Sounds like Gavin Ortlung would have been the ideal opponent rather then white. It's amazing as both are Calvanist yet White actually denounced not only Roman Catholic views of purgatory but attacked protestent views that were not Calvanistic. Examples being the sacraments and loss of salvation views as well as the heavy pushing of salvation before faith which is funny as Lutherans in this lutheran church are probably looking thinking why is he taking as If the reformation was just Calvanism? They don't even believe in regeneration before faith and teach you can stray from salvation. Gavin ortlung meanwhile usually stays on topic and is not against the other disagreements despite being reformed Baptist. James white makes it seem like all protestent belief is, is TULIP. I thought he had good arguments against purgatory but when it came to the reformation, all he seems to see is well TULIIP and nothing else. I couldn't relate and I doubt the Lutherans in their parish could as they believed in loss of salvation and the finished work of Christ spoken of like James presented.
Dr. White is someone who respected early on in my theological journey, but now I find him kind of insufferable. It’s just hard to take someone serious who tries to champion Sola Scriptura as a “reformed” Baptist. I think you hit the nail on the head when saying Dr. White believes in a “ecclesial donatism” of the Church. It’s just frustrating when these proponents are front and center of debates
Father James i recently found out that there are two (hopefully) non liberal High Church/Anglo-catholic churches in my city. pray for me that Lord may guide me as to whether either church may become my new church.
Trent Horn made two main arguments in this debate (see his slides) and he never actually demonstrated his premises were true. It was if his premises were a forgone conclusion and he said therefore it is up to James White to prove those conclusions were wrong - i.e. the church went from 3 ways of having God's truth revealed to them down to a single one. He never demonstrated that the church actually three in the first place so naturally he could not prove from church history that there was a change from three to one. In my video here - I did a rebuttal of this major argument demonstrating is premise 1 is false and therefore his conclusion is false too -->> th-cam.com/video/lxcNDnhdLt4/w-d-xo.html
Fr. James, have you ever thought about inviting Robert Spencer on for an interview? The reason it popped into my head is because the only person I've ever heard to *resoundingly* defeat James White in a debate was Spencer, and in a very calm, precise and matter-of-fact way. Also, Spencer recently converted from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy, and has written a book, _The Church and the Pope: The Case for Orthodoxy_ . Just a thought.
@ts5728 I don't think he had converted to Orthodoxy at the time. The debate was on whether Islam was violent or not. I think this is the one: th-cam.com/video/gD3KHyyp1Y8/w-d-xo.html
"The books of Homilies repeatedly cite the deuterocanon as Scripture, as God breathed". Can you please explain me, if the deuterocanonical books are scripture and God breathed, why aren´t they sufficient to establish doctrine?
@@barelyprotestant5365 i am confused now. This sounds very arbitrary. One can say the same thing about other books as well which you would consider inspired. So why the reservation for these books?
I listen to James white back in the 1990s when he debated RC apologists. On the positive side, he was good in diffusing various RC doctrines. On the negative side, looking back retrospectively, he was weak on sola scriptura because he grounded in his reformed baptist views which I find to be quite novell. Jordan cooper and Gavin ortllund have done a much better job in defending sola scriptura. While ortlund is also RB, he does not fall into the same pitfalls of white. His arguments are much more solid. Just look at his debate with Trent horn and whites debate with horn on the same topic. The difference is quite apparent
James White has 69 lessons on church history on a You Tube channel named, File001, which someone uploaded from his audio series on "sermon audio". I have listened to most of them a long time ago (as he did this series twice at his church), but I need to go back over it more closely, as time allows. He never expressed the view that the church completely went into apostasy with infant baptism or baptismal regeneration or the mono-episcopacy (although we Baptists don't think they are Biblical, they are not causes of complete apostasy.)
His opinion, at least as he used to hold it, was that the Church fathers were wholly "different". Unwilling to concede they're more in line with catholics but equally unwilling to assign them to a roster of approved protestant teachers. They're this kind of weird hiccup of ignorant leaders who supposedly don't know biblical language, lack access to however many manuscripts we have now, and corrupted by Greek thought.
@@mememe1468 or that they (the early church fathers) were just fallible men, with mostly excellent insights into God and The Trinity, and salvation; but sometimes wrong interpretations of some aspects of baptism and church government. see what Cyril of Jerusalem wrote against the ex opere operato interpretation of baptism: “Even Simon Magus once came to the Laver: he was baptized, but was not enlightened; and though he dipped his body in water, he enlightened not his heart with the Spirit: his body went down and came up, but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor raised with Him” Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386 AD), Catechetical lectures, prologue, 2 This is correct, water baptism is not mechanical or automatic; getting wet and have the right formula said over a person does not automatically give or cause the Holy Spirit to come to him. There must be heart repentance and faith first, then baptism is powerful as a seal of the living faith. Luke 24:46-47; Luke 3:8; Matthew 3:6-8; Acts 15:9-11 - "cleansing their hearts by faith"; Luke 13:1-5; Acts 17:30-31
@@mememe1468 and getting some aspects of baptism and church government wrong does not mean the church completely apostatized or disappeared or "went off the rails" (as my friend Rod Bennett says). The more serious levels of apostasy happened in 787 AD with the dogmatic pronouncement of anathema to all who do not love and kiss and bow down to icons (but still existing, however full of corruption and false doctrines and superstitions - as in Transubstantiation, 800s to 1215, etc.); and then at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) when they completely anathematized the heart out of the gospel by the 10 or so anathemas vs. Protestant faith, especially justification by faith alone. The EO did the same later at their council of Jerusalem / confession of Dositheus.
