@@jeromepopiel388 Where in the bible does it say to confess your sins directly to Jesus? Where in the bible are the instructions to start a fresh church? Where in the bible is the verse to explain how you arrived at 66 books of the bible? We can play the "where in the bible game" all day
@@jeromepopiel388probably talks about malachi 1:10-11 where the offering from the temple will not be accepted anymore but the pure offering referring to Christ and the Eucharist from the gentiles(the nations) will take over. This is the interpretation of many early church fathers, which also corroborate the destruction of the temple, and that the offer has not being accepted in the temple for 40 years since the death of Jesus to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, which is also reported in the talmud.
@@jeromepopiel388 Romans 12:1 "Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God-this is your true and proper worship."
Growing up a Muslim now Catholic as of Easter Vigil ‘24, I’d sincerely am sending all my love and gratitude to Protestants. Without you, I wouldn’t have contrast to experience. Nothing happens without reason, especially with the growing schisms. Christ peace be with you always and may He unite us all.
As a Catholic, thanks for having Trent on and getting someone who will accurately present the Catholic teachings to your audience. We obviously have our differences, but we have so much more in common that we can continue to share and build up the Kingdom with. God bless!
Another Wesleyan! I'm Catholic now, but I was a Arminian Episcopalian once upon a time. It's nice to see Wesleyans out there... I think it's one of the traditional Protestants that's closer to Catholicism.
Thanks for bringing on Trent to accurately represent Catholicism. It has been frustrating watching other protestant channels strawman Catholicism more than usual, recently.
Hello, I'm an ex-atheist, but now Catholic. Trent and I share similarities in our journey. What shook me out of atheism is exactly what also prevented me from becoming Protestant. Christians challenged me to prove my Atheistic views using the standard of evidence I professed to hold i.e. to use scientific evidence to prove my worldview. And I couldn't do it, because it can't be done. This is an example of logical inconsistency and a hard proof of falsehood. Sola Scriptura similarly can't be proven by the standard of evidence professed by the Protestant, i.e. the doctrine cannot be found in the Bible, and there's multiple proofs in the opposite direction that specific people (Apostles, the successor bishops) were determining doctrine (e.g. removing mandatory circumcision) that wasn't to be found in any scripture at their time. Similarly determining the Bible canon was being done in various Acts15-style councils showing that Authority was initially vested outside the Bible for over 300 years. Food for thought.
The more I study Christianity and Christian history, the more I'm convinced that either Catholicism is true, or every Christian sect is in error. From my perspective only Catholicism has the possibility of being true, so that's where I place my faith. And so far, that faith has borne tremendous fruit.
@@BrewMeister27 Well observed. I personally spent several weeks in a somewhat nervous state of daily prayer asking God if it were really possible for the Catholic Church to be guided by fallible men for near 2000 years and for it to remain true. I recall as I was reading through the Gospels at the time, that John 16:13 seemed to jump off the page in my mind, followed immediately by a recollection of Matthew 16:16-18, 28:20. And the question popped into my mind, "Areyou going to deny that GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT is unable to guide these men indefinitely? Doyou really think Jesus would make it impossible foryou to know where His Church is, in any given age?" And at that moment, I had my second experience of putting my faith in God, because there is no chance I'm going to doubt the Holy Spirit and blaspheme Him in doing so, nor doubt Jesus where I had already put my faith at my first conversion experience.
Dude, this is so awesome. You got Trent Horn he's probably my favorite Catholic youtuber as far as learning the Catholic position. Good conversation and content as always.
Thank you for bringing Trent on your show. I’m a Catholic revert as of 18 years ago, and I still learn new things, as I did in this conversation! May the Holy Spirit guide you, friend!
I so appreciate conversations like this: charitable, diving into interesting topics, and between people who are willing to ask questions/ understand one another. So fruitful and really enjoyable to listen to!
My old pastor, (Before my conversion to Catholicism), takes a lot of Wesley into account with his theology. I still maintain a relationship with him. Thank you for having Trent on and helping me learn about Wesley. My dialogues with my old pastor should bear fruit. And thats a dope picture behind you lol. Godbless my brother.
Convert to Catholicism here. Great discussion! Trent is the GOAT of Catholic apologetics! For me, Protestantism itself defeats sola scriptura, since Protestants disagree on primary doctrines. The Bible must have an authority to properly interpret it, without that we’re left with everyone being their own pope.
Hey man I’m Catholic as well but thats not entirely true. One can arrive at the knowledge for salvation from reason alone, as well as from reading the Bible alone. But that does not prove Sola Scriptura nor does it deny the Magisterium because while it is possible, it would be highly improbable to do so without the guidance of the Church. This corresponds with what we observe throughout historical Christianity. St. Thomas Aquinas is a good resource on this, Summa Theologica Prima pars Question 1 is really helpful in describing the nature of divine revelation.
@@macroglossumstellatarum3068 There’s a conflation here. Although we must agree that it is _possible_ for anyone to arrive at correct doctrine through reason in the face of revelation, there is no guarantee that one will _actually_ do so. The fact that contradictory opinions exist between good-faith seekers of truth proves that claim. One must either accept that irreconcilable differences are inevitable and acceptable within the Church even on fundamental issues, or one must reject _sola scriptura_ for another objective and active principle of authority that can finally settle disputes and maintain unity in the Body of Christ. Addendum: I do think all three of us are saying the same thing though
What a dialogue! I’m a cradle Catholic, but my grandmother was raised Methodist; I actually have quite the soft spot for Anglican and Wesleyan spirituality, so much of which is compatible with the Catholic faith. I’d also recommend looking into the Ordinariate, and-if possible-dialoguing with either lay or clergy members
Wow this was really good! Despite being a Catholic (haha) Trent is a great and gracious person and I do love his content and have learned a lot from him!
Hats off “ Trent is great” Please don’t have Mike Gendron like Allie Beth Stuckey- she didn’t like what Trent said so she got a lier to help her feel good of everything she doesn’t know.
First time on this channel. It's always awesome to hear Trent. When I came back to Christ, he helped me solidify that the Catholic Church I was brought it is indeed the one true Church. To hear a Protestant on the internet listen so nicely is very rare though so props to that. I was surprised that the notion Trent would rather be Eastern Orthodox or Oriental/Assyrian was somewhat was a shock, it's what all Apostolic Christians would say, the notion that Protestantism is somehow a default position is really impossible to justify. But on the positive note, this guy makes me have a better view of Methodists, I've only seen really cringe woke Methodist sermons on the internet.
So I’m not too sure if my comment was deleted or it never fully sent but I think what I originally commented was insightful so I’m going to comment again. First off I want to congratulate you on a very good video, I think dialogue like this is more fruitful than debate. I find conversations like this to be extremely helpful because I myself I’m trying to learn about Catholicism. Now one thing I wanted to touch on which was addressed in the video was the claim of perpiscuity of scripture. The host brought up good examples of some verses that are plain in its meaning and understanding, but I would point to others that are not as plain and easy to understand. For example, John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”” Or a couple verses later when Jesus doubles down “So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” John 6:53-55 Now I think most protestants would say the way the Roman Catholic Church has interpreted this verse is incorrect. Now I did wanna add that the interpretation of this verse according to the Roman Catholic Church has been the same as the historical church for 1500 years. Now if you respond with your interpretation of John 6 you’re just making my case, because the doctrine claims that biblical teachings regarding salvation, are plain and can be understood. So my question is, how do we get to the correct interpretation and understanding of this verse using the Bible when it’s the very Bible verse that’s in question?
Trent Horne is a pretty awesome dude, he was one of the key figures that brought me back to Christianity! Obviously, we came to different conclusions though 😂
Great discussion. Learned a lot about some Catholic views. Still not in agreement with them, but I can see they are trying to make sense of a changing world as Protestants also.
Throughly enjoyed this discussion. Where I think protestant and Catholics diverge is Protestants place a higher view on scripture then most Catholics. I say this because of what I gathered from hearing Catholics apologist debate church, scripture, tradition, and apostolic succession.
Edifying conversation. Ecumenicism can be super cringe, like when the Pope is kissing a Koran, but this was the kind of ecumenism that could bring great healing to the churches in Jesus' name. Good job, Lucas.
Never seen this channel before. Happened to see this because of looking for the latest Trent Horn videos. God bless you (the host) for having Trent on. You seem like you're not super intellectually dishonest or anti-Catholic, which is good, but you also need to humble yourself a bit to the near-unanimous perspective of the early Christians.
Man, some of those Ortho bros are actually funny. You see a video of the pope hugging some Orthodox leader and they act like it's the leader bowing down to Satan himself 😂
The Roman catholic Church is just one part of the church within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church , we have Maronites , Syriac , Chaldeans , Byzantine eastern , Syro-malabr (india) and so on , we have many different rites and we have some differences such as eastern catholic priests marry whilst Roman catholic priests do not. To be Catholic you must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the pope)
This is not what Trent said. He affirmed that the Roman Church is a susidiary within the Catholic church. He affirmed that protestants through their baptism have some form of communion with the Roman church though it is impaired. He Admits that they are Catholic in some sense. So it seems you are odds with his position.
