Gavin Ortlund Vs.Trent Horn: Is Sola Scriptura True
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2024
- Gavin Ortlund of (@TruthUnites ) and Trent Horn (@TheCounselofTrent ) debate whether scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christians.
Join our Locals community here: mattfradd.locals.com/support
Sponsors:
Hallow: hallow.com/mattfradd
Everything Catholic: everythingcatholic.com/pints
00:00 Start
00:25 Intro
6:20 Ortlund's Opening Statement
21:26 Horn's Opening Statement
36:44 Ortlund's rebuttal
44:08 Horn's rebuttal
51:22 Ortlund's 2nd rebuttal
55:41 Horn's 2nd rebuttal
1:04:40 Ortlund's cross-examination
1:25:22 Horn's cross-examination
1:47:15 Q and A
2:13:00 Ortlund's closing statement
2:18:12 Horn's closing statement - Розваги
A MASSIVE thanks to my Locals supporters for making this debate possible: mattfradd.locals.com/support
Please turn on closed captioning.
Have Peter Dimond vs Ortlund. He would resolve the fake Catholic modernist nonsense about the death penalty and no salvation outside the Church. Ortlund is correct.
Thank you @pints with Aquinas. I would love to watch a debate about the Eucharist. I still fail to understand why the Protestant tradition “deleted” this essential belief.
John 6:66 : The greatest division : between faithfuls and unfaithfuls...
These last ones, by limiting the word of God, by knowing Jesus and walking away from him, have saddly become from wheat to chaff, by receiving their teachings out of the hands of the sower, but by themselves. They are sheeps unbound to shepherd, scattered sheeps to rescue and to bind to him, by flesh and blood, perfectly one with him and faithfuls sheeps.
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me"
"This is my body", "This is my blood", "Do this in remembrance of me" : "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world".
More Eucharist Adoration!
You can see a love for the Bible oozing out of Gavin's thoughts. God bless him. Pastors like these inspired my Christian life as a Protestant for 25 years. Just a fierce love for God. Then I began to see Catholics defending beloved dogmas and devotions with similar passion and affection. I try not to let emotions or fear control me, so I started looking at the catechism of the Catholic church, and testing these dogmas and doctrines to the truth I already knew from the Bible. Now I have a fierce love of God, and a fierce appreciation for all of creation that He has redeemed. I became Catholic last year, praise be to God!
Praise and Glory be to God! 🙏
Amen i’m in the process of becoming Catholic myself. Hallelujah.
Peace be with you, God bless you. I have paid a heavy price for becoming Catholic, my protestant family think I am crazy and they bully me about this. But the family that God has given me in the church (in heaven and on earth) is indescribable, and greater fulfills my life compared to my natural family. Please pray for my family, and I will pray for yours.
It is rather sad that protestant reformers like Luther interpret scripture to support their "doctrine" rather than the other way around. In doing so they create 60+ Bible translations (interpretations often place (twist) the words of Paul and give it primacy of what Jesus is saying in his parables like John 15 . Jesus warns ALL his followers what happens if they fall away, disown Him or lose faith. Matt10:33
The Greek word SOZO, to save, is translated as the present continuous or future tense. It is rarely if ever used in the past tense in scripture. We must work out salvation as a process, through fear and trembling as Paul says. There are in fact at least 75 warnings of how the faithful can lose salvation.
Moreover, the most damning word condemning protestantism in scripture is the Greek word "an". In English it is the conditional conjunction translated as "IF" ,or "unless". It is used 574 times in the New Testament. There are many conditions put us to make the right choices to justify salvation.
John 14, 15 “IF you love me, you will keep my commands. IF you DISown me I will disown you".
IF anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. - Revelation 3:20
IF anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
James 2 14 IF someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?
IF faith is not accompanied by action, it is dead.
IF your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off” (Mark 9:43).
Galatians 5:4, NLT: "... IF you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God's grace." (You have lost your salvation)!
How can sola scriptura possibly be true if all and sundry have assumed the right of private judgement to interpret Scripture resulting 20000 competing denominations according to the Oxford University Christian encyclopaedia?
As a catholic, I must admit Gavin is the most charitable protestant debater
This is good to point out. A lot of times arguing with protestants is very circular and hard headed and will say whatever it takes just to “win”. Gavin is not that at all. Charitable is a good word
not only that, he had good points. Unlike most protestant defenders of Sola Scriptura who'd just load their magazines with cherry picked verses and then hip fire them.
Gavin has good meat in his argument.
He’s slippery and refused to commit on many things
@beor this is the first debate i’ve watched of him. I didn’t know that. Crazy how people think Jesus is okay with dismissing or belittling His own mother! I’ll never understand it.
In my humble opinion, he's a less arrogant version of James White. The arguments are all still the same though.
This is a fine example of how Catholics and Protestants should come together with Love and grace to discuss our differences.
Gavin, you did us proud. Your love and respect for Catholics despite our disagreements and the way you engage is a template for us all. Well done guys, thanks to Trent for debating and Matt for hosting, much was learnt from both men. This was epic!!
This is exactly why I don’t trust the Catholic church. If the church is inspired through the popes, and the councils, there would be no disagreements. If the pope was in the succession of an apostle, would ministers, bishops, etc. not be punished for hiding pedophiles among them?
Whether the scripture is the only Revelation or not, the apostle Paul called out people by name. God bring those people to repentance. If the Vatican is where Jesus is, then those who are hiding who the pedophiles are would be thrown out on their ears.
What both sides are missing is the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said when he left the comforter would come.
God’s best on our quest for absolute truth
@Troll Patrol Yes, if speaking on behalf of protestsants,, Gavin did them proud. Yes he did, in his manner, in his thoughtful argument, in his humility. I'm a devout Catholic, and I'm disappointed there was not enough acknowledgement of what we all agree on, and where protestants have good arguments. I love being Catholic and wish all could see what I see, but I admire sincere, holy protestants like Gavin.
@@BitsyBee As a Protestant, he absolutely did us proud. His use of church history, logic and reasoning, rather than just rapid firing a couple of verses here and there, really shows that he dove deep into history and came to his conclusion with a sincere quest for truth. I'm Protestant, but I've been thinking of pursuing the Catholic Church based on similar use of logic and history that have been presented by Catholic apologists, and this debate was wonderful in helping me (assuming many others as well) come closer to the truth without fighting or name-calling, for example.
Gavin is my absolute favorite Protestant. I am Catholic, but I love Dr Ortlund’s channel because he approaches every issue with respect, even on the matters he disagrees with us on. In the end, we’re all brothers in Christ and I highly respect both of these men for getting up there and having a real dialogue/debate.
I thought so too until Gavin said that Catholics (and by implication Orthodox) have by 'necessity to kiss and bow down before icons'. Nowhere in Catholicism or Orthodoxy is such a statement made. It is a pious custom done out of love by some Christians to demonstrate their love of Jesus, Mary, the saints and martyrs etc. It is not idolatry as Gavin implies. If a Protestant kisses the Bible or a picture of a deceased loved one is that idolatry or simply a loving sign of devotion. Gavin's comment was disingenuous and a cheap jibe at Catholicism and Orthodoxy unworthy of an intelligent man.
This was a good debate. As a Catholic Christian, i just want to say God bless all my fellow Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters.
Right back at ya, mate, from a Protestant brother!
Thanks, brother! May the Lord continue to bless you and your family!
I love that you say “Catholic Christian”
Orthodox on the other hand.............. 😉
@@elizabethburns1449 Catholics are Christians.
Both Trent and Gavin provide a model for civil engagement and charity when it comes to debates on important issues. Hope to seem them go at it again in the future.
Their conduct was refreshing to watch, especially after digging through lots of YT comments on response videos. It's good to watch real humans actually talking.
@Ex-Protestant A debate is, by design, a discussion over confronting views. I believe the OP was referring to the level of civility attempted between the two speakers. That is what I gathered anyway. I will say, we can always strive for more, but I too was pleased by the civility attempted as well. Peace be with you, my friend.
THE DEBATE SUPPOSED TO BE MEAN ,NASTY AND UNCOMPROMISING...
I WANT TO SEE A CAT FIGHT...