@@barelyprotestant5365 I tried to search it up but was unable to find it of course, which is why I'm asking. I am unfamiliar with the channel you had it on.
@@MrBattlestar10 I just realized you might be talking about MY debate, not the James White/Trent Horn debate. Here is my debate: th-cam.com/users/liveBByACHtHZhs?si=HQ6pRd4YNvPSXdyK
I’m a Catholic convert from Calvinist Protestantism, and as I have watched videos of Protestants and talked to Protestants, it seems to me that at the end of the day, if a Protestant has a personal reason to reject an infallible teaching of the Church, they are essentially claiming to have the right and authority to do so. But where are they getting this right and authority? Either the Church has the right and authority or you do.
Your critique is nonsensical. It presumes Papism is true, and deals with an issue that literally all Confessional groups would reject: a mere "personal reason" for rejecting a doctrine is not a legitimate reason to reject a doctrine. Not impressed.
@@barelyprotestant5365 I think what @ihatebigtechs is saying is that you're presuming that the pope and/or the magisterium has no authority and that you can just reject anything the church teaches if you think you have a good reason to do so. Are you certain you're interpreting Scripture as the Holy Spirit intended? And how? It's your interpretation versus the church's. Why should any Christian choose yours or Luther's or Calvin's or Cranmer's interpretation over and against the church's? Because you think you have good reason to?
I agree with James White re: purgatory, but Trent Horne won the debate. There is something about White’s style that makes me think he is lying, even when he says things I know to be true. He comes across as annoying and uncouth.
Trent took the L. Nothing he said was actually substantial to prove any of his points. Trent is just good with words but doesn't actually say anything with actual substance.
Just sharing some opinions that arose in my mind when I watched the debate : 1) While one can use deductive logic or inductive logic to conclude that the "scripture is infallible", there is no deductive argument to conclude that "scripture alone" is infallible, and that no other infallible sources have existed, are existing, will exist. 2) Even if you grant the hypothesis that "scripture alone is infallible", how does that solve the problem of which specific set of scripture is God-breathed in its entirety --- the Sadducee canon ? the Pharisaical canon ? the Ethiopian canon ? the Protestant canon ? the Roman Catholic canon ? You have no other way, but to posit some parallel anchor of infallibility to arrive at the right canon. Like evolutionists who happily start off with a fully functional cell with evolving potential, and think they don't need God to explain life and species, so do protestants start off with the curated set of books, and then think they don't need the church that produced that. The parallel is exact. No wonder, Protestantism keeps speciating forever, since the successor thinks he knows better than his predecessor. 3) Protestants seem to forget that before one gets to read 2 Tim 3:16, they have to read 1 Tim 3:15. In his 2 letters to Timothy, Paul chronologically placed church (the pillar and foundation of truth) before scripture (God-breathed). If you are going to do perfect justice to Paul, you'd ascribe the same rank to what is True in 1 Tim and 2 Timothy, rather than promoting one over the other. Imagine how moronic it will be to suggest that a passage in 2 Corinthians ranks higher in accuracy and infallibility, than a passage in 1 Corinthians !!
@@barelyprotestant5365 my apologies for missing to indicate that the comments were not directed at you for you to clarify. They were just my personal opinions that arose in my mind when I watched that debate. Its ok if you disagree.
@@chrisxprem I mean, you can make these silly arguments on the original debate video rather than making these silly claims against me on my channel. Kindly actually respond to what I say, or explicitly indicate you're not responding to me in your original post.
brother do you know what "prima scriptura" means? we say prima scripture, not because there are other "infallible" authorities, but because sola Scriptura is often understood and used to mean, that scripture is the ONLY rule of faith, rather than being the "only infallible" rule of faith, therefore prima scripture is used to emphasise that the church has other sources of authority including herself, but that scripture is the FIRST and infallible rule of faith. @@Nick.T.A
@@HenryLeslieGraham I would still stick to Sola scriptura as it promotes the uniqueness of scripture. There are other authorities, but they are normed authorities while scripture is a norming authority. Prima scripture makes scripture seem not as unique of an authority. It makes it seem as though scripture is only greater in degree rather than different in kind
you should read the article then from conciliar post. your concerns are reasonable, but as the author points out, sola Scriptura as a phrase has become problematised. through misuse. Prima scriptura offers greater clarity than sola scriptura, which is invariably understood as being "solo" scriptura. @@Nick.T.A
Also the Homolies are sermon/commentaries on Christian behavior and practice. They were never meant to replace our 39 articles. Again great job and God bless!! Fr. Mel +
Donatism is usually looked at as a schism and not a heresy. The difference would be that the Donatists are looked at as wrong but still Christian. This is very unlike the Gnostics or the Arians which are both wrong and not Christian. If you say the church put did more than receive or recognize scripture then you could be showing that the church is ahead or has authority over scripture. That is why James White will not say that. I liked his argument from how the OT was recognized and using that as a paradigm. I do not think Trent ever rebutted that. But since that was supposedly used for the canonization of the OT then it could be used for the NT unless otherwise stated. Lutherans and the first wave of protestants were more conservative. It does not make them right or wrong but it is historical. e would also be true to a regulative principle and that one should only authoritatively do things in worship that are taught in scripture. Now I did not hear James White say that one should throw out all the dogma of the first centuries. But if it is not scriptural then yes. And (for me) if one cannot find it in scripture but there is no argument against it then it is not as authoritative as items taught in scripture or really scripture itself. I am more relaxed in my view of the regulative principle than I think White is. But still I do not know if he would say to throw it all out. I had always heard that the Orthodox and Lutherans and I think the Anglicans all viewed the Apocrypha as good wisdom and writings but not scripture itself. Thus, like you said no doctrine can be built upon it alone but they can be used to help support those things taught in scripture. That would just like historical interpretation and tradition can also help. I could be wrong on some of what they teach but that was what I thought I heard.
