For an in-depth examination of this topic, be sure to check out my colleague Joe Heschmeyer's video, "One, Holy, BAPTIST, and Apostolic Church??" ua-cam.com/video/ELOZbClBQ3I/v-deo.html
Most Baptists just call themselves Christians. No Protestant bats an eye at "catholic" in the creed. I wouldn't assume it means the RCC any more than the PNCC or Old Catholics, just because some groups put Catholic in their name with a capital C. BTW, you guys have changed the creed in the past, introducing errors in regard to the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox are certainly right about the Filoque. So don't lecture us on a creed you feel free to change (at least every thousand years or so).
@@drjanitor3747who does this? The one Baptism is what unites Catholics. In fact many Catholics believe Protestants to be fallen away Catholics if they were baptized in The Name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost.
@@ArmaMoto Yeah most Prot baptisms are usually valid, as long as it is done as “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost” or whatever equivalent in another language. The only group I know of that has invalid baptisms while using nominally the same formula is the LDS church due to an incompatible understanding of God.
Bingo. I have a hard time watching Trent make such a blatant misunderstanding of how Protestants view the Creeds.... and what does that say about how the RCC views the Creeds? A Creed is simply a summarized statement of beliefs... and from whence to those beliefs come? The Scriptures! Sola Scriptura, all the way.
Not going to lie. Many are getting there. I’ve talked to some that don’t believe Mary is Theotokos. Or if she is, it doesn’t mean anything at all, as it’s just about Jesus. Or some that are close to being non Trinitarian I’ve talked to some that reject all the creeds and councils. Basically Christianity is what they want it to be. Which is scary as we can bend things to suit us so easily.
So are you now saying that Martin Luther is the leader of the Christian faith? What's wrong with yall? There is only one leader of the Christian faith. It isn't the Pope, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, Mohamed, none of them! The only leader is God's Son Jesus Christ who is alive in Heaven with his father. Oh, I forgot. Jesus and God are supposedly the same entity. No wonder most self proclaimed Christians are absolutely confused: following man and not the God sent to save man!
I am a Protestant who is part Baptist and part nondenominational. I have recently been researching Catholicism and looking at different perspectives so that I can love my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and not just argue. Thank you for the video and helping me learn more. Much love! God bless!
Either use the online version or buy a paperback copy of the catechism of the Catholic Church. That will tell you the truth about the Catholic Church and you can make informed decisions on your own.
@@DarlowMaxwell Oh yes, read the catechism then you will know the truth. Jesus always said....ye shall know them by what they say about themselves. Pedophile priests by the truckloads.
@bcalvert321 are you really christian with this kind of attitude? His response was wonderful in recommending him a trustworthy catholic source of knowledge on our religion. And I say this as a protestant... I guess. I always thought it was weird to identify with some sort of denomination (including catholic) first instead of Christian so I'll leave it at that.
@@channelMasterGuiGame The Catholic church is based on lies. The only doctrine I have found that has any truth to it is that they believe Jesus died for our sins. But it goes sideways from there. Most think only Catholics can be saved. I have heard many say they were born Catholic, meaning they were saved at birth. A lot if not most of their doctrine is not based on the Bible but what their church fathers have said, 200 to over 1800 years after Jesus rose from the dead. This is where they get the praying to dead saints should be done. All the lies about Mary come 200 years or more after Mary died. Some believe she never died but was taken to heaven before she died. I have found a few very good people that are Catholic. Most are living for Jesus or so they think. But the church has fed them lies all of their lives. They have no idea it is all lies. I pity them. I am sure Jesus does too.
I can’t speak for all Protestants, but I’m Lutheran and we believe in the “Holy catholic and apostolic church” without any fear. When we say “catholic” we use the lower case c and it means universal.
As a non-expert on the doctrine of baptism by immersion of a believer who has reached the age of reason, I believe you are correct about the phrase about baptism in the creed. Viewing baptism as an ordinance means that one is baptized as Jesus was because Jesus commanded it. The act symbolizes one’s death, burial, and resurrection in the Lord Jesus Christ.
As a Protestant, I believed strongly in Sola Scriptura. One day, though, it occurred to me that Sola Scriptura isn't possible. If it were, then we wouldn't have over 40,000 denominations. It's Scripture plus interpretation. So the question is "Whose interpretation?" With that question out there, I realized that the interpretation that made the most sense was the one based on the early church fathers who must have had a good idea of what the apostles thought, as well as the Church that Jesus ordained to have authority over these things. Didn't take too long for me to become Catholic.
Scripture and its interpretation aren't the same. Scripture can be infallible, with the interpretations not being so. Your logic is self defeating. There were christian fathers who held to views that you now consider as heretical, so clearly they must not "have had a good idea of what the apostles thought,". Also "as well as the Church that Jesus ordained to have authority over these things" this is ahistorical.
“Whose interpretation?” The interpretation that accurately reflects the original intent of the original author. This is the part opponents of Sola Scriptura completely gloss over.
I was raised Missionary Baptist. I like the foundations of truth and passion for God, but it left me with longing for theological questions and traditions. I found that of my own accord, in Roman Catholicism. Good luck on your journey, Brother in Christ.
You know what I did when it came to choose a Church, I prayed to God and I also asked The Mother of God since it was between Orthodoxy and Catholicism for me, yet I still think Orthodoxy is valid, Catholicism just fits me better.
Trent is very good at making points, but this video is a big fail. Other denominations target Baptists for a reason, because the anabaptist traditions are much more friendly and accommodating than most other branches. Pretending that councils are infallible is the first mistake, they are councils of men, fallen men. Pretending that thinking invalidates the bible because it was councils that helped establish it is another mistake, because if scripture is the inspired word of God, then there's no reason to presume that mere men are the ones that actually put it together. Pretending that an entire council must have gotten everything correct is another mistake, as many councils have made many mistakes, but might have components that are tried and true and from what I've seen, they almost always have dissenters in the councils. Pretending that Jesus gave the apostles and heirloom to pass down is another mistake, and is manmade power grabbing, especially if the fathers at Chalcedon boldly idolize Peter over the Holy Spirit. As far as baptism goes, Peter and John the Baptist clearly say it's not water that matters, because it is the spiritual component that matters. The RCC even admitted as much because "baptism of desire" counts as baptism in their eyes, which completely contradicts their belief of water baptism. They also contradict miscarried/stillborn babies since they "have the hope of salvation" but clearly there is no desire or actual baptism, so what is this hope? I have faith that my three miscarried babies are in Heaven, not because RCC says there is hope, but because God is good and the age of accountability has true merit, not contradictory merit like the RCC claims.
It is reasonable to believe both the creeds and the Bible, because the classical creeds are a great summarization of biblical truth. This is why Protestants feel little tension between the creeds and sola scriptura. Protestants generally do not believe the creeds based on the credentials or authority of the councils that promulgated them, but because of their success in expressing core biblical truth succinctly.
I think this begs the question though. How would one know that the Creed expressed the correct biblical truth? Keep in mind that the Arians themselves could quote Scripture to support their view and in fact, its that very reason, that the Creed was formed. Scripture was not enough.
@@Cklert I think you ask a good question. In terms of Arianism, truth is they don't have very good explanations of some verses that clearly demonstrate the divinity of Christ. Biblical debates have winners and losers, and it is important that the winners win because they are right, and not just because they proclaim that they are in charge. In this case, I respect the Church fathers because they were right in how they read the scriptures and how they expressed them in the creeds, rather than respecting the creeds because they were written by the church fathers.
@@Pedro-bk1ic See no, this goes right back around to the same fundamental issue. The Fathers taught and believed things universally that you yourself and most protestants reject, so Protestants are having to reinterpret what the creeds and councils defined in order to maintain their interpretation of the scriptures rather than allowing themselves to be corrected. If you have to reinterpret what they say to fit with what you think about the bible itself, then they really don't have any real authority to you at all, because if they did, you would allow yourself to be corrected on what the scriptures mean.
@@matthewoburke7202 Exactly. I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Protestants generally accept teaching based on its merit, not based on the hierarchical authority of the teacher. The obvious exception to this is the apostles. This means that Protestants are free to accept some things the fathers said, and reject others, based on the merit of the teaching as compared with Scripture. I don't have to believe something that Origen said simply because he said it, but I do accept much of what he said, because he understood the bible well. The value of this Protestant stance is highlighted by fellows such as Origen, who were so important for our understanding of core doctrines, but who also had a few somewhat heretical views. Protestants can easily filter out the good from the bad using scripture. It's true that this is a different attitude toward the creeds than generally seen amongst Catholics, but the idea that Protestants must accept either the creeds or sola scriptura, but never both, is what we call a false dilemma. As to your other point, about what I personally believe, I accept the classical creeds, the Nicene and Apostles creeds to name two specifically, so I don't know on what basis you are claiming I don't believe them. The early reformers like Luther and Calvin accepted the creeds, and so do most non-progressive evangelicals today.
@@Pedro-bk1ic Now, while I agree that Church fathers were fallible men, and prone to mistakes, what they universally believed is a different matter entirely. If the universal Church believed a certain way, then that should inform our opinions, since the holy spirit is leading the Church into all truth. With that being said, the problem still stands, because you are basically free to pick and choose which teachings you agree with which most falls in line with YOUR interpretation of the scriptures, making YOU the final determining factor of what constitutes orthodox belief. That's the problem with Protestantism, it ultimately results in pretty much everyone not being able to come to an agreement on major issues, and a disunified Christendom. It doesn't work. This is why Jesus instituted hierarchal authorities (Ephesians 4:11-14).
I saw Gavin Ortlund’s defense of the Nicene Creed. The problem, of course, is that when individuals can define the words of the creed however they want, it ceases to be a “guardrail for orthodoxy.”
Every sentence has room for interpretation. What Jesus teaches is to follow the spirit of the law. There's nothing controversial in the Nicene Creed to any true Christian.
As a former protestant, what strikes me is that faith in the infallibility of scripture is not fundamentally different than faith in the infallibility of councils and the pope's official teachings. In all of these cases, we are dealing with human mediated communication of God's word. Therefore, the same potential concerns for human error exist in all three. But we trust what Christ said that the Holy Spirit will lead his Church into all truth and it will not fail. If you divorce the authority of scripture from the Church, then you are left with nothing but private interpretation of scripture, which clearly leads to disagreement and disunity, clear evidence it isn't from Christ who desires his people to be one. And even from a scriptural point of view, Christ clearly established a church which carries his authority (he who hears you hears me, he said). What else can that possibly mean if we can't trust the judgments and teachings of the Church to be guided by Christ and guaranteed to be true?
Are you really equating the Scripture to any council and the Pope? Therein lies the problem because you think they have the same authority when the later is actually dependent on the former.
@@silenthero2795you have it backwards. When I was as a Baptist a Presbyterian pointed out that Bible Alone CANNOT be true for one inarguable reason. The Bible has no list of books that belong in it! Wait. What? You’re right I thought. It had never occurred to me that we got our 66 book Bible from???…. Protestant Tradition! It was just handed on to us as true from our forefathers. So how is that any different than Catholics and their Traditions that we so vociferously condemned? It isn’t different in the least. So here we don’t have to rely on squabbling opinions of this matter. Nor do we have to play Bible verse ping pong. It’s simple inescapable logic Everything that’s infallible is in the Bible. The list of books isn’t in the Bible. We know absolutely that the second statement is true. Therefore the first is not. There was no escape from this simple revolutionary insight so I put away my pride and followed Jesus. Right into His Catholic Church.
@@mrjeffjob As a Protestant who knows my Bible, I would have asked the Catholic: where is the infallible council that told the Jews which books were in their old testament? If God didn't need an infallible council to tell the Jews what books were in the Old Testament, we certainly don't need one for the New Testament. You could only find the Catholics' argument convincing if you don't look at what scripture actually teaches.
@@mrjeffjobwhat??? There is no list of books for the canon in the Bible? Well guess I better start worshipping Mary and the asking the saints to intercede for me, I better start thinking men in long robes can turn a piece of bread into the literal body of God. What a lame excuse to believe in evil.
@@silenthero2795The Ecumenical Councils are infallible in the very same way the Scriptures are. I would go so far as to say the Church’s teaching on what the Scriptures mean is infallible, not the book itself.
I was raised a catholic, until…I actually seriously started to read the Bible. We can read in Scriptures that Lord Jesus commanded the Apostles to first preach the Gospel to the Jews, and after also to the Heathen or Gentiles (but never vise versa ! ). I found out in Scriptures who of the Apostles for the first time went to Rome .. and it wasn't Peter. In the Book of Acts it says in Chapter 28 the following: 16 "And when we came to Rome, the Centurion delivered the Prisoners to the Captain of the Guard: but Paul was allowed to live in a house, by himself, with a Roman Soldier that kept him. 17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the Chief of the there living Jews together: and when they came together, Paul said to them: "Men and Brethren, though I have committed nothing against our people, our customs, or against our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans 18 who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of guild in me. 19 But when the Jews spoke against that verdict, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had made any accusations against my Nation. 20 For this Hope (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) therefore I have called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because for the Hope of Israel I am bound with these chains. 21 The Chief of the Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning you, neither any of the Brethren that came from there shewed or spoke any harm of you. 22 But we desire to hear of you what you think: for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere". The Roman catholic church claims that it was Peter who went to Rome first to preach the Gospel there first and that it was Peter who founded the Church there. Question: who lies? God,... or the Roman catholic church ? And what about the Letter in the Bible from Paul to the Congregation of Galatians where it says this in Chapter 2? From verse 7 we read the following: 7 "But on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter; 8 for He that gave Peter power effectively to the Apostleship of the circumcision (again: the Jews), the Same was Mighty in me toward the Gentiles. 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the Grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (that are Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision. Again dear catholics: who lies? God’s Word, or the Roman catholic church? Bible, the book of Acts, Chapter 5, verse 29 : Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey GOD - rather than man” !! Since the Roman catholic 'church' claims to be well-read on scriptures, then please point me in the direction of where in the Bible it says to pray to a woman, or with a rosary praising Mary, or to dead “saints.” Lord Jesus calls every believer Saints which all are who received the Holy Spirit and confess that Jesus is Lord - so Rome has no authority appointing only some people saint - that is ludicrous. Please show me the name ‘pope’ in the Bible? Please show me where it says to call any mortal sinful man (the pope) your father. Please show me where the Bible says anything about purgatory, or paying indulgences (buying yourself into heaven - is God corrupt ?). Please show me where Mary was sinless? Why is it that Catholics worship Mary still as a virgin when Lord Jesus had half brothers and half sisters? Please show me where it says to confess your sins to a fellow sinful man so that he may forgive them? Where does the Bible say the pope is the “vicar of Christ” on earth? Show me where it says that a preacher must be unmarried? It was the pagan ROMAN Emperor Constantine who was in fact the first “pope” who hijacked the first Christian Communion in Rome founded by the apostle Paul, and he didn't allow for the common people to have Bible Scriptures...to keep believers ignorant to stay in power, as the Catholic Church still tries to do. Later pope’s started the ‘inquisition’ because the book printing machine was invented and people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale could spread the Bible to the common people: they were persecuted and many of them burned to dead for that by decree of Rome, and so were hundreds others who did the same as they denounced the FALSE doctrines of Rome. Rome called them heretics and witches while they murdered Christians who loved Jesus and true Scriptures. PLEASE GET OUT OF THIS FALSE CHURCH !!! The Roman catholic “church” is a continuation of the old Roman PAGAN Empire: it never went away as it disguised itself as a Christian Church. Read Revelation, Chapter 17: verse 7, 8 and 9…Read also Revelation 18 to see what God will do to this “church.”
My parents were lapsed Catholics who emigrated from Spain to the United States. My brother and I were not cradle catholics, and we were sent to a Southern Baptist school. I always felt it was wrong. Ironically, it was a Baptist minister who encouraged me to convert to Catholicism. My conversion ultimately occurred on my deathbed on 16/9/1990. My brother's occurred on 16/8/2023. By God's grace and will, I am now discerning for the seminary in Spain. So yes, I believe in each word of the Credo Niceno❤
Trent, the quality of your videos has really ramped up. I love the graphics and the added bits and pieces. Really well done team! As always, quality content, keep it up.
*Larry Burkett's book on "Giving and Tithing" drew me closer to God and helped my spirituality. 2020 was a year I literally lived it. I cashed in my life savings and gave it all away. My total giving amounted to 40,000 dollars. Everyone thought I was delusional. Today, 1 receive 85,000 dollars every two months. I have a property in Calabasas, CA, and travel a lot. God has promoted me more than once and opened doors for me to live beyond my dreams. God kept to his promises to and for me*
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US and abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
@@jwatson181 i completely agree at least in this context. Trent is thoughtful and one of the more charitable apologists, but it's a very odd thing and anyone not inside can see it here. Trent assumes that what the RCC declares is true but pretends he's arguing in/from a different direction. it's presuppositional apologetics which just only goes so far. this video is so off base. the Creeds were created from Scripture, we know this, and any Creed is only worth anything insofar as it corresponds to the Word of God. it would be something like this: All Word of God could become a binding creed, but not all Creeds can be the Word of God. a Creed is binding only insofar as it's true and accurate relative to the Deuteronomy style tests.
I was reading Galatians today. I don’t know how after reading this text anyone could deny the importance of one baptism as a Christian-regardless of tradition. For it unites us under the headship of Christ. We become clothed in Christ. It wipes away the physical and cultural differences between us in terms of being heirs of the promise to Abraham. It declares, alongside the Holy Spirit and our Lord’s blood that we are God’s children.
@@TexMarque i cant see how my young friends who were baptized but did not confess Christ as saviour, can leave a faith they have not been a believing member of. Were they later in life to to believe and be baptized, that baptism seemscto make sense. Which leaves one questioning the paedo baptism
Oh, as a practicing Southern Baptist this made my jaw drop and I covered my mouth discovering that the Nicene Creed which I admire so much is not acknowledged and doctrinal to the SBC. This is a very big problem for me.
Reformed Presbyterians,Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) might be worth looking at. They do practice infant baptism. They are both historically faithful Protestant Reformed churches.
@@jimcasey1975They all deny baptismal regeneration, which is what the Creed pretty clearly teaches. He should look at Lutherans or Anglicans if you want to remain Protestant and affirm the Creed.
I would like to know, what is it in the Nicene Creed that you admire so much? I would imagine that it is because of the Nice Creed's strong Trinitarianism, and I think that was the reason why it got endorsed. However, although those who endorsed the Nicene Creed to the Southern Baptist Convention believed that Baptist theology is in agreement with the Nicene Creed, the SNC was being consistent in not adopting the Nicene Creed for two main reasons. First, Baptists as a whole do not believe in one universal Church but in several, distinct, independent, autonomous local "churches", thus denying the article "I believe in one, holy, catholic [i.e., universal] and apostolic Church", for the very Council of Nicea denied the Baptist doctrine of local church autonomy, as the first ecumenical council has far more authority than a "convention" does, members of the SBC are not required to adhere to the SBC statement of faith, and churches and state conventions belonging to the global body are not required to use it as their statement of faith or doctrine, unlike during the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople which pronounced anathema to those who would disregard the Creed. But most importantly, Baptists deny that the purpose of baptism is to forgive sins, and could only adopt the Nicene Creed by twisting the meaning of the article, "I acknowledge one Baptism 𝙛𝙤𝙧 the remission of sins", into "I acknowledge one Baptism '𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇' the remission of sins", ignoring the fact that both before and after the Council of Nicea the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was widely acknowledged except by the Pelagians, and so to reject the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is semi-Pelagian at best, which is why St. Augustine argued for baptismal regeneration to oppose Pelagianism, the idea that one can repent and turn to God without the need of grace. At the same time, those who endorsed the Nicene Creed to the SBC when asked about the article on baptism replied, “Coming under the article on the Holy Spirit, this refers to baptism in the Spirit or regeneration, which occurs with faith. Water baptism is the outward confession of that prior inward reality”, thus denying that the baptism of water and the baptism of Spirit is one baptism, calling them two distinct baptisms, and thus they do not really acknowledge “one baptism” but two. And the SBC, by not only not adopting the Nicene Creed, but also showing a willingness to twist the historical and grammatical meaning of the article, "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins", has divorced itself from historic, Scriptural Christianity. And so, 𝐍𝐎, 𝐁𝐀𝐏𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐇𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐋𝐘 𝐀𝐅𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐌 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐄𝐃, no matter how "admirable" it may seem. Trent Horn is correct here: either be consistent with sola Scriptura or admit that what is actually believed is 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘚𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢.