@@johnlong8037 That's what James White is good at.
Curious on your synopsis of the debate
When these two fine gentlemen sit down to have an honest debate, there’s growth for everyone watching. Thank you guys, you both did an amazing job.
Amen!
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations.
@@devintarr🦙
I became a Christian via Evangelicals and became Catholic at a Christian college upon further theological study. Thank God for Evangelicals and Catholics and may we someday be one. -AND may Catholics do a better job of evangelizing the huge new crop of nones, agnostics, and atheists! They need Christ’s love!
This talk was fantastic -thank you!
Catholics don’t evangelize sadly. Against what God preaches
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations.
Idolatry in the Catholic Church must be clearly rejected
We can’t be one as the Bible describes, because Protestants as a whole don’t acknowledge the real present of Christ in the Eucharist, that you NEED to be baptized to be saved, + the other sacraments . There’s essential teachings we don’t agree on. Essential teachings have to be agreed on in order for there to be unity.
@@Jo3K1ng3what are you talking about fam? Did you just read the first evangelical Christian comment on UA-cam you saw and applied it to all Protestants? Gavin himself is a Protestant and he believes in real presence in the Eucharist. You need to research more on Protestant beliefs
The person I already agreed with won the debate. Obviously.
Obviously!
So in other words, you had your mind made up already before the debate even started?
@@BornAgainRN It’s obviously said in jest, a shout out to everyone who says one side won because he or she is clouded by bias and is actually just being closed-minded. Of course, and just to be clear, that’s not to say that anyone who says someone won is just being biased.
Finally something we can agree on
Naturally.
“That’s why Jesus is awesome” - Trent Horn!!!
Best line of the debate!
1:16:14 for those who wonder when that bomb dropped at the end of a major sequence for Trent
I give Gavin 4 years before he converts if his quest to learn truth is true.
@@Davidjune1970 truth is what Gavin believes
@@HermeneuticsMatter no truth is ever going to be possessed in "PROTESTANTISM" dear. Its obvious of all the thousands of VARIETIES of churches you keep on being divided from.
@@newellcornesio428 you don’t get it and that’s fine I pray you will someday
@@HermeneuticsMatter and u suppose the "PROTESTANT" divison got it???
The division in protestantism is the proof why "TRUTH" never was with it nor can even come from it. 🤣🤣
As a Protestant who is trying to understand more and more of Catholic belief, I really value civil debates such as this one. I admire Dr. Ortlund so much and appreciate his ministry. He is very charitable and respectful in his dealings with people who have different opinions than his. He is a great example of how to disagree and still have unity and love for each other. Here's hoping for more content like this in the future!
I might recommend doing a dive into the teachings on the Holy Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And if you're open to what the Church believes and practices, or curious, I can only tell you that the Adoration chapel at my parish (where the Eucharist is set out in a monstrance) is my favorite room in the universe! If every Catholic made a weekly Holy Hour, the world would be so much better because of all the grace God would pour out since He loves to spend time with His children and adored in the Eucharist. Jesus revealed to a mystic that abortions in America would drop to 0 if this happened. Even if someone doesn't believe in the Catholic understanding of Communion and Adoration, they've got to admit it would be incredible and wonderful if true!
Here are some book recommendations, the few apologetic and explanatory books I've read in my two years since wanting to become and last year being confirmed.
Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre
(Also Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary, but I only just started it)
The Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn
A Biblical Walk Through the Mass by Edward Sri
By What Authority? by Mark Shea Crossing the Tiber by Steve Ray
Then devotional/spiritual books which would, strictly speaking, make more sense if you've become very open to Catholicism. But I'm of the mind that these could change even an atheist's life so I'll throw them out there. You could also check them out down the road.
True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort
33 Days to Morning Glory by Fr. Michael Gaitley
The Way of Divine Love by Sister Josefa Menendez
Divine Mercy In My Soul - The Spiritual Diary of St. Faustina
Peace. :]
@@GumbyJumpOff Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I can tell you spent quite a bit of time putting this together and I really appreciate it! I created what I call a peace room in a bedroom in my house that isn't being used and I've found it really helpful. I have a fountain and some candles and a cross hanging on the wall. There's something about praying at the foot of a cross that's unlike anything else. It has been really helpful to me to get some of the reverence that is oftentimes missing in my Protestant church. The topic of Eucharist is something I admittedly don't know much about, but I would love to study more. Thank you for providing these resources. I imagine that adding a breaking of bread to my time spent in my peace room would be really beneficial. God bless you!
To understand the catholic church read the early church fathers and compare them to the catechism. And just reading the catechism. This is a advanced way and will take a ton of time but definitely worth it. I started with ignatius of antioch. God bless.
@@lboh5260 Thank you for the advice. Im interested in catholic faith as well so I will try to follow your advice
I would recommend watching Mitch Pacwa debate Walter Martin. Very respectful.
I converted from atheism because I began to believe that the Bible had to have a transcendent mind behind it, and it was not just myths ,because other myths were radically different than the Bible. I gave up atheism and began to believe the Bible was truly inspired. But since I am reading without any denominational biases one thing that I am most lost about in the Protestant side of things is the concept of “Sola Scriptura.” I watched this debate and still cannot figure it out how sola scriptura does not contradict Matthew 18.
When I read the Bible really closely like 5 times I don’t think I could have figured out the doctrine of the Trinity or the Doctrine of the Incarnation which says that Christ has 2 perfect natures in that he is fully human and fully God. He is 2 perfect natures in one person. These doctrines are far from clear in the scriptures. Don’t I have to rely on the "early church" for those doctrines? If I chose 5 random Christians and ask them to explain to me how the Bible teaches that there is one God in 3 persons (Trinity) and why Jesus should be considered the 2nd Person of a Trinity who is “Fully God and Fully man in one person” (Doctrine of the Incarnation) could those 5 people all come up with the same explanation for the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation from the Bible alone?
I honestly don’t think they could. I know that I cannot. I asked the pastor in my step daughter's church if he could explain the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation to a beginner like me from the “Bible alone.” And he said “no.” He said he had to rely at least somewhat on the Church Fathers. Christians believe that Jesus is of the same essence as the Father. In the Nicaean Creed it says Jesus is “consubstantial” with the Father; but that is nowhere in Scripture.
We need the early church for those doctrines do we not? And if we need to depend on that early church at least somewhat then “sola scriptura” is refuted. What am I missing? The Bible says that Jesus and the Father are one but Jesus has a body so they cannot be exactly one. Maybe it just meant" one in purpose." How would we know for sure unless we trust the early church?
It took the church to go through 4 Councils to define those important doctrines. The Council of Nicaea in 325 was against Arius who denied Jesus' divinity. Arius used scripture to claim Jesus was a “created being” and that Jesus was NOT consubstantial with the Father as the Council stated. And then in 381 AD the Council of Constantinople condemned a heretic named Apollinaris who argued from scripture that Jesus was only “one person” with “one nature.” But the church rejected that and said that Jesus was “2 perfect natures in one person.” And then it needed the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD to reject another heretic named Nestorius’ who allegedly believed that Christ was not God in the womb and that God just assumed upon Jesus or adopted him after his birth. But the church again rejected that and stated the Jesus was fully human and fully divine in the womb and at birth. Then there was yet another dispute almost immediately from a heretic named "Eutyches" who said that Jesus was a fusion of human and divine. The church rejected that at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD and the church stated that Jesus had ;
“two natures, human and divine, without confusion, change, division, or separation, and that he was one person in two natures, the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Nothing from Nicaea in 325 to Chalcedon in 451 AD is solved by “sola scriptura.” Why do we trust the church and not Arius or Apollinaris, or Nestorius? Is it not because Jesus said he would build a church with these characteristics?
1. The gates of hell will not prevail against it
2. Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the church forever.
3. Jesus said that he would be with the church until the end of time.
4. Paul said that the pillar and foundation of the truth is the church. 5. Jesus said when it comes to sin (like false teachers) then it is the church that has the ultimate authority (Matthew 18).