@@barelyprotestant5365 No it is a schism. Heretics deny catholic doctrine while schismatics deny the unity of the church or separate themselves from the church. Some view schisms as bad or worse than heresies but the Donatists are generally viewed as schismatics. I am not Roman Catholic but they view Donatism as a schism and that is what I was taught in a Baptist seminary.
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. - Westminster Confession 1.5 I think you’re equating 19th century American Presbyterianism with 17th century British Isles Presbyterianism - there is a massive difference between the two, since the Americans diverge extensively on some issues.
james white theology is not unlike other restorationist movements, for like them his theology posits a great apostasy on many levels very early on in the church
Biblical argument for the canon of Scripture Hebrews 12:1“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience: the race that is set before us,” Jude 1:3“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Notice" so many witnesses e.g., Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Latin, and other churches in the majority have received 27 books once delivered, so the 27-book canon agrees with Scripture. Paul, say we received the oracles of God from the Jews, so the Protestant OT books agree with Scripture. The mayor of Vatican City not so much. And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. Exodus 24:12
The problem is they quote from the dueterocanon in the New Testament. They were part of the dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint. Rabbinic judaism took almost 1000 years before they even added their version of ester to the canon. But thats who you trust with your bible, not the early christians.
@@timboslice980 To be fair the Early Christians didn't have a universal Canon back then, it was still being sort out, some congregations have more books than others, list of books that are not in agreement with each other. So we follow the Jewish Canon, because it's a Biblical thing to do anyways, St. Paul says in Romans 3 "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." So they know which and which are not Books of the Bible.
@@EcclesiaInvicta The problem is there isnt one jewish canon at the time of scripture. Or one jewish group! If the apostles approved of any canon for sure at that time it was the Greek Septuagint because they quote from it in the New Testament. The greek jews were still jews my friend and they also used the Septuagint. The Samaritans and the Sadducees had extremely truncated canons only believed in the first 5 books, the Esine jews had the dueterocanon in their dead sea scrolls, and as i said, we know the apostles quote from the dueterocanon. We also know for a fact that no Hebrew version of Esther existed before 1000ad. So theres almost no chance the Pharisees considered that book scripture before that and even Jerome noted it when translating the vulgate! Yet you guys hold to the 1000ad edit that the rabbinic jews consider scripture. The biggest holiday in Rabbinic Judaism is Hanukah this commemorates events that take place in the dueterocanon. So they accept the events in the book as truth. So lets think about your proposal for just a second. Of all these different groups of jews with all their different canons, which one do you trust the most? Samaritans and Sadducees are out, esines are out they hold to enoch and not Esther. Pharisees are out they dont hold to Esther either. The greek jews and the apostles are out because they held to the septuigant. Hmmmmm youre stuck with the rabbinic jews that are post temple period that took 1000 after christ to even define their canon!? Seriously look at their edit of Esther (the one in your bible), look at the dueterocanonical version (the ine in mine) tell me why they removed any mention of god in their version over 30 times when there is ZERO manuscript evidence to do it that way!? Saint Jerome noted there was no hebrew version of Esther in his day. So where did the rabbinic jews get it? For ages the answer was “the council of jamnia” but scholars all agree that council is a total myth. So now Protestant scholars are stuck with this new edited version of Esther. Its kind of funny because theres really no defense and theres also no way the early Protestants couldve known this was a later edit on the part of the rabbinic jews. Now that we know, you guys are stuck with a poorly edited version of a dueterocanonical book of scripture in your own bible! So when will Protestants smarten up and remove it like the other books? Never cause doing it will draw attention to this MASSSiVE error on the part of Protestants when it came to them editing scripture.
@@timboslice980 The problem is Paul quoted from pagan philosophers, too. Scripture says we got the Oracles of God from the Jews, not the Greek Septuagint.
@@barelyprotestant5365 I actually have been finding Orthodoxy to be pretty compelling. Historically and biblically, and I have found their arguments for ecclesiology to be a lot more competent than prots. What is the difference on how you as an Anglican superiorly define sola scriptura. Than a Baptist or more contemporary denomination? I would appreciate some articles maybe or a book recommendation then. Because I’m pretty unconvinced of sola scriptura.
