great Catholic. I love converts. They so desperately seek Christ in protestant churches, and once they find him in the Catholic Church, they are some of the most inspirational members of our community

[@Burberryharry]

I decided to remain a Protestant for various reasons but your thumbnails are spot on. Plus you should of added the other Paul on that thumb nail lol

[@Dhavroch]

Like many other commenters, sola scriptura has always been the big sticking point for me with Protestantism, I’ve always loved the dual approach of Catholicism and Orthodoxy with scripture and tradition being the authorities of doctrine.

[@geoffjs]

Oral Sacred Tradition which St Paul refers to 2 Thess 2:15 has existed from the time of Jesus and before the Bible was codified in 382 thereby complementing the bible as not everything is in it Jn 21:25. The bible was not mass printed until the 15th century and in any event, few people were literate so oral tradition was the default

[@shlamallama6433]

I appreciate this video, Trent. If they don't provide a sufficient rebuttal to these arguments, then I think Protestant apologists should retire the theopneustos argument. God bless!

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

Pray for them my brother that they may leave Protestantism and becoming truly and authentically Christian.

[@gideondavid30]

​@@Theosis_and_prayer What is "truly Christian"?

[@garrettwilliams6396]

@@gideondavid30 As a Catholic, we believe the true church is the Catholic church. The church founded by Christ. In the same way Protestants believe their way of thinking is the true way to be a Christian, we believe being Catholic is the true way to be a Christian.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

What arguments?? "Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth."- Jeremiah chapter 1 verse 9. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqvMi5dtiMufi6M

[@babylonsfall7]

It’s funny to me because from what I can tell, you don’t need a Bible verse to tell you that the most careful way to try to understand what the Apostles passed down to us is to hold the 27 writings that every church on the planet believes are from them (or derived from them directly) and weigh anything else trying to be pressed forward as “tradition” by those. Isn’t that just common sense?

[@tonyl3762]

James White is going berserk watching this! Good to come back to it since you mentioned this in your debate with Ortlund.

[@PatrickInCayman]

James white doesn't read or watch materials that doesn't agree with his interpretations. Hence why he's still caught in his misrepresentations from 40 years ago

[@tonyl3762]

@@PatrickInCayman He's going to watch clips at the very least. Someone will let him know about this video. Just too much for him to not to react to it.

[@PatrickInCayman]

@@tonyl3762 Precicely

[@tfr2602]

James White should've taken the cues from Madrid back in the early 90's where he could never truthfully answer Madrid's issue of Scripture's material and formal sufficiency to show why certain Biblical passages do indeed not prove Sola Scriptura. Ck out the debate, and you will see.

[@NATAR160]

Let him call these ppl to debate. The first to bring his case seems right...

[@ninjason57]

Hey Trent, as a Non-Catholic Jesus follower I’ve watched a dozen or more of your videos and I always get the sense that you feel you hold a superior position than anyone else you critique. It would be good to see you make a video about certain theological ideas or doctrinal arguments that have changed your mind so your audience doesn’t think you’re 100% biased. Unless I’ve missed a video you’ve made discussing that topic.

[@coffeeanddavid]

Thirty seconds in and we already have a false dichotomy: alternative rules of faith subordinate to scripture =/= alternative rules of faith are subordinate to an individual's interpretation of scripture. For the Reformers, Sola Scriptura served a *specific* purpose. The purpose was not literally to be: "Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church." Its purpose was to a standard for judging dogmas, controversies are then "explained and determined in a Christian way..." as noted in the Solid Declarations of the AC. This is because Scripture is true and truth can be found in it. That's very specific. When one engages with Sola Scriptura's well defined purpose, it's very easy to understand. Hence why we agree with the church fathers: "The sacred and divinely inspired writings are sufficient in themselves to discern truth." - St Athanasius. "Neither should we follow the custom of man, but the truth of God." - St. Cyprian. "Nor should you simply believe my words unless you receive proof from Holy Writ of what is told you." St. Cyril. "We should confirm everything we say from Sacred Scriptures." - St. Jerome. “The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later, by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.” Irenaeus “All things are clear and plain from the divine Scriptures; whatever things are necessary are manifest.” Chryostom "Let them show their church it they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord, but by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself... He must strengthen them [His disciples] with the testimonies from the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, etc. These, are the documents of our cause, these the foundations, these the pillars." - Augustine. However, once one starts adding to it, or creating false dichotomies with it - it gets complex and one ends up refuting the strawman they created.

[@M00Z1LLA]

His strawman argument rests on a very post-modernist view that the scriptures have infinite subjective interpretations. One does not need a Magisterium to conclude objective truth from them. And like you say, Sola Scriptura just means the scriptures are infallible and can not be overruled by traditions or decrees of men.

[@crimson6172]

We don't need walls and walls of text to know that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine. None of that is useful when it produces a wildly inconsistent result. I don't even know what denomination you are and for all I know, you could be a JW who, as you know, doesn't believe in the trinity. If you are not a JW, you would say that they interpreted the bible incorrectly. But they would say the same thing about you.

[@jonathanhnosko7563]

Hello Trent, As a Protestant I think this is brilliant! After originally rolling my eyes at the idea of going through a video purported to debunk an idea based on one word, I am glad I did. Your treatment of theopneustos (thanks for the pronunciation help) was very insightful. This has me rethinking the helpfulness of the term Sola Scriptura and its common definition(s). The emphasis on Scripture as life-giving and salvific takes the discussion in a refreshing direction. It reminds me of Athanasius of Alexandria who wrote the following in his 39th Paschal Letter (367 A.D.): “These [the divinely inspired Scriptures] are the fountains of salvation, that those who thirst may be satisfied with the living waters they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.” These sentiments seem in keeping with both your emphasis on Scripture as life-giving and your opponents’ emphasis on the unique role of Scripture when it comes to faith and practice. You rightly point out that just because something has a special status, e.g. the Holy Scriptures are the very words of God, does not mean that aspect is limited to that entity alone. However, they are right to ask if the Church catholic ever makes such a claim of anything else, e.g. a tradition, a council, a creed, a single bishop, or group of bishops, and, if so, for what reason? On these points I keep coming back to what Cyril of Jerusalem wrote in his Catechetical Lectures (350 A.D.) below with my comments in (): “Even to me (archbishop of the mother church of Jerusalem), who tell you these things (teaching catechumens the tenants of the faith), give not absolute credence (no concept of infallibility), unless you receive proof of the things which I announce (laity are encouraged and deemed able to judge) from the Divine Scriptures (the Standard). For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (4.17) "But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and (it seems this next part is not a given) which is built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since not all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance (of what is contained in Scripture), we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith (as contained in Scripture) in a few lines...So, for the present listen while I simply say the Creed and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture (the Standard) of each part of the contents. For the articles (same as previous “whole doctrine”) of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of (as contained in) all the Scriptures make up one complete teaching (same as previous “whole doctrine”) of the Faith." (5.12) "For the things concerning Christ are all put into writing, and nothing is doubtful, for nothing is without a text (otherwise they might be doubtful). All are inscribed on the monuments of the Prophets (I love the emphasis on the Old Testament as the foundational Scriptures for the New Testament Church 300 years in); clearly written, not on tablets of stone, but by the Holy Ghost (of divine origin)." (13.8) So, instead of Sola Scriptura, meaning the sole infallible rule of faith, what do you think of the idea that the Holy Scriptures are attested to as sure (reliable and true) in a way that nothing else is? My reasoning is threefold. First, the Prophetic and Apostolic emphasis on the writing of representative anthologies of divine revelation. Second, the corroborating witness of the early church to the adequacy of Scripture. Third, the unparalleled consensus on the nature and contents of Scripture, especially the unrivaled number of manuscripts compared to any other documents of antiquity and more nebulous tradition(s). We can be sure of it as we can be sure of nothing else?

