"we just don't think church doctrine should contradict the Bible" is basically equivalent to the atheist saying "we just don't think religion should contradict science or the laws of nature"
One argument that I am surprised Trent didn't mention is that I've often heard Protestants argue against Catholic doctrines like the Real Presence or veneration of the saints by calling it "superstitious" or "irrational" or something similar. This argument is particularly self-defeating because there is much within basic Christianity that atheists would call superstitious or irrational to believe (the virgin birth, the resurrection, miracles).
Question to a catholic, If I understand your position correctly you are saying that the only true church is the catholic church but that doesn't mean there arent Christians outside the catholic church. My question would be what does it take for you to identify someone as a christian? The apostolic creed, or Athanasian creed or both or something else? Can you call a person who says (and is confident about it) the catholic church is not the true church an he refuses to be a part of that church a Christian or would you be agnostic about that person's status?
I don't speak for Catholics but I think they are agnostic when it comes to those issues. One has to psychoanalyze their fellow Non-Catholics to determine what their motives are. They also feel that away about themselves. To be honest, I think the same goes for Protestants. Anyone who does not uphold sola fide is anathema or promoting works salvation.
As a former catholic, historically if you're not catholic you're not saved. Period. It doesn't matter if you believe in Christ, suffer for His name, or even suffer as a martyr. You are NOT saved and NOT Christian, unless you are catholic and believe everything the church dogmatically teaches. Today? Who knows Catholics are all over the place. Depends who you ask. Pope Francis? Who knows. Historically though you MUST be catholic. A traditionalist or sedevacantist will say you MUST be catholic...period, no exceptions, no excuses. Vatican 2 changed everything. Pope Francis is the most liberal, so he probably says it doesn't matter.
@@leeenk6932 Just so you know, it doesn’t matter what anyone says, even the Pope (unless he’s speaking ex cathedra, which is rare), the teaching is explained clearly in the catechism. If someone isn’t clear on what the Catholic Church teaches about a certain topic, the answer is in the catechism.
The difference between Mark 2:26 where Jesus refers to Abiathar as the High Priest instead of Abimelech vs Judith 1:1 that refers to Nebuchadnezzar ruling in Nineveh and being the king of Assyria, is the former can be easily reconciled while the latter cannot. There are actually two ways of reconciling Mark 2:26. One way is that the text could be saying that it was during the days of Abiathar. The other way is that Jesus was using a known rabbinic name conflation, which involves purposely conflating the names of two people with similar attributes, in this case two high priests who were father and son who lived during the same time period as King David. Either way, this apparent error is easily reconciled. This sort of rabbinic name conflation is also seen in the prelude to Psalm 34, as well as in Matthew 23:35. However, the reason why Judith is in error, is because it cannot be reconciled. Same with the book of Tobit which states that the MEDICINAL purpose of fish guts is to scare away demons. Keyword being MEDICINAL. Plus, in a table of contents in Catholic Bibles, these books are classified as HISTORICAL books, not poetic or allegorical. That is why Trent’s second point of how protestants argue like atheists when it comes to the canon of scripture doesn’t work. And if you notice, Trent doesn’t explain how a Catholic can know outside of the church itself what books belong in the canon which ones don’t. All he says is that we have to first determine that a book is scripture before we can deal with it having contradictions. But again, he doesn’t explain how this happens, because as a Catholic he believes books are scripture because the council of Trent officially declared it was and pronounced anathema on those who reject this bigger canon. Plus, Trent has a misunderstanding of what the reformers meant by sola scriptura which is evident in what he says in this video. Trent does the same thing with the Marian dogmas that Catholics and protestants disagree on, which we will be discussing during our debate on April 20 on Pints With Aquinas.
