dr. Gavin, I just want to say... thank you. So much. I'm Catholic, my family comes from Munich, Germany... my heart was absolutely broken for many years because of how Catholic Church now looks in Germany. Vast majority of my fellow parishioners are just atheist who are used to coming to Mass... My parish priest lived openly with a mistress and whole community embraced that, saying something along the lines of "better her than our kids!". Tarot cards, fortune telling and all sorts of occult magic are common practice among Catholics who view themselves "dominicantes", practicing part of the Church. And recently, our Church openly embraced LGBTQ agenda... and it really isn't just about gay marriage, I'm talking whole leftist political propaganda. I've talked to priests, I even went to my local bishop twice, and I heard them embrace all of this, making my skin crawl. And it seems like new Popes come and go, I've seen 3 in my time and nobody is willing to do anything. I was so crushed that Magisterium I thought was God-breathed and that could not possibly lose a war against the "gates of hell" would just do nothing my entire life, silently tolerating perhaps the most degenerate things I've seen in my life, right there in my parish pews. No excommunications. No taking sacramental rights out of the hands of priests who openly live in sin. No reaction to anything. I was about to become atheist myself, I felt hopeless, I felt like God can't be real if his Church is just this broken from the very top to the very bottom. ...But then, I thought about other Christians and though I never knew anybody outside of my tradition, I started digging, I gave God one last chance... and while looking for some channels that would cover Catholics and Protestant views and would compare one to another, I stumbled upon your channel. Thank you. After watching so many of your videos... *This recent debate was the last thing I needed.* I really feel fully convinced now that the Magisterium was never the answer, which is something I've discovered personally and felt in my gut all along. Your argument about the Death Penalty was spot on. Church is changing its teaching whenever it wants to, all it takes to change an infallible dogma is to re-interpret it or just state that it was never infallible in the first place. There is no one ancient tradition carried from Apostles that Church is representing, the Magisterium is fallible, and is presenting us with ever changing, fallible list of "infallible" dogmas, as if this was supposed to solve anything. I finally am ready to become free in Christ fully, ready embrace God and his word as the only truly infallible authorities to guide me through my faith. I feel so... FREE! Finally I can accept that Vatican are just people and that it's not God who failed me, but these people who are just sinners like me and make bad decisions from time to time. And now, finally, I feel like I can forgive them and move on with my faith. Thank you for doing what you're doing. There is so few of you, well-read Protestant apologists out there... I'm so happy I feel like I can cry! God is so great! He is real and his word is truly infallible, we don't have to be, we can just trust Him! How beautiful is that? Praise God!
I went through that phase 3 years ago except our jurisdiction has evolved into grave idolatry and hyper marian theology so i know how that feels like I will definitely pray for you♥️
If your local churches in Germany are heretical, that really has nothing to do with Catholicism itself though. Even if the pope and Magisterium fail pastorally in denouncing heresy, that would be a pastoral failure, not a doctrinal one. Catholic moral doctrine would be that homosexual relations are intrinsically sinful, that all deliberately sought out sexual pleasure outside of valid marriage between a man and a woman is wrong, and that doctrine hasn't changed regardless of the failings of some of the clergy. I'm curious also, what infallible dogmas do you think have changed over the years? The current teaching on the death penalty is merely a prudential judgment that it's no longer necessary today, not a change of teaching regarding whether or not it's intrinsically moral or not.
@@Jay-et9hw "that would be a pastoral failure, not a doctrinal one." I disagree. Those so called pastoral failures clearly affect how the Magisterium interprets doctrine. And yes, even when it comes to the matter of sexual morality. For example, in 1950s when medical advancements allowed us to understand female reproductive cycle better, as a result contraception was first introduced into our society. Catholic Church, which has always held a position, since the early writings of the Fathers, that sexual activity for pleasure alone and without an intent to conceive a child is sinful, has "failed pastorally" to enforce this doctrine in the light of new sexual morality of the world and as a consequence, changed its doctrine soon after allowing for sexual activity for pleasure alone for the first time in Church history, hence, the NFP was introduced. And sure, at first it was Church's official position that "continual, incessant use of NFP is still sinful" but then it slowly but surely "failed pastorally" to enforce even that, and here were are in the XXI century, with continual use of NFP being the absolute norm of every Catholic marriage. When you tell me constant, unbroken pastoral failure of consecutive Popes to react to German heresies are not a doctrinal issue of Catholicism, I can't hope to just laugh in frustration. "Catholic moral doctrine would be that homosexual relations are intrinsically sinful" This is exactly what I tried to communicate to my bishop when he told me I'm homophobic for not acknowledging that "proper gay marriage is not the same as lust-based homosexuality described in the Bible". And you know what I heard from him? "There are more bishops that think like I do than you think. Even Pope Francis starts to think this way, and you will see that soon Church will include homosexual relationships as part of the doctrine. You won't have to wait long" and I believe him. Especially, when the German poll in 2021 showed that only 44% of all German Catholics support current stance of the doctrine on homosexuality. Even if it doesn't happen today, or tomorrow, or in 10 years, it just showed me, opened my eyes as to how Magisterium actually functions. Whenever the infallible teaching is no longer suitable for the current Magisterium, it is changed into whatever is necessary for modern time. If you look back at history you can plainly see that. This is exactly what sedevacantists say about Vatican II. That it openly denies several infallible statements made at Council of Trent. And they are right too ya know. Read Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and Council of Trent on how Catholics view Lutherans and their salvation. Read these two documents back to back and tell me doctrine doesn't change with a straight face. I'm sorry, I don't want to sound overly bitter or nasty... I have nothing against you, and if you find the Lord in your Catholic faith, and if your local Church holds up to all of this insanity, cheers to you man, and God bless you on your journey. This is just how I feel. To me, this is a farce. There is no reason to take this seriously.
@@andrew91734 If the Church hasn't officially changed a doctrine though, then it's by definition not a problem of doctrines changing, it's a problem with those in the hierarchy failing to submit to Church doctrine. When the majority of the hierarchy caved in to the Arian heresy, or at the least neglected to condemn it, that didn't mean the Church had changed its teaching on the divinity of Christ, it just meant that heresy was rampant. It was still a massive problem, but not because Church teaching had changed. Same thing today...yes, heresy is rampant, yes the hierarchy could and should do more to point out and condemn heresy where it arises, I couldn't agree more. But that's not a change in Church doctrine. Same with NFP...official Church teaching, which does align with the teaching of the Church Fathers (see John Chrysostom for example on marital relations still being good when procreation isn't possible), is that it's not wrong for a husband and wife to consensually abstain from sex at times, with the intent of avoiding a pregnancy (while still being naturally open to it), if there is "just cause". This is still intrinsically different than contraception, as one is still naturally open to conceive and the other is not...a bit like skipping a meal during a diet vs. forcing yourself to vomit after eating all you can eat. One is natural, one is not, even though the end result in both is still losing weight. It's not a doctrinal change, though it is a pastoral issue, and one of personal conscience. If it's done for selfish reasons it can still be gravely sinful, but it can't very well be "enforced" since it does require personal conscience based on personal circumstances...though I do agree they are often pastorally failing to help form people's consciences so they can make informed decisions. Regardless, the official teaching on the purpose of sex hasn't changed, and there are many, many Catholic families who are truly trying to make the best moral decisions they can in line with Church teaching, and do not use NFP without grave reason. We have never used it; we have 5 kids, and that's a small to average sized family for our parish. The JDDC was an attempt to find common ground with Lutheran beliefs, and due to differences in understanding and terminology, is filled with ambiguity. That's why, just as with ambiguous statements in Vatican II documents, some will interpret it as contradictory, some will interpret it in line with previous teaching, depending on how you stretch the meaning of the terms. Regardless, JDDC clearly didn't intend to teach anything infallibly, whereas Trent did...so if any interpretation of the JDDC contradicts Trent, Trent wins. Therefore my face is still straight when I say that Catholic doctrine didn't change with the JDDC. Same with any interpretation of ambiguity in Vatican II documents...if someone interprets them in a way that contradicts the constant teaching of the Church, then the constant teaching of the Church is the correct doctrine, not the novel interpretation. No need to apologize, I'm sorry you've had to experience so much scandal from wolves in shepherds' clothing that it's shaken your own faith...I haven't personally had to go through that, it would be difficult. It just seems to me that you're confusing infallibility with impeccability, false pastoral teaching with Church doctrine, and heretical or apostate clergy with the authoritative Magisterium. I agree these are confusing times...when the widespread heresy of modernism requires you to constantly compare what a cleric says with the constant teaching of the Church, it's damaging to a simple trust that should ideally be there. But none of what you listed are examples of Church doctrine changing, that was my long-winded point. God bless!
I fully unterstand your frustration with the "Catholic" Church in Germany, I am very much myself and love Christian brothers like Gavin, yet for me bad bishops and popes are not sufficient reason to break ties with the ancient roots of the Church. In the history of Israel as recounted in the Old Testament there are so many weak and bad kings who fail to act against idolatry, pagan practises in the people of Israel etc., but it was still the chosen people, still the people from which the Messaiah would come, born of the Virgin Mary. I am always very much impressed by Jesus' family trees in the New Testament, of which David's adultery and even a prostitue is a part. Yet the gospels do not disconnect Our Lord from that sacred history. For me it's the same thing with the visible, universal, Catholic Church, that is not just based on a book, but on the Word of God, eventually Christ Himself, the Word made flesh, mysteriously present in the Eucharist, despite so many tares among the weeds... Our Lord's words are still very difficult and hard to accept: "Let both grow together until the harvest." Again, I feel your frustration with the Church in Germany and feel the temptation to break away and say: "I wash my hands in innocence, I have nothing to do with those people." God bless you!
Enjoyed this discussion. Would love to hear more from Joshua Schooping. I believe he has a unique perspective as a former Orthodox Priest and he seems to be an excellent teacher.
@YAJUN YUAN I think "Prima Scriptura" is a better name for "Sola Scriptura", but I use "Sola Scriptura" in large part because that's the historic term used for it.
Grateful for this work, both in the debate, and in these contributions. Sean's my brother. I've been so helped over the years by what a careful and charitable thinker he is. Thanks Sean. He spurs me on to work harder at understanding those I disagree with, and pray for grace to understand them on their terms. Gavin, thank you for platforming Christian brothers who so solidly encourage careful work here. Josh's work has helped me out as well with recommendations for Protestant siblings addressing crises of faith in their tradition. Great work, all. Thank you. May God make more of YT like this!
If possible, I'd love to see a discussion between the three of you on divine authorship, text criticism, and the perspecuity of the human artifact that's divinely purposed for giving us the Word.
@Alex Jurado Agreed. I kind of felt bad for him, especially during the second rebuttal and the cross-exam, because his body language looked very stressed. It's good to hear that he enjoyed it. Props to Gavin for taking the affirmative on the virtually-impossible job of defending Sola Scriptura while maintaining a gentle disposition. I just think he was in over his head, with his leg bouncing and papers shaking in his hands as he was clutching to them for dear life. I know chat got routy about it, and a couple of us were trying to settle it down because we felt bad for him. I'm not sure, but I got the sense that maybe Trent felt a little bad for him too, because he seemed to show Gavin some mercy by slowing down his questioning about essential doctrines. Anyway, I learned a bunch and hope others did too. Pax...
@@enshala6401 my impression was entirely different. I think both men were competent, but I also don’t know if either would convince any convinced adherent of the other side. Great stuff to chew on though. What do you feel was unanswered by Gavin that Trent raised? I felt that the audience’s perception of who has the burden in the debate is key to interpreting who had the better case. Reminds me of Bahnsen and Sproul debating approaches in apologetics.
Spectacular work in the debate Gavin. It was honestly the most effective defence of sola scriptura I have ever heard, and presented with all the kindness of one brother to another. Thank God for your ministry.
Hey guys I’m really struggling right now with anxiety over the sola scriptura issue both of the catholic and Protestant side. Please pray for me. It’s been exhausting. I just want to feel peace with Christ. Sometimes polemics just brings me down and I get confused and second guess all my beliefs which is good but if feels like somebody took the ground from underneath you.
@@brich2542 its not the word of God he is struggling with, it whether it is the sole infallible rule of faith. So in essence, whether sola scriptura is true.
For Trent to imply that theópneustos means "life giving" instead of "God breathed", thereby nullifying the very root of the word, is incredible! Something like a man drowning in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of a storm grabbing at a floating plastic straw. Unbelievable!!
@@roman_warlord It's ironic then that Trent is the one who started the Catholic catch phrase that protestants argue like atheists. We hold the bible in the highest esteem, nothing like atheists. It's just an ad hominum.
It's a fundamental mistake to think that a word's meaning can automatically be discerned by examining the roots of its parts. That approach is known as the "etymological fallacy," and it's universally rejected by scholars. The correct method is called "philology," and it consists of collecting the uses of a word within history. In that vein, I would point out that theopneustos appears in the Testament of Abraham (rec. A), in the fifth Sibylline Oracle (twice), in a fragment of Aetius, in the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, in the Anthologies of the astrologer Vettius Valens, and in a writing falsely attributed to Plutarch. This profile can be extended by including the cognate term theopnous, which is really an alternate spelling, and which appears in the Poimandres, in a fragment of the neo-Pythagorean Numenius (preserved by Porphyry), in an inscription at the Great Sphinx of Giza, and in a fragment discovered at a nymphaeum in Laodicea on the Lycus. Theopneustos also appears six times in Clement of Alexandria. In every instance prior to Clement, theopneustos/theopnous clearly means "life-giving." Things change drastically, however, with Origen, for whom the word takes on the meaning now universally ascribed to it ("inspired by God"). And it is not insignificant, of course, that the context of 2 Tim 3:16 supports a vivificationist understanding of the term as well, as rendering theopneustos as "life-giving" brings into focus an otherwise obscure development of thought from v. 15 to v. 16: "… from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [For] all scripture is life-giving, and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." The development depends on a resonant parallelism-Scripture is "life-giving" precisely because it is "able to instruct … for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." And it scarcely needs to be said that this is in no way an "atheistic perspective." It is simply a commitment to what the philological record actually says about the word theopneustos.
@@repentantrevenant9776that’s what he has to do to denigrate scripture and elevate his traditions. He can’t pull any historical or biblical evidence for his doctrines, so there is only 1 way to go
@Truth Unites as soon as the debate was over, I realised the livestream wouldn't work. But I loved the debate. I learned so much and am still trying to analyse it in depth myself.
@Anomie No probably not, you wanna explain a little further, I could see some kind of case to be made for that but I may be interpreting it differently
Favourite moment of the debate was when you got Trent to admit to having a fallible list of infallible doctrines. It really blew the force of the canon question out of the water. Overall I thought you had the more cogent arguments, though I think your irenic approach and apologies for interrupting made the cross examine feel more like an interview than a cross examine which didn't feel as strong. Overall great work though!
I have always disliked the fact, and you are right about it, that often a strong and forceful attitude helps to shape people's perceptions of the cases presented. This is most easily seen in Islam where whoever shouts more and mocks more is deemed the winner.
Well, I don't think your conclusion is correct though. A fallible list of infallible teachings could mean that the list is missing teachings that SHOULD be fallible. For example, aren't you glad that one of our infallible teachings is that Jesus came to us as fully God and fully Man? Many Protestants don't believe this. In fact, it took the Magisterium hundreds of years to work that out. There are a gazillion examples of these types of issues. The point is that Jesus said He wouldn't leave us as orphans. Thank God we have a 2000-year old anchor the the Apostles.
@@enshala6401 the Bible teaches that Christ is fully God and fully man. Anyone who disagrees with this isn’t a Protestant since they don’t believe the scriptures. Just because someone says they believe the scriptures doesn’t mean they do if they go against the clear meaning of the text, or else you have to say that the text has no inherent meaning.
@@TheRoark Good to know WLC isn't a Protestant. Someone denying Christological dogmas defined by the councils because they believe those dogmas conflict with Scripture is perfectly justified given SS principles to do so. You're simply assuming your particular interpretation of the text is the "clear meaning". And it hardly follows because a text may be ambiguous that it has no inherent meaning. Even Protestants agree that Scripture's clarity lies along a spectrum and not all of Scripture is perspicuous (only the "essentials" which is hardly a given as Trent noted). Does that mean all the unclear and debated passages dealing with "non-essentials" have no inherent meaning? No.
@@cronmaker2 WLC affirms that Christ is fully God and fully man though, which was what my text says if you care to read it. I am not saying that every later dogma is clear in the text, just that the idea that Christ is fully God and fully man is clear in the text. You posited that protestants can deny this, and I am simply telling you anyone who denies it isn't a protestant. The text not only has a meaning, but isn't even ambiguous on this point.
This was an excellent discussion! I felt a little overwhelmed after watching the debate- these things always stir up many thoughts and emotions for me in thinking’s through Catholic/Protestant differences. Your discussion helped me a lot in processing. I would absolutely love the 3 of you to do another video together in the future! God bless.
Great discussion. The most important point is at 45 minutes: our belief in the inspiration and therefore infallibility of certain books can be fallible, but reasonable and true. There is no logical inconsistency with such a position. In fact, this is the normal outcome of cogent, strong inductive reasoning.
This was a brilliant and balanced approach to reviewing the debate, using Protestant scholars from Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Reformed Baptist backgrounds. I enjoyed the debate, and this review as well.
@@theknight8524 Good catch! I misheard Sean Luke at the beginning. He actually said that he dove into Roman Catholicism and wrestled with it while he was in seminary, but that he ended up a convinced High Church Anglican (or, as he called it, an Anglo-Catholic adjacent Protestant).
Never clicked a video so fast lol You did so good in the debate Dr. Ortlund. I thought you won hands down and brought a lot of clarity to the conversation. Loved it.
I have listened to the debate and watched reviews from both sides now and I applaud everyone on both sides.The debate and all the reviews have been thought provoking and very charitable. Gavin, God bless you and your guests and as a catholic I thank God I can call you my brother in Christ.
Great conversation and always a blessing to see Pastor Joshua. Can’t wait to get that 2nd edition of his book. The first one clarified so many things when exiting the Eastern Church.
Thank you Dr Ortlund for participating in these conversations with Catholics. As Catholic your contributions have been a blessing to me and pray that God continues to use you in such a mighty way. Blessings
Just finished the debate - great job! Ironically, I felt like most of Trent's points did what he accuses protestants of doing: poking holes in a position instead of confronting it head on. That said, his rhetoric was strong making his arguments sound stronger than they were. You were charitable, honest, and truthful in representing genuine Sola Scriptura and the RC contradiction of mingling authority between both man's fallible word (claimed apostolic traditions) with God's infallible word. Cheers!