I was a Southern Baptist and now I'm becoming Greek Orthodox. I'm a homeschool mom and I was reading Ambleside's Plutarch and decided we needed to read some of the lives of early Christians and martyrs. That was 5 years ago. It's been a long road but the end of John 6 is really my main reason to convert. I'm also convinced that having multiple Patriarchates with Christ as the head is the original.
You can have creeds as a Protestant. They just don’t level on par with scripture but they are useful guidelines for churches to have so there’s an open understanding of what that churches positions are and you know they will preach within those guidelines.
What gets you up, the stairs or the guardrails? The stairs. The guardrails help you stay on the stairs. Yes, you can choose not to hold on to the rails and go up just fine, or you can fall and break your neck. Those who have come before us say, "We added rails, mind them, they will help you ascend." But the later Romans and Greeks say the rails make you go up just like the stairs (the rails *are* stairs), or you can't go up without holding on to the rails...which I reject. As a Protestant, I appreciate the rails and they have been proven to be sturdy and helpful over thousands of years. I mind them. I study them. I love them. I receive the wisdom of my ancient brothers. But, I know the rails are not the stairs. I know that I don't "need" them to ascend. But when one of my Protestant brothers ignorantly wants to take them down, I will do what Protestants do best and protest.
Speaking as a Protestant, I can tell you what we believe about Creeds: creeds and confessions do not share the same authority as the Bible, but they are helpful summaries of the Bible’s teachings, and therefore should be used to help us understand the broader teaching of the Scriptures. However, as the Bible alone was divinely inspired in the autographs, creeds and confessions must necessarily submit themselves to the authority of the Bible. When creeds, confessions, councils, or pastors speak, if they are out of step with the scriptures then they are in error.
Who determines when they are out of step with Scripture? For instance, the Nicene Creed, as Trent dove into, claims regenerational Baptism. Who gets to decide what Scripture teaches so that we know whether the creed is accurate or out of step?
Then it would be better if, speaking as a Protestant, one would point out where exactly in the Nicene Creed is out of step with the Scriptures and is in error. The SBC, in their decision not to accept the Nicene Creed, was more honest than other Protestants in pointing out their disagreement with two articles of the Nicene Creed. Magisterial Protestants, though claiming to be sola Scriptura, are really 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘚𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢 with their own magisteriums.
@@FleurPillager 2 Peter 1:20-21 [20]Understand this first: that every prophecy of Scripture does not result from one's own interpretation. [21]For prophecy was not conveyed by human will at any time. Instead, holy men were speaking about God while inspired by the Holy Spirit.
@@Mr.BaSir20 This is an inappropriate, inapplicable Scripture quote if I've ever seen one. These verses have to do with the inspired writing of "prophecy of Scripture", not the Holy Spirit's guidance and counsel in understanding Scripture. Jesus called Him the 'Counselor' for a reason. John 16:14 - "He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you."
I didn't know some of the oldest Protestant denominations didn't confess the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. As a Lutheran convert to Catholicism I thought we all did.
Because Protestants use confessions of faith and "Belief in the Trinity" is a pretty common feature, thus making a direct citation of The Nicene Creed redundant. Protestants are still mostly Nicene, including the (not actually Protestant, but a form of Anabaptist) Baptists.
My take as a Protestant: This is a classic false dichotomy, although the graphic shown at the beginning is admittedly very unhelpful because it does seem to put ecumenical authority to be equal with Scripture. From that diagram, Trent's criticisms would seem valid. The false dichotomy is this: either the ecumenical councils have infallible authority or they have no authority. This is easily dismissed. I am a father, and therefore have God-given and natural authority over my children. If I tell my children to do something, they must obey me or else they will be in sin. Does that make me an infallible authority? Absolutely not. If I command my children to steal candy or jump off a bridge, they ought not listen to me even though I am their God-given authority. We treat ecumenical councils the same way. There is authority there which we ought to submit to. We ought to condemn Arianism because of the authority of established doctrine taught by the authority of the Church in accordance with Scripture. However, when an ecumenical council tells me that I am anathema if I do not kiss a statue of Mary, something wildly in violation of Biblical teaching and early church practice, it is like hearing a father tell his child to steal candy or jump off a bridge. This is why the Bereans were praised for accepting the Gospel only after testing it with Scripture. It is Scripture that establishes Church authority, and therefore the Church only has authority when operating under the Infallible Rule just as a father only has authority when operating under the authority of God. Authority doesn't have to be infallible for it to be a valid authority worth listening to, so long as it itself is in submission to authority that is truly infallible, and therefore higher.
As for the argument "Protestants can disregard Church authority so long as it falls outside of their personal interpretation of Scripture", again the analogy of a father is helpful. A child could argue that their father telling them to clean their room is not a biblical command, and therefore they can ignore it. Yes, they can but only at their own peril. There is an objective teaching in Scripture, an objectively right way to interpret it, and we all, ecumenical councils included, are weak and prone to misinterpretation. The humble person will submit to their authority until that authority is clearly and unmistakably crossing biblical boundaries in majour and harmful ways. In the end, we will all be judged by God and give an account to him. If in pride we disregarded authority because of our own puffed up ideas, we will be condemned. However, if we rejected false authority in order to keep our consciences legitimately clean before God in accordance to what is clearly true in Scripture, we will be blessed. In other words, there is already an infallible authority who will judge us, therefore the answer to this problem is not to established a human authority that is infallible (as if the father, in response, declared his command to clean the room and all other commands to be equal with Scripture), but rather to entrust ourselves to the truly infallible judge to whom we will all give an account. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me this argument seems to boil down to "without infallible ecumenical authority, we cannot control what people believe." So what?
That still sounds like pick and choose to me, which will lead to wildly inconsistent conclusions between different people and ultimately create different denominations. You can't say that Arianism goes against early church teaching as if anti-Arianism was an already established doctrine back then. Remember that Arius himself was a priest of the Church so there were a chunk of Christians back then who supported him and believed in Arianism. It was the ecumenical council that decided what the infallible position is. Also, Arianism should be condemned because it doesn't interpret scripture through the lens of the Church. When discussing this issue, we really should not underestimate how vast the human mind is and what it can come up with. If you talk to a Mormon or a JW, they will tell you that the scripture shows Jesus is not fully divine. I know that you will tell them that they got their interpretations wrong but they will tell you that you're the one who got it wrong. I've been in an argument with them before, they argue hard and brings up verses just like you would. So you can't just pick and choose, the ecumenical councils must be infallible for Christianity to work.
Amen, brother! In fact, not only is it a false dichotomy, it is deliberately deceptive. See, your example shows that there can be a conflict between "church authority" and the Scriptures. The RCC claims that's impossible. If I grant that for the sake of argument, then Trent's belief system falls apart the instant that I PERCEIVE a conflict! And, just to ensure that this isn't hypothetical, I "perceive" a conflict between RCC teaching and Matthew 23:9. Now what? I MUST weigh one by the other, thus proving one is authoritative over the other (which is what you stated). Trent is dishonest. Remember, he's the guy that tried to argue that "theo-pneu-stas" means "Life Giving" and not "God Breathed". It's Greek. Can you see the "God Breathed" words in there? Trent's a liar.
This is perhaps the best defense i have heard though I still dont think it truly holds because it doesnt truly solce the equation but it is quite a good defense nonetheless
Same here, with us Anglicans. I suspect that this applies to Lutherans and traditional Methodists as well. Basically, this seems to be the case with denominations that hold closely to Magisterial Reformation tradition.
Good information and sources, Trent, regarding the views on baptism from the beginning centuries of the church era!! I was not aware of that. Thank you!
But the actual Sola Scriptura that the Reformers referenced isn’t what the SBC and other low church contemporary “Protestant” churches use. Sola Scriptura means the Bible alone is the ultimate infallible authority which creeds, church tradition, church leaders, etc. cannot contradict. It doesn’t mean it’s the only authority, and it never has meant that. There’s no contradiction for Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.
1 an authority can not be a book, authority is a property of people or of organizations, it's about being able and in the right to settle disputes. even then, nobody says that anything can contradict God's Word, especially because it's inerrant. And we don't, in fact, contradict the inerrant Scriptures.
If the Bible alone is the infallible authority, then the other authorities are ultimately meaningless, they're only truth as much as Scripture recognize them as such, wich exactly Trent's point (it falls down to solo scriptura).
@@dr.tafazzi This is easily disproven. Catholics put their infallibility in a singular man, or rather a "role." Over thousands of years now we've seen Popes be fallible. They're constantly wrong on scripture, constantly changing the rules, constantly succumbing to imperial or human authorities and changing laws to give them credibility. They've used the name of Christianity as a political weapon... and you come here and claim the Bible can't be the ultimate authority but the Pope can? That's the most ridiculous non-historical Christian take I've ever heard.
@@ghostapostle7225 And vice versa. If the Church contains the ability to infallibly create dogma, it can render the scripture meaningless. Hopefully Protestants, RCC, and Orthodox recognize that God's people and the Church has always been fallible. Pharisees, Apostles, and the Church have made mistakes and taught mistakes. The Pharisees, by appearing righteous but often times being hypocrites. Paul rebuking Peter, apostles arguing over who is the greatest among them. The RCC and Orthodox anathemitizing each other as if the One True Church was either in the East or West only. However, we can still be assured that God will protect the Church and "gates of hell shall not prevail against it". Despite all the errors of the Pharisees and the Church, Christianity is still strong after 2000+ years and protected by the Spirit.
As a Catholic, I don’t think you did such a good job here Trent. Their argument is saying the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith, and all that means is that certain doctrines laid down in creeds and the early church can be wrong and can be overturned (in something like the SBC) as long as it coincides with scripture. This doesn’t mean that some creed held by the SBC doesn’t have any binding power on who is a Christian. It has authority as of now and as agreed upon by the church but it is not infallibly authoritative. What they would say is that arianism is bad because the council said so, but we cannot be 100% sure that they were correct just because it came from a council. They would say that we can only be 100% sure if arianism goes against scripture (how they determine that idk, but that’s why I’m Catholic haha) If they are being consistent, they should be open about disagreeing with early church doctrine and not seeing that as a bad thing.
yes, this argument is truly not good. i don't know why it is, but whenever Protestants or Catholics or Orthodox debating internally (to me meaning "amongst ourselves), we just seem to be incapable of getting it right. maybe there's something to that? maybe in violating the spirit of unity, God forces us to miss the mark? i'm gonna pray on this. the reason so many Protestants haunt these channels (and likely in the opposite manner for Protestant channels) is because as lay Christians, we desire unity above all else. I really think there is a profound blessing in being the lowly in Christ. we can hunger for and see things that get obscured at the higher levels of authority.
Of course there have always been cooler heads in Protestantism that saw the problems with appealing to Scripture alone but the prevailing current in Protestantism has always been that Scripture alone matters. Sure, some Protestanets will at times refer to other sources of information, including creeds or councils, but within the Protestant framework, any credal statement can just be overruled by someone invoking Scripture. As long as the appeal to Scripture is half-way coherent (but not necessarily correct) it will outdo that credal statement. Distinguishing between "Sola Scriptura " and "Solo Scriptura" is a distinction without a difference. How they can determine something is wrong? Well, there's the other infallible authority in Protestantism, they "I".
Yeah, I think from listening to the video, you might be right but I think from what he’s getting at is to have authority is to submit to it even in disagreement. The creeds and the councils have no real authority in the lives of the SBC neither does the fathers of the church , it still goes back to scripture alone . It’s like if the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution even if wrong the states must obey . To change they must fight accordingly within the structure set up by the founding fathers through the election of new members. Protestant have no real visible body on earth but the one that they elect based on what fits with their interpretation of the bible. At any point they can change, they may look at history but picking and choosing the words that fit to how they interpret the bible which will break down to solo scripture .This concept of changing the definition of solo/sola scriptura because they look at history for statements of faith is irrelevant. The word infallible just mean incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. And catholics agree on that but when Catholics look at the councils to find what was said , we also look to was is be binding to church trusting that the Holy Spirit will not infallible bind heresy .They question is authority and no creed has it , if baptism regeneration statements by the early fathers can be dismissed by nitpicking on baptism of blood by martyrs during persecution, what power and authority do the creeds have. There are no rule of faith besides solo scripture because the creed are just statements that we agree upon , agreement and submission to it is an flip of coin based on what each generation comes to translate from the bible.
Catholics don't think the creeds are infallible - that's why you change them. You added stuff after Chalcedon (and I'm being generous by saying "you," since the Orthodox would insist it's they who are the church of that era). Then you added the Filoque a thousand years ago, which split the church irrevocably and even led to wars and massacres. You justify the Chalcedonian changes by appealing to scripture - rightly. In recent years, you've more or less admitted the Filoque is problematic, but that you can understand it in a Biblical way (although this really requires you to accept that the creed is poorly written in the RCC's version). One reason why evangelicals can't accept the creed as fully authoritative is because we would have to hash out what we think about the Filoque and which version we want to use. That would mean entering into a millennium-long war between Rome and Constantinople - it's not our fight and it wouldn't benefit dialog or missions in any way.
Trent praying for your continued success in evangelizing and bringing us into unity into the one holy Catholic and Apostolic church! Oh the love and joy I feel united with Christ in his body and what gratitude I feel when I listen to your videos as a “Cradle Catholic” when I contemplate the nothing and lack of nothing good I did to deserve the gift the Lord has given me. To quote our Lord Jesus to St. Catherine of Sienna: Jesus said to Catherine, “Do you know who you are and who I am? If you know these two things, you will be blessed and the Enemy will never deceive you. I am He who is; and you are she who is not.”
The word catholic means universal. The words used were all in small caps. It is not one Catholic Church but the universal Church of Jesus. He is the Head, anyone who makes Jesus Lord and Savior belongs in His church. They do not have to belong to the Catholic church.
@@bcalvert321 it is the only one that provides the real sacraments by priest with apostolic succession through the laying of hand for 200 centuries. Not other denomination can claim that.
@@bcalvert321 "The words used were all in small caps.' This would be true if upper and lower case were present at the Council. It wasn't. Capitlization is a very late medieval invention if not Renaissance. The Catholic Church that spoke at the council is both visible and universal. There was no distinguishment for _catholic_ and _Catholic._ The same Church that proclaim itself catholic in the Creed *is* the Catholic Church. When people talked about the catholic or universal church, they are referring to the Catholic Church.
Protestant here: A lot of this boils down to a misunderstanding of the role creeds/confessions/catechisms etc play in the church. G.I. Williamson in his study guide on the Heidelberg Catechism gave a helpful analogy. He talked about the benefit of studying a map first instead of starting with a study of the surface of the earth. In this case, creeds and confessions serve as that map because they teach and summarize the basics so that we can then study the thing they summarize - the scriptures. But the map is only helpful to the extent that it is accurately conveying the actual geography. If there is a error, then the map must be the one that changes. So creeds are extremely helpful, but only to the point that they accurately convey scriptural teachings. But just like a map, creeds, confessions, catechisms, etc are always reformable under scripture.
this flexibility in teachings such that there will be no "final word" (because one holds on to the possibility of reforming it down the line) is what lead to a relativism in society
@@renomtv In many ways you are right. But did God give the gospel to reform society, or did he give his gospel to reform his elect? "Not all Israel is Israel" "As many as are being led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" Many people can take scripture and come up with all sorts of crazy ideas. But are they led by the Holy Spirit or are they false teachers? Are they governed by the Lordship of Christ in everything, seeking to deny themselves and submit to Christ with all their heart? In the end there is a final word. Jesus Christ will come again and make all things right. Until then he left his church (his chosen elect) the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
To stick with this concept, Baptists have been wandering for years because they found the missing map and threw it away because they prefer to keep wandering 🤷♂️ I agree not all creeds are equal or helpful, but for Baptists to disagree on the Nicene Creed shows they don’t agree where they are, or where they’re going, and demonstrates the splintering of Protestantism. I hope this is a wakeup call for many Baptists.
Then there is no point in affirming any previous creed. Just create your own creeds, using the historical creeds as a guide. If maps are wrong, people create new maps, taking what is correct in the previous ones, but they do create new maps. What stops any Protestant from being like WLC, who denies that Jesus has a divine and human will? What stops a Protestant from coming to other conclusions if they will simply reject any creed or council that contradicts what they think? Shouldn't they learn about a creed or council and consider that perhaps their interpretation of scripture is wrong?
Trent Horn @ Council Of Trent is yet my favourite Catholic Apologist. Others including: Jimmy Akin, Michael @Reason with Theology, Bryan Mercier @ Catholic Truth, I Miss Christendom, Matt @ Pints with Aquinas, Voice of Reason etc. God bless you, all the amazing souls behind this UA-cam Channel and your good ministry.
Overthinking it. The creeds are authoritative because they're a correct exposition of scripture. They derive their authority because they align with scripture. We don't need to pretend scripture is some uninterpretable mess/black box.
"correct exposition" is the rub. So any creed that doesn't align with the individuals interpretation of scripture is to be rejected. And the non-SS view is not that scripture is hopelessly obscure or unintelligible.
@@siruristtheturtle1289 quite easily. The Holy Scriptures were authoritative at the moment they were written down, not at the moment they were canonized.
@@cronmaker2 I get that. But that's not really what it comes down to. As a Lutheran, I don't just get to say I don't agree with the Apostles' Creed because my interpretation of scripture is different. If I did that, I wouldn't be communed, and if I persisted in that error, I'd be excommunicated. You can claim certain Protestant groups pick and choose from councils, but neither the RCC or EO accept every single council either. The thing the RCC and EO Christians have to ask themselves is, if you were transported back to the 3rd century, and your bishop confirmed Arianism, and you saw in the scriptures that this was heresy, would you submit to your bishop or to the eternal word of God? We would say you must stand firm on the word of God. I had an EO tell me that you'd have to submit to your heretical bishop.
@@lanetrain You don't seem to understand the dilemma presented: It is by the tradition and the canonization of the Scriptures that we know which books were universally accepted and inspired. This by its nature discards any notion of Sola Scriptura as such because to know the Inspired books we relly on extra-biblical material and tradition.
It’s not about what rule of faith is infallible. It ultimately depends on interpretation. If your interpretation of scripture doesn't fit a creed, you ignore the creed. If the early Christians’ belief is different from your interpretation of scripture, you will think the early Christians didn't follow the Bible.
But as some point, you must consider that your interpretation is incorrect. That’s the problem with many Protestants, is that they don’t always seek the true understanding of scripture and only want to interpret it how they want. Which is not what sola scriptura means
What about all the early Church citations of Scripture? Most powerful question you can ask a Protestant: who are you (your teachers) to reject the biblical interpretations of those taught, discipled, approved, and ordained by the biblical authors, by the Apostles, esp Peter and John? (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp)
@@ghostapostle7225Sure, but I'd say that's the wrong question. The right question is what I asked above: who are you (your teachers) compared to the early Church fathers?? Merely claiming Scripture for yourself and your beliefs is merely a rhetorical tactic; it doesn't actually demonstrate who has the true and proper interpretation of Scripture.
You did it, Trent. You made it. Your video editing and aesthetic are now up to par and visually stunning to look at. Your video editing now equally compliments your intelligence and the truth you desire to convey. Give whoever you hired a high five and take them out to lunch. Cheers.
Sola Scriptura is the ever moving goalpost. It is self-defeating. But every time the legs get kicked out from under it the definition gets restated with a different nuance, repeat, repeat, repeat.
You're right. Original intent is so critical. We can't treat the decrees of the councils like people nowadays want to treat the U.S. constitution -- as a living document that changes meaning depending on who is interpreting it. Great point!
Certainly, friend! I do pray that you may find Jesus in fullness, and trust in Him with all of your being, just as He made you. "37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'" 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." (John 7:37-39, ESV) I might also share with you, I do not believe this channel is completely biblical, but I am here to help understand Roman Catholic arguments, which I believe to be false. Red Pen Logic is an excellent source for finding some help in understanding God's Word. There are many short videos, which are easy to understand, and given with much grace!
Brother Trent is amazing. As a former reformed baptist, I can tell you Sola Scriptura VS Solo Scriptura makes no sense. If you only have ONE INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH, then why shy away from it? Forget about creeds, councils and the Church. It's you and the Bible then. Go ahead. See where you end up, LOL. The moment you start accepting the Fathers, Councils and Tradition (even as an "external reference") then you don't have Sola Scriptura anymore. In that case, you're making the case for Catholicism, and the truth is plainly clear before you. I'm glad the Lord called me back home. Best choice ever!!!!
IDK how protestants can use either the Apostles or Nicene Creeds, but for a different reason:- Apostles Creed; I believe in ... the Holy Catholic Church Nicene Creed; I believe in ...One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church ...