@@bjsb6514 Anglicans more or less have the same ecclesiology as the Eastern Orthodox: Episcopal and Conciliar. As for resources on Sola Scriptura, the first thing to do is to wash out the idea that Sola Scriptura means "we only look at Scripture". For instance: in Bishop John Jewel's homilies on the Sacraments, he will regularly quote the Early Church Fathers MORE than Scripture. The Patristics are an authority for the Reformers. I am not aware of a book that argues this; it's simply the conclusion one must come to when actually reading the Reformers themselves, as well as their Confessional Standards.
@@barelyprotestant5365 nothing you claimed here is novel to the extent that the “baptiscostals” do not also claim (At least the educated ones). I have never been under the impression that sola scriptura, in purpose or verbal promulgation, is the idea that it is “bible alone”. That’s literally just a misunderstanding of the doctrine but people who have no idea what they are talking about. 😂Practice is extremely debatable though, as well as logically. I have never seen a good defense, historically of sola scriptura. I will look into the reference you sited though. I find it practically impossible to defend in the Church Fathers for the first 1500 years. Maybe you can find statements or quote mine where you might be able to derive sola scriptura. But in that Church Fathers overall writings it never seems to actually work. Anyway, thank you for the comments, and replies. We can continue to discourse if you would like to. God bless.
@@bjsb6514 maybe you should define then what you think sola scriptura means, or how you've heard Eastern Orthodox define it when arguing against it, because your respomse here, honestly, is puzzling, like you're speaking from both sides at once
Brother review article 6 of our 39 articles. Nowhere does it mention that the apocryphal books are Divinely inspired. They are to be read for instruction but are not inspired as are the Old and New Testaments.
@@barelyprotestant5365 Doesn't the Book of Homilies (Peril of Idolatry) also say that images shouldn't be used in Church? It also uses the Book of Wisdom to establish this!
Oh good grief, "Father" - your bias and anti-catholicism is clearly shown on this worldwide platform. I see your numerous prejudiced comments on other Catholic channels too. But hey you want to follow an adulterer-founded faith tradition; that's all on you. Lord have mercy on us all.
I didn't finish the debate and I will not watch the rest. James White has no business representating these positions publicly. He flirts with dishonesty, he doesn't engage in good faith, he uses cheap debate and rhetorical tactics *rather poorly* and really has no interest in taking any of catholic claims seriously in order to disarm and defeat them. Because he can't engage any of Trent's counterargunents he talks past them constantly by effectively just "insisting his language game is correct." He should spend twice as much time reflecting on his actions as he currently does speaking. He makes himself unwatchable to anyone who disagrees with him. He does no one any favors by being completely unpalatable.
James was 100% right about what he said about Roman Catholicism and the traditions they hold that cannot be traced back to the apostles. Can you show me purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession from the apostles traditions they left in their epistles?
Free will is not autonomous ( a law unto one's self ), but Theonomous, totally under God's control. We reason and analyze from a fallen nature; just as our logical ability is fallen, therefore we can't fully comprehend the Trinity...but that doesn't stop us from trying!
if you not star something new and try to consistent with history of church, why you reject water baptism regeneration, infant baptism, eucharist, communion of sint, perpetual virginity of holy mary? i prefer james white because he more honest about his position than you. what you clam and reality totally opposite
In my opinion it detracts from your very fine video. Stutters, starts and stops if you will. Also, my I suggest show notes? You do a magnificent job Fr. James, I think that these two small additions will greatly improve on what already is a splendid discussion! Coram Deo, Rev. Dr. Mel McMinn ThD +
Sounds like Gavin Ortlung would have been the ideal opponent rather then white. It's amazing as both are Calvanist yet White actually denounced not only Roman Catholic views of purgatory but attacked protestent views that were not Calvanistic. Examples being the sacraments and loss of salvation views as well as the heavy pushing of salvation before faith which is funny as Lutherans in this lutheran church are probably looking thinking why is he taking as If the reformation was just Calvanism? They don't even believe in regeneration before faith and teach you can stray from salvation. Gavin ortlung meanwhile usually stays on topic and is not against the other disagreements despite being reformed Baptist. James white makes it seem like all protestent belief is, is TULIP. I thought he had good arguments against purgatory but when it came to the reformation, all he seems to see is well TULIIP and nothing else. I couldn't relate and I doubt the Lutherans in their parish could as they believed in loss of salvation and the finished work of Christ spoken of like James presented.
Dr. White is someone who respected early on in my theological journey, but now I find him kind of insufferable. It’s just hard to take someone serious who tries to champion Sola Scriptura as a “reformed” Baptist. I think you hit the nail on the head when saying Dr. White believes in a “ecclesial donatism” of the Church. It’s just frustrating when these proponents are front and center of debates
Father James i recently found out that there are two (hopefully) non liberal High Church/Anglo-catholic churches in my city. pray for me that Lord may guide me as to whether either church may become my new church.
I gave the victory to Trent Horn in this debate.
Easily.