@@petros810 no i agree with the Church on imperfect communion of protestants , its in my catechism , my mums a protestant and has a very deep faith and i wouldn't dare suggest she isn't a Christian and part of the body (however imperfect that visible communion may be). My comment was because the host kept talking about Roman Catholicism as if it were all of Catholicism and my comment was merely addressing that as in the visible Church that we have in Catholicism. In the catholic church we hold to something called invincible ignorance , as in if someone is born into a protestant church and by no fault of there own do not know the truth of the One Holy catholic and apostolic church God will be mercyful but if they know catholicism is true and resist full communion then thats a problem and puts them outside the Church
The Churches "teaching" on those outside the Church changed with Vatican II because those outside the Church changed. They weren't people who grew up with Catholic teaching & then rejected it. These were people who generation after generation were taught error. You can not treat those people the same as heretics who left the Church. Those who grew up Catholic & decide to leave the Church are thought of the same as those who left during the Reformation.
@@AlbertChiRhono, but he did affirm the Papacy! “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to come to the Church of Rome, to which the apostles themselves have handed down the tradition of the faith… For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, the faithful everywhere, in whom the tradition of the apostles has been preserved.” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2) St. Iranaeus is an amazing saint. Against Heresies is an incredible piece of history and is definitely worth reading!
Maybe you mean apostolic writing, because we know the NT is not yet known at that point. It shows me he’s not applying Sola Scriptura, but believing in the apostles which were his direct teachers, then Fathers after Clement believe in Clement as one having apostolic succession and so on.
Those who claim Pope Francis teaches heresy and error, are themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and Holy Scripture! Pope Francis is absolutely correct, that everything leads to God eventually, as there is only one God, it's source, as Pope Francis teaches that Jesus Christ will draw ALL MEN TO HIMSELF! For salvation? No! For judgment and Revelation of Truth? Yes! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Around the 2:50 mark Trent was being a gracious guest. Unless something’s changed he usually attends an Eastern Catholic parish not Roman rite. But that would’ve lead to a whole other conversation.
@ the host calls him Roman Catholic. While Trent is a good Catholic he was attending a different parish. Protestant interviewers love to harp on the “Roman” part. It gets irritating.
@MountieHoo1105 I get it, but Roman Catholic just means a Catholic in communion with the Roman Church. Latin Catholic is more precise. I also don't "like" Roman Catholic as a term (I believe it was introduced to distinguish "Romans", i.e., Catholics, from Protestants who also viewed themselves as catholics.)
1:06:35 - This "spiral" argument is great because its exactly what Jesus argued against, "You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." (Mark 7:8) Wasn't God's revelation safe guarded by the rabbinic traditions and the teachings of the Pharisees?
Hi there! This is a very good question. I would say no, you see in Judaism a rather messy process with different groups arguing for different canons. Joe Heschmeyer explains this very well in a video called something like “what did the Bible look like in Jesus’s time?” We even see the reformers not having the same canon, with Calvin accepting Baruch and Luther declaring James and other books not to be inspired. As a historical matter, and as a matter of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church for 1500+ years and not making mistakes, you end with the 73 book Bible, as evidenced by Augustine, Council of Florence long before the reformation, etc. Sacred Tradition (like celebrating Easter for example) is not the traditions of men, but the teachings passed on by the apostles and those who learned directly from them. That’s the idea at least, just to clarify. God bless you. :)
@@emilyzlockard It's odd to think Judaism had a messy view on the canon when Jesus and the apostles have no confusion or need to debate with what was scripture and what not. 2 Timothy 3:15 confirms this, "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." Paul, previously a pharisee, refers to the writings that Timothy grew up with as "sacred writings". What writings did Timothy grow up with in Jesus' time? I rewatched Joe's video "The Bible in Jesus' Day: How Different Was It?", and he conveniently skips over this point that Kruger brings up. It looks like this second argument is just confirming my point. Believing the current traditions of the church are not man made when those traditions are found nowhere in scripture is exactly what Jesus was arguing against. The Holy Spirit is infallible, but churches are not. Revelations 2-3 make it clear that even a plurality of churches can be in error.
Thank you for your reply! It is an interesting take. I don’t think Jesus and the apostles were confused about scripture. They were using the Septuagint, which had all the books in the Catholic OT (no 400 years of silence). Evidence is that the Pharisees had the largest canon, so that makes sense. However, after Christianity becomes so popular, the question of where to cut off scripture in the past and keep the messianic stuff out becomes more important to the Jewish community. We know the Masoretic text was altered (with “a young woman shall conceive” instead of “virgin” for instance), because the Dead Sea scrolls actually agree with the Septuagint version instead of the MT. The Bible is infallible, but too often when people say “scripture” they mean “my interpretation of what scripture is saying.” Putting a reformed, an Anglican, and a SDA into a room, they will never agree on what the scripture verses mean that they all profess to believe. So that is where Matthew 16 comes in. Jesus is demonstrating that even the crowds who can literally see and hear him and ask him questions (which we unfortunately cannot do) are nonetheless unable to say who Jesus is correctly. And even the apostles are silent when Jesus asks who he is. Finally Peter answers correctly and Jesus is at pains to explain that Peter is not right because he knew the answer, but because God gave him the answer. He could have done that for the crowds, or for the apostles, but he doesn’t. This is Jesus’s governance, as he uses that very moment to describe how he will build his Church. So that is what we believe: when Jesus said he was building his church, and would lead us into all truth, and prayed that we would all be one, this model is the only one that can ensure those three things are all true, given that people left on their own do not agree and are not one. So we don’t believe in ourselves as humans, but in his divine promises. God wouldn’t leave us in a big mess to just disagree about the same verses and no way to tell the truth. There’s a lot more to say about that, but this is already long enough! I’d be interested to know your thoughts and objections.
@@emilyzlockard That's an interesting analysis of the formation of the OT canon. It's interesting that Jesus and the apostles quote from the OT Septuagint but not the Catholic OT apocrypha. The issue with "this model is the only one that can ensure those three things are all true", is that the Catholic model is not what the apostles preached or setup in their first churches. It was actually closer to the current eastern Orthodox model. God didn't leave us with no way to know the truth, we have His word and His Spirit, and Christ himself who is head of the church. Someone could only come up with that interpretation of Matthew 16 if they were trying to justify the papacy retroactively. All this doesn't excuse the issues of Protestantism, as you alluded to the issue of "everyone as their own pope", but that doesn't mean the Catholic system/traditions is infallible, especially when Catholicism teaches the traditions of man as dogma, which is the same error the Pharisees fell into with OT law.
Yes, I can see how the Pharisees are certainly a cautionary tale. Anytime you have human leadership, there is a danger of abuse of power, error, etc. But then, we have to remember that Jesus also told people in Matthew 23:2 that the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses, and therefore he tells them to “practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do.” He then details their hypocrisy and introduces the idea of servant leadership. (Which is obviously elsewhere too, and which his own Church tries to aspire to.) We obviously believe that the epistles to Timothy and Titus speak a lot to the early Church being set up essentially in the same hierarchical way from the beginning, with one bishop per Church/city, over a group of presbyters. But ultimately it’s a question of trust: now that I’m a Catholic convert, I can rest knowing God did not choose to put me in charge of his church. I can trust that the gates of hell will not prevail. Obviously not everyone is going to find that comforting! ;) For the OT, I do think it’s clear that Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to the story of the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees 7. Many other OT books are not quoted or alluded to at all in the NT. Ultimately this is a historical question as to how and when the Holy Spirit leads the Church to the canon. Again, it does take trust, whatever side you end up on I think. God bless you!
Then you should appreciate Anglicanism as well for Methodism began as movement within it. John Wesley died as an anglican priest. Although there are AC/s who not like to be considered a form of "protestant".
50:12 - where the primary doctrines are who Christ is and what he has done for us (and i would add who we are in Christ and by extension, how we should put our faith in practice), i think far more Christians would find we are all in agreement on this... We just don't believe on what those things lead us to acknowledging. Like the sacraments are part of what Christ does for us and Marian dogmas are about who Christ is, but also who we are in Christ... And when you dig in behind the surface, you'd find a great deal to agree with while denying the physical expression of those beliefs.
It very hard to understand that if someone is separated from the Catholic Church is still in union with it for if I’m not mistaken the word separated is detached not connected or not in union divided hmmm very difficult to comprehend
If you are not Catholic, it can be hard to understand, and if you DO understand, you will likely not agree of course. :) The idea, I think, is that as a matter of historical fact, Jesus said he was building a Church, and he said he would lead it into all truth, and he prayed that they all be one. There’s only one church capable of fulfilling those conditions starting in AD 33 and having the historical records to prove it, and that’s the Catholic Church. But it’s also true that after 500 years, lots of people have been raised Protestant and have no reason to want to join the Church. But God works in their lives too. So they must be part of the Church, but in an imperfect way. Kind of like how we know LDS who are super kind and faithful people, and believe Jesus can save them if he chooses, because they are believing what they were raised to believe. Someone who leaves Christianity for LDS would be more culpable than someone who was raised that way and therefore doesn’t understand the Trinity and thinks their president is a prophet etc. I hope that makes sense. You can be part of the body of Christ and yet imperfectly so or without realizing it well.
In the midst of the confusion and vanity of human words, we need the #WordOfGod. Scripture is the only true compass for our journey, and it alone is capable of leading us back to the true meaning of life amid so much woundedness and confusion.