It all comes down to faith, Biblical truths and old Testament And New Testament foretelling and describing Christ's life, death, ascension, resurrection and return which gives HOPE. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Southern Baptist here - still young in my faith after 15 years and learning much from your podcasts Trent! I might be wrong in saying this and maybe a protestant brother will correct me, but again I think Trent doesn't put forward the fully fleshed out view of Sola Scriptura - at least how it's acted out in the protestant churches I've been around. The Catholic view seems to be that protestants don't have a framework through which we view scripture, therefore any interpretation is valid which leads to heretical teaching. The authority of the Catholic Church, evident in all it's doctrines, dogmas, and traditions, is supposed to act as a guardrail for these things. The problem is, just like Catholics, Protestants DO have a mechanism through which we interpret scripture - the inner witness and guiding of the Holy Spirit! I actually think Protestants have a lot more in common with our Catholic brethren than we might think. The reason I'm not Catholic is I don't think Catholics recognize that sometimes the Church veers off the rails (or has the ability to), whereas most Protestants I know are very comfortable using the words "I don't know." I once heard Trent say on another podcast, I think with Allie Stuckey, that the Church may have been in need of reform during the time of Martin Luther, but certainly wasn't meant to be split into the factions we now inhabit. I actually agree with this wholeheartedly! The problem is that if I walked into a Catholic church tomorrow and denied the position of Mary as immaculately conceived and totally sinless, I would be barred from taking holy communion (assuming I went through confirmation in a single day lol)! Thanks be to God that we have the grape juice and crackers at my local church! I consider even these the scraps dropped by my Master and Lord Jesus Christ from His table, though no other priest blessed them. The reason we see the Nicean Creed being considered at the SBC is that God's CHURCH yearns desperately to be reunited. It breaks our hearts that because of doctrinal differences we can't be together as the bride of Christ. Even Catholics believe God won't abandon Baptists because we misunderstood some inessential doctrine. We are as much a part of the body of Christ as any person who has, as the Apostle Paul says, confessed with their lips that Jesus is Lord and believed in their heart that God raised Him from the dead. I don't think I misinterpreted that one. Much love brothers and sisters,
The Holy Spirit is who guides the Church you are right about that. The Holy Spirit can guide anyone and everyone. The problem is that there are countless thousands of denominations all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations and doctrines, but yet they all disagree on interpretations and doctrines. Either none are right all the time or only one is right all the time. Jesus only established 1 church. While other denominations are right here and there, they will also err sometimes. Only the Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals when making definitive teachings. You also imply that the Catholic Church doesn't admit that sometimes we just don't know things. This isn't true. There are many mysteries and we will never know everything, the Church acknowledges this. That doesn't mean the Church "veers off the rails" as you say. Not knowing something doesn't mean you have veered off the rails. What we can be sure of is that all Catholic doctrines are without err and we can trust them fully, just as we can trust Scripture. This doesn't mean that everything there is to be known is laid out in Scripture or in doctrines.
@@ReapingTheHarvest Thanks for the reply - I agree that there are many denominations claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but the primary difference between the protestant view and the catholic view in this area is as you stated - that Catholics believe they are the Church (capital C). Protestants believe the Church (Capital C) extends beyond the boundaries of the Vatican because we reject the infallibility of the Church. That's also why I imply that Catholics typically don't say "I don't know." Also, I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying the Catholic church is infallible, or that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra? Are these two separate doctrines? Surely you don't mean the rank and file catholic churchgoer is infallible in any respect, whether in theology or daily living. I assume you are talking about the corporate body of believers?
@@ReapingTheHarvestbut I just listened to a sedavacantist call Trent a heretic, and Francis the anti-Pope It’s a ruse to portray the RC church as the preserver of unity.
@@DPK5201The distinction here would be that we acknowledge that individuals can possess false beliefs and be disunified, but in doing so, one rails against the centralized authority of the Church and Sacred Tradition (which includes Sacred Scripture) in doing so.
I'm a fan of Trent's work, but I do think this is lacking a bit. There is an obvious whole in his argument. His argument (2:23): "if Protestants affirm the Bible and creeds, then either it is not sola scriptura or when its put into practice is collapses into solo scriptura; implied premise neither of these consequences are good (more or less)--meaning if you affirm only the Bible then you can't affirm the creeds and if you affirm the creeds then you can't affirm only the Bible. Therefore, Protestants can't affirm both the Bible and creeds." The whole in the argument comes from his ambiguous use of the word "affirm". Protestants claim that creeds are authoritative only if they affirm doctrines directly in Scripture; so they can affirm parts of the creed but not necessarily all of the creed. For example, scripture says nothing about the wills of Christ. In fact, I think Craig might be anachronistic in his denial of the two wills of Christ. The "wills of Christ" was a philosophical idea born from platonic philosophy. It did not mean "will" the way we use the term today--that is, our personal desires and wants. The way the church, and the mid to late Platonists used the term was that the will is a function of the nature. It was more of a set of natural powers and abilities (e.g. oak trees have the power to make acorns) that all participants of that nature share. All oaks trees share the same nature, so they share the same will--i.e. making acorns. Or, all people have the same will, although we have different desires and wants. So, the early church thought that if Christ has two natures, then he must have two wills. Craig is interpreting "wills" in the modern sense given that Craig affirms the two natures of Christ (hence the anachronism). This example is meant to show that the creeds and councils contain more than just concise descriptions of doctrines found in scripture. They contain some philosophical unpacking. The Protestants will take only that which is directly from scripture as authoritative, taking or leaving the philosophical underpinnings. Therefore, part of the creeds are authoritative and other parts are not. The whole in Trent's argument is that there is a third option: affirm the Bible and parts of the creeds.
I'm just curious, do you say this because you believe in baptismal regeneration? Or do you say it because even though you reject baptismal regeneration, you believe that the Nicene Creed can accommodate a non-baptismal regeneration view?
@@gunsgalore7571 The latter. I reject baptismal regeneration, and I believe that it is possible to reject baptismal regeneration and still affirm the Nicene Creed while being intellectually consistent.
@@ChrisTheFreedomEnjoyer You cannot be intellectually consistent if you claim to affirm the Nicene Creed and be Baptist. "One baptism for the remission of sins" literally means "one baptism for the remission of sins". It isn't "say the sinners prayer for the remission of sins". I have more respect for the consistency of those within SBC to reject the Nicene Creed, because they honestly are being intellectually consistent (while being misguided). But I do admire your want to conform to be like the early christians, but you first must admit the early christians believed in something entirely different from you
I was raised that the baptism of The Holy Spirit does remiss sins and since water isn’t mentioned in the Nicene creed, we were able to say it. That’s how a Baptist understands it, I guess.
@@kevinjypiter6445I’m no baptist, but I know baptists can affirm the Nicene creed. The phrase your quoting from the creed is basically Acts 2:38, right? You know Baptists believe Acts 2:38?
It's odd that W. L. Craig says he sees nothing in Scripture to say that Jesus had two wills when immediately before that he based his view of one will on a philosophical commitment to the will being a property of the person, not the nature. Also, when Jesus prayed for the Father to take the cup from him, yet not his will but the Father's will be done, Craig's view would make the divine Son's will contrary to that of the Father. Christ having two wills makes better sense of that passage: though the divine Person is one in will with the Father, his human nature (which is not essential to his being) could at times have other, though subservient desires. (Please correct me if I have mischaracterized dyothelitism here.)
That's exactly the passage that immediately came to my mind as well. If Christ only has one will, the Divine Will, then this passage demonstrates disunity in the Divine Will (and thus disunity in the Trinity), which is contradictory to the Trinity itself. There can, by definition, be no disunity within the Tri-Unity of God.
I'm not surprised by the Baptists on this front. They don't come out of the Reformation, and part of their whole gig is that they summarily reject the Roman Catholic church (since they're a derivative of the Anabaptists). Although I'm protestant, being a Presbyterian, I recognize the importance of the church fathers and the creeds (looking at you, Apostles Creed). One of the reasons I find myself unable to accept the councils as infallible is the Council of Hieria vs. the Second Council of Nicaea. Furthermore, the anathemas pronounced in the Second Council of Nicaea completely exclude me. "Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images." (yikes, guess I'm anathema) "Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images." (no more protestent friends, I guess) "Anathema to those who say that the making of images is a diabolical invention and not a tradition of our holy Fathers." (it wasn't - it's an acretion at best) "If anyone shall not confess the Holy Ever-Virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bore him, let him be anathema." (marian dogmas and veneration - guess I'm anathema again) "If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, let him be anathema." (prove the profit of this with scripture and I'll recant) "If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!" (whoops, guess I'm out - SUPER anathema ... along with every other protestant ever) If these councils are considered infallible, why was there such a shift in tone with Vatican II? Anathema is a strong statement of rejection, excommunication, and complete disassociation. Christian unity is the tone of Vatican II. Why the tonal shift? I can't buy into the infallibility of the councils when they don't align with one another. Important, sure. But infallible? I think not. I think the reformers had the right of it.
Hi @lillockey04, a Catholic here. Glad we can agree that the Church Fathers and Apostle's Creed are legit haha I'd like to respond to some of your points, but can you say more about your objection regarding the Council of Hieria vs. the Second Council of Nicaea? In other words, why does this make you reject the infallibility of the councils?
@@claybahl5107 Absolutely. I'm glad we've found a middle ground worthy of meeting at. When I consider Hieria vs Nicaea II, I put it forth as the most blatant example of councils disagreeing with each other. I've seen good arguments for the acceptance and rejection of either council. There are other councils, too, which disagree with each other (such as Nicaea II and Vatican II, which is why I mentioned it). My point isn't that these councils are useless; that they hold no authority for those who accept them. The point of the protestant view is that we then look to the fathers who came before and to scripture to verify their rightness. If they come back as right, it's our place to own them. If not, it's not, wouldn't the proper position to be to count it as an acretion? That's what I see when I look into iconoclasm vs iconophilia. I understand that, as a RC, you likely wouldn't stand with me, a presby. But I genuinely hope you're at least able to understand why I question as I do. I appreciate your charitable response and genuine curiosity.
"If these councils are considered infallible, why was there such a shift in tone with Vatican II?" The most common misconception I see from Protestants with regards to any form of infallibility, is that they simply misconstrue the scope in which it applies. Infallibility is a rare occurrence within our faith, and is only used as a last line of defense. The Councils in of themselves are not infallible. Only when binding formal teaching into faith and morals. The reason why the Ecumenical Councils are authoritative and often lead to dogma, is because representatives of the entire Magisterium are gathered at one spot to discuss issues. The canons declaring Anathema are disciplinary, used to direct the Church in light of binding new dogma. The anathemas are against the Iconoclasts, and even though you may not revere icons. You do not even remotely come close to what the Church at the time was dealing with. The Iconoclasts were a radical and violent movement that seeped into the government. They would often go out of their way to destroy icons and use violence against anyone who even remotely came across as venerating icons. You may not venerate icons, sure. But you also don't violently vandalize our icons or physically attack us. Disciplinary statement are subject to change as different circumstances arise. Even within the First and Second Ecumenical Councils you had revisions and addendums to previous disciplinary or doctrinal matters.
To steal a phrase I heard used by Jordan Cooper, the Creeds and the Confessions are NORMED by Scripture. Therefore, their authority is derived from the basis of their beliefs being biblical. So no, Trent, we don’t treat them as equal authorities to Scripture, but they are authoritative all the same because their declarations are sourced from the ultimate authority of Scripture and proven to be valid by history
@@ghostapostle7225 I’d be interested to hear what you think “Solo Scriptura” is. Because from what I’ve heard from different Catholics, “Solo Scriptura” is more the dudes saying “me and muh bible” and not the historic Protestant Sola Scriptura. Ultimately, yes, our faith and practice in its totality should find its ultimate authority in the Scriptures and doctrines derived out of it, by “good and necessary consequence” to quote the Westminster Confession. If that principle means that I practice Solo Scriptura in your mind, having both my personal interpretation guarded by the creeds and confessions of history, which derive their own source of authority from scripture, then sure. But I don’t see a problem with that.
True, Southern Baptists have no sacraments. By the way, this was just a very minor motion at the Annual Meeting here in Indianapolis this year. It may have gotten 6 minutes bevore it was overwhelmingly voted down. There were other more serious issues.
Because Baptists believe in baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Waters of Life, not your local pool with cat piss in it. You dolt. Baptists understand spiritual baptism better than Catholics do. Catholics insist that holy water is a thing and all this other disproven nonsense. Like you legit believe you are eating Christ and drinking his blood, when you in fact are not. You also believe your Pope is infallible, when that has been disproven historically about 100 times now. Cultists gonna cult.
@@silenthero2795 I am not sure that Jews baptized before John the Baptist. In my personal opinion, the moderates/liberals who now dominate all aspects of the SBC for the last decade would like to rewrite the 2000 doctrinal statement. So the motion to add the Nicene Creed was one of them acting on his own. However, the timing was bad and so the outgoing President Bart Barber, a Texas preacher boy and farmer, let the motion quietly collapse by an overwhelming majority. Motions from the floor only get six minutes. Conservatives had nothing to do with the failure of the motion-they were in the minority. There was a motion to abolish the Pledge of Allegiance in the SBC that also was defeated in six minutes by almost all 10,000 Messengers (delegates). We have many, many US Military chaplains.
The Creeds are summaries of Scripture; there is nothing about them that denies the truth of Sola Scriptura, unless you are laboring under a false misconception of what Sola Scriptura means.
I think the bigger question is, why do Protestants choose to believe the Creed correct? Keep in mind that the Arians could also back up their stance with Scripture. That's the entire reason why the Creed was formulated. So what exactly confirms to Protestants that the Creed is correct?
@@bradleyperry1735my guy the nicene creed comes from interpretation of athanasius of his understanding of scripture which literary council accepted at Nicea. Which if you read his book against arius. His literary quoting scripture to support eternal generation💀
Is there something in the Creeds that does not comport with Scripture or that cannot be argued from Scripture? No. Therefore the Creeds are derived from and support the truths written in Scripture. Remember, Athanasius used Scripture to argue against the Arians and their modern successors (Jehovah's Witnesses) have to distort and mistranslate John 1 in order to provide an "argument" from Scripture.
I dont understand the problem here. Trent says Southern Baptist theology contradicts the Nicene creed, Baptists then proceed to reject the creed because it contradicts their theology. So where is the creed problem? Trent also set up a false dichotomy here, the very fact that Baptists even discussed weather to hold to the creed (an extra-biblical authority) and decided not because they thought it contradicted scripture is the essence of "Sola Scriptura". If it was "Solo Scriptura" they wouldn't even have had this discussion in the first place they would have just said its not in scripture so its not an authority "no need to even look at it" Here are the options of Church authority without Trent's false dichotomy: Solo Scriptura: Bible is the only authority (no need to hold to anything else) Sola Scriptura: Bible is the only infallible authority hence other authorities can be held, but only if they don't contradict the denomination's view of scripture Sola Ecclesia: claims many infallible authorities however one of them interprets the other authorities so functionally there is only one ultimate authority since Catholics hold to 3 authorities: Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition, but the Magisterium interprets what is tradition and what's not tradition and interprets what scripture means. Functionally the Magisterium is the infallible authority that the other 2 "infallible" authorities are measured hence it is the only infallible authority since the other 2 depend on it. There is a reason Catholics claim Protestants can't interpret the bible without the Magisterium Catholic view: Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition are equal (somehow). Because either they all interpret each other(which isnt true, because scripture doesn't interpret the Magisterium, if the Pope made an infallible statement how would scripture interpret it?) or they dont all interpret each other(which isnt true) because then protestants dont need the Magisterium to interpret scripture.
Correct, Catholicism is functionally sola ecclesia and has one authority not three. It would help if Catholics grew more comfortable being intellectually honest about their ecclesiology. Scripture and Tradition have no ability to challenge or correct the Magisterium, they are already a product of the Magisterium, according to Catholics.
The point is that the Nicene Creed has no authority to "Protestants" if you can both be a Protestant and also not adhere to the creed. Authority is not optional. If it's authoritative then you must submit to it. The creed is held as authoritative to some denominations, but not all denominations. So in the case of at least the Southern Baptists, they are Solo Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura. Because any creed is optional to them, no creed holds authority.
@@sentjojo I said the Nicene creed most Sundays, but if it's accurate theology only insofar as it accurately reflects what the Bible says. It's derivative. All creeds are. None of them are authoritative.
The correct term is "nuda scriptura", not "solo scriptura". Scriptura is feminine noun in Latin; you cannot combine it with "solo". It could be the late Reformed scholar R.C. Sproul who first used "solo scriptura".
I have heard of William Lane Craig but I did not expect him to not only deny an ecumenical council but to hear him affirming heresy. Now I'm really certain that Sola Scriptura has to be a mistake.
I’m not familiar with the ecumaenical council or what Craig teaches on it, but I don’t think that makes sola scriptura a mistake. It’s possible for Craig to be wrong, and he’s just misunderstanding. Sola scriptura can be true even if one Protestant believes in free will and another determinism
@@timothyvenable3336Sola Scriptura cannot be true because it is silly. Let me demonstrate. Premise 1: Sola Scriptura is true Premise 2: Scripture does not teach sola Scriptura. If premise 1 is true, then we have from premise 2, a rule of faith not found in scripture that _must_ be higher than scripture. Since we do not find sola Scriptura taught anywhere in scripture, the rule itself must be a tradition, external to scripture, which is of higher authority than scripture. The Protestant position is inherently silly.
@@batglide5484 I believe that is a misunderstanding on what sola scriptura is. I think you’re implying that *only* what is found in scripture is our standard. Sola scriptura teaches that the Bible is the only *infallible* ruling, not that we cannot use any other standard or logic. Also, the Bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura, but it is implied. All men are fallible, so while some teachers are wonderful and brilliant, not everything they say is true. So how do we know if it is true? We must align it with scripture. Scripture is what we use to align all other teachings. I think even Catholics agree to that
@@batglide5484 to be fair: all you did is equivocate what sola scriptura is and then knock down the straw-man. i can't force you to take this seriously, but it should genuinely bother you when you make such ridiculous arguments that are so vacuous. i used to do similar things like this with the RCC out of ignorance, and i would gladly ask you to forgive me for them. (misunderstanding adoration vs honor, saying things like "RCC believes you're saved through works", etc.) in the spirit of charity, study more so you can do better OR at least try to infuse your language with more humility.
@@batglide5484 Premise 1: The earth revolves around the sun Premise 2: The church did not teach this Ergo, the church is not the final rule of faith. Do you see how dumb this is? Something doesn't have to be taught explicitly to be derived from said source. Protestants hold to sola scriptura simply because of the infallibility of the bible. On the other hand, there is no reason to think the catholic church is infallible, other the mental gymantics of re-writing history and make claims about a lineage from peter.
Trent should do a better job representing the protestant view of scripture. I am not a Baptist but I can't see how his argument works in regards to how sola Scriptura actually becomes solo scriptura. What protestants mean historically about the scripture being the only infallible rule of faith is that this particular rule of faith is ontologically different compared to other rules of faith because scripture is God-breath. Scripture being God-breathe is obviously taught in Trent's church and pretty much all churches that claim apostolic succession. A creed can interpret scripture correctly that doesn't mean this interpretation was God-breathed at all. If the creeds have the same ontology as the Bible isn't the Catholic Church logically inconsistent since they do not include this creed in their canon? You can bring Gavin Ortlund and how he struggled to condemn William Lane Craig as a heretic but that issue doesn't necessarily have to be a problem for Protestantism itself. I have no problem calling William Lane Craig a heretic because magisterial protestant tradition has deep historical roots in dyotheletism. The reformers were trying to reform the Church not revolutionize it at all. Is Trent really going to say it's utterly impossible to get dyotheletism including the doctrine of the trinity without a priest or a bishop interpreting scripture for them? If that's the case Trent can say dyotheletism and trinity are not biblical and is only in the Church's teachings. But this kind of view is an utter innovation. Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, and so much for Church Fathers would never ever advocate this view at all. Trent clearly has to result in innovation to try to protect his Church's infallibility, there is no situation for him logically to have his cake and eat it too.
Roman Catholics have no interest in actually engaging with Protestantism. They merely echo strawmam arguments. I've largely stopped engaging with Roman Catholics online because of how they misrepresent Protestantism. Even when many are corrected they refuse believe you. Alas, Rome doesn't seem to promote theological understanding in its laity.