It just seems to me that we HAVE to trust " that church" whichever on that is. And we have to trust those early church fathers at the very least from 325 AD to 451 AD when the bishops all saw themselves as part of an "episcopate." I just do not see it being okay that two Christian churches can have conflicting doctrines. It seems as though if we are going to have a firm foundation for believing in the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation we have to be able to trust the church that defined them.
Obviously scripture is the inspired word of God but to believe in the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation we need to trust THAT CHURCH in the early church for important doctrines. Whatever that church was whether it was Catholic or whether it was proto Luther or whatever it was.
I just do not see how “sola scriptura” does not directly contradict Matthew 18. Jesus started a church he promised the Holy Spirit would guide the church in "all truth" and "forever." Then when sinful behavior was debated it was supposed to be taken to "the church" as the final authority. That is exactly what happens in Acts 15. There were false teachers called Judaizers who were saying that non-Jewish Christians have to get circumcised. But that was a sinful false teaching. Paul confronted them and they did not stop. So what happened? It was taken to “the church.” The church held the Council in Jerusalem and determined that the Judaizers were wrong. The church wrote a letter that says:
“It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
The church was doing exactly what Christ instituted in Matthew 18.
It was “THE CHURCH” that had the final authority in that situation. And we see the exact same thing happen at Nicaea in 325 AD, Constantinople in 381 AD, the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and Chalcedon in 451 AD. In those situations, everyone was arguing from scripture - - or at least what would become scripture because the canon had not been set until 382 AD. It seems like we absolutely must trust scripture AND "Christ's Church" - - whatever that is -- for a proper interpretation. Can we just set aside which church that might be for a second and just agree that that there is a church that we must trust?
But I guess my main stress and frustration trying to get my arms around Christianity is how does Sola Scriptura not contradict Matthew 18? I would love to hear a Protestant perspective on that. It just seems like anything that was eventually taken to “the church” a person could always claim that “sola scriptura” is dogma. And then claim that the church has to let the person interpret scripture the way they want to. Sola Scriptura makes Matthew 18 which was instituted by Jesus Christ himself null and void because no matter what "the church" said a person could claim "sola scriptura" and thus Matthew 18 is meaningless.
Thank you and God bless
@@JohnHughes-du8zj I found both yours and the OP comments extremely insightful. Thank you for this discussion
@@JohnHughes-du8zj
I am sorry that it has taken so long to get back to you. Everything is busy. Thank you for the response. I thought about it and this is what I see all the evidence pointing towards.
In your post you write about possible “churches led by spirit filled elders” and how you may trust them if the align with Scripture. But to Jesus he only started one church. And for the first 1,000 years of Christianity there was only one church. And Christ gave THAT particular church authority. The Bible says Jesus wanted one united church in John 17. Ephesians 4:11 prohibits people the idea that the average Christian be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. Paul insists that every individual “church” that congregates must be in agreement with Christ’s one true church.
People who claim “sola scriptura” is a dogma of the faith even admit that scripture does not teach it outright. They have to say that it is “inferred” which is highly debatable because the Bible is clear that Jesus also started a church and wants us to trust that church. Nothing has to be inferred about the fact that Jesus said he would build a church and the gates of hades would not prevail against it. And nothing has to be inferred when Paul writes that the instrument that was established to teach the manifold wisdom of God was “the church.” (Ephesians 3:10). Nothing is vague about how Paul states that the pillar and foundation of the truth is “the church” of the Living God.”
And when you look in history you can see the church operating just like that; with people trusting the church. They had to trust the church. The concept of “sola scriptura” where you rely on “Scripture only” and ignore the church is not historical. When you find the church in Acts 15 you see “the church” hold the Council of Jerusalem to decide and doctrinal matter. In Acts 15 There were men “creating dissensions” in Antioch 300 miles north and east of Jerusalem. Paul confronted them and they would not listen and so the church held the Council of Jerusalem which was about 50 AD. The dissenters were saying that the Scriptures taught that all Gentiles had to be circumcised to be Christian. And the church held the Council of Jerusalem and decided that “no” the Gentiles did not have to get circumcised and the church sent a letter saying:
“It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us….”
So we see that the church started by Christ was being led by the Holy Spirit just like he said. There was a disagreement over what Scripture said and “the church” was the deciding authority.
Now when I mentioned all those Councils the church had, think of what they were all about? They were arguments over what Scripture meant. In each case the one Christian church that existed from 50 AD to 600 AD would define a doctrine and then someone like Arius would come along and USE SCRIPTURE to argue against “the church’s” doctrine. There was only one Christian church in those in first 600 years and when Arius interpreted Scripture differently, he was creating a schism and creating a dissension. So was Apollinaris in 381 AD and so was Nestorius in 431 AD and so was Eutyches in 450 AD. These were men all used Scripture to argue against the church’s defined doctrines. Go read some of their positions; they could almost convince you. Especially Apollinaris. He was impassioned to claim many passages of Scripture were specifically designed and carefully worded to CONVINCE EVERYONE that Jesus was not fully human.
Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses today all still agree with Apollinaris’ view of Scripture. Tens of millions of people have fallen for Apollinaris view then and now. So did Jesus leave us with no way to settle disputes over Scripture when some guy like Apollinaris thought it meant one thing and drew literally millions of followers while "the church" believed that the same Scripture taught the exact opposite? Did Jesus say; go by “Scripture alone” and if you disagree with my original church then go start your own church!
The answer is “no” Jesus just never said that. The Bible just cannot be more clear that Jesus built “a church” and told us to trust “that church.” And when we read all of these early church fathers:
Clement 95 AD - - Ignatius 107 AD - - Paipas 130 AD- - Polycarp from Smyrna in 150 AD - - Justin Martyr of Rome (150 AD) - - Hegesippus 170 AD - - Irenaeus of Lyon (France) in 180 AD - - Origen (215 AD), - - Cyprian (250 AD) -- Hilary 315 to 367 AD - - Athanasius 298 to 374 AD - - Eusebius 260 to 339 AD - - Gregory of Nyssa 335 to 395 AD - - Gregory of Nazianzus 329 to 390 AD - - Ambrose 339 to 397 AD - - Jerome 347 to 407 AD - - Augustine the Great 354 to 430 AD -- John Chrysostom 347 to 407 AD -- Cyril of Alexandria 375 to 444 AD
They all agree that they are Bishops in that one Christian Church. And they all had a high view of Scripture. But if there were serious disagreements about Scripture then they turned to the authority of “The Church.” That is what all of the Early Church Councils were about. They were about disagreements in Scripture.
YOU WROTE:
“Yes, in every incident you mentioned there was ultimately a need for a COUNCIL to meet as a "church body" so that some manner of "church authority" could weigh in and come to a final decision on the matter. However, I do not see how coming to a right understanding on any such matter could ever be possible without Scripture ultimately being the infallible source that the final outcome was derived from.
But then here is the question I have for you. Does the Bible say what to do when people disagree on what Scripture ultimately means? In all those Councils the men eventually deemed heretics argued vociferously from Scripture. And they hotly disagreed. What then? Did Jesus tell us to keep fighting about it until a resolution comes about? Obviously not. He basically said what you wrote next.
YOU WROTE - There will always be a need for a type of "church authority" or group of wise men to sit down and reason what the meaning and application of the scriptures are but that does not equate the men or the institution they represent as having the same authority as the scriptures. Rather I choose to put my faith in the fact that the Holy Spirit working in their hearts and minds has led them to a just and true understanding of it.”
What you have stated is basically the exact view of all those early church fathers. Everyone of them had a high view of Scripture. Augustine said that if you are not steeped in Scripture for doctrine you are outside the Church of Christ. But he also believed that in disputes over what Scripture said there was an interpretive authority. Without an interpretative authority then look what happens? Chaos reigns.
The kind of “Sola Scriptura” where one ignores the church and then just goes to start his own church based on his own interpretation did not show up in history until the 1500s. Sola Scripture is not historical. There was no church for 1500 years that told a person to use Scripture only and reject the church.
The version of “Sola Scriptura” where you rely on your judgement of Scripture over the church’s opinion would have been impossible for the first 1400 years of Christianity. Before the printing press 99% of the living population could not possess the Scriptures. And even if they could most of them could not even read. Therefore, they had no choice but to trust that the church was in the right judgment in Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.