Can you give me the quote you mentioned and who said it? Because what I found was: In the midst of all this vain confusion of human opinions, the weight of your authority was the strongest on me; by it was most astonished and convinced when I heard your voice in your scriptures, which are not subject to vanity as all other writing of men are. This is st. augustine of Hippo which is the same one that said: For I would not believe the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.
The most I found protestant claiming it's a fallible list of infallible books, which is a self defeating argument since if the list is fallible, it may contain fallible books. Also there is no definition of what makes the books infallible. Even in the westminter confession of faith they give a list, but not the criteria of what constitutes the canon, or their infallibility.
This was just a convo but I did like your pushbacks. Horn is a great debater and very good at coming up with responses but the truth is when one examine his answers closely they seem as coverups/contradictions than anything. The Council of Trent and Vatican 2 are completely opposed to each other in some areas. To be anathematized is to be out the faith not just Church discipline. So when you have already anathematized Protestant core beliefs in Trent you can't have the contradictions of Vatican 2 that says Muslims and others groups can be saved. When they say these groups can be saved they mean while still remaining in those other faiths. This is now Catholic doctrine. When Pope Francis agrees that these groups can be saved, he does not actually contradict the recent Catholic doctrine of Vatican 2 (11 October 1962). “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (CCC 841). Notice that Muslims are in first place and not even Protestants. It's no wonder why some Catholics reject Vatican 2 to be able to stand with previous councils. Then you have other Catholics who come up with irrational answers to make sense of it.
We must believe in Jesus Christ, when Jesus Christ teaches that we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and keep the commandments and persevere to the end to be saved! ( Matthew 19:17, Luke 13:5, John 15:2, Matthew 6:14, Matthew 24:13).Paul warns baptized Christians who have faith in Jesus Christ, that if they break the commandments and do not repent, they shall NOT ENTER THE KINGDOM! ( Galatians 5:19,20,21, Ephesians 5:5,6, 1 Corinthians 6:9,10, Romans 11:22). Paul teaches that God shall render to everyone according to one's works. To those who with patience in WELL DOING, seek Glory and honor and immortality, He shall give Eternal life, for it is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!!
The authority of Jesus is not separate from the scripture. Jesus is the Word and it is everlasting. We will be judged by it, not by the thoughts of men.
You think what the pope said was out there due to Scripture. I agree, plus you have to remember the Catholic Church still teaches no salvation outside of the Church.
Yes, and that is the historic Christian view. But there are essential nuances to that doctrine that unfortunately get ignored in discussion (and they weren't just made up at Vatican II)
I heard an explanation recently that statement was for christians in the matter that the deposit of faith was given to the apostles and kept by the successors of the apostles in the church, and leaving the church to find salvation elsewhere cannot be found. This is not to imply that other people cannot be saved, but leaving what christ has given to the church and thiking that salvation is elsewhere leads to walking in darkness. For example, you are christian and think that there is another revelation like the muslims, JW, mormons, SDA then you are not going to find salvation there because Christ already gave it. Sorry if I didn't explain that clearly, that is the best I can give you.
That's why studying history is important. We can see what the Bible said before the clouding of denominations popped up. For example, the Eucharists was universally held to be the body and blood of Christ sacrificed for our sins on an altar each liturgy.
@Tabletop274 unless one is already baptized, they cannot provide baptism. Every early writing agrees. Show me one unbaptized person that ever baptized another. JESUS had to be baptized to become the FOUNTAIN SOURCE of all Christian Baptism, and all Christians had to begin grafted into the stock of all prior Christians, into a single Body of CHRIST. All the baptised had afterwards to receive the HOLY SPIRIT, and only certain men could bestow that Gift. Philip the Deacon baptised a Samaritan village but had to send for Apostles to bestow the SPIRIT on the same.
@Tabletop274 all valid Baptisms ultimately go back to JESUS' Baptism. In Baptism we receive the new Heritage of the SECOND ADAM, as we only received the heritage of the first as all descending from him. Anyone baptized by one himself unbaptized has not been received into the Body of CHRIST.
@@DPK5201 the Catholic Church presumes all protestants have unbroken lines of Baptism, but it isn't always the case. It needs to be addressed as a problem. It was a less likely problem with earlier protestants, but things have changed since then.
Trent correctly commented on what the gospel is, but the irony is that Catholics don't believe they are saved by simply believing in it. Romans 1:16 [16]For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Unlike St. Paul, the Catholic thinks it is a ritual of baptism that saves, rather than trusting in the gospel.
The word became flesh. God became man in Jesus Christ. A physical body and godly spirit in perfect union. But the bride of Christ is supposed to be merely spiritual, without a visible body(structure)? That just makes no sense to me in christianity
Dei Verbum Chapter III: 11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4) Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
@@Justas399this is such a wild claim, seeing as using the Bible as the only authority has demonstrably led to mass confusion. How do you not see that? Even in your comment, you are appealing to your own “reason” to convince someone of your position on the Bible, which NOWHERE even teaches that it itself is the sole authority. The Bible says the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth, and the Bible says we are to hold fast the traditions received, either by word or by letter.
What you need now is a Reformational Evangelical with a mature theology, namely an ecclesiology and soteriology. Remember, it's easy to be overwhelmed by Roman Catholic ecclesiology. You have to go to the gospel proper--the Good News--to understand what happened in the Reformation. The Catholic magisterium build their ecclesiology around papal succession, going back centuries. We, the Reformational Evangelicals, build our ecclesiology around the gospel proclamation. It might not be as exciting on the surface. However, on the Reformational side, we build everything around the gospel proper, the Pauline gospel; Romans, Ephesians, and more. That's a completely different thing. We have a simplified gospel, with genuine assurance and more. To God be the glory.
Catholic here. My issue with the idea of “[we] build our ecclesiology around the gospel proclamation” is that it is subjective. A person reads the Bible, interprets what they believe to be the gospel, and finds the church that matches, or as close as possible matches, their interpretation of the gospel. The Catholic perspective builds around an objective fact of succession from the apostles. This can be traceable through history. I don’t know enough to say, but can your idea of the ecclesiology built around the gospel proclamation (as you consider the gospel to be) able to be traced through history?
Very interesting take on Reformational Evangelical Ecclesiology being sourced via Gospel proclamation. Can you explain the differences in doctrine? Maybe just mired in the wording
@@Omhctaz As far as I understand, the “reformational evangelical ecclesiology sourced via gospel proclamation” means whoever agrees with me on what the gospel is is the church. Entirely subjective. The Catholic paradigm is the church is the hierarchical communion received by succession from the apostles. This can be traced through history. If I understand this incorrectly, I would be happy to be corrected by the OP.
@@IG88AAA The gospel proclamation is not subjective. It is written, exegeted and proclaimed. It also has to be vindicated by God's Spirit--who also inspires it. I would say the gospel proper is laid out by Paul, in his letters. As that happens, the church forms around it. I suppose you could put your energy into saying, "But it is not binding on all Christians in the Reformational Evangelical church." Well, we don't have to account for everyone who claims the Christian title and is on the Reformed side. There are many that are deep into liberalism or modernism that would likely not even be born again Christians. Can we find historical continuity that connects the Apostle Paul's kerygma throughout the centuries the way Roman Catholics do with the apostolic succession going back to Peter? Well, maybe. I assume it is there somewhere. Most agree that some of the church Fathers have language like "faith alone" here and there. Of course, the idea is not explicit in Christian writings until the 1500s. But that does not mean it is not legitimate. Goodness, look at how doctrine has developed in Rome over the centuries. You do not see all their dogmas appear on the scene in a vacuum. Some things did not come along until centuries later, and I am talking about major things--the Marian dogmas, Papel infallibility, the Biblical Canon and more. How about there being no death penalty? Isn't that the current infallible position of the Catholic church? It IS in the Catechism of the Catholic Church since about 8 or so years ago. Right? That was something that Pope Francis did. Is that his subjective personal position, or the infallible position of the ex-cathedra chair? Or is it the infallible teaching of the Catholic Magisterium. Could another Pope change it back in a few years or in a few decades? I don't want to meander. However, I am just giving you food for thought. Hope that helps.