It is how it plays out in practice. A protestant will ask us "Where is that in the bible?" We respond with bible verses and early Church writings that back our interpretation of Scripture. The responses we get is the early Church writings don't count or they don't care about that they just want bible verses. What then follows are claims that we Catholics are misinterpreting scripture. Then it devlovles into bible verses being thrown back and forth with accusations from both sides of twisting scripture by using it out of context or misinterpreting Scripture. Rinse and repeat and it gets old real fast. So we not conclude that Sola Scriptura is really Solo Scriptura.
@@kisstune At this point it's useless to talk with Roman Catholics on this issue. You'all (seemingly) refuse to engage with Protestantism and our tradition. If you don't believe what Protestants tell you about their theology then we're wasting each other's time. I guess it makes sense since theology is reserved for the clergy in Romanism.
@@kisstune Show me if any magesterial protestants do that. I see the Catholics do the exact same thing a protestant do when a Protestant offers a verse from scripture and many quotations from the Church Fathers. Does that show Catholicism is false? Come on now, your arguments are just weak. Why aren't you actually addressing my arguments? Trent clearly did not portray sola scriptura in its best light. What he did is like a lame protestant apologist appealing to a laymen claiming that they worship Mary as a Goddess to suggest that Catholicism is false. He misportrayed our understanding of infallibility in the discussion of Sola Scriptura. We are saying scripture is God breathe so it's different in its ontology, so far we can never find anything in Church history that indicates that ecumenical councils or any commentary from the Church Father is God breathed. The bishops from ecumenical councils never claimed that the creeds drafted were God breathed nor any Church Fathers claimed that their writings were God breathed either. Clement of Rome never declared infallible authority or his writings were God-breathed in his letter to the Corinthians. This fact just completely skips a Catholic when they read Clement's epistle to the Corinthians or read any writing from Church history. If you see a Catholic that denies that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ should that bother you? Does that disprove Catholicism or show how Catholicism is not properly being applied in its practice? If a Catholic disrespectfully do not allow protestant to appeal to protestantism and the historic understanding of sola scriptura we as Protestants should not allow a Catholic to appeal to their magesterium and say Catholicism fails in its practice. I don't care if William Lane Craig rejects dyotheletism, it's biblical and deeply rooted in Christian tradition if a Christian studies Church history. I don't care if Gavin Ortlund struggles to condemn William Lane Craig as a heretic, that's his problem no reformers would have any problem condemning William Lane Craig period. If any reformers were here today they see William Lane Craig as nothing but a heretic and innovator who is trying too hard to undo the reformation altogether. Many Church Fathers would agree too end of story.
@@junkim5853What are your issues with Catholicism then, ultimately? Does it come down to claims of papal infallibility? We know that Scripture teaches us that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, and we believe that the Church is then protected by the Holy Spirit from error doctrinally.
I truly hate when Protestants make the "that is solo not Sola scriptura" claim. Largely because both mean the same thing. "Solo scriptura" is doggeral Latin. So the only difference between the two is one demonstrates bad Latin grammar.
We catholics are so blessed that God gave us the church! We have early church Councils, which contain the Creed that the church calls at the Council of Trent "Shield of our Faith"! All protestants have is, "your view of scripture vs my view of scripture"!
Your religious arrogance and ignorance is staggering ! All God did gave you (us) free will and choose ye this day whom you want to serve . It is a delusion to believe that God gave you the Roman Catholic Church (Cult) it is a demonic counterfeit .
At 8:05 nether the quote from JND Kelly nor Furgusen says that the the early church taught baptismal regeneration. That baptism “conveys” the meaning of the remission of sins does not mean that one is not regenerate or had received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism-as Cornelius in Acts clearly already had.
Can you have creeds and sola scriptura? Yes. Because we (Lutherans) have had both since the beginning. The scriptures are the source of creeds. They aren't infallible, but simply contain no errors because every word is a direct quote from the scriptures.
Every word in the creed might be in Scripture, but it is also in a dictionary. The creed does not become a mere grammary because every word is in the dictionary. Worse, this fails in the face of Scripture itself, for the words that Satan uses to tempt Christ are found throughout Scripture, with even direct quotations. His words are no more infallible than the creed because he misapplied them. A creedal misapplication of a text would render the document fallible, though the Scripture is not.
No, every word is an interpretive explanation of our faith, of which the data are found in Scripture but often not the explicit facts. The fact that you (Lutherans) have, from the beginning, claimed to be Sola Scripturists while simultaneously reciting the creeds to define the faith, just shows how unavoidably contradictory Sola Scriptura is. It's not eventually contradictory, but immediately and always contradictory.
All historic Protestants affirmed the creeds. Modern fundamentalism/evangelicalism is so cringe (not to dismiss their positives contributions to American Christianity. They do have some major issues).
One SBC member said that the concern was that “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is often “misunderstood” to mean baptismal regeneration by the church fathers. He added that the creed is fine but only if “properly interpreted”. Protestants are hilarious 😂.
6:50 technically we believe in those words, but the meaning is different. As we believe 2 "baptisms" exist: the spiritual baptism where the Holy Spirit is pored out on us (this is a synonym for "salvation") and the physical dunking which is a representation of being consumed by Jesus' death and resurrection.
Regarding Arian Hersey. It is heretical because of the scriptures(which the orthodox fathers pointed out) and the council of Nicaea is witness to that.
Excellent analysis, I also notice that though some protestants claim to have other rules of faith, none of them can withstand or corral his own personal interpretation of Scripture, no matter how novel or crazy those may be.
Yep the right to private judgement was core to the reformation. Although they can pay respect and honor to creeds and confessions none of them are ultimately binding on the conscience. The clear implication of the right to private judgement is the right to schism.
@@kyrptonite1825 which is exactly what everyone already does, or they lie and say they agree with something they know to be false. The idea that personal reasoning(as opposed to impersonal reasoning?)is bad is ultimately going to rest on your personal reasoning and is thus self-refuting.
@@kyrptonite1825 Even though the entire purpose of the letters and epistles of Paul and Peter and John were to be read to the people for them to understand? Think about that.
Another great video, and a wonderful follow-up to Joe Heschmeyer’s video from 2 weeks ago on this topic. PS: loving the sleek, professional new look of the channel!!
@@rubenleavell it is a little unfair for them to mic drop, but if we're being honest, most people are not actually moved by argumentation but rather are generally terrified of the truth and shifting paradigms. but here is my take for what it's worth: Trent's argument is actually a horrible argument. anything is only true insofar as it is true. Orthodox Christian denominations affirm the inerrancy of The Bible because we believe it is the Word of God and therefore True, and obviously no Protestant believes the RCC "created the canon" in the way the RCC does, so i would encourage you to study that topic from a Protestant view if you are inclined to shift to that argument. Creeds can be authoritative insofar as they correspond to the Word of God (truth -- we all agree)...This is how ancient Orthodox decisions even functioned. This is how heresy and Orthodoxy were defined. Creeds are "The Word of God" so long as they correspond to "The Word of God", to state a truism. this should be obvious. How was the Creed made? not by consulting the Jehovah's Witness and Gnostic prophets, but by testing it by the Word of God. Trent's argument strikes me as some kind of wonky genetic fallacy. this actually comes off as effectively assuming the Creed is how the Creed was made. so odd. It's like Trent forgets that the Creeds were derived from Scripture. when you are bound to a specific paradigm, (the authority of the Roman Catholic Church which is actually at the center of all RCC arguments and presupposed) you take it for granted and that happens in this video so strongly. how Sola Scriptura is true while creeds are still binding and authoritative is actually completely obvious. Creeds are binding because they correspond to the Word of God, NOT because the RCC declares them true. That's how it happened in history. while Trent's rhetoric in this video sounds potent, it's super weak.
Of course you can have both. What you mean is that you can't have the both sola scriptura and the Nicene Creed as infallible bar to entry to claim to be a Christian. The value of the creed is that it is correct, not that it's infallible.
@Cklert The queston of "why is something true" is a nonsensical question when you think about it, because the answer will necessarily be redundant. The creed is true because every truth claim contained in it is true. It describes ontological reality, things that happened in history, and things that exist now. The question of how we know something is true is a different question from why it is true. How we know something is true is an epistemological question, whereas whether or not something is true is an empirical or an ontological question, depending on what it is we're talking about. The Church didn't make the creed true by putting it to paper and agreeing to it at Nicea. The truth claims found in the creed were already true before the church formally adopted it at the ecumenical council, and they would have continued to be true even if the Church failed to recognize them.
That’s good when the fourth century teaching is the same as the first all the way through to the twenty first. Because Truth doesn’t change. Only Protestantism does.
Id love to see you debate The Other Paul on this one, i think there are a couple errors in your arguments that Id like to see a rebuttal on/dialogue on. The part i like least about debates are when they end, so if you do decide to discuss this topic with him i think as long as possible would be the most fruitful. Love your content though even as someone you would consider protestant.
I think regeneration is the washing away of Original Sin. So what he's saying is that the whole ritual of baptism, rather than one's mere acceptance of Christ, is what wipes away Original Sin.
Forgiveness of sins is akin to being pardoned for committed crimes. Regeneration could be broadly compared to no longer desiring to commit that crime, IF the change was made by an external being. Regeneration begins after forgiveness, and thankfully, Jesus offers both!
About baptism: I don't think Protestants have a big problem with it. I believe that ignoring the regenerative properties of baptism is a mistake, but not a big one if the baptism is made in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (even the Catholic Church agrees btw). Other problem that I find more serious is downplaying the salvific aspect of baptism, this can be critical when people need to be baptized as Jesus commanded. People should also born again in the spirit, so baptism is not just a ritual where people are changed by sprinkling water or immersing people on it, they should transform their lives and their mentality. That's why I think paedobaptists have a much bigger issue in their hands, reborn in the spirit requires knowledge about how to live a Christian life, with repentance and good works (that reflects their faith), not only make infant people wet. PS: The Ecumenical Councils are VERY important because people are largely uneducated, and Catholics make big deal about it because it potentially "invalidates" Sola Scriptura, but I don't think so. Sola Scriptura only applies to the original manuscripts.
I think it is a false dichotomy to say that sola scriptura means that a Protestant cannot believe what a creed, confession or Church Father says in addition to the Bible. If the Bible is the only infallible authority it does not mean that we don’t believe in any other authority, and it doesn’t not mean that other authority’s cannot speak truth.
Many Roman Catholics aren't capable of this type of nuance. It doesn't compute in their brains. It is what it is; the papal church doesn't want the laity thinking too hard about such things.
He is just pointing out how this plays out in practice. We point to scripture and early Church writings then get some response of not care what early Church writings said or those don't count/matter demanding bible only citation (solo scriptura) or we're the ones misinterpreting the bible passages we quote.
Hi Trent, you really, really nailed it at 5:09 thru 5:23 and I couldn't agree more with your assessment . I am Sola Scriptura as a matter of conscience. I'm hoping to see your debate with Anthony Rodgers next year in person!
It’s so hypocritical for a Roman Catholic apologist to say “Christian’s can radically redefine what a council meant.” When THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPEN IN 2nd Vatican council on the relation of scripture and tradition and priesthood. Yves congar points to the fact that the council of Trent define the relationship in tradition and scripture one way but the Holy Spirit meant it another way. Contemporaries of Congar pointed this out.
Dang, why can't he ever understand Sola Scriptura? Trent, you should know that the difference between infallible and fallible ones is not that one is right and another is wrong. The difference is that the latter could err, but not necessarily bound to err. The same case could be made for the Ecclesialists. You could argue that not all ecclesialists hold onto the fulness of the truth, and this applies to the Reformational churches, too. Just because one ecclesial body within the bigger umbrella fails to hold onto the fulness of the truth does not necessarily mean the main tenets of that umbrella can be neglected.
He doesn't want to. I really think it's that simple. He's engaged with educated Protestants before, but if he accurately presents Protestant doctrine his Roman Catholic audience might actually learn the truth. Alas, he always resorts to strawmen.
But if it fails to "hold onto the fulness of the truth" how do you determine which tenets of that umbrella cannot be neglected? And if you are about to say, "the ones that accurately reflect Scripture"... Who has the authority to determine what Scripture is saying so that we can then judge the accuracy of the creeds?
@joshj3787 I believe you have failed to understand what I meant by the Umbrella. This does not refer to a specific tradition or denomination but a broader system based on the historical groups which cover multiple traditions. One of this kind of grouping is the Ecclesialism vs. Reformation. The Ecclesialists include churches like Roman Catholic, Sedevacantists, Oriental Orthodox, Ancient Church of the East, Assyrian Church of the East, World Eastern Orthodoxy, Genuine/True Eastern Orthodoxy, Old Believers, or even groups like SSPX churches and the liberal Catholics. The reformational churches include the Moravians, the Anglicans (English Church), the Scandinavian Lutherans and all other Lutheran churches, continental (Dutch) Reformed, Presbyterians, Baptists, Mar Thoma (Oriental Reformed) Church, etc. A recent discussion between Trent and The Other Paul (Paul Facey) also has covered this.
If that is the case, why not do the honest thing and flat out say that the Nicene Creed is mistaken in saying that there is only ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Just flat out say that the Nicene Creed is fallible and made a mistake in saying that the church is one universal Church and not separate, autonomous local churches. William Lane Craig was at least honest and consistent in his rejection of an ecumenical council, and the SBC honestly and consistently rejected the Nicene Creed. If sola Scriptura is to be consistent, Scripture should be the ONLY rule of faith, there cannot be other rules of faith, no matter how fallible, for if fallible it cannot be authoritative, for if Scripture is not the only rule of faith, even if it is the only infallible one, then that doctrine is 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘚𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢 and NOT sola Scriptura. Also, 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘢 Scriptura and 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘰 Scriptura mean the same thing in Latin, the latter is just bad grammar, so if you say sola Scriptura means the way you think it means, then it is YOU and not Trent who misunderstands sola Scriptura, for what you are describing is 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘚𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢.
@Jiko-ryu Sola Scriptura has a clear definition, and you can not just interpret your own reading into its given definition. This has historical weight, and Trent literally made the same mistake again and again after having been corrected many times. I am not wasting my time here to explain things that have been historically defended thousands of times. Again, you seem to not understand the difference between FALLIBLE and FALSE. The former does not necessitate error, only that it can fall into error. In failing to discern these two, Trent has made a serious logical fallacy. Reformation and Protestantism are just the Umbrella or system of thought that binds many churches to the reformational principles in the five Sola, or what some would call Sola Apostolica (check Anglican Aesthetics and The Other Paul). Reformation as a system to many churches is par to how Ecclesialism is an umbrella for churches like Roman Catholic, Sedevacantists, Old Believers, Oriental Orthodox, World Orthodox, Genuine Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, and many others. If one fails to adhere to some ecclesialist tenets, it does not mean the system suddenly becomes not relevant. Now, when it comes to the Nicene Creed, Baptists have historically affirmed this. If SBC suddenly denies it, it would be their mistake to do so. Pls check Gavin Ortlund's recent video, where he has explained how this is so obvious that it makes me confused why this could become a polemic in the first place.
For an in-depth examination of this topic, be sure to check out my colleague Joe Heschmeyer's video, "One, Holy, BAPTIST, and Apostolic Church??"
ua-cam.com/video/ELOZbClBQ3I/v-deo.html
Great video! Definitely adds to this topic.
@@andrewmcdougall7158 I've watched it to. Joe is so good and reasonably penning people in.
Most Baptists just call themselves Christians. No Protestant bats an eye at "catholic" in the creed. I wouldn't assume it means the RCC any more than the PNCC or Old Catholics, just because some groups put Catholic in their name with a capital C.
BTW, you guys have changed the creed in the past, introducing errors in regard to the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox are certainly right about the Filoque. So don't lecture us on a creed you feel free to change (at least every thousand years or so).
Interesting title. I can see how the rebuttal would be titled "One, Holy, PAPIST, and Apostolic Church."
@@xinosaj So you do not believe that Jesus the Son of God is equal in divinity to The Father?
If you know the scriptures, you will recognize the Nicene Creed as being totally faithful to scripture.
@@drjanitor3747who does this? The one Baptism is what unites Catholics. In fact many Catholics believe Protestants to be fallen away Catholics if they were baptized in The Name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost.
@@drjanitor3747Where did you get that idea???
@@ArmaMoto Yeah most Prot baptisms are usually valid, as long as it is done as “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost” or whatever equivalent in another language. The only group I know of that has invalid baptisms while using nominally the same formula is the LDS church due to an incompatible understanding of God.
Bingo. I have a hard time watching Trent make such a blatant misunderstanding of how Protestants view the Creeds.... and what does that say about how the RCC views the Creeds? A Creed is simply a summarized statement of beliefs... and from whence to those beliefs come? The Scriptures! Sola Scriptura, all the way.
I said the Nicene Creed to recover my speech after two strokes in 2016. It's a very long prayer that I have had memorized for decades.
Even Martin Luther would consider most modern protestants radically heretical
Not going to lie. Many are getting there. I’ve talked to some that don’t believe Mary is Theotokos. Or if she is, it doesn’t mean anything at all, as it’s just about Jesus.
Or some that are close to being non Trinitarian I’ve talked to some that reject all the creeds and councils. Basically Christianity is what they want it to be. Which is scary as we can bend things to suit us so easily.
So are you now saying that Martin Luther is the leader of the Christian faith? What's wrong with yall? There is only one leader of the Christian faith. It isn't the Pope, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, Mohamed, none of them! The only leader is God's Son Jesus Christ who is alive in Heaven with his father. Oh, I forgot. Jesus and God are supposedly the same entity. No wonder most self proclaimed Christians are absolutely confused: following man and not the God sent to save man!
@@eve3363no they’re not saying that. They’re saying that Protestants are so far from the true faith that even the guy who started it would agree.
@@elKarlo Getting where exactly?
@@nicolasramirez3944 THE Faith was once for all delivered...and didnt need to be "developed" over many many centuries.100% sufficient then and now
I am a Protestant who is part Baptist and part nondenominational. I have recently been researching Catholicism and looking at different perspectives so that I can love my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and not just argue. Thank you for the video and helping me learn more. Much love! God bless!
Either use the online version or buy a paperback copy of the catechism of the Catholic Church. That will tell you the truth about the Catholic Church and you can make informed decisions on your own.
@@DarlowMaxwell Oh yes, read the catechism then you will know the truth. Jesus always said....ye shall know them by what they say about themselves.
Pedophile priests by the truckloads.
@@DarlowMaxwell Why read bad doctrines. That is no way for people to get to know your church. It is the best way to turn them away from it.
@bcalvert321 are you really christian with this kind of attitude? His response was wonderful in recommending him a trustworthy catholic source of knowledge on our religion. And I say this as a protestant... I guess. I always thought it was weird to identify with some sort of denomination (including catholic) first instead of Christian so I'll leave it at that.
@@channelMasterGuiGame The Catholic church is based on lies. The only doctrine I have found that has any truth to it is that they believe Jesus died for our sins. But it goes sideways from there. Most think only Catholics can be saved. I have heard many say they were born Catholic, meaning they were saved at birth. A lot if not most of their doctrine is not based on the Bible but what their church fathers have said, 200 to over 1800 years after Jesus rose from the dead. This is where they get the praying to dead saints should be done. All the lies about Mary come 200 years or more after Mary died. Some believe she never died but was taken to heaven before she died. I have found a few very good people that are Catholic. Most are living for Jesus or so they think. But the church has fed them lies all of their lives. They have no idea it is all lies. I pity them. I am sure Jesus does too.
They were probably scared of the "...Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church..." and "One baptism for the forgiveness of sins" parts.
Catholic and Apostolic shouldn't be a problem for them. Baptism for the remission of sins tho...
I can’t speak for all Protestants, but I’m Lutheran and we believe in the “Holy catholic and apostolic church” without any fear. When we say “catholic” we use the lower case c and it means universal.
The second one.
@@ianquyck9834 yeah we are catholic evangelicals! This is a historic name for our church actually
As a non-expert on the doctrine of baptism by immersion of a believer who has reached the age of reason, I believe you are correct about the phrase about baptism in the creed. Viewing baptism as an ordinance means that one is baptized as Jesus was because Jesus commanded it. The act symbolizes one’s death, burial, and resurrection in the Lord Jesus Christ.
As a Protestant, I believed strongly in Sola Scriptura. One day, though, it occurred to me that Sola Scriptura isn't possible. If it were, then we wouldn't have over 40,000 denominations. It's Scripture plus interpretation. So the question is "Whose interpretation?" With that question out there, I realized that the interpretation that made the most sense was the one based on the early church fathers who must have had a good idea of what the apostles thought, as well as the Church that Jesus ordained to have authority over these things. Didn't take too long for me to become Catholic.