Not even the reformers in reality didn't know what Sola Scriptura means. My opinion is that Sola Scriptura means a different thing for each Sola Scriptura follower. At the end Sola Scriptura is only the formula anyone can justify his/her personal and fallible interpretation of Scriptures. So it's a fallible and dangerous method to interpret doctrinal truths. But worst of all that method is contrary to apostolic and historic church practices (for example Acts 15, councils of Nicee, Constantinople, Ephesus, etc...) So it's not necessary define what is exactly Sola Scriptura when any definition of Sola Scriptura is in real life (protestantism) epistemologically fallible and unable to sustain an unified doctrine between Sola Scriptura followers
The reason has been explained thousand of times. Other thing is that protestant cannot get it because they don't understand the importance of the liturgy in the Church from the beginning. The books are in the canon not because a group of scholars studied the contradictions or errors and decided that one or another book cannot be in the Bible. That's a protestant anacronic and bizarre mindset. The first and more basic reason is because those books were used in the liturgy of the Catholic Church (there are also another reasons). Protestants are unable to understand this because they desdain liturgy or directly ignore it. So don't project the paradigmatic and classical incompetence of protestantism to justify which books belong the canon of Scriptures on the historically based Catholic position. There is a huge difference. Protestantism is damned to reinvent the wheel because of its weak and deficient epistemologic position.
I think there’s something wrong with your facts. The council of Trent did not decide the books to the Bible. “The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD. The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament”
Steve, would you agree that if Mark 2:26 is read literally then it is in error? If your solution is to not read it in a literal sense, why can't the same be done for Judith?
I want to like Trent Horn. I really do. I just dont think he is doing much to bring unity to the Protestant-Catholic divide. He comes off as smug at times and unwilling to consider that his position is not the only reasonable conclusion. And comparing Protestants to atheists in any context is insulting and uncharitable. We are supposed to your brethren. One error Catholic apologists make is failing to account for psychology in why people choose different Christian persuasions. This isnt an argumentative error, more one of omission. You can craft a really forceful argument on evidential grounds, but fail to account for the psychology of belief. Ex: I dont BELEIVE that papal authority is Biblical. The case presented isnt so overwhelming that NOT believing would simply be willful ignorance. Or, we dont BELIEVE that the church is a particular organization, rather an organism of believers. These are both reasonable beliefs one can arrive at from the Bible. We arent denying anything perspicuous. Really I'd say my main criticism of Catholic apologists boils down to their unwillingness to accept that the Catholic faith is not the only reasonable conclusion out there. There are highly educated, thoughtful, and faithful Christians out there who are not convinced by your arguments. That has to mean something. Catholics dont have a monopoly on true religion, or genuine Christianity. They can say "we feel the Catholic way is the BEST way", and that's fine. But there is often an air of institutional arrogance, or elitism. If we are indeed bothers and sisters in Christ, then why cant we allow that different denominations are avenues for different people to come to Christ. I realize that sounds like a slippery slope to Catholics, but you can TRIAGE doctrine, you know. There are primary non-negotiables (e.g. the Gospel), then there are secondary doctrinal issues, then there are tertiary and even trivial issues that are really not essential to salvation. Just my opinion though. Great channel Suan.
They dont consider you Christian, at least according to their dogmas, that's your first dilemma. Second, you seem to echo a Christian perennialism or Christian universalism, would you say that's accurate or a good thing?
@@TommyGunzzz A lot of things that e.g. Muslim believe can be considered true. And this is how ecumenism works - find parts that are common, but still, have in mind that there are inviolable differences.
@@neosmoker if you open up the scope that wide then what you are saying is meaningless. You could say even satanists and atheists say true things to an extent as well, so how does being in communion (sharing faith and prayer gatherings together) make any sense? It only makes sense if your own beliefs are compatible (thus nonChristian).
We Protestants don’t argue like atheists. We just don’t think church doctrine should contradict the Bible. Nonetheless, I love this channel and I think Trent Horn is awesome. God bless both of you.
No sir. *You* don't argue like an atheist. A good many other Protestants do, however. And it makes perfect sense. Today's Western atheists are nothing more than the logical conclusion of Protestant assumptions. It's clearly seen.