Trent took a major L. Idk what you are smoking
Trent Horn made two main arguments in this debate (see his slides) and he never actually demonstrated his premises were true. It was if his premises were a forgone conclusion and he said therefore it is up to James White to prove those conclusions were wrong - i.e. the church went from 3 ways of having God's truth revealed to them down to a single one. He never demonstrated that the church actually three in the first place so naturally he could not prove from church history that there was a change from three to one. In my video here - I did a rebuttal of this major argument demonstrating is premise 1 is false and therefore his conclusion is false too -->> th-cam.com/video/lxcNDnhdLt4/w-d-xo.html
Trent just went around in circles.
Fr. James, have you ever thought about inviting Robert Spencer on for an interview? The reason it popped into my head is because the only person I've ever heard to *resoundingly* defeat James White in a debate was Spencer, and in a very calm, precise and matter-of-fact way. Also, Spencer recently converted from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy, and has written a book, _The Church and the Pope: The Case for Orthodoxy_ . Just a thought.
So when Robert Spencer resoundingly defeated James White - was Spencer an Orthodox or Catholic at that time?
@ts5728 I don't think he had converted to Orthodoxy at the time. The debate was on whether Islam was violent or not. I think this is the one: th-cam.com/video/gD3KHyyp1Y8/w-d-xo.html
Trent Horn won the debate.
Cope
I disagree, how?
"The books of Homilies repeatedly cite the deuterocanon as Scripture, as God breathed". Can you please explain me, if the deuterocanonical books are scripture and God breathed, why aren´t they sufficient to establish doctrine?
Because we cannot say with certainty that they are inspired. There is ambiguity.
@@barelyprotestant5365 Why not? And then why are they called "God breathed"?
@@davidszaraz4605 because one CAN consider them God breathed; we just cannot say they are, without any doubt.
@@barelyprotestant5365 i am confused now. This sounds very arbitrary. One can say the same thing about other books as well which you would consider inspired. So why the reservation for these books?
@@davidszaraz4605 because they have been received by many within the Church for centuries.
I listen to James white back in the 1990s when he debated RC apologists. On the positive side, he was good in diffusing various RC doctrines. On the negative side, looking back retrospectively, he was weak on sola scriptura because he grounded in his reformed baptist views which I find to be quite novell. Jordan cooper and Gavin ortllund have done a much better job in defending sola scriptura. While ortlund is also RB, he does not fall into the same pitfalls of white. His arguments are much more solid. Just look at his debate with Trent horn and whites debate with horn on the same topic. The difference is quite apparent
James White has 69 lessons on church history on a You Tube channel named, File001, which someone uploaded from his audio series on "sermon audio".
I have listened to most of them a long time ago (as he did this series twice at his church), but I need to go back over it more closely, as time allows.
He never expressed the view that the church completely went into apostasy with infant baptism or baptismal regeneration or the mono-episcopacy (although we Baptists don't think they are Biblical, they are not causes of complete apostasy.)
His opinion, at least as he used to hold it, was that the Church fathers were wholly "different". Unwilling to concede they're more in line with catholics but equally unwilling to assign them to a roster of approved protestant teachers. They're this kind of weird hiccup of ignorant leaders who supposedly don't know biblical language, lack access to however many manuscripts we have now, and corrupted by Greek thought.
@@mememe1468 or that they (the early church fathers) were just fallible men, with mostly excellent insights into God and The Trinity, and salvation; but sometimes wrong interpretations of some aspects of baptism and church government.
see what Cyril of Jerusalem wrote against the ex opere operato interpretation of baptism:
“Even Simon Magus once came to the Laver: he was baptized, but was not enlightened; and though he dipped his body in water, he enlightened not his heart with the Spirit: his body went down and came up, but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor raised with Him”
Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386 AD), Catechetical lectures, prologue, 2
This is correct, water baptism is not mechanical or automatic; getting wet and have the right formula said over a person does not automatically give or cause the Holy Spirit to come to him.
There must be heart repentance and faith first, then baptism is powerful as a seal of the living faith. Luke 24:46-47; Luke 3:8; Matthew 3:6-8; Acts 15:9-11 - "cleansing their hearts by faith"; Luke 13:1-5; Acts 17:30-31
@@mememe1468 and getting some aspects of baptism and church government wrong does not mean the church completely apostatized or disappeared or "went off the rails" (as my friend Rod Bennett says). The more serious levels of apostasy happened in 787 AD with the dogmatic pronouncement of anathema to all who do not love and kiss and bow down to icons (but still existing, however full of corruption and false doctrines and superstitions - as in Transubstantiation, 800s to 1215, etc.); and then at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) when they completely anathematized the heart out of the gospel by the 10 or so anathemas vs. Protestant faith, especially justification by faith alone. The EO did the same later at their council of Jerusalem / confession of Dositheus.
Can you send that debate you talked about?
It is easily searchable on TH-cam.
@@barelyprotestant5365 I tried to search it up but was unable to find it of course, which is why I'm asking. I am unfamiliar with the channel you had it on.
@@MrBattlestar10 th-cam.com/users/liveCV01DNwNmig?si=86H9EX3ZTM98F-af
@@barelyprotestant5365 Thank you!!!
@@MrBattlestar10 I just realized you might be talking about MY debate, not the James White/Trent Horn debate. Here is my debate:
th-cam.com/users/liveBByACHtHZhs?si=HQ6pRd4YNvPSXdyK
I’m a Catholic convert from Calvinist Protestantism, and as I have watched videos of Protestants and talked to Protestants, it seems to me that at the end of the day, if a Protestant has a personal reason to reject an infallible teaching of the Church, they are essentially claiming to have the right and authority to do so. But where are they getting this right and authority? Either the Church has the right and authority or you do.