That’s your interpretation
@@secondratefilms635no, its the only rational interpretation
@@secondratefilms635 what you said is also on interpretation
Scripture and its interpretation aren't the same. Scripture can be infallible, with the interpretations not being so. Your logic is self defeating. There were christian fathers who held to views that you now consider as heretical, so clearly they must not "have had a good idea of what the apostles thought,". Also "as well as the Church that Jesus ordained to have authority over these things" this is ahistorical.
“Whose interpretation?” The interpretation that accurately reflects the original intent of the original author. This is the part opponents of Sola Scriptura completely gloss over.
As a Baptist, you have given me lots to think about in regard to this. Thanks.
Gavin Ortlund’s Truth Unites channel just made a video about how Baptists should affirm the Nicene Creed. Worth checking out!
I was raised Missionary Baptist. I like the foundations of truth and passion for God, but it left me with longing for theological questions and traditions. I found that of my own accord, in Roman Catholicism. Good luck on your journey, Brother in Christ.
You know what I did when it came to choose a Church, I prayed to God and I also asked The Mother of God since it was between Orthodoxy and Catholicism for me, yet I still think Orthodoxy is valid, Catholicism just fits me better.
Just seek HIS Truth! :)
Trent is very good at making points, but this video is a big fail. Other denominations target Baptists for a reason, because the anabaptist traditions are much more friendly and accommodating than most other branches.
Pretending that councils are infallible is the first mistake, they are councils of men, fallen men. Pretending that thinking invalidates the bible because it was councils that helped establish it is another mistake, because if scripture is the inspired word of God, then there's no reason to presume that mere men are the ones that actually put it together. Pretending that an entire council must have gotten everything correct is another mistake, as many councils have made many mistakes, but might have components that are tried and true and from what I've seen, they almost always have dissenters in the councils. Pretending that Jesus gave the apostles and heirloom to pass down is another mistake, and is manmade power grabbing, especially if the fathers at Chalcedon boldly idolize Peter over the Holy Spirit.
As far as baptism goes, Peter and John the Baptist clearly say it's not water that matters, because it is the spiritual component that matters. The RCC even admitted as much because "baptism of desire" counts as baptism in their eyes, which completely contradicts their belief of water baptism. They also contradict miscarried/stillborn babies since they "have the hope of salvation" but clearly there is no desire or actual baptism, so what is this hope?
I have faith that my three miscarried babies are in Heaven, not because RCC says there is hope, but because God is good and the age of accountability has true merit, not contradictory merit like the RCC claims.
It is reasonable to believe both the creeds and the Bible, because the classical creeds are a great summarization of biblical truth. This is why Protestants feel little tension between the creeds and sola scriptura. Protestants generally do not believe the creeds based on the credentials or authority of the councils that promulgated them, but because of their success in expressing core biblical truth succinctly.
I think this begs the question though.
How would one know that the Creed expressed the correct biblical truth? Keep in mind that the Arians themselves could quote Scripture to support their view and in fact, its that very reason, that the Creed was formed. Scripture was not enough.
@@Cklert I think you ask a good question. In terms of Arianism, truth is they don't have very good explanations of some verses that clearly demonstrate the divinity of Christ. Biblical debates have winners and losers, and it is important that the winners win because they are right, and not just because they proclaim that they are in charge. In this case, I respect the Church fathers because they were right in how they read the scriptures and how they expressed them in the creeds, rather than respecting the creeds because they were written by the church fathers.
@@Pedro-bk1ic See no, this goes right back around to the same fundamental issue. The Fathers taught and believed things universally that you yourself and most protestants reject, so Protestants are having to reinterpret what the creeds and councils defined in order to maintain their interpretation of the scriptures rather than allowing themselves to be corrected. If you have to reinterpret what they say to fit with what you think about the bible itself, then they really don't have any real authority to you at all, because if they did, you would allow yourself to be corrected on what the scriptures mean.
@@matthewoburke7202 Exactly.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply.
Protestants generally accept teaching based on its merit, not based on the hierarchical authority of the teacher. The obvious exception to this is the apostles.
This means that Protestants are free to accept some things the fathers said, and reject others, based on the merit of the teaching as compared with Scripture. I don't have to believe something that Origen said simply because he said it, but I do accept much of what he said, because he understood the bible well. The value of this Protestant stance is highlighted by fellows such as Origen, who were so important for our understanding of core doctrines, but who also had a few somewhat heretical views. Protestants can easily filter out the good from the bad using scripture.
It's true that this is a different attitude toward the creeds than generally seen amongst Catholics, but the idea that Protestants must accept either the creeds or sola scriptura, but never both, is what we call a false dilemma.
As to your other point, about what I personally believe, I accept the classical creeds, the Nicene and Apostles creeds to name two specifically, so I don't know on what basis you are claiming I don't believe them. The early reformers like Luther and Calvin accepted the creeds, and so do most non-progressive evangelicals today.
@@Pedro-bk1ic Now, while I agree that Church fathers were fallible men, and prone to mistakes, what they universally believed is a different matter entirely. If the universal Church believed a certain way, then that should inform our opinions, since the holy spirit is leading the Church into all truth.
With that being said, the problem still stands, because you are basically free to pick and choose which teachings you agree with which most falls in line with YOUR interpretation of the scriptures, making YOU the final determining factor of what constitutes orthodox belief. That's the problem with Protestantism, it ultimately results in pretty much everyone not being able to come to an agreement on major issues, and a disunified Christendom. It doesn't work. This is why Jesus instituted hierarchal authorities (Ephesians 4:11-14).
I saw Gavin Ortlund’s defense of the Nicene Creed. The problem, of course, is that when individuals can define the words of the creed however they want, it ceases to be a “guardrail for orthodoxy.”
Every sentence has room for interpretation. What Jesus teaches is to follow the spirit of the law. There's nothing controversial in the Nicene Creed to any true Christian.
the Catholic Church is a study in “(re)defining words for themselves.”
How so @@ZTAudio
@@jadehaze7939 "One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins" Thats SUPER controversial for Baptists and Evangelicals.
That's my take too.
As a former protestant, what strikes me is that faith in the infallibility of scripture is not fundamentally different than faith in the infallibility of councils and the pope's official teachings. In all of these cases, we are dealing with human mediated communication of God's word. Therefore, the same potential concerns for human error exist in all three. But we trust what Christ said that the Holy Spirit will lead his Church into all truth and it will not fail. If you divorce the authority of scripture from the Church, then you are left with nothing but private interpretation of scripture, which clearly leads to disagreement and disunity, clear evidence it isn't from Christ who desires his people to be one.
And even from a scriptural point of view, Christ clearly established a church which carries his authority (he who hears you hears me, he said). What else can that possibly mean if we can't trust the judgments and teachings of the Church to be guided by Christ and guaranteed to be true?
Are you really equating the Scripture to any council and the Pope? Therein lies the problem because you think they have the same authority when the later is actually dependent on the former.
@@silenthero2795you have it backwards. When I was as a Baptist a Presbyterian pointed out that Bible Alone CANNOT be true for one inarguable reason.
The Bible has no list of books that belong in it!
Wait. What?
You’re right I thought. It had never occurred to me that we got our 66 book Bible from???…. Protestant Tradition! It was just handed on to us as true from our forefathers. So how is that any different than Catholics and their Traditions that we so vociferously condemned?
It isn’t different in the least.
So here we don’t have to rely on squabbling opinions of this matter. Nor do we have to play Bible verse ping pong. It’s simple inescapable logic
Everything that’s infallible is in the Bible.
The list of books isn’t in the Bible.
We know absolutely that the second statement is true.
Therefore the first is not.
There was no escape from this simple revolutionary insight so I put away my pride and followed Jesus. Right into His Catholic Church.
@@mrjeffjob
As a Protestant who knows my Bible, I would have asked the Catholic: where is the infallible council that told the Jews which books were in their old testament? If God didn't need an infallible council to tell the Jews what books were in the Old Testament, we certainly don't need one for the New Testament. You could only find the Catholics' argument convincing if you don't look at what scripture actually teaches.
@@mrjeffjobwhat??? There is no list of books for the canon in the Bible? Well guess I better start worshipping Mary and the asking the saints to intercede for me, I better start thinking men in long robes can turn a piece of bread into the literal body of God. What a lame excuse to believe in evil.
@@silenthero2795The Ecumenical Councils are infallible in the very same way the Scriptures are. I would go so far as to say the Church’s teaching on what the Scriptures mean is infallible, not the book itself.
Thanks for all you guys do at Catholic Answers. It helps strengthen my faith and knowledge of it. Please never stop!
I was raised a catholic, until…I actually seriously started to read the Bible. We can read in Scriptures that Lord Jesus commanded the Apostles to first preach the Gospel to the Jews, and after also to the Heathen or Gentiles (but never vise versa ! ). I found out in Scriptures who of the Apostles for the first time went to Rome .. and it wasn't Peter. In the Book of Acts it says in Chapter 28 the following: 16 "And when we came to Rome, the Centurion delivered the Prisoners to the Captain of the Guard: but Paul was allowed to live in a house, by himself, with a Roman Soldier that kept him. 17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the Chief of the there living Jews together: and when they came together, Paul said to them: "Men and Brethren, though I have committed nothing against our people, our customs, or against our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans 18 who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of guild in me. 19 But when the Jews spoke against that verdict, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had made any accusations against my Nation. 20 For this Hope (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) therefore I have called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because for the Hope of Israel I am bound with these chains. 21 The Chief of the Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning you, neither any of the Brethren that came from there shewed or spoke any harm of you. 22 But we desire to hear of you what you think: for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere". The Roman catholic church claims that it was Peter who went to Rome first to preach the Gospel there first and that it was Peter who founded the Church there. Question: who lies? God,... or the Roman catholic church ? And what about the Letter in the Bible from Paul to the Congregation of Galatians where it says this in Chapter 2? From verse 7 we read the following: 7 "But on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter; 8 for He that gave Peter power effectively to the Apostleship of the circumcision (again: the Jews), the Same was Mighty in me toward the Gentiles. 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the Grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (that are Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision. Again dear catholics: who lies? God’s Word, or the Roman catholic church? Bible, the book of Acts, Chapter 5, verse 29 : Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey GOD - rather than man” !! Since the Roman catholic 'church' claims to be well-read on scriptures, then please point me in the direction of where in the Bible it says to pray to a woman, or with a rosary praising Mary, or to dead “saints.” Lord Jesus calls every believer Saints which all are who received the Holy Spirit and confess that Jesus is Lord - so Rome has no authority appointing only some people saint - that is ludicrous. Please show me the name ‘pope’ in the Bible? Please show me where it says to call any mortal sinful man (the pope) your father. Please show me where the Bible says anything about purgatory, or paying indulgences (buying yourself into heaven - is God corrupt ?). Please show me where Mary was sinless? Why is it that Catholics worship Mary still as a virgin when Lord Jesus had half brothers and half sisters? Please show me where it says to confess your sins to a fellow sinful man so that he may forgive them? Where does the Bible say the pope is the “vicar of Christ” on earth? Show me where it says that a preacher must be unmarried? It was the pagan ROMAN Emperor Constantine who was in fact the first “pope” who hijacked the first Christian Communion in Rome founded by the apostle Paul, and he didn't allow for the common people to have Bible Scriptures...to keep believers ignorant to stay in power, as the Catholic Church still tries to do. Later pope’s started the ‘inquisition’ because the book printing machine was invented and people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale could spread the Bible to the common people: they were persecuted and many of them burned to dead for that by decree of Rome, and so were hundreds others who did the same as they denounced the FALSE doctrines of Rome. Rome called them heretics and witches while they murdered Christians who loved Jesus and true Scriptures. PLEASE GET OUT OF THIS FALSE CHURCH !!! The Roman catholic “church” is a continuation of the old Roman PAGAN Empire: it never went away as it disguised itself as a Christian Church. Read Revelation, Chapter 17: verse 7, 8 and 9…Read also Revelation 18 to see what God will do to this “church.”
I’m loving the new content format! The videos are structured great and the videos are edited very well. Keep it up!
CAN YOU TAKE ME HIIGHE..... oh, wrong Creed..
Joe made that joke too.
😂
I heard Creed songs have been outlawed by the SBC
😂😂
Just found out that Creed is on a reunion tour this summer just btw 👍
My parents were lapsed Catholics who emigrated from Spain to the United States. My brother and I were not cradle catholics, and we were sent to a Southern Baptist school. I always felt it was wrong. Ironically, it was a Baptist minister who encouraged me to convert to Catholicism. My conversion ultimately occurred on my deathbed on 16/9/1990. My brother's occurred on 16/8/2023. By God's grace and will, I am now discerning for the seminary in Spain. So yes, I believe in each word of the Credo Niceno❤
Trent, the quality of your videos has really ramped up. I love the graphics and the added bits and pieces. Really well done team! As always, quality content, keep it up.
*Larry Burkett's book on "Giving and Tithing" drew me closer to God and helped my spirituality. 2020 was a year I literally lived it. I cashed in my life savings and gave it all away. My total giving amounted to 40,000 dollars. Everyone thought I was delusional. Today, 1 receive 85,000 dollars every two months. I have a property in Calabasas, CA, and travel a lot. God has promoted me more than once and opened doors for me to live beyond my dreams. God kept to his promises to and for me*
There's wonder working power in following Kingdom principles on giving and tithing. Hallelujah!
But then, how do you get all that in that period of time? What is it you do please, mind sharing?
It is the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US and abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
Big thanks to Ms. Chisty Fiore❤️✨💯May God bless Christy Fiore services,she have changed thousands of lives globally
How can I start this digital market, any guidelines and how can I reach out to her?
Enjoying the new branding and editing. Nice work and hats off to the editor!
Except for misspelling “infallible” as “infalable” on the overlay
Yeah may want to edit it. Unless it was intentional as a joke? Though I always argue the doctrine of Trent Horn Infallibility!
Trent & Gavin Ortlund keep posting back to back and I'm all here for it.
It is a bit embarrassing for Trent. He just doesn't understand the issues.
@@jwatson181 i completely agree at least in this context. Trent is thoughtful and one of the more charitable apologists, but it's a very odd thing and anyone not inside can see it here. Trent assumes that what the RCC declares is true but pretends he's arguing in/from a different direction. it's presuppositional apologetics which just only goes so far. this video is so off base. the Creeds were created from Scripture, we know this, and any Creed is only worth anything insofar as it corresponds to the Word of God. it would be something like this: All Word of God could become a binding creed, but not all Creeds can be the Word of God. a Creed is binding only insofar as it's true and accurate relative to the Deuteronomy style tests.
@@caleb.lindsaybaptism saves
@@gumbyshrimp2606 I agree.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 Jesus' blood saves. The question is: in what way, or sense, do these things save.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
What about his sacred spleen?
@@MicahBBurke”wHaT aBoUt HiS sAcReD sPlEeN?”
Wow, nice one. You really showed ‘em with that one.
I was reading Galatians today. I don’t know how after reading this text anyone could deny the importance of one baptism as a Christian-regardless of tradition. For it unites us under the headship of Christ. We become clothed in Christ. It wipes away the physical and cultural differences between us in terms of being heirs of the promise to Abraham. It declares, alongside the Holy Spirit and our Lord’s blood that we are God’s children.
But catholics baptize babies. When i was young, i knew lots of baptized catholics who did not confess to being believers
@@johornbuckle5272 You or any other baptized person may leave the faith at any time regardless of how or when baptized.
@@TexMarque i cant see how my young friends who were baptized but did not confess Christ as saviour, can leave a faith they have not been a believing member of. Were they later in life to to believe and be baptized, that baptism seemscto make sense. Which leaves one questioning the paedo baptism
@@johornbuckle5272they can lose faith as adults
@@ninjaked1265 as baptized babies they had no faith
Note to the editor:
"Collapses" at 2:37
"Infallible" at 2:56
"Inerrant" at 1:30
@@lanetrain i think that was the original clips subtitles in that case
Editor is fallible 😂
Also 0:50 Mark *Scriptura.
A lot of typos in this video.
9:03 the "unto" persists for a few seconds
Oh, as a practicing Southern Baptist this made my jaw drop and I covered my mouth discovering that the Nicene Creed which I admire so much is not acknowledged and doctrinal to the SBC. This is a very big problem for me.
Reformed Presbyterians,Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) might be worth looking at. They do practice infant baptism. They are both historically faithful Protestant Reformed churches.
@@jimcasey1975They all deny baptismal regeneration, which is what the Creed pretty clearly teaches. He should look at Lutherans or Anglicans if you want to remain Protestant and affirm the Creed.
I would like to know, what is it in the Nicene Creed that you admire so much? I would imagine that it is because of the Nice Creed's strong Trinitarianism, and I think that was the reason why it got endorsed. However, although those who endorsed the Nicene Creed to the Southern Baptist Convention believed that Baptist theology is in agreement with the Nicene Creed, the SNC was being consistent in not adopting the Nicene Creed for two main reasons.
First, Baptists as a whole do not believe in one universal Church but in several, distinct, independent, autonomous local "churches", thus denying the article "I believe in one, holy, catholic [i.e., universal] and apostolic Church", for the very Council of Nicea denied the Baptist doctrine of local church autonomy, as the first ecumenical council has far more authority than a "convention" does, members of the SBC are not required to adhere to the SBC statement of faith, and churches and state conventions belonging to the global body are not required to use it as their statement of faith or doctrine, unlike during the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople which pronounced anathema to those who would disregard the Creed.
But most importantly, Baptists deny that the purpose of baptism is to forgive sins, and could only adopt the Nicene Creed by twisting the meaning of the article, "I acknowledge one Baptism 𝙛𝙤𝙧 the remission of sins", into "I acknowledge one Baptism '𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇' the remission of sins", ignoring the fact that both before and after the Council of Nicea the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was widely acknowledged except by the Pelagians, and so to reject the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is semi-Pelagian at best, which is why St. Augustine argued for baptismal regeneration to oppose Pelagianism, the idea that one can repent and turn to God without the need of grace.
At the same time, those who endorsed the Nicene Creed to the SBC when asked about the article on baptism replied, “Coming under the article on the Holy Spirit, this refers to baptism in the Spirit or regeneration, which occurs with faith. Water baptism is the outward confession of that prior inward reality”, thus denying that the baptism of water and the baptism of Spirit is one baptism, calling them two distinct baptisms, and thus they do not really acknowledge “one baptism” but two.
And the SBC, by not only not adopting the Nicene Creed, but also showing a willingness to twist the historical and grammatical meaning of the article, "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins", has divorced itself from historic, Scriptural Christianity.
And so, 𝐍𝐎, 𝐁𝐀𝐏𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐇𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐋𝐘 𝐀𝐅𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐌 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐄 𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐄𝐃, no matter how "admirable" it may seem. Trent Horn is correct here: either be consistent with sola Scriptura or admit that what is actually believed is 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘚𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢.
I think most people confuse baptism of the Spirit with the baptism of John @@Jiko-ryu
I was a Southern Baptist and now I'm becoming Greek Orthodox. I'm a homeschool mom and I was reading Ambleside's Plutarch and decided we needed to read some of the lives of early Christians and martyrs. That was 5 years ago. It's been a long road but the end of John 6 is really my main reason to convert. I'm also convinced that having multiple Patriarchates with Christ as the head is the original.
You can have creeds as a Protestant. They just don’t level on par with scripture but they are useful guidelines for churches to have so there’s an open understanding of what that churches positions are and you know they will preach within those guidelines.
Protestants reject anything that challenges their claim that the Bible, and not God, is the ultimate authority.
What gets you up, the stairs or the guardrails? The stairs. The guardrails help you stay on the stairs. Yes, you can choose not to hold on to the rails and go up just fine, or you can fall and break your neck. Those who have come before us say, "We added rails, mind them, they will help you ascend." But the later Romans and Greeks say the rails make you go up just like the stairs (the rails *are* stairs), or you can't go up without holding on to the rails...which I reject. As a Protestant, I appreciate the rails and they have been proven to be sturdy and helpful over thousands of years. I mind them. I study them. I love them. I receive the wisdom of my ancient brothers. But, I know the rails are not the stairs. I know that I don't "need" them to ascend. But when one of my Protestant brothers ignorantly wants to take them down, I will do what Protestants do best and protest.
Thank you Trent.
This video was amazing.
Speaking as a Protestant, I can tell you what we believe about Creeds: creeds and confessions do not share the same authority as the Bible, but they are helpful summaries of the Bible’s teachings, and therefore should be used to help us understand the broader teaching of the Scriptures. However, as the Bible alone was divinely inspired in the autographs, creeds and confessions must necessarily submit themselves to the authority of the Bible. When creeds, confessions, councils, or pastors speak, if they are out of step with the scriptures then they are in error.