[@marcosdiego9060]

SAINT ATHANASIO OF ALEXANDRIA (+373) “But our faith is correct, beginning with the teaching of the apostles and the Tradition of the priests, being confirmed by both Testaments.” (Epis 60). This great Father of the Church also said: “But after the devil, and with him, come all those who invent illegal heresies, which, although they refer to Scripture, do not maintain the same opinions that the Saints transmitted, and, not knowing them or to their power they receive traditions of men falling into error.” (Festal Letter 2) “We agree that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor do the parents hold to it.” (St. Athanasius, Epicletus, Epistle 59,3). As can be seen, Saint Athanasius not only preserved Tradition but also believed in the Magisterium of the Church. He further said: “The confession reached at Nicaea was, we affirm, most sufficient and sufficient in itself for the subversion of all heresy contrary to religion, and for the security and development of the doctrine of Christ.” (Ad Afros 1) “But the Word of God that came through the Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea remains forever.” (Ad Afros 2) “Do they not commit a crime in thinking that they can contradict such a great and universal Council?” (From decretis 4) And the Council stated: “I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” See this further: “But what is also important, let us note that the very Tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which was given by the Lord, was preached by the apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; if anyone departs from this, he is not and should no longer be called a Christian.” (Saint Athanasius, Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1,28-).

[@christinemcguiness9356]

Thank you Trent. Great video and most informative. God bless🙏

[@thegoatofyoutube1787]

Been thinking about this a lot. Different Protestants say sola scriptura means different things but, at the end of the day, no understanding of it actually works in practice. You can be like Gavin Ortlund and make it seem as reasonable as humanly possible “we still accept history and tradition; it’s just not infallible…” etc. Almost feel like we (as Catholics) need to just tell our individual Protestant friends “you tell me what sola scriptura means” and then walk them through how that definition still leads to chaos.

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

Some great points. Plus, 95% of modern day Prots don't even define sola scriptura anymore the way Ortlund does. Even during the 16th century, the Prots themselves debated what sola scriptura actually entailed. One of Ortlund's major moves is to create the impression Protestantism is monolithic in its understanding and use of sola scriptura. Many are now seeing through this.

[@sivad1025]

I'm still protestant. I would say I believe in the infallibility of scripture and sacred tradition, though I don't entirely know what that encompasses. I would deny the ongoing infallibility of the magisterium. Catholics make their best point when they say that we can't know the scripture is infallible without tradition. I agree, we need to accept the infallibility of sacred tradition to even begin understanding scripture. My problem with the magisterium is not that they merely have authority (I would be fine with that), but that they claim perpetual infallibility centuries removed from the apostles. I cannot accept transubstantiation as the Catholic church puts it because it is so foreign to the fathers. I accept the doctrine of real presence, but there were many theories explaining the nature of real presence. The Catholic church had no need to step in and declare one correct. And frankly, I'm not sure how I can know that they chose the right one. That's the crux of my problem. When an issue has been debated for centuries, how can the leaders of the Catholic church possibly deduce which is true?

[@coachp12b]

Most Protestants from my limited anecdotal experience don’t know exactly why they’re Protestant. Either born into it or because of a thousand false claims made against the Church that makes them keep it at arm’s length or even hate it.

[@canibezeroun1988]

This is where you must have faith that God means it when He said he'll lead the Church into all truth.

[@coachp12b]

@@sivad1025 the answer to your last question lies in the authority of “binding and loosing” Matthew 16:19 (RSVCE): I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The Church has always believed that this charism lives on in the successors of Peter the Popes and the Apostles the Bishops. Ascension Press has a great article “Where Did the Term ‘Transubstantiation’ Come From?”

[@skyelord6229]

Thanks for this video, and all your work refuting the tenets of Protestantism. I live in the SE US and am surrounded by Protestants...

[@peterzinya1]

Lousy protestants. They dont even make and bow befor graven images.

[@HillbillyBlack]

Church revelation is not contained simply in scripture. scripture is the only God breathed source that is infallible and any extra biblical revelation must be filtered through scripture. That is the truth sola Scriptura doctrin. An example would be the very obvious Holy Spirit, derived tradition that keeps the church in the same service every day. I could have a conversation with someone all the way across the world over the same readings each day. That is clearly an extra biblical practice that was clearly influence by the Holy Spirit because it’s exemplified by scripture in the harmony of the church. My issue with the criticism that scripture is not made plain within its own self is that scripture itself describes the mind of those who believe versus those who don’t believe. And through scripture we can gather that when someone is in unbelief they’re completely blind and isolated from the truth of God. And if the truth of God is found only in the infallible Scriptures, then we can assume that those who believe are far less challenged to the Scriptures by comparison. I’ll demonstrate. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Clearly, when you have the mind of Christ, you have the understanding of Christ so there’s some understanding here that a spirit indwells the believer. So then one must ask, what is the benefit of the spirit? To answer this, we have to understand the disadvantages of not having the spirit. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. So, without the spirit, there’s clearly a type of antagonism from the unbeliever. Even though they “know” the truth, they’re not only antagonistic, but they purposefully suppress the truth of God with malice. They’re blind. They suppress the truth. So let’s look at the traits of those with the spirit. No one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. So, if we are driven by the spirit when we believe, then the benefits of the spirit is having the mind of God, and basically being unable to profess anything but belief in God. The implication of this is that once one is sealed and renewed by the radical transformation of salvation they’re completely unable to undo this action. In the same action, the unbeliever cannot choose righteousness. They’re incapable of choosing God by themselves. We must understand the extreme contrast and the label of intensity on both sides. If the unbeliever is unable to approach God on their own and the believer is unable to renounce God, then this is the action of a spirit within vs spirit without. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it CANNOT. So here’s the assurance of those who are truly radically transformed by the renewing of the mind. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God The spirit also groans and intercedes for us by leading us out of Temptations, sin, and towards obedience, and overcoming the world the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. We know the spirit works in this way, because we are promised a completion in Christ by an action that is independent of human will. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you/us will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Death) And because of this wonderful truth, we have a certainty that we cannot lose the gift of the spirit of God. Not even created things which includes YOU can undo this gift. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Without the Holy Spirit, no one can understand scripture not even Rome. This is one of the key benefits of true belief. It’s not just the fact that you’re going to heaven, but it’s the fact that you possess a quality of understanding that is supernatural. It’s a revealed truth that’s given to us overtime as were obedient and diligently, read the scriptures and pray for understanding. The natural man can’t do this. Only the believer in Christ into work by the Holy Spirit who has experience the radical transformation of the renewed mind can make any sense of scripture by themselves. Does this mean that they will interpret scripture perfectly? Nope. But it says that they possess a spiritual understanding that they did not possess as unbelievers. If they weren’t saved, they wouldn’t get it at all. If you’ve gotten this far, I have purposefully withheld the scriptural book, chapter and verse callouts to prove how easy it is to understand scripture for those who challenge the contrary. If you got this far and you understood every ounce of this, then the idea that you can’t understand scripture is completely bogus. And if you didn’t understand it, then you lack the inner Holy Spirit and need to resolve that with Christ immediately.