Hi @matt8637! I think what he meant by subjective is that when people say “scripture” they actually seem to mean “what I personally interpret scripture to mean.” So for instance William Lane Craig admitting that his belief that Christ has one will instead of two technically makes him a heretic according to the early councils, “but everything has to be put before the bar of scripture.” Well, we would point out that he actually means “everything has to be run by my personal view of scripture” since historically almost every Christian is against him when looking directly at the Bible verses. As Catholics (converts usually), it seems very odd to us that all Protestants are using the same Bible verses, and when they disagree, they usually say the other groups just aren’t really Christian at all, or aren’t really born again. We would say this is definitely not how God would have ensured his followers had truth. And we see that early on, in Acts 15, where the Church does not quote scripture to refute the Judaizers but instead simply issues its decision and orders it to be carried to all the Churches. Functionally, this is the only way to have unity; you cannot convince an SDA or a JW or a liberal Christian or even a KJV only Baptist using scripture. As to the pope, that is something you can dive into more to understand- the pope is very rarely infallible. He is a sinner and often wrong, especially recorded third hand on some airplane. There are many different conditions and levels of authority (as seen in Peter himself who is rebuked by Paul). For the dogmas, usually this is a misunderstanding. Things like the assumption were in existence in the 300s-400s (partly because it was more widely known that the tombs of Mary had never had her body or relics and it was known locally she was Assumed like Elijah was), even though they weren’t defined authoritatively until later. For authority, we see Clement settling the issues at Corinth events though the apostle John was nearer and likely still alive. We also see Irenaeus in 180 saying all Churches must agree with the Church at Rome because of its preeminent authority. This is the same document that tells us who the four gospel authors are for the first time. I hope you find these conversations helpful. I certainly do. It’s nice to have such civil and polite exchanges of ideas and objections. God bless you! :)
All three of Trent's points against Sola Scriptura are, unfortunately, wrong. Sola Scriptura (i.e., the sufficiency of Scripture to establish faith and doctrine) is often affirmed in Scripture (best known example is 2 Tim.3:13-4:4, esp.v16-17, although I know Trent vehemently rejects this an an example). The canon of Scripture is defined in Ephesians 2:20 ("Ye are built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets"), though admittedly this leaves to us the not-too-difficult task of identifying the Apostolic writings. The Old Testament canon is identified in Romans 3:2 ("Unto [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God"). As for the assertion that the church fathers of the 1st and 2nd century did not cite the New Testament as Scripture, this is truly mindboggling, and it takes a particularly foggy set of glasses to read the early fathers in that way. That they didn't often call the New Testament "Scripture" doesn't diminish the fact that they cited the Apostolic books as absolutely authoritative and also far more frequently than the Old Testament Scriptures.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says Scripture is “profitable” but never claims to be sufficient. Paul commands, “Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15), proving Tradition is essential. Ephesians 2:20 refers to the apostles’ teaching, not a complete canon. Scripture nowhere lists its own books; the Catholic Church established the canon at councils like Carthage (AD 397). Romans 3:2 notes the Jews received God’s oracles, yet their canon was unsettled. Jesus and the apostles quoted the Septuagint, which includes books Protestants later removed (e.g., Wisdom). The Church Fathers valued Tradition alongside Scripture. The Bible itself calls the Church “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Without the Church’s authority, Sola Scriptura collapses, as Scripture alone never claims to be sufficient.
@carlosux I'm afraid none of these points stand up to close scrutiny. Paul's command to "keep the traditions" proves only that the Thessalonians had not received everything needful in written form. The Apostles were still alive and teaching (Acts 16:4 is a parallel passage), and had not completed their writings. This verse does not come close to establishing an eternally developing body of unwritten but Sacred Tradition that all Christians must obey. It does establish that all Christians must obey whatever the Apostles taught, which we now (as St. Irenaeus said) possess in Scriptural form. Christ did quote the Septuagint, but nowhere the deuterocanonicals, to the best of my knowledge. The debates among the Jews about the extent of the canon never concerned the deuterocanonicals, it was over Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. By placing the Apostles alongside the prophets, Paul establishes the equality of Apostolic authority to the Old Testament Scriptures, and makes the twofold word of Apostles and Prophets (not later developing traditions) the foundation of doctrine. 2 Peter 3:1-2 is a similar exhortation. All the arguments made by proponents of Church infallibility against 2 Timothy 3 fail to disprove its assertion of Scripture's sufficiency. v15 calls the Scriptures "able" which implies sufficiency, and v17 states that the Scriptures can thoroughly & perfectly equip the man of God for every good work, with "doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness" (v16) obviously being the good works the Apostle has in mind. When this is followed by the Apostle's solemn charge to "Preach the Word" because of the coming plague of false teachers (4:1-4), I can only say that it takes a strong prior animosity against Sola Scriptura to prevent one's seeing it in this passage. As for 1 Timothy 3:15: this is such a frustrating misuse of Scripture. Please read it in context. It does not establish an infallible Church wirh authority to decide what books are Apostolic, what Traditions are Apostolic, and what interpretations of Scripture are admissible. The passage is an admonition to live up to: the Church's responsibility is to uphold the truth, but it doesn't say that a certain network of churches under St. Peter's successors infallibly will do so. Philippians 2:15-16 is a parallel passage.
The problem with SS is not even all Protestants agree on the definition and that it leads to the rite of private judgment. Both are missing in Scripture. It's definitely worth a deep dive.
@@StringofPearls55 But the only alternative to Sola Scriptura--namely, Church infallibility--has been thoroughly tested and, in my view, discredited. 2nd Nicaea all by itself was enough to accomplish that. We Protestants are the refugess whom the jealous hierarchies of the imperial churches exiled, because our consciences were captive to the Scriptures. The disunity in Christianity can be blamed entirely on the ecclesiastical authorities who did exactly what Peter told them not to do (1 Peter 5:1-3).
Or would it be more fair to say that We Protestants are refugees....because our consciences were captive to our individual interpretations of Scripture? We cannot forget that Christ built a church and he endowed it with many promises.
I can't be Catholic because the RCC makes itself equal to scripture and thus equal to God and that is confusion. St. Peter said we first must pay attention to the scripture for it is the light in a dark place. 2 Peter 1:19,21 [19]We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [21]For the prophecy came not in any time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This is more than inspiration, for many men are inspired by God, but only scripture is a living word from the breath of God. Nothing else is on this level. Unfortunately Catholics will not recognize this.
Jesus did not write anything nor did he instruct Apostles to write anything. Compiling certain texts and declaring them inspired by the Holy Spirit was a decision by the Catholic Church in AD 382.
@fantasia55 well duh, Jesus didn't write the scripture, He is the scripture.. And they didn't need to wait for 300 years to know the gospel. Jude 1:3 [3]Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Notice that the faith was ONCE delivered unto the saints. Not 300 years later
@fantasia55 you have no clue. John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Great question. This passage rightly points out that no one can snatch you from the saving hand of God. It makes no mention of a person willfully choosing to exclude themselves from the saving hand of God.
@ That is not what I’m saying. A person can choose Christ and be saved. This is a daily choice. A person can at any point choose to reject Christ, His commandments, and thereby reject salvation.
@ no man can come to Christ and believe unless the Father draws him. John 6:44 If a person rejects Christ after claiming to believe then he will be forever dammed. Hebrew 6:4-6
CLICK the like button! Subscribe and Share! Then comment your thoughts!
I'm protestant who is converting to Catholicism and these talks are always so great to listen to. Thanks for sharing!
At 25 minutes Trent remarks that we are to offer to God the same sacrifice that was given for us. Where is that in scripture?
@@jeromepopiel388 Where in the bible does it say to confess your sins directly to Jesus? Where in the bible are the instructions to start a fresh church? Where in the bible is the verse to explain how you arrived at 66 books of the bible? We can play the "where in the bible game" all day
Good question. It's in the details that we find the problems with this tradition.
@@jeromepopiel388probably talks about malachi 1:10-11 where the offering from the temple will not be accepted anymore but the pure offering referring to Christ and the Eucharist from the gentiles(the nations) will take over. This is the interpretation of many early church fathers, which also corroborate the destruction of the temple, and that the offer has not being accepted in the temple for 40 years since the death of Jesus to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, which is also reported in the talmud.
@@jeromepopiel388 Romans 12:1 "Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God-this is your true and proper worship."
Growing up a Muslim now Catholic as of Easter Vigil ‘24, I’d sincerely am sending all my love and gratitude to Protestants. Without you, I wouldn’t have contrast to experience. Nothing happens without reason, especially with the growing schisms. Christ peace be with you always and may He unite us all.
Welcome home!! Glad you are in the family!
As a Catholic, thanks for having Trent on and getting someone who will accurately present the Catholic teachings to your audience. We obviously have our differences, but we have so much more in common that we can continue to share and build up the Kingdom with. God bless!
Great discussion, i prefer this format than debates , i believe they are more fruitful.
100%
Me too!
Another Wesleyan! I'm Catholic now, but I was a Arminian Episcopalian once upon a time. It's nice to see Wesleyans out there... I think it's one of the traditional Protestants that's closer to Catholicism.
Wesley did seek a Catholicity! Thanks for tuning in, and please subscribe! 🤝
Thanks for bringing on Trent to accurately represent Catholicism. It has been frustrating watching other protestant channels strawman Catholicism more than usual, recently.
Hello, I'm an ex-atheist, but now Catholic. Trent and I share similarities in our journey.
What shook me out of atheism is exactly what also prevented me from becoming Protestant.
Christians challenged me to prove my Atheistic views using the standard of evidence I professed to hold i.e. to use scientific evidence to prove my worldview. And I couldn't do it, because it can't be done. This is an example of logical inconsistency and a hard proof of falsehood.
Sola Scriptura similarly can't be proven by the standard of evidence professed by the Protestant, i.e. the doctrine cannot be found in the Bible, and there's multiple proofs in the opposite direction that specific people (Apostles, the successor bishops) were determining doctrine (e.g. removing mandatory circumcision) that wasn't to be found in any scripture at their time. Similarly determining the Bible canon was being done in various Acts15-style councils showing that Authority was initially vested outside the Bible for over 300 years.
Food for thought.
The more I study Christianity and Christian history, the more I'm convinced that either Catholicism is true, or every Christian sect is in error. From my perspective only Catholicism has the possibility of being true, so that's where I place my faith. And so far, that faith has borne tremendous fruit.
@@BrewMeister27 Well observed.
