Perspicuity, Authority, and Intellectual Humility | Dialogue with Suan Sonna
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- This video is sponsored by Logos. For 10% off their incredible resources, visit: logos.com/gosp... logos.com/gosp...
verbum.com/gos...
In this video, I'm joined by Suan Sonna, a Catholic convert, Harvard Divinity School student, and all-around top-notch guy. In this back and forth conversation, we explore the big issues of Protestant/Catholic divisions, focusing especially on questions of bias, controversial assumptions, and whether or not Protestantism, specifically sola scriptura and perspicuity, works. It was a true delight.
Check out Suan's channel: / @intellectualcatholicism
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/...
Merch: shop.gospelsim...
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a TH-cam channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Austin Suggs holds a BA in Theology from Moody Bible Institute and is currently pursuing an MA in Liberal Arts with a focus in Theology and Philosophy from St. John's College, Annapolis. He has served in the local church in a number of ways, including as a full-time staff member,, teacher, church planter, and more. Today, he resides outside of Baltimore with his wife Eliza.
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
YODRSIYIVB5B6QPM
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
OERNFF59LU4GEU5K
HHQQFUFIBM8K6UIK
![[TH]FFWS SEA 2024 Fall - Knockout Stage Day 5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N2tl9xkQyyU/mqdefault.jpg)
“Father, may they be one, as you and I are one" (Jn. 17:21). Thanks be to God for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church ❤
What do you think He meant by one? Like total unity of will, identical to the Trinity? Or a material unity, like the RCC, where people submit to the Pope but have their own ideas on how to interpret church history and what Francis says (see the division between trads, conservatives, and liberals)? Or maybe, just maybe, He wanted us to be one in Him, aka those who believe the Gospel and obey His will are already one even if we disagree on secondary issues
@ryandelaune139 In the verse, Jesus specifies "...as you and I are one." What kind of unity does God the Father have with God the Son?
Yes, to be united to God means to believe in the one whom he sent. To believe in Christ who is true food. This can only be found in the Gospel.
@@ryandelaune139 Where does the Bible say which issues are primary or secondary issues? For example, 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves us. If baptism is a salvation issue, is pedo- or credo-baptism a secondary issue? John 6:53 says that unless one eats the flesh and drinks the blood of Christ, they have no life in them. If the Eucharist is a salvation issue, is a literal or symbolic reading of John 6 a secondary issue? I could go on, but it seems to me that for many Protestants, the only primary issues that must be held to preserve spiritual unity in Protestantism are the 5 solas, which themselves aren't necessarily Biblical and were first proposed in the 16th century.
@bradyhayes7911 Well it's both, we are united to Christians by the Gospel which then aggregates up to be united to God through Christ Jesus. That is why Paul makes it explicit in 1 Corinthians and in 1st Timonthy among others.
As a new Catholic (14 months) at age 56 after a lifetime of being a devout, apologetics-focused Protestant, my epiphany (very painful) was my blind spot regarding authoritative interpretation of Scripture.
My working analogy now is that Scripture is the pure, perfect water at the bottom of a deep well. Interpretation is the bucket which you use to bring it to the surface, and the cup to drink it is the doctrine distilled from the interpretation. If the bucket or cup is contaminated, the water gets contaminated, even though it was pure and perfect beforehand.
Welxome home!
Your analogy is quite good but I find that you don't need an analogy when you can demonstrate the problem quite easily using text/words which is what the Bible contains.
What do I mean when I say, "I never said she stole your money"?
What a great story! 20 years ago I made a move from a similar starting point to the Catholic Faith, and I have never looked back.
Suan , I had my hopes would be a Pope one day! You are a treasure for the defense of the Catholic faith. Austin you are just awesome. Love ur content.
🇵🇷 2 of my favorite brothers in 1 place WOW!!!!❤ can't wait Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
"The fundamental character of God I see in Catholicism is this father who tried to unite his family and he did everything possible short of taking away human free will to do that" 🎉🎉
A non-Christian or relativistic Christian could easily use the same exact (flawed) logic.
@@nateewongo3905 Please explain?
@@josephgoemans6948 John 14:6 & 1 Corinthians 12:12
So what kind of Trinity you want?
There is only one version of Holy Trinity
@@kusumoanang I mean... The formulation of the Trinity as defined in the council of Nicea in 325 is pretty good
Nice!! Suan is awesome. Good person. He was instrumental in me converting to Catholicism from Protestantism.
I thoroughly enjoyed your discussion and your earnest exploration of what unites and separates. I especially appreciate your exhortation not to take a condescending approach towards other Christian communities (as I see too frequently on other channels). Suan and Austin, you guys strive for honest dialogue. Thank you!
Amazing conversation. This really gets to the root of the issue, hope to see more conversations like this.
Yeah! Good to see Intellectual Catholicism back!❤
Please pray for unity .
Amen 🙏 1 Corinthians 10:17 - "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread"... It is the BREAD that makes the body, not the other way around. May all Christians one day partake in the Holy Eucharist - the Bread of Life, manna from heaven, the bread not made by human hands, of "milk and honey"
@@jarrahe “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
“Does this offend you?
“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
This Lord's question echoes through the ages.
“Yet there are some of you who do not believe”.
“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
The Holy Eucharist is a stumbling block to some people.
Literally almost all Eucharistic prayers in the Catholic Church in the Latin rite have some stanzas with a pair of verses (of the priest and of the assembly) concerning the need for unity.
Our Lord already established it, come home.
+JMJ+
Unity for the sake of unity alwaysseema to fail. A marriage is not saved by focusing on the marriage. A marriage is saved by focusing on the other spouse.
Suan debates with Dr. Ortlund were very useful to learn many things of Papacy and infallibility. He is very smart and knowledgeable, but also with humility.
the most conversions to the Catholic church right now present day are coming from the protestant scholars- We'll take that.
@@malachi487that should tell us something right? The deeper you go into history and theology, as long as you are truly looking for the Truth, the only way is the way home ⛪️
Hello Austin, in the minute 13:52 you said something that took me out of guard: …”came to the Conclusion that Christ really is present in the Eucharist”
I still remember your video about John 6 and your struggle with it.
Keep on your journey to find Christ’s church. ⛪️
May God bless you and your beloved ones Austin.
Two great guys having a wonderful conversation. I like the honesty both had in this conversation.
Absolutely true unfortunately people are looking for fights
I felt like a fly on the wall, watching a civil conversation between two friends. We need more of this.
Thanks, Halley!
To summarize a question you had, that "the rub" regarding dogmas prescribed by the Catholic Church is that it takes what can only be described as "fitting" and make it authoritatively necessary for all Christians to believe. Arguments from fittingness are much stronger than supposed in our modern context. If we consider that the reason that God created (instead of not creating as it was his free will to choose), was that it was most fitting (instead of absolutely necessary). Or that the reason God chose to send His Son (instead of another means of salvation) was that it was most fitting to bear out his love in this way. There are many other examples one could give. In this way, arguments from fittingness are far more authoritative than originally supposed by many. This is because fittingness is necessary tied to the doctrine of Gods absolute freedom to choose, and if we start with this presupposition, many of our doctrines come down to what He deemed as "fitting".
Thanks for the discussion and share, Austin! It was good!
Thoroughly enjoyable interview to listen to. Austin asked some great questions. I saw his philosophical mind at work in this interview more so than I have in the others I've watched.
Glad you enjoyed it! This was much more of a dialogue than other episodes, and it's good to hear that you found the format enjoyable.
Wowwww incredible chat!!! Love it 😍
Glad you liked it!!
Thank you Mr. Sonna- I have allowed condescension to seep into my arguments against protestants who are as much a zealot to their faith as I am... so I needed to hear that comment from you.
I am guilty of the same. 😢
Thank you malachi487, as a protestant I can have a similar attitude to my Catholic friends. I don't want to be like that
There was one claim about Mary that went too far. Claims of divinity and where people started offering mass and sacrifices to Mary. This is was immediately shot down by the Catholic Church and declared it the heresy of Collyridianism.
This sect probably existed in Arabia and the historical testimony to it is given only by the Panarion of St. Epiphanius of Salamis, published in approximately 376 AD, as a contemporary source. Because of that, there are people that dispute the existence of that group. But the very existence of the Quran reinforces it, since it implies Mary should not be worshipped as a God (meaning it was probably found out in Arabia, even as a marginal phenomenon).
Epiphanius condemned the Collyridians, but I see no other mention of them. It's a stretch to say the Church immediately shut them down. If any one other than Epiphanius knew of them, they apparently didn't think much of them, and didn't care to write anything that we know of that condemned them. As for the Quran condemning the worship of Mary, I assume the Muslims probably just accused Catholics of idolatry the same way contemporary Protestants do.
@@taylorbarrett384 Yep. But in the Qur'an, primarily the Sura 5:73, 5:75, and 5:116, one can really understand Mohammed believed that Christians considered Mary to be part of the Trinity and someone possessing full divinity. It’s more than a linguistic dispute over “dulia” versus “latria”, as a supposed Catholic invention, in Protestant accusations. That accusation is essential to the Islamic religious system and it came about to become essential to modern Protestantism. In a sense, yet not provokingly, there are some crucial similarities between Protestantism and Islamism in broader basis, starting with biblicism (the “book” as the sole rule of faith derived from God), as if the book is the object of revelation itself. It actually shocked me when I started to understand some approximation between the two systems.