[@samuelnicacio4621]

Babe wake up, laura's husband dropped a new video

[@glencoelho8242]

Hi Trent, you are spot on. Such videos enrich us. Keep up the good work you are doing to guard the deposit of faith. As much as Protestants like to take things out of context from scriptures, they also do the same for the Church Fathers so that it fits their theology. They just can’t accept the truth objectively.

[@peterzinya1]

At least you wont find prots on their knees befor graven(carved,engraved) images. Jesus has 7 churches (Rev 1- 3). What Trent will never tell you is that none of Jesus churches are in Rome.

[@glencoelho8242]

@@peterzinya1 those are not the only churches as recorded in the NT. What relevance does Rome have with these churches and how does your question pertain to the topic at hand?

[@peterzinya1]

@@glencoelho8242 you say prots are wrong and the CC at Rome is the true church. Too bad none of Jesus churches are in Rome. If prots are wrong, so is the CC.

[@glencoelho8242]

@@peterzinya1 As we see in Acts of the Apostles, the Apostles moved about the world preaching the Gospel. In their travels, they formed particular Churches - referring to a territory. Of the many particular Churches that were formed by the apostles on their missionary trips, five became the predominant patriarchal sees. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were formed in the Greek East by Andrew, Mark, Peter, and James respectively. Peter also founded the Church of Rome in the Latin west. As the primacy was placed upon Peter by Christ Jesus, the Church in Rome, led by the Bishop in Rome, has always led the Catholic Church in doctrinal matters. The Pope, Pontifex Maximus, Holy Father, Bishop of Rome…the Bishop of Rome goes by many titles, as the primacy is his. He is at the top of the hierarchy, the supreme legislator, for the Catholic Church. If you were baptized into the rites, traditions, and customs of the Roman Catholic Church, that is the Latin Rite - you refer to yourself as Roman Catholic. You fall under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, whose territorial dioceses extend around the world. Whereas, for example, if you were born in Lebanon, you may have been baptized into the Maronite Rite of the Catholic Church - you profess the same creed, hierarchy, and sacraments as the Roman Catholics, but your traditions, customs, and liturgical practice will differ. You would fall under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of the Maronite rite and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Church (CCEO). Saint Ambrose, speaking on the differing liturgical practices of the Catholic Church throughout the world, coined the phrase that was later rendered into, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” While less eloquent, today it may be better to follow, “When a Roman Catholic, follow the Code of Canon Law.” That’s the abbreviated version of why we’re “Roman” Catholic. You wouldn't have figured this out from Scripture Alone, we need the Sacred Traditions as St. Paul says - stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

[@gnomeresearch1666]

One thing that led me to Catholicism was the sticking issue that somehow Luther was able to unilaterally breath away multiple books of Scripture. Sure, one can debate the extent to which these books figure in the hierarchy of all others in the canon, but how one man was able to make this decision, by what divine authority, thereby essentially robbing the vast majority of all protestants of these edifying and inspired works known to Our Lord and the apostles was conclusive in abandoning my disdain for Catholicism. My eyes opened to the errors of the protestant traditions of my ancestors. My heart softened to His Church. May God have mercy on us as we are led to truth and unity.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

This is precisely what I ask Protestants. Why are the Church Fathers fallible in some areas but not others? For example Jerome, calls people who are part of break away churches formed in the name of men (e.g. Luther-ans, Calvin-ists) as part of the "synagogue of antichrist" (Jerome's letter to the Luciferians 379AD). But the same Jerome is enormously responsible for compilation of the first Bible, started in 382AD. So the Holy Spirit fills Jerome only when he's compiling the Bible and at no other time? But some dude comes along 1500 years later and has divine inspiration over the Bible...horse manure....

[@gideondavid30]

@@alisterrebelo9013 People are fallible, scripture us not. A scientist can discover gravity or another planet but cheat on his wife. The faith comes in when we believe God guides fallible people to record truth without error. Protestants believe thar revelation stopped coming after the 1st century. So do Catholics. The difference, however, is that Cstholics believe their church orthodoxy is error free in their interpretation. Interpretation and revelation are two different things. Regardless, the Protestant is asking for sufficient grounds to trust the interpretation of another. We are simply not convinced that the Catholic Church has this power. Hypothetically, God could establish an infallible magisterium we just have no grounds to believe it exists. We are not convinced.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@gideondavid30 can you please go and read Jerome's specific writing that I quoted before responding to my claim about the Chruch Fathers? I'm looking for a refutation for that specific writing, not a general refutation of the Church Fathers. Thanks. You also didnt get the point i was making. How can Jerome be inspired when compiling the Bible (was he not reading the text before deciding what to do with it?) be a nonsequiter to his understanding of it? You haven't shown a clearly objectionable point he's made theologically to dismiss him entirety out of hand. Which would still not be sufficient, but baby step me through this. I'm not saying they were inspired in the same way as a public revelation, don't strawman me. Inspired enough to compile the Bible. You'd be wise not to challenge this one, because then you have to explain why Luther is greater than the Church Fathers when deciding which books go into the Bible being 1500 years away in time, corresponding geography and cessation of public revelation.

[@Alfredo8059]

@@gideondavid30 ,It's puzzling to see Protestants claim sola scriptura when their principal distinction (faith alone) is not even explicitly taught in Scripture. " and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2; " If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." 1 Cor. 16:22; " Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." Jn 14:23; " Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;" 1 Thess 1:3; " Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2: 24, etc, etc

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@gideondavid30 I say this from experience in online apologetics and with great charity. I won't be surprised if you don't engage with anything I ask you to look at. In general, Protestants, like Muslims and atheists have a strong tendency to put on blinkers and remain within their echo chambers. You're Protestant #5 to ignore the reference to Jerome. I'll quote his writing section here in the hope that I get some sort of defense from you. "We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc), you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."

[@eyefisher]

2 Timothy 3:16 1/2 says: "...Including this letter, a bunch of other letters I wrote, and some other books that haven't been written yet"

[@chrispowell1768]

Thanks for this short presentation, I am probably going to use it as a springboard into a discussion of 2 Timothy 3 once I am done reviewing your debate with Gavin Ortlund on my blog.