I personally spent several weeks in a somewhat nervous state of daily prayer asking God if it were really possible for the Catholic Church to be guided by fallible men for near 2000 years and for it to remain true. I recall as I was reading through the Gospels at the time, that John 16:13 seemed to jump off the page in my mind, followed immediately by a recollection of Matthew 16:16-18, 28:20.
And the question popped into my mind, "Areyou going to deny that GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT is unable to guide these men indefinitely? Doyou really think Jesus would make it impossible foryou to know where His Church is, in any given age?"
And at that moment, I had my second experience of putting my faith in God, because there is no chance I'm going to doubt the Holy Spirit and blaspheme Him in doing so, nor doubt Jesus where I had already put my faith at my first conversion experience.
Dude, this is so awesome. You got Trent Horn he's probably my favorite Catholic youtuber as far as learning the Catholic position. Good conversation and content as always.
Thank you, Man!!
Thank you for bringing Trent on your show. I’m a Catholic revert as of 18 years ago, and I still learn new things, as I did in this conversation! May the Holy Spirit guide you, friend!
Please invite Joe Heschmeyer from Shameless Poppery.
Would be a banger to be sure
I’m gonna look into this! Thanks for the recommendation!
I’d love that! Joe is such a clear speaker. I always learn a ton from him.
No yuck
Trent is significantly better faith than Joe
I so appreciate conversations like this: charitable, diving into interesting topics, and between people who are willing to ask questions/ understand one another. So fruitful and really enjoyable to listen to!
Thanks for having Trent on.
Trent looking a bit relaxed with the hoodie 😂
Great vid 👌
Beautiful, respectful conversation, full of the mutual love for Christ. Thank you both!
Trent Horn is a true brother.
I like Trent Horn, especially when he makes his stuff about general Christian Apologetics
My old pastor, (Before my conversion to Catholicism), takes a lot of Wesley into account with his theology. I still maintain a relationship with him. Thank you for having Trent on and helping me learn about Wesley. My dialogues with my old pastor should bear fruit.
And thats a dope picture behind you lol. Godbless my brother.
I really enjoy these Catholic-Protestant talks
Convert to Catholicism here. Great discussion! Trent is the GOAT of Catholic apologetics! For me, Protestantism itself defeats sola scriptura, since Protestants disagree on primary doctrines. The Bible must have an authority to properly interpret it, without that we’re left with everyone being their own pope.
Hey man I’m Catholic as well but thats not entirely true. One can arrive at the knowledge for salvation from reason alone, as well as from reading the Bible alone. But that does not prove Sola Scriptura nor does it deny the Magisterium because while it is possible, it would be highly improbable to do so without the guidance of the Church. This corresponds with what we observe throughout historical Christianity.
St. Thomas Aquinas is a good resource on this, Summa Theologica Prima pars Question 1 is really helpful in describing the nature of divine revelation.
@@macroglossumstellatarum3068
There’s a conflation here. Although we must agree that it is _possible_ for anyone to arrive at correct doctrine through reason in the face of revelation, there is no guarantee that one will _actually_ do so. The fact that contradictory opinions exist between good-faith seekers of truth proves that claim. One must either accept that irreconcilable differences are inevitable and acceptable within the Church even on fundamental issues, or one must reject _sola scriptura_ for another objective and active principle of authority that can finally settle disputes and maintain unity in the Body of Christ.
Addendum: I do think all three of us are saying the same thing though
The Real Pressence of Jesus in the Eucharist is the focus of our worship
W getting into the big leagues sharing Methodism and Wesley
Please pray for me!
Love how gracious you are, man. God bless from a Catholic bro 🙏
What a dialogue! I’m a cradle Catholic, but my grandmother was raised Methodist; I actually have quite the soft spot for Anglican and Wesleyan spirituality, so much of which is compatible with the Catholic faith. I’d also recommend looking into the Ordinariate, and-if possible-dialoguing with either lay or clergy members
Great conversation! Thanks for the discussion of the authority of Scripture in the Church!
Wow this was really good! Despite being a Catholic (haha) Trent is a great and gracious person and I do love his content and have learned a lot from him!
Also try getting Gary Machuta from the Apocalypse Apochyrpha to deal with scriptural things (canon, sola scriptura, etc.). You won't regret it.
Yeah, that's basically that man's life's work.
Great talk, you represented Methodism well brother🙏
That means a lot to me!
I enjoyed this format. Thank you.
Beautiful dialogue-
Hope it gives folks pause to reflect and pray for discernment
Trent has always been intriguing. Great that you got him on.
Hats off “ Trent is great”
Please don’t have Mike Gendron like Allie Beth Stuckey- she didn’t like what Trent said so she got a lier to help her feel good of everything she doesn’t know.
First time on this channel. It's always awesome to hear Trent. When I came back to Christ, he helped me solidify that the Catholic Church I was brought it is indeed the one true Church. To hear a Protestant on the internet listen so nicely is very rare though so props to that. I was surprised that the notion Trent would rather be Eastern Orthodox or Oriental/Assyrian was somewhat was a shock, it's what all Apostolic Christians would say, the notion that Protestantism is somehow a default position is really impossible to justify. But on the positive note, this guy makes me have a better view of Methodists, I've only seen really cringe woke Methodist sermons on the internet.
Great conversation!
Excellent conversation God bless you both 🙏🙏
What an interesting and thoughtful episode! Good stuff. I also love your Trump photo on the wall! ❤
Thank you sincerely, sir, for hosting this fine conversation. God's blessings to you.
So I’m not too sure if my comment was deleted or it never fully sent but I think what I originally commented was insightful so I’m going to comment again.
First off I want to congratulate you on a very good video, I think dialogue like this is more fruitful than debate. I find conversations like this to be extremely helpful because I myself I’m trying to learn about Catholicism.
Now one thing I wanted to touch on which was addressed in the video was the claim of perpiscuity of scripture. The host brought up good examples of some verses that are plain in its meaning and understanding, but I would point to others that are not as plain and easy to understand.
For example, John 6:51
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.””
Or a couple verses later when Jesus doubles down
“So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.”
John 6:53-55
Now I think most protestants would say the way the Roman Catholic Church has interpreted this verse is incorrect. Now I did wanna add that the interpretation of this verse according to the Roman Catholic Church has been the same as the historical church for 1500 years.
Now if you respond with your interpretation of John 6 you’re just making my case, because the doctrine claims that biblical teachings regarding salvation, are plain and can be understood.
So my question is, how do we get to the correct interpretation and understanding of this verse using the Bible when it’s the very Bible verse that’s in question?
By asking God for wisdom as the Bible instructs. James 1, etc.
@ If I asked God for wisdom and was lead to believe in the Catholic Church, would you conclude I was deceived?
Trent Horne is a pretty awesome dude, he was one of the key figures that brought me back to Christianity! Obviously, we came to different conclusions though 😂
Oh, really?! I didn’t know that! That’s awesome!
Yeah! Back in the day Catholic Answers was my first introduction to apologetics
Great discussion. Learned a lot about some Catholic views. Still not in agreement with them, but I can see they are trying to make sense of a changing world as Protestants also.
Throughly enjoyed this discussion. Where I think protestant and Catholics diverge is Protestants place a higher view on scripture then most Catholics. I say this because of what I gathered from hearing Catholics apologist debate church, scripture, tradition, and apostolic succession.
Edifying conversation. Ecumenicism can be super cringe, like when the Pope is kissing a Koran, but this was the kind of ecumenism that could bring great healing to the churches in Jesus' name.
Good job, Lucas.
Great conversation 😊
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great conversation. Im a fan Trent. It’s nice to see you in hoodie. Thank you for presenting Catholics. 🙏🏼✝️ God bless.
Never seen this channel before. Happened to see this because of looking for the latest Trent Horn videos.
God bless you (the host) for having Trent on. You seem like you're not super intellectually dishonest or anti-Catholic, which is good, but you also need to humble yourself a bit to the near-unanimous perspective of the early Christians.
black hoodie trent 🔥
I thought it was a convo btw Michael Knowles and Trent Horn first. You look exactly like him!
Haha. I have heard that before! Happy you enjoyed the talk!
Great talk! God bless
Man, some of those Ortho bros are actually funny. You see a video of the pope hugging some Orthodox leader and they act like it's the leader bowing down to Satan himself 😂
pReLeSt! Lol
Wonderful conversation
Eric Ybarra would be a great person to speak to as he has familiarity with Methodist theology.
Does he?
I would say 1700-1800 Methodists/Anglicans would hold more in common with Catholics than they do with a lot of Evangelicals/Baptists today.
Indeed
The Roman catholic Church is just one part of the church within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church , we have Maronites , Syriac , Chaldeans , Byzantine eastern , Syro-malabr (india) and so on , we have many different rites and we have some differences such as eastern catholic priests marry whilst Roman catholic priests do not. To be Catholic you must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the pope)
Correct. Technically, it's Latin Catholics, not Roman Catholics.
This is not what Trent said. He affirmed that the Roman Church is a susidiary within the Catholic church. He affirmed that protestants through their baptism have some form of communion with the Roman church though it is impaired. He Admits that they are Catholic in some sense. So it seems you are odds with his position.