I think Trent was explaining the necessity of the Church and scripture rather than just stay home and read your Bible.(no offense intended) Another words as most protestants (former protestant 30yrs)believe you can stay home and have church as long as you have your Bible and spend time with God especially after this pandemic, now i'm not saying all but the majority. This is was the effects of sola scriptura without knowing. Scripture was insinuated this way not purposely, but these can be the effect of sola scriptura if not explained. I think with Dr Gavins help this can be explained the the protestant churches. Without understanding or explaining we would easily disagree with our Pastor's view on some passages( because studying at home and reading commentaries) because we read with the understanding of," Why is it only what the pastor teach?"Rather than explaining both the necessity of script and Church both very important. Im now an Orthodox Christian
A point on the essentials argument Gavin brought up: I don't think Trent's point was that it is necessary for all Christians to agree on everything. His point is that there is no authoritative, singular voice for the Church under Protestantism. It seems to me that those are two vastly different things.
Great Work, Gavin. The high point of the debate, in my opinion, was when Trent conceded to you that Catholics believe in fallible lists of infallible teachings. I, like Sean, am a high church Anglican, so I do believe in the authority of apostolic succession and the councils, but as you pressed in your debate, that does not attack the argument of Sola Scriptura. When I read fathers such as Athanasius, or even just the nature of the arguments in the early councils, it is abundantly clear where the church was justifying their teachings and applying ultimate authority to.
I thought Trent sounded more like an atheist than a RC in that debate. Between him citing leftists and then saying the Gospel isn’t clearly seen in Scripture. I’m not sure conservative RC’s would agree with any of that.
I think you missed his point. He sights leftists not because he necessarily agrees with them rather to show in this case disagreement over the canon which undermines Gavin's position. When he says the Gospel isn't clearly seen. He is saying the essence of what are the essential elements of the gospel. There is no verse or verses that say this is these are the essential elements of the Gospel. I remember years ago listening to a panel at. John Piper pastors conference discussing what are the minimum essential elements of the Gospel. They couldn't agree.
@@jonathanbohl asking for a specific verse that outlines “The Gospel” is nonsensical. It’s like asking “what verse says who Jesus is?” You might find a Gospel *summary,* and Gavin listed a few immediately in answer to Trent. But the full, 3D picture of the Gospel is the totality of the story of Israel and the world finding fulfillment in Jesus Christ. You need to read the whole Bible, just like you need the whole Bible to know who Jesus is.
It was nice to see Gavin was among friends when he was in the midst of our Catholic Christian community. For any other Protestants interested in a dialog with other Catholic Christians, you would receive the same treatment in any other setting as long as they aren't the schismatic traditionalists.
@Godsgirl001 Ah, Discord is a lot of fun. We actually have the Catholic Diocese of Discord. The membership is massive. There are group prayers around the clock. And of course we have a myriad of channels on games, movies, memes, prayer requests, book reviews, apologetics, ask a priest, etc. It's a great community. 🙏❤️😇
I have to say this was an amazing debate review possibly one of the best if not the best I have ever seen. I love Pastor Schooping and Pastor Ortlund but I felt Sean stole the show. He made me see Sola Scriptura in a new light that renewed and strengthened my faith in sola scriptura. It strongly deepens my faith as a Protestant as well. What Sean said was deeply profound about the logical problem Trent Horn has because Sola Scriptura allows and accepts fallible traditions to support the Biblical canon and to determine if the books in scripture are from God and historically reliable. As Gavin Ortlund said and to tie in with Sean's critique, protestants don't believe you need an infallible interpreter to interpret scripture let alone to recognize if that scripture is infallible or not. Sola Scriptura allows fallible data to support the canon and the Bible. This is blowing my mind right now. Moreover, Sean correctly points out Eusebius and many Church Fathers, when trying to determine which books should be in the canon or not, used logic and evidence. Thus, if what Trent Horn said was true the Church Fathers should have rejected any use of logic and evidence altogether. If any of you wonderful three gentle men can reply to me and answer my question, is prima scriptura okay to believe in? Is prima scriptura heretical? One of my reformed friends vehemently suggested that prima scriptura is heretical. According to my friend prima scriptura allows the possibility of something infallible outside of the Bible which shows this doctrine is nothing but heretical. I would love to hear Sean's perspective or any one who does not believe prima scriptura is heretical. I can't thank you, guys, enough and I will have all of you in my prayers! May God continue to bless and guide all of you three great gentlemen!
@@lazaruscomeforth7646 Yes, my friend, that was a great point. Catholics forget that it's not necessary have infallibly for recognize a quality proper of the scriptures.
I would say prima scriptura is necessarily true because of the reality that Jesus said and did things on Earth that were not recorded in the gospels. It may never be possible for us to know what those teachings were and how the apostles imparted them to the churches but they did happen. So no, the written text in the Bible can’t be the only source of divine revelation that has ever existed. But it is what we have available to us today.
@@harrygarris6921 It seems your view of prima scriptura is different from Sean's. Are you actually a Protestant? If you suggest that there is something outside of the Bible equally infallible to the Bible such as Councils, Church Fathers, magisterium, and etc I don't know how that can be reconciled to protestantism.
@@junkim5853 No, I'm not a protestant. But I don't agree with this idea that we have sources of authority from "outside the Bible". The church councils aren't infallible outside of scripture, the reason they're authoritative is they are interpreting scripture. Take the first council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. for example. The main purpose of this council was to establish that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were equally God along with the Father. This council is where we get the idea of the trinity from. The proofs and arguments made for the trinity came almost exclusively from scripture itself. Prior to this council, the trinity wasn't an established Christian doctrine. It was still kind of up for debate, and a whole lot of heretical groups were created due to a disagreement over whether Jesus and the Holy Spirit were fully and eternally God along with the Father. Yet most protestants today are trinitarian. And the ones who are would say its heretical to claim otherwise. Where do you get the idea that it's wrong to question the trinity from? In effect - you guys are accepting this church council as authoritative whether it's intentional or not. Because there's an agreed upon understanding that it is the "correct" way to interpret scripture.
SSBS finished our study of B.B. Warfield's "The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible" just in time for the debate! I have to admit, when Trent suggested theopneustos possibly means something other than the consensus ("God-breathed") I was like "wu-wu-wu-wu-whaat dawg?". Seriously though the debate was such a beautiful display of love applied to the mutual pursuit of truth! So glad to see this debate review and glad to see Josh on again!
@ThoskaBrah Romans 10:9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Notice: Thou shalt be saved
@ThoskaBrah John 25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." The Bible literally says that the Gospel is not fully represented in writing. You guys are mistaking the Bible for the Gospel when the Gospel is actually Jesus Himself. JESUS is The Word. >.>
@@enshala6401 based on your logic, that would rule out tradition as well. Just because not everything He said or did was recorded in the gospel does not mean that the gospel itself is not complete. What we need to know in order to be saved is there. Also, there is no John 25. John 2030 says “these things have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. And that by believing you may have life in hHs name.” That means that everything we need for salvation has been recorded scriptures otherwise John could not make that claim.
Regarding the topic at 34:14 on the lack of a New Testament basis for post-apostolic infallibility, I'm surprised that no one noted either in the debate or in this discussion that Trent actually shot back with "well, there's also no basis for a written post-apostolic infallibility so we'd be in the same position on that." I could hardly believe my ears. I actually had to pause the debate because I was laughing. I assume that it was a sort of debater's reflex to attempt a turnabout, and I'm assuming Trent would back off that comment if pressed. But still. Wow.
You know, when I was watching the debate live, I thought Dr. Ortlund had an excellent opening statement. Mr. Horn's owner seemed almost off topic to me. Both groups of rebuttals honestly felt like each presenter was just repeating themselves. Then the cross examinations opened up. At the time, Mr. Horn seemed to dominate. It was easy to see he felt comfortable in the environment, and that's where his rhetoric skills had a better chance to shine. It also seemed like he had Dr. Ortlund on the retreat, so to speak. Both closing statements were generous and thought provoking. While I agreed with Dr. Ortlund's points, Mr. Horn was the debate "victor" overall. Now that some time has passed, and comments all over Pints with Aquinas, Counsel of Trent, and Truth Unites have assembled, and I've had more time to think, I might change my verdict. The commentary on the debate has been especially revealing, and that feels like a hoped for outcome on the pro-Sola Scriptura side. If I were wearing a cap, I'd tip it to @TruthUnites.
I think your take is good. Trent Horn is a great communicator and very quick thinker. However, if you rewatch the cross examination and the questions Gavin asked, you'll see that Trent was never able to substantiate another infallible authority outside of Scripture. If you follow the logic, you will see that as both agreed and Gavin demonstrated that Scripture is inspired and infallible, and no other infallible authority was clearly presented, you're by default left with Sola Scriptura. At least that was my take. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate.
The point about an infinite regress of infallible authorities in Gavin's first rebuttal seems fairly devastating to the Catholic position to me. This is why when Catholics ask me how I know what the canon is, I answer that I do so in the same way the early Church did, but I don't let it end there. I ask them, how do you know what the canon is. When they answer about the Church and Tradition, I ask how they know that. The implication here, that many don't even catch, is that the Protestant doesn't need an infinite regress of infallible authorities, but the Catholic does, if he's to live consistently with his argumentation. Furthermore, this also applies to the old canard of the Protestant being the ultimate authority due to private interpretation. The Catholic doesn't usually recognize that to even take the Church's teaching, then he has to privately interpret what the Church teaches. Also, what grounds can you have for becoming Catholic in the first place without private interpretation? None! The Catholic must engage in private interpretation in order to even know that what the Church teaches is true, that is, unless he has an infinite regress of infallible authorities. The idea of what an infinite regress of infallible authorities is really cutting and apologetically fruitful.
Well, I understand what you are saying, but I would counter that we Catholic Christians are more focused being united in Christ per His prayer to the Father in John 17. We don't love God's gifts, including the Bible and the Magisterium, more than we love Jesus. God's gifts, including the Bible, the Sacraments, the Church, etc. are there to serve a purpose, which is to bring us closer to Christ. It is from this premise that all other positions emerge.
Not really - the private judgment objection against SS is not that we all fallibly interpret - that's just being human. It's that there is no mechanism given SS to issue irreformable binding judgments upon believers, it is perpetual private judgment. There is no principled way to distinguish between divine revelation (infallible by definition) and provisional human opinion; no SS body claims divine authority to do so, hence "semper reformanda" as Gavin extolled in debate. In RCism, following submission to church's authority, one is obligated to assent to dogmas even as they might conflict with one's private interpretation of Scripture. One doesn't need to be infallible to identify infallible RC dogmas - RCs and Protestants (who have written against such dogmas for 500 years) alike have no problem doing so. So the SS-follower and RC are not in the same boat. An NT-era follower of Christ and the Apostles submitting to their authority in which they offered infallible interpretations of the OT is not in the same boat as an NT Jew following some random rabbi offering self-admitted provisional interpretations of the OT, even though both followers fallibly interpret their teachers. Or in a secular example, Joe reading Finnegan's Wake with James Joyce sitting next to him offering clarification and feedback as needed obviously has an advantage in understanding FW over Bob reading FW by himself - there is no infinite regress needed.
@@cronmaker2 @a "Not really - the private judgment objection against SS is not that we all fallibly interpret - that's just being human. It's that there is no mechanism given SS to issue irreformable binding judgments upon believers, it is perpetual private judgment. There is no principled way to distinguish between divine revelation (infallible by definition) and provisional human opinion; no SS body claims divine authority to do so, hence "semper reformanda" as Gavin extolled in debate. In RCism, following submission to church's authority, one is obligated to assent to dogmas even as they might conflict with one's private interpretation of Scripture. In theory, a binding authority with zero capacity for error on teaching is a wonderful and efficacious utility for us. The problem is that belief in this incapacity to err requires itself a separate act of faith from the belief in the Trinity, the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and the various other preceding entries in the hierarchy of truths. The Catholic position I've most engaged with seems to conflate this separate assertion as a necessary given of believing the previous assertions, and that conflation comes from the regressive characterization of infallible authorities. This is not to say that one cannot coherently affirm the infallibility of the Magisterium and its absolute binding authority, but doing so logically requires different methodology than what I've seen most often in these comments. That proper methodology cannot be used against Sola Scriptura in such a manner. "Or in a secular example, Joe reading Finnegan's Wake with James Joyce sitting next to him offering clarification and feedback as needed obviously has an advantage in understanding FW over Bob reading FW by himself - there is no infinite regress needed." Certainly there is an advantage for Joe in understanding authorial intent if James Joyce is truly there and willing to offer such explication. My concern is whether the chap sitting next to Joe is actually James Joyce or a ghostwriter hired to write the sequel.
@@ottovonbaden6353 "My concern is whether the chap sitting next to Joe is actually James Joyce" Certainly. There indeed could be and are false claimants to divine authority. But SS churches don't even make the claim in the first place, thus they don't even get out of the gate in the first place as worthy of consideration for proposing articles of faith or identifying divine revelation. The claimants to divine authority (e.g. RCC, EOxy, Mormonism, Streetcorner Bill the Prophet) at least are viable contenders, and thus the credibility of their claims then needs to be evaluated. The same would apply under the NT era scenario where there were multiple people claiming to be prophets, apostles, messiahs. This is where things like the motives of credibility come into play for the RCC under which one gives the assent of faith to its authority after which the issue of perpetual private judgment that plagues SS bodies does not obtain.
It seems to me like Trent is shooting himself in the foot. He has to argue that there are not good reasons to accept the infallibility of Scripture and the Biblical canon apart from the authority of the Catholic Church. It's like he's determined to make all of his beliefs are circular, without any way to argue up to them without the starting point of the Church's authority.
"He has to argue that there are not good reasons to accept the infallibility of Scripture and the Biblical canon apart from the authority of the Catholic Church." Question for Trent: how does he determine that the Catholic Church is that authority? What sort of reasoning does he use? Church tradition? How do I know that that church tradition is infallible? Scripture? Then we have proven nothing...other than a circular path that has not really proven anything. I guess what he would say is that the church self-authenticates. Okay...why does the church self-authenticate and not scripture? "It's like he's determined to make all of his beliefs are circular, without any way to argue up to them without the starting point of the Church's authority." Boom, baby!
Jesus's lovely mum, blessed Mary said to her most special son. "They have no more wine!" at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. Jesus said "It's not my time!" Mary (presumably knowing her son very well!) said "Do what he tells you!" and the wedding helpers did precisely that. Mary's advice seems the perfect guide for any denomination to follow! (the best sermon ever?)
Really enjoyed this discussion! A bit of a tangent, but I am curious how many people are actually attracted to various churches/traditions based on more day-to-day implications. That is, suppose someone finds sola scriptura to be doctrinally more sound but attends an RC or EO church for other, more cultural reasons (e.g. love of high church liturgy, moral guidelines, etc). If anyone has a study to link to on this, I'd be interested in reading it.
That's an interesting thought/question indeed. It seems to me those acting in that scenario would not be intellectually honest though...if one believes Sola they should be going to a Sola believing church...An attraction to high liturgy should not override the most important truths (and Sola would be one of those I think if one believes in it should not be compromised for other preferences).
There have been studies in ex Roman Catholics that become conservative Bible believing Christians, it's because of the Scriptures as a major reason. For those who join Rome from Protestantism, a major reason is marrying someone who happens to be Roman Catholic. And those who become Protestant vastly out number by 3 to 1 those who join Roman Catholicism. From what I remember from looking at various statistical studies. Lots of ex Roman Catholics become secular or become liberal Protestants but many become Bible believing Protestants
Sola Scriptura: the belief that the greater authorities (Apostles and prophets) validate the lesser authorities (church officials). Sola Ecclesia: the belief that the lesser authorities (church officials) validate the greater authorities (Apostles and prophets).
@Bb Dl I swear, this is where your reliance on philosophical probabilities and logical rabbit holes gets you in so much trouble. How do we know that Aristotle really existed? How do we know that Plato really wrote “The Cave”? How do we know that the American Revolution really occurred? Is there a methodology that determines the veracity of historical claims? Yes. And the methodology is not, “What does the church say?”.
@Bb Dl So strange that you put that on Protestants as if Protestants would not agree with you. The reality is that I was converted by the words of the Apostles, the same as the people who were converted by Peter on Pentecost. The Holy Spirit has removed my heart of stone, given me a heart of flesh, dwelt within me and caused me to walk in the Lord’s statutes. Through my faith in Jesus Christ, given to me by the grace of God, I have been adopted by the Father and will be a co-heir with Christ. The same spirit which converted Paul has converted me and I know the words of the Bible are true because the same spirit which caused those words to be written dwells within me. That same spirit has empowered me to hear the voice of Christ and has brought me into His fold. Empowered by the Holy Spirit within me, I listen to that which I KNOW to be true, which are the words of God Himself, delivered to us through the prophets and the Apostles. From there, I follow the commands of the Apostles and test what I don’t know by what I do know. Historical claims such as, “the Apostles taught…” require evidence. If you don’t have any, fine. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but it doesn’t mean you’re right either. And nobody should bind Christians to believe what cannot be proven under the curse of anathema. That’s spiritual tyranny akin to what the Pharisees were guilty of doing. The Apostles never did that and neither did Christ. Testing church authorities by what is written in the scripture is a good and reliable thing to do. We have an Apostolic witness and an Apostolic “atta-boy” to the Bereans for testing even the Apostle Paul’s message by what scripture says. Paul goes further to say that if he or an angel from heaven preach a different Gospel, then they are cursed. The Gospel is a fixed, objective thing. It cannot change, it is etched in stone. If your Pope or magisterium preach a different Gospel, then Paul’s curse applies to them. Paul’s teachings have been recorded and preserved for us, by God’s most gracious and merciful providence. You would do well to weigh what your church officials say against what Paul said. And if you see a discrepancy, then it is necessary to side with Paul every time. Also, your church does not believe that the canon was revealed by divine revelation. They’ll say that the magisterium was divinely inspired to believe that certain texts were canonical. Well, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I was too. So we’re in the same boat.
@@Theosis_and_prayer well, I heard Trent before and thought he is intelligent and make some great points in other debates, recently I saw Gavin debate another topic about the Asbury revival, he is knowledgeable but more importantly I think he labors to do things in the right spirit. My takeaway is that Gavin attitude along with his devotion to Gods word make him the winner to me.