Your critique is nonsensical. It presumes Papism is true, and deals with an issue that literally all Confessional groups would reject: a mere "personal reason" for rejecting a doctrine is not a legitimate reason to reject a doctrine. Not impressed.
Well said Neil,in Pope Francis we trust.
@@barelyprotestant5365but what would be the another presuming? that all people can have infallible word? that's kinda confusing
@@ihatebigtechs huh?
@@barelyprotestant5365 I think what @ihatebigtechs is saying is that you're presuming that the pope and/or the magisterium has no authority and that you can just reject anything the church teaches if you think you have a good reason to do so. Are you certain you're interpreting Scripture as the Holy Spirit intended? And how? It's your interpretation versus the church's. Why should any Christian choose yours or Luther's or Calvin's or Cranmer's interpretation over and against the church's? Because you think you have good reason to?
I agree with James White re: purgatory, but Trent Horne won the debate. There is something about White’s style that makes me think he is lying, even when he says things I know to be true. He comes across as annoying and uncouth.
Trent took the L. Nothing he said was actually substantial to prove any of his points. Trent is just good with words but doesn't actually say anything with actual substance.
Just sharing some opinions that arose in my mind when I watched the debate :
1) While one can use deductive logic or inductive logic to conclude that the "scripture is infallible", there is no deductive argument to conclude that "scripture alone" is infallible, and that no other infallible sources have existed, are existing, will exist.
2) Even if you grant the hypothesis that "scripture alone is infallible", how does that solve the problem of which specific set of scripture is God-breathed in its entirety --- the Sadducee canon ? the Pharisaical canon ? the Ethiopian canon ? the Protestant canon ? the Roman Catholic canon ?
You have no other way, but to posit some parallel anchor of infallibility to arrive at the right canon.
Like evolutionists who happily start off with a fully functional cell with evolving potential, and think they don't need God to explain life and species, so do protestants start off with the curated set of books, and then think they don't need the church that produced that. The parallel is exact. No wonder, Protestantism keeps speciating forever, since the successor thinks he knows better than his predecessor.
3) Protestants seem to forget that before one gets to read 2 Tim 3:16, they have to read 1 Tim 3:15. In his 2 letters to Timothy, Paul chronologically placed church (the pillar and foundation of truth) before scripture (God-breathed).
If you are going to do perfect justice to Paul, you'd ascribe the same rank to what is True in 1 Tim and 2 Timothy, rather than promoting one over the other.
Imagine how moronic it will be to suggest that a passage in 2 Corinthians ranks higher in accuracy and infallibility, than a passage in 1 Corinthians !!
You clearly did not actually listen to what I said, here.
@@barelyprotestant5365 my apologies for missing to indicate that the comments were not directed at you for you to clarify. They were just my personal opinions that arose in my mind when I watched that debate. Its ok if you disagree.
@@chrisxprem I mean, you can make these silly arguments on the original debate video rather than making these silly claims against me on my channel. Kindly actually respond to what I say, or explicitly indicate you're not responding to me in your original post.
@@barelyprotestant5365 i humbly apologise again, i will add a note to my earlier comment.
15:20 true, but my interpretation is right, since I’m always right. (Sarcasm)
we as anglicans (Should) say prima scripture... not sola Scriptura.
Why? What can you name as another infallible authority?
Sola scriptura just means that there is one infallible authority today.
brother do you know what "prima scriptura" means? we say prima scripture, not because there are other "infallible" authorities, but because sola Scriptura is often understood and used to mean, that scripture is the ONLY rule of faith, rather than being the "only infallible" rule of faith, therefore prima scripture is used to emphasise that the church has other sources of authority including herself, but that scripture is the FIRST and infallible rule of faith. @@Nick.T.A
@@HenryLeslieGraham I would still stick to Sola scriptura as it promotes the uniqueness of scripture. There are other authorities, but they are normed authorities while scripture is a norming authority.
Prima scripture makes scripture seem not as unique of an authority. It makes it seem as though scripture is only greater in degree rather than different in kind
you should read the article then from conciliar post. your concerns are reasonable, but as the author points out, sola Scriptura as a phrase has become problematised. through misuse. Prima scriptura offers greater clarity than sola scriptura, which is invariably understood as being "solo" scriptura.
@@Nick.T.A
Trent clearly decimated mr. During their debate.. Ave Maria..
Father do you believe the idea of prima Scriptura would solve some this?
It isn't an idea that is well-defined.
Also the Homolies are sermon/commentaries on Christian behavior and practice. They were never meant to replace our 39 articles. Again great job and God bless!!
Fr. Mel +
They literally are explicitly cited in the Articles as demonstrative of our theology.
And upon further review, neither the 1662, 1928 or the 2019 BCPs state that the apocryphal texts should be considered Divinely inspired.
It doesn't deny they are inspired.
15:24 I think having an infallible magisterium is more convenient and easier than sola scriptura, even if sola scriptura is true or not.
Donatism is usually looked at as a schism and not a heresy. The difference would be that the Donatists are looked at as wrong but still Christian. This is very unlike the Gnostics or the Arians which are both wrong and not Christian.