@@masterchief8179 the Bible is revelation
@@masterchief8179 the text is itself revelation, sure, a mode of revelation, but that's a strange nuance to be nit picky about, and I always love a strong emphasis on the central and sufficiency and uniqueness of Christ, but this just seems like a false dichotomy and a false "either/or"
It would be great to see another discussion about how the Magisterium has operated in history, and whether it would have ever been possible to have confidence in certain Protestant doctrines (e.g. the canon of Scripture, the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, Sabbath rest in the Lord's Day) without the Magisterium's intervention in history. John Henry Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" is an excellent starting point.
"[Papias] tells us that he received the truths of our religion from those who were acquainted with them [the apostles] in the following words:].... 'If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings - what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.'"-Fragments from Papias (this must be what Suan was referring to)
Thanks for this interview. 👍
This is a great conversation. Suan seems like he has a good heart wrt Christ's prayer for His church to be one. My concern with Catholicism is that people can have a personal meaning for scripture, for their own personal life, and the office of the Pope would not support that particular interpretation
I wish I could give this more than a 👍 this deserves ❤❤❤.
This is convention has been a model of how such dialogs should operate.
This was very good, and exactly the kind of dialogue we need to be having. After watching debate after debate over the years with people like James white, i'm convinced that debates are largely spectacle, and only sometimes convincing. This is way more effective at drawing out the unity of the church, if even only for a moment.
Additionally: I find it interesting that people hesitate to have faith in Gods Church. Did the Jews lack faith in their church? Why then do protestants not follow that model? God did not abolish the Judaic system because of the Pharisees, he did so because of the insufficient sacrifice .
Glad you enjoyed it!
It is counter-productive to bring up the Jews. The Jews had a supposed "Oral Torah", a dogmatic tradition, their highest authority, they claimed was passed down from Moses - the closest thing they had to a Magesterium - and in Mark 7 our Lord condemns teachings that come from that "Oral Torah" as being erroneous violations of the word of God.
@@taylorbarrett384 my point was about the temple, I said nothing of the oral traditions. They had absolute faith in the temple and in the system that God had created for them.
@@Jerome616 you said the Jews had faith in their Church. I took that in the relevant sense here. I'm not sure why you would bring that up. Protestants have absolute trust in the temple, the Cross, Calvary, the sacrifice of the lamb.
@@taylorbarrett384 the church was a literal system of belief, not an abstract idea or a confession of faith. That is why.
Thank you Suan for your humble articulation!!
Great discussion !! 👍
Thanks!
On the cogency of the Assumption, I think it's helpful to view this through a fuller view of Newman's doctrine of development. In his Essay on the Development of Doctrine, he identifies different types of development and views the development of ideas and history as the most relevant for the development of doctrine.
Typically, when we think of development, we only think of the development of ideas. It is true that the Assumption of Mary does not fit under this framework, and seem inadequate. But under the view of the development of history it does make sense. The development of history is where an idea or practice or belief is prevalent in one place, but it gains gradual universal acceptance over time. One could say that this is the case with infant baptism. It was clearly practiced from the earliest days of the church, but there were many parts of the church where the practice was not popular, but today, all apostolic churches practice infant baptism as the norm.
This is how I view the Assumption. This would have been an ancient event that may have been known in the local area, but knowledge of it was not widespread. And why should it be? It happened after most of the Bible was written. How many witnesses could there have been, if any? The main external evidence you would have expected in the first century is the same evidence we get: one day, Mary was gone and we see confirmation of this through a lack of grave traditions and no known relics.
Although rumblings of it are present in the time of Epiphanius, the belief became widespread after the Council of Ephesus. Many bishops had gathered in Ephesus and learned of this ancient, but local, tradition and then it quickly gained universal acceptance. Hence, it's acceptance in all of the Apostolic Churches since they were at least present at the council, even if they didn't accept it.
Seeing as how the consequence of the Assumption being false means accepting a Protestant Church while rejects whole-cloth large parts of the tradition with a very high and ancient pedigree (apostolic succession, eucharist as sacrifice, purgatory, the infallibility of Apostolic Tradition, etc.), it seems like this is a plausible way to interpret this one odd doctrine.
Hope people find this helpful in thinking through the issue.
Can I humbly add that the book of Revelation did not make its way into a formal council list until 397AD at the Council of Carthage?
This delay followed by the Church having to battle against continual heresies against God and Jesus makes for an understandable delay in formally recognising doctrines relating to Mary, that were floating around in various parts of the Church.
On the point about the Trinity and Scripture, think about it when you get more specific regarding "consubstantial". Yes, I think you needed the Nicene and Constantinople Councils to settle that. The Scripture is not entirely clear on the Son's consubstantiality with the Father. I can cite a number of verses. There are explanations but I can see how a reasonable person could be " a form of semi-Arian" or at least somewhat subordinationist in some sense. Which is why some "Saints" were: St. Cyril of Jerusalem for example although he ultimately came around to the term homoousios after decades of mistrust of this term. And St. Basil for a while- yes, he came around to the term homoousios in the end but it took a few years for him.
God is more than able to bring His people together around the true doctrine of consubstantiality apart from a settled infallible Magisterial declaration. That's proven by the fact some 700 million Protestants are alive today who agree with that doctrine without their assenting to a concept of ecclessial Infallibility etc.
@@taylorbarrett384 Hi Taylor. I was simply responding to the question in the video as to whether the Trinity (in my narrower note- consubstantiality) is clearly taught in the scriptures (which was not a question about "sola scriptura," but it was the question asked). I am granting that Protestants "sola scriptura" doesn't mean that scripture is the only authority, just that it is the only infallible authority for them. That Councils are an authority to which Protestants can bind themselves to, and with respect to the Nicene Creed have (in the main) bound themselves to. I am just saying scripture isn't obviously clear on this matter and most Protestants affirm that the Nicene and Constantinople Councils and related creed is the proper interpretation of the doctrine implicit in the Scriptures. But like all of us they are "riding on the back" of the theological work, debate and bitter struggle between 325 and 381.
However, on an interesting note, the Southern Baptists at their current convention are debating whether the Nicene Creed should be adopted into their confession. It is at least somewhat controversial per their own social media. Not on the Christology, but I assume on the assertion about baptism and possibly about the one, holy , Catholic Church. Protestants just change that to "Christian Church" or even use "catholic" with a small c. Will be interesting to see what happens with this.
This was an absolutely wonderful conversation.
This was a very interesting and important conversation. Thank you!
I have a thought I wanted to share about the point made on John 17 and Jesus' prayer for unity.
TL;DR: I think in conversations like these, we may be incorrectly assuming that all sides share the same definition of "unity." From a Catholic (and probably Orthodox) perspective, unity means (or at least starts with) all believers coming together under one ecclesial institution. From a Protestant perspective, the Church can have differences without being divided and unity does not have to be dependent on institutional singularity.
The way-too-long-for-an-Internet-comment version:
Unity within the Church is important and desired by God. We can all agree on that. With that foundation in mind, I would like share a thought for consideration. In this discussion, unity seemed to be discussed within a strictly Catholic framework, which is completely fair since Suan Sonna brought up the key passage (John 17) and he is Catholic. But I wonder if a roadblock in some of Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox dialogue on this subject is that the different groups mean different things.
When Catholics or Orthodox talk about unity, they seem to be envisioning all believers being united in a single institution. As a Protestant, I don't see denominational uniformity as necessary for unity. When I pray for unity, I'm not praying for all Catholics and Orthodox to leave Catholicism/Orthodoxy and become Protestant. Instead, I think we will be unified when we can bring our differences to the same table and work through them together.
That means no more Protestants saying the Catholic church is pagan (and other wildly untrue and hostile claims) and for Catholics and Orthodox to tone down the "we are the one true church" rhetoric. This is obviously never going to happen this side of heaven, but neither are all Protestants and Orthodox ever going to convert to Catholicism. So we're all talking about idealized visions of the Church's future.
To flesh out my perspective a bit more, my contention is that unity does not necessarily mean sameness. Protestantism gets flack for having many denominations, but that's only a problem if institutional plurality is harmful or displeasing to God. I don’t think it is. When I go to Christian gatherings outside my local church, such as a conference or concert or some other festivity (or even an Internet comment section), I fellowship with people from many Protestant denominations, as well as Catholics and Orthodox Christians. I generally don't even know their specific denominations unless it comes up in conversation.
We agree on core Christian beliefs but differ on many doctrinal points, worship styles, and outreach priorities, and that's okay. Arguably, it could be better than okay because our differences can actually be good. Having a church where we were all the same would be like having a body that was all thumbs. Instead, we have different denominations that excel in different areas like service, evangelism, or theological studies (not that these are all rigidly-defined categories with no overlap, just some examples of different focuses).
This is not to deny we have serious doctrinal disagreements, but I believe we can better address these issues when united by our love for Christ. Iron sharpens iron, and it’s easier to sharpen each other when we're not trying to "kill" each other, metaphorically speaking of course.
This is my perspective as a thoughtful Protestant, not THE Protestant perspective. I hope this helps clarify the dialogue a bit. We often talk in circles when we conceptualize "unity" differently. Hope this helps or is at least kinda sorta interesting!
Thank you for your articulation. I acknowledge that there is some unity among us Christians in the creeds. However, there are more important doctrines other than just those. Is there really unity when something that is sinful begins to be taught as not sinful, such as homosexuality in some Protestant churches? Is the Eucharist just symbolic? Is Baptism necessary? Can you lose your salvation? Are the use of contraceptives and IVF sinful?