Who determines when they are out of step with Scripture? For instance, the Nicene Creed, as Trent dove into, claims regenerational Baptism. Who gets to decide what Scripture teaches so that we know whether the creed is accurate or out of step?
Then it would be better if, speaking as a Protestant, one would point out where exactly in the Nicene Creed is out of step with the Scriptures and is in error. The SBC, in their decision not to accept the Nicene Creed, was more honest than other Protestants in pointing out their disagreement with two articles of the Nicene Creed. Magisterial Protestants, though claiming to be sola Scriptura, are really 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘚𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢 with their own magisteriums.
@@FleurPillager 2 Peter 1:20-21
[20]Understand this first: that every prophecy of Scripture does not result from one's own interpretation.
[21]For prophecy was not conveyed by human will at any time. Instead, holy men were speaking about God while inspired by the Holy Spirit.
@@Mr.BaSir20 This is an inappropriate, inapplicable Scripture quote if I've ever seen one. These verses have to do with the inspired writing of "prophecy of Scripture", not the Holy Spirit's guidance and counsel in understanding Scripture. Jesus called Him the 'Counselor' for a reason. John 16:14 - "He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you."
The Nicene creed is not in agreement with the Bible .
I didn't know some of the oldest Protestant denominations didn't confess the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. As a Lutheran convert to Catholicism I thought we all did.
Do you recite the Nicene creed? Yes or no. If yes - why?
Because Protestants use confessions of faith and "Belief in the Trinity" is a pretty common feature, thus making a direct citation of The Nicene Creed redundant. Protestants are still mostly Nicene, including the (not actually Protestant, but a form of Anabaptist) Baptists.
@@LittkeTM the Nicene creed is deceptive to the lost
@@G-ew9hv How is it deceptive?
@@briantrafford4871 it does not say that Christ died for our sins. Subtle deception the lost never notice. It gives the power to the church and water!
My take as a Protestant: This is a classic false dichotomy, although the graphic shown at the beginning is admittedly very unhelpful because it does seem to put ecumenical authority to be equal with Scripture. From that diagram, Trent's criticisms would seem valid.
The false dichotomy is this: either the ecumenical councils have infallible authority or they have no authority. This is easily dismissed. I am a father, and therefore have God-given and natural authority over my children. If I tell my children to do something, they must obey me or else they will be in sin. Does that make me an infallible authority? Absolutely not. If I command my children to steal candy or jump off a bridge, they ought not listen to me even though I am their God-given authority. We treat ecumenical councils the same way. There is authority there which we ought to submit to. We ought to condemn Arianism because of the authority of established doctrine taught by the authority of the Church in accordance with Scripture. However, when an ecumenical council tells me that I am anathema if I do not kiss a statue of Mary, something wildly in violation of Biblical teaching and early church practice, it is like hearing a father tell his child to steal candy or jump off a bridge. This is why the Bereans were praised for accepting the Gospel only after testing it with Scripture. It is Scripture that establishes Church authority, and therefore the Church only has authority when operating under the Infallible Rule just as a father only has authority when operating under the authority of God. Authority doesn't have to be infallible for it to be a valid authority worth listening to, so long as it itself is in submission to authority that is truly infallible, and therefore higher.
As for the argument "Protestants can disregard Church authority so long as it falls outside of their personal interpretation of Scripture", again the analogy of a father is helpful. A child could argue that their father telling them to clean their room is not a biblical command, and therefore they can ignore it. Yes, they can but only at their own peril. There is an objective teaching in Scripture, an objectively right way to interpret it, and we all, ecumenical councils included, are weak and prone to misinterpretation. The humble person will submit to their authority until that authority is clearly and unmistakably crossing biblical boundaries in majour and harmful ways. In the end, we will all be judged by God and give an account to him. If in pride we disregarded authority because of our own puffed up ideas, we will be condemned. However, if we rejected false authority in order to keep our consciences legitimately clean before God in accordance to what is clearly true in Scripture, we will be blessed. In other words, there is already an infallible authority who will judge us, therefore the answer to this problem is not to established a human authority that is infallible (as if the father, in response, declared his command to clean the room and all other commands to be equal with Scripture), but rather to entrust ourselves to the truly infallible judge to whom we will all give an account.
Maybe I'm wrong, but to me this argument seems to boil down to "without infallible ecumenical authority, we cannot control what people believe." So what?
Thank you. It's very irksome to here the dichotomy of "if it's not infallible, then it has no authority!."
That still sounds like pick and choose to me, which will lead to wildly inconsistent conclusions between different people and ultimately create different denominations. You can't say that Arianism goes against early church teaching as if anti-Arianism was an already established doctrine back then. Remember that Arius himself was a priest of the Church so there were a chunk of Christians back then who supported him and believed in Arianism. It was the ecumenical council that decided what the infallible position is.
Also, Arianism should be condemned because it doesn't interpret scripture through the lens of the Church. When discussing this issue, we really should not underestimate how vast the human mind is and what it can come up with. If you talk to a Mormon or a JW, they will tell you that the scripture shows Jesus is not fully divine. I know that you will tell them that they got their interpretations wrong but they will tell you that you're the one who got it wrong. I've been in an argument with them before, they argue hard and brings up verses just like you would. So you can't just pick and choose, the ecumenical councils must be infallible for Christianity to work.
Amen, brother!
In fact, not only is it a false dichotomy, it is deliberately deceptive. See, your example shows that there can be a conflict between "church authority" and the Scriptures. The RCC claims that's impossible. If I grant that for the sake of argument, then Trent's belief system falls apart the instant that I PERCEIVE a conflict! And, just to ensure that this isn't hypothetical, I "perceive" a conflict between RCC teaching and Matthew 23:9. Now what? I MUST weigh one by the other, thus proving one is authoritative over the other (which is what you stated). Trent is dishonest.
Remember, he's the guy that tried to argue that "theo-pneu-stas" means "Life Giving" and not "God Breathed". It's Greek. Can you see the "God Breathed" words in there? Trent's a liar.
This is perhaps the best defense i have heard though I still dont think it truly holds because it doesnt truly solce the equation but it is quite a good defense nonetheless
It's a Baptist problem not a Protestant one. Us Presbyterians love our creeds!
Same here, with us Anglicans. I suspect that this applies to Lutherans and traditional Methodists as well. Basically, this seems to be the case with denominations that hold closely to Magisterial Reformation tradition.
Once again, Trent fails to actually confront real Protestantism, and instead topples his strawmen to the cheers of his followers.
Good information and sources, Trent, regarding the views on baptism from the beginning centuries of the church era!! I was not aware of that. Thank you!
But the actual Sola Scriptura that the Reformers referenced isn’t what the SBC and other low church contemporary “Protestant” churches use. Sola Scriptura means the Bible alone is the ultimate infallible authority which creeds, church tradition, church leaders, etc. cannot contradict. It doesn’t mean it’s the only authority, and it never has meant that. There’s no contradiction for Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.
1 an authority can not be a book, authority is a property of people or of organizations, it's about being able and in the right to settle disputes.
even then, nobody says that anything can contradict God's Word, especially because it's inerrant. And we don't, in fact, contradict the inerrant Scriptures.
If the Bible alone is the infallible authority, then the other authorities are ultimately meaningless, they're only truth as much as Scripture recognize them as such, wich exactly Trent's point (it falls down to solo scriptura).
@@dr.tafazzi This is easily disproven. Catholics put their infallibility in a singular man, or rather a "role." Over thousands of years now we've seen Popes be fallible. They're constantly wrong on scripture, constantly changing the rules, constantly succumbing to imperial or human authorities and changing laws to give them credibility. They've used the name of Christianity as a political weapon... and you come here and claim the Bible can't be the ultimate authority but the Pope can? That's the most ridiculous non-historical Christian take I've ever heard.
@@ghostapostle7225 And vice versa. If the Church contains the ability to infallibly create dogma, it can render the scripture meaningless. Hopefully Protestants, RCC, and Orthodox recognize that God's people and the Church has always been fallible. Pharisees, Apostles, and the Church have made mistakes and taught mistakes. The Pharisees, by appearing righteous but often times being hypocrites. Paul rebuking Peter, apostles arguing over who is the greatest among them. The RCC and Orthodox anathemitizing each other as if the One True Church was either in the East or West only. However, we can still be assured that God will protect the Church and "gates of hell shall not prevail against it". Despite all the errors of the Pharisees and the Church, Christianity is still strong after 2000+ years and protected by the Spirit.
@@westdc The Holy Spirit guides the Orthodox Church
As a Catholic, I don’t think you did such a good job here Trent. Their argument is saying the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith, and all that means is that certain doctrines laid down in creeds and the early church can be wrong and can be overturned (in something like the SBC) as long as it coincides with scripture. This doesn’t mean that some creed held by the SBC doesn’t have any binding power on who is a Christian. It has authority as of now and as agreed upon by the church but it is not infallibly authoritative. What they would say is that arianism is bad because the council said so, but we cannot be 100% sure that they were correct just because it came from a council. They would say that we can only be 100% sure if arianism goes against scripture (how they determine that idk, but that’s why I’m Catholic haha)
If they are being consistent, they should be open about disagreeing with early church doctrine and not seeing that as a bad thing.
I think you have got it there
yes, this argument is truly not good. i don't know why it is, but whenever Protestants or Catholics or Orthodox debating internally (to me meaning "amongst ourselves), we just seem to be incapable of getting it right. maybe there's something to that? maybe in violating the spirit of unity, God forces us to miss the mark? i'm gonna pray on this.
the reason so many Protestants haunt these channels (and likely in the opposite manner for Protestant channels) is because as lay Christians, we desire unity above all else. I really think there is a profound blessing in being the lowly in Christ. we can hunger for and see things that get obscured at the higher levels of authority.
Of course there have always been cooler heads in Protestantism that saw the problems with appealing to Scripture alone but the prevailing current in Protestantism has always been that Scripture alone matters. Sure, some Protestanets will at times refer to other sources of information, including creeds or councils, but within the Protestant framework, any credal statement can just be overruled by someone invoking Scripture. As long as the appeal to Scripture is half-way coherent (but not necessarily correct) it will outdo that credal statement.
Distinguishing between "Sola Scriptura " and "Solo Scriptura" is a distinction without a difference.
How they can determine something is wrong? Well, there's the other infallible authority in Protestantism, they "I".
Yeah, I think from listening to the video, you might be right but I think from what he’s getting at is to have authority is to submit to it even in disagreement. The creeds and the councils have no real authority in the lives of the SBC neither does the fathers of the church , it still goes back to scripture alone . It’s like if the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution even if wrong the states must obey . To change they must fight accordingly within the structure set up by the founding fathers through the election of new members. Protestant have no real visible body on earth but the one that they elect based on what fits with their interpretation of the bible. At any point they can change, they may look at history but picking and choosing the words that fit to how they interpret the bible which will break down to solo scripture .This concept of changing the definition of solo/sola scriptura because they look at history for statements of faith is irrelevant. The word infallible just mean incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. And catholics agree on that but when Catholics look at the councils to find what was said , we also look to was is be binding to church trusting that the Holy Spirit will not infallible bind heresy .They question is authority and no creed has it , if baptism regeneration statements by the early fathers can be dismissed by nitpicking on baptism of blood by martyrs during persecution, what power and authority do the creeds have. There are no rule of faith besides solo scripture because the creed are just statements that we agree upon , agreement and submission to it is an flip of coin based on what each generation comes to translate from the bible.
Catholics don't think the creeds are infallible - that's why you change them. You added stuff after Chalcedon (and I'm being generous by saying "you," since the Orthodox would insist it's they who are the church of that era). Then you added the Filoque a thousand years ago, which split the church irrevocably and even led to wars and massacres. You justify the Chalcedonian changes by appealing to scripture - rightly. In recent years, you've more or less admitted the Filoque is problematic, but that you can understand it in a Biblical way (although this really requires you to accept that the creed is poorly written in the RCC's version). One reason why evangelicals can't accept the creed as fully authoritative is because we would have to hash out what we think about the Filoque and which version we want to use. That would mean entering into a millennium-long war between Rome and Constantinople - it's not our fight and it wouldn't benefit dialog or missions in any way.
Trent praying for your continued success in evangelizing and bringing us into unity into the one holy Catholic and Apostolic church! Oh the love and joy I feel united with Christ in his body and what gratitude I feel when I listen to your videos as a “Cradle Catholic” when I contemplate the nothing and lack of nothing good I did to deserve the gift the Lord has given me. To quote our Lord Jesus to St. Catherine of Sienna: Jesus said to Catherine, “Do you know who you are and who I am? If you know these two things, you will be blessed and the Enemy will never deceive you. I am He who is; and you are she who is not.”
The consistent tag-team between Trent and Joe is always encouraging!
My heart breaks for those separated from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
nice vid ❤ waiting on your 'sacrament of reconciliation' vid that you promised week ago ❤
The word catholic means universal. The words used were all in small caps. It is not one Catholic Church but the universal Church of Jesus. He is the Head, anyone who makes Jesus Lord and Savior belongs in His church. They do not have to belong to the Catholic church.
@@bcalvert321 it is the only one that provides the real sacraments by priest with apostolic succession through the laying of hand for 200 centuries. Not other denomination can claim that.
@@bcalvert321 well to witness Christs full joy and full faith, we have to go to the church he established and not other churches created by men
@@bcalvert321 "The words used were all in small caps.'
This would be true if upper and lower case were present at the Council. It wasn't. Capitlization is a very late medieval invention if not Renaissance.
The Catholic Church that spoke at the council is both visible and universal. There was no distinguishment for _catholic_ and _Catholic._ The same Church that proclaim itself catholic in the Creed *is* the Catholic Church. When people talked about the catholic or universal church, they are referring to the Catholic Church.
Thanks!
Protestant here:
A lot of this boils down to a misunderstanding of the role creeds/confessions/catechisms etc play in the church.
G.I. Williamson in his study guide on the Heidelberg Catechism gave a helpful analogy. He talked about the benefit of studying a map first instead of starting with a study of the surface of the earth. In this case, creeds and confessions serve as that map because they teach and summarize the basics so that we can then study the thing they summarize - the scriptures.
But the map is only helpful to the extent that it is accurately conveying the actual geography. If there is a error, then the map must be the one that changes. So creeds are extremely helpful, but only to the point that they accurately convey scriptural teachings. But just like a map, creeds, confessions, catechisms, etc are always reformable under scripture.
this flexibility in teachings such that there will be no "final word" (because one holds on to the possibility of reforming it down the line) is what lead to a relativism in society
@@renomtv In many ways you are right. But did God give the gospel to reform society, or did he give his gospel to reform his elect?
"Not all Israel is Israel"
"As many as are being led by the Spirit of God are sons of God"
Many people can take scripture and come up with all sorts of crazy ideas. But are they led by the Holy Spirit or are they false teachers? Are they governed by the Lordship of Christ in everything, seeking to deny themselves and submit to Christ with all their heart?
In the end there is a final word. Jesus Christ will come again and make all things right. Until then he left his church (his chosen elect) the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
But who decides whether a creed, or a contemporary book on theology for that matter, "accurately convey[s] scriptural teachings."
To stick with this concept, Baptists have been wandering for years because they found the missing map and threw it away because they prefer to keep wandering 🤷♂️
I agree not all creeds are equal or helpful, but for Baptists to disagree on the Nicene Creed shows they don’t agree where they are, or where they’re going, and demonstrates the splintering of Protestantism. I hope this is a wakeup call for many Baptists.
Then there is no point in affirming any previous creed. Just create your own creeds, using the historical creeds as a guide. If maps are wrong, people create new maps, taking what is correct in the previous ones, but they do create new maps.
What stops any Protestant from being like WLC, who denies that Jesus has a divine and human will? What stops a Protestant from coming to other conclusions if they will simply reject any creed or council that contradicts what they think? Shouldn't they learn about a creed or council and consider that perhaps their interpretation of scripture is wrong?
The production quality of your videos has gone up so much in the last few months! keep up the great work!
Hi Trent. I see the fruits of your labor. Loving the heightened production quality. Great stuff. Thanks.
Trent Horn @ Council Of Trent is yet my favourite Catholic Apologist. Others including: Jimmy Akin, Michael @Reason with Theology, Bryan Mercier @ Catholic Truth, I Miss Christendom, Matt @ Pints with Aquinas, Voice of Reason etc.
God bless you, all the amazing souls behind this UA-cam Channel and your good ministry.
Why do they need to have a formal gathering to agree on things? I thought all we needed was a book. I’m confused.
Overthinking it.
The creeds are authoritative because they're a correct exposition of scripture.
They derive their authority because they align with scripture.
We don't need to pretend scripture is some uninterpretable mess/black box.
The creed precedes the full, compiled, canonized Bible. Most christian dogmas do. How can this be squared with Sola Scriptura is truly beyond me.
"correct exposition" is the rub. So any creed that doesn't align with the individuals interpretation of scripture is to be rejected. And the non-SS view is not that scripture is hopelessly obscure or unintelligible.
@@siruristtheturtle1289 quite easily. The Holy Scriptures were authoritative at the moment they were written down, not at the moment they were canonized.
@@cronmaker2 I get that. But that's not really what it comes down to. As a Lutheran, I don't just get to say I don't agree with the Apostles' Creed because my interpretation of scripture is different. If I did that, I wouldn't be communed, and if I persisted in that error, I'd be excommunicated. You can claim certain Protestant groups pick and choose from councils, but neither the RCC or EO accept every single council either.
The thing the RCC and EO Christians have to ask themselves is, if you were transported back to the 3rd century, and your bishop confirmed Arianism, and you saw in the scriptures that this was heresy, would you submit to your bishop or to the eternal word of God? We would say you must stand firm on the word of God. I had an EO tell me that you'd have to submit to your heretical bishop.
@@lanetrain You don't seem to understand the dilemma presented: It is by the tradition and the canonization of the Scriptures that we know which books were universally accepted and inspired. This by its nature discards any notion of Sola Scriptura as such because to know the Inspired books we relly on extra-biblical material and tradition.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.
I used to live near Guadalupe. Mary wasnt there
@@TimSpangler-rd6vs well welcome our fav Christian Infidel, i.e. Protty
I try to pray the prayer every morning.
@@essafats5728 Infidel? Did you really just say that?
@@TimSpangler-rd6vs Yes, I typed out INFIDEL; did not verbally say it.
As an Orthodox, I appreciated this video.
It’s not about what rule of faith is infallible. It ultimately depends on interpretation.
If your interpretation of scripture doesn't fit a creed, you ignore the creed. If the early Christians’ belief is different from your interpretation of scripture, you will think the early Christians didn't follow the Bible.
Wich is the point many of the people here saying "but we believe in other authorities" are not grasping.
But as some point, you must consider that your interpretation is incorrect. That’s the problem with many Protestants, is that they don’t always seek the true understanding of scripture and only want to interpret it how they want. Which is not what sola scriptura means
What about all the early Church citations of Scripture? Most powerful question you can ask a Protestant: who are you (your teachers) to reject the biblical interpretations of those taught, discipled, approved, and ordained by the biblical authors, by the Apostles, esp Peter and John? (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp)
@@tonyl3762 They'll respond: "who are they compared to Scripture?" and then say "but this is not solo scriptura".
@@ghostapostle7225Sure, but I'd say that's the wrong question. The right question is what I asked above: who are you (your teachers) compared to the early Church fathers?? Merely claiming Scripture for yourself and your beliefs is merely a rhetorical tactic; it doesn't actually demonstrate who has the true and proper interpretation of Scripture.
Thanks Trent! This was one of the best and most concise treatments of this issue that I've run across.
You did it, Trent. You made it. Your video editing and aesthetic are now up to par and visually stunning to look at. Your video editing now equally compliments your intelligence and the truth you desire to convey. Give whoever you hired a high five and take them out to lunch. Cheers.
Sola Scriptura is the great horseman of relativism.
Believing the Bible isnt evil
Tommy the Strawman appears
@@ultimateoriginalgod Not sure who Tommy is...but even he knows that believing the Bible isnt evil
@@TimSpangler-rd6vs Sola Scriptura isn't just believing in the Bible. Lying is a sin against a commandment of God.
Sola Scriptura is the ever moving goalpost. It is self-defeating. But every time the legs get kicked out from under it the definition gets restated with a different nuance, repeat, repeat, repeat.
You're right. Original intent is so critical. We can't treat the decrees of the councils like people nowadays want to treat the U.S. constitution -- as a living document that changes meaning depending on who is interpreting it. Great point!