[@mitromney]

I'm still not sure what exactly is the difference between Sola Scriptura and the Catholic position. Trent says that Protestants end up just discrening everything individually, because Sola Scriptura means you end up with your personal interpretation being what's true. But... that's EXACTLY the same for Catholics... In Catholic Church there is no fixed list of infallible magisterial statements, or dogmas, or traditions, or council documents, or anything of sorts. When I asked Trent in Chat about what do I follow as a Catholic, he replied with "best place to start in Cathecism of Catholic Church" but then he said in his dabate with Gavin, that rejection of death penalty IS AN INCORRECT, fallible addition made by Pope Francis... even though it's included in the Cathecism! And elsewhere he said once again, that Cathecism is not infallible and that it quotes plenty of fallible documents... And it's not just second rate subjects that are at stake here... that clearly is the case even for the most essential subjects, like Salvation... Several consecutive Popes at this point, starting with John Paul 2, thru Benedict and Francis (JP2 is the one who signed joined declaration with Protestants), affirmed Luther's version of being saved by grace through faith alone, apart from works. But Horn rejects that, and says that if they really mean what they say, they are mistaken. OR SO HE SAYS. I have to literally either pick his version of Salvation, or what the Popes are tellling me here guys. It IS ALL UP TO ME and my personal judgement. Everything, including my very salvation. I see no difference between Sola Scriptura and Catholic view. In either case, I decide what I believe based on a set of ancient documents and my favorite, modern theologians that I choose to listen on my own. Catholics simply have a much larger buffet of documents to choose from. But which ones are infallible, and what exactly are they saying? That, once again, is ultimately for me to decide. In the end, it's all the same, only it's more confusing for Catholics. I really think I'll stick with the Bible, it's shorter and more consistent then 2000 years worth of often contradictory documents, councils, and what not... I just see no reason to pick Catholic version here...

[@mortensimonsen1645]

What is the teaching on marriage in your own interpretation? This is an extremely important topic today and the Catholic Church has an answer. Also on salvation I feel your trying to make a problem.

[@oliverllewellyn7555]

You’re right - most Catholic apologists will tell you that the Church hasn’t enumerated infallible interpretations of a lot of scripture, but you can be sure that no one’s interpretation can be infallible apart from the Church’s … men and councils are, have been, and always will be fallible - can you say the same about the Word of God?

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

it doesn't matter if a teaching is infallible or not, all catholics must obey to it.

[@mitromney]

@@mortensimonsen1645 What do you mean, Church's teaching on marriage? You mean, can homosexuals marry or not? Well, if you look at fr. James Martin and plenty of other Catholics - both lay and priests, they would tell you that neither the Church, nor the Bible really prohibit the true homosexual marriages. That the old teachings are actually speaking about abusive relationships, and that modern science revealed that sexuality is something you do not choose... not a sin. Not something abusive. That it can be something beautiful, holy. They would bless homosexual marriages and say that the Church is going to change the teaching on that soon. Look at what happened in Germany. Dozens of bishops, a whole council of them and their best "Catholic" lay people, voted for the Church to BLESS homosexual marriages. So, you may be saying that Catholic Church has an answer to the problem of marriage, but not all Catholics would see eye to eye with you on that - and in the end, it is still up to you, to listen to them, and their bishops and priests, or to choose the "traditional" view. Exactly the same goes for Protestant, who, on the traditional side, have Scriptures clearly teaching against homosexuality, while the more liberal churches would say all of the pro-LGBT nonsense I've listed above as their arguments to change the traditions too. We're all in the same boat. They have the Scriptures, and people who try to convince them that they've got the Scripture's figured wrong, and we have our traditions, and people who try to convince us that we've got them wrong. Tell me again, how is the rejection of Sola Scriptura an advantage to us there? And as for Salvation, I really can't understand how is that a small issue... Is there any bigger issues in the Church at all? A bigger one than how do we get to heaven? Really?

[@Cklert]

You do realize we have pretty specific conditions for statements to be infallible correct?

[@bradleytarr2482]

Trent, please do an in-depth book refuting Sola Scriptura. Just like when Scott Hahn wrote "The Fourth Cup," we need all of your best thoughts on refuting Sola Scriptura, in one place.

[@HillbillyBlack]

Church revelation is not contained simply in scripture. scripture is the only God breathed source that is infallible and any extra biblical revelation must be filtered through scripture. That is the truth sola Scriptura doctrin. An example would be the very obvious Holy Spirit, derived tradition that keeps the church in the same service every day. I could have a conversation with someone all the way across the world over the same readings each day. That is clearly an extra biblical practice that was clearly influence by the Holy Spirit because it’s exemplified by scripture in the harmony of the church. My issue with the criticism that scripture is not made plain within its own self is that scripture itself describes the mind of those who believe versus those who don’t believe. And through scripture we can gather that when someone is in unbelief they’re completely blind and isolated from the truth of God. And if the truth of God is found only in the infallible Scriptures, then we can assume that those who believe are far less challenged to the Scriptures by comparison. I’ll demonstrate. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Clearly, when you have the mind of Christ, you have the understanding of Christ so there’s some understanding here that a spirit indwells the believer. So then one must ask, what is the benefit of the spirit? To answer this, we have to understand the disadvantages of not having the spirit. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. So, without the spirit, there’s clearly a type of antagonism from the unbeliever. Even though they “know” the truth, they’re not only antagonistic, but they purposefully suppress the truth of God with malice. They’re blind. They suppress the truth. So let’s look at the traits of those with the spirit. No one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. So, if we are driven by the spirit when we believe, then the benefits of the spirit is having the mind of God, and basically being unable to profess anything but belief in God. The implication of this is that once one is sealed and renewed by the radical transformation of salvation they’re completely unable to undo this action. In the same action, the unbeliever cannot choose righteousness. They’re incapable of choosing God by themselves. We must understand the extreme contrast and the label of intensity on both sides. If the unbeliever is unable to approach God on their own and the believer is unable to renounce God, then this is the action of a spirit within vs spirit without. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it CANNOT. So here’s the assurance of those who are truly radically transformed by the renewing of the mind. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God The spirit also groans and intercedes for us by leading us out of Temptations, sin, and towards obedience, and overcoming the world the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. We know the spirit works in this way, because we are promised a completion in Christ by an action that is independent of human will. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you/us will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Death) And because of this wonderful truth, we have a certainty that we cannot lose the gift of the spirit of God. Not even created things which includes YOU can undo this gift. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Without the Holy Spirit, no one can understand scripture not even Rome. This is one of the key benefits of true belief. It’s not just the fact that you’re going to heaven, but it’s the fact that you possess a quality of understanding that is supernatural. It’s a revealed truth that’s given to us overtime as were obedient and diligently, read the scriptures and pray for understanding. The natural man can’t do this. Only the believer in Christ into work by the Holy Spirit who has experience the radical transformation of the renewed mind can make any sense of scripture by themselves. Does this mean that they will interpret scripture perfectly? Nope. But it says that they possess a spiritual understanding that they did not possess as unbelievers. If they weren’t saved, they wouldn’t get it at all. If you’ve gotten this far, I have purposefully withheld the scriptural book, chapter and verse callouts to prove how easy it is to understand scripture for those who challenge the contrary. If you got this far and you understood every ounce of this, then the idea that you can’t understand scripture is completely bogus. And if you didn’t understand it, then you lack the inner Holy Spirit and need to resolve that with Christ immediately.

[@joeypuvel1228]

This video is excellent. Thank you Trent.

[@MajorMustang1117]

The constant schisms produced by "Sola Scriptura" is one of many reasons I became Orthodox.