How do we really follow Christ’s teachings?
@@dreistheman7797 Thank you for reading my ridiculously long comment! I appreciate your thoughtful response.
I agree, there are important doctrinal differences we need to work through. It’s a legitimate question where to draw the line. Anything directly related to salvation would probably have to be on the far side of that line. For example, unity would be difficult between someone who believes baptism is essential for salvation (especially baptism in a narrowly proscribed manner) and someone who sees it strictly as a personal choice.
However, I believe most issues we’re divided over don't need to reach that level. For instance, contraceptives may indeed be sinful, but unless someone believes using them disqualifies a person from salvation, we can still be unified despite this very important disagreement. In fact, I’d contend we’re better positioned to challenge and hold each other accountable on these issues when we’re united in spite of these issues rather than divided because of them.
And to reiterate my original point, this unity doesn’t have to mean institutional or denominational uniformity.
Thanks again for engaging in this conversation. You raise important points to consider, and I appreciate the dialogue!
I feel this way too, Bethany
Today in Toronto Canada, Sunday June 9th, an important Anglican historic church had a fire that destroyed St. Anne's Anglican Church near the downtown area. Very sad news, the cause is being investigated.
The very fact that only a few churches actually even claim to have a Magisterium narrows things down considerably, if you already buy into the necessity of God providing one. Then its just a matter of evaluating the validity or defects of those few claims. Then you are in Erick Ybarra territory. Only Catholicism actually claims to have an infallible Magisterium that actually functions in practice.
Wonderful discussion! Suan made a worthy point on the Assumption in holding it up alongside the Resurrection. However, that still doesn't quite get over the Protestant hump. I personally feel a bit of deconstruction may be needed. Three points I would offer for consideration. 1) Eastern Catholics celebrate the Dormition. While very similar to the Assumption is not exactly the same, and yet the Catholic Church accepts this perspective (much like Eastern Rites not saying the Filioque in the Creed). 2) As with the Resurrection, there is a degree of mystery as to how "physical" the event was. "Bodily Resurrection", I would suggest is more theologically correct than "Physical Resurrection" (i.e. we are not speaking of a crass "resuscitation" and there is an element of mystery in the accounts - would a modern video camera have captured it, etc). I am thinking here also of how it is more appropriate to speak of "Real Presence" than "Literal Presence" in the Eucharist. F.X. Durrwell laments how the Resurrection is somehow downgraded when we approach it from a purely "apologetic" agenda. Along these lines I would suggest we must also nuance our thinking in understanding the Assumption (we make a wrong turn when we try to approach it strictly from "apologetics"). Too often the Protestant move is to propose a maximal understanding of a Catholic teaching that goes even further than what the Church demands. 3) Finally, and perhaps most controversially, there is sense in matters of faith and Dogma whereby the belief is sustained by the community at large. A Catholic only tacitly accepts the "Dogma" of the Assumption. We do not recite it in the Creed. We are not required to publicly confess it upon conversion. It is almost as if it is a "soft Dogma". By this I am making a point more about how the Dogma functions in the daily life of a garden variety Catholic than how the Church would properly frame it. Although it is worth considering degree of weight we give to even our Dogmas. Now, I personally fully accept and celebrate the Assumption. I do not, however, conceptualize it in a simple wooden, literal way. And maybe this gets to Suan's point. The Church viewed the concept as SO "theologically fitting" that it raised it to the status of Dogma. Finally, along these lines, I often like to consider Eastern and Western ideas as a Venn diagram. That to which both the East and West hold in common for me has tremendous weight. [Given more time I would perhaps phrase some of these thoughts more carefully - so take this all as my stammering attempt to weigh in with some quick thoughts]
"In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death." - Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th.
@@jarrahe Beautiful! I love this!
@@quayscenes CCC 966. Peace friend, go with God
Eastern Catholics and Orthodox as a matter of tradition hold more to the Dormition while the Western Church holds more to the Assumption which I think you would agree with. Both are valid one doesn’t not hold the belief the other holds. It is a matter of whereby they want to focus on that part of their faith. Eastern Catholics don’t deny the Assumption.
The Filioque is really a moot point and generally within Orthodox a non issue not to mention the CC cleared this up with a more detailed explanation of using the word “through” instead of “And” to be more clear for those who have more hesitancy using the word “And” when reciting the Creed. Also for Eastern Catholics they do not have to recite that phrase at all, just not deny the teaching if that makes them more comfortable.
1:06:35 "The Bible is not enough." John 1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..."
It's more than enough.
Was it enough prior to the formation of the Biblical canon, which only came about in the 6th century?
Is the Word of God the Holy Scipture, as well as Christ?
Was the fullness of the faith delievered to the Saints prior to the organization of the Biblical canon?
I don't think you've thought things quite through.
@George-ur8ow The Canon of Scripture was recognized and shared about 170 AD. Please read about the Muratorian Fragment Macurianen.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment.
The Word of God is just that ... God, the Creator of all things, speaking to us. GOD gave the Word to mankind through Christ. Christ was, and is, the Word of God; just as He is the Bread from Heaven, the Living Water, the Good Shepard, the Door, the Vine, the Way the Truth and the Life.
The Word was in the very beginning and it is the only thing that will exist in the end. As stated by Christ, " Heaven and earth will pass away but my Word will never pass away." There is no mention of tradition. The Word of God is Supreme. Tradition has never been, nor will it ever be, equal or superior to the very Word of God. It is all we need.
Tradition did not come first. Traditions are fine but they cannot supplement the Word.
You think the "word" in John 1 is the Bible?????? Seriously? This is why I say anyone who claims Protestants all believe in the essential truths of the creeds is living a fantasy. Here is one who thinks the Bible is God or the Bible is Jesus.
No one is claiming that modern day Protestants can't find repentance or the Gospel, more or less, in Magisterium-less Protestantism. The claim is that without a Magisterium you can't have doctrinal certainty, settle disputes authoritatively, and have the unity in the Body of Christ that Jesus prayed for and that Paul commanded. Is inevitable and rampant disagreement and division what Protestants call "what works for me"? Just because Protestants accept what the Magisterium has taught, more or less, about repentance and the gospel does not mean Protestants have no need of a Magisterium. It just means Protestants are living off the work the Magisterium has been doing since the time of the Apostles, the work of distinguishing Scripture from Apocrypha and of preaching repentance and the Gospel long before Protestantism existed.
"Just because Protestants accept what the Magisterium has taught, more or less, about repentance and the gospel"
Umm, this information comes straight out of the Gospels, not Rome.
The magesterium did not deliver that certainty, either. It delivered a corrupt church drunk on its own power.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 Clearly, you don't understand what "the Magisterium" means. It is not equivalent to Rome. It is the authoritative teaching office of the Church. The Apostles exercised teaching offices, with some of that teaching being written down in Scripture and some being written down in the writings of the early Church fathers (Tradition). Scripture is an early apostolic written form of the Magisterium. The apostles teaching office was passed down to bishops, as we can see in the letter to Timothy and Titus and the letters of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch who were disciples and successors of the Apostles.
You act as if what constitutes authentic Scripture/Gospels and their authentic interpretations is obvious and uncontroversial. Total lack of awareness of the giant shoulders you stand on from the early Church's magisterium. Where is the intellectual empathy/humility Austin refers to?
@@spurge83 If there is no magisterium to provide certainty and unity, then you must believe that God desires us to wallow in uncertainty/relativism/subjectivism and division/disagreement/schism? Mere individual appeals to the Holy Spirit do not provide certainty or unity. Catholicism too appeals to the Holy Spirit guiding the Magisterium, but it also provides the Scriptural and early historical evidence of it from those discipled and ordained by the Apostles themselves (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch) and their successors (Irenaeus).
St Augustine: “There are many other things which most justly keep me in her [the Catholic Church]'s bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, BEGINNING FROM THE VERY SEAT OF THE APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should .”
Can't wait!
Catholic here. I think whether you assent to an infallibile teaching authority or not, either way _you_ are the one giving your assent. You are believing in its claim to give the truth. You are authorizing it to be authoritative for you, and that is never without some tension, some learning curve, and a constant discovery of greater depths of meaning and relevance. To believe in any authoritative truth, means you are choosing to follow it, to believe it is a trustworthy guide. And so while you may have criticisms along the way, effectively you are treating it as 'without error', i.e. infallible.
My point is that, with the act of belief (in a teacher, a doctrine, a church, an ideology), no one really does something _fundamentally_ different from anyone else. Obviously the content will be different, and that makes all the different. But the structural act of _authorizing_ is the same. And it is one that we make, at bottom, 'on our own authority', in freedom.
I'm fine if people reject this line of thinking, I am sure there's ways to poke holes in it. But believing in the truth, if we really dig into it, can't be that different from person to person no matter what they're believing in. All you need is an outlet allowing that that truth _could_ be revised. And that's true, marginally, for all the confessions. But it's also not likely that much will change for anyone.
After all, how could you believe it, if you really thought it was 'with error'?
That would be the hypothesis, at least: any form of following, of healthy obedience, of docility to teaching and institutional structure, implies at least some degree or form of faith in its infallibility (even if all that is entailed by that concept is not clear).