I love the new style and production quality behind these videos. So happy to have donated to help
People who are reading this comment, I ask you to pray that I can
Find Jesus in my life and stop doubting his existence
Certainly, friend!
I do pray that you may find Jesus in fullness, and trust in Him with all of your being, just as He made you.
"37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'" 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." (John 7:37-39, ESV)
I might also share with you, I do not believe this channel is completely biblical, but I am here to help understand Roman Catholic arguments, which I believe to be false.
Red Pen Logic
is an excellent source for finding some help in understanding God's Word.
There are many short videos, which are easy to understand, and given with much grace!
@@wickd6878 Thank you, I am also not a Catholic . I only watched this channel because it has videos against atheism .
@@islam-exe.
I wish you well in this, and hope you find the answers for the right time, according to God's generous grace!
Brother Trent is amazing. As a former reformed baptist, I can tell you Sola Scriptura VS Solo Scriptura makes no sense. If you only have ONE INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH, then why shy away from it? Forget about creeds, councils and the Church. It's you and the Bible then. Go ahead. See where you end up, LOL.
The moment you start accepting the Fathers, Councils and Tradition (even as an "external reference") then you don't have Sola Scriptura anymore. In that case, you're making the case for Catholicism, and the truth is plainly clear before you.
I'm glad the Lord called me back home. Best choice ever!!!!
IDK how protestants can use either the Apostles or Nicene Creeds, but for a different reason:-
Apostles Creed; I believe in ... the Holy Catholic Church
Nicene Creed; I believe in ...One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church ...
Trent I would not lump all Protestants into Baptist. Anglican and Lutheran are very very far from them. Once again Trent you do an awesome job!
Reformed and Presbyterian as well.
It all comes down to faith, Biblical truths and old Testament And New Testament foretelling and describing Christ's life, death, ascension, resurrection and return which gives HOPE. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Southern Baptist here - still young in my faith after 15 years and learning much from your podcasts Trent!
I might be wrong in saying this and maybe a protestant brother will correct me, but again I think Trent doesn't put forward the fully fleshed out view of Sola Scriptura - at least how it's acted out in the protestant churches I've been around.
The Catholic view seems to be that protestants don't have a framework through which we view scripture, therefore any interpretation is valid which leads to heretical teaching. The authority of the Catholic Church, evident in all it's doctrines, dogmas, and traditions, is supposed to act as a guardrail for these things.
The problem is, just like Catholics, Protestants DO have a mechanism through which we interpret scripture - the inner witness and guiding of the Holy Spirit! I actually think Protestants have a lot more in common with our Catholic brethren than we might think.
The reason I'm not Catholic is I don't think Catholics recognize that sometimes the Church veers off the rails (or has the ability to), whereas most Protestants I know are very comfortable using the words "I don't know."
I once heard Trent say on another podcast, I think with Allie Stuckey, that the Church may have been in need of reform during the time of Martin Luther, but certainly wasn't meant to be split into the factions we now inhabit. I actually agree with this wholeheartedly! The problem is that if I walked into a Catholic church tomorrow and denied the position of Mary as immaculately conceived and totally sinless, I would be barred from taking holy communion (assuming I went through confirmation in a single day lol)! Thanks be to God that we have the grape juice and crackers at my local church! I consider even these the scraps dropped by my Master and Lord Jesus Christ from His table, though no other priest blessed them.
The reason we see the Nicean Creed being considered at the SBC is that God's CHURCH yearns desperately to be reunited. It breaks our hearts that because of doctrinal differences we can't be together as the bride of Christ. Even Catholics believe God won't abandon Baptists because we misunderstood some inessential doctrine. We are as much a part of the body of Christ as any person who has, as the Apostle Paul says, confessed with their lips that Jesus is Lord and believed in their heart that God raised Him from the dead. I don't think I misinterpreted that one.
Much love brothers and sisters,
The Holy Spirit is who guides the Church you are right about that. The Holy Spirit can guide anyone and everyone. The problem is that there are countless thousands of denominations all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations and doctrines, but yet they all disagree on interpretations and doctrines. Either none are right all the time or only one is right all the time. Jesus only established 1 church. While other denominations are right here and there, they will also err sometimes. Only the Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals when making definitive teachings.
You also imply that the Catholic Church doesn't admit that sometimes we just don't know things. This isn't true. There are many mysteries and we will never know everything, the Church acknowledges this. That doesn't mean the Church "veers off the rails" as you say. Not knowing something doesn't mean you have veered off the rails. What we can be sure of is that all Catholic doctrines are without err and we can trust them fully, just as we can trust Scripture. This doesn't mean that everything there is to be known is laid out in Scripture or in doctrines.
@@ReapingTheHarvest Thanks for the reply -
I agree that there are many denominations claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but the primary difference between the protestant view and the catholic view in this area is as you stated - that Catholics believe they are the Church (capital C). Protestants believe the Church (Capital C) extends beyond the boundaries of the Vatican because we reject the infallibility of the Church. That's also why I imply that Catholics typically don't say "I don't know."
Also, I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying the Catholic church is infallible, or that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra? Are these two separate doctrines? Surely you don't mean the rank and file catholic churchgoer is infallible in any respect, whether in theology or daily living. I assume you are talking about the corporate body of believers?
@@ReapingTheHarvestbut I just listened to a sedavacantist call Trent a heretic, and Francis the anti-Pope It’s a ruse to portray the RC church as the preserver of unity.
@@DPK5201The distinction here would be that we acknowledge that individuals can possess false beliefs and be disunified, but in doing so, one rails against the centralized authority of the Church and Sacred Tradition (which includes Sacred Scripture) in doing so.
@@FleurPillager agreed
I'm a fan of Trent's work, but I do think this is lacking a bit. There is an obvious whole in his argument. His argument (2:23): "if Protestants affirm the Bible and creeds, then either it is not sola scriptura or when its put into practice is collapses into solo scriptura; implied premise neither of these consequences are good (more or less)--meaning if you affirm only the Bible then you can't affirm the creeds and if you affirm the creeds then you can't affirm only the Bible. Therefore, Protestants can't affirm both the Bible and creeds." The whole in the argument comes from his ambiguous use of the word "affirm". Protestants claim that creeds are authoritative only if they affirm doctrines directly in Scripture; so they can affirm parts of the creed but not necessarily all of the creed. For example, scripture says nothing about the wills of Christ. In fact, I think Craig might be anachronistic in his denial of the two wills of Christ. The "wills of Christ" was a philosophical idea born from platonic philosophy. It did not mean "will" the way we use the term today--that is, our personal desires and wants. The way the church, and the mid to late Platonists used the term was that the will is a function of the nature. It was more of a set of natural powers and abilities (e.g. oak trees have the power to make acorns) that all participants of that nature share. All oaks trees share the same nature, so they share the same will--i.e. making acorns. Or, all people have the same will, although we have different desires and wants. So, the early church thought that if Christ has two natures, then he must have two wills. Craig is interpreting "wills" in the modern sense given that Craig affirms the two natures of Christ (hence the anachronism). This example is meant to show that the creeds and councils contain more than just concise descriptions of doctrines found in scripture. They contain some philosophical unpacking. The Protestants will take only that which is directly from scripture as authoritative, taking or leaving the philosophical underpinnings. Therefore, part of the creeds are authoritative and other parts are not. The whole in Trent's argument is that there is a third option: affirm the Bible and parts of the creeds.
As a Southern Baptist, the convention voting against adding the Nicene Creed to the Baptist Faith and Message was incredibly embarrassing.
I'm just curious, do you say this because you believe in baptismal regeneration? Or do you say it because even though you reject baptismal regeneration, you believe that the Nicene Creed can accommodate a non-baptismal regeneration view?
@@gunsgalore7571 The latter. I reject baptismal regeneration, and I believe that it is possible to reject baptismal regeneration and still affirm the Nicene Creed while being intellectually consistent.
@@ChrisTheFreedomEnjoyer You cannot be intellectually consistent if you claim to affirm the Nicene Creed and be Baptist. "One baptism for the remission of sins" literally means "one baptism for the remission of sins". It isn't "say the sinners prayer for the remission of sins".
I have more respect for the consistency of those within SBC to reject the Nicene Creed, because they honestly are being intellectually consistent (while being misguided). But I do admire your want to conform to be like the early christians, but you first must admit the early christians believed in something entirely different from you
I was raised that the baptism of The Holy Spirit does remiss sins and since water isn’t mentioned in the Nicene creed, we were able to say it. That’s how a Baptist understands it, I guess.
@@kevinjypiter6445I’m no baptist, but I know baptists can affirm the Nicene creed. The phrase your quoting from the creed is basically Acts 2:38, right?
You know Baptists believe Acts 2:38?
It's odd that W. L. Craig says he sees nothing in Scripture to say that Jesus had two wills when immediately before that he based his view of one will on a philosophical commitment to the will being a property of the person, not the nature.
Also, when Jesus prayed for the Father to take the cup from him, yet not his will but the Father's will be done, Craig's view would make the divine Son's will contrary to that of the Father. Christ having two wills makes better sense of that passage: though the divine Person is one in will with the Father, his human nature (which is not essential to his being) could at times have other, though subservient desires. (Please correct me if I have mischaracterized dyothelitism here.)
Craig is brilliant but drifting into liberal Christianity. He does not seem to believe Scripture is inerrant.
That's exactly the passage that immediately came to my mind as well. If Christ only has one will, the Divine Will, then this passage demonstrates disunity in the Divine Will (and thus disunity in the Trinity), which is contradictory to the Trinity itself. There can, by definition, be no disunity within the Tri-Unity of God.
The suit and serious look thumbnails are here to stay I guess
On a more serious note, keep up the good work
I'm not surprised by the Baptists on this front. They don't come out of the Reformation, and part of their whole gig is that they summarily reject the Roman Catholic church (since they're a derivative of the Anabaptists). Although I'm protestant, being a Presbyterian, I recognize the importance of the church fathers and the creeds (looking at you, Apostles Creed).
One of the reasons I find myself unable to accept the councils as infallible is the Council of Hieria vs. the Second Council of Nicaea. Furthermore, the anathemas pronounced in the Second Council of Nicaea completely exclude me.
"Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images." (yikes, guess I'm anathema)
"Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile and dishonour the venerable images." (no more protestent friends, I guess)
"Anathema to those who say that the making of images is a diabolical invention and not a tradition of our holy Fathers." (it wasn't - it's an acretion at best)
"If anyone shall not confess the Holy Ever-Virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bore him, let him be anathema." (marian dogmas and veneration - guess I'm anathema again)
"If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, let him be anathema." (prove the profit of this with scripture and I'll recant)
"If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!" (whoops, guess I'm out - SUPER anathema ... along with every other protestant ever)
If these councils are considered infallible, why was there such a shift in tone with Vatican II?
Anathema is a strong statement of rejection, excommunication, and complete disassociation. Christian unity is the tone of Vatican II. Why the tonal shift?
I can't buy into the infallibility of the councils when they don't align with one another. Important, sure. But infallible? I think not. I think the reformers had the right of it.
Hi @lillockey04, a Catholic here. Glad we can agree that the Church Fathers and Apostle's Creed are legit haha
I'd like to respond to some of your points, but can you say more about your objection regarding the Council of Hieria vs. the Second Council of Nicaea? In other words, why does this make you reject the infallibility of the councils?
@@claybahl5107 Absolutely. I'm glad we've found a middle ground worthy of meeting at.
When I consider Hieria vs Nicaea II, I put it forth as the most blatant example of councils disagreeing with each other. I've seen good arguments for the acceptance and rejection of either council. There are other councils, too, which disagree with each other (such as Nicaea II and Vatican II, which is why I mentioned it).
My point isn't that these councils are useless; that they hold no authority for those who accept them. The point of the protestant view is that we then look to the fathers who came before and to scripture to verify their rightness. If they come back as right, it's our place to own them. If not, it's not, wouldn't the proper position to be to count it as an acretion?
That's what I see when I look into iconoclasm vs iconophilia.
I understand that, as a RC, you likely wouldn't stand with me, a presby. But I genuinely hope you're at least able to understand why I question as I do. I appreciate your charitable response and genuine curiosity.
Strong comment.
@@lillockey04What is your specific objection in regards to Hieria vs Nicaea II?
If Hieria was not a legitimate council, what is the objection?
"If these councils are considered infallible, why was there such a shift in tone with Vatican II?"
The most common misconception I see from Protestants with regards to any form of infallibility, is that they simply misconstrue the scope in which it applies. Infallibility is a rare occurrence within our faith, and is only used as a last line of defense.
The Councils in of themselves are not infallible. Only when binding formal teaching into faith and morals. The reason why the Ecumenical Councils are authoritative and often lead to dogma, is because representatives of the entire Magisterium are gathered at one spot to discuss issues.
The canons declaring Anathema are disciplinary, used to direct the Church in light of binding new dogma. The anathemas are against the Iconoclasts, and even though you may not revere icons. You do not even remotely come close to what the Church at the time was dealing with. The Iconoclasts were a radical and violent movement that seeped into the government. They would often go out of their way to destroy icons and use violence against anyone who even remotely came across as venerating icons. You may not venerate icons, sure. But you also don't violently vandalize our icons or physically attack us.
Disciplinary statement are subject to change as different circumstances arise. Even within the First and Second Ecumenical Councils you had revisions and addendums to previous disciplinary or doctrinal matters.
I don’t know how to pinpoint it but Trent looks like Hayden Christenson on the thumbnail😅
I was thinking that 🤣
Michael Keaton
Jeremy Renner from Avengers
I went to a Lutheran baptism for my niece. I was shocked when the Nicene Creed was said but WORDS HAD BEEN CHANGED.
To steal a phrase I heard used by Jordan Cooper, the Creeds and the Confessions are NORMED by Scripture. Therefore, their authority is derived from the basis of their beliefs being biblical. So no, Trent, we don’t treat them as equal authorities to Scripture, but they are authoritative all the same because their declarations are sourced from the ultimate authority of Scripture and proven to be valid by history
So, their authority is only meaningful because the Bible said it so. How this is not solo scriptura ultimately?
@@ghostapostle7225 I’d be interested to hear what you think “Solo Scriptura” is. Because from what I’ve heard from different Catholics, “Solo Scriptura” is more the dudes saying “me and muh bible” and not the historic Protestant Sola Scriptura. Ultimately, yes, our faith and practice in its totality should find its ultimate authority in the Scriptures and doctrines derived out of it, by “good and necessary consequence” to quote the Westminster Confession. If that principle means that I practice Solo Scriptura in your mind, having both my personal interpretation guarded by the creeds and confessions of history, which derive their own source of authority from scripture, then sure. But I don’t see a problem with that.
Baptists ironically deny the Sacramental power of the act of baptism?
What a joke.
True, Southern Baptists have no sacraments. By the way, this was just a very minor motion at the Annual Meeting here in Indianapolis this year. It may have gotten 6 minutes bevore it was overwhelmingly voted down. There were other more serious issues.
Because Baptists believe in baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Waters of Life, not your local pool with cat piss in it. You dolt. Baptists understand spiritual baptism better than Catholics do. Catholics insist that holy water is a thing and all this other disproven nonsense. Like you legit believe you are eating Christ and drinking his blood, when you in fact are not. You also believe your Pope is infallible, when that has been disproven historically about 100 times now. Cultists gonna cult.
@@bobinindiana They don't call them sacraments but ordinances.
Because baptism itself doesn't do anything but just a public display of one's faith? The Pharisees were baptized too and they crucified Christ.
@@silenthero2795 I am not sure that Jews baptized before John the Baptist. In my personal opinion, the moderates/liberals who now dominate all aspects of the SBC for the last decade would like to rewrite the 2000 doctrinal statement. So the motion to add the Nicene Creed was one of them acting on his own. However, the timing was bad and so the outgoing President Bart Barber, a Texas preacher boy and farmer, let the motion quietly collapse by an overwhelming majority. Motions from the floor only get six minutes. Conservatives had nothing to do with the failure of the motion-they were in the minority.
There was a motion to abolish the Pledge of Allegiance in the SBC that also was defeated in six minutes by almost all 10,000 Messengers (delegates). We have many, many US Military chaplains.
Thank God that he chose me according to His will, now I can truly rest in him and not worry about works trying to make me right. That’s the Gospel 🙌🏽
The Creeds are summaries of Scripture; there is nothing about them that denies the truth of Sola Scriptura, unless you are laboring under a false misconception of what Sola Scriptura means.
This is false. That’s not what the Creeds are.
I think the bigger question is, why do Protestants choose to believe the Creed correct? Keep in mind that the Arians could also back up their stance with Scripture. That's the entire reason why the Creed was formulated.
So what exactly confirms to Protestants that the Creed is correct?
@@bradleyperry1735 If the Creeds are not summaries of the truths provided in Scripture, then what are they? Poems?
@@bradleyperry1735my guy the nicene creed comes from interpretation of athanasius of his understanding of scripture which literary council accepted at Nicea. Which if you read his book against arius. His literary quoting scripture to support eternal generation💀
Is there something in the Creeds that does not comport with Scripture or that cannot be argued from Scripture? No. Therefore the Creeds are derived from and support the truths written in Scripture. Remember, Athanasius used Scripture to argue against the Arians and their modern successors (Jehovah's Witnesses) have to distort and mistranslate John 1 in order to provide an "argument" from Scripture.
I dont understand the problem here. Trent says Southern Baptist theology contradicts the Nicene creed, Baptists then proceed to reject the creed because it contradicts their theology. So where is the creed problem?
Trent also set up a false dichotomy here, the very fact that Baptists even discussed weather to hold to the creed (an extra-biblical authority) and decided not because they thought it contradicted scripture is the essence of "Sola Scriptura". If it was "Solo Scriptura" they wouldn't even have had this discussion in the first place they would have just said its not in scripture so its not an authority "no need to even look at it"
Here are the options of Church authority without Trent's false dichotomy:
Solo Scriptura: Bible is the only authority (no need to hold to anything else)
Sola Scriptura: Bible is the only infallible authority hence other authorities can be held, but only if they don't contradict the denomination's view of scripture
Sola Ecclesia: claims many infallible authorities however one of them interprets the other authorities so functionally there is only one ultimate authority since Catholics hold to 3 authorities: Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition, but the Magisterium interprets what is tradition and what's not tradition and interprets what scripture means. Functionally the Magisterium is the infallible authority that the other 2 "infallible" authorities are measured hence it is the only infallible authority since the other 2 depend on it.
There is a reason Catholics claim Protestants can't interpret the bible without the Magisterium
Catholic view: Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition are equal (somehow). Because either they all interpret each other(which isnt true, because scripture doesn't interpret the Magisterium, if the Pope made an infallible statement how would scripture interpret it?) or they dont all interpret each other(which isnt true) because then protestants dont need the Magisterium to interpret scripture.
Correct, Catholicism is functionally sola ecclesia and has one authority not three. It would help if Catholics grew more comfortable being intellectually honest about their ecclesiology. Scripture and Tradition have no ability to challenge or correct the Magisterium, they are already a product of the Magisterium, according to Catholics.
The point is that the Nicene Creed has no authority to "Protestants" if you can both be a Protestant and also not adhere to the creed. Authority is not optional. If it's authoritative then you must submit to it. The creed is held as authoritative to some denominations, but not all denominations.
So in the case of at least the Southern Baptists, they are Solo Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura. Because any creed is optional to them, no creed holds authority.
@@sentjojo I said the Nicene creed most Sundays, but if it's accurate theology only insofar as it accurately reflects what the Bible says. It's derivative. All creeds are. None of them are authoritative.
Hi Trent, I was basically looking for this topic yesterday and you just uploaded it 😮 thank you
Trent - Your new branding is great!! You are awesome! Thank you for your work.
The correct term is "nuda scriptura", not "solo scriptura". Scriptura is feminine noun in Latin; you cannot combine it with "solo". It could be the late Reformed scholar R.C. Sproul who first used "solo scriptura".
Another banger by Trent Horn. Good work playa
I have heard of William Lane Craig but I did not expect him to not only deny an ecumenical council but to hear him affirming heresy. Now I'm really certain that Sola Scriptura has to be a mistake.
I’m not familiar with the ecumaenical council or what Craig teaches on it, but I don’t think that makes sola scriptura a mistake. It’s possible for Craig to be wrong, and he’s just misunderstanding. Sola scriptura can be true even if one Protestant believes in free will and another determinism
@@timothyvenable3336Sola Scriptura cannot be true because it is silly. Let me demonstrate.
Premise 1: Sola Scriptura is true
Premise 2: Scripture does not teach sola Scriptura.
If premise 1 is true, then we have from premise 2, a rule of faith not found in scripture that _must_ be higher than scripture.