@@thepalegalilean How, in your opinion, are western atheists the logical conclusion of Protestant assumptions? I am curious 🤔 For example what are these assumptions, why are they Protestant assumptions, and how do they lead to atheism? Thanks.
@@ThisDoctorKnows When protestants were arguing against the Catholic Church they made a point to cast the Church as something that embraced an was a manifestation of superstition and ignorance. When the advent of evidential prosecution came to be standardized in the Catholic Inquisitions, Canon lawyers that would both defend and prosecute their citizenry, It became priests that would torture innocent protestants for fun. Luther would also savagely mock relic veneration. Where relics were understood to have had miraculous properties, Luther simply called it a false god that needed to be smashed. And many of his followers did just that. Calvin did something very similar when he denied true presence of the Eucharist. Another thing modern atheists to do that they have derived from protestant assumptions, Is is the act of casting themselves as enlightened and the past as something dark and primitive. The casting of themselves in light was something the "Enlightenment" philosophers would capitalize on. Is in fact so protestant the Enlightenment was that when Spinoza had Is published his Theological Political treaties which argued for atheism, the Calvinist authorities found themselves unable to argue against the work doctrinally because every argument Spinoza had against religion, was used by those same Calvinists against the Catholic Church. Even when you look at atheists today such as Dan Barker or Thomas Westbrook, they're clearly still protestants. Atheist they may be, they're Protestantism is still alive and well. They sound like protestant fundamentalists, because they are. The Protestant assumptions they carry with them intellectually have come from the reformers. Their atheism itself comes from the Enlightenment, which in turn is nothing more than a continuation of the reformation.
Two of the best apologists out there. Always love hearing Suan’s thoughts and Trent’s reflections. Thanks for this!
"we just don't think church doctrine should contradict the Bible" is basically equivalent to the atheist saying "we just don't think religion should contradict science or the laws of nature"
One argument that I am surprised Trent didn't mention is that I've often heard Protestants argue against Catholic doctrines like the Real Presence or veneration of the saints by calling it "superstitious" or "irrational" or something similar. This argument is particularly self-defeating because there is much within basic Christianity that atheists would call superstitious or irrational to believe (the virgin birth, the resurrection, miracles).
Trent Horn and Suan Sonna is the crossover we need
Many protestants look at the Bible's Table of Contents as if it's divinely inspired.
Did you see Bert and Ernie's rebuttal? th-cam.com/video/X1kA2iYpfvE/w-d-xo.html
Question to a catholic,
If I understand your position correctly you are saying that the only true church is the catholic church but that doesn't mean there arent Christians outside the catholic church.
My question would be what does it take for you to identify someone as a christian?
The apostolic creed, or Athanasian creed or both or something else?
Can you call a person who says (and is confident about it) the catholic church is not the true church an he refuses to be a part of that church a Christian or would you be agnostic about that person's status?
I don't speak for Catholics but I think they are agnostic when it comes to those issues. One has to psychoanalyze their fellow Non-Catholics to determine what their motives are. They also feel that away about themselves.
To be honest, I think the same goes for Protestants. Anyone who does not uphold sola fide is anathema or promoting works salvation.
As a baptized Christian, you are considered already part of the Catholic Church, but you’re not in FULL communion.
As a former catholic, historically if you're not catholic you're not saved. Period. It doesn't matter if you believe in Christ, suffer for His name, or even suffer as a martyr. You are NOT saved and NOT Christian, unless you are catholic and believe everything the church dogmatically teaches. Today? Who knows Catholics are all over the place. Depends who you ask. Pope Francis? Who knows. Historically though you MUST be catholic. A traditionalist or sedevacantist will say you MUST be catholic...period, no exceptions, no excuses. Vatican 2 changed everything. Pope Francis is the most liberal, so he probably says it doesn't matter.
@@leeenk6932 Just so you know, it doesn’t matter what anyone says, even the Pope (unless he’s speaking ex cathedra, which is rare), the teaching is explained clearly in the catechism. If someone isn’t clear on what the Catholic Church teaches about a certain topic, the answer is in the catechism.