God Blessed you 🇲🇽! Great work. I'd like that you could translate your videos to Spanish for the people in Latin America, because we are living the same debate between Catholics and Protestants, but, over here, there are not much resources in protestant position.. Grettings from Mexico 🇲🇽
The Ireneas quote Trent was asking but dreading for. Against Heresies. Book 3. « First the appostles were preaching the gospel to us, then after a time, by the will of God, it was writen down to us in scripture to be to foundation and pillar of our faith. » … « Bare with us, being mindful of this, that everything we have proven, can only be proven by sacred scripture. »
This was very interesting to think about as a Catholic. I still ultimately think Sola Scriptura is false, but this was a great discussion nonetheless. - Jacque Also, was so great to meet you in person, Gavin!
There were a few things that stood out to me from the debate. The first is that Trent agreed that the scripture is the only "infallible word of God", but then breezes right past it to say that tradition is also the "word of God" and is equal in authority to scripture. If that is so, what work is the word "infallible" doing at all in catholicism? If other things that aren't infallible can be of equal authority to scripture. The second was the infinite regression problem they get from needing an infallible magisterium to define the infallible scripture. You briefly touched on this Gavin, but Trent didn't really have a clear answer. If we need an infallible teaching office to make clear the meaning of infallible scripture, then we'd also need an infallible office to make clear the interpreter of the scripture. Ad infinitum. And when you asked if there was an infallible list of all ex cathedral statements I think this really hit it home. If protestants are so disjointed and can't know which teachings are true for the whole church, then why isn't there a singularly defined list, delivered by the RCC of every infallible statement that is binding on the entire church? Because no matter which council a protestant quotes to make a point on contradiction, as Trent showed, a Catholic will take one or both to be non infallible statements and just move on. They're as uncommitted to clearly defined lists as they claim protestants are when it comes to the rule of the Church. So how does Catholicism offer any more unity or clarity than protestantism. All in all it was a great debate to listen to and I'm firmly built up in my belief that Sola Scriptura is the measuring stick by which we judge every other statement. Thank you Gavin for your defence, God bless!
The point is in RCism there are infallible teachings, not that there's no infallible list of such teachings. No Protestant/SS body offers any infallible teachings (they make explicit disclaimers to the divine authority to do so), everything is offered as provisional and revisable, and articles of faith/divine revelation are infallible by definition. You don't need an infinite regression to identify infallible teachings of RCism - Protestants and RCs alike have no problem identifying them, even if there's no exhaustive list - because the church can iteratively define and clarify. "So how does Catholicism offer any more unity or clarity than protestantism." Compare the confessions/teachings of a range of Protestant denoms on a variety of doctrines to the confessions/teachings of the RCC. The contrast is obvious.
Very interesting to watch the debate and then watch both your and Trent's review. Since I do not know much about Sola Scriptura, the debate and reviews provided some depth of information that I needed to gain a deeper understanding. Thanks for continuing to pursue truth. As a side note, I don't think the debate format is as useful as the type of dialogues that were conducted during the reviews.
Trent seems to incorrectly think you can't prove a negative. And so he thinks sola scriptura is dead in the water because he thinks it's impossible to prove a negative like "There are no other infallible rules of faith". But people prove negatives all the time. I can prove there is no tiger in my living room by simply looking around my living room. An absence of evidence is evidence of absence in cases where we would reasonably expect to see evidence if the thing in question existed. Sola scriptura doesn't have to be understood as a sort of strict universal metaphysical blanket claim. It can be understood as a more modest epistemic/pragmatic claim that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith that we are _aware_ of. It seems that the Catholic ought to tell us _why_ we should accept something _else_ in addition to scripture as another infallible rule of faith.
@@doctorg.k.spoderminsr.2588 Yeah I know. My claim "well Peter" is sacrcasm. Im saying they most absudly go back to their foundational claim that Peter is the rock.
21:18 As a Messianic I can really appreciate the points that Sean Luke made that if the Traditions were to truly go back to Moses, it would be binding, plus the point that certain traditions showing marks of not being from God at all. Some traditions are actually mentioned in the Biblical text and seem to have backing by being mentioned in the Prophets and Writings such as the minor fasts mentioned in Zechariah 8, and the forbidding of carrying burdens in Jeremiah 17, and carrying burdens + buying and selling on the Sabbath in and Nehemiah 13. Also Christ affirms the Tradition of tithing from the mint, dill, and cumin, while also rebuking the Pharisees for ignoring justice, mercy, and faithfulness in Matthew 23:23/Luke 11:42. Some Traditions have divine backing, but many, if not most don't even go back to the time of Christ.
@@rightly-ordered anti-Biblical? Traditions that truly go back to Moses or traditions that go back to Christ can't be "anti-Biblical". And the passage you quoted really doesn't have anything to do with "if the Traditions were to truly go back to Moses, it would be binding" being anti-Biblical. Messiah is giving the correct halakhah on divorce. The Pharisees of the House of Hillel believed that you could divorce for any reason, while the Pharisees of the House of Shammai believed you could only divorce on grounds of adultery. What you quoted was the Lord arguing against the bad interpretation of Hillelite Pharisees.
@@rightly-ordered Christ clearly states the contrary to what? What are you taking issue with? Please drop the vagueness. And He speaks directly to a commandment of God's Law given through Moses and its proper interpretation. Christ is obviously not abolishing divorce, so what are you talking about when you say "He then changes teaching"? What Messiah was doing was giving us the proper interpretation of the Deuteronomy 24:1 and what "ervat davar" means. You have to remember that the Messiah was a 1st Century Jew in Israel.
@@rightly-ordered You are acting like Christ abolished divorce, which He did not. Please read the passage carefully. Christ says "except for unchastity". God through Moses allowed divorce, and while Christ mentioning that it was not so in the beginning (i.e. its not part of God's Perfect Will), Christ is not disagreeing with God through Moses, He is interpreting Deuteronomy 24:1. A really big flaw in your line of reasoning is that your interpretation of Christ disagreeing with Moses is causing Him to be a false prophet that Jews should not accept. If He did disagree with Moses then according to Deuteronomy 13 He would be a false prophet sent as a test to see if you are going to "walk after the LORD your God and fear Him and keep His commandments and obey His voice" Deut 13:4. Also, what you call the same pattern really is not. You are correct on Matthew 5:21-22 that He is being more stringent, but that is making a fence around the Torah, not disagreeing with it... And in Matthew 5:27-28 Christ is connecting the 2 of the 10 Commandments. The root of the word for covet in the 10th Commandment (Ch-M-D חמד) can also translated to lust. Christ is saying that you have then already broken the commandment "you shall not commit adultery" if you break the commandment "you shall not covet/lust after your neighbor’s wife". Lastly I think you are misrepresenting the slavery in the Bible by calling it iterative. The slavery of the Bible was far superior to every other form of slavery that has existed. The last "iteration", if you want to call it that, of slavery in the western world, i.e. the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, would never have even gotten off the ground because according to the Torah, those who steal a man and those who buy a stolen man are both to be put the death. "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. Ex 21:16." The Biblical slavery is a lot more like indentured servitude, and one very unique part of the Biblical slavery is that you must not return a runaway slave. So I am sorry to say, but you need to do a lot more study into the Bible so that you are not presenting Jews a false prophet version of Christ that disagrees with God's Law and probably adjust your approach to Biblical slavery so you don't give atheists a reason to reject the Bible.
@@rightly-ordered If you really have "not so much as suggested that Christ abolished divorce" then why are you suggesting that Christ is disagreeing with Moses? Moses wrote "“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found ERVAT DAVAR in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house," Deut 24:1 The Hillelite Pharisees interpret ervat davar in a very liberal and ungodly sense while Shammite Pharisees understand ervat davar in the same way Christ does. Mishnah Gittin 9:10 Beit Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he finds out about her having engaged in a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse [devar erva], as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter [ervat davar] in her,” (Deuteronomy 24:1). And Beit Hillel say: He may divorce her even due to a minor issue, e.g., because she burned or over-salted his dish, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her,”. Rabbi Akiva says: He may divorce her even if he found another woman who is better looking than her and wishes to marry her, as it is stated in that verse: “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes” (Deuteronomy 24:1). If you read before verse 8 you see "3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?'” The whole framing of the passage is a question about correct interpretation of the Torah. Otherwise, what do you think these 1st Century Jews are doing? You said: "Nor have I suggested that either Moses or Christ was a false Prophet. That is your interpretation because you are struggling to accept that God would provide an easier rule for a people with harder hearts and then lead them into greater truth once their hearts have softened." This shows that you are not reading my comments carefully and understanding what I am saying. Moses is already a given. If you believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then you must necessarily accept the Torah given through Moses. But you are not getting that everything and everyone after Moses gets judged by the Torah. The way we know a false prophet is if they disagree with Moses's Torah. The way we know that the Prophets and Writings in the rest of the Old Testament are true is because they agree with the Torah and build off of the Torah as their foundation consistently. The same goes with Yahushua/Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ)... We can know that He is not a false prophet and false Messiah is because He agrees with and builds off of the Torah consistently. If you honestly believe that the Jewish Messiah disagreed with the foundation of the Torah of Moses then you are preaching a Messiah that Jews are commanded to reject by God Himself. And I have no idea where you are getting that I am "struggling to accept that God would provide an easier rule for a people with harder hearts and then lead them into greater truth once their hearts have softened." Where is that even coming from??? Also I see you have conveniently ignored what I told you about Matthew 5:27-28... And all of that is way "different than recognizing that God's revealed word on slavery was iterative in its approach" which it was not. If it was iterative then why are all earlier and later forms (like American slavery, Roman slavery, Babylonian slavery, Egyptian slavery etc. etc. etc.) way way way worse???
@@rightly-ordered If you do not respond to what I am saying and keep repeating "Christ clearly states that the teaching Moses provided.........To deny that fact is to deny the Scriptures." Then I am not going to respond anymore. 👉👉Please deal with what I am saying and the historical context of the Scriptures instead of repeating your lame assertions which would force Jews to reject Christ.👈👈
@@nathanmagnuson2589 Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC) "Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327). "We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439) “What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC). “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.) "It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments." St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 2
@@he7230 This is wonderful and extremely obvious quote mining. They all professed practices which you would certainly describe as idolatrous. St. John of Damascus is literally the greatest apologist for Icons in the Orthodox church, and every single person in this list venerated relics, prayed to saints, and held to the Traditions of the Orthodox Church.
I was watching the debate and somewhere after an hour into the discussion, Trent raises an objection that I think is riddled with problems: It was a question pertaining to Jehovah’s Witnesses and 1 Cor. 15. Perhaps I sometimes nit pick on some of the finer details, and this may be one of those times, but... for starters, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in the true, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus, yet that is an essential part of Paul's message. So in light of that, Trent may want to rethink the objection he was attempting to raise. Further, and probably more to the point, is that in 1 Cor. 15:1, Paul speaks of “the gospel which I preached to you” as something he had done at some point in the past (hence, the past tense, “I preached”). What Paul says here is nestled away in the fifteenth chapter (of sixteen). Does Paul’s “gospel” to the Corinthians include those things said in prior chapters, including 1 Cor. 8:1-10:22, where the commitment to Christ (the “one Lord”) is pitted against pagan idolatry? And is Paul's message in 1 Cor. 8:1-10:22 apart of a different message, or was it intended to be apart of a broader message which he alludes to in 1 Cor. 15:1? Trent is attempting to make the argument that Scripture nowhere defines the deity of Jesus as a salvific issue, but that the Church was (or is) authoritative in that regard. But that's where I think he took a wrong turn. Our belief in “the Son of God" must be on par with what the apostles believed about Him, else our view of Christ as "the Son of God" is distorted. It is not as simple as believing in Jesus as "the Son of God" in some titular, round-a-bout sense. But that one has to fully, and absolutely embrace everything written about the Son of God as intended by the NT's authors. And if you can't do that then your portayal of Jesus as "the Son of God" is skewed, and you don't believe in the same Jesus as they, and are therefore in jeopardy of God's judgment. Quite literally, when Paul writes in Romans 10:13, "all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1-3), from what OT text is Paul alluding to? And who is He referring to as "Lord"? And by Paul's use of "Lord," what is meant? I'll give you a clue: Joel 2:32. Paul's use of "Lord" is an allusion to Joel 2:32's use of "Lord," and according to Paul, in order to be saved you must call on the name of that Lord. If for you, Jesus is not "Lord," in the sense that Paul demands it be taken (in harmony with Joel 2:32), then what are the implications, Trent? I thought the NT's presentation regarding the deity of Jesus is nowhere presented as "salvific"?
There should be no debate about sola scriptura, Just read the Bible, because it says, "Don't go beyond what is written. And. "ADD no other doctrine". So what do naughty people do? They go beyond what the Bible says and they ADD their doctrines to the Bible and claim they are inspired by God.
I think it is also helpful to ask whether the early church, at least for the first few hundred years, operated under the Sola Scriptura model, given the language of oral tradition in the OT and NT.
@@internautaoriginal9951I don’t think you’ve been keeping up with that debate. The Christian churches from extremely early on were using images. The question is not about whether it’s ok to paint an image for theological instructional purposes it’s whether veneration was happening within the first 300 years of the church or whether that was developed later.
@@harrygarris6921 The apostolic church did not use images, as they clearly knew that it violated God's very clear prohibition in the 2nd Commandment where it reads that His followers are not to make any physical representations of _anything_ that exists in Heaven. It doesn't matter what the counterfeit groups did. Christians are to follow the example of the _apostolic_ church.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 My man that just isn't accurate. There are still surviving paintings in the catacombs under Rome that were painted by Christians who gathered there to escape persecution that you can go see today. The second commandment was referring to pagan idols, which if you understand what the purpose and intent of an idol is in paganism it's pretty obvious that a painting of Jesus or of a biblical event is not one.
37:58 "Icons" Could you imagine, God forbid, Christ carrying icons--much less "respecting" the icons as the Orthodox do? The Pharisees would have pounced on the opportunity to accuse Him of idolatry. I just can't believe such an obvious farce. It doesn't mean I think they don't know God--obviously they do--but I think it proves God is merciful to our ignorance. 38:19 "Infallibility of Apostles when they're intending to lead the Church into a belief" How would you square that with Peter's teaching a false Gospel (Galatians 2)?
I know a bit of Catholic church history . The reason I would rather stick to a system that is "scripture alone" is that I simply do not trust the Roman Catholic Church. When I get flustered or confused about doctrines etc. my mind return to Jesus. I CAN trust Jesus. I Know him and I know he will let truth prevail.
I simply do not trust the Roman Catholic Church." You do when you open your bible to the table of contents and believe that the New Testament consists of 27 writings, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings. You just don't trust it consistently, and in doing so don't trust the words of Jesus, our Lord and Savior (Jn 16: 13)
I think Trent's description of the lack of evidence that Tradition and Magisterium are inerrant and authoritative at scriptural level as a black swan is false equivalency. The Catholic church isn't saying we 'might' have this authority once the documentation is found (the black swan), but they are saying they do have that proven authority now.
I think that comes from the structure of the debate, given that sola scriptura was the affirmative, the opposition simply has to suggest the contrary is possible. Not necessarily useful for an in-depth look at both sides and their position but the way all debates are structured.
Gents how do we successfully address the challenge from RC friends that each Pastor upon examining a text of scripture can land on a definitive understanding of a teaching despite departing from other teachers understanding of the same doctrine or other historical definitive understanding of the same teaching on the same doctrine - the claim is once we preach our own interpretation we’ve become a type of infallible rule of our own…we are the magisterium in a sense. Where RC folks can disagree - the final understanding of the teaching is from the magisterium. Thoughts from the panel?
D. advocate here.. holy spirit goes where it wills? Each interpretation could be whats needed at that time. On the opposing side we have infallible popes who disagree and overturn other “infallible” pope’s interpretations and decisions showing this happens jn RC as well. Hence Gavins point the Protestant church can fix things quicker than the RC church as they need to wait for a new pope or new council etc.. The point of scripture i think is missed here. The good news is preached not read. The purpose of scripture is to solidify and standardize the gospel as an authoritative document, a witness to the Christian life. And the purpose of a christian life is to become like Christ. I think outside of this view we end up with what we have, people arguing over their own literature and not living it. The orthodox church at least considers the Saints, someone who has become most Christlike as having the better interpretation. Imagine learning about how to build a house from people who talk about building a house vs those who actually build them. Too many people nitpicking about scriptural passages while ignoring the wider scope just to be inflate their ego.
@Bee Cee You said it correctly! The point here is the "good news." Sadly, for Protestants, the "good news" depends on who you're listening to, is like a buffet you pick and choose what to believe and if you don't like that just go to another church with a different "good news". And if you can provide an infallible statement given by a Pope that was contradicted by another Pope later. Sometimes, people get confused on what is infallible and what's not. I would like to look in to it.
Thanks for the feedback - I have concerns from years of ministry - and that is to say the diversity of theological thought that leaves Protestantism broken and fractured does not acknowledge or honors our Lord’s Prayer. It is a serious concern of many and it has massive implications and if we are honest ‘keep reforming’ often means ‘keep splitting’ - apparently we’ve decided make light of it but this drives people (some) to heresy and theological error that damages people. Yes God is sovereign and He is so sovereign that our Lord disciplines the churches so He cares very much. It’s tough but in my sincere opinion our kryptonite is our lack of unity. We have unity in our gospel presentation - but that’s it. We differ on Calvinism / Arminianism / losing salvation / Mary / baptism / divorce and remarriage / women deacons / liturgy / music / sacrament to name just a few. These aren’t nonessentials or tier 3 issues.
@@elreyhats That's simply not true. There is more consistency and clarity around the Good News of the Gospel in Protestantism. Gavin made the point that he had asked 10 Catholics how to be saved or how to know and had about 8 different answers. Even a good friend of mine who is a convert to catholicism couldn't answer me on how I could be saved. I meet with the evangelical pastors of my town once a month. We all agree on the Gospel. We differ on minor issues such as style of worship music, preaching topics on expositionally, elder led or congregational, if the gifts of the Spirit have ceased, but we do not disagree about the Gospel.
54:43 Debates are beneficial only when both sides are of equal ability and knowledge. If not it either becomes a lecture and not a debate, or it gets bogged down with the more skilled debater scoring points on a less skilled , although not (always) less knowledgeable opponent. Also if neither side understands the others position it becomes two people talking past each other and attacking strawmen.
This was great to wrestle through, thank for how you guys looked over this. Is there a distinction between Jesus “The Word of God” and the Cannon “The Word of God” or are they equated?