Since we do not find sola Scriptura taught anywhere in scripture, the rule itself must be a tradition, external to scripture, which is of higher authority than scripture. The Protestant position is inherently silly.
@@batglide5484 I believe that is a misunderstanding on what sola scriptura is. I think you’re implying that *only* what is found in scripture is our standard. Sola scriptura teaches that the Bible is the only *infallible* ruling, not that we cannot use any other standard or logic.
Also, the Bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura, but it is implied. All men are fallible, so while some teachers are wonderful and brilliant, not everything they say is true. So how do we know if it is true? We must align it with scripture. Scripture is what we use to align all other teachings. I think even Catholics agree to that
@@batglide5484 to be fair: all you did is equivocate what sola scriptura is and then knock down the straw-man.
i can't force you to take this seriously, but it should genuinely bother you when you make such ridiculous arguments that are so vacuous. i used to do similar things like this with the RCC out of ignorance, and i would gladly ask you to forgive me for them. (misunderstanding adoration vs honor, saying things like "RCC believes you're saved through works", etc.)
in the spirit of charity, study more so you can do better OR at least try to infuse your language with more humility.
@@batglide5484 Premise 1: The earth revolves around the sun
Premise 2: The church did not teach this
Ergo, the church is not the final rule of faith.
Do you see how dumb this is? Something doesn't have to be taught explicitly to be derived from said source. Protestants hold to sola scriptura simply because of the infallibility of the bible. On the other hand, there is no reason to think the catholic church is infallible, other the mental gymantics of re-writing history and make claims about a lineage from peter.
Trent should do a better job representing the protestant view of scripture. I am not a Baptist but I can't see how his argument works in regards to how sola Scriptura actually becomes solo scriptura. What protestants mean historically about the scripture being the only infallible rule of faith is that this particular rule of faith is ontologically different compared to other rules of faith because scripture is God-breath. Scripture being God-breathe is obviously taught in Trent's church and pretty much all churches that claim apostolic succession. A creed can interpret scripture correctly that doesn't mean this interpretation was God-breathed at all. If the creeds have the same ontology as the Bible isn't the Catholic Church logically inconsistent since they do not include this creed in their canon? You can bring Gavin Ortlund and how he struggled to condemn William Lane Craig as a heretic but that issue doesn't necessarily have to be a problem for Protestantism itself. I have no problem calling William Lane Craig a heretic because magisterial protestant tradition has deep historical roots in dyotheletism. The reformers were trying to reform the Church not revolutionize it at all. Is Trent really going to say it's utterly impossible to get dyotheletism including the doctrine of the trinity without a priest or a bishop interpreting scripture for them? If that's the case Trent can say dyotheletism and trinity are not biblical and is only in the Church's teachings. But this kind of view is an utter innovation. Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, and so much for Church Fathers would never ever advocate this view at all. Trent clearly has to result in innovation to try to protect his Church's infallibility, there is no situation for him logically to have his cake and eat it too.
Roman Catholics have no interest in actually engaging with Protestantism. They merely echo strawmam arguments. I've largely stopped engaging with Roman Catholics online because of how they misrepresent Protestantism. Even when many are corrected they refuse believe you. Alas, Rome doesn't seem to promote theological understanding in its laity.
It is how it plays out in practice. A protestant will ask us "Where is that in the bible?" We respond with bible verses and early Church writings that back our interpretation of Scripture.
The responses we get is the early Church writings don't count or they don't care about that they just want bible verses. What then follows are claims that we Catholics are misinterpreting scripture.
Then it devlovles into bible verses being thrown back and forth with accusations from both sides of twisting scripture by using it out of context or misinterpreting Scripture.
Rinse and repeat and it gets old real fast. So we not conclude that Sola Scriptura is really Solo Scriptura.
@@kisstune At this point it's useless to talk with Roman Catholics on this issue. You'all (seemingly) refuse to engage with Protestantism and our tradition. If you don't believe what Protestants tell you about their theology then we're wasting each other's time. I guess it makes sense since theology is reserved for the clergy in Romanism.
@@kisstune Show me if any magesterial protestants do that. I see the Catholics do the exact same thing a protestant do when a Protestant offers a verse from scripture and many quotations from the Church Fathers. Does that show Catholicism is false? Come on now, your arguments are just weak. Why aren't you actually addressing my arguments? Trent clearly did not portray sola scriptura in its best light. What he did is like a lame protestant apologist appealing to a laymen claiming that they worship Mary as a Goddess to suggest that Catholicism is false.
He misportrayed our understanding of infallibility in the discussion of Sola Scriptura. We are saying scripture is God breathe so it's different in its ontology, so far we can never find anything in Church history that indicates that ecumenical councils or any commentary from the Church Father is God breathed. The bishops from ecumenical councils never claimed that the creeds drafted were God breathed nor any Church Fathers claimed that their writings were God breathed either. Clement of Rome never declared infallible authority or his writings were God-breathed in his letter to the Corinthians. This fact just completely skips a Catholic when they read Clement's epistle to the Corinthians or read any writing from Church history.
If you see a Catholic that denies that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ should that bother you? Does that disprove Catholicism or show how Catholicism is not properly being applied in its practice?
If a Catholic disrespectfully do not allow protestant to appeal to protestantism and the historic understanding of sola scriptura we as Protestants should not allow a Catholic to appeal to their magesterium and say Catholicism fails in its practice.
I don't care if William Lane Craig rejects dyotheletism, it's biblical and deeply rooted in Christian tradition if a Christian studies Church history. I don't care if Gavin Ortlund struggles to condemn William Lane Craig as a heretic, that's his problem no reformers would have any problem condemning William Lane Craig period. If any reformers were here today they see William Lane Craig as nothing but a heretic and innovator who is trying too hard to undo the reformation altogether. Many Church Fathers would agree too end of story.
@@junkim5853What are your issues with Catholicism then, ultimately? Does it come down to claims of papal infallibility? We know that Scripture teaches us that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, and we believe that the Church is then protected by the Holy Spirit from error doctrinally.
I appreciate your content very much. I miss the longer episodes though.
I truly hate when Protestants make the "that is solo not Sola scriptura" claim. Largely because both mean the same thing. "Solo scriptura" is doggeral Latin.
So the only difference between the two is one demonstrates bad Latin grammar.
The difference is what we actually believe versus the Catholic strawman of our beliefs. That's the important distinction, not the letter a versus o.
It's a distinction without a difference. Ultimately Scripture is the only thing that matters.
@@ghostapostle7225 Not according to Protestant belief.
"solo scriptura" isn't all Latin, the "Solo" is the English "Solo" (as in "Scripture my way")...
Meaning an unexpressed object like
Ite! (Ecclesia) missa est” or
Ite! (Gratia) missa est.
We catholics are so blessed that God gave us the church! We have early church Councils, which contain the Creed that the church calls at the Council of Trent "Shield of our Faith"! All protestants have is, "your view of scripture vs my view of scripture"!
Yeah, that ensures no disagreements right? Do you believe everything Francis believes?
Your religious arrogance and ignorance is staggering ! All God did gave you (us) free will and choose ye this day whom you want to serve . It is a delusion to believe that God gave you the Roman Catholic Church (Cult) it is a demonic counterfeit .
@@Postmillhighlights Do you believe everything your pastor or worship leader believes?
@@kisstune no. But I’m not the one making the claim that the church’s interpretation is our ‘shield of faith.’ That’s the OPs claim.
At 8:05 nether the quote from JND Kelly nor Furgusen says that the the early church taught baptismal regeneration. That baptism “conveys” the meaning of the remission of sins does not mean that one is not regenerate or had received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism-as Cornelius in Acts clearly already had.
Can you have creeds and sola scriptura? Yes. Because we (Lutherans) have had both since the beginning. The scriptures are the source of creeds. They aren't infallible, but simply contain no errors because every word is a direct quote from the scriptures.
No.
Every word is in fact not a direct quote from the Scriptures. That's exactly why the Nicene creed was so controversial initially.
Every word in the creed might be in Scripture, but it is also in a dictionary. The creed does not become a mere grammary because every word is in the dictionary. Worse, this fails in the face of Scripture itself, for the words that Satan uses to tempt Christ are found throughout Scripture, with even direct quotations. His words are no more infallible than the creed because he misapplied them. A creedal misapplication of a text would render the document fallible, though the Scripture is not.
No, every word is an interpretive explanation of our faith, of which the data are found in Scripture but often not the explicit facts. The fact that you (Lutherans) have, from the beginning, claimed to be Sola Scripturists while simultaneously reciting the creeds to define the faith, just shows how unavoidably contradictory Sola Scriptura is. It's not eventually contradictory, but immediately and always contradictory.
All historic Protestants affirmed the creeds. Modern fundamentalism/evangelicalism is so cringe (not to dismiss their positives contributions to American Christianity. They do have some major issues).
One SBC member said that the concern was that “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is often “misunderstood” to mean baptismal regeneration by the church fathers. He added that the creed is fine but only if “properly interpreted”. Protestants are hilarious 😂.
The moment they said that, the SBC started to sound more like a cult like the Seventh-Day Adventists with their reinterpretation of the Scriptures.
6:50 technically we believe in those words, but the meaning is different. As we believe 2 "baptisms" exist: the spiritual baptism where the Holy Spirit is pored out on us (this is a synonym for "salvation") and the physical dunking which is a representation of being consumed by Jesus' death and resurrection.
Regarding Arian Hersey. It is heretical because of the scriptures(which the orthodox fathers pointed out) and the council of Nicaea is witness to that.
Excellent analysis, I also notice that though some protestants claim to have other rules of faith, none of them can withstand or corral his own personal interpretation of Scripture, no matter how novel or crazy those may be.
Are you saying Catholics lie about what they truly believe, whereas Protestants tell the truth? Strange flex.
Yep the right to private judgement was core to the reformation. Although they can pay respect and honor to creeds and confessions none of them are ultimately binding on the conscience. The clear implication of the right to private judgement is the right to schism.
A foolish right at that. Basing everything on private interpretation is not a good idea.
@@kyrptonite1825 which is exactly what everyone already does, or they lie and say they agree with something they know to be false. The idea that personal reasoning(as opposed to impersonal reasoning?)is bad is ultimately going to rest on your personal reasoning and is thus self-refuting.
@@kyrptonite1825 Even though the entire purpose of the letters and epistles of Paul and Peter and John were to be read to the people for them to understand? Think about that.
Another great video, and a wonderful follow-up to Joe Heschmeyer’s video from 2 weeks ago on this topic.
PS: loving the sleek, professional new look of the channel!!
Once again - well done Trent.
not really
@@IssacNetero19”not really” with no further explanation is a fantastic summary of the failures of Protestantism
@@rubenleavell it is a little unfair for them to mic drop, but if we're being honest, most people are not actually moved by argumentation but rather are generally terrified of the truth and shifting paradigms. but here is my take for what it's worth:
Trent's argument is actually a horrible argument. anything is only true insofar as it is true. Orthodox Christian denominations affirm the inerrancy of The Bible because we believe it is the Word of God and therefore True, and obviously no Protestant believes the RCC "created the canon" in the way the RCC does, so i would encourage you to study that topic from a Protestant view if you are inclined to shift to that argument. Creeds can be authoritative insofar as they correspond to the Word of God (truth -- we all agree)...This is how ancient Orthodox decisions even functioned. This is how heresy and Orthodoxy were defined. Creeds are "The Word of God" so long as they correspond to "The Word of God", to state a truism. this should be obvious. How was the Creed made? not by consulting the Jehovah's Witness and Gnostic prophets, but by testing it by the Word of God.
Trent's argument strikes me as some kind of wonky genetic fallacy. this actually comes off as effectively assuming the Creed is how the Creed was made. so odd. It's like Trent forgets that the Creeds were derived from Scripture.
when you are bound to a specific paradigm, (the authority of the Roman Catholic Church which is actually at the center of all RCC arguments and presupposed) you take it for granted and that happens in this video so strongly. how Sola Scriptura is true while creeds are still binding and authoritative is actually completely obvious. Creeds are binding because they correspond to the Word of God, NOT because the RCC declares them true. That's how it happened in history. while Trent's rhetoric in this video sounds potent, it's super weak.
@@caleb.lindsay the creed came before the bible, so i dont know how the creed derived from the bible
@@RayBooM_ i honestly don't even know what to say to that it's so wrong...
Great video, but "colapses" typo at 2:34
Great work on the new studio and brand update, it looks awesome!
Thanks so much, Dylan! -Vanessa
@@TheCounselofTrent Just like all the corporations. Jesus didn't need branding. Think about that....
Of course you can have both. What you mean is that you can't have the both sola scriptura and the Nicene Creed as infallible bar to entry to claim to be a Christian. The value of the creed is that it is correct, not that it's infallible.
My thoughts exactly.
I feel like this is having your cake and eating it too.
How do you know the Creed is correct? What makes it correct?
@Cklert The queston of "why is something true" is a nonsensical question when you think about it, because the answer will necessarily be redundant. The creed is true because every truth claim contained in it is true. It describes ontological reality, things that happened in history, and things that exist now.
The question of how we know something is true is a different question from why it is true. How we know something is true is an epistemological question, whereas whether or not something is true is an empirical or an ontological question, depending on what it is we're talking about.
The Church didn't make the creed true by putting it to paper and agreeing to it at Nicea. The truth claims found in the creed were already true before the church formally adopted it at the ecumenical council, and they would have continued to be true even if the Church failed to recognize them.
SBC... Welcome to the 4th century
That’s good when the fourth century teaching is the same as the first all the way through to the twenty first. Because Truth doesn’t change. Only Protestantism does.
@@mrjeffjob If you truly don't think all churches, Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, change then you're living in a delusion
I was Protestant from 1972 until 1987. Been Catholic ever since.
Id love to see you debate The Other Paul on this one, i think there are a couple errors in your arguments that Id like to see a rebuttal on/dialogue on. The part i like least about debates are when they end, so if you do decide to discuss this topic with him i think as long as possible would be the most fruitful. Love your content though even as someone you would consider protestant.
Am I understanding correctly? Are regeneration and forgiveness of sins the same thing?
I think regeneration is the washing away of Original Sin. So what he's saying is that the whole ritual of baptism, rather than one's mere acceptance of Christ, is what wipes away Original Sin.
Forgiveness of sins is akin to being pardoned for committed crimes.
Regeneration could be broadly compared to no longer desiring to commit that crime, IF the change was made by an external being.
Regeneration begins after forgiveness, and thankfully, Jesus offers both!
Really appreciate this video.
About baptism: I don't think Protestants have a big problem with it. I believe that ignoring the regenerative properties of baptism is a mistake, but not a big one if the baptism is made in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (even the Catholic Church agrees btw). Other problem that I find more serious is downplaying the salvific aspect of baptism, this can be critical when people need to be baptized as Jesus commanded.
People should also born again in the spirit, so baptism is not just a ritual where people are changed by sprinkling water or immersing people on it, they should transform their lives and their mentality.
That's why I think paedobaptists have a much bigger issue in their hands, reborn in the spirit requires knowledge about how to live a Christian life, with repentance and good works (that reflects their faith), not only make infant people wet.
PS: The Ecumenical Councils are VERY important because people are largely uneducated, and Catholics make big deal about it because it potentially "invalidates" Sola Scriptura, but I don't think so. Sola Scriptura only applies to the original manuscripts.
I think it is a false dichotomy to say that sola scriptura means that a Protestant cannot believe what a creed, confession or Church Father says in addition to the Bible.
If the Bible is the only infallible authority it does not mean that we don’t believe in any other authority, and it doesn’t not mean that other authority’s cannot speak truth.
Many Roman Catholics aren't capable of this type of nuance. It doesn't compute in their brains. It is what it is; the papal church doesn't want the laity thinking too hard about such things.
Isn’t that the distinction made between Sola and Solo Scriptura at the beginning?
He is just pointing out how this plays out in practice. We point to scripture and early Church writings then get some response of not care what early Church writings said or those don't count/matter demanding bible only citation (solo scriptura) or we're the ones misinterpreting the bible passages we quote.
Whoa, I'm a protestant, and this video really is food for thought!
Trent Horn and Joe Heschmeyer, rocking together.
Hi Trent, you really, really nailed it at 5:09 thru 5:23 and I couldn't agree more with your assessment . I am Sola Scriptura as a matter of conscience.
I'm hoping to see your debate with Anthony Rodgers next year in person!
It’s so hypocritical for a Roman Catholic apologist to say “Christian’s can radically redefine what a council meant.” When THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPEN IN 2nd Vatican council on the relation of scripture and tradition and priesthood. Yves congar points to the fact that the council of Trent define the relationship in tradition and scripture one way but the Holy Spirit meant it another way. Contemporaries of Congar pointed this out.
Thank you Trent. Great video.
Dang, why can't he ever understand Sola Scriptura?
Trent, you should know that the difference between infallible and fallible ones is not that one is right and another is wrong.
The difference is that the latter could err, but not necessarily bound to err.
The same case could be made for the Ecclesialists. You could argue that not all ecclesialists hold onto the fulness of the truth, and this applies to the Reformational churches, too.
Just because one ecclesial body within the bigger umbrella fails to hold onto the fulness of the truth does not necessarily mean the main tenets of that umbrella can be neglected.
He doesn't want to. I really think it's that simple. He's engaged with educated Protestants before, but if he accurately presents Protestant doctrine his Roman Catholic audience might actually learn the truth. Alas, he always resorts to strawmen.
But if it fails to "hold onto the fulness of the truth" how do you determine which tenets of that umbrella cannot be neglected?
And if you are about to say, "the ones that accurately reflect Scripture"... Who has the authority to determine what Scripture is saying so that we can then judge the accuracy of the creeds?
@joshj3787
I believe you have failed to understand what I meant by the Umbrella. This does not refer to a specific tradition or denomination but a broader system based on the historical groups which cover multiple traditions.
One of this kind of grouping is the Ecclesialism vs. Reformation. The Ecclesialists include churches like Roman Catholic, Sedevacantists, Oriental Orthodox, Ancient Church of the East, Assyrian Church of the East, World Eastern Orthodoxy, Genuine/True Eastern Orthodoxy, Old Believers, or even groups like SSPX churches and the liberal Catholics.
The reformational churches include the Moravians, the Anglicans (English Church), the Scandinavian Lutherans and all other Lutheran churches, continental (Dutch) Reformed, Presbyterians, Baptists, Mar Thoma (Oriental Reformed) Church, etc.
A recent discussion between Trent and The Other Paul (Paul Facey) also has covered this.
If that is the case, why not do the honest thing and flat out say that the Nicene Creed is mistaken in saying that there is only ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Just flat out say that the Nicene Creed is fallible and made a mistake in saying that the church is one universal Church and not separate, autonomous local churches. William Lane Craig was at least honest and consistent in his rejection of an ecumenical council, and the SBC honestly and consistently rejected the Nicene Creed.
If sola Scriptura is to be consistent, Scripture should be the ONLY rule of faith, there cannot be other rules of faith, no matter how fallible, for if fallible it cannot be authoritative, for if Scripture is not the only rule of faith, even if it is the only infallible one, then that doctrine is 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘚𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢 and NOT sola Scriptura.
Also, 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘢 Scriptura and 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘰 Scriptura mean the same thing in Latin, the latter is just bad grammar, so if you say sola Scriptura means the way you think it means, then it is YOU and not Trent who misunderstands sola Scriptura, for what you are describing is 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘚𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢.
@Jiko-ryu
Sola Scriptura has a clear definition, and you can not just interpret your own reading into its given definition. This has historical weight, and Trent literally made the same mistake again and again after having been corrected many times. I am not wasting my time here to explain things that have been historically defended thousands of times.
Again, you seem to not understand the difference between FALLIBLE and FALSE. The former does not necessitate error, only that it can fall into error. In failing to discern these two, Trent has made a serious logical fallacy.
Reformation and Protestantism are just the Umbrella or system of thought that binds many churches to the reformational principles in the five Sola, or what some would call Sola Apostolica (check Anglican Aesthetics and The Other Paul).
Reformation as a system to many churches is par to how Ecclesialism is an umbrella for churches like Roman Catholic, Sedevacantists, Old Believers, Oriental Orthodox, World Orthodox, Genuine Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, and many others. If one fails to adhere to some ecclesialist tenets, it does not mean the system suddenly becomes not relevant.
Now, when it comes to the Nicene Creed, Baptists have historically affirmed this. If SBC suddenly denies it, it would be their mistake to do so. Pls check Gavin Ortlund's recent video, where he has explained how this is so obvious that it makes me confused why this could become a polemic in the first place.