@@catholicrakelle I'm aware
🔥💯🔥
The difference between Mark 2:26 where Jesus refers to Abiathar as the High Priest instead of Abimelech vs Judith 1:1 that refers to Nebuchadnezzar ruling in Nineveh and being the king of Assyria, is the former can be easily reconciled while the latter cannot.
There are actually two ways of reconciling Mark 2:26. One way is that the text could be saying that it was during the days of Abiathar. The other way is that Jesus was using a known rabbinic name conflation, which involves purposely conflating the names of two people with similar attributes, in this case two high priests who were father and son who lived during the same time period as King David. Either way, this apparent error is easily reconciled. This sort of rabbinic name conflation is also seen in the prelude to Psalm 34, as well as in Matthew 23:35. However, the reason why Judith is in error, is because it cannot be reconciled. Same with the book of Tobit which states that the MEDICINAL purpose of fish guts is to scare away demons. Keyword being MEDICINAL. Plus, in a table of contents in Catholic Bibles, these books are classified as HISTORICAL books, not poetic or allegorical. That is why Trent’s second point of how protestants argue like atheists when it comes to the canon of scripture doesn’t work.
And if you notice, Trent doesn’t explain how a Catholic can know outside of the church itself what books belong in the canon which ones don’t. All he says is that we have to first determine that a book is scripture before we can deal with it having contradictions. But again, he doesn’t explain how this happens, because as a Catholic he believes books are scripture because the council of Trent officially declared it was and pronounced anathema on those who reject this bigger canon.
Plus, Trent has a misunderstanding of what the reformers meant by sola scriptura which is evident in what he says in this video.
Trent does the same thing with the Marian dogmas that Catholics and protestants disagree on, which we will be discussing during our debate on April 20 on Pints With Aquinas.
Not even the reformers in reality didn't know what Sola Scriptura means. My opinion is that Sola Scriptura means a different thing for each Sola Scriptura follower. At the end Sola Scriptura is only the formula anyone can justify his/her personal and fallible interpretation of Scriptures. So it's a fallible and dangerous method to interpret doctrinal truths. But worst of all that method is contrary to apostolic and historic church practices (for example Acts 15, councils of Nicee, Constantinople, Ephesus, etc...) So it's not necessary define what is exactly Sola Scriptura when any definition of Sola Scriptura is in real life (protestantism) epistemologically fallible and unable to sustain an unified doctrine between Sola Scriptura followers
How are you not Catholic?
The reason has been explained thousand of times. Other thing is that protestant cannot get it because they don't understand the importance of the liturgy in the Church from the beginning. The books are in the canon not because a group of scholars studied the contradictions or errors and decided that one or another book cannot be in the Bible. That's a protestant anacronic and bizarre mindset. The first and more basic reason is because those books were used in the liturgy of the Catholic Church (there are also another reasons). Protestants are unable to understand this because they desdain liturgy or directly ignore it. So don't project the paradigmatic and classical incompetence of protestantism to justify which books belong the canon of Scriptures on the historically based Catholic position. There is a huge difference. Protestantism is damned to reinvent the wheel because of its weak and deficient epistemologic position.
I think there’s something wrong with your facts. The council of Trent did not decide the books to the Bible. “The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD. The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament”
Steve, would you agree that if Mark 2:26 is read literally then it is in error? If your solution is to not read it in a literal sense, why can't the same be done for Judith?
I want to like Trent Horn. I really do. I just dont think he is doing much to bring unity to the Protestant-Catholic divide. He comes off as smug at times and unwilling to consider that his position is not the only reasonable conclusion. And comparing Protestants to atheists in any context is insulting and uncharitable. We are supposed to your brethren.
One error Catholic apologists make is failing to account for psychology in why people choose different Christian persuasions. This isnt an argumentative error, more one of omission. You can craft a really forceful argument on evidential grounds, but fail to account for the psychology of belief. Ex: I dont BELEIVE that papal authority is Biblical. The case presented isnt so overwhelming that NOT believing would simply be willful ignorance. Or, we dont BELIEVE that the church is a particular organization, rather an organism of believers. These are both reasonable beliefs one can arrive at from the Bible. We arent denying anything perspicuous.