If you say the church put did more than receive or recognize scripture then you could be showing that the church is ahead or has authority over scripture. That is why James White will not say that. I liked his argument from how the OT was recognized and using that as a paradigm. I do not think Trent ever rebutted that. But since that was supposedly used for the canonization of the OT then it could be used for the NT unless otherwise stated.
Lutherans and the first wave of protestants were more conservative. It does not make them right or wrong but it is historical. e would also be true to a regulative principle and that one should only authoritatively do things in worship that are taught in scripture. Now I did not hear James White say that one should throw out all the dogma of the first centuries. But if it is not scriptural then yes. And (for me) if one cannot find it in scripture but there is no argument against it then it is not as authoritative as items taught in scripture or really scripture itself. I am more relaxed in my view of the regulative principle than I think White is. But still I do not know if he would say to throw it all out.
I had always heard that the Orthodox and Lutherans and I think the Anglicans all viewed the Apocrypha as good wisdom and writings but not scripture itself. Thus, like you said no doctrine can be built upon it alone but they can be used to help support those things taught in scripture. That would just like historical interpretation and tradition can also help. I could be wrong on some of what they teach but that was what I thought I heard.
Donatism is an heresy.
@@barelyprotestant5365 No it is a schism. Heretics deny catholic doctrine while schismatics deny the unity of the church or separate themselves from the church. Some view schisms as bad or worse than heresies but the Donatists are generally viewed as schismatics. I am not Roman Catholic but they view Donatism as a schism and that is what I was taught in a Baptist seminary.
Why do you have faith in Christ while your next door neighbour is hostile to him?
Presbyterian is John Knox. It's not restorationist. Stop calling it that
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
- Westminster Confession 1.5
I think you’re equating 19th century American Presbyterianism with 17th century British Isles Presbyterianism - there is a massive difference between the two, since the Americans diverge extensively on some issues.
james white theology is not unlike other restorationist movements, for like them his theology posits a great apostasy on many levels very early on in the church
Biblical argument for the canon of Scripture Hebrews 12:1“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience: the race that is set before us,” Jude 1:3“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Notice" so many witnesses e.g., Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Latin, and other churches in the majority have received 27 books once delivered, so the 27-book canon agrees with Scripture. Paul, say we received the oracles of God from the Jews, so the Protestant OT books agree with Scripture. The mayor of Vatican City not so much. And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. Exodus 24:12
yeah brother i dont think that works as well as you might believe it does
The problem is they quote from the dueterocanon in the New Testament. They were part of the dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint. Rabbinic judaism took almost 1000 years before they even added their version of ester to the canon. But thats who you trust with your bible, not the early christians.
@@timboslice980 To be fair the Early Christians didn't have a universal Canon back then, it was still being sort out, some congregations have more books than others, list of books that are not in agreement with each other. So we follow the Jewish Canon, because it's a Biblical thing to do anyways, St. Paul says in Romans 3 "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." So they know which and which are not Books of the Bible.
@@EcclesiaInvicta The problem is there isnt one jewish canon at the time of scripture. Or one jewish group! If the apostles approved of any canon for sure at that time it was the Greek Septuagint because they quote from it in the New Testament. The greek jews were still jews my friend and they also used the Septuagint. The Samaritans and the Sadducees had extremely truncated canons only believed in the first 5 books, the Esine jews had the dueterocanon in their dead sea scrolls, and as i said, we know the apostles quote from the dueterocanon. We also know for a fact that no Hebrew version of Esther existed before 1000ad. So theres almost no chance the Pharisees considered that book scripture before that and even Jerome noted it when translating the vulgate! Yet you guys hold to the 1000ad edit that the rabbinic jews consider scripture.
The biggest holiday in Rabbinic Judaism is Hanukah this commemorates events that take place in the dueterocanon. So they accept the events in the book as truth. So lets think about your proposal for just a second. Of all these different groups of jews with all their different canons, which one do you trust the most? Samaritans and Sadducees are out, esines are out they hold to enoch and not Esther. Pharisees are out they dont hold to Esther either. The greek jews and the apostles are out because they held to the septuigant. Hmmmmm youre stuck with the rabbinic jews that are post temple period that took 1000 after christ to even define their canon!?
Seriously look at their edit of Esther (the one in your bible), look at the dueterocanonical version (the ine in mine) tell me why they removed any mention of god in their version over 30 times when there is ZERO manuscript evidence to do it that way!? Saint Jerome noted there was no hebrew version of Esther in his day. So where did the rabbinic jews get it? For ages the answer was “the council of jamnia” but scholars all agree that council is a total myth. So now Protestant scholars are stuck with this new edited version of Esther. Its kind of funny because theres really no defense and theres also no way the early Protestants couldve known this was a later edit on the part of the rabbinic jews. Now that we know, you guys are stuck with a poorly edited version of a dueterocanonical book of scripture in your own bible! So when will Protestants smarten up and remove it like the other books? Never cause doing it will draw attention to this MASSSiVE error on the part of Protestants when it came to them editing scripture.
@@timboslice980 The problem is Paul quoted from pagan philosophers, too. Scripture says we got the Oracles of God from the Jews, not the Greek Septuagint.