How do Protestants know that the 27 writings of the New Testament are inspired and infallible Scripture? Gavin said that people could "recognize" infallibility. Well, various Gnostic groups "recognized" other writings as Scripture. The Ebionites "recognized" that Paul's writings and most of the other 27 were NOT Scripture. The Paulicians "recognized" that Peter's writings and others of the 27 were NOT Scripture. The Mohammadans "recognized" that none of the 27 were infallible. As a Catholic, I believe that Christ established a Church and that the true and full faith has been passed down and preserved. This Church recognizes what is Scripture, and I trust God's Church.
Catholic here. I don’t think Gavin “won” the debate. I think he came off looking better and was more likable during the debate but that isn’t the same as winning nor being convincing. Gavin was the only one of the two that pushed forward new ideas that were not just talking points from pervious debates but again bringing something new to the table or being more interesting is still not the same as “winning.” Trent started off more combative as if he had prepared for a different interlocutor. And Trents answers were the same you’d hear from him or any Catholic apologists. But Trents arguments while well worn are standard answers for a reason. So Gavin was more likable but Trent was more convincing with stronger if less interesting argumentation.
@@internautaoriginal9951 You watched the dividing line by James White. It doesn’t bother me if Trent’s source is a modernist or a secularist. Truth is truth. The dude who is doing most of the talking this vid is a great demonstration of “protestants” not understanding Catholic claims. It is like we are using the same words but have completely different definitions for those words. Many are reading into and expanding what Catholics and Catholic doctrine is saying well beyond what is meant. The more I read the reformers and their confessions the more I notice this issue. This is a problem from the start. I would think it was a problem of translating Latin into German but this problem persists even when both side are speaking English.
@@alpha4IV So the Bible is not reliable, there’s evidence against who wrote hebrews and that God doesn’t exist but that’s the truth ? Wow I never though Catholics would turn atheist. Non of the prophecy’s of Jesus are true because they are inaccurate
@@internautaoriginal9951 I would argue that there is strong evidence against traditional authorship at least in the literal sense, luckily we believe in inspiration so really doesn’t matter who the mortal authors were but I think their attributions are important and I wouldn’t change the name of the book if turned out (let’s use Matthew since that’s were you started) Matthew’s oral version began with a historical Matthew but its written form came from a Mathew school or Matthean Church tradition that was then later written down between 65 & 90 AD. By the way, Origen, Jerome, & Aquinas in their commentaries on Mathew are open to both theories of how the text came to be, though each Father leans more one way or the other. As for there being historical anachronisms and inaccuracies in the Bible as a whole this is undeniable. How we treat the genre and conventions of each book will guide us in how we reconcile the apparent contradiction. But camels before they inhabited a region, light before the existence of a sun, where the canaanites destroyed or not, Bart Ehrman has a list of apparent New Testament contradictions and historical inaccuracies. That we accept them and can answer them doesn’t mean that they are not there. Both Gavin and Horn acknowledge as much. Unless we are going to say that the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark were always there and demonstrably really happened in physical history. Catholics have a 5 fold method for understanding these things, we can say it is True & Inspired and mean it, but what we mean by those words might be saying something different than what you are saying when you say the same thing.
Sometimes it feels like the thinking of the other sides is dangerously close to Gnosticism, which inherently bears a sense of superiority "We have this, you don't" or "we have this complete knowledge that makes us the True Church" but no, God has revealed the complete Truth to us in His word so that His will would be accomplished as we are told: This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 3:4) and so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isa 55:11)
Contrary to your claim, God only revealed things through His Church, and only His Church has the revelation because it has God's church government. That is why Hebrews specifically mentions the ark containing the law of God, Aaron's rod, and the jar of manna. A church that does not have God's government is not given the revelation. The _true_ God does not operate in any other way.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 I apologize for how I worded that, I didn't intend it to sound so pointed. I agree God revealed things to His people and through His people, that it was recorded and that it was ultimately meant for all people (Acts 10). I agree the Church is essential. I just do not agree with the division I see over this issue nor do I agree the Church is entirely free from error (thus I do not agree it is infallible in an earthly sense) by Christ's own words (Matthew 13). I also do not think it needs to be infallible to carry the infallible truth of the Gospel. The Israelites were some of the most despicable people to walk the face of the Earth (by God's own words - see Ezekiel) and yet were the vessel on Earth for God's revelation. I do not believe Christ blesses for anything to override or overrule the Scriptures themselves and I believe that is precisely what has been done for centuries in many churches (of all traditions). Sola Scriptura is not saying "everyone agrees" just that "this is the only authoritative and infallible rule of Doctrine for the Church". Anyone and everyone can misinterpret that, the danger is then going and claiming that your interpretation is as infallible as the Scriptures themselves.
the debate between Gavin and Trent was essentially over around 1:35:04 (or earlier) when trent horn asked gavin if the bible has a list of essential doctrines and then asked him if there is a place where protestants can asked for a list of essential doctrines and gavin said "no" to both. that basically demolishes sola scriptura as the infallible rule of faith, a simple question "where can we find the list of essential doctrines" where the answer is NOT in the bible and there is no place to get that information. the point is really simple, sola scriptura will not solve differences in what is perceived to be an essential doctrine. Gavin and William Craig will never agree on the issue of the human mind of christ UNLESS ONE OF THEM LOWER HIS PRIDE AND ADMIT THE OTHER IS CORRECT. But there is another option, an infallible authority with a voice to decide who is correct and both of them submit to its authority, and if that happen, they will cease being sola scriptura and protestants.
Bible doesn't explicitly give a list of any essential doctrines. That doesn't mean you can't recognise the essential doctrines. And as Gavin said during the debate the matter pertains to the sufficiency of scripture. Even if you argue 'there is no list', that doesn't help disprove Sola Scriptura. Btw, the so called authority you mentioned to which WLC and Gavin should submit to also want them to kiss icons. Otherwise they are anathemized. Don't you find any problem with such an authority?
That doesn’t debunk sola scriptura since it’s the only infallible Scripture that christian’s should appeal to. Gavin made the point that the Pharisees could’ve said the same thing.
@@harmonypizza The point is simple actually, Gavin and WLC will never come to an agreement on this specific "essential doctrine" UNLESS ONE OF THEM LOWER HIS PRIDE THUS SOLA SCRIPTURA ACTUALLY IS USELESS FOR THEM. Regarding icons, i refuse to answer it since it will derail the point of post BUT YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY WRONG in your assumption. Better watch also Trent's refutation on the icon veneration video of Gavin.
@@internautaoriginal9951 It did, Gavin and WLC both appeal to sola scriptura to insist their own understanding on the mind/will of Christ and yet both arrive on a different conclusion. Their infallible rule of faith (sola scriptura) proved to be fallible when it comes to understanding on such an important "essential doctrine".
@@Ternz_TV Sola Scriptura being "useless" and Sola Scriptura being false is two different things. I can also say the same about your "infallible" authorities pointing out the obvious disagreements Roman Catholics themselves have regarding their Pope and other matters. Regarding essential doctrines, it is first good to know what you mean by essential doctrines.
First John teaches that all Spirit-filled Believers have an anointing from God to be able to recognize, and receive truth. This in and of itself is enough for the Church, as a body of Spirit-filled, anointed Believers to be able to recognize and receive the Inspired Word of God, whilst discerning which books are false, and rejecting them. And this is exactly what we see happen in Church History. There was no need for a Council to "give" the Church, that which it had already received.
You're assuming quite a bit. Who counts in the "body of Spirit-filled annointed believers" in recognizing doctrinal truth? Do the Pelagians, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, etc count who thought they were spirit-filled? Do the early church fathers who accepted the deuterocanonicals count? It is true that the church did not need to wait 1500 years to "give" the church the canon, it had already received it (indeed the church does not create the canon, merely recognizes it) and used it in liturgies universally for over a millenium before Trent (i.e. part of Tradition). But the council was necessary to definitively settle the issue as a normative irreformable binding judgment upon all.
@@internautaoriginal9951 If Paul's missing letter was discovered, would it be added to your canon? The point is it's irreformably settled in RCism that Romans and Sirach are inspired. Such does not and cannot obtain in Protestantism given its principles, any book's acceptance or disputed passage within a book is revisable.
Thanks Gavin, very similar to my own understanding of Sola Scriptura -- the fundamental principle being divine revelation being the only infallible authority. There seems to be atleast 2 questions being discussed in the debate: 1) Whether divine revelation alone is the infallible rule of faith; 2) How one identifies this revelation (in terms of canon and interpretation). I actually think (1) can be substantiated in Scripture itself, whereas (2) is a contextual application of (1). A Catholic parallel being that even if the Catholic dogmas were proved, it is another matter of identifying the Catholic Church -- nothing in the Tradition tells us who the Pope will be in the year 2023, or who is a member of the Magisterium. This practical work of identification is a distinct matter from the content of what God is revealing to us. The preambles of faith being understood as in a distinct though absolutely necessary class of truths, eg., the existence of God is fundamental to Christianity.
I don’t think that was it. I think what you are talking about is the dissent on the “partum partum” proposition: that some of revelation is contained in the scriptures and some in tradition. I don’t think they were advocating anything about equality or elevation or anything. But idk m
@@internautaoriginal9951 You can find the following journal article online in pdf. It is primarily about the canon discussion (and dispells some of the modern apologetic rhetoric) but has some information on the discussions that took place on the role of tradition at Trent. Really interesting. I'd say it largely confirms the comment above, if memory serves me well. I was really surprised to see that it was even discussed. Duncker, Peter G. “The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953): 277-99.
Apart from debates generally, I thought THIS debate was helpful. I think it helps in moving the discussion past certain R.C. talking points, such as the straw manning of the definition of Sola Scriptura, and the idea that Sola Scriptura has to been proven lock stock from scripture itself. Gavin I think did a good job in at least inviting R.Cs to consider that they hold a certain burden of proof themselves.
I agree with you Gavin, the live chat was pretty bad with all the triumphalism. It stood in contrast to the fairly charitable and earnest debate taking place. I’d be fine if live chats were disabled so we could all focus on the content being presented and not be swayed by the quick-to-speak proclamations in the chat.
Each individual can turn off the live chat. It's not fair to those who can effectively manage their attention to deprive them of this feature of the debate.
@@enshala6401 I don't think fairness has anything to do with it. A live chat isn't a requirement for a debate and all the people who attended the debate in person did not have an opportunity to talk during the debate. I think if we're honest, generally internet commentary is poor quality and serves to incite rather than educate.
@Frank Norton The Christian approach is to believe the best about anyone or anything (1 Cor 13:4-7). Yes, people will fall short of charity, and they will be held accountable in accordance with Jesus' will. It's so weird that Protestants would try to micromanage the lives of anyone. I thought the Holy Spirit freed you from human micromanagement. What is it, "free assembly for me, but not for thee!"? Live and let live, man.
Hey Gavin! I think the force of the your rebuttals to the Catholic epistemological arguments against Sola Scriptura (and to the importance of the concept of infallibility), are finally hitting home for me. For example, we Catholics do certainly disagree as to the very nature of Sacred Tradition. Also, we do have an extremely fluid "fallible list of [papal] infallible statements."** For what it is worth, I would say: the fact that we cannot hermeneutically (interpretatively) agree as to the status of papal infallible statements, or of the nature of Sacred Tradition, does not mean that we are in the same boat as a protestant. The Church certainly CAN clarify these situations in the future, but right now, they are ambiguous. Does that mean that Protestants don't have their own ways of settling these disputes? Of course not. And here, we get to the problem of the practical value of a system which utilizes infallible statements over a system that does not. Is there a value one over another? That, it seems to me, is the heart of this debate: Does a system utilizing infallible statements have some sort of explainatory power over one that does not -- and visa versa. They both have issues with hermeneutics (as does any group of human beings), but is there some value in one system over the other that is non-hermeneutical? I thoroughly enjoyed your debate with Trent, and am excited to continue hearing more of your arguments! God bless, Parker Zurbuch **Although, I would say that the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are agreed upon by the vast majority of Catholic theologians -- any others, besides those two are hotly debated. There are also plenty of infallible statements (generally, dogmas) by Ecumenical Councils which would be universally acknowledged.
My biggest complaint from Trent is he seems to resort to casting doubt on a position that differs from his. Then once doubt has given a foothold fear sets in and Trent knows this and uses that fear to say look see the RCC has answers for all of these issues all the while ignoring the whole point. The other interesting observation is the sources he cited downplay the Authors and thus questioning who actually wrote the gospels and the Epistles. Like he cited that pier fellow but he seems to conclude that Paul didn't write Paul and thus not Appostolic.
Daniel, did Christians in the early Church reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know it was not Holy Scripture? Why the need for fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? 🤔 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Daniel Haas Paul wrote a letter to the Church of Laodicea. Did Christians in the early Church reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know it was NOT Holy Scripture? And also, why listen to fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Daniel Haas how can you still not know what this means?🤔 Here we go again! Did Christians in the early Church reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know it was not Holy Scripture? And why the need for fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Good question! In principle, I'd actually argue that if we could show a given tradition to likely stem from the apostles' teaching, we should hold to it. But then, whether something goes back to the apostles has to be demonstrated on historical grounds, not just assumed. (So to give two examples of things I think do go back to the apostles: the episcopate and infant baptism. But I think both doctrines are either implied by Scripture (the latter) or fitting with Scripture (the former))
Trent Horn asked you regarding Scripture being explicit regarding the gospel. 2 Timothy 3: 14 very clearly says Scripture is sufficient for the knowledge of salvation through Christ Jesus. Besides from Romans 1:16,17 and from verses beginning from Romans 3:21 we know what is the gospel.
Hi Gavin, I think a written debate would be better in the sense that more weight would then NATURALLY be placed on the strength of the reasoning/argument. Eg Each debater is given 3 days to write a rebuttal of his interlocutor’s arguments and this is repeated over three rounds before each side writes a closing statement. This enables each side to look at the other side’s argument slowly and carefully, and then carefully think of the strongest response to write down as a rebuttal, with time to even look through some relevant references/material to craft the rebuttal. Cheers!
Dr. Ortlund. I realize my interpretation of that verse I mentioned in Revelation is not a breaking of the Bible at all. It is the correct interpretation. The riddle I'd given is no death of the Bible at all. It makes the Bible come alive
Actually, Gavin, you taught me that word, accretion, and I haven't stopped using it, so that's why they're hating on you for it. No, really, they do hate that word! 😂
This is interesting. The tone seems to be that the burden was on Trent to prove that there is something infallible outside of Sacred Scripture when the reality is that it was not only Gavin’s burden to prove that there isn’t an infallible rule outside of Sacred Scripture, it was also an essential premise for his argument. While it would have been fatal if Trent had established another infallible rule, he didn’t have to in order for Gavin’s argument to fail.
The Sacred Tradition ends up in the Catholic liturgy eventually and often takes decades or centuries such that the Holy Spirit keeps bringing the oral tradition or Sacred Tradition, out and into focus over time.
One thing that really stuck out to me was in Gavin’s opening statement you could hear his deep love and care for the Bible. While Trent sounded very monotone to the Bible and not as convicted on biblical inspiration.
dr. Gavin, I just want to say... thank you. So much. I'm Catholic, my family comes from Munich, Germany... my heart was absolutely broken for many years because of how Catholic Church now looks in Germany. Vast majority of my fellow parishioners are just atheist who are used to coming to Mass... My parish priest lived openly with a mistress and whole community embraced that, saying something along the lines of "better her than our kids!". Tarot cards, fortune telling and all sorts of occult magic are common practice among Catholics who view themselves "dominicantes", practicing part of the Church. And recently, our Church openly embraced LGBTQ agenda... and it really isn't just about gay marriage, I'm talking whole leftist political propaganda. I've talked to priests, I even went to my local bishop twice, and I heard them embrace all of this, making my skin crawl. And it seems like new Popes come and go, I've seen 3 in my time and nobody is willing to do anything. I was so crushed that Magisterium I thought was God-breathed and that could not possibly lose a war against the "gates of hell" would just do nothing my entire life, silently tolerating perhaps the most degenerate things I've seen in my life, right there in my parish pews. No excommunications. No taking sacramental rights out of the hands of priests who openly live in sin. No reaction to anything. I was about to become atheist myself, I felt hopeless, I felt like God can't be real if his Church is just this broken from the very top to the very bottom.
...But then, I thought about other Christians and though I never knew anybody outside of my tradition, I started digging, I gave God one last chance... and while looking for some channels that would cover Catholics and Protestant views and would compare one to another, I stumbled upon your channel. Thank you. After watching so many of your videos... *This recent debate was the last thing I needed.* I really feel fully convinced now that the Magisterium was never the answer, which is something I've discovered personally and felt in my gut all along. Your argument about the Death Penalty was spot on. Church is changing its teaching whenever it wants to, all it takes to change an infallible dogma is to re-interpret it or just state that it was never infallible in the first place. There is no one ancient tradition carried from Apostles that Church is representing, the Magisterium is fallible, and is presenting us with ever changing, fallible list of "infallible" dogmas, as if this was supposed to solve anything. I finally am ready to become free in Christ fully, ready embrace God and his word as the only truly infallible authorities to guide me through my faith. I feel so... FREE! Finally I can accept that Vatican are just people and that it's not God who failed me, but these people who are just sinners like me and make bad decisions from time to time. And now, finally, I feel like I can forgive them and move on with my faith. Thank you for doing what you're doing. There is so few of you, well-read Protestant apologists out there... I'm so happy I feel like I can cry! God is so great! He is real and his word is truly infallible, we don't have to be, we can just trust Him! How beautiful is that? Praise God!
I went through that phase 3 years ago except our jurisdiction has evolved into grave idolatry and hyper marian theology so i know how that feels like
I will definitely pray for you♥️
If your local churches in Germany are heretical, that really has nothing to do with Catholicism itself though. Even if the pope and Magisterium fail pastorally in denouncing heresy, that would be a pastoral failure, not a doctrinal one. Catholic moral doctrine would be that homosexual relations are intrinsically sinful, that all deliberately sought out sexual pleasure outside of valid marriage between a man and a woman is wrong, and that doctrine hasn't changed regardless of the failings of some of the clergy.
I'm curious also, what infallible dogmas do you think have changed over the years? The current teaching on the death penalty is merely a prudential judgment that it's no longer necessary today, not a change of teaching regarding whether or not it's intrinsically moral or not.
@@Jay-et9hw "that would be a pastoral failure, not a doctrinal one."