I agree. All Christians should be asking themselves and searching where is the true Church and true Tradition that I may submit myself to its legit authority to interpret Scripture. But Protestants don't even accept that necessary premise.
@tmlavenz insofar as every human discerns the evidence on their own, this is true. But insofar as a human receives the gift of infused faith from God, it's something they not only choose, but receive as true from Him. And that's how true faith occurs in both a Protestant and Catholic context, yes.
@@tonyl3762it's not a "necessary" premise, there's no strict logical reason why there must be some one true Church in the Catholic or Orthodox sense of the concept. It's quite possible God could have instituted the Church according to the Protestant model. Whether he did or not is not a matter of necessity, but a matter of revelation and discerning the words and promises of our Lord.
@@taylorbarrett384 I agree. It is a matter of revelation, both in Scripture and Tradition. What does Scripture say about the Church? What does Scripture say about unity of doctrine and mind in the Church? How on earth is any of that compatible with the Protestant model of division and disagreement on governance, the Eucharist, baptism, salvation etc.?
@@tonyl3762 Well Protestants have unity on the essentials, and the Church admits as much, by affirming that they are justified and in the life of grace. They do have a lack of organizational unity, and they disagree on certain doctrines that we Catholics agree on, but as Catholics it must be said we have plenty of our own in-house debates and disagreements as well, and while organization unity is good, it's probably the least most important kind of unity, with sincere love for each other, in Spirit and Truth, as most important kind. And unfortunately, the Protestant tradition as a whole tends to be better about that. Their parishes, and their relationship with other believers, tends to be familial and embracing, whereas most of our parishes, we never talk to each other, don't know each other, etc.
I was under the assumption that the perspicuity of scripture as a protestant doctrine is in reference to salvation. The bible is not necessarily "clear", but the claim is that it is clear unto salvation.
The only means by which we can determine the correct Christianity is to look for an objective criteria which is history. What is the history of your belief? What is the history of your church? Only apostolic churches can trace their way back to Christ. Plus, the question to protestants is how come you could trust in the doctrine of the trinity (and a myriad of others) and not be united with the one true church? How can you accept this and reject the other teachings of the church that taught that?
Also, does the host apply his own tests/doubts/skepticism to his present congregation? While Suan has to prove the correctness of the Catholic faith, it doesn’t mean the protestant doctrines is the default position. On the first place, the Catholic faith preceded the protestant reformation and in a sense has the “equity of the incumbent” one way or another.
Spot on! Jesus est His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 which is the pillar & foundation of truth 1 Tim 3:15 that codified your bible in 382 & has existed for 2000 yrs in spite of sinful men & under the protection of the Holy Spirit has not officially taught error in faith or morals, proof of her divine origin.
A religion, or at least a religious person, is someone who holds to a particular story of everything, with religions and denominations divided by fundamental and minor differences in how that story is told, and how (or if) it continues to unfold.
Thank you for this conversation.
Sean Luke on his YT (Anglican Aesthetics) in his debates with Eric Ybarra (they did one on Sola Scriptura) helped me a lot on the epistemological deffiiciency in Protestantism thing. I went in the Anglican direction because of Webster on Holy Scripture, Canon Revisited by Kruger, and Whitaker on Scripture.
For the RC, I couldn't go there because of the dogmatic development of the aposotlic deposit, the affirmation of a dual source dialectic between Scripture and Tradition that functionally norms by the Magisterium and Pope, Marian dogmatic conscience binding, explicit anathemas that seem repugnant to reasonable reads of Romans 4 synthesized with James 2, and the requirement to affirm Nicea II (with its anathemas), and holding Anglican orders deficient, along with developing Papal supremacy into Unam Sanctum, all seem dangerous shapers of our affections.
For the EO, the synod of Jerusalem and dogmatizing of transubstantiation and anathematizing in ways similar to Trent of sola fide, and affirming Nicea II with its anathemas, along with fencing the Table from other Nicea I confessors, seemed dangerous and beyond the bounds of what I see as Scriptural episcopal authority.
41:30 - we disagree on whether the abolition of slavery would actually arise out of a careful biblical hermeneutic arising out of Scripture to norm itself. Presupposing it has a hermeneutic, or presupposing it doesn't, is what then requires us to appeal to some kind of magisterium.
47:02 - we agree a normative recognition is different than an existential one (Dyer makes a similar argument). But, if the normative recognition comes through church reception, that doesn't therefore mean a given Christian is unjustified in trusting the witness of the Spirit and perspicuity of Christ's voice through the Scriptural deposit possessed at that time. Normative criteria require historical evaluation of liturgical use, fathers testimony, and councils- but notice, that epistemology for normative qualification/justification of knowledge, isn't the same as reasoning Top-Down from the Magisterial right of the church to norm me, to the councils it affirms.
49:42 Abner Chou's book was helpful for me in thinking about the framework hermeneutical continuity of Scripture between prophets and apostles. The Bible contains even a hermeneutic that arises out of it, that's not necessarily identical with the Alexandrian or Antiochan schools, even though we're necessarily meant to read Scripture liturgically and thus we're always downstream of the traditions we're part of.
I want to emphasize again that Webster's book on Holy Scripture is really important, and Whitaker's Disputation on Scripture. Piper's A Peculiar Glory is helpful as well here.
59:28 great question on the utility of an infallible magisterium in the hands of a fallible magisterium, and the necessity of faith in God and particular qualities predicated of that magisterium, if its needed to interpret Scripture
1:03:03 - this is the fundamental issue. If the Scripture is a specifically sanctified instrument for God's own perspicuous self-revelation, then a Magisterium external to Scripture is not necessary, but instead a sociological consequence of Spirit-artifacts that arise as the Church interprets Scripture- ineveitably, magisteriums develop as interpreters encounter a text and form a tradition of proper and improper uses of language and liturgically clear interpretations vs problematic or heretical interpretations.
The Magisterium's development in dogmatically binding additions to what can be clearly and plainly proven out of Scripture and what's manifestly the earliest apostolic community's interpretation of Scripture (like the Marian dogma) seem to force us to refuse to consider alternative interpretations of God's Word outside the Magisterium. Ortlund's stuff helped me here.
One’s “default” is their current belief; and when one is “uncertain” while confronted with a new position they should not change their mind. A change in rational belief ought to be accompanied with certainty.
The Catholic Church has all the bodies of the Apostles as well as many other Saints. It has all the relics like the shroud of Turin, the wooden cross of Jesus, the crown of thorns. If Catholics found these bodies and relics, kept and displayed them for all to see, isn't the body of Mary much more easier to find and deserving of preservation and display than all these other relics? And if God raised Elijah and others bodily into heaven, wouldn't He do the same for Mary who is the beloved daughter of the Father, mother of the Son and spouse of the Holy Spirit? She is also the queen of heaven. In the Davidic Kingdom the mother of the King is the queen, not the wife of the King. Under typology, the new testament is the fulfillment of the old testament. She is also the ark of the new covenant.
Amen 🙏 "Blessed be our Lord Jesus Christ, who in the Incarnation, like rain on the meadows, a morning dewfall, descended from heaven to rest in the womb of the Virgin; Sun of Justice, the immaculate Virgin was the white dawn announcing your rising, grant that we may always live in the light of your coming."
Suan, I think part of where as Catholics the argument needs to go and one thing I feel like was neglected in this conversation is, where does scripture say that the individual reading the text has the ability to be the arbiter of the interpretation of said text, and how one might get to that position without reading that assumption into the text and how if someone is to believe that is not putting the carriage score the horse
Why would the Bible need to say such a thing? How about we reverse the question: where does scripture say that an individual doesn't have the ability to be the arbiter of the interpretation of the text?
For the same reason why we have a Supreme Court in that not everybody gets to interpret the constitution to ambiguously arbitrate whether or not what they’re are doing or have done is constitutional by way of sola scripture the constitution is more safe guarded from interpretation rather than scripture being open for anyone to Interpret just how they please rather than using the conciliarism of the bishops and magesterial authority Christ sets up in Mathew 16 I would say Christ in that passage is doing just that setting up the office for having unique authorities
Not only do we have scripture to support magisterial authority but also 2000 years of church history and it just makes way more sense logically that God would have much more safe guarding the correct interpretation through divine revelation otherwise what scrutiny is the interpretation under the Protestant world is unable to make pronouncements that are truly binding.
@@josephpotter7547 The answer to your question does not lie in the scriptures themselves but in the authority that compiled said scriptures…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time, growing in numbers of hundreds of “inspired” NT writings.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
@@Bbos2383We examples in the text that people, of good will who read it don't understand it (Acts 8:26-40). We are told of St. Paul for example, that some of the things he says are "hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16). Perspicuity is a claim about Scripture that Scripture does not make or suggest of itself.
@@Bbos2383 what do you think it means to bind and loose? Scripture does support a specific office of arbitration!
The earliest known prayer to Mary from a Marian liturgy dated 250 Ad
“Beneath thy compassion, we take refuge, O Mother of God: do not despise our petitions in time of trouble, but rescue us from dangers, only pure one, only blessed “
Now this liturgy wasn’t invented n 250 but rather was already established - exactly how long? Who knows
But it shows that pre Nicea - Christian’s viewed Mary as pure and able to intercede on our behalf - certainly not in line with Protestant thought
With that view - we accept the gospel of Christ It is in that milieu that the written Gospel was accepted and interpreted
Austin, can you explain how if you think Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist how you don't convert so you can receive Him?