Have you read any Eastern Orthodox objections to sola scriptura or listened to any prominent Orthodox apologists?
Yes. They're mostly bad because they mostly define Sola Scriptura the way a Bapticostal would.
@@barelyprotestant5365 I actually have been finding Orthodoxy to be pretty compelling. Historically and biblically, and I have found their arguments for ecclesiology to be a lot more competent than prots.
What is the difference on how you as an Anglican superiorly define sola scriptura. Than a Baptist or more contemporary denomination?
I would appreciate some articles maybe or a book recommendation then. Because I’m pretty unconvinced of sola scriptura.
@@bjsb6514 Anglicans more or less have the same ecclesiology as the Eastern Orthodox: Episcopal and Conciliar.
As for resources on Sola Scriptura, the first thing to do is to wash out the idea that Sola Scriptura means "we only look at Scripture". For instance: in Bishop John Jewel's homilies on the Sacraments, he will regularly quote the Early Church Fathers MORE than Scripture. The Patristics are an authority for the Reformers. I am not aware of a book that argues this; it's simply the conclusion one must come to when actually reading the Reformers themselves, as well as their Confessional Standards.
@@barelyprotestant5365 nothing you claimed here is novel to the extent that the “baptiscostals” do not also claim (At least the educated ones).
I have never been under the impression that sola scriptura, in purpose or verbal promulgation, is the idea that it is “bible alone”. That’s literally just a misunderstanding of the doctrine but people who have no idea what they are talking about. 😂Practice is extremely debatable though, as well as logically.
I have never seen a good defense, historically of sola scriptura. I will look into the reference you sited though. I find it practically impossible to defend in the Church Fathers for the first 1500 years. Maybe you can find statements or quote mine where you might be able to derive sola scriptura. But in that Church Fathers overall writings it never seems to actually work.
Anyway, thank you for the comments, and replies. We can continue to discourse if you would like to.
God bless.
@@bjsb6514 maybe you should define then what you think sola scriptura means, or how you've heard Eastern Orthodox define it when arguing against it, because your respomse here, honestly, is puzzling, like you're speaking from both sides at once
Brother review article 6 of our 39 articles. Nowhere does it mention that the apocryphal books are Divinely inspired. They are to be read for instruction but are not inspired as are the Old and New Testaments.
It does not deny they are inspired. Furthermore, the Homilies claim they are.
@@barelyprotestant5365 Where?
@@Willwhite5809 Book 2, Homily 9 or 11; I don't have it in front of me right now.
@@barelyprotestant5365 great please respond when you find it
@@barelyprotestant5365 Doesn't the Book of Homilies (Peril of Idolatry) also say that images shouldn't be used in Church? It also uses the Book of Wisdom to establish this!
Oh good grief, "Father" - your bias and anti-catholicism is clearly shown on this worldwide platform. I see your numerous prejudiced comments on other Catholic channels too. But hey you want to follow an adulterer-founded faith tradition; that's all on you. Lord have mercy on us all.
I didn't finish the debate and I will not watch the rest. James White has no business representating these positions publicly. He flirts with dishonesty, he doesn't engage in good faith, he uses cheap debate and rhetorical tactics *rather poorly* and really has no interest in taking any of catholic claims seriously in order to disarm and defeat them. Because he can't engage any of Trent's counterargunents he talks past them constantly by effectively just "insisting his language game is correct." He should spend twice as much time reflecting on his actions as he currently does speaking. He makes himself unwatchable to anyone who disagrees with him. He does no one any favors by being completely unpalatable.
Well said,
Amen
Like J/White made me Catholic.. no enough evidence to defend his position. Useless..
James was 100% right about what he said about Roman Catholicism and the traditions they hold that cannot be traced back to the apostles.
Can you show me purgatory, papal infallibility and papal succession from the apostles traditions they left in their epistles?
1+1=11
Free will is not autonomous ( a law unto one's self ), but Theonomous, totally under God's control. We reason and analyze from a fallen nature; just as our logical ability is fallen, therefore we can't fully comprehend the Trinity...but that doesn't stop us from trying!
if you not star something new and try to consistent with history of church, why you reject water baptism regeneration, infant baptism, eucharist, communion of sint, perpetual virginity of holy mary?
i prefer james white because he more honest about his position than you. what you clam and reality totally opposite
Um...I don't reject any of that...
It’s best if you don’t try to straw man someone’s argument before asking what their position is on the subject.
@@barelyprotestant5365 you don't reject but you do not believe that. that game of word
@@iwansaputra1890 how's this: I hold to every single one of those positions. The fact that you think I don't only shows how utterly ignorant you are.
Slow down brother, also why not say hello to all your subscribers in your beginning and then continue with your narrative?
Why not do it the way I did?
In my opinion it detracts from your very fine video. Stutters, starts and stops if you will. Also, my I suggest show notes? You do a magnificent job Fr. James, I think that these two small additions will greatly improve on what already is a splendid discussion!
Coram Deo,
Rev. Dr. Mel McMinn ThD +
Father James? Right there says it all. There is only one Father and it certainly is James or any other so called priest.
*seals gather and clap incessantly for this brilliantly insightful comment*
Guess we shouldn't call our dads our fathers anymore 😔😔😔