[@michaelmbogori]

Great episode Trent. You really do your research

[@lorenzo8208]

I haven't watched the whole video, but just a note: your probounciation of "pneuma" is almost correct. You have to pronounce the "e" as the "e" in "dress" and the u as the "oo" in loop. Plus, if you really care about very precise pronunciation, you have to retract the s (like the spanish s) and pronounce the "th" as the "th" in "think" (there is a slight difference, it has to do with the usage of vocal cords). In any case, I hope I have been helpful (I study ancient greek to understand more the NT)

[@crusaderACR]

as a learner of latin and greek it for some reason irks me how scholars ignore learning pronunciation aren't we reading divine literature here? It's just infinitely more pleasant to the ears when reading as it was meant to me, at least

[@stevenharder308]

@@crusaderACRin-between pronunciation drives me up the wall. If you can’t pass it off as your native tongue, err on the side of your native accent. Otherwise, it becomes unintentional parody (e.g., choirs singing “hozonna” at every mass).

[@crusaderACR]

@@stevenharder308 I agree, I absolutely agree. One thing is an accent, which is nice, and another to not even bother at all.

[@joachim847]

Wow. I've never heard this, but it is precisely how I understand the inspiration of the scriptures 👌Thanks Trent. EDIT: Not the inerrancy part, the God-breathing part.

[@victormossiii1196]

Even before I converted to Catholicism, I did my own research, and was led by the Holy Spirit, that concluded to me accepting Tradition and real presence Eucharist (but not fully Catholic .... Maybe more of a Anglican/Lutheran view ...... Accepting the full Catholic came later). This set me on the path of investigating the views of the Ancient/Early Church (Catholic/Orthodox)!

[@danielkulju9836]

Over the past year I researched myself into Anglicanism. I get these arguments, but this is just the negative case against sola scriptura. It does not immediately follow then that the Papacy is the correct remedy for this issue. So I guess I’d ask you this. What’s your positive case for the papacy existing in the first five-six centuries? I’ve heard a lot of arguments that just aren’t convincing, but I’d really like to know. I’m to the point where if someone convinced me that the papacy has clearly existed with the ability to interpret doctrine for the whole church since Jesus gave the keys over to Peter, I’d probably become Catholic.

[@Cklert]

@@danielkulju9836 I'm not the OP but I'll list a few examples: In the late 1st century Clement of Rome writes to the church in Corinth addressing their issues and requesting them to accept the teachings of Rome obediently. Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle. Writes that Rome is of superior origin and that all the churches must agree because of its preeminent authority. (Against Heresies 3 3:2) This is actually quite significant, because later on in Irenaeus' career, Pope Victor I excommunicated all the churches in Asia Minor for not celebrating Easter on the correct date. Irenaeus visibly disagreed with the reasoning behind Victor's decision. But ultimately did not oppose the authority he had in it. He simply wrote to Victor negotiating the defense of those churches traditions and urged him to reverse his decision. In the 3rd century Cyprian of Carthage writes this: "On him (Peter) He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep, and although He assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet He founded a single chair (cathedra), and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church) Augustine of Hippo: "Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear 'I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.'" (Sermon 295) Finally the opening statements of the Council of Chalcedon (451): "Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, *which is the head of all the churches,* which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave."

[@stevenharder308]

@@danielkulju9836this is an insightful question, but there aren’t many alternatives outside of Sola Scriptura. If you believe that Sola Scriptura is false, and Christianity is true, and that it would be rash to write off 2000 years of belief in scriptural inerrancy, it comes down to running background checks on Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and a few Coptic sects.

[@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν]

12:47. Irenaeus. Very good citation.

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

When Jimmy Akin debated TOP, TOP admitted Irenaeus did not hold to sola scriptura.

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

No it isn’t. When he used it in the debate I smirked because I knew that, and that is not « Why he said it ».

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

And yes. Ireneaus definitely believes in the same thing as Sola Scriptura.

[@djo-dji6018]

​@@isaakleillhikar8311 ​​ "When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. . . . What, then? If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies)

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

@@djo-dji6018 You made me smirk againe. Becaus eIve read Against Hereises. And book three in particular, which that quote is in too.

[@ScripturalMormonism]

Glad you are plugging Poirier's book.

[@jacobhamilton4888]

I love your videos! They always help me tremendously. Thank you, Trent.

[@petertherock7340]

In other words, to get "sola Scriptura" out of the Timothy text in question a Protestant must "read their theology" into the text itself. This is definitely a historical trend among these kinds of Protestants! I find it interesting that traditional Anglicanism does not have such a problem with the Catholic position, nor do the Orthodox churches.

[@coloradodutch7480]

No it doesn’t. Jesus tells the Pharisees and saducees over and over, it is written. Not once does Jesus hold up tradition, he actually tells them that tradition is keeping people away from God. The NT over and over tells us to check with the scriptures. The principle is well established by Jesus and the apostles.

[@petertherock7340]

@@coloradodutch7480 Incorrect. Jesus tells his disciples in John 15: 10 that if they love Him they will keep his commandments (His Tradition). Many times Jesus referred to the Mosaic law (Scripture) by stating “It is written (graphe)….” Then he would say, “But I say unto you (new tradition)…” such and so. Jesus also accepted the title of “rabbi” which confirms that he was an inspired teacher of “tradition.” And Jesus also confirmed that not the smallest part of the Mosaic law would pass away until he had fulfilled everything, including the Seat of Moses. The fact is that Jesus left no written document of any kind. Instead he left a “Church” (Matthew 16: 18-19) imbued with apostolic tradition which Sacred Scripture is a part of. 😊

[@berwynsigns4115]

Shaky is generous. Sola Scriptura has a nonexistent foundation.

[@lelandlarochelle312]

I hope one day we can reunite the Church with our protestant brothers and sisters... all the Chrisitan apologists do so much diligent research and yet miss all this... I hope and pray their hearts may be open to the Truth and that we may all be reunited once again... We are not as different as may believe us to be.. God bless Trent

[@MichaelAChristian1]

Remember the Tower of Babel. They tried to work their way to heaven and were scattered. "Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth."- Jeremiah chapter 1 verse 9. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqvMi5dtiMufi6M

[@jmac7947]

Very helpful. Thank you, Trent.

[@yauchinlam2276]

Really good job to the content creator for mentioning the root fallacy. As someone learning Mandarin Chinese, I almost made that mistake with 出租车 (Chūzū chē) , (go out, rent, car) but that actually translates to English as taxi. (Source Google translate.) In short the root fallacy is a modern day issue even in Mandarin Chinese to English translations.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Very good. I'd love to see someone test the following passage as a sola scriptura defeater of sola scriptura. And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Pet 3:15‭-‬16

[@amarsh14]

Ok, even if the Protestants are correct (for argument’s sake), why did they remove all those books from the Bible? Luther even wanted to remove the Epistle of James because it specifically opposes the salvation by faith alone doctrine that Protestants believe. Mind you, not sure how they explain away the sheep and goats judgement in Matthew’s Gospel!

[@heidiaraneta1660]

As a follower of Trent's podcast i am learning much about my faith RCC, and all of his topics are interesting,keep going Trent and God bless you❤

[@peterzinya1]

Thank you Trent, for telling people that the bible isnt enough and not to bother reading it because we cant understand it.