My money is on personal theological limbo. The inescapable conclusion of the Eucharist as the SACRIFICE of the New Covenant is that it logically follows that there needs ordained, ministerial priesthood of the Covenant - which is what we see all over the book of Acts (6:1-6, for example). That succession of ordination back to the Apostles leads back to the Catholic Church. It is an inconvenient fact of history for our separated brethren who want to have their cake and eat it too.
There are other traditions, such as Orthodoxy, that also teach that Jesus is present in the Eucharist (although not necessarily through transubstantiation.) This is also where, respectfully, jarrahe (below) overstates matters: the succession of Apostles goes back to Orthodoxy (or, really, to the Great Church) as much as it does to Catholicism. And Acts 6: 1-6 isn't about priests offering the Eucharist, but men chosen to distribute food to poor widows. Even if the Eucharist involves Christ's true presence, that does not presuppose that it requires a certain person (i.e. a priest) to say the right words or perform certain actions for this to be accomplished. I am simply pointing this out.
@@goatsandroses4258 adding to this, Lutherans do two (unusual) things here.
1 that the primary unit of the Church is the congregation under the pastor, rather than the congregations and pastors under bishop (more historically obvious outside of Scandinavia and the Baltics). Also emphasising continuation of Apostolic doctrine over continuation of Apostolic laying on of hands.
2 there is no effort to explain why the Scriptures and Fathers speak of both the breaking of bread and the reception of Christ's Body, simply an affirmation of both. (sometimes there's been the concern against Annihillationism, that God annihilates part of His creation to replace it with Christ, but I don't know if any teach that as part of transubstantiation)
PS Luther teaches that Christ's incorruptible flesh consumes our corruptible flesh in Holy Communion; although left unsaid I see it following that the bread enters our stomach and passes while the communicant is incorporated into Christ.
I think we would all agree that Orthodoxy has a legit apostolic succession and priesthood. I would be curious to know where you got the idea that a priest is not needed for true presence to occur. We see worship as sacrifice and as such a priest is needed for this. I believe this was the understanding back to the beginning. Also in tegards to Acts 6:1 they laid hands on them whic seems to signify they were being ordained for something greater than food distribution. In fact, Stephen and Philip are active preachers. The men assigned are the Hellenist equivelant of the 12 and are active in ministry. g@goatsandroses4258
Well one can believe in the real presence and not be Catholic. Take the Church of England or Lutherans etc. both believe in the real presence but not in the same sense the CC teaches.
1:26:00 might be the best part for me in this video. I also hate reels and clips that make fun of Protestants, not just about their worship. Presenting Catholics and Orthodox as chads and Protestants as incels. It adds nothing to the discussion. The worst part, they vehemently defend what they do, no matter how fallacious it is.
Great discussion, although I think Suan was a bit too quick to say no one would arrive at the Assumption without his priors. A straightforward reading of Revelation 12 strongly suggests that Mary is bodily in heaven.
Also, I don't agree that an ex cathedra assertion of the supremacy of Taco Tuesday would negate the authority of the Magisterium. By its very nature, such a declaration could not have been taught by any apostle either explicitly or implicitly, therefore it is not part of the deposit of faith and cannot possibly bind the faithful always and everywhere.
Overall, fantastic job by Suan! I love his clarity and intellectual honesty.
I think it if you look at Christian doctrines in a tiered system. Then having a degree of freedom of interpretation in the lower tier doctrines gives a healthy flexibility of individual continence.
It’s very unlikely that in John 17 Jesus meant He gants Christia “to be part of one institution in submission to one man just like the Father and the Son are under one institution in submission to one man.”
This seems to be a Trinitarian oneness: unity in will, love, relationship, essence, purpose.
It does boil down to trusting in the church on faith and morals. If it was only the Catholic church that interprets and has these beliefs I could see where one could be skeptical. But because for all intensive purposes all the ancient churches hold to the same doctrines and beliefs. Yes some things are expressed a little differently, but when it comes down to brass tacks they are 99% the same. Without the church we would not have anything, the church is an extremely necessary part of Gods plan. While the human aspect is fraught with sin and weakness, the divine aspect is beautiful, true, magnificently loving, and merciful and would never allow the faithful to be guided falsely.
Suan Sonna is a former Protestant.
No, he's a former Baptist.
@@barelyprotestant5365 a former Protestant
@@myronmercado Baptists aren't Protestants. They're Restorationists.
@@myronmercado Baptists aren't Protestant. They're Restorationists.
@@barelyprotestant5365 Baptists aren't protestant confirmed
There are no Protestants I grew up that are still affiliated with any faith. It’s been sad to see.
To be fair, that's also a big problem in less traditional Catholic communities. The pull of secularism is often too strong for those whose faith isn't deeply anchored in tradition.
I grew up in a traditional Catholic village. The church is basically empty on Sundays now. Only a few people (mostly senior citizens) attend Mass.
None of my friends growing up that were Catholic are Christian now, most are atheist/agnostic and a few of them have taken up wicca and things of that nature. I think this is more of an issue of people that grow up in church but never work out their own faith and fall away, not a denomination issue.
There are 1 Billion Protestants and climbing with the Pentacostal, charismatic group growing the fastest
Austin really pressed Suan well all throughout the video, especially around 58:00 which gets at the whole issue of "private interpretation" and whether we need a magisterium. Basically, Suan begins with these intuitions he has about God's character and John 16:13, etc. and then reasons from here (via private interpretation) that we need a magisterium, which is why he ultimately thinks Romanism is true. But the entire time he's presupposing the very thing in question, that scripture (and history) is perspicuous *enough* to get him to Roman Catholicism. Ok, so wasn't the issue of perspicuity the entire problem that led you to Romanism in the first place? Not only this but notice how he starts with a private interpretation of what the church should look like and then looks for a church that matches his private interpretation. Isn't that *exactly* what Romanists complain that Prots do?
For me, I'm in a similar boat as Austin is. I think arguments for the magisterium make sense. That is, until you get to the particulars, like the entire cultic devotion to Mary. The same reasoning processes I rely on to tell me that a central authority makes sense also send off major red flags about Mary's status, especially when there are anathemas attached to it. The church has really made this a Gospel issue? Theres simply no way I can get past that. A magisterium would be nice. But not at the cost of God's word. Sorry.
So at the end of the day, our intuitions about authority, no matter how reasonable they seem to us, need to submit to God's word and not the other way around.
Jesus gave us His One True Church, not a bible, which the CC codified in 382AD. The Church is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15. The genius of His Church is that it combines Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Christ with Sacred Scripture, which was only mass printed in the 15th century & in any event, most people were illiterate until recent centuries, so sola Scriptura was unworkable.
Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture, under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium Mt 16 18-19, provide a stable & reliable three legged stool.
Protestantism, with sola Scriptura & personal interpretation has resulted in confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23. If the Holy Spirit was guiding Protestantism, at most, there would be one Lutheran Church. Without hierarchy & authority, Protestantism is unsustainable
@@geoffjs yeah nothing you said addresses my point. Youre just preaching.
Glad you enjoyed this style of conversation (i.e., pressing)! Really thoughtful comment as well.
How do I know what is "God's word?" You presuppose we can even know what is God's Word without relying, to some degree, on our intuitions about authority. And we cannot.
Fullness of unity is and always has been an *eschatological* target (Eph. 4)
Unity is not possible under Protestantism because of personal interpretation & lack of hierarchy & authority!
regarding the taco tuesday analogy... is there any place in the early church teaching or tradition for withholding the cup of the eucharist from faithful laity? and doing so for hundreds of years?
nobody has an answer for this question?
@@pigetstuck That's not a doctrine
@@cmac369 a "doctrine" is a teaching and can be the reasoning behind a practice
@@pigetstuck your point being?
@@cmac369 it was a practice incongruent and in conflict with direct apostolic teaching and practice AND the first 1000 years of church practice
1:20:50
Taco Tuesday is the best day of the week!
It does because it draws directly from the word of God and can be measured against it. Only if you mischaracterise it or misapply it does it fail.
A big question is: can P survive the internet? A big contributing factor to P's rise and spread was the isolation of communities and slow speed and limited reach of information. With new, decentralized means of communication, P's are having to grapple with the opinions of actual Catholics, not the mischaracterized interpretations of partisans. So far, it doesn't appear to be going as well for them in this new environment.
Can Protestantism survive an open, honest, extended dialog with the Church they came out of and seemingly left behind all these years ago? 500 years is a lot of water under the bridge, but really not so long. 500 years after the Resurrection, the Bible had only recently been officially canonized. So, really, it is not as long a period as people imagine!
For me when the question of why a magisterium comes up, I consider what is it in the Bible that is actually binding upon a Christian? For instance, what may have been unacceptable lifestyle practices centuries ago are now being reinterpreted through a new lens of biblical interpretation; hence, what was once binding and prohibitive is now being advertised as “under grace“. When it comes to what beliefs must we have and what practices must be avoided I have come to see the magisterium as the authoritative voice on earth that helps to enforce sound biblical doctrine. Another random example, I can tell you there are certainly pastors out there who say drinking alcohol will lead one straight to hell. There are certainly many other protestant pastors that would disagree with that statement. both sides will use scripture, but when it comes to a matter as serious as eternal damnation, shouldn’t there be one clear voice within the Christian world to help us determine such matters?