I disagree. Those so called pastoral failures clearly affect how the Magisterium interprets doctrine. And yes, even when it comes to the matter of sexual morality. For example, in 1950s when medical advancements allowed us to understand female reproductive cycle better, as a result contraception was first introduced into our society. Catholic Church, which has always held a position, since the early writings of the Fathers, that sexual activity for pleasure alone and without an intent to conceive a child is sinful, has "failed pastorally" to enforce this doctrine in the light of new sexual morality of the world and as a consequence, changed its doctrine soon after allowing for sexual activity for pleasure alone for the first time in Church history, hence, the NFP was introduced. And sure, at first it was Church's official position that "continual, incessant use of NFP is still sinful" but then it slowly but surely "failed pastorally" to enforce even that, and here were are in the XXI century, with continual use of NFP being the absolute norm of every Catholic marriage.
When you tell me constant, unbroken pastoral failure of consecutive Popes to react to German heresies are not a doctrinal issue of Catholicism, I can't hope to just laugh in frustration. "Catholic moral doctrine would be that homosexual relations are intrinsically sinful" This is exactly what I tried to communicate to my bishop when he told me I'm homophobic for not acknowledging that "proper gay marriage is not the same as lust-based homosexuality described in the Bible". And you know what I heard from him? "There are more bishops that think like I do than you think. Even Pope Francis starts to think this way, and you will see that soon Church will include homosexual relationships as part of the doctrine. You won't have to wait long" and I believe him. Especially, when the German poll in 2021 showed that only 44% of all German Catholics support current stance of the doctrine on homosexuality. Even if it doesn't happen today, or tomorrow, or in 10 years, it just showed me, opened my eyes as to how Magisterium actually functions. Whenever the infallible teaching is no longer suitable for the current Magisterium, it is changed into whatever is necessary for modern time. If you look back at history you can plainly see that. This is exactly what sedevacantists say about Vatican II. That it openly denies several infallible statements made at Council of Trent. And they are right too ya know. Read Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and Council of Trent on how Catholics view Lutherans and their salvation. Read these two documents back to back and tell me doctrine doesn't change with a straight face. I'm sorry, I don't want to sound overly bitter or nasty... I have nothing against you, and if you find the Lord in your Catholic faith, and if your local Church holds up to all of this insanity, cheers to you man, and God bless you on your journey. This is just how I feel. To me, this is a farce. There is no reason to take this seriously.
@@andrew91734 If the Church hasn't officially changed a doctrine though, then it's by definition not a problem of doctrines changing, it's a problem with those in the hierarchy failing to submit to Church doctrine.
When the majority of the hierarchy caved in to the Arian heresy, or at the least neglected to condemn it, that didn't mean the Church had changed its teaching on the divinity of Christ, it just meant that heresy was rampant. It was still a massive problem, but not because Church teaching had changed. Same thing today...yes, heresy is rampant, yes the hierarchy could and should do more to point out and condemn heresy where it arises, I couldn't agree more. But that's not a change in Church doctrine.
Same with NFP...official Church teaching, which does align with the teaching of the Church Fathers (see John Chrysostom for example on marital relations still being good when procreation isn't possible), is that it's not wrong for a husband and wife to consensually abstain from sex at times, with the intent of avoiding a pregnancy (while still being naturally open to it), if there is "just cause". This is still intrinsically different than contraception, as one is still naturally open to conceive and the other is not...a bit like skipping a meal during a diet vs. forcing yourself to vomit after eating all you can eat. One is natural, one is not, even though the end result in both is still losing weight.
It's not a doctrinal change, though it is a pastoral issue, and one of personal conscience. If it's done for selfish reasons it can still be gravely sinful, but it can't very well be "enforced" since it does require personal conscience based on personal circumstances...though I do agree they are often pastorally failing to help form people's consciences so they can make informed decisions. Regardless, the official teaching on the purpose of sex hasn't changed, and there are many, many Catholic families who are truly trying to make the best moral decisions they can in line with Church teaching, and do not use NFP without grave reason. We have never used it; we have 5 kids, and that's a small to average sized family for our parish.
The JDDC was an attempt to find common ground with Lutheran beliefs, and due to differences in understanding and terminology, is filled with ambiguity. That's why, just as with ambiguous statements in Vatican II documents, some will interpret it as contradictory, some will interpret it in line with previous teaching, depending on how you stretch the meaning of the terms. Regardless, JDDC clearly didn't intend to teach anything infallibly, whereas Trent did...so if any interpretation of the JDDC contradicts Trent, Trent wins. Therefore my face is still straight when I say that Catholic doctrine didn't change with the JDDC. Same with any interpretation of ambiguity in Vatican II documents...if someone interprets them in a way that contradicts the constant teaching of the Church, then the constant teaching of the Church is the correct doctrine, not the novel interpretation.
No need to apologize, I'm sorry you've had to experience so much scandal from wolves in shepherds' clothing that it's shaken your own faith...I haven't personally had to go through that, it would be difficult. It just seems to me that you're confusing infallibility with impeccability, false pastoral teaching with Church doctrine, and heretical or apostate clergy with the authoritative Magisterium. I agree these are confusing times...when the widespread heresy of modernism requires you to constantly compare what a cleric says with the constant teaching of the Church, it's damaging to a simple trust that should ideally be there. But none of what you listed are examples of Church doctrine changing, that was my long-winded point. God bless!
I fully unterstand your frustration with the "Catholic" Church in Germany, I am very much myself and love Christian brothers like Gavin, yet for me bad bishops and popes are not sufficient reason to break ties with the ancient roots of the Church. In the history of Israel as recounted in the Old Testament there are so many weak and bad kings who fail to act against idolatry, pagan practises in the people of Israel etc., but it was still the chosen people, still the people from which the Messaiah would come, born of the Virgin Mary. I am always very much impressed by Jesus' family trees in the New Testament, of which David's adultery and even a prostitue is a part. Yet the gospels do not disconnect Our Lord from that sacred history. For me it's the same thing with the visible, universal, Catholic Church, that is not just based on a book, but on the Word of God, eventually Christ Himself, the Word made flesh, mysteriously present in the Eucharist, despite so many tares among the weeds... Our Lord's words are still very difficult and hard to accept: "Let both grow together until the harvest." Again, I feel your frustration with the Church in Germany and feel the temptation to break away and say: "I wash my hands in innocence, I have nothing to do with those people." God bless you!
Enjoyed this discussion. Would love to hear more from Joshua Schooping. I believe he has a unique perspective as a former Orthodox Priest and he seems to be an excellent teacher.
I agree👍
Great roundtable!
@YAJUN YUAN I don't generally use the term "Prima Scriptura"; not in a long time, at least. Regardless, I agree with how he is defining it.
@YAJUN YUAN I think "Prima Scriptura" is a better name for "Sola Scriptura", but I use "Sola Scriptura" in large part because that's the historic term used for it.
Grateful for this work, both in the debate, and in these contributions.
Sean's my brother. I've been so helped over the years by what a careful and charitable thinker he is. Thanks Sean. He spurs me on to work harder at understanding those I disagree with, and pray for grace to understand them on their terms.
Gavin, thank you for platforming Christian brothers who so solidly encourage careful work here. Josh's work has helped me out as well with recommendations for Protestant siblings addressing crises of faith in their tradition.
Great work, all. Thank you. May God make more of YT like this!
If possible, I'd love to see a discussion between the three of you on divine authorship, text criticism, and the perspecuity of the human artifact that's divinely purposed for giving us the Word.
Trent won the debate. Quite convincingly, might I add.
@YAJUN YUAN watch the debate.
@Alex Jurado Agreed. I kind of felt bad for him, especially during the second rebuttal and the cross-exam, because his body language looked very stressed. It's good to hear that he enjoyed it.
Props to Gavin for taking the affirmative on the virtually-impossible job of defending Sola Scriptura while maintaining a gentle disposition. I just think he was in over his head, with his leg bouncing and papers shaking in his hands as he was clutching to them for dear life. I know chat got routy about it, and a couple of us were trying to settle it down because we felt bad for him. I'm not sure, but I got the sense that maybe Trent felt a little bad for him too, because he seemed to show Gavin some mercy by slowing down his questioning about essential doctrines. Anyway, I learned a bunch and hope others did too. Pax...
@@enshala6401 my impression was entirely different. I think both men were competent, but I also don’t know if either would convince any convinced adherent of the other side. Great stuff to chew on though.
What do you feel was unanswered by Gavin that Trent raised? I felt that the audience’s perception of who has the burden in the debate is key to interpreting who had the better case.
Reminds me of Bahnsen and Sproul debating approaches in apologetics.
Great discussion! Seeing Josh on Gavin’s channel again was wonderful!
Spectacular work in the debate Gavin. It was honestly the most effective defence of sola scriptura I have ever heard, and presented with all the kindness of one brother to another. Thank God for your ministry.
Hey guys I’m really struggling right now with anxiety over the sola scriptura issue both of the catholic and Protestant side. Please pray for me. It’s been exhausting. I just want to feel peace with Christ. Sometimes polemics just brings me down and I get confused and second guess all my beliefs which is good but if feels like somebody took the ground from underneath you.
I’m praying for you my friend. May God bless you and keep you all the days of your life; May the spirit fill your heart with joy and peace.
Take it easy, you are not going to hell just for this, both sides affirm that. Just relax and find the truth peacefully, I'll be praying
If you can't trust the Word of God, how can you trust the God who gave it to you?
@@brich2542 its not the word of God he is struggling with, it whether it is the sole infallible rule of faith. So in essence, whether sola scriptura is true.
Keep reading Scripture.
For Trent to imply that theópneustos means "life giving" instead of "God breathed", thereby nullifying the very root of the word, is incredible! Something like a man drowning in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of a storm grabbing at a floating plastic straw. Unbelievable!!
It does seem like Trent has to start attacking Scripture itself in order to argue against Sola Scriptura.
@@roman_warlord It's ironic then that Trent is the one who started the Catholic catch phrase that protestants argue like atheists. We hold the bible in the highest esteem, nothing like atheists. It's just an ad hominum.
It's a fundamental mistake to think that a word's meaning can automatically be discerned by examining the roots of its parts. That approach is known as the "etymological fallacy," and it's universally rejected by scholars. The correct method is called "philology," and it consists of collecting the uses of a word within history.
In that vein, I would point out that theopneustos appears in the Testament of Abraham (rec. A), in the fifth Sibylline Oracle (twice), in a fragment of Aetius, in the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, in the Anthologies of the astrologer Vettius Valens, and in a writing falsely attributed to Plutarch. This profile can be extended by including the cognate term theopnous, which is really an alternate spelling, and which appears in the Poimandres, in a fragment of the neo-Pythagorean Numenius (preserved by Porphyry), in an inscription at the Great Sphinx of Giza, and in a fragment discovered at a nymphaeum in Laodicea on the Lycus. Theopneustos also appears six times in Clement of Alexandria. In every instance prior to Clement, theopneustos/theopnous clearly means "life-giving." Things change drastically, however, with Origen, for whom the word takes on the meaning now universally ascribed to it ("inspired by God"). And it is not insignificant, of course, that the context of 2 Tim 3:16 supports a vivificationist understanding of the term as well, as rendering theopneustos as "life-giving" brings into focus an otherwise obscure development of thought from v. 15 to v. 16: "… from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [For] all scripture is life-giving, and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." The development depends on a resonant parallelism-Scripture is "life-giving" precisely because it is "able to instruct … for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
And it scarcely needs to be said that this is in no way an "atheistic perspective." It is simply a commitment to what the philological record actually says about the word theopneustos.
That’s Romanism for you
@@repentantrevenant9776that’s what he has to do to denigrate scripture and elevate his traditions. He can’t pull any historical or biblical evidence for his doctrines, so there is only 1 way to go
Really edified by you Pastor Schooping. Wow just a blessing. Praise the Lord!
Congratulations on 20K subs
And I think this pre-recorded debate review is the better way to do it in retrospect
@@ProfYaffle it was a little difficult logistically setting up a live stream, but I’d love to do that in the future sometime!
@Truth Unites as soon as the debate was over, I realised the livestream wouldn't work.
But I loved the debate. I learned so much and am still trying to analyse it in depth myself.
Good to see you, Pastor Josh. Hope you’re doing well!
This was really wonderful. 3 brilliant men covering important topics in quick succession. Glory to God!
This was great! I’d love to see more of this. Thanks to all 3 of you for ministering out of your extensive studies.
This is amazing, I seriously pray for more protestant round table discussions, maybe one day we'll get a "protestant answers" ;)
@Anomie Protestants are far more catholic than RCC, it will be apologetics of sola scriptura and why we don’t pray to saints or venérate icons
@Anomie No probably not, you wanna explain a little further, I could see some kind of case to be made for that but I may be interpreting it differently
It's nice to see a younger generation stepping up to the plate now with all the old timers passing away.
@Anomie it seems even those who submit to a magisterium have privately judged that it has the authority to judge for them
@@Norbingel Exactly. And the members of the magisterium do the same.
Sean is the man!
Great talk! Really appreciated this wrap up.
Favourite moment of the debate was when you got Trent to admit to having a fallible list of infallible doctrines. It really blew the force of the canon question out of the water. Overall I thought you had the more cogent arguments, though I think your irenic approach and apologies for interrupting made the cross examine feel more like an interview than a cross examine which didn't feel as strong. Overall great work though!
I have always disliked the fact, and you are right about it, that often a strong and forceful attitude helps to shape people's perceptions of the cases presented. This is most easily seen in Islam where whoever shouts more and mocks more is deemed the winner.
Well, I don't think your conclusion is correct though. A fallible list of infallible teachings could mean that the list is missing teachings that SHOULD be fallible. For example, aren't you glad that one of our infallible teachings is that Jesus came to us as fully God and fully Man? Many Protestants don't believe this. In fact, it took the Magisterium hundreds of years to work that out. There are a gazillion examples of these types of issues. The point is that Jesus said He wouldn't leave us as orphans. Thank God we have a 2000-year old anchor the the Apostles.
@@enshala6401 the Bible teaches that Christ is fully God and fully man. Anyone who disagrees with this isn’t a Protestant since they don’t believe the scriptures. Just because someone says they believe the scriptures doesn’t mean they do if they go against the clear meaning of the text, or else you have to say that the text has no inherent meaning.
@@TheRoark Good to know WLC isn't a Protestant. Someone denying Christological dogmas defined by the councils because they believe those dogmas conflict with Scripture is perfectly justified given SS principles to do so. You're simply assuming your particular interpretation of the text is the "clear meaning". And it hardly follows because a text may be ambiguous that it has no inherent meaning. Even Protestants agree that Scripture's clarity lies along a spectrum and not all of Scripture is perspicuous (only the "essentials" which is hardly a given as Trent noted). Does that mean all the unclear and debated passages dealing with "non-essentials" have no inherent meaning? No.
@@cronmaker2 WLC affirms that Christ is fully God and fully man though, which was what my text says if you care to read it. I am not saying that every later dogma is clear in the text, just that the idea that Christ is fully God and fully man is clear in the text. You posited that protestants can deny this, and I am simply telling you anyone who denies it isn't a protestant. The text not only has a meaning, but isn't even ambiguous on this point.
Gavin, this debate and follow-up discussions have been really helpful to me as a layperson. Keep up the good work!
Very insightful and helpful video, thank you!
This was an excellent discussion! I felt a little overwhelmed after watching the debate- these things always stir up many thoughts and emotions for me in thinking’s through Catholic/Protestant differences. Your discussion helped me a lot in processing.
I would absolutely love the 3 of you to do another video together in the future! God bless.
Much great information! Thank you, Gavin, Josh Schooping and Sean Luke.
I thank you and God for this channel.
Great discussion. The most important point is at 45 minutes: our belief in the inspiration and therefore infallibility of certain books can be fallible, but reasonable and true. There is no logical inconsistency with such a position. In fact, this is the normal outcome of cogent, strong inductive reasoning.
Properly speaking, the bible is both inerrant and inspired. Infallibility is a charism of the Church to declare without error, what is true and false.
This was a brilliant and balanced approach to reviewing the debate, using Protestant scholars from Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Reformed Baptist backgrounds. I enjoyed the debate, and this review as well.
Who was roman Catholic?
@@theknight8524 Good catch! I misheard Sean Luke at the beginning. He actually said that he dove into Roman Catholicism and wrestled with it while he was in seminary, but that he ended up a convinced High Church Anglican (or, as he called it, an Anglo-Catholic adjacent Protestant).
Never clicked a video so fast lol
You did so good in the debate Dr. Ortlund. I thought you won hands down and brought a lot of clarity to the conversation. Loved it.
That debate will go down in history. Especially as a model of how debates are conducted.
I have listened to the debate and watched reviews from both sides now and I applaud everyone on both sides.The debate and all the reviews have been thought provoking and very charitable. Gavin, God bless you and your guests and as a catholic I thank God I can call you my brother in Christ.
That's lovely. I just love when we can recognize and embrace each other as brethren.
Recommend you three doing other topics - great stuff
Great conversation and always a blessing to see Pastor Joshua. Can’t wait to get that 2nd edition of his book. The first one clarified so many things when exiting the Eastern Church.
The work Trent used to undermine Theopneustos denies the Pauline authorship of the pastorals. I wonder how that works for him?
Thank you Dr Ortlund for participating in these conversations with Catholics. As Catholic your contributions have been a blessing to me and pray that God continues to use you in such a mighty way. Blessings
Gavin it was a joy to hear you and Trent speak so graciously to each other.
excellent discussion.
I have just bought the Red book via clicking on the link Gavin put up under this video.
Schooping is one of those names thats easy to cheer for, whether it be a sport or theological commentary, apparently
Sean Luke was great here. Havent heard from him much, gonna follow his stuff more.
Just finished the debate - great job! Ironically, I felt like most of Trent's points did what he accuses protestants of doing: poking holes in a position instead of confronting it head on. That said, his rhetoric was strong making his arguments sound stronger than they were. You were charitable, honest, and truthful in representing genuine Sola Scriptura and the RC contradiction of mingling authority between both man's fallible word (claimed apostolic traditions) with God's infallible word. Cheers!
I think Trent was explaining the necessity of the Church and scripture rather than just stay home and read your Bible.(no offense intended) Another words as most protestants (former protestant 30yrs)believe you can stay home and have church as long as you have your Bible and spend time with God especially after this pandemic, now i'm not saying all but the majority. This is was the effects of sola scriptura without knowing. Scripture was insinuated this way not purposely, but these can be the effect of sola scriptura if not explained. I think with Dr Gavins help this can be explained the the protestant churches. Without understanding or explaining we would easily disagree with our Pastor's view on some passages( because studying at home and reading commentaries) because we read with the understanding of," Why is it only what the pastor teach?"Rather than explaining both the necessity of script and Church both very important. Im now an Orthodox Christian
Great panel. I really like Josh's videos
A point on the essentials argument Gavin brought up: I don't think Trent's point was that it is necessary for all Christians to agree on everything. His point is that there is no authoritative, singular voice for the Church under Protestantism. It seems to me that those are two vastly different things.