[@darrientwyman1309]

I've been on the fence about converting to either orthodox or Catholic church over this very reason. I debate Muslims and their bullspit use of sola scriptura is infuriating! But then I started talking with utilitarians and random offshoot sects of protestantism and what Ive realized is we have early church fathers and biblical scholars for a REASON! We spit in the face of the people who dedicated their lives to the scriptures when we falsely interpret the Bible with no background work on our understanding of the doctrine.

[@glennshrom5801]

Sola Scriptura's foundation is the Catholic church fathers. (I am gleaning from Michael C. Patton's article "Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?") Hippolytus: "There is ... one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and no other source. Not according to our own will, ... but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." Irenaeus: "They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. We have learned from none others the plan of salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel came down to us ... handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." Ambrose: "For how can we adopt those things which we find not in the holy Scriptures?" Clement of Alexandria: "But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits will not desist from the search after truth until they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." Augustine: "The authority of these books has come down to us from the Apostles, ... and from a lofty supremacy claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind .... " Cyril of Jerusalem: "Even to me who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive from the Divine Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce." "... for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." Dionysius of Alexandria: "Nor did we evade objections ... but on the contrary ... we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures [not ashamed to change our opinion and agree with others]." Gregory of Nyssa: "We make the holy Scriptures the rule and measure of every tenet." Basil the Great: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right." Jerome: "I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else." Theodoret: "I shall yield to Scripture alone." Inasmuch as any modern non-Catholics line up with these quotes, they should no more be rebutted by modern Catholics than the early Church Fathers should be rebutted by modern Catholics. So have caution when quoting Scripture as a way of objecting to Sola Scriptura.

[@tonydefino840]

When Paul wrote to Timothy, there was no New Testament at the time, so he had to be referring to the Old Testament scriptures. Wouldn't an adherent to Sola Scriptura then basically have to refute the entire New Testament to maintain that belief? I'm genuinely curious. Thank you.

[@jmctigret]

James White going to go crazy. Lol

[@georgeluke6382]

Trent, do you have any interaction with Keith Matthison’s Sola Scriptura, or Barrett’s God’s Word Alone? Or Philip Schaff’s book on Protestantism? In one specific resource? Think it’d be good for Protestants like me to see you swing hard at those and their evaluations of early church tensions.

[@georgeluke6382]

Trent, fair points on making sure we’re refraining from representing conservative tradition via liberal scholarship; we all need to be aware of that possibility as we rep other views

[@MW-eg4gu]

At age 75, a few days ago, I texted a Protestant internet channel, and I was texted back with the usual "Open your Bible and read it yourself and you will see Jesus was not Catholic and ..." I have been told variations of this for gazillions of times in my years. The poor reasoning in this is amazing in that people who spout this off can't be thinking too sharply. Their explanation as to why there are so many Bible interpretations and thus denominations is usually "Well, our differences are not that big." And they all do a dance around anything you say to them that is objective.

[@consumedbyfire1359]

There are several verses that can point to the unique authority and nature of Scripture. David says that "Your Word is a Light unto my feet and a lamp unto my feet." Paul gives a unique designation of the Word of God as the sword of the Spirit, essential in spiritual well-being and warfare. Hebrews 4:12 as well makes an analogy for the Word of God as a sword and sharper than any two edged sword that is able to discern the thoughts and heart of man and is living. We see from Scriptures in the Old and New Testament that the Holy Spirit is attached to the Word of God, thus carrying the power and authority of God.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

“All” doesn’t mean “only” in the same verse.

[@matthewoburke7202]

That is also a good point that many seem to glance over. The passage itself doesn't ever specify that ONLY the scriptures are inspired. Even if we accept the Protestant interpretation of the root greek word as "God Breathed" (which trent points out is incorrect), It STILL doesn't prove what they are trying to say.

[@tfr2602]

@@matthewoburke7202 This is the point, for sure!

[@natebozeman4510]

Protestant here. Very interesting video. I'll simply say my case for SS doesn't rely on 2 Timothy 3 being translated as "It's God-breathed, therefore it's the only infallible rule of faith." It's more complicated than that, and I think all thoughtful Protestants would agree with that. The case for SS has a lot of relevant considerations, just like your argument for the need of tradition or the magisterium would be multi-faceted. Just a food for thought.

[@garrettboyle5474]

Hi Nate, I think the assertion that Trent's argument refutes SS starts with the idea that if 2 Tim 3 called scripture "God-breathed," Protestants had a simple way to distinguish written tradition from oral tradition but if that is not true, there is no longer a simple way to distinguish them. (Assuming you accept his translation of theopneustos, which you may not) However, I think there are few more "moves" in disproving SS that are not in this video and you would probably object to those "moves" as well. That being said, would you think that Trent's arguments are at least a good counter to the assertions that Winger, Cooper, Ortland, White and others make that Catholics and Orthodox need to show where written tradition or a magisterium are also called "God-breathed"? I hope that make sense! I've seen you comment before, and you seen good-natured and fair minded! I hope you have time to respond!

[@natebozeman4510]

@@garrettboyle5474 Thanks so much for the kind words! I try my best to be charitable. I don't always succeed in that, but I recognize these issues are nuanced, and it doesn't do a lot of good getting frustrated. I would say I don't totally accept or reject his understanding of the Greek term. It was an interesting way of viewing it, and I do see from the quotes he shared that other people have viewed it that way as well, so it can't be totally ignored. I would say that this word can probably be used in both ways, and in either way chosen, you could still make a cogent argument for SS in my opinion. If we take the God-breathed translation, then the ontological distinction of Scripture and tradition are more in line with what the Protestant arguments were saying, and that is also more in keeping with how most translations render the word. On the contrary, if we go with the life giving rendering, we could still view this as Spirit-breathed. In the ancient world, most people viewed Spirit and life and breath as almost one entity - we see even back in the creation account of Genesis - God breathed life into Adam's nostrils. It was God's breath that gave life. In the same way, if we take the life-giving translation, I would take this as saying "the root words in the term mean God and breath, and God's breath gives life. So the reason it's life-giving is because it's God-breathed." And then the SS arguments would go on as normal. And since the quotes he used were from people in the ancient world, I think it really plays into this idea of breath and life and Spirit being almost like the same entity. The philosopher Owen Barfield has done work on this topic - very interesting. You can read it in his book called Poetic Diction I believe if you're interested. So I'd say either way, you're left with a similar conclusion - Scripture is God-breathed, and therefore gives life, and is ontologically on the same authority level as God, and for us Protestants, nothing else would be beside that authority. Hope this helps!