1:04:12-1:04:28 ... The Bible is not a "dead source." Hebrews 4:12
Is God's church the Catholic Church and her teachings. She is all things or she is not the Church that the gates of he'll will never prevail.Christ promised us this to Peter.The Church has many faults and failings but Catholicism is the TRUE Church.One day we will all be one
How about the condemnation of the death penalty?
What denomination is Austin nowadays?
An Austinite with free-will tendencies.
42:00 was it a protestant country that first outlawed slavery? how?
Denmark-Norway: Ernest Schimmelmann: Lutheran Christianity.
United Kingdom: William Wilberforce: Evangelical Anglican Christianity.
Thomas Clarkson: Quakerism (Religious Society of Friends), though he was originally Anglican.
United States: Frederick Douglass: Christianity (Methodist, later associated with various Christian denominations).
William Lloyd Garrison: Christian (Unitarian).
Harriet Tubman: Christian (Methodist).
France: Victor Schoelcher: Secular humanism (though born Catholic, he was largely secular in his views).
Netherlands: Baron van Heeckeren tot Kell: Protestant Christianity.
It seems that the protestant mind was what was really needed to end slavery. (or at least a huge part of the movement)
@@pigetstuck Of course one must never forget the countless number of slaves beaten, tortured, raped and worked to death in the Bible belt before the civil war, and after, through Jim Crow laws and the like. One should recall that they used the Bible to justify the degradation of the black man.
@@rhwinner right...
Let's not forget that it was in the American South that blacks were enslaved, brutalized and degraded for almost two centuries, and even after the civil war were treated like trash for decades. This was in the bible belt, and their treatment was justified by appealing to the Bible. I don't know how many were killed, but I'd venture to guess in the millions over two centuries.
@@pigetstuck Your list makes little sense because one should focus on those countries who had no or less slavery. The history of slavery is quite complex, Rome and Venice having banned slavery much earlier on, for instance, and Italy never had slaves in foreign colonies and very few existed in the peninsula.
If the Bible is perspicuous on how to become a Christian, then at the very least, intelligent Christians would come to the same conclusion on how to become a Christian. Like if I said a math problem was easy to solve, any mathematician should be able to solve it. However, intelligent Christians get to wildly different conclusions when reading the same Bible. Luther condemned Calvin and didn’t consider him a real Christian. Calvin condemned anabaptists as non-Christian. Many baptists today condemn paedobaptists as non-Christian. Some Protestants condemn Catholics as Christians. Some Protestants accept Catholics as Christians. Most people think the Trinity is a necessary doctrine, but what model or models are necessary? Can it be the Orthodox, Catholic, or social Trinity? Or are some of those Trinity models heretical and not truly Trinitarian? How precise does your Trinitarian theology need to be? Christology? Soteriology? I could go on. Just how close do you have to be to the truth in order to be a real Christian? There isn’t a consensus on any of those. So if you think you know for sure what makes someone a Christian solely based off the Bible, either you’re especially intelligent or you think everyone else is dumb/dishonest. Either way it’s pride in your heart. So based off this, I can’t see how anyone can think the Bible is clear on salvation. If it’s clear, we should at least be close to a majority position. But for every 10 Christians, maybe like 2 agree on what you need to be saved. Therefore the Bible can’t be clear on this. If it’s not clear on this, either God left something else to make it clear or you should be REALLY worried as you can’t be sure you know how to be a Christian.
A simple evidence of your thesis is looking at the academic sphere today.
Same bible, same greek, different intepretations. Alot of overlap for sure...but also alot of sizeble differences between denominations that contradict each other.
Thus proving, even to the relatively intelligent...Scripture aint perspicuous.
I know Austin is a protestant but does anyone know what denomination he follows? If he has even announced this information.. I'm just curious. Thank you!
Austin said he was non-denominational. There is a recent video on his most current theology
59:16 ... you have just revealed the move... if we can sideline scripture and history, then a plausible argument is all that's needed to sway one's Bayesian analysis
Hmmmmm Not sure how genuine this guy is saying he's open and searching for truth. I think he's made his mind up he wants to stay Protestant and in trying to defend the position in a subtle way.
O Simplicime! You don't need to satisfy yourself on every point. All you need to do is ask yourself is "which is the Church founded by Christ?" You know there is only one plausible answer.
Definitely, the Roman bishop needs to get in communion with the EO.
@@The_Serg8760 At the Council of Florence 1438 the Patriarch of Constantinople re-entered into communion with the Pope. The Council of Florence was attended by the Byzantine Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople, 50 Metropolitans, 70 Eastern bishops and abbots, scores of priests and monks. There were also representatives of autocephalous eastern churches. All the eastern prelates but one signed the concord which the council proclaimed. The eastern prelates accepted the council’s formula which stated that the HS proceed from the Father THROUGH the Son. They also accepted the primacy of the Pope and the Catholic understanding of Purgatory. These prelates swore their allegiance to the One, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church. They swore this oath before God and the whole Body of Christ. When they returned to Constantinople, they read out the cannons of the council in Hagia Sophia. The reunion was only frustrated because the eastern congregation would not accept work of the council. The eastern prelates had to create the spurious doctrine of “acceptance.’’ This amounted to the sheep leading the shepherds. God’s judgment was meted out by the Turk.
If you go by default, you take away 1500 of church history to arrive at that conclusion.
John 17 reports Jesus' words at the Last Supper, not at Gethsemane.
1:16:00-1:20:00
I've fallen into the group that believes we will never know until the second coming
Jesus said "I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life" and He sent us the "Spirit of Truth" yet it we do not have any certainty of what the truth is?
Scriptures is inerrant. Interpretation, if it does not come Ex Cathedra, is NOT inerrant. Jesus said to follow what the Pharisees teaches, but not what they do. This is because of the chair of Moses was replaced by Jesus with the chair of Peter in Matthew, upon this rock I will build my Church.
Again, this is clumsy. Councils can interpret and declare infallibly too, though they do need the pope's ratification.
@@myronmercado Dude, you make us Catholics looks bad when you misstate Church teaching. How about humbly and gratefully accept the correction? I have to do it too sometimes. We all make mistakes. It's not an ego battle; please don't make it one. God bless.
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . *The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.* When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
Without being offensive, how can I say that the Bible cannot be a starting point? When one is already convinced he can pray the Bible or study the Bible - enjoying the wonder of Who God Is. To be convinced one must be absorbed into Catholic culture so that the mysterious gift of faith can be recognized and accepted. This does not diminish the value of scripture which gloriously guides, informs, and inspires a pure seeker of Truth. But one who is not already convinced needs the Church family and natural formation - not intellectual arguments. Christ and the Father are One in Love and from that Love flows the unity of the Church.
"If it isn't inerrant it has no credibility" seems to me to undermine the foundation of knowledge itself. We all have to make judgement calls. Those judgements (like whether to place faith in Roman Catholicism or in Sola Scriptura or some more modest position) are not inerrant.
It appears to me as though many RC apologists are a bit too willing to saw off the branch they are sitting on.
Its sad. We view the world through the subjective lens. That is inescapable. All we can hope for is that our subjectivity unites with what is truly objective.
My mind has been very much on this idea lately
@@GospelSimplicity I considered a "preponderance of the evidence" argument, but then I remembered John 15:16 - "It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you."
"We all have to make judgement calls."
Sure but surely we who call ourselves Christian are so by virtue of God's grace making known to our hearts the basic truth of the gospel? Speaking for myself, all the times I've needed to make judgement calls have come at the very least after that core inerrant truth.
@@z_nytrom99 I don't ascribe to deterministic soteriology (I guess I haven't been destined to believe it), so I would take a different view from what you are saying. As I read Scripture, I perceive a consistent message that God calls all human beings and provides us all with the grace we need to respond to that call. At the same time, I don't find that he calls anyone into immediate perfect knowledge of him or his ways.
It would be wonderful if the Catholic church's authority could be backed up by its analysis and establishment of doctrine from the scripture. The magisterial interpretation should be clearly in line with what is plain in the scripture, which the church so revered, it preserved and provided it to the world. What's helpful is when something is unclear and cannot be resolved, for the church to say "thus" about it. But when something can be read by the average believer and seen as obviously different from the Catholic church's take, this strongly suggests a need for apostolic correction as St. Paul noted to Timothy. Yet the church, in what can only look like pride of place, is unwilling to be seen as not perfectly authoritative. If, on the other hand, it's a sort of standing on the authority of binding and loosing, giving the opportunity to declare... what is the limit on this power? It seems-again-the scripture is the limiting authority, not the church. We could all be very much more united with Christ as our corporal head and humility in our united practice if we gathered around that balance of scripture and church rather than just church authority.
Except that is contrary to how the magisterium worked in the New Testament. We see one clear example of the magisterium in the New Testament (Acts 15). The question is about whether Gentile believers MUST be physically circumcised. At this time, the only Scripture they had was the Old Testament. And the Old Testament greatly emphasis the importance of physical circumcision to belong to the people of God. God cares about it so much that he seems to kill Moses while he is on his way back to Egypt because his son is not circumcised. It is easy for an average reader of the Old Testament to arrive at the position that they must be circumcised. Yet, the Council of Jerusalem rejects that reading. And St. Paul anathematized those that disagreed (See Galatians).
So, the standard you are using for magisterial pronouncements is never been the standard used, even by the apostles.