@@petros810 no i agree with the Church on imperfect communion of protestants , its in my catechism , my mums a protestant and has a very deep faith and i wouldn't dare suggest she isn't a Christian and part of the body (however imperfect that visible communion may be). My comment was because the host kept talking about Roman Catholicism as if it were all of Catholicism and my comment was merely addressing that as in the visible Church that we have in Catholicism. In the catholic church we hold to something called invincible ignorance , as in if someone is born into a protestant church and by no fault of there own do not know the truth of the One Holy catholic and apostolic church God will be mercyful but if they know catholicism is true and resist full communion then thats a problem and puts them outside the Church
I would like a gift of the Ignatius Study Bible. 👏
The Churches "teaching" on those outside the Church changed with Vatican II because those outside the Church changed. They weren't people who grew up with Catholic teaching & then rejected it. These were people who generation after generation were taught error. You can not treat those people the same as heretics who left the Church. Those who grew up Catholic & decide to leave the Church are thought of the same as those who left during the Reformation.
Thank you, that is a great point.
Irenaeus is full of NT quoting.
Yes!
Does he believed in sola Scriptura?
@@AlbertChiRhono, but he did affirm the Papacy!
“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to come to the Church of Rome, to which the apostles themselves have handed down the tradition of the faith… For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, the faithful everywhere, in whom the tradition of the apostles has been preserved.” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2)
St. Iranaeus is an amazing saint. Against Heresies is an incredible piece of history and is definitely worth reading!
Maybe you mean apostolic writing, because we know the NT is not yet known at that point. It shows me he’s not applying Sola Scriptura, but believing in the apostles which were his direct teachers, then Fathers after Clement believe in Clement as one having apostolic succession and so on.
I hope you come back home 🏠😇
Those who claim Pope Francis teaches heresy and error, are themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and Canon Law and Holy Scripture!
Pope Francis is absolutely correct, that everything leads to God eventually, as there is only one God, it's source, as Pope Francis teaches that Jesus Christ will draw ALL MEN TO HIMSELF! For salvation? No! For judgment and Revelation of Truth? Yes! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
30:34 I think they’re talking about #CoreyMahler
Around the 2:50 mark Trent was being a gracious guest. Unless something’s changed he usually attends an Eastern Catholic parish not Roman rite. But that would’ve lead to a whole other conversation.
Pretty sure he hasn't for a bit now.
Also, not sure what you are getting at here
@ the host calls him Roman Catholic. While Trent is a good Catholic he was attending a different parish. Protestant interviewers love to harp on the “Roman” part. It gets irritating.
@MountieHoo1105 I get it, but Roman Catholic just means a Catholic in communion with the Roman Church. Latin Catholic is more precise.
I also don't "like" Roman Catholic as a term (I believe it was introduced to distinguish "Romans", i.e., Catholics, from Protestants who also viewed themselves as catholics.)
"Confetior" is Latin for "I confess."
1:06:35 - This "spiral" argument is great because its exactly what Jesus argued against, "You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." (Mark 7:8) Wasn't God's revelation safe guarded by the rabbinic traditions and the teachings of the Pharisees?
Hi there! This is a very good question. I would say no, you see in Judaism a rather messy process with different groups arguing for different canons. Joe Heschmeyer explains this very well in a video called something like “what did the Bible look like in Jesus’s time?” We even see the reformers not having the same canon, with Calvin accepting Baruch and Luther declaring James and other books not to be inspired. As a historical matter, and as a matter of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church for 1500+ years and not making mistakes, you end with the 73 book Bible, as evidenced by Augustine, Council of Florence long before the reformation, etc. Sacred Tradition (like celebrating Easter for example) is not the traditions of men, but the teachings passed on by the apostles and those who learned directly from them. That’s the idea at least, just to clarify. God bless you. :)
@@emilyzlockard It's odd to think Judaism had a messy view on the canon when Jesus and the apostles have no confusion or need to debate with what was scripture and what not.
2 Timothy 3:15 confirms this, "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
Paul, previously a pharisee, refers to the writings that Timothy grew up with as "sacred writings". What writings did Timothy grow up with in Jesus' time?
I rewatched Joe's video "The Bible in Jesus' Day: How Different Was It?", and he conveniently skips over this point that Kruger brings up.
It looks like this second argument is just confirming my point. Believing the current traditions of the church are not man made when those traditions are found nowhere in scripture is exactly what Jesus was arguing against.
The Holy Spirit is infallible, but churches are not. Revelations 2-3 make it clear that even a plurality of churches can be in error.
Thank you for your reply! It is an interesting take. I don’t think Jesus and the apostles were confused about scripture. They were using the Septuagint, which had all the books in the Catholic OT (no 400 years of silence). Evidence is that the Pharisees had the largest canon, so that makes sense. However, after Christianity becomes so popular, the question of where to cut off scripture in the past and keep the messianic stuff out becomes more important to the Jewish community. We know the Masoretic text was altered (with “a young woman shall conceive” instead of “virgin” for instance), because the Dead Sea scrolls actually agree with the Septuagint version instead of the MT.
The Bible is infallible, but too often when people say “scripture” they mean “my interpretation of what scripture is saying.” Putting a reformed, an Anglican, and a SDA into a room, they will never agree on what the scripture verses mean that they all profess to believe. So that is where Matthew 16 comes in. Jesus is demonstrating that even the crowds who can literally see and hear him and ask him questions (which we unfortunately cannot do) are nonetheless unable to say who Jesus is correctly. And even the apostles are silent when Jesus asks who he is. Finally Peter answers correctly and Jesus is at pains to explain that Peter is not right because he knew the answer, but because God gave him the answer. He could have done that for the crowds, or for the apostles, but he doesn’t. This is Jesus’s governance, as he uses that very moment to describe how he will build his Church. So that is what we believe: when Jesus said he was building his church, and would lead us into all truth, and prayed that we would all be one, this model is the only one that can ensure those three things are all true, given that people left on their own do not agree and are not one. So we don’t believe in ourselves as humans, but in his divine promises. God wouldn’t leave us in a big mess to just disagree about the same verses and no way to tell the truth.
There’s a lot more to say about that, but this is already long enough! I’d be interested to know your thoughts and objections.
@@emilyzlockard That's an interesting analysis of the formation of the OT canon.
It's interesting that Jesus and the apostles quote from the OT Septuagint but not the Catholic OT apocrypha.
The issue with "this model is the only one that can ensure those three things are all true", is that the Catholic model is not what the apostles preached or setup in their first churches. It was actually closer to the current eastern Orthodox model.
God didn't leave us with no way to know the truth, we have His word and His Spirit, and Christ himself who is head of the church.
Someone could only come up with that interpretation of Matthew 16 if they were trying to justify the papacy retroactively.
All this doesn't excuse the issues of Protestantism, as you alluded to the issue of "everyone as their own pope", but that doesn't mean the Catholic system/traditions is infallible, especially when Catholicism teaches the traditions of man as dogma, which is the same error the Pharisees fell into with OT law.
Yes, I can see how the Pharisees are certainly a cautionary tale. Anytime you have human leadership, there is a danger of abuse of power, error, etc. But then, we have to remember that Jesus also told people in Matthew 23:2 that the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses, and therefore he tells them to “practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do.” He then details their hypocrisy and introduces the idea of servant leadership. (Which is obviously elsewhere too, and which his own Church tries to aspire to.) We obviously believe that the epistles to Timothy and Titus speak a lot to the early Church being set up essentially in the same hierarchical way from the beginning, with one bishop per Church/city, over a group of presbyters. But ultimately it’s a question of trust: now that I’m a Catholic convert, I can rest knowing God did not choose to put me in charge of his church. I can trust that the gates of hell will not prevail. Obviously not everyone is going to find that comforting! ;)
For the OT, I do think it’s clear that Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to the story of the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees 7. Many other OT books are not quoted or alluded to at all in the NT. Ultimately this is a historical question as to how and when the Holy Spirit leads the Church to the canon. Again, it does take trust, whatever side you end up on I think. God bless you!
The Catholic Mass is worship of God.
Francis needs to read that book by Father Britton
Dang. That hurts a little.
- Caleb (wearing jeans (Evangelical convert to Catholicism))
Come home to Catholicism!
Looking back it doesn’t look like V2 confronted the modern world but acquiesced to it.
Catholic here: respect for Methodism, the only for of protestantism I appreciate.
Then you should appreciate Anglicanism as well for Methodism began as movement within it. John Wesley died as an anglican priest. Although there are AC/s who not like to be considered a form of "protestant".
Seeing Trent in a hoodie is so weird lol
Haven’t seen Wesley on in a while. How’s he doing?
50:12 - where the primary doctrines are who Christ is and what he has done for us (and i would add who we are in Christ and by extension, how we should put our faith in practice), i think far more Christians would find we are all in agreement on this... We just don't believe on what those things lead us to acknowledging. Like the sacraments are part of what Christ does for us and Marian dogmas are about who Christ is, but also who we are in Christ... And when you dig in behind the surface, you'd find a great deal to agree with while denying the physical expression of those beliefs.