[@garrettboyle5474]

​@@natebozeman4510 Thanks for the reply! and for the book recommendation. I will add it to the list. I haven't looked into this topic so I am admittedly thinking this through on the fly. I think Trent is overplaying the argument to try to disprove SS so I am less concerned about that. (Thats a bold move to make for a 20 minute video haha). And its a good point that you made that most translations use the "inspired" or "God-Breathed" translation. I think you are right that on its face the change in translation does not prove scripture to not be Spirit Breathed. But to be fair, I don't think that was Trent's intention to prove that Scripture was not Spirit Breathed or inerrant. However, it does seem like if Trent's quotes are accurate, the Protestant argument "Scripture is theopneustos and nothing else is theopneustos so therefore nothing else rises to the level of scripture" is no longer a good argument since lots of non-scriptural writings were seen as life or spirit giving. I would see this as an argument against one rung on the SS ladder rather a complete take down. Maybe a Catholic or Orthodox could use this to then refute SS but I think you have to do more work to do that. Thanks again for the charitable reply! Please keep on commenting on Catholic videos, its nice to see Protestant interactions!

[@natebozeman4510]

@@garrettboyle5474 I will definitely keep it up! I like to have my views challenged. It's healthy. I agree with you. It could potentially make it so Protestants would have to go a different route when arguing for SS. I tend to make in-principle arguments over anything. Something like: tradition is fallible *in principle* because it receives the apostolic deposit in a derivative sense, and doesn't contain the message *in itself.* God, on the other hand, and the Holy Spirit guiding Scripture, have the message *in themselves* because they are God. Since human beings are not God, are fallible in principle, and receive the message of the Gospel and its contents in a derivative sense, then their traditions are fallible in principle, and need to be checked and ran through the message of the One who has the message in Himself and His Word left for us. In other words, tradition is ONLY authoritative insofar as it effectively and correctly communicates the Word of God and what He intends to communicate with us, which I would argue is left for us in Scripture. Then we take into account what the Bible says about itself - it's God-breathed (or life giving, either way), unbreakable, led on by the Holy Spirit, and was once and for all delivered to the saints. We can still say a similar argument and say: nothing else is spoken of in this way in Scripture, and the only time Jesus mentions tradition, He is correcting an oral tradition to keep it in alignment with what was written down by Moses. So there, we have an example of oral traditions being conformed to that which was written down before it. I do not see any counter example to this in Scripture going the other way. Thanks for your kind response as well! Hopefully I'll catch you in another video

[@garrettboyle5474]

@@natebozeman4510 Thanks for that explaining your thought process. Thats interesting, I'll have to chew on that for a while. Haven't seen it put that way before. Sounds good, you might catch me again :)

[@powerlessburger]

Thr mental gymnastics needed from Protestants surprises me every time

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

😂😂😂 It's embarrassing watching the Prots try and prove sola scriptura.

[@461weavile]

​@@MrKingishere1 lol that's an easy one. You could do it yourself in five minutes, but let me know if you want me to do it for you, because I don't want to leave you hanging.

[@jacobrodriguez7771]

@@MrKingishere1 that's like asking someone to prove American traditions of baseball and apple pie..... a tradition just is. Read a history book. The Catholic Church has been here for 2,000 years, the prot churches just started a few hundred years ago. The question is should we believe the traditions of the Church that has been here since Jesus founded it 2,000 years ago, or the traditions of prots who start their own churches anytime they feel like it? Anyone with brain cells knows the answer to that question.

[@richvestal767]

​@@MrKingishere1 Demanding "proof" of Catholic Tradition is like demanding proof of a mathematician for the existence of the geometric plane. Principles of their own nature are axiomatic and don't require proof, or rather their "proof" is exhibited in how they shed light on and make intelligible the thing that exists in its sphere. Protestantism doesn't even go by a purely plain reading of the Bible. Your doctrines are patently unintelligible based solely on a plain reading of the text. Your doctrines require that the Protestant hermeneutic be imposed on the Bible before they can even become intelligible. You use your protestant tradition as a lens to read and interpret the Bible through. The problem with that is that the Protestant hermeneutic is purely a bi-product of 16th century Europe, not 1st century Judea. Catholic tradition frankly is a bi-product of 1st century Judea. And we have mountains of historical evidence that corroborates this, see the Patristic writers if you want to doubt this.

[@EvilXtianity]

_Thr mental gymnastics needed from Protestants surprises me every time."_ LOL from someone who literally worship cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice based solely on a fictional character. You also believe, without any evidence, that God walked around town for thirty years and then died and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" and all of that happened without any of the locals noticing.

[@dougmasters4561]

I would actually appreciate a thorough discussion between you and Dr. Cooper on this.

[@kathyweiland4732]

You are the best Trent Horn. I have learned so much!

[@MrJayb76]

Didn't God breathed on his disciples? Even if we concede "all of scripture is theopneustos" the question remains WHO decides what is scripture? Who decides what is theofpneustos? Now the entity or person deciding that what kind of authority is at play here? Great job Trent.

[@connerkjkdb1]

They say all is God breathed except when it comes to the "7 books"

[@crekow]

It has always perplexed me that defenders of Sola Scriptura claim that ONLY scripture is "God-breathed" when John 20:22-23 says, "And with that he breathed on them (The 12 Apostles) and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven'.”. Here we see Jesus Himself breathing a delegated divine authority into the Apostles. While I believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, there seems to be at least as much scriptural evidence for an inspired Church. So it seems to me.

[@canibezeroun1988]

That's a great catch. That breath is crucial.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

They wrote the scripture. Understand? You are saying you can over write Peter's and apostles if you let tradition over write it. The pharasees got into MOSES SEAT!!! Remember? They got that high up in church and didn't believe.

[@crekow]

@@MichaelAChristian1 I am saying no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth. You're not making any sense.

[@Cklert]

@@MichaelAChristian1 Uh, no they can't. I'm not entirely sure where the idea that Tradition > Scripture comes from but that's not what we teach. Both Scripture and Tradition have to be harmonized. One cannot contradict the other. And what does Jesus say to the followers about the Pharisees? "So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." Matt 23:3 The issue isn't what they taught; it's what they did. They weren't following the standards that they themselves were teaching, which is why Jesus consistently called them hypocrites.

[@waitandsee9345]

Sorry, i don't believe romans' claim their popes and magisterium are above Scriptures 🤫 Romans 3:2 (DRA) Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them.

[@Dustin_Quick_Holy_Smokes]

Excellent stuff Trent.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

No you. -Kyle

[@Dustin_Quick_Holy_Smokes]

@@TheCounselofTrent id love to get you on my podcast soon! You’re like the only CA brother I haven’t interviewed yet!

[@samuraibat1916]

This was the most well explained view Catholics have of Sola Scriptura (that I have seen). I still find Dr. Ortlund to be more convincing, though. I also hope you have a blessed day, Mr. Horn.

[@Mkvine]

Well…to be fair Ortlund is a very nice guy.

[@abbaasgertrude4915]

Like a pack of cards yet another anti Catholic argument crumbling. Trent Horn does it again 🎉

[@Mickay8139]

Thank you for this podcast. As always, every podcast of yours is very detailed, well researched and full of information. Always makes me say...hmm why don't I know that before? Unquestionably one of the best catholic apologetic channels here. ❤

[@shamounian]

Another slam dunk! Keep it up!