I think we can legitimately have different views of the "church", but what would be Christ's view? Does he see an institution as we do? How does He build His church? First, he paid for the individual sins of each member
Not as a group. Secondly each one is blessed with a rev elation of Jesus as Peter was or as the Samaritan woman at the well. Not a general group or institution. So is it a stretch (and the religious will object) to deduct that Jesus sees individuals that He knows and loves. Paul actually described the church as a "mystery". Probably because it's deeper than the intellect can take in.
Ephesians 5:27,29-30,32
[27]That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
[29]For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
[30]For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
[32]This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Suan will say "no." The answer will be yes.
It's about milk and meat, not a question of no or yes.
Jesus didn't leave us a bible and tell us go figure it out. He left us a bible and an inerrant Church who has authority to interpret the bible. That Church MADE the bible.
Jesus didn't really leave us with a Bible at all since the earliest scriptures were written a decade later and the canon was assembled 4 centuries later. When Jesus ascended, there was only the church
Exactly. He built a Church against which the gates of hell would not prevail.
This is just a tired recycled apologetic slogan.
@@z_nytrom99 take your vitamins. You'll be fine.
@@z_nytrom99 2+2=4 is just a tired, recycled slogan too, right?
If one generally presupposes that we need an infallible magisterium, then no, Protestantism will not "work" for them. This is because they will find what they are already looking for. But for millions of others who have repented and believed the Gospel without an infallible magisterium, then of course it works.
I’m not even sure what “works” means here. Some Catholics flee to Rome for an epistemological security blanket. Ignoring everyone is in the same boat in having to figure things out
The Gospel was formed using what you call a "magisterium" tho, aka The Church in Council. The Church picked and chose what is the Gospel and what is not, using a lot of criteria that's not directly from the Gospel. Catch 22?
@justian1772 none of us would be Christians if we really believed that the magisterium simply picked what books were canon. We trust the canon because those were the books authoritatively passed down from the apostles and shared amongst churches across the Roman empire and beyond in the 1st century. The church synods and councils recognizing that these books were universally held as scripture only serve as historical proof and attestation to the fact of their universal acceptance and use as scripture, which predated said synods and councils.
@@JW_______ the Apostles and the early Churches had authority from Christ to determine what is and is not scripture; separate the fakes from the real thing. Hence their authority comes before the Canon of Scripture. The same Scripture which is the basis of authority according to the first post if I understood correctly. In Orthodoxy, which is my faith, we have Church Authority and Scripture with no contradiction.
@@justian1772 the church didn’t “pick and choose”
I actually think the heart of the debate between Protestants and Catholics shouldn’t be about how we figure out what scripture means, but “What is the Church”?
1 Timothy 3:15 says The Church is the pillar of truth. So if you’re Protestant how is this realized?
If the church is the pillar of church, why is that? It seems pretty obvious that it’s supposed to teach truth. That’s why we’re supposed to obey the church. We’re not obeying the church because it’s a good exercise to submit ourselves to a higher authority. We’re obeying because it’s truth, it’s built by God, and meant to relay Truth to us.
Jesus, said “I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life.” And Jesus said to Pilate, “for this reason I was born, and have come into the world, to testify to the truth.”
Jesus also said, “When the Holy Spirit, who is Truth, comes, He shall guide you into all Truth.”
It seems that if you’re doing it the protestant way:
a. you’ve forgone the church (you can stop obeying a church and go elsewhere)
b. you don’t have a church that teaches Truth.
It seems The Church is meant to do more than make doctrines with a high degree of confidence that they’re true; more than it’s a very good interpretation. It’s meant to lead to Truth. The Protestant way is to go to church, but when the church teaches something that doesn’t jive with someone’s personal understanding of the scripture or their conscience, they can leave and find another church.
If you’re catholic and you have a problem with how The Church interprets scripture, tough. It’s the Church, you’re not. It’s meant to do this job, you’re not. If The Church changes, it’s position on something (That’s not taught infallibly) deal with it.
It seems this protestant concept of Church undercuts the whole point of The Church.
And that's not even to mention the issue of Unity.
Here is an extended quote from CS Lewis, cutting against the grain of Suan's assumption:
"There are prophets who write with the clearest awareness that Divine compulsion is upon them. There are chroniclers whose intention may have been merely to record. There are poets like those in the Song of Songs who probably never dreamed of any but a secular and natural purpose in what they composed. There is (and it is no less important) the work first of the Jewish and then of the Christian Church in preserving and canonising just these books. There is the work of redactors and editors in modifying them. On all of these I suppose a Divine pressure; of which not by any means all need have been conscious.
The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naïvety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not ‘the Word of God’ in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God; and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves, and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper and so learning its overall message.
To a human mind this working-up (in a sense imperfectly), this sublimation (incomplete) of human material, seems, no doubt, an untidy and leaky vehicle. We might have expected, we may think we should have preferred, an unrefracted light giving us ultimate truth in systematic form-something we could have tabulated and memorised and relied on like the multiplication table. One can respect, and at moments envy, both the Fundamentalist’s view of the Bible and the Roman Catholic’s view of the Church. But there is one argument which we should beware of using for either position: God must have done what is best, this is best, therefore God has done this. For we are mortals and do not know what is best for us, and it is dangerous to prescribe what God must have done- especially when we cannot, for the life of us, see that He has after all done it.
We may observe that the teaching of Our Lord Himself, in which there is no imperfection, is not given us in that cut-and-dried, fool-proof, systematic fashion we might have expected or desired. He wrote no book. We have only reported sayings, most of them uttered in answer to questions, shaped in some degree by their context. And when we have collected them all we cannot reduce them to a system. He preaches but He does not lecture. He uses paradox, proverb, exaggeration, parable, irony; even (I mean no irreverence) the ‘wisecrack’. He utters maxims which, like popular proverbs, if rigorously taken, may seem to contradict one another. His teaching therefore cannot be grasped by the intellect alone, cannot be ‘got up’ as if it were a ‘subject’. If we try to do that with it, we shall find Him the most elusive of teachers. He hardly ever gave a straight answer to a straight question. He will not be, in the way we want, ‘pinned down’. The attempt is (again, I mean no irreverence) like trying to bottle a sunbeam.
Descending lower, we find a somewhat similar difficulty with St Paul. I cannot be the only reader who has wondered why God, having given him so many gifts, withheld from him (what would to us seem so necessary for the first Christian theologian) that of lucidity and orderly exposition.
Thus on three levels, in appropriate degrees, we meet the same refusal of what we might have thought best for us-in the Word Himself, in the Apostle of the Gentiles, in Scripture as a whole. Since this is what God has done, this, we must conclude, was best. It may be that what we should have liked would have been fatal to us if granted. It may be indispensable that Our Lord’s teaching, by that elusiveness (to our systematising intellect), should demand a response from the whole man, should make it so clear that there is no question of learning a subject but of steeping ourselves in a Personality, acquiring a new outlook and temper, breathing a new atmosphere, suffering Him, in His own way, to rebuild in us the defaced image of Himself. So in St Paul. Perhaps the sort of works I should wish him to have written would have been useless. The crabbedness, the appearance of inconsequence and even of sophistry, the turbulent mixture of petty detail, personal complaint, practical advice, and lyrical rapture, finally let through what matters more than ideas-a whole Christian life in operation-better say, Christ Himself operating in a man’s life. And in the same way, the value of the Old Testament may be dependent on what seems its imperfection. It may repel one use in order that we may be forced to use it in another way-to find the Word in it, not without repeated and leisurely reading nor without discriminations made by our conscience and our critical faculties, to re-live, while we read, the whole Jewish experience of God’s gradual and graded self-revelation, to feel the very contentions between the Word and the human material through which it works. For here again, it is our total response that has to be elicited."
-CS Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms
There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.
they are purveyors of ‘self-centered worship.' You may get people to come to those churches, and you may have church growth. But you will not have church impact. The reason is that church becomes increasingly like the culture. People go in, see a skit, listen to some music, hear a soothing sermon, and think they have done their Christian duty. They are entering the exact precarious position the mainline found itself in the '60s and '70s."
if salvation is by "faith only" it excludes even faith gained by reading the
Bible.😒😒
A counterpoint to Suan's point that it appears to him that it makes sense for God to create an authoritarian church structure: to me, it appears sensible to believe that God would leave ambiguity for the purpose of encouraging relationship with him and with one another. It seems reasonable based on a Hebraic rather than Platonic worldview that God is less interested in the ticking of theological boxes and more interested in us "working out" our salvation.
1 Corinthians 14:33
"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace."
Philippians 2:12
"Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind."
1 Corinthians 1:10
"I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment."
If Scripture is clear that: 1. There is such a thing as false teaching, 2. False teaching will lead you to condemnation, and 3. We are called to hold fast to correct doctrine; thus it presupposes that there is such a thing as a universal, clearly defined correct doctrine (i.e. what the Apostles taught). Ambiguity is not the design of the God of Israel who said "But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded... is to be put to death" (Deut. 18:20).
1 Corinthians 11:13-15
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."
2 Peter 2:1-3
"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep."
1 Timothy 1:3
"As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,"
Galatians 1:8-9
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
And we can add Jude 3
“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”
And Jesus says in John 16:13 “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.”