Great Work, Gavin. The high point of the debate, in my opinion, was when Trent conceded to you that Catholics believe in fallible lists of infallible teachings.
I, like Sean, am a high church Anglican, so I do believe in the authority of apostolic succession and the councils, but as you pressed in your debate, that does not attack the argument of Sola Scriptura. When I read fathers such as Athanasius, or even just the nature of the arguments in the early councils, it is abundantly clear where the church was justifying their teachings and applying ultimate authority to.
I thought Trent sounded more like an atheist than a RC in that debate. Between him citing leftists and then saying the Gospel isn’t clearly seen in Scripture. I’m not sure conservative RC’s would agree with any of that.
I think you missed his point. He sights leftists not because he necessarily agrees with them rather to show in this case disagreement over the canon which undermines Gavin's position. When he says the Gospel isn't clearly seen. He is saying the essence of what are the essential elements of the gospel. There is no verse or verses that say this is these are the essential elements of the Gospel. I remember years ago listening to a panel at. John Piper pastors conference discussing what are the minimum essential elements of the Gospel. They couldn't agree.
@@jonathanbohl good deal. I will go read up on what Pope Francis has to say to get a little more clarity.
@@jonathanbohl asking for a specific verse that outlines “The Gospel” is nonsensical. It’s like asking “what verse says who Jesus is?”
You might find a Gospel *summary,* and Gavin listed a few immediately in answer to Trent. But the full, 3D picture of the Gospel is the totality of the story of Israel and the world finding fulfillment in Jesus Christ. You need to read the whole Bible, just like you need the whole Bible to know who Jesus is.
This was probably one of the best, most insightful conversations I have ever heard! I absolutely love this.
It was nice to see Gavin was among friends when he was in the midst of our Catholic Christian community. For any other Protestants interested in a dialog with other Catholic Christians, you would receive the same treatment in any other setting as long as they aren't the schismatic traditionalists.
@Godsgirl001 Ah, Discord is a lot of fun. We actually have the Catholic Diocese of Discord. The membership is massive. There are group prayers around the clock. And of course we have a myriad of channels on games, movies, memes, prayer requests, book reviews, apologetics, ask a priest, etc. It's a great community. 🙏❤️😇
I have to say this was an amazing debate review possibly one of the best if not the best I have ever seen. I love Pastor Schooping and Pastor Ortlund but I felt Sean stole the show. He made me see Sola Scriptura in a new light that renewed and strengthened my faith in sola scriptura. It strongly deepens my faith as a Protestant as well. What Sean said was deeply profound about the logical problem Trent Horn has because Sola Scriptura allows and accepts fallible traditions to support the Biblical canon and to determine if the books in scripture are from God and historically reliable.
As Gavin Ortlund said and to tie in with Sean's critique, protestants don't believe you need an infallible interpreter to interpret scripture let alone to recognize if that scripture is infallible or not. Sola Scriptura allows fallible data to support the canon and the Bible. This is blowing my mind right now. Moreover, Sean correctly points out Eusebius and many Church Fathers, when trying to determine which books should be in the canon or not, used logic and evidence. Thus, if what Trent Horn said was true the Church Fathers should have rejected any use of logic and evidence altogether.
If any of you wonderful three gentle men can reply to me and answer my question, is prima scriptura okay to believe in? Is prima scriptura heretical? One of my reformed friends vehemently suggested that prima scriptura is heretical. According to my friend prima scriptura allows the possibility of something infallible outside of the Bible which shows this doctrine is nothing but heretical. I would love to hear Sean's perspective or any one who does not believe prima scriptura is heretical.
I can't thank you, guys, enough and I will have all of you in my prayers! May God continue to bless and guide all of you three great gentlemen!
It seems to me prima scriptura is a species, so to speak, of orthodox sola scriptura.
@@lazaruscomeforth7646 Yes, my friend, that was a great point. Catholics forget that it's not necessary have infallibly for recognize a quality proper of the scriptures.
I would say prima scriptura is necessarily true because of the reality that Jesus said and did things on Earth that were not recorded in the gospels. It may never be possible for us to know what those teachings were and how the apostles imparted them to the churches but they did happen. So no, the written text in the Bible can’t be the only source of divine revelation that has ever existed. But it is what we have available to us today.
@@harrygarris6921 It seems your view of prima scriptura is different from Sean's. Are you actually a Protestant? If you suggest that there is something outside of the Bible equally infallible to the Bible such as Councils, Church Fathers, magisterium, and etc I don't know how that can be reconciled to protestantism.
@@junkim5853 No, I'm not a protestant. But I don't agree with this idea that we have sources of authority from "outside the Bible". The church councils aren't infallible outside of scripture, the reason they're authoritative is they are interpreting scripture.
Take the first council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. for example. The main purpose of this council was to establish that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were equally God along with the Father. This council is where we get the idea of the trinity from. The proofs and arguments made for the trinity came almost exclusively from scripture itself.
Prior to this council, the trinity wasn't an established Christian doctrine. It was still kind of up for debate, and a whole lot of heretical groups were created due to a disagreement over whether Jesus and the Holy Spirit were fully and eternally God along with the Father.
Yet most protestants today are trinitarian. And the ones who are would say its heretical to claim otherwise. Where do you get the idea that it's wrong to question the trinity from? In effect - you guys are accepting this church council as authoritative whether it's intentional or not. Because there's an agreed upon understanding that it is the "correct" way to interpret scripture.
SSBS finished our study of B.B. Warfield's "The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible" just in time for the debate! I have to admit, when Trent suggested theopneustos possibly means something other than the consensus ("God-breathed") I was like "wu-wu-wu-wu-whaat dawg?". Seriously though the debate was such a beautiful display of love applied to the mutual pursuit of truth!
So glad to see this debate review and glad to see Josh on again!
Theo is God in Greek.
@ThoskaBrahyes and I believe he shot himself in the foot with that statement.
@ThoskaBrah Romans 10:9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Notice: Thou shalt be saved
@ThoskaBrah John 25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." The Bible literally says that the Gospel is not fully represented in writing. You guys are mistaking the Bible for the Gospel when the Gospel is actually Jesus Himself. JESUS is The Word. >.>
@@enshala6401 based on your logic, that would rule out tradition as well. Just because not everything He said or did was recorded in the gospel does not mean that the gospel itself is not complete. What we need to know in order to be saved is there.
Also, there is no John 25. John 2030 says “these things have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. And that by believing you may have life in hHs name.” That means that everything we need for salvation has been recorded scriptures otherwise John could not make that claim.
Regarding the topic at 34:14 on the lack of a New Testament basis for post-apostolic infallibility, I'm surprised that no one noted either in the debate or in this discussion that Trent actually shot back with "well, there's also no basis for a written post-apostolic infallibility so we'd be in the same position on that." I could hardly believe my ears. I actually had to pause the debate because I was laughing. I assume that it was a sort of debater's reflex to attempt a turnabout, and I'm assuming Trent would back off that comment if pressed. But still. Wow.
You know, when I was watching the debate live, I thought Dr. Ortlund had an excellent opening statement. Mr. Horn's owner seemed almost off topic to me. Both groups of rebuttals honestly felt like each presenter was just repeating themselves. Then the cross examinations opened up. At the time, Mr. Horn seemed to dominate. It was easy to see he felt comfortable in the environment, and that's where his rhetoric skills had a better chance to shine. It also seemed like he had Dr. Ortlund on the retreat, so to speak. Both closing statements were generous and thought provoking. While I agreed with Dr. Ortlund's points, Mr. Horn was the debate "victor" overall.
Now that some time has passed, and comments all over Pints with Aquinas, Counsel of Trent, and Truth Unites have assembled, and I've had more time to think, I might change my verdict. The commentary on the debate has been especially revealing, and that feels like a hoped for outcome on the pro-Sola Scriptura side.
If I were wearing a cap, I'd tip it to @TruthUnites.
I think your take is good. Trent Horn is a great communicator and very quick thinker. However, if you rewatch the cross examination and the questions Gavin asked, you'll see that Trent was never able to substantiate another infallible authority outside of Scripture. If you follow the logic, you will see that as both agreed and Gavin demonstrated that Scripture is inspired and infallible, and no other infallible authority was clearly presented, you're by default left with Sola Scriptura. At least that was my take. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate.
The point about an infinite regress of infallible authorities in Gavin's first rebuttal seems fairly devastating to the Catholic position to me. This is why when Catholics ask me how I know what the canon is, I answer that I do so in the same way the early Church did, but I don't let it end there. I ask them, how do you know what the canon is. When they answer about the Church and Tradition, I ask how they know that. The implication here, that many don't even catch, is that the Protestant doesn't need an infinite regress of infallible authorities, but the Catholic does, if he's to live consistently with his argumentation.
Furthermore, this also applies to the old canard of the Protestant being the ultimate authority due to private interpretation. The Catholic doesn't usually recognize that to even take the Church's teaching, then he has to privately interpret what the Church teaches. Also, what grounds can you have for becoming Catholic in the first place without private interpretation? None! The Catholic must engage in private interpretation in order to even know that what the Church teaches is true, that is, unless he has an infinite regress of infallible authorities.
The idea of what an infinite regress of infallible authorities is really cutting and apologetically fruitful.
Well, I understand what you are saying, but I would counter that we Catholic Christians are more focused being united in Christ per His prayer to the Father in John 17. We don't love God's gifts, including the Bible and the Magisterium, more than we love Jesus. God's gifts, including the Bible, the Sacraments, the Church, etc. are there to serve a purpose, which is to bring us closer to Christ. It is from this premise that all other positions emerge.
Not really - the private judgment objection against SS is not that we all fallibly interpret - that's just being human. It's that there is no mechanism given SS to issue irreformable binding judgments upon believers, it is perpetual private judgment. There is no principled way to distinguish between divine revelation (infallible by definition) and provisional human opinion; no SS body claims divine authority to do so, hence "semper reformanda" as Gavin extolled in debate. In RCism, following submission to church's authority, one is obligated to assent to dogmas even as they might conflict with one's private interpretation of Scripture.
One doesn't need to be infallible to identify infallible RC dogmas - RCs and Protestants (who have written against such dogmas for 500 years) alike have no problem doing so. So the SS-follower and RC are not in the same boat. An NT-era follower of Christ and the Apostles submitting to their authority in which they offered infallible interpretations of the OT is not in the same boat as an NT Jew following some random rabbi offering self-admitted provisional interpretations of the OT, even though both followers fallibly interpret their teachers. Or in a secular example, Joe reading Finnegan's Wake with James Joyce sitting next to him offering clarification and feedback as needed obviously has an advantage in understanding FW over Bob reading FW by himself - there is no infinite regress needed.
So all this being said would you agree that the Catholic Church teaches the assumption of Mary?
@@cronmaker2 @a "Not really - the private judgment objection against SS is not that we all fallibly interpret - that's just being human. It's that there is no mechanism given SS to issue irreformable binding judgments upon believers, it is perpetual private judgment. There is no principled way to distinguish between divine revelation (infallible by definition) and provisional human opinion; no SS body claims divine authority to do so, hence "semper reformanda" as Gavin extolled in debate. In RCism, following submission to church's authority, one is obligated to assent to dogmas even as they might conflict with one's private interpretation of Scripture.
In theory, a binding authority with zero capacity for error on teaching is a wonderful and efficacious utility for us. The problem is that belief in this incapacity to err requires itself a separate act of faith from the belief in the Trinity, the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and the various other preceding entries in the hierarchy of truths. The Catholic position I've most engaged with seems to conflate this separate assertion as a necessary given of believing the previous assertions, and that conflation comes from the regressive characterization of infallible authorities.
This is not to say that one cannot coherently affirm the infallibility of the Magisterium and its absolute binding authority, but doing so logically requires different methodology than what I've seen most often in these comments. That proper methodology cannot be used against Sola Scriptura in such a manner.
"Or in a secular example, Joe reading Finnegan's Wake with James Joyce sitting next to him offering clarification and feedback as needed obviously has an advantage in understanding FW over Bob reading FW by himself - there is no infinite regress needed."
Certainly there is an advantage for Joe in understanding authorial intent if James Joyce is truly there and willing to offer such explication. My concern is whether the chap sitting next to Joe is actually James Joyce or a ghostwriter hired to write the sequel.
@@ottovonbaden6353 "My concern is whether the chap sitting next to Joe is actually James Joyce"
Certainly. There indeed could be and are false claimants to divine authority. But SS churches don't even make the claim in the first place, thus they don't even get out of the gate in the first place as worthy of consideration for proposing articles of faith or identifying divine revelation. The claimants to divine authority (e.g. RCC, EOxy, Mormonism, Streetcorner Bill the Prophet) at least are viable contenders, and thus the credibility of their claims then needs to be evaluated. The same would apply under the NT era scenario where there were multiple people claiming to be prophets, apostles, messiahs. This is where things like the motives of credibility come into play for the RCC under which one gives the assent of faith to its authority after which the issue of perpetual private judgment that plagues SS bodies does not obtain.
It seems to me like Trent is shooting himself in the foot. He has to argue that there are not good reasons to accept the infallibility of Scripture and the Biblical canon apart from the authority of the Catholic Church.
It's like he's determined to make all of his beliefs are circular, without any way to argue up to them without the starting point of the Church's authority.
"He has to argue that there are not good reasons to accept the infallibility of Scripture and the Biblical canon apart from the authority of the Catholic Church."
Question for Trent: how does he determine that the Catholic Church is that authority? What sort of reasoning does he use? Church tradition? How do I know that that church tradition is infallible? Scripture? Then we have proven nothing...other than a circular path that has not really proven anything.
I guess what he would say is that the church self-authenticates. Okay...why does the church self-authenticate and not scripture?
"It's like he's determined to make all of his beliefs are circular, without any way to argue up to them without the starting point of the Church's authority."
Boom, baby!
Jesus's lovely mum, blessed Mary said to her most special son. "They have no more wine!" at the wedding in Cana of Galilee.
Jesus said "It's not my time!"
Mary (presumably knowing her son very well!) said "Do what he tells you!" and the wedding helpers did precisely that.
Mary's advice seems the perfect guide for any denomination to follow!
(the best sermon ever?)
Oh Man!! I’ve missed Josh!
I agree, would love to see more content from him.
42:08 I don't think you are inconsistent. The Canon can be proven to be Apostolic while those other theological beliefs might not.
Really enjoyed this discussion! A bit of a tangent, but I am curious how many people are actually attracted to various churches/traditions based on more day-to-day implications. That is, suppose someone finds sola scriptura to be doctrinally more sound but attends an RC or EO church for other, more cultural reasons (e.g. love of high church liturgy, moral guidelines, etc). If anyone has a study to link to on this, I'd be interested in reading it.
That's an interesting thought/question indeed. It seems to me those acting in that scenario would not be intellectually honest though...if one believes Sola they should be going to a Sola believing church...An attraction to high liturgy should not override the most important truths (and Sola would be one of those I think if one believes in it should not be compromised for other preferences).
There have been studies in ex Roman Catholics that become conservative Bible believing Christians, it's because of the Scriptures as a major reason. For those who join Rome from Protestantism, a major reason is marrying someone who happens to be Roman Catholic. And those who become Protestant vastly out number by 3 to 1 those who join Roman Catholicism. From what I remember from looking at various statistical studies. Lots of ex Roman Catholics become secular or become liberal Protestants but many become Bible believing Protestants
Sola Scriptura: the belief that the greater authorities (Apostles and prophets) validate the lesser authorities (church officials).
Sola Ecclesia: the belief that the lesser authorities (church officials) validate the greater authorities (Apostles and prophets).
The RC rule of faith is not sola ecclesia, but sola STM-triad. The church validates the proper interpretation of the greater authorities.
@Bb Dl they address this in the video. Also do you have an infallible list of infallible papal pronouncements? No?
Then we don’t need one either.
@Bb Dl I swear, this is where your reliance on philosophical probabilities and logical rabbit holes gets you in so much trouble.
How do we know that Aristotle really existed? How do we know that Plato really wrote “The Cave”? How do we know that the American Revolution really occurred? Is there a methodology that determines the veracity of historical claims? Yes. And the methodology is not, “What does the church say?”.
@Bb Dl So strange that you put that on Protestants as if Protestants would not agree with you. The reality is that I was converted by the words of the Apostles, the same as the people who were converted by Peter on Pentecost. The Holy Spirit has removed my heart of stone, given me a heart of flesh, dwelt within me and caused me to walk in the Lord’s statutes. Through my faith in Jesus Christ, given to me by the grace of God, I have been adopted by the Father and will be a co-heir with Christ. The same spirit which converted Paul has converted me and I know the words of the Bible are true because the same spirit which caused those words to be written dwells within me. That same spirit has empowered me to hear the voice of Christ and has brought me into His fold. Empowered by the Holy Spirit within me, I listen to that which I KNOW to be true, which are the words of God Himself, delivered to us through the prophets and the Apostles. From there, I follow the commands of the Apostles and test what I don’t know by what I do know. Historical claims such as, “the Apostles taught…” require evidence. If you don’t have any, fine. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but it doesn’t mean you’re right either. And nobody should bind Christians to believe what cannot be proven under the curse of anathema. That’s spiritual tyranny akin to what the Pharisees were guilty of doing. The Apostles never did that and neither did Christ.
Testing church authorities by what is written in the scripture is a good and reliable thing to do. We have an Apostolic witness and an Apostolic “atta-boy” to the Bereans for testing even the Apostle Paul’s message by what scripture says. Paul goes further to say that if he or an angel from heaven preach a different Gospel, then they are cursed. The Gospel is a fixed, objective thing. It cannot change, it is etched in stone. If your Pope or magisterium preach a different Gospel, then Paul’s curse applies to them. Paul’s teachings have been recorded and preserved for us, by God’s most gracious and merciful providence. You would do well to weigh what your church officials say against what Paul said. And if you see a discrepancy, then it is necessary to side with Paul every time.
Also, your church does not believe that the canon was revealed by divine revelation. They’ll say that the magisterium was divinely inspired to believe that certain texts were canonical. Well, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I was too. So we’re in the same boat.
😱😱😱😱🥳🥳🥳🥳
So pumped for this!
I watched the debate which led me here.
What did you think of it?
@@Theosis_and_prayer well, I heard Trent before and thought he is intelligent and make some great points in other debates, recently I saw Gavin debate another topic about the Asbury revival, he is knowledgeable but more importantly I think he labors to do things in the right spirit. My takeaway is that Gavin attitude along with his devotion to Gods word make him the winner to me.