Then Sola Scriptura is not practical. When someone came along in the 1500’s and got angry with the historical church and claimed “Sola Scriptura” notice that NO ONE, not a single person ever practiced “sola scriptura” and the right of individual interpretation. When Luther declared “sola scriptura” he never practiced it. As soon as someone disagreed with him; he excommunicated them (using Matthew 18). Read the stories of Muntzer, Karlstadt, and Agricola. All Luther followers who had a disagreement about Scripture with Luther. And Luther castigated them. And they all raised the issue - did you not say Martin that we all had the right to “sola scriptura” and the right of private judgment. And Luther exploded on them. He said that “whoever does not believe his doctrine cannot be saved.”
That is not Sola Scriptura.
And when you look at all the others that came along they did the same thing. They all declared “sola scriptura” and not one of them practiced it. Men like Calvin, Zwingli, John Smith, Menno Simons, King Henry and Thomas Cranmer all started churches. All of them declared “sola scriptura” but none of them practiced it. And it brought chaos. The Church Historian who wrote about Luther and who was even sympathetic to him wrote:
Application of the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty [Luther] anticipated. It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretations that seem to render ABSURD any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures (Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, 220).
I hope you will let the evidence speak to you. God bless you and thank you for dialoguing with me.
You are correct. I love our Protestant brothers and sisters, but they have circular logic when it comes to Sola Scriptura. It's a Philosophy issue fundamentally, which is why those who ditched the philosophical tradition of the West cling to an obvious contradiction.
@@JohnHughes-du8zj you say " I see no problems with the idea of "Sola Scriptura" and Matthew 18 where it mentions getting the church involved to dispute a matter with a brother who has sinned against you. If said church is led by a body of elders who are spirit-filled and looking to the scriptures for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in such a matter then they are in fact practicing "Sola Scripture" as I understand it."
How would you you explain what you understand to the early Christians who had no Bible other than the old testament and verbal teachings/ traditions?
How would you explain what you understand to the Church which did not understand for 2 thousand years and still does not understand given that it was never taught by the apostles or by the Church which they led and which their 'descendants' continue to lead?
How would you explain it to the thousands of different denominations that interpret the Bible differently? Their teachings on salvation differ and yet they claim their teachings to be infallible, don't they?
God bless,
A
Many words to say nothing, and to state no truth.
Hands down, the most substantive, superbly articulated, penetrating, fast-moving, and irenic debate I've ever listened to. Thanks to both of these men.
Agreed. Outstanding amount of ground was covered
Thank you for teaching me the word irenic
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations.
@@adryan224🦙
@@chriscoke2505🦙
I’m a devout Catholic and Trent-fan. I really like Dr Ortlund and appreciate his charity and willingness to debate and dialogue.
Dr Gavin Ortlund is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Don’t be deceived by his fake nice behavior
And...? He’s wrong!
@@buffsoldierofchrist5907 I can't judge his heart; only his actions.
@@stevem2879 i dont think he is, but more importantly, he was able, along with Trent, to show he has the fruit of the spirit.
@@sebastianinfante409 That is the right spirit. Most want to make it about their side "winning". There is no real winning in a debate such as this. The win was in having peaceful dialogue where Catholics and protestants come together and understand each others' side and appreciate each other more deeply as Christians. I think this ecumenical debate went a long way to acheiving that.
Protestant here. This was great. I often find myself in similar friendly debates over SS with some of my best friends who happen to be Eastern Orthodox. These two are so knowledgeable and it’s inspiring and makes me want to dive into knowing more and more!
oh, they left Eastern Orthodoxy? Pardon, I'm just curious! :o
@@joshuablay5954 oops. This was a typo lol, I meant “Happen to BE Eastern Orthodox” lol my fault
@@batmanfan7506 no worries, brother! :)
@@joshuablay5954 people rarely leave Orthodoxy!! ;) There's not much to leave it for!
@@IC_XC_NIKA my friend, that's why I was so puzzled at first! haha. For context, I am a former protestant looking into Orthodoxy as well :)
These two men are exceptional luminaries for the church in our time. Thank you for an excellent debate!
If all debates were like this, the world would be a better place. This is a model for how honest and open debates should be.
@Angela M I was mainly thinking of many UA-cam atheists. It almost seems like they purposely misunderstand and attack straw men so that they can look good.
Agreed
As a Catholic I really have come to respect Galvin. He has come to finally do public debate. Awesome debate. Very charitable indeed.
Catholics don't respect heretics as a whole, you can only respect certain aspects of him such as his punctuality or rhetoric, etc. Also, "caritas in veritatis", true charity abides only inside the Church, a heretic cannot be truly charitable.
Here are some teachings of the Church on heretics:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[10]
Council of Ephesus, Letter of Cyril to John of Antioch about peace: "When, therefore, any of those who love to upset sound doctrine pervert my words to their way of thinking, your holiness should not be surprised at this, but should remember that the followers of every heresy extract from inspired scripture the occasion of their error, and that all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame."
St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 75: "...which the Apostle Paul explains, teaching and enjoining that a heretic must be avoided, as perverse, and a sinner, and as condemned of himself. For that man will be guilty of his own ruin, who, not being cast out by the bishop, but of his own accord deserting from the Church is by heretical presumption condemned of himself."
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis, Book 3, Chap. 4: “I say in the third place: the fact that among the kings of Israel no one was good is attributable to the striking providence of God. For God willed to permit it because that rebellion of the Israelites from the tribe of Judah signified the schisms of heretics from the Church, as Eucherius teaches at the end of Book 3 on the Book of Kings. For just as among Catholics there are good and bad people, but among heretics no one can be good, in like manner among the kings of Judah many were good, and many were evil. But from the kings of Israel absolutely no one good was found.”
😘
@web citizen
Why do you build statues to worship Mary?
@@jwatson181 Why are you ignorant?
Trents ability to use Protestants arguments against themselves and show how their own words contradict their foundational arguments never gets old, he's the best debater out there as far as im comcerned
But he lost.
Wow what a great debate! Gavin’s points made me realize I’ve been incorrectly defining Sola Scriptura. I have a lot to think about as I explore Catholicism.
Loved the attitude of charity and calm responses and great points and questions!
You haven't been incorrectly defining anything. Different Protestants define it differently because they all disagree on everything. For every Protestant there's a slightly different definition. That's why there are thousands and thousands of different Protestants denominations. The only thing they agree on is that Catholics are wrong but they can't agree who among them is right so they are all wrong.
Prima Scriptura not Sola
@@mjramirez6008 I agree. Catholics got it right here, Prima Scriptura makes the most sense.
@@p.doetsch6209 Except that different protestants don't define Sola Scripture differently and you would know it if you were a protestant lol. The definition Gavin gave about what is Sola Scripture was defined during the Reformation and the idea that Scripture is the ONLY authority is and always have been a Catholic strawman that you simple don't hear in protestant churches. Whats more the same study that "identified" thousands of Protestants denominations also identified several "Catholic denominations" meaning that this study, despite being used by Catholics to attack Protestants, it was done really badly and Catholics just quote it without even reading it. There are, in fact, several Protestant churches and denominations (although not thousands of thousands) but they come down to about 12 protestants traditions (Anglicanism, Methodism, Luteranism, Presbyterianism, Congregacionalism etc..). In that study they divided in different denominations churches that had the same theology, the same origin, the exact same confessions of faith and were in communion with each other but had minor differences in details like liturgy or church structure and were separated bodies. You guys often accuse us of attacking Catholicism without really understanding it but do exactly the same with Protestantism.
@@p.doetsch6209the only ones that are way off are Calvinists. But we all believe in Jesus, everything else is secondary .
I was there! My first live event with Pints. It was so fun! Thank you to Trent and Gavin for engaging in such an important discussion. And it was lovely meeting both of you! ❤
@Ex-Protestant It was a debate hosted by a Catholic UA-cam channel, held at a Catholic college campus, heavily attended, I would guess, by followers and supporters of said Catholic channel. I would guess Protestants didn't know about it or didn't care to attend or couldn't attend.
There weren't too many of us females there, and not many "old" people like me, lol, but it was indeed fun.