👍
It very hard to understand that if someone is separated from the Catholic Church is still in union with it for if I’m not mistaken the word separated is detached not connected or not in union divided hmmm very difficult to comprehend
If you are not Catholic, it can be hard to understand, and if you DO understand, you will likely not agree of course. :) The idea, I think, is that as a matter of historical fact, Jesus said he was building a Church, and he said he would lead it into all truth, and he prayed that they all be one. There’s only one church capable of fulfilling those conditions starting in AD 33 and having the historical records to prove it, and that’s the Catholic Church. But it’s also true that after 500 years, lots of people have been raised Protestant and have no reason to want to join the Church. But God works in their lives too. So they must be part of the Church, but in an imperfect way. Kind of like how we know LDS who are super kind and faithful people, and believe Jesus can save them if he chooses, because they are believing what they were raised to believe. Someone who leaves Christianity for LDS would be more culpable than someone who was raised that way and therefore doesn’t understand the Trinity and thinks their president is a prophet etc. I hope that makes sense. You can be part of the body of Christ and yet imperfectly so or without realizing it well.
It is not a complete separation but a partial separation.
1:18:01 ❤
In the midst of the confusion and vanity of human words, we need the #WordOfGod. Scripture is the only true compass for our journey, and it alone is capable of leading us back to the true meaning of life amid so much woundedness and confusion.
This is the quote from the Holy Father, right?
Yeah he contradicts Trent.
@@mikec.6687 Are you Protestant?
Can you give me the quote you mentioned and who said it?
Because what I found was:
In the midst of all this vain confusion of human opinions, the weight of your authority was the strongest on me; by it was most astonished and convinced when I heard your voice in your scriptures, which are not subject to vanity as all other writing of men are.
This is st. augustine of Hippo which is the same one that said:
For I would not believe the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.
@mikec.6687 I would like the source for the quote or a link. It's very intriguing.
What do you think about Galatians Chapter 3 verses 26-29!
2 Peter 1 20
Know this first of all that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.
Is the list of books in the Bible infallible?
The most I found protestant claiming it's a fallible list of infallible books, which is a self defeating argument since if the list is fallible, it may contain fallible books. Also there is no definition of what makes the books infallible.
Even in the westminter confession of faith they give a list, but not the criteria of what constitutes the canon, or their infallibility.
Does the New Testament contain enough information for someone to be able to go to Heaven?
Certainly yes
Indeed
This was just a convo but I did like your pushbacks. Horn is a great debater and very good at coming up with responses but the truth is when one examine his answers closely they seem as coverups/contradictions than anything.
The Council of Trent and Vatican 2 are completely opposed to each other in some areas. To be anathematized is to be out the faith not just Church discipline. So when you have already anathematized Protestant core beliefs in Trent you can't have the contradictions of Vatican 2 that says Muslims and others groups can be saved. When they say these groups can be saved they mean while still remaining in those other faiths. This is now Catholic doctrine. When Pope Francis agrees that these groups can be saved, he does not actually contradict the recent Catholic doctrine of Vatican 2 (11 October 1962).
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (CCC 841).
Notice that Muslims are in first place and not even Protestants. It's no wonder why some Catholics reject Vatican 2 to be able to stand with previous councils. Then you have other Catholics who come up with irrational answers to make sense of it.
We must believe in Jesus Christ, when Jesus Christ teaches that we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and keep the commandments and persevere to the end to be saved! ( Matthew 19:17, Luke 13:5, John 15:2, Matthew 6:14, Matthew 24:13).Paul warns baptized Christians who have faith in Jesus Christ, that if they break the commandments and do not repent, they shall NOT ENTER THE KINGDOM! ( Galatians 5:19,20,21, Ephesians 5:5,6, 1 Corinthians 6:9,10, Romans 11:22).
Paul teaches that God shall render to everyone according to one's works. To those who with patience in WELL DOING, seek Glory and honor and immortality, He shall give Eternal life, for it is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!!
The authority of Jesus is not separate from the scripture. Jesus is the Word and it is everlasting. We will be judged by it, not by the thoughts of men.
Well the Coptic orthodox have suspended dialogue with Rome over that hot button issue that shall go unmentioned.
Jesus addresses sola scriptura Pharisees in john chapter five
You think what the pope said was out there due to Scripture. I agree, plus you have to remember the Catholic Church still teaches no salvation outside of the Church.
Yes, and that is the historic Christian view. But there are essential nuances to that doctrine that unfortunately get ignored in discussion (and they weren't just made up at Vatican II)
I heard an explanation recently that statement was for christians in the matter that the deposit of faith was given to the apostles and kept by the successors of the apostles in the church, and leaving the church to find salvation elsewhere cannot be found. This is not to imply that other people cannot be saved, but leaving what christ has given to the church and thiking that salvation is elsewhere leads to walking in darkness.
For example, you are christian and think that there is another revelation like the muslims, JW, mormons, SDA then you are not going to find salvation there because Christ already gave it.
Sorry if I didn't explain that clearly, that is the best I can give you.
47:05 I believe it’s clear but all denominations cloud it.
Isn’t cloudy unclear?
That's why studying history is important. We can see what the Bible said before the clouding of denominations popped up. For example, the Eucharists was universally held to be the body and blood of Christ sacrificed for our sins on an altar each liturgy.
"RoMaN cAtHoLiCiSm"
Catholicism, mate, Catholicism will do.
Who is that dude wearing a hoodie, that cannot possibly be Trent Horn 😅
Interesting that you posted this video 6 days after your video saying why you are not Roman Catholic…
And the one baptizing must be from an unbroken succession of Baptisms.
Says who?
@Tabletop274 unless one is already baptized, they cannot provide baptism. Every early writing agrees. Show me one unbaptized person that ever baptized another. JESUS had to be baptized to become the FOUNTAIN SOURCE of all Christian Baptism, and all Christians had to begin grafted into the stock of all prior Christians, into a single Body of CHRIST. All the baptised had afterwards to receive the HOLY SPIRIT, and only certain men could bestow that Gift. Philip the Deacon baptised a Samaritan village but had to send for Apostles to bestow the SPIRIT on the same.
@Tabletop274 all valid Baptisms ultimately go back to JESUS' Baptism. In Baptism we receive the new Heritage of the SECOND ADAM, as we only received the heritage of the first as all descending from him. Anyone baptized by one himself unbaptized has not been received into the Body of CHRIST.
That's not what Trent said!
@@DPK5201 the Catholic Church presumes all protestants have unbroken lines of Baptism, but it isn't always the case. It needs to be addressed as a problem. It was a less likely problem with earlier protestants, but things have changed since then.
Trent correctly commented on what the gospel is, but the irony is that Catholics don't believe they are saved by simply believing in it.
Romans 1:16
[16]For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Unlike St. Paul, the Catholic thinks it is a ritual of baptism that saves, rather than trusting in the gospel.
Sorry, you are not the Church Christ established. You have no say in the matter.
@notdisclosed Christ did not establish an institution of any kind. He is building a spiritual body. That is His bride.
The word became flesh. God became man in Jesus Christ. A physical body and godly spirit in perfect union.
But the bride of Christ is supposed to be merely spiritual, without a visible body(structure)?
That just makes no sense to me in christianity
How do you build up the kingdom and preaching when you reject the authority of the Scriptures?
Catholics affirm the authority of the scriptures.
Dei Verbum Chapter III:
11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
@@SevereFamine But they do not hold it to be the ultimate authority.
@@SevereFamine would that Rome would make the Scripture their ultimate authority. If they did, they would have to reject many of its doctrines.
@@Justas399this is such a wild claim, seeing as using the Bible as the only authority has demonstrably led to mass confusion. How do you not see that? Even in your comment, you are appealing to your own “reason” to convince someone of your position on the Bible, which NOWHERE even teaches that it itself is the sole authority. The Bible says the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth, and the Bible says we are to hold fast the traditions received, either by word or by letter.
What you need now is a Reformational Evangelical with a mature theology, namely an ecclesiology and soteriology.
Remember, it's easy to be overwhelmed by Roman Catholic ecclesiology. You have to go to the gospel proper--the Good News--to understand what happened in the Reformation.
The Catholic magisterium build their ecclesiology around papal succession, going back centuries.
We, the Reformational Evangelicals, build our ecclesiology around the gospel proclamation. It might not be as exciting on the surface.
However, on the Reformational side, we build everything around the gospel proper, the Pauline gospel; Romans, Ephesians, and more. That's a completely different thing. We have a simplified gospel, with genuine assurance and more.
To God be the glory.
Catholic here. My issue with the idea of “[we] build our ecclesiology around the gospel proclamation” is that it is subjective. A person reads the Bible, interprets what they believe to be the gospel, and finds the church that matches, or as close as possible matches, their interpretation of the gospel.
The Catholic perspective builds around an objective fact of succession from the apostles. This can be traceable through history.
I don’t know enough to say, but can your idea of the ecclesiology built around the gospel proclamation (as you consider the gospel to be) able to be traced through history?
Very interesting take on Reformational Evangelical Ecclesiology being sourced via Gospel proclamation. Can you explain the differences in doctrine? Maybe just mired in the wording
@@Omhctaz As far as I understand, the “reformational evangelical ecclesiology sourced via gospel proclamation” means whoever agrees with me on what the gospel is is the church. Entirely subjective.
The Catholic paradigm is the church is the hierarchical communion received by succession from the apostles. This can be traced through history.
If I understand this incorrectly, I would be happy to be corrected by the OP.
@@IG88AAA The gospel proclamation is not subjective. It is written, exegeted and proclaimed. It also has to be vindicated by God's Spirit--who also inspires it. I would say the gospel proper is laid out by Paul, in his letters. As that happens, the church forms around it.