"my name is Sean Luke, I'm captain of the enterprise"
When he introduced himself and didn't say "Picard", my brain threw up an error message box.
God Blessed you 🇲🇽! Great work. I'd like that you could translate your videos to Spanish for the people in Latin America, because we are living the same debate between Catholics and Protestants, but, over here, there are not much resources in protestant position.. Grettings from Mexico 🇲🇽
The Ireneas quote Trent was asking but dreading for.
Against Heresies. Book 3.
« First the appostles were preaching the gospel to us, then after a time, by the will of God, it was writen down to us in scripture to be to foundation and pillar of our faith. »
… « Bare with us, being mindful of this, that everything we have proven, can only be proven by sacred scripture. »
he also has some stunners on the perspicuity of Scripture!
@@TruthUnites ... Those were actually serious ?!! I thought they were hypothetical points.
@@TruthUnites
Here ya go, I put the Irenaeus in context. Share, subscribe etc.
ua-cam.com/video/KvC0qJz4Fmg/v-deo.html
This was very interesting to think about as a Catholic. I still ultimately think Sola Scriptura is false, but this was a great discussion nonetheless. - Jacque
Also, was so great to meet you in person, Gavin!
thanks Jacque, so great to meet you! thanks for coming! :)
What do you think is wrong with Sola Scriptura?
@@colepriceguitar1153 It's a delusion
@@Ninos-j2c why do you think that?
There were a few things that stood out to me from the debate. The first is that Trent agreed that the scripture is the only "infallible word of God", but then breezes right past it to say that tradition is also the "word of God" and is equal in authority to scripture. If that is so, what work is the word "infallible" doing at all in catholicism? If other things that aren't infallible can be of equal authority to scripture.
The second was the infinite regression problem they get from needing an infallible magisterium to define the infallible scripture. You briefly touched on this Gavin, but Trent didn't really have a clear answer. If we need an infallible teaching office to make clear the meaning of infallible scripture, then we'd also need an infallible office to make clear the interpreter of the scripture. Ad infinitum.
And when you asked if there was an infallible list of all ex cathedral statements I think this really hit it home. If protestants are so disjointed and can't know which teachings are true for the whole church, then why isn't there a singularly defined list, delivered by the RCC of every infallible statement that is binding on the entire church? Because no matter which council a protestant quotes to make a point on contradiction, as Trent showed, a Catholic will take one or both to be non infallible statements and just move on. They're as uncommitted to clearly defined lists as they claim protestants are when it comes to the rule of the Church. So how does Catholicism offer any more unity or clarity than protestantism.
All in all it was a great debate to listen to and I'm firmly built up in my belief that Sola Scriptura is the measuring stick by which we judge every other statement. Thank you Gavin for your defence, God bless!
The point is in RCism there are infallible teachings, not that there's no infallible list of such teachings. No Protestant/SS body offers any infallible teachings (they make explicit disclaimers to the divine authority to do so), everything is offered as provisional and revisable, and articles of faith/divine revelation are infallible by definition. You don't need an infinite regression to identify infallible teachings of RCism - Protestants and RCs alike have no problem identifying them, even if there's no exhaustive list - because the church can iteratively define and clarify.
"So how does Catholicism offer any more unity or clarity than protestantism." Compare the confessions/teachings of a range of Protestant denoms on a variety of doctrines to the confessions/teachings of the RCC. The contrast is obvious.
Bingo! Two big takeaways from the debate that show the Catholic position for what it is!
2Tim3:16 is God Breathed out
Very interesting to watch the debate and then watch both your and Trent's review. Since I do not know much about Sola Scriptura, the debate and reviews provided some depth of information that I needed to gain a deeper understanding. Thanks for continuing to pursue truth.
As a side note, I don't think the debate format is as useful as the type of dialogues that were conducted during the reviews.
Trent seems to incorrectly think you can't prove a negative. And so he thinks sola scriptura is dead in the water because he thinks it's impossible to prove a negative like "There are no other infallible rules of faith". But people prove negatives all the time. I can prove there is no tiger in my living room by simply looking around my living room. An absence of evidence is evidence of absence in cases where we would reasonably expect to see evidence if the thing in question existed.
Sola scriptura doesn't have to be understood as a sort of strict universal metaphysical blanket claim. It can be understood as a more modest epistemic/pragmatic claim that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith that we are _aware_ of. It seems that the Catholic ought to tell us _why_ we should accept something _else_ in addition to scripture as another infallible rule of faith.
Its always the same answer. "WELL PETER"
@@dann285 Indeed, but it's a giant stretch from Matthew 16:18 to the institution in Rome.
@@doctorg.k.spoderminsr.2588 Yeah I know. My claim "well Peter" is sacrcasm. Im saying they most absudly go back to their foundational claim that Peter is the rock.
21:18 As a Messianic I can really appreciate the points that Sean Luke made that if the Traditions were to truly go back to Moses, it would be binding, plus the point that certain traditions showing marks of not being from God at all. Some traditions are actually mentioned in the Biblical text and seem to have backing by being mentioned in the Prophets and Writings such as the minor fasts mentioned in Zechariah 8, and the forbidding of carrying burdens in Jeremiah 17, and carrying burdens + buying and selling on the Sabbath in and Nehemiah 13. Also Christ affirms the Tradition of tithing from the mint, dill, and cumin, while also rebuking the Pharisees for ignoring justice, mercy, and faithfulness in Matthew 23:23/Luke 11:42. Some Traditions have divine backing, but many, if not most don't even go back to the time of Christ.
@@rightly-ordered anti-Biblical? Traditions that truly go back to Moses or traditions that go back to Christ can't be "anti-Biblical". And the passage you quoted really doesn't have anything to do with "if the Traditions were to truly go back to Moses, it would be binding" being anti-Biblical. Messiah is giving the correct halakhah on divorce. The Pharisees of the House of Hillel believed that you could divorce for any reason, while the Pharisees of the House of Shammai believed you could only divorce on grounds of adultery. What you quoted was the Lord arguing against the bad interpretation of Hillelite Pharisees.
@@rightly-ordered Christ clearly states the contrary to what? What are you taking issue with? Please drop the vagueness.
And He speaks directly to a commandment of God's Law given through Moses and its proper interpretation. Christ is obviously not abolishing divorce, so what are you talking about when you say "He then changes teaching"? What Messiah was doing was giving us the proper interpretation of the Deuteronomy 24:1 and what "ervat davar" means. You have to remember that the Messiah was a 1st Century Jew in Israel.
@@rightly-ordered You are acting like Christ abolished divorce, which He did not. Please read the passage carefully. Christ says "except for unchastity". God through Moses allowed divorce, and while Christ mentioning that it was not so in the beginning (i.e. its not part of God's Perfect Will), Christ is not disagreeing with God through Moses, He is interpreting Deuteronomy 24:1.
A really big flaw in your line of reasoning is that your interpretation of Christ disagreeing with Moses is causing Him to be a false prophet that Jews should not accept. If He did disagree with Moses then according to Deuteronomy 13 He would be a false prophet sent as a test to see if you are going to "walk after the LORD your God and fear Him and keep His commandments and obey His voice" Deut 13:4.
Also, what you call the same pattern really is not. You are correct on Matthew 5:21-22 that He is being more stringent, but that is making a fence around the Torah, not disagreeing with it... And in Matthew 5:27-28 Christ is connecting the 2 of the 10 Commandments. The root of the word for covet in the 10th Commandment (Ch-M-D חמד) can also translated to lust. Christ is saying that you have then already broken the commandment "you shall not commit adultery" if you break the commandment "you shall not covet/lust after your neighbor’s wife".
Lastly I think you are misrepresenting the slavery in the Bible by calling it iterative. The slavery of the Bible was far superior to every other form of slavery that has existed. The last "iteration", if you want to call it that, of slavery in the western world, i.e. the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, would never have even gotten off the ground because according to the Torah, those who steal a man and those who buy a stolen man are both to be put the death. "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. Ex 21:16." The Biblical slavery is a lot more like indentured servitude, and one very unique part of the Biblical slavery is that you must not return a runaway slave.
So I am sorry to say, but you need to do a lot more study into the Bible so that you are not presenting Jews a false prophet version of Christ that disagrees with God's Law and probably adjust your approach to Biblical slavery so you don't give atheists a reason to reject the Bible.
@@rightly-ordered If you really have "not so much as suggested that Christ abolished divorce" then why are you suggesting that Christ is disagreeing with Moses?
Moses wrote "“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found ERVAT DAVAR in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house," Deut 24:1
The Hillelite Pharisees interpret ervat davar in a very liberal and ungodly sense while Shammite Pharisees understand ervat davar in the same way Christ does.
Mishnah Gittin 9:10
Beit Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he finds out about her having engaged in a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse [devar erva], as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter [ervat davar] in her,” (Deuteronomy 24:1). And Beit Hillel say: He may divorce her even due to a minor issue, e.g., because she burned or over-salted his dish, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her,”. Rabbi Akiva says: He may divorce her even if he found another woman who is better looking than her and wishes to marry her, as it is stated in that verse: “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes” (Deuteronomy 24:1).
If you read before verse 8 you see "3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?'” The whole framing of the passage is a question about correct interpretation of the Torah. Otherwise, what do you think these 1st Century Jews are doing?
You said: "Nor have I suggested that either Moses or Christ was a false Prophet. That is your interpretation because you are struggling to accept that God would provide an easier rule for a people with harder hearts and then lead them into greater truth once their hearts have softened."
This shows that you are not reading my comments carefully and understanding what I am saying. Moses is already a given. If you believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then you must necessarily accept the Torah given through Moses. But you are not getting that everything and everyone after Moses gets judged by the Torah. The way we know a false prophet is if they disagree with Moses's Torah. The way we know that the Prophets and Writings in the rest of the Old Testament are true is because they agree with the Torah and build off of the Torah as their foundation consistently. The same goes with Yahushua/Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ)... We can know that He is not a false prophet and false Messiah is because He agrees with and builds off of the Torah consistently. If you honestly believe that the Jewish Messiah disagreed with the foundation of the Torah of Moses then you are preaching a Messiah that Jews are commanded to reject by God Himself.
And I have no idea where you are getting that I am "struggling to accept that God would provide an easier rule for a people with harder hearts and then lead them into greater truth once their hearts have softened." Where is that even coming from???
Also I see you have conveniently ignored what I told you about Matthew 5:27-28...
And all of that is way "different than recognizing that God's revealed word on slavery was iterative in its approach" which it was not. If it was iterative then why are all earlier and later forms (like American slavery, Roman slavery, Babylonian slavery, Egyptian slavery etc. etc. etc.) way way way worse???
@@rightly-ordered If you do not respond to what I am saying and keep repeating "Christ clearly states that the teaching Moses provided.........To deny that fact is to deny the Scriptures." Then I am not going to respond anymore.
👉👉Please deal with what I am saying and the historical context of the Scriptures instead of repeating your lame assertions which would force Jews to reject Christ.👈👈
Sola scriptura is a very important part of holy tradition. Those who departed from it also departed from the tradition of the early church.
lol, thats why it never appeared until the 1500s?
@@nathanmagnuson2589 It started before the 1500 but nothing big happened because they were burned alive
@@nathanmagnuson2589 Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)
"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).
"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)
“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).
“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)
"It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments." St. John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter 2
@@internautaoriginal9951 So the Waldensians, Wycliffe, Hussites, and Gansfort, and a lot of ancient heretics. Great job!
@@he7230 This is wonderful and extremely obvious quote mining. They all professed practices which you would certainly describe as idolatrous. St. John of Damascus is literally the greatest apologist for Icons in the Orthodox church, and every single person in this list venerated relics, prayed to saints, and held to the Traditions of the Orthodox Church.
I was watching the debate and somewhere after an hour into the discussion, Trent raises an objection that I think is riddled with problems: It was a question pertaining to Jehovah’s Witnesses and 1 Cor. 15. Perhaps I sometimes nit pick on some of the finer details, and this may be one of those times, but... for starters, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in the true, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus, yet that is an essential part of Paul's message. So in light of that, Trent may want to rethink the objection he was attempting to raise. Further, and probably more to the point, is that in 1 Cor. 15:1, Paul speaks of “the gospel which I preached to you” as something he had done at some point in the past (hence, the past tense, “I preached”). What Paul says here is nestled away in the fifteenth chapter (of sixteen). Does Paul’s “gospel” to the Corinthians include those things said in prior chapters, including 1 Cor. 8:1-10:22, where the commitment to Christ (the “one Lord”) is pitted against pagan idolatry? And is Paul's message in 1 Cor. 8:1-10:22 apart of a different message, or was it intended to be apart of a broader message which he alludes to in 1 Cor. 15:1?
Trent is attempting to make the argument that Scripture nowhere defines the deity of Jesus as a salvific issue, but that the Church was (or is) authoritative in that regard.
But that's where I think he took a wrong turn. Our belief in “the Son of God" must be on par with what the apostles believed about Him, else our view of Christ as "the Son of God" is distorted. It is not as simple as believing in Jesus as "the Son of God" in some titular, round-a-bout sense. But that one has to fully, and absolutely embrace everything written about the Son of God as intended by the NT's authors. And if you can't do that then your portayal of Jesus as "the Son of God" is skewed, and you don't believe in the same Jesus as they, and are therefore in jeopardy of God's judgment.
Quite literally, when Paul writes in Romans 10:13, "all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1-3), from what OT text is Paul alluding to? And who is He referring to as "Lord"? And by Paul's use of "Lord," what is meant? I'll give you a clue: Joel 2:32. Paul's use of "Lord" is an allusion to Joel 2:32's use of "Lord," and according to Paul, in order to be saved you must call on the name of that Lord. If for you, Jesus is not "Lord," in the sense that Paul demands it be taken (in harmony with Joel 2:32), then what are the implications, Trent? I thought the NT's presentation regarding the deity of Jesus is nowhere presented as "salvific"?
Well that was too quick. Could have watched a lot longer. Good job.
Joshua, great to see Dr. Beeke and Dr. Smalley's Reformed Systematic Theology in your library!
There should be no debate about sola scriptura, Just read the Bible, because it says,
"Don't go beyond what is written.
And.
"ADD no other doctrine".
So what do naughty people do? They go beyond what the Bible says and they ADD their doctrines to the Bible and claim they are inspired by God.
I think it is also helpful to ask whether the early church, at least for the first few hundred years, operated under the Sola Scriptura model, given the language of oral tradition in the OT and NT.
If we going by that route then you wi have to remove all your images.
@@internautaoriginal9951I don’t think you’ve been keeping up with that debate. The Christian churches from extremely early on were using images. The question is not about whether it’s ok to paint an image for theological instructional purposes it’s whether veneration was happening within the first 300 years of the church or whether that was developed later.
@@harrygarris6921 The apostolic church did not use images, as they clearly knew that it violated God's very clear prohibition in the 2nd Commandment where it reads that His followers are not to make any physical representations of _anything_ that exists in Heaven. It doesn't matter what the counterfeit groups did. Christians are to follow the example of the _apostolic_ church.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 My man that just isn't accurate. There are still surviving paintings in the catacombs under Rome that were painted by Christians who gathered there to escape persecution that you can go see today.
The second commandment was referring to pagan idols, which if you understand what the purpose and intent of an idol is in paganism it's pretty obvious that a painting of Jesus or of a biblical event is not one.
37:58 "Icons"
Could you imagine, God forbid, Christ carrying icons--much less "respecting" the icons as the Orthodox do?
The Pharisees would have pounced on the opportunity to accuse Him of idolatry. I just can't believe such an obvious farce.
It doesn't mean I think they don't know God--obviously they do--but I think it proves God is merciful to our ignorance.
38:19 "Infallibility of Apostles when they're intending to lead the Church into a belief"
How would you square that with Peter's teaching a false Gospel (Galatians 2)?
I know a bit of Catholic church history . The reason I would rather stick to a system that is "scripture alone" is that I simply do not trust the Roman Catholic Church. When I get flustered or confused about doctrines etc. my mind return to Jesus. I CAN trust Jesus. I Know him and I know he will let truth prevail.
I simply do not trust the Roman Catholic Church."
You do when you open your bible to the table of contents and believe that the New Testament consists of 27 writings, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings. You just don't trust it consistently, and in doing so don't trust the words of Jesus, our Lord and Savior (Jn 16: 13)
I think Trent's description of the lack of evidence that Tradition and Magisterium are inerrant and authoritative at scriptural level as a black swan is false equivalency. The Catholic church isn't saying we 'might' have this authority once the documentation is found (the black swan), but they are saying they do have that proven authority now.
I think that comes from the structure of the debate, given that sola scriptura was the affirmative, the opposition simply has to suggest the contrary is possible. Not necessarily useful for an in-depth look at both sides and their position but the way all debates are structured.
@YAJUN YUAN yes, I was thinking during the debate that they are effectively saying "Trust us, bro.".
@Bb Dl What oral traditions? Can you show us and prove they're from the apostles? If Trent Horn couldn't.
@@anthonywhitney634 Exactly. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were TAUGHT, whether by word or our epistle.
Gents how do we successfully address the challenge from RC friends that each Pastor upon examining a text of scripture can land on a definitive understanding of a teaching despite departing from other teachers understanding of the same doctrine or other historical definitive understanding of the same teaching on the same doctrine - the claim is once we preach our own interpretation we’ve become a type of infallible rule of our own…we are the magisterium in a sense. Where RC folks can disagree - the final understanding of the teaching is from the magisterium. Thoughts from the panel?
I don't think you will get an answer to your question because they don't want to admit that every pastor becomes in that sense an infallible source.
D. advocate here.. holy spirit goes where it wills? Each interpretation could be whats needed at that time.
On the opposing side we have infallible popes who disagree and overturn other “infallible” pope’s interpretations and decisions showing this happens jn RC as well. Hence Gavins point the Protestant church can fix things quicker than the RC church as they need to wait for a new pope or new council etc..
The point of scripture i think is missed here. The good news is preached not read. The purpose of scripture is to solidify and standardize the gospel as an authoritative document, a witness to the Christian life. And the purpose of a christian life is to become like Christ. I think outside of this view we end up with what we have, people arguing over their own literature and not living it.
The orthodox church at least considers the Saints, someone who has become most Christlike as having the better interpretation.
Imagine learning about how to build a house from people who talk about building a house vs those who actually build them.
Too many people nitpicking about scriptural passages while ignoring the wider scope just to be inflate their ego.
@Bee Cee You said it correctly! The point here is the "good news."
Sadly, for Protestants, the "good news" depends on who you're listening to, is like a buffet you pick and choose what to believe and if you don't like that just go to another church with a different "good news".