Glad you made it there sister. I was in Omaha, NE (ODT 27 F) and watching it on tv after a tough day at work. It was the height of my day 😂
Lol I watched it from Bellevue 👍
@@sharondavidson7412I’m a guy and my 18th birthday party was at a Bible study with a bunch of ladies from my church who were in their 60s. It was one of my favorite birthdays. We had mint chocolate cake.
I certainly appreciate Mr. Ortlund's civility and willingness to enter the "lion's den." Glad to see a reasoned and reasonable discussion, we could use more of them.
I don't think it's civility. It is the gift of the spirit. I don't mean any offense but it's something alot of protestants in the comment lack and some Catholics too. We should all learn from him
The best charitable, respectful, deep debate I've ever watched. Great job both of you. Trent was great even though I disagree with him and agree with Gavin. This type of communicating will make everyone better to see how a debate really takes place, properly. Thank you brothers
really strong opening for Gavin
I was able to ask the last question! What a blessing to have been there for my birthday!
@@jpc9923 thank you so much! God bless you!
Happy birthday 🎉
Happy birthday. Good ending question
you asked a very thoughtful provocative question! Way to go!
What a great way to spend your birthday. With listening to things about God
As a person outside of the Christian faith, trent's position seems stronger.
It's neat to hear your perspective. What brought you to the Pints with Aquinas channel?
Come on inside the one true church founded by Christ, you are warmly welcome and invited to come to Mass and experience the riches of our faith.
Welcome:)
@@turkey3gwiddle it was suggested by good Ole youtube
It’s not. I’d encourage you to do some research from different points. You need to think deeply about this my friend.
The format was excellent - thank you!
As an Anglican who respects both of these men (and Matt Fradd as well), I found this debate fascinating if a bit rushed in places.
I am Catholic and believe Trent got the upper hand here but Gavin is an absolute class act. Seems like he is a great pastor and a great father.
@Ex-Protestant protestants don't say that sola scriptura is the foundation point for all theology. The foundation is the gospel, which of course rests as well on basic theological understandings of who God is. At the end of the day - there's no need to identify and point to a single doctrinal foundation.
@Ex-Protestant I don't think Sola scriptura is difficult to defend, this requires both parties to establish initial ground rules to work properly. For example, it must be agreed from the onset whether the words of the Lord Jesus and Popes carry the same weight(e.g. when Pius 9 declared himself as infallible, should we understand it, as thus says the Lord?). For Protestants the answer to this is clear-cut obvious.
Gavin did also try to show how tradition can be flawed by showing how one Pope's dogma can be contradicted by some later Pope, but according to the Lord, scripture cannot be broken.
@@mmbtalk you’ve really distorted the issue here. No one is equating a Pope’s words with those of the Lord. Infallible statements are extremely rare and are only confirmations of long-lasting church tradition. In any case, tradition is much much much broader than just ex cathedra statements.
Gavin uses “good faith” tactics and personal incredulity. “I don’t find it convincing”…his honesty attitude is a tactifv
@@gu3r1tar Thank you, by your own admission, we can't equate the Lord's words with any other, the very bedrock of SS. We do accept the legitimacy of other authorities but that which is God breathed is at a different level!
This was excellent. I am so glad we have Pints to provide us with rich debates. Dr. Ortlund was delightful and so sincere and I appreciated Trent's arguments. I'm not a fan of touting who won or lost. I simply pray that the Holy Spirit will use this debate for the greater glory of God and help lead listeners to the fullness of His truth.
Amen.
Best comment
BlueComb53, I couldn’t agree more!❤🎉
Amen
I pray that the Holy Spirit will lead some to Christ who is the fullness of truth. If you are united to Christ, you have all of Him.
Wow this is one of those rare youtube theology debates where the comments aren't at each others' throats. Keep it up.
Thanks to both men for having the discussion! I enjoyed both of them!
This was great! Felt more like a return to the 90s-00s debates where the debate was in person with months to prepare rather than a zoom call with no preparation
totally agree.so refreshing. I remember those days you're so right about the preparation everything is so slap-dash these days.
Some of the 90s and the 00s i was only about watching DBZ on toonami(i was a kid) but im a nostalgic guy, i liked this style as well. But respect the zoom call aswell. Id love to go to this kind of debate
These types of debates will help bring the church together in time. Keep it up.❤
Really good debate by two very sharp minds. Thank you both for a thought provoking exchange on sola scriptura.
This is how Christian Debate don’t let anyone from the world tell you different
This was incredibly edifying to listen to. I will need to rewatch this in a few days to continue digesting their arguments.
I think it would be incredibly fruitful for these two to have an entire day together to just have a discussion on these topics.
Both Gavin and Trent are true gentlemen and glad the back and forth of prior videos finally culminated in a live debate. I’m Lutheran who is now leaning Catholic and I’ve been a very vociferous advocate of SS for years until recently. Trent convinced a lot of minds, I believe. Catholicism leaves no gaping holes in its harmonization of history, theology, practice and exegesis. Anything that is true needs harmony. Great job guys !!
Best of luck on your journey, Scott! I was Lutheran and became Catholic. I still have some respect for confessional Lutheranism but, in the end, Luther's (and Chemnitz’s) own words caused me to question some things...
I couldn’t agree more.
so sad to see you leave Lutheranism, sola scriptura is in fact the only epistemological position for the possibility of knowledge, i hope you learn that one day and convince some Catholics.
Protestants ignore most important passage in the scripture, no servant is greater than a master. Martin Luther was a servant and X Catholic. He stole Bible from Catholic Church and ran away with nun and raised family. He blame Catholic Church to cover up his own crime and sin.
@@hcho7776 glad you shared your opinions on Luther.
You do great work Paul . I think over the last 4 yrs I’ve learned as much from you as I have from JP. Thank you for all the time you put towards this it is appreciated by me and thousands of other people who follow your work !!!
Syriac Catholic here, and Mr Ortlund is the best representant of Protestants I've ever seen.
I really appreciated this debate and discussion, I wish more were similar to this. Truly an exemple of charitable discussion.
Thanks to both debaters and PWA
Catholic: Great debate ! My Baptist cousin and I watched this tonight, and she has decided to become Catholic! God bless you both. Iron sharpens iron, and the Sheep hear His voice!
Wow that's amazing! Great for her!
So great!
Lol what a lie.😅
@The Knight very charitable of you slanderer
@@theknight8524 None of us know for sure. But statistically, this most likely happened, as the Catholic denomination is and has always been the largest sector of Christianity. People lie, numbers don’t.
Congratulations to both Gavin and Trent. Great job, both of you!
This was extremely wonderful to watch. Wonderful debate to BOTH of you.
This is hands down the best debate I have seen on PWA. Trent and Gavin have earned my respect. They both did an amazing job.
Thank you to all who were involved in putting this debate together. I enjoyed it.
Love the works of both debaters, Trent did what he does best, but it's hard not to love Gavin. God bless them both.
I love Gavin too. I pray that he has an experience with the Holy Eucharist where it becomes clear to him that this IS Jesus Christ, his savior that he has given his life to.
I’d love to welcome this brother into the Catholic Church.
@@joeterp5615 Amen
@@joeterp5615 Amen Amen Amen
@@joeterp5615
It’s a false Christ another gospel
Veneration of Mary is apostasy.
@@pascotemplo8869 Don’t hate Jesus’ Mother. He wants you to love her. He gave her to his Church as Mother.
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.”
The bible is not just a collection of nice little antidotes (“aw look, Jesus asked John to take care of his Mom and vice versa, how sweet”) - there is deeper meaning the Church is imparting through the scriptures. Please open your heart. At minimum, learn about the Catholic Church from the source, not from those who are hostile to it.