[@sheilabarkofske9931]

As someone who received elementary & secondary education courtesy of the Catholic Church, certainty I received bibical instruction, but it was only one of many sources we were instructed to use to increase our knowledge/faith. I agree with your argument that irrespective of whether you believe scripture is the single & only source faith, it is still subject to interpretation, even if you read it from original script, & therein lies the problem. Case in point, I believe the Southern Baptists are presently engaged in some level of schism over women preachers. Rick Warren (who is leading the ‘heretical’ faction) now supports women preachers because he says realizes his ‘old’ interpretation of scripture (which forbade women in the pulpit) was, in fact, wrong. Don’t suppose his ‘new’ interpretation of scripture was at all impacted by those new reading glasses given to him by the donors to Saddlebrook. Regardless, while I appreciate your scholarship on this & acknowledge that it is the Protestants that are the instigators here, there is an element here of ‘fiddling while Rome burns’.

[@garfieldodie3106]

This is very similar to Kecharitomene. Thanks for the video, Trent. And if you haven’t made a video on Kecharitomene I’d like to ask if you could!

[@rickandrygel913]

Peter said Paul's teachings can be difficult to understand, so if we dont understand them or they seem to us to go against what Jesus said then we should just go with what Jesus said. Peter puts the responsibility to understand on each of us, so if i don't understand the instructions from any other saint should I be fine to just stick with what Jesus said?

[@MackBŗislawn]

Peter said the ignorant and unstable wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. Who are the ignorant? They are those who are ignorant of the apostles' teaching, those who haven't already been taught the Christian faith. Therefore it is not our responsibility to understand, because we have already been taught, and it is by means of that teaching we know what Jesus said. Scripture is meant to be understood by insiders, not outsiders.

[@Mkvine]

That’s an interesting take on “theopneustos” - because it’s the life giving breath of God, it’s like we are deified or undergo theosis when we read and apply the scriptures. This is a much richer and beautiful way of understanding the term.

[@jonasopmeer]

I agree that it is beautiful, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. Most scholars I have come across would not agree with this interpretation, and in any concordance and lexicon I’ve looked through this has not been the understanding. Curious to see how the conversation moves forward in this category.

[@Mkvine]

@@jonasopmeer Trent showed evidence of how the term was utilized and understood from early jewish and Christian traditions. The term itself was never understood as sole infallible authority.

[@stephengalanis]

@@Mkvine But look what it undermines. Is Matt 16:18 actually breathed out by God? Apparently not. Is it true? Per Trent, it's only theopneustos to the extent that it has some effect. A dangerously empirical claim. I suggest that Catholics taking this view of inspiration cannot coherently say something is true because it's scripture. That bridge has been burned.

[@Mkvine]

@@stephengalanis I don’t see the logic in your argument. Why would Matt 16:18 not be theopneustos per Trent’s claims?

[@stephengalanis]

@@Mkvine Two points. 1. What if we find someone for whom the divine breathing has no effect? Well, then me must call into question wheather the alleged cause is there at all. If it's raining, then it's wet. But if it's not wet? Then it's not raining. Trent knows full well that's modus tollens. He can't have this both ways. If he's going to use the language of cause and effect, it's blatantly obvious to any undergrad philosophy student what the problem is: if something -- scripture, tradition, magisterium -- is theopneustos, then it necessarily has a specific effect. That's what, per Trent, theopneustos must mean. If there's no salvific effect, if it imparts no magic, no change, no measurable grace, then... it follows it's not theopneustos. The Protestant definiton of inspiration has many issues, but at least it doesn't make an empirical claim that's plainly absurd on its face. I'm an atheist. Matthew 16 doesn't move me. If you say the fault is not with scripture, but with me (and millions like me, non-Catholics of every type) that's now an unfalsifiable claim. That post-hoc evsaion is something that can be used by Muslims too, and Mormons, and Heaven's Gate. If the Catholic argument is "see, the magisterium and scripture produce the same effect, they're both theopneustos", well, maybe neither are. That has to be on the table. And in the inescapable counter-example of the millions of peopel who are not moved by Rome in any spiritual way, there will be no concrete identifiable property commensurate with the scope of the claims. Theopneustos will be shouted from every rooftop and every pulpit, but never will it be explained, never will it be testable. (A mirror of Catholic ecclesiology and the claims made about the One, Holy, Apostolic church. It's Catholic bullshit 101. It's the happy disregard for logical standards that is the basic operating procedure of the Catholic Church. There are never concrete properties to Rome's most fanciful claims.) There will never come a day when we can calmly identify what is theopneustos and what isn't, lest we have a rule by which Rome herself can be tested. The neat book ends of what Protestants consider inspired are gone. Theopneustos has no meaningful content. It's a vacant word if there's no hard and fast test for it. And here I am, someone unmoved either by Matt 16:18 or Rome. So is it inspired? Is Rome? How can we know? 2. Secondly, we can imagine an omnimax God being able to work though imperfect vessels. The Church -- meaning the Catholic Church -- is imperfect, but yet the charism of god (I was never Catholic, I'm not fluent in Catholic-ese) still works, still abides therein, etc. etc. That has been said many times. The magisterium of the church in Rome has been mired in outrageous filth over the centuries, and still remains to Catholics as a valid teaching office. The easy parallel of this is "what if Scripture is likewise imperfect?" What if some or most direct speech was misremembered as it was written down decades later, perhaps embellished, perhaps had a few flourishes added? So long as it can still produce the requisite salvific effect, that's not a problem. It's still theopneustos, just like the magisterium. --Note the more common reading of divine inspiration doesn't allow for this. It's the Scripture itself that is, qualitatively, inspired. It's not about the effect it has. And so, quite legitimately, we can say that theopneustos scripture, by Trent's lights, doesn't have to be quite so true any more. You can't know what really happened, what direct speech can be trusted. Have faith that, even if it's false or mistaken, the God you believe in -- based on the same material -- is breathing it out for salvation. It absolutely pulls the rug out. In short, this rather different idea of inspiration makes it quite easy to push a wedge between the informational content of scripture (such a man, was in such a place, and said this and that) and it's effect. My hunch is that Christians would rather not do that. It's clear you would rather not. Fair enough. You want to hold to key passages as being correct. Trent's basically saying "na-uh, that's not what inspiration means, that's the Protestant view".

[@Petehimothy]

good video

[@AJBulava]

As a Lutheran, I still think the BIble should still be the norm and rule, but this was enlightening to say the least.

[@samueljennings4809]

Protestant here 🙋🏽‍♂️ personally I’ve come to think that “prima scriptura” is a better position to hold than “sola scriptura”, since giving the interpretations of the Apostolic Fathers a higher value than the random bloke down the street is a more reasonable approach to the objectivity of the Scriptures. People who deny the Trinity also claim to be sola scriptura. Just saying…

[@canibezeroun1988]

If you believe in prima scriptura then you're already deviating from Protestantism. The apostolic fathers are great, but if their interpretation isn't infallible it can't be leaned on. Even the men who Trent quoted in this video would suggest they should be listened to over any guy down the road (and I'd agree). However, if their interpretation is still fallible listening to them would also lead you into peril. Unless there was an infallible understanding of the scriptures any interpretation would have to be valid.

[@StanleyPinchak]

@@canibezeroun1988 Thank God that he had some foresight (from our perspective). “But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you.” (Joh 16:13, DRC) “18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Mat 16:18-19, DRC) “22. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (Joh 20:22-23, DRC)

[@waitandsee9345]

Romans 3:2 (DRA) Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them.