Really I'd say my main criticism of Catholic apologists boils down to their unwillingness to accept that the Catholic faith is not the only reasonable conclusion out there. There are highly educated, thoughtful, and faithful Christians out there who are not convinced by your arguments. That has to mean something. Catholics dont have a monopoly on true religion, or genuine Christianity. They can say "we feel the Catholic way is the BEST way", and that's fine. But there is often an air of institutional arrogance, or elitism. If we are indeed bothers and sisters in Christ, then why cant we allow that different denominations are avenues for different people to come to Christ. I realize that sounds like a slippery slope to Catholics, but you can TRIAGE doctrine, you know. There are primary non-negotiables (e.g. the Gospel), then there are secondary doctrinal issues, then there are tertiary and even trivial issues that are really not essential to salvation.
Just my opinion though. Great channel Suan.
They dont consider you Christian, at least according to their dogmas, that's your first dilemma. Second, you seem to echo a Christian perennialism or Christian universalism, would you say that's accurate or a good thing?
Unity is only possible in truth.
@@neosmoker Thus impossible. Pope Frank is bringing in Muslims and non christians into the unity as well.
@@TommyGunzzz
A lot of things that e.g. Muslim believe can be considered true. And this is how ecumenism works - find parts that are common, but still, have in mind that there are inviolable differences.
@@neosmoker if you open up the scope that wide then what you are saying is meaningless. You could say even satanists and atheists say true things to an extent as well, so how does being in communion (sharing faith and prayer gatherings together) make any sense? It only makes sense if your own beliefs are compatible (thus nonChristian).
We Protestants don’t argue like atheists. We just don’t think church doctrine should contradict the Bible.
Nonetheless, I love this channel and I think Trent Horn is awesome. God bless both of you.
To some extent, I agree but I don't think that church doctrine should produce denominations. Continous schism is not Biblical.
@@computationaltheist7267 I think you have a good point.
No sir. *You* don't argue like an atheist. A good many other Protestants do, however. And it makes perfect sense. Today's Western atheists are nothing more than the logical conclusion of Protestant assumptions. It's clearly seen.
@@thepalegalilean How, in your opinion, are western atheists the logical conclusion of Protestant assumptions? I am curious 🤔
For example what are these assumptions, why are they Protestant assumptions, and how do they lead to atheism?
Thanks.
@@ThisDoctorKnows
When protestants were arguing against the Catholic Church they made a point to cast the Church as something that embraced an was a manifestation of superstition and ignorance.
When the advent of evidential prosecution came to be standardized in the Catholic Inquisitions, Canon lawyers that would both defend and prosecute their citizenry, It became priests that would torture innocent protestants for fun.
Luther would also savagely mock relic veneration. Where relics were understood to have had miraculous properties, Luther simply called it a false god that needed to be smashed. And many of his followers did just that. Calvin did something very similar when he denied true presence of the Eucharist.
Another thing modern atheists to do that they have derived from protestant assumptions, Is is the act of casting themselves as enlightened and the past as something dark and primitive. The casting of themselves in light was something the "Enlightenment" philosophers would capitalize on.
Is in fact so protestant the Enlightenment was that when Spinoza had Is published his Theological Political treaties which argued for atheism, the Calvinist authorities found themselves unable to argue against the work doctrinally because every argument Spinoza had against religion, was used by those same Calvinists against the Catholic Church.
Even when you look at atheists today such as Dan Barker or Thomas Westbrook, they're clearly still protestants. Atheist they may be, they're Protestantism is still alive and well.
They sound like protestant fundamentalists, because they are. The Protestant assumptions they carry with them intellectually have come from the reformers.
Their atheism itself comes from the Enlightenment, which in turn is nothing more than a continuation of the reformation.