We really are meant to be family. It is beautiful. Christ taught us how to pray together, as a family. The prayer is the “Our Father,” not the “My Father.” We are made in the image and likeness of God. And made in this image of the Trinitarian God, we are called to be human not in isolation, but in communion with others, whether that communion be in our natural family or our Church family - the body of Christ. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, so are we called to be one. Is our love to be limited? Are we not called to love others as Christ loved us? Didn’t Christ COMMAND this from us? Is not the love of Christ for each and every soul limitless, a love that had Him die for each of us? We are called to love each other the same way. And yes, in this wonderful family of God we have a Mother who loves us and who Christ wants us to love too. Thinking we can love Jesus in isolation from loving other members of the the body of Christ - which prominently includes his Mother - is false. We are told in John 14:21 “Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.” And again, Christ showed the way and gave us the commandment in John 13:34. “I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.” We are called to love as Christ loved. When we love others, we are loving Christ. Christ loved his Mother. We should love her too. In loving her, we love Christ. And if unclear on this, consider the question: Did Jesus himself not obey all the commandments, including, “Honor your Father and Mother?” How can say we are true followers of Christ if we deliberately choose to repudiate his lead on this?? God himself choose to honor his human Mother. Yet some humans think they are above this? They are putting themselves above Christ himself in this regard. Again, please consider all these things: He gave us his Mother as our Mother, He commands us to love one another as He loved us and this is in fact HOW we show we love him, and we KNOW that he loved and honored his Mother - therefore we should love her too. She leads by example and draws us closer to her son, telling us to obey him. We have a beautiful family - united by love. Peace.
I am a history nerd, so this was Mind Candy, at its best. Both did an excellent job with their presentations. Plus, it was civil. God Bless
You're a legend Gavin, thanks for fighting the good fight 💛
Gavin is fighting for heresy. He is spiritual deception.
@@mikeeb6308Imagine being angry because someone said that God's Word is infallible.
@@GoofyAhOklahoma Any heretic can say that. That's not what makes Gavin a heretic.
@@mikeeb6308 Because he denies the infallibility of fallible men?
@@GoofyAhOklahoma No that's not it either. You should study some early church history. Baptists are not part of The Church founded by Jesus and the Apostles. They waste lot of time pointing fingers at others about minor theological issues and they aren't even in communion with the real church.
Trent is a beast!!!! (I mean that in the best possible way). Gavin is just every bit as brilliant. I'm very grateful to these two gentlemen for this eye-opening exchange. God bless you both 🙏
I don't think anyone can be considered brilliant if they hold to such a circular argument as sola scriptura. It's so patently false that I question the integrity of anyone who still holds to it. Gavin is a doctorate holder so he should know better.
@@justinfoard3322 Belief in the Holy Eucharist is a gift of grace. The Eucharist defines Catholicism and other churches belief pale in comparison to this.
"Will you also go away? this Lord's question echoes through the ages, sadly they had - until they believe in the Holy Eucharist all is for naught.
Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
@@justinfoard3322 I get how it is a circular argument. But I believe that the Catholic Church teaches things that are outside of scripture. Especially things to do with Mary interceding for prayers. Purgatory. And all sorts of others
@@Jonathan-tw4xm Mary is Alive, Mary is part of Christ through the Church, Mary can Pray. Paul asks us to intercede. Its pretty straightfoward.
@Jonathan-tw4xm but that's pkay for them to do, since scripture isn't the comprehensive guide to all spiritually true things. You admit that the sola scriptura position is circular, but then appeal to it as a criticism of the Catholic church.
I say this as someone who isn't even Catholic, but Orthodox.
Great work Matt! We need more scholarly debates like this.
I was totally tracking with you, Gavin. Well done.
Confirmation and reassurance on my position as a protestant.
Heresy is your decision. Protestants have nothing to do with the actual church founded by Jesus and The Apostles
@@mikeeb6308 says you.
And here we have the real reason these debates exist: to reassure ourselves.
@mikeeb6308 that is a very prideful statement and God gives grace to the humble. Jesus died for everyone, including protestants.
@@jdaunno1Calvinist don’t believe that. Calvinist believe that Jesus died for the elect. Not for everyone. And that you can’t believe yourself, God makes you believe so you do not have faith unless God gives you faith. And if he doesn’t then you are not elected and can never be saved because Jesus didn’t die for you.
Excellent Job Gavin Ortlund. God Bless you Brother and Thank you for all your hard work. Trent Horn seems like a Fantastic guy...l just happen to believe he is in error. But both support their views. Blessings for everyone who put this together. 📖🌷
Fair play to you Matt you're doing great work, and it's great to see your business/mission going well!
Really appreciate this debate.
Awesome debate! Both gentlemen are filled with the Holy Spirit. Thank you!
The level of humility and charity of the debaters was very good!
Being a catholic, I sadly must aggre with Gaving about the condradiction in teaching on the death penalty and the issue of salvation outside of the Church. There's no denying that pre-vatican2 teaching and the present, "revisionist" perspective let's call it, are in blatant contradiction.
As a parent, I understand that each child takes a different approach when it comes to my parenting. I have a firstborn son who is headstrong and willful; if I don't rise up to his challenge and strengthen my parental authority over him, he will take over the house with his will. I also have a mellow-willed younger daughter, who understands and responds appropriately to gentle discipline. Maybe God impresses the discipline needed to individual generations as if they are individual children? Thanks be to God for bringing us the Pope we need, when we need them.
Kinda thing that’ll make one become EO
@@robynsamplonius7587 discipline and teaching are two different things. It's as if you told one of your kids that something is really wrong while allowing the other to do this and saying it's a virtuous thing to do. That would kind of mess with their heads, wouldn't it.
This is a very good discussion, one that needs to be explored for sure. I'm reminded of Matt 19:8 "Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.'" We do not understand the ways of God or the direction of the holy Spirit. Of course, right and wrong, and truth will be absolute, but God is dealing with a broken human race. Judgement is his call, and we must practice radical obedience for his sake.
As a devout Catholic I too heard Gavin make some great points that were not addressed. Either we are honest and say, yeah, I don't know, or that IS inconsistent, or we find the explanation.
Thanks for sponsoring this debate.
After watching this, I thought of the glass half full - glass half empty metaphor. Without any negative connotation. Even though both Gavin and Trent were on opposing sides there was still a kind unity between them regarding the Bible and salvation.
Well done.
Great debate! Do this more!
This was a fantastic debate! Great job all!
Listened to this. Really appreciate the thoughtfulness and irenicism, along with the robust pushbacks on models and historical arguments. Thank you.
The comments on the livestream were extremely disrepectful mostly towards Gavin. Extremly poor form from the viewers
Ppl treat debates as team sports even if the presenters are charitable, it’s pretty gross. (Haven’t watched it yet but I see a lot of comments about how Gavin was respectful)
Excellent debate! I appreciate the respect and decorum shown by both Gavin and Trent. In cross examination,
Awesome debate!!! Thank you Gavin and Trent!
Thank you so much for putting time stamps.
Good debate. Thanks guys
This was a really beautiful and respectful debate. It was also very frustrating and left me with questions. I thank God for my brothers and sisters in Jesus, and I pray for unity and love between our various differences.
This was my favourite debate that I've seen yet. It was the gentle nature of it, and I didn't get that frustration or being on the edge of my seat (from tension and contention that I usually get). The other side simply explained well why they believe as they do.
What were your frustrations and questions?
Whatever you think about the debate... Props to Dr. Ortlund for having the guts to travel to a Catholic University and debate a noted Catholic Apologist in front of a Catholic audience. Not many people would have the confidence to do that.
Also, this debate shows how far we have come as a society. If this debate had taken place in the 17th Century then one of them would have been taken out and executed, depending on in which country the debate was held (Catholic or Protestant country).
well... Trent went to the Protestant G3 Conference in Atlanta to a full packed Protestant audience and debated none other than veteran debater Dr. James White and came out in a very good shape (was Trent's first time debating a Protestant)... Talking 'bout guts
@@mjramirez6008Why are you playing this game ? No one said either of them didn’t have guts.
I've got to say this was a really great debate. The points from each side was something to really be think about
“And if you only pick a church to belong to because it agrees with your interpretation of Scripture, then you are the authority, not the Church. ~ Trent Horn” ❤😊
And yet, Trent picked the Catholic Church, despite other churches claiming authority...
Lol Roman church literally does that with scripture and tradition😅
that is the weakest statement. The interpretation of scripture in Catholic church comes from men too
@@repentantrevenant9776Prot here. The Catholic Church literally is the first Church. Lol.
@@TheChampFighter why isn’t the Eastern Orthodox Church the first church?