I suppose you could put your energy into saying, "But it is not binding on all Christians in the Reformational Evangelical church."
Well, we don't have to account for everyone who claims the Christian title and is on the Reformed side. There are many that are deep into liberalism or modernism that would likely not even be born again Christians.
Can we find historical continuity that connects the Apostle Paul's kerygma throughout the centuries the way Roman Catholics do with the apostolic succession going back to Peter? Well, maybe. I assume it is there somewhere. Most agree that some of the church Fathers have language like "faith alone" here and there. Of course, the idea is not explicit in Christian writings until the 1500s. But that does not mean it is not legitimate. Goodness, look at how doctrine has developed in Rome over the centuries. You do not see all their dogmas appear on the scene in a vacuum. Some things did not come along until centuries later, and I am talking about major things--the Marian dogmas, Papel infallibility, the Biblical Canon and more. How about there being no death penalty? Isn't that the current infallible position of the Catholic church? It IS in the Catechism of the Catholic Church since about 8 or so years ago. Right? That was something that Pope Francis did. Is that his subjective personal position, or the infallible position of the ex-cathedra chair? Or is it the infallible teaching of the Catholic Magisterium. Could another Pope change it back in a few years or in a few decades?
I don't want to meander. However, I am just giving you food for thought. Hope that helps.
Hi @matt8637! I think what he meant by subjective is that when people say “scripture” they actually seem to mean “what I personally interpret scripture to mean.” So for instance William Lane Craig admitting that his belief that Christ has one will instead of two technically makes him a heretic according to the early councils, “but everything has to be put before the bar of scripture.” Well, we would point out that he actually means “everything has to be run by my personal view of scripture” since historically almost every Christian is against him when looking directly at the Bible verses. As Catholics (converts usually), it seems very odd to us that all Protestants are using the same Bible verses, and when they disagree, they usually say the other groups just aren’t really Christian at all, or aren’t really born again. We would say this is definitely not how God would have ensured his followers had truth. And we see that early on, in Acts 15, where the Church does not quote scripture to refute the Judaizers but instead simply issues its decision and orders it to be carried to all the Churches. Functionally, this is the only way to have unity; you cannot convince an SDA or a JW or a liberal Christian or even a KJV only Baptist using scripture.
As to the pope, that is something you can dive into more to understand- the pope is very rarely infallible. He is a sinner and often wrong, especially recorded third hand on some airplane. There are many different conditions and levels of authority (as seen in Peter himself who is rebuked by Paul).
For the dogmas, usually this is a misunderstanding. Things like the assumption were in existence in the 300s-400s (partly because it was more widely known that the tombs of Mary had never had her body or relics and it was known locally she was Assumed like Elijah was), even though they weren’t defined authoritatively until later. For authority, we see Clement settling the issues at Corinth events though the apostle John was nearer and likely still alive. We also see Irenaeus in 180 saying all Churches must agree with the Church at Rome because of its preeminent authority. This is the same document that tells us who the four gospel authors are for the first time.
I hope you find these conversations helpful. I certainly do. It’s nice to have such civil and polite exchanges of ideas and objections. God bless you! :)
All three of Trent's points against Sola Scriptura are, unfortunately, wrong. Sola Scriptura (i.e., the sufficiency of Scripture to establish faith and doctrine) is often affirmed in Scripture (best known example is 2 Tim.3:13-4:4, esp.v16-17, although I know Trent vehemently rejects this an an example). The canon of Scripture is defined in Ephesians 2:20 ("Ye are built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets"), though admittedly this leaves to us the not-too-difficult task of identifying the Apostolic writings. The Old Testament canon is identified in Romans 3:2 ("Unto [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God"). As for the assertion that the church fathers of the 1st and 2nd century did not cite the New Testament as Scripture, this is truly mindboggling, and it takes a particularly foggy set of glasses to read the early fathers in that way. That they didn't often call the New Testament "Scripture" doesn't diminish the fact that they cited the Apostolic books as absolutely authoritative and also far more frequently than the Old Testament Scriptures.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says Scripture is “profitable” but never claims to be sufficient. Paul commands, “Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15), proving Tradition is essential.
Ephesians 2:20 refers to the apostles’ teaching, not a complete canon. Scripture nowhere lists its own books; the Catholic Church established the canon at councils like Carthage (AD 397).
Romans 3:2 notes the Jews received God’s oracles, yet their canon was unsettled. Jesus and the apostles quoted the Septuagint, which includes books Protestants later removed (e.g., Wisdom).
The Church Fathers valued Tradition alongside Scripture. The Bible itself calls the Church “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Without the Church’s authority, Sola Scriptura collapses, as Scripture alone never claims to be sufficient.
@carlosux I'm afraid none of these points stand up to close scrutiny. Paul's command to "keep the traditions" proves only that the Thessalonians had not received everything needful in written form. The Apostles were still alive and teaching (Acts 16:4 is a parallel passage), and had not completed their writings. This verse does not come close to establishing an eternally developing body of unwritten but Sacred Tradition that all Christians must obey. It does establish that all Christians must obey whatever the Apostles taught, which we now (as St. Irenaeus said) possess in Scriptural form.
Christ did quote the Septuagint, but nowhere the deuterocanonicals, to the best of my knowledge. The debates among the Jews about the extent of the canon never concerned the deuterocanonicals, it was over Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. By placing the Apostles alongside the prophets, Paul establishes the equality of Apostolic authority to the Old Testament Scriptures, and makes the twofold word of Apostles and Prophets (not later developing traditions) the foundation of doctrine. 2 Peter 3:1-2 is a similar exhortation.
All the arguments made by proponents of Church infallibility against 2 Timothy 3 fail to disprove its assertion of Scripture's sufficiency. v15 calls the Scriptures "able" which implies sufficiency, and v17 states that the Scriptures can thoroughly & perfectly equip the man of God for every good work, with "doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness" (v16) obviously being the good works the Apostle has in mind. When this is followed by the Apostle's solemn charge to "Preach the Word" because of the coming plague of false teachers (4:1-4), I can only say that it takes a strong prior animosity against Sola Scriptura to prevent one's seeing it in this passage.
As for 1 Timothy 3:15: this is such a frustrating misuse of Scripture. Please read it in context. It does not establish an infallible Church wirh authority to decide what books are Apostolic, what Traditions are Apostolic, and what interpretations of Scripture are admissible. The passage is an admonition to live up to: the Church's responsibility is to uphold the truth, but it doesn't say that a certain network of churches under St. Peter's successors infallibly will do so. Philippians 2:15-16 is a parallel passage.
The problem with SS is not even all Protestants agree on the definition and that it leads to the rite of private judgment. Both are missing in Scripture. It's definitely worth a deep dive.
@@StringofPearls55 But the only alternative to Sola Scriptura--namely, Church infallibility--has been thoroughly tested and, in my view, discredited. 2nd Nicaea all by itself was enough to accomplish that. We Protestants are the refugess whom the jealous hierarchies of the imperial churches exiled, because our consciences were captive to the Scriptures. The disunity in Christianity can be blamed entirely on the ecclesiastical authorities who did exactly what Peter told them not to do (1 Peter 5:1-3).
Or would it be more fair to say that We Protestants are refugees....because our consciences were captive to our individual interpretations of Scripture? We cannot forget that Christ built a church and he endowed it with many promises.
Actions speak louder than words. Jesus sent the holy spirit not apologist's
I hope you ask him about the women should be submissive part.
He can do an hour on that "requirement" alone. LOL
I can't be Catholic because the RCC makes itself equal to scripture and thus equal to God and that is confusion.
St. Peter said we first must pay attention to the scripture for it is the light in a dark place.
2 Peter 1:19,21
[19]We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
[21]For the prophecy came not in any time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
This is more than inspiration, for many men are inspired by God, but only scripture is a living word from the breath of God. Nothing else is on this level.
Unfortunately Catholics will not recognize this.
Jesus did not write anything nor did he instruct Apostles to write anything. Compiling certain texts and declaring them inspired by the Holy Spirit was a decision by the Catholic Church in AD 382.
@fantasia55 well duh, Jesus didn't write the scripture, He is the scripture.. And they didn't need to wait for 300 years to know the gospel.
Jude 1:3
[3]Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Notice that the faith was ONCE delivered unto the saints. Not 300 years later
Neither of these guys understand what true worshipful preaching is. Specifically it is lifting up Christ.
in your opinion
@fantasia55 you have no clue.
John 3:14
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
John 8:28
Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
That’s your tradition. Not historic Christianity.
How can you lose your salvation when Christ promised you can’t in John 10:27-30
Great question. This passage rightly points out that no one can snatch you from the saving hand of God. It makes no mention of a person willfully choosing to exclude themselves from the saving hand of God.
@ if the elect can free themselves from the hand of God then they are more powerful than God.
@ That is not what I’m saying. A person can choose Christ and be saved. This is a daily choice. A person can at any point choose to reject Christ, His commandments, and thereby reject salvation.
@ no man can come to Christ and believe unless the Father draws him. John 6:44
If a person rejects Christ after claiming to believe then he will be forever dammed. Hebrew 6:4-6
@ Hebrews 6:4-6 says nothing about “claiming”. Actually it completely debunks your original point. It shows you can believe and apostatize.
Neither of these guys understand what true worshipful preaching is. Specifically it is lifting up Christ.
That is certainly your opinion!