And if you can provide an infallible statement given by a Pope that was contradicted by another Pope later. Sometimes, people get confused on what is infallible and what's not. I would like to look in to it.
Thanks for the feedback - I have concerns from years of ministry - and that is to say the diversity of theological thought that leaves Protestantism broken and fractured does not acknowledge or honors our Lord’s Prayer. It is a serious concern of many and it has massive implications and if we are honest ‘keep reforming’ often means ‘keep splitting’ - apparently we’ve decided make light of it but this drives people (some) to heresy and theological error that damages people. Yes God is sovereign and He is so sovereign that our Lord disciplines the churches so He cares very much. It’s tough but in my sincere opinion our kryptonite is our lack of unity.
We have unity in our gospel presentation - but that’s it. We
differ on Calvinism / Arminianism / losing salvation / Mary / baptism / divorce and remarriage / women deacons / liturgy / music / sacrament to name just a few.
These aren’t nonessentials or tier 3 issues.
@@elreyhats That's simply not true. There is more consistency and clarity around the Good News of the Gospel in Protestantism. Gavin made the point that he had asked 10 Catholics how to be saved or how to know and had about 8 different answers. Even a good friend of mine who is a convert to catholicism couldn't answer me on how I could be saved. I meet with the evangelical pastors of my town once a month. We all agree on the Gospel. We differ on minor issues such as style of worship music, preaching topics on expositionally, elder led or congregational, if the gifts of the Spirit have ceased, but we do not disagree about the Gospel.
How would you all explain the Church’s dealings with heresies for which both sides of the argument claim Scriptural support?
This is an amazing question.
It will depend on what heresies are you talking about.
54:43
Debates are beneficial only when both sides are of equal ability and knowledge.
If not it either becomes a lecture and not a debate, or it gets bogged down with the more skilled debater scoring points on a less skilled , although not (always) less knowledgeable opponent.
Also if neither side understands the others position it becomes two people talking past each other and attacking strawmen.
This was great to wrestle through, thank for how you guys looked over this.
Is there a distinction between Jesus “The Word of God” and the Cannon “The Word of God” or are they equated?
How do Protestants know that the 27 writings of the New Testament are inspired and infallible Scripture? Gavin said that people could "recognize" infallibility. Well, various Gnostic groups "recognized" other writings as Scripture. The Ebionites "recognized" that Paul's writings and most of the other 27 were NOT Scripture. The Paulicians "recognized" that Peter's writings and others of the 27 were NOT Scripture. The Mohammadans "recognized" that none of the 27 were infallible.
As a Catholic, I believe that Christ established a Church and that the true and full faith has been passed down and preserved. This Church recognizes what is Scripture, and I trust God's Church.
Catholic here. I don’t think Gavin “won” the debate. I think he came off looking better and was more likable during the debate but that isn’t the same as winning nor being convincing. Gavin was the only one of the two that pushed forward new ideas that were not just talking points from pervious debates but again bringing something new to the table or being more interesting is still not the same as “winning.” Trent started off more combative as if he had prepared for a different interlocutor. And Trents answers were the same you’d hear from him or any Catholic apologists. But Trents arguments while well worn are standard answers for a reason. So Gavin was more likable but Trent was more convincing with stronger if less interesting argumentation.
Trent lied and made false analogies, also quoted leftist that don’t believe the scripture is God breathed.
@@internautaoriginal9951 You watched the dividing line by James White. It doesn’t bother me if Trent’s source is a modernist or a secularist. Truth is truth. The dude who is doing most of the talking this vid is a great demonstration of “protestants” not understanding Catholic claims. It is like we are using the same words but have completely different definitions for those words. Many are reading into and expanding what Catholics and Catholic doctrine is saying well beyond what is meant. The more I read the reformers and their confessions the more I notice this issue. This is a problem from the start. I would think it was a problem of translating Latin into German but this problem persists even when both side are speaking English.
@@alpha4IV So the Bible is not reliable, there’s evidence against who wrote hebrews and that God doesn’t exist but that’s the truth ? Wow I never though Catholics would turn atheist.
Non of the prophecy’s of Jesus are true because they are inaccurate
@@alpha4IV Secularist also said the the apostle Paul didn’t wrote the letters.
The same dude Trent cited.
@@internautaoriginal9951 I would argue that there is strong evidence against traditional authorship at least in the literal sense, luckily we believe in inspiration so really doesn’t matter who the mortal authors were but I think their attributions are important and I wouldn’t change the name of the book if turned out (let’s use Matthew since that’s were you started) Matthew’s oral version began with a historical Matthew but its written form came from a Mathew school or Matthean Church tradition that was then later written down between 65 & 90 AD. By the way, Origen, Jerome, & Aquinas in their commentaries on Mathew are open to both theories of how the text came to be, though each Father leans more one way or the other.
As for there being historical anachronisms and inaccuracies in the Bible as a whole this is undeniable. How we treat the genre and conventions of each book will guide us in how we reconcile the apparent contradiction. But camels before they inhabited a region, light before the existence of a sun, where the canaanites destroyed or not, Bart Ehrman has a list of apparent New Testament contradictions and historical inaccuracies. That we accept them and can answer them doesn’t mean that they are not there. Both Gavin and Horn acknowledge as much. Unless we are going to say that the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark were always there and demonstrably really happened in physical history.
Catholics have a 5 fold method for understanding these things, we can say it is True & Inspired and mean it, but what we mean by those words might be saying something different than what you are saying when you say the same thing.
Sometimes it feels like the thinking of the other sides is dangerously close to Gnosticism, which inherently bears a sense of superiority "We have this, you don't" or "we have this complete knowledge that makes us the True Church" but no, God has revealed the complete Truth to us in His word so that His will would be accomplished as we are told:
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 3:4)
and
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isa 55:11)
Contrary to your claim, God only revealed things through His Church, and only His Church has the revelation because it has God's church government. That is why Hebrews specifically mentions the ark containing the law of God, Aaron's rod, and the jar of manna. A church that does not have God's government is not given the revelation. The _true_ God does not operate in any other way.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 I apologize for how I worded that, I didn't intend it to sound so pointed. I agree God revealed things to His people and through His people, that it was recorded and that it was ultimately meant for all people (Acts 10). I agree the Church is essential. I just do not agree with the division I see over this issue nor do I agree the Church is entirely free from error (thus I do not agree it is infallible in an earthly sense) by Christ's own words (Matthew 13). I also do not think it needs to be infallible to carry the infallible truth of the Gospel. The Israelites were some of the most despicable people to walk the face of the Earth (by God's own words - see Ezekiel) and yet were the vessel on Earth for God's revelation. I do not believe Christ blesses for anything to override or overrule the Scriptures themselves and I believe that is precisely what has been done for centuries in many churches (of all traditions). Sola Scriptura is not saying "everyone agrees" just that "this is the only authoritative and infallible rule of Doctrine for the Church". Anyone and everyone can misinterpret that, the danger is then going and claiming that your interpretation is as infallible as the Scriptures themselves.
the debate between Gavin and Trent was essentially over around 1:35:04 (or earlier) when trent horn asked gavin if the bible has a list of essential doctrines and then asked him if there is a place where protestants can asked for a list of essential doctrines and gavin said "no" to both.
that basically demolishes sola scriptura as the infallible rule of faith, a simple question "where can we find the list of essential doctrines" where the answer is NOT in the bible and there is no place to get that information.
the point is really simple, sola scriptura will not solve differences in what is perceived to be an essential doctrine. Gavin and William Craig will never agree on the issue of the human mind of christ UNLESS ONE OF THEM LOWER HIS PRIDE AND ADMIT THE OTHER IS CORRECT. But there is another option, an infallible authority with a voice to decide who is correct and both of them submit to its authority, and if that happen, they will cease being sola scriptura and protestants.
Bible doesn't explicitly give a list of any essential doctrines. That doesn't mean you can't recognise the essential doctrines. And as Gavin said during the debate the matter pertains to the sufficiency of scripture. Even if you argue 'there is no list', that doesn't help disprove Sola Scriptura.
Btw, the so called authority you mentioned to which WLC and Gavin should submit to also want them to kiss icons. Otherwise they are anathemized. Don't you find any problem with such an authority?
That doesn’t debunk sola scriptura since it’s the only infallible Scripture that christian’s should appeal to.
Gavin made the point that the Pharisees could’ve said the same thing.
@@harmonypizza The point is simple actually, Gavin and WLC will never come to an agreement on this specific "essential doctrine" UNLESS ONE OF THEM LOWER HIS PRIDE THUS SOLA SCRIPTURA ACTUALLY IS USELESS FOR THEM.
Regarding icons, i refuse to answer it since it will derail the point of post BUT YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY WRONG in your assumption. Better watch also Trent's refutation on the icon veneration video of Gavin.
@@internautaoriginal9951 It did, Gavin and WLC both appeal to sola scriptura to insist their own understanding on the mind/will of Christ and yet both arrive on a different conclusion. Their infallible rule of faith (sola scriptura) proved to be fallible when it comes to understanding on such an important "essential doctrine".
@@Ternz_TV Sola Scriptura being "useless" and Sola Scriptura being false is two different things. I can also say the same about your "infallible" authorities pointing out the obvious disagreements Roman Catholics themselves have regarding their Pope and other matters.
Regarding essential doctrines, it is first good to know what you mean by essential doctrines.
First John teaches that all Spirit-filled Believers have an anointing from God to be able to recognize, and receive truth. This in and of itself is enough for the Church, as a body of Spirit-filled, anointed Believers to be able to recognize and receive the Inspired Word of God, whilst discerning which books are false, and rejecting them. And this is exactly what we see happen in Church History. There was no need for a Council to "give" the Church, that which it had already received.
You're assuming quite a bit. Who counts in the "body of Spirit-filled annointed believers" in recognizing doctrinal truth? Do the Pelagians, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, etc count who thought they were spirit-filled? Do the early church fathers who accepted the deuterocanonicals count? It is true that the church did not need to wait 1500 years to "give" the church the canon, it had already received it (indeed the church does not create the canon, merely recognizes it) and used it in liturgies universally for over a millenium before Trent (i.e. part of Tradition). But the council was necessary to definitively settle the issue as a normative irreformable binding judgment upon all.
@@cronmaker2 Just trace back who the Roman Catholic church burned. You'll figure it out.
@@cronmaker2 you know they can add more books and the canon is not closed right ?
@@TheChadPad Ah yes the Reformed countries were bastions of religious tolerance and freedom.
@@internautaoriginal9951 If Paul's missing letter was discovered, would it be added to your canon? The point is it's irreformably settled in RCism that Romans and Sirach are inspired. Such does not and cannot obtain in Protestantism given its principles, any book's acceptance or disputed passage within a book is revisable.
Thanks Gavin, very similar to my own understanding of Sola Scriptura -- the fundamental principle being divine revelation being the only infallible authority. There seems to be atleast 2 questions being discussed in the debate:
1) Whether divine revelation alone is the infallible rule of faith;
2) How one identifies this revelation (in terms of canon and interpretation).
I actually think (1) can be substantiated in Scripture itself, whereas (2) is a contextual application of (1). A Catholic parallel being that even if the Catholic dogmas were proved, it is another matter of identifying the Catholic Church -- nothing in the Tradition tells us who the Pope will be in the year 2023, or who is a member of the Magisterium. This practical work of identification is a distinct matter from the content of what God is revealing to us. The preambles of faith being understood as in a distinct though absolutely necessary class of truths, eg., the existence of God is fundamental to Christianity.
Whats your opinion on James White comments ?
@Anomie he was spitting facts, now Catholics are behaving like atheists
Even in the council’s of Trent two Roman church fathers (learned scholars) was against the claim of tradition is equal with scripture
Please send the information, or give us the Link
I don’t think that was it. I think what you are talking about is the dissent on the “partum partum” proposition: that some of revelation is contained in the scriptures and some in tradition. I don’t think they were advocating anything about equality or elevation or anything. But idk m
@@internautaoriginal9951 You can find the following journal article online in pdf. It is primarily about the canon discussion (and dispells some of the modern apologetic rhetoric) but has some information on the discussions that took place on the role of tradition at Trent. Really interesting. I'd say it largely confirms the comment above, if memory serves me well. I was really surprised to see that it was even discussed.
Duncker, Peter G. “The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953): 277-99.
Apart from debates generally, I thought THIS debate was helpful. I think it helps in moving the discussion past certain R.C. talking points, such as the straw manning of the definition of
Sola Scriptura, and the idea that Sola Scriptura has to been proven lock stock from scripture itself. Gavin I think did a good job in at least inviting R.Cs to consider that they hold a certain burden of proof themselves.
I agree with you Gavin, the live chat was pretty bad with all the triumphalism. It stood in contrast to the fairly charitable and earnest debate taking place. I’d be fine if live chats were disabled so we could all focus on the content being presented and not be swayed by the quick-to-speak proclamations in the chat.
Each individual can turn off the live chat. It's not fair to those who can effectively manage their attention to deprive them of this feature of the debate.
@@enshala6401 I don't think fairness has anything to do with it. A live chat isn't a requirement for a debate and all the people who attended the debate in person did not have an opportunity to talk during the debate. I think if we're honest, generally internet commentary is poor quality and serves to incite rather than educate.
@Frank Norton The Christian approach is to believe the best about anyone or anything (1 Cor 13:4-7). Yes, people will fall short of charity, and they will be held accountable in accordance with Jesus' will. It's so weird that Protestants would try to micromanage the lives of anyone. I thought the Holy Spirit freed you from human micromanagement. What is it, "free assembly for me, but not for thee!"? Live and let live, man.
Be interested to know what you think of psalm 138:2. God holds his Word above even His name?
Hey Gavin!
I think the force of the your rebuttals to the Catholic epistemological arguments against Sola Scriptura (and to the importance of the concept of infallibility), are finally hitting home for me. For example, we Catholics do certainly disagree as to the very nature of Sacred Tradition. Also, we do have an extremely fluid "fallible list of [papal] infallible statements."**
For what it is worth, I would say: the fact that we cannot hermeneutically (interpretatively) agree as to the status of papal infallible statements, or of the nature of Sacred Tradition, does not mean that we are in the same boat as a protestant. The Church certainly CAN clarify these situations in the future, but right now, they are ambiguous.
Does that mean that Protestants don't have their own ways of settling these disputes? Of course not. And here, we get to the problem of the practical value of a system which utilizes infallible statements over a system that does not. Is there a value one over another? That, it seems to me, is the heart of this debate: Does a system utilizing infallible statements have some sort of explainatory power over one that does not -- and visa versa. They both have issues with hermeneutics (as does any group of human beings), but is there some value in one system over the other that is non-hermeneutical?
I thoroughly enjoyed your debate with Trent, and am excited to continue hearing more of your arguments!
God bless,
Parker Zurbuch
**Although, I would say that the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are agreed upon by the vast majority of Catholic theologians -- any others, besides those two are hotly debated. There are also plenty of infallible statements (generally, dogmas) by Ecumenical Councils which would be universally acknowledged.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Parker!
@@TruthUnites always happy to provide thoughts! Whether they are good or not is another matter ;)
My biggest complaint from Trent is he seems to resort to casting doubt on a position that differs from his.
Then once doubt has given a foothold fear sets in and Trent knows this and uses that fear to say look see the RCC has answers for all of these issues all the while ignoring the whole point.
The other interesting observation is the sources he cited downplay the Authors and thus questioning who actually wrote the gospels and the Epistles.
Like he cited that pier fellow but he seems to conclude that Paul didn't write Paul and thus not Appostolic.
Daniel, did Christians in the early Church reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know it was not Holy Scripture? Why the need for fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? 🤔 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Matthew Broderick I don't understand your question?
@Daniel Haas Paul wrote a letter to the Church of Laodicea. Did Christians in the early Church reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know it was NOT Holy Scripture?
And also, why listen to fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 ????
@Daniel Haas how can you still not know what this means?🤔 Here we go again! Did Christians in the early Church reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know it was not Holy Scripture? And why the need for fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
39:25 But Sean, if you accept the infallibility of apostolic teaching, why would you reject the passing on of that teaching?
Good question! In principle, I'd actually argue that if we could show a given tradition to likely stem from the apostles' teaching, we should hold to it. But then, whether something goes back to the apostles has to be demonstrated on historical grounds, not just assumed. (So to give two examples of things I think do go back to the apostles: the episcopate and infant baptism. But I think both doctrines are either implied by Scripture (the latter) or fitting with Scripture (the former))
@@anglicanaesthetics Ok, that makes sense. But then Gavin would, and has, given a defense against infant baptism using Scripture.
Trent Horn asked you regarding Scripture being explicit regarding the gospel. 2 Timothy 3: 14 very clearly says Scripture is sufficient for the knowledge of salvation through Christ Jesus. Besides from Romans 1:16,17 and from verses beginning from Romans 3:21 we know what is the gospel.
Hi Gavin,
I think a written debate would be better in the sense that more weight would then NATURALLY be placed on the strength of the reasoning/argument.
Eg
Each debater is given 3 days to write a rebuttal of his interlocutor’s arguments and this is repeated over three rounds before each side writes a closing statement. This enables each side to look at the other side’s argument slowly and carefully, and then carefully think of the strongest response to write down as a rebuttal, with time to even look through some relevant references/material to craft the rebuttal.
Cheers!
Just because all humans make private judgements does not therefore mean every concept subject to that private judgement is on an equal playing field.
Dr. Ortlund. I realize my interpretation of that verse I mentioned in Revelation is not a breaking of the Bible at all. It is the correct interpretation. The riddle I'd given is no death of the Bible at all. It makes the Bible come alive
Actually, Gavin, you taught me that word, accretion, and I haven't stopped using it, so that's why they're hating on you for it. No, really, they do hate that word! 😂
This is interesting. The tone seems to be that the burden was on Trent to prove that there is something infallible outside of Sacred Scripture when the reality is that it was not only Gavin’s burden to prove that there isn’t an infallible rule outside of Sacred Scripture, it was also an essential premise for his argument.
While it would have been fatal if Trent had established another infallible rule, he didn’t have to in order for Gavin’s argument to fail.
The Sacred Tradition ends up in the Catholic liturgy eventually and often takes decades or centuries such that the Holy Spirit keeps bringing the oral tradition or Sacred Tradition, out and into focus over time.
I don’t understand why people talk as if inspired and infallible are synonymous.
Josh, please consider a UA-cam channel!
One thing that really stuck out to me was in Gavin’s opening statement you could hear his deep love and care for the Bible. While Trent sounded very monotone to the Bible and not as convicted on biblical inspiration.