I love Gavin’s cross examination to Trent. It makes me love our Catholic Church more. Thank you Pints of Aquinas for this 😇 God bless everyone 🙌🏼🫶🏼
Trent gave away the debate during this cross examination when he admitted it was a perennial problem in the Old Covenant that people would not be able to know when they were being lead into error. (1:15:28) I say he gave away the debate because Jesus, all throughout his ministry, challenged people he interacted with by saying "Have you not read?". Trent admitted there was no way for the average person to know from the teaching authorities whether they were being lead into error, yet Jesus held men accountable that they would know what the scriptures said. Game over. Jesus didn't agree that the average person needed an infallible teaching authority in order to understand and be obedient to the scriptures. He held them accountable to the scriptures without an infallible teaching authority.
@@TKK0812Trent also mentioned how they could not agree on the (now) Old Testament canon, so it would be an error to assume that Jesus’ references to scripture qualified each group’s concept of scripture as the complete, infallible word of God. Rather, He was wording His instruction in a way that the people would understand, based on one kind of authoritative source. Jesus was also not condemning every tradition, but, rather, those specific, earthly ones which contradicted the law the people were given. Jesus instituted the new Church under the unified authority of Peter, the other apostles, and their successors, and those appointed teachers instituted traditions, including scriptural canon. The Bible, then, which came to its canonical fullness under this Church, organized under Peter and the other apostles, is firmly contextualized within the interpretations of the Church. Taking scripture out of this necessary context corrupts the infallible nature of the Bible.
And on the question of authority, Jesus says clearly that the Pharisees had authority, and that the people should listen to their teaching. This is true of the apostolic successors, who took the ontological place of the old priests. Jesus’ affirmation of the Pharisees’ authority indicates that they had erred, not in their “infallible” pronouncements, but in their potentially fallible teachings and practices. This is also the way we ought to treat current apostolic successors and leaders, always keeping respect for their everyday authority, but staying loyal to infallibly defined teachings.
Trent lost , since Catholicism isn’t (fully) scripturally based
Can you show me where in the writings of the Apostles that they definitively taught purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession?
@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 it is reflected in early Church writings, by people in the generation of and shortly after the apostles. Where do you get the idea that they had to write everything down? The Bible says to hold to oral Traditions.
Both did a great Job.
Unfortunately, I feel like Gavin, hiding behind a "framing issue" (80% as he calls it) was a trick he played on himself. He didn't address any of the very specific points Trent brought up in his opening statement in a convincing way.
I still admire his charity and talent. I think he just lacked depth here. Repeating that Sola Scriptura is wrongly framed is not a viable defense.
The arguments of Trent about the Early Church were spot on. Jesus gave us a Church, from which Scripture originates, not the other way around.
Thank you both. ❤️
I don't think it's a depth issue for Dr. Ortlund - I think he doesn't like the contentious aspect of debating. Looking at him and Mr. Horn during the cross examinations, Gavin seemed somewhat stiff and almost defensive, while Trent was better spoken and more coherent. Mr. Horn has done this before and has a talent for it.
@@Ttcopp12rt 2 Thessalonians 2:15
@@Ttcopp12rt I believe in God, and the Church He established.
@@Ttcopp12rt 2 Thess 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (ESV)
@Balboa “the ground and pillar of our faith” doesn’t mean “the only basis of the faith”.
The foundation isn’t the only thing needed for a home.
As a former Protestant for 30yrs hearing this debate I must confess Trent Horn is so convincing in his arguments and explanations, in where Dr Gavin kinda seemed unsure and shooting from the hip in his understanding of the Church and sola scrpitura kinda of a free for all in the meaning of Gods purpose, But such a humble man. Thank you for this
Because Protestant “theology” is hodgepodge theology and forces you to constantly reframe your thinking.
@@RedWolf5 think about the fact that your pope is a liberation theologian and the fact that he probably doesn’t believe in 50% of catholic dogma. Think about the fact that he has packed the college of cardinals with people from his swing of things. And now think about the fact that the next pope is going to be even more far to the left than the present pope, and then realize that you are going to have to shift your whole faith based on one man later on. I wonder if there will be a lady pope soon? 🤔🤨
@@dustinnyblom7835 we’ve had 40+ antipopes in our 2000 year old history, many of which have tried to destroy the church from within, they’ve all failed, because the church has been and will be protected by Christ himself until the end of time as he promised us in the beginning and is clearly stated in Matt 16:18 … you obviously don’t know what you are talking about.
Judas was one of the twelve and was allowed in the most holy circle that has ever existed.
@@RedWolf5 the church has collapsed from within, because it has abandoned the gospel
@@dustinnyblom7835 no it hasn’t because the church isn’t its structures or the prelates who occupy them but the magisterium which is infalible and it’s dogmas which are God’s revelation to his true church.
The Catholic faith is the true faith and the only church established by Christ himself while on earth all others are nothing but imposters or as St. Iraneus called them and warned us Catholics there’d be a time when some would come calling themselves Christians but they are nothing but “thieves and robbers”
Both did amazing. Bravo!
This was at St. Franciscan University?! That's in my hometown of Steubenville. I wish I had known, I would've tried to make it to this. I only live about an hour downriver now.
Also, just learned that Matt Fradd lives in Steubenville. That's so awesome!
I have never been into boxing matches. It has never been my thing. But watching this debate tonight felt like watching a boxing match. Seeing two heavyweights duke it out. God bless both men and thanks for the great debate!
Trent Horn is one of the best apologists out there.
If only he left Docetics trash where he finds it though. I remember being in shock.
But, I love how he took James White down. You can see in his closing statement he was looking sort of drunk, I think he was carrying all of the Catholics sickness of being troubled by that unpleasant anti catholic.
@@isaakleillhikar8311 What do you mean by "Docetics trash"? Are you talking about Docetism? What does that have to do with Trent Horn?
@@isaakleillhikar8311 lol, only Muslim believe in Docetism.
@@John_Fisher ua-cam.com/video/2O0IsCFN_xM/v-deo.html
@@isaakleillhikar8311
He definitely did not take James White down.
Can you show me where in the writings of the Apostles that they definitively taught purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession?
Wow this is an amazing conversation. I love this protestant guy! What a strong defense of Holy Scripture!
Nice debate
Thoroughly convinced by Gavin
Great debate. Well done to both speakers.
Would LOVE to see more of this from these guys in the future!
Why?
Gavin is great. Got love for Trent to. Great debate. I’m a solo guy but love Trent passion for his faith.
Likewise! as a non solo guy I enjoy learning new things about the faith and hearing a different perspective. Gavin Ortlund has set such a charitable example that I myself have learned from him the importance of kindness in disagreement. He is absolutely helping to further dialogue between Catholics and non Catholic Christians.
what a couple of gentlemen, excellent testimony that something deeper then the debated matters holds a solid foundation and uniting bond
Awesome debate! would love to see a part two in a longer form!
Tom Hanks, not Tom Cruise, was castaway on a desert island. Debate over.
And his friend was named Wilson, not Voigt
What a dedate! Filled with a great amount love of God, knowledge, and a beautiful display of charity on both sides. Well done brethren...
Nice to put this on 👍🏼
Excellent, well done! Gavin, so well done and compelling.
Great debate. I would love to see these two sit down once a week for a year. There's a lot to talk about, and I think that would be an interesting way to cover much more ground.
Honestly that would be based as. That would be so good for the Church.
Very good debate very sharp people both scored points I'll have to watch it again
What an awesome debate
I am a charismatic catholic considering into protestantism
Even though i am seeing this protestant apologist for the first time, i felt like he answered all my questions(i will be looking into his channel and it's contents)
Trent was also Good
God bless pints with aquinas for hosting this debate👍🏻
God bless you on your journey❣
Amen ❤
I suggest against it. Apostasy is never a good idea, because rejecting Jesus Christ leads only to Hell.
Please do not walk away from the Holy Eucharist 🙏🏻
@@nellyf.3153 some will fall away, let's pray for her
This is truly a great debate, not just in content, but in spirit. Gavin and Trent demonstrate how a debate can be conducted in an academically rigorous but gentle and gracious manner. Praise God! Thank you Pints!!!
The first question during the Q&A referenced a quote by St. Agustine. I was surprised to hear it because I was hoping that someone would bring it up, but Gavin thought it was a quote from a different work and Trent didn't really engage directly with it. It's worth quoting the passages in full here for posterity.
Augustine clearly states that he believes the gospel on the authority of the Catholic Church. He even goes so far as to say that if a Manichean were to successfully use the gospel to convince him that the Catholic Church was wrong (and Manicheanism was true), he would no longer believe the gospel because he got his faith in the gospel through the Catholic Church. Augustine's infallible rule of faith is not scripture alone, but the authority of the Catholic Church (i.e. apostolic succession).
Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichæus, 5:6 (Emphasis mine, for those in a hurry):
... I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I SHOULD NOT BELIEVE THE GOSPEL EXCEPT AS MOVED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. SO WHEN THOSE ON WHOSE AUTHORITY I HAVE CONSENTED TO BELIEVE IN THE GOSPEL TELL ME NOT TO BELIEVE IN MANICHÆUS, HOW CAN I BUT CONSENT? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you - If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; FOR IT WAS AT THE COMMAND OF THE CATHOLICS THAT I BELIEVED THE GOSPEL;
Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. TO CONVINCE ME, THEN, YOU MUST PUT ASIDE THE GOSPEL. IF YOU KEEP TO THE GOSPEL, I WILL KEEP TO THOSE WHO COMMANDED ME TO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL; AND, IN OBEDIENCE TO THEM, I WILL NOT BELIEVE YOU AT ALL.
But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; AND THE EFFECT OF THAT WILL BE, THAT I SHALL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL EITHER, FOR IT WAS THROUGH THE CATHOLICS THAT I GOT MY FAITH IN IT; AND SO, WHATEVER YOU BRING FROM THE GOSPEL WILL NO LONGER HAVE ANY WEIGHT WITH ME. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, FOR YOU QUOTE TO ME THAT SCRIPTURE WHICH I HAD BELIEVED ON THE AUTHORITY OF THOSE LIARS.
But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; Acts 1:26 WHICH BOOK I MUST NEEDS BELIEVE IF I BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, SINCE BOTH WRITINGS ALIKE CATHOLIC AUTHORITY COMMENDS TO ME. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. Acts ix Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichæus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichæus.
But it seems to me that problem is (in light of the debate/ Gavins position as I've understood it) that even if for the Augustine the Church is prior in chronology - specifically the Church giving the Gospel - it doesn't follow that the Church has authority over the Scripture. Also note that the term 'catholic' in the text is not equivalent with the RCC today and from the text alone it's not clear who are the catholics. For example, a protestant could say they hold 'the catholic position' because they adhere to the Scripture and early church while the RCC does not hold the true catholic position because they've departed from the apostolic teaching.
@@rightly-ordered I'm Catholic and I wasn't trying to claim that St. Augustine was not referring to the Catholic Church, I haven't even read Augustine. The aim was to say that since Augustine lived in 4th century that the term 'catholic' COULD mean different thing since even various churches today can put 'catholic' in their name (for example Orthodox-Catholic Church of America). I've written this because Gavin often brings 'nuance' to the table and because of his insistence that the Church has some authority.
But thanks for the nice apologetic exposition of the Catholic position
@@popsicle7480 It's funny that you haven't read it, because St. Augustine addresses your objection in the previous chapter of the same work.
St. Augustine, Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichæus, 5:5 ..."not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house."
Sure, protestants will say that the term isn't equivalent with the Catholic Church today--even Luther made that argument (he said Augustine meant the "whole Catholic Church" and added the word "whole" to his translation of the latin, much in the same way that he added the word "alone" to "justified by faith" in his translation of Romans). For them, the Church is a nebulous thing without a central authority, and obviously making a full case against that position requires more than a few quotes.
Note, however, that Augustine is talking about a Church with apostolic succession from Peter and a Church to whom strangers are directed to even by heretics when they ask where the Catholic Church meets. Is that not simply the case today? I don't mean this as some kind of knock-down argument, but if a stranger on the street were to ask Gavin "where does the Catholic Church meet?", would he refer him to the nearest Catholic Church or simply point to his own church without any further explanation? Further, by Augustine's very definition, Gavin's "church" does not have apostolic succession from Peter and could not be considered the Catholic Church.
Now, this isn't a thesis on the topic, but it's clear that Augustine is referring to a specific group of people--an episcopate--who succeeded the apostles, beginning from the seat of St. Peter. And he got his faith in the gospel from and on the authority of this group of people. And if he were to lose regard in this group of clearly identifiable people (to him), he would no longer believe the gospel, because he believes the gospel on their authority. This is not the Church merely being "prior in chronology" to the scriptures.
Frankly it's nuts to read this and conclude that Augustine believed in sola scriptura. It's why Luther's first response to this is to flatly say that Augustine is wrong, only moving to his alternate interpretation after (which is based on his falsely added word "whole").
Luther: "Even if Augustine had used those words, who gave him authority, that we must believe what he says? What Scripture does he quote to prove the statement? What if he erred here, as we know that he frequently did, as did all the fathers? Should one single sentence of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above? That is not what God wills; St. Augustine must yield to them. ... And if this meaning [Luther's interpreation] cannot be found in St. Augustine's words; for they are contrary to the Scriptures and all to experience if they have that other meaning.
Roman Catholics: the Bible self authenticating itself is circular. Also Roman Catholics: the Church self authenticating proves its truth while the Bible doesn't self authenticate, which disproves Sola Scriptura...🤦🤦🤦
Did Trent say the church authenticates itself? As I understood it, Christ left us a church and the church authenticated the Bible. Could you clarify maybe?
@@guns4786 Trent uses the Roman Catholic church's claim to being the "one true church" as a point in favor of his position. I've also heard him and others say: I cannot even consider such and such a church, since they don't even claim to be the one true church...
@@paulyoshida1747 that to me sounds like he is saying, he wouldnt join a church that doesn’t believe it is the true church, which is different than believing a church is the one true church simply because someone claims it is.
@@guns4786When it's used in the context of a debate or defense of one's faith, it is intended as an argument in favor of that position. Either way, the catholic church's self claim of "being the one true church," is not unique, and it is a moot point when debating with a protestant. Protestant theology has a broader definition of "the true universal church," which constitutes the totality of true Christians no matter of their denomination. Back to my original point, catholic apologists' favorite "debunking" of sola scriptura is to say that: "The Bible doesn't teach sola scriptura." Which is either a misunderstanding or a disingenuous mischaracterization of this doctrine. More likely, it's just a catchy talking point. It's an argument that sounds good in a timed debate or a soundbite, but does not hold water in a deeper conversation.
@@paulyoshida1747 I have listened to hours long discussion on this topic and haven’t heard a good defense of sola scriptura. They only way to take different books and say this is or this is not scripture is to have someone use a formula or to use tradition. If you believe that only scripture then you can only use a formula found in scripture but, you don’t know what that is. So where did the formula come from? That seems to me why they are also big on saying Christ started the church, because otherwise it’s just them saying we started the church and we say we are the church.
Very powerful closing statement from Trent, brilliant. Keep up the good works, Gbu
Gavin had a better argument and closing. Trent comes close second.
“Why should I accept that which isn’t the inspired word of God to be equal in authority to that which is the inspired word of God?”
“Because it’s the word of God.”
“……… ok.”
Because the pope’s opinion isn’t the word of God
@@CommandoShepard Not even remotely what was being discussed. Oral apostolic tradition was being discussed as an example of something that is capable of being the “word of God” and therefore equal in authority to scripture.
@@andrewsneed5 Don't forget about the writings of Paul that were there from the git go! They are the inspired Word Of God. They trump oral apostolic traditions, many of which Peter and Paul disagreed upon. Man;s traditions never supercede the written ,inspired, infallible Word Of God. During the days of the early church, why did Paul have to write so many letters of correction to the church? And don't forget the Old Testament. That was what the Jews (newly baptized Christ followers) relied on.
Really appreciate this debate..
Two men of God. Christianity needs both of you.
One man of god the other is anathema
Excellent debate!