If you accept the faith was delivered once and for all and that before this Christ told us we would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit; then you have to accept that the correct faith must have been known and taught and kept from the beginning of the Church. Meaning there must be an institutional mechanism that can authoritatively keep and guard that faith and determine what is not in accordance with that faith. A free for all where anybody has equal right to say what the true faith is only leads to obfuscation of what was that truth that was delivered ONCE AND FOR ALL by the Holy Spirit. If you cannot know what that truth is with certainty then you make those scriptures worthless and having no meaning for you and me.
Says the modern day Westerner rather than the ancient Jew. Is Christ King or not?? Do you belong to the Kingdom or not??
If James White says the Holy Scriptures are all we need, why then does James White publish many books he has written to help understand Holy Scripture? 🤔
Well, at least how James White understands Holy Scripture, which of course is simply his fallible opinion, ( which he will never admit). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Why are you obsessed with James White?
@Wgaither1 Rather, Why is James White so obsessed with Rome? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@@matthewbroderick6287 Because Rome preaches a false gospel
@Wgaither1 Faith ALONE is never found in Holy Scripture, except to negate it! Holy Scripture teaches we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and keep the commandments and persevere to the end to be saved! James White says none of this is True! Even though you preach a false Gospel and follow the unbiblical teachings of men and white out the Holy Scripture verses you Don't like, I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth!!
@@matthewbroderick6287 works of satisfaction or indulgences not found in scripture
Granted I have not finished the video yet, but, no mention of Orthodoxy so far. This is the ancient, long established "middle ground" preceding the two false choices presented in the West of (1) individual private interpretation and (2) a centrally bureaucratic magesterium.
Why depart the Royal Path, only to veer towards Scylla or Charbydis?
Double points for the Odyssey reference.
@@GospelSimplicity LOL I just KNEW you would appreciate that! All the best, Austin.
To qualify Catholic teaching authority as a “centrally bureaucratic magisterium” is to emotionally diminish - or gravely misunderstand at best - what universal jurisdiction indeed means and what it has ALWAYS meant as far as the ecclesial teaching authority goes. Sure, one can criticize “de facto” concentration of power and applaud the stimulus given to sinodality, or criticize the fragmentation of power and applaud the quest for a real authoriative principle of unification (that is NOT a political global empire, right?), but should never use a caricature that sounds as an admission of the disfunctionality of their own authority model, mostly at the universal level, than otherwise 😉😌. That’s my two cents. God bless you, brother!
Yes, friend. With good claim to apostolic origin and yet in schism. The 'middle' way. 🙄
both approaches have issue... "protestant" approach can result in many different expression that have varying degrees of true/orthodoxy
while the Catholic approach risks teaching error to billions of people and binding their conscience to that error, it also risks pointing people to the intuition and leaders rather than God
Even if there is one official doctrine individual teachers of a faith will explain in so many different ways and add interpretations because of their understanding and the era they life in.
John 15 shows how the prayer of John 17 happens (not exclusively through an institution)
unity in Christ and in the Spirit
35:53 supernatural unity in the Spirit or institutionally enforced doctrinal unity?
@@pigetstuck. I believe that the greatest impediment to unity we have is Mainstream Protestantism, which, quite frankly, doesn’t deserve to be included within Christianity.
But the second greatest impediment we have is the churches who think they’re “it.” The one, true, better-than-everybody-else church founded by Jesus himself before the foundations of the world. Before time and space and eternity. Before the Holy Spirit proceeded from either the Father or the Son. Way, way back when. Special, special, special, extra special.
Catholicism stands in the way of unity. And Catholicism is a far less united brotherhood than Evangelicalism. A huge part of Catholicism is as liberal and as secular as Mainstream Protestantism. Apostate, pure and simple. Flannery O’Connor famously proclaimed that she had far more in common with her audience of Southern Baptists than with any similar group of liberal Catholics. Evangelicals open up their Communion tables to anyone from a Bible-believing church. Catholics close theirs off to everybody. Pathetic schismatics!
Did you miss the whole Incarnation part of the gospels? Of course the Spirit is involved but in and through the BODY of Christ, which is the Church.
Let me save you the trouble NO!
This debate is a debate between subjectivism and objectivism. The catholic argument in this debate is subjectivist and relies entirely upon the necessity of people in authority for the purpose of validating claims.
The sola scriptura argument is objectivist because it relies upon the necessity of evidence for the purpose of validating claims.
Umm...the authority given to Scripture is subjectivist. Whether or not you accept the Scriptures' authority depends on if you perceive the writers as having authority. Both perspectives depend on claims being valid based on the person(s) who are the source of said claims.
LOL 🤣 Where to begin? Catholicism actually believes objective theological truth is possible/accessible through an infallible person/institution. Protestantism leaves everybody in the relativist subjectivist abyss of personal interpretation/opinion with a veneer of "The Holy Spirit guided me, not you!" You have it exactly the opposite; couldn't be more wrong. And an historical analysis shows that the Catholic Church has based its claims on the earliest interpretations of Scripture (Tradition), not ones made up 1500 yrs after Scripture was written.
@@tonyl3762 see, you missed my point and proved my statement correct in the process. My point is that to validate theological claims, you go to a group of people and believe whatever they say. I go to the evidence, which is what the apostles themselves wrote.
@@TheOtherPhilip Lol!! The apostles are a "group of people." So, yea, you also go to a "group a people" to validate a claim.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw No. If I want to know what the apostles taught, the authority of their writings is not subjective but objective. I know what John taught, (maybe not completely, granted) by what he himself wrote.
If we start with the text, we won't assume that God would give us an infallible Magisterium, because we know as a matter of historical precedent He did not do that under the Old Covenant. And in needing guidance in addition to the text, The Holy Spirit can and does fulfil that role apart from the Magisterium. Protestants may not have absolute unanimity on every doctrine, but neither do Catholics, and hundreds of millions of Protestants have been more than able to come to agreement with each other, and share true salvific spiritual, doctrinal, communal fellowship, on the essentials, apart from their agreeing to some Magisterium in addition to the text. The only "kind" of unity you can't get in the protestant model is bureaucratic unity, and while I agree we should have that kind of unity, it is by far the least important kind, and lacking it does not make the faith untenable, but merely very mildly deficient. Unity on the essentials, on the heart of doctrine, the Gospel, unity in prayer, worship, unity in the Spirit and in truth, unity in fellowship and charity, etc. All these can and do exist in the Protestant model, and no Magisterium is necessary for it. In addition, it's important to be clear: objective epistemic basis for unity and agreement is the same in both Protestant and Catholic models. In both models, the individuals come to know the truth through external evidence which establishes credibility, and the infusion of faith from God which grants certainty. In both models, communal agreement is established among people on the basis that they all agreed with each other that the thing is true. Someone might say, "but the Protestant has only a temporary agreement, and can change their mind." But the Catholic can always decide to leave Catholicism and become Orthodox, or Protestant, etc. In either model, sustaining personal faith and communal unity is completely dependent upon continuing cooperation with the grace of God: fully possible by doing so, utterly impossible apart from it.
The text? The text says there's a church that teaches Truth. It was Jesus who did that. You shouldn't start with the assumption that you need a precedent. In the Old testament, there was the Urim and Thummim which were means on infallibility.
@@cmac369 Granted the New Testament indicates something like the Catholic Magisterium was put in place, but that's irrelevant. Suan wasn't arguing about that. He was saying that anyone who believes in the goodness of God should assume that God would give us an infallible Magisterium. Now apart from considering what the New Testament says about whether God did in fact establish such a Magisterium, we know as a matter of historical precedent that the good God did not establish one under the Old Covenant. And the divine dice you mention, while possessing something like Infallibility in themselves, are not even remotely equivalent to a functioning Magisterium the kind of which is under dispute here.
@@cmac369Granted that the NT indicates the establishment of something like the Magisterium, that's irrelevant. Suan was arguing that we can assume and expect, based on the goodness of God, that He would create an infallible Magisterium. But we know from the Bible, that our only historical precedent, is that God did not create such a Magisterium. We don't need a precedent, but we have a precedent that shows Suan's assumption about what God would do, is false. As for the divine dice that you mention, those did possess something of Infallibility, but they didn't have anything remotely similar to the function of a Magisterium, so they are irrelevant here too.
@@taylorbarrett384 Respectfully, I think you should think about whether or not what you said makes sense. You said the NT indicates something like a Magisterium, but that the Old Testament doesn't show there was a Magisterium. So, the Old Testament doesn't show it, but Jesus indicates it? Is that the line of thinking you want to live by? There was no precedent that you could see God's face either, so should we think that Jesus wasn't God and make the same mistake the Pharisees made? And I think the model in the OT is far closer to Catholicism than Protestantism. And the Urim and Thummim- you seem kind of dismissive about that. You admit there was infallibility, but it's just not close enough to the Catholic model. So what is it closer to the protestant model? Since you want a precedent.
@@cmac369 What I said makes perfect sense. When I said the NT indicates the establishment of the Magisterium, I was talking about the establishment of the Magisterium of the Church, not about a Magisterium during the Old Covenant. There was no such Magisterium during the Old Covenant. The divine dice were not even remotely a Magisterium. The Jews never used them to settle any debates about the nature of God, the meaning of Scripture, the books of the Canon, or really any theological debate at all. They simply did not serve any relevant function for the discussion about the Magisterium that Suan was having in the video. Now the fact of an Old Testament precedent does not of course prove God didn't do the opposite for the New Covenant. I already indicated I believe God did, for the New Covenant. The point isn't that the old testament precedent proves there is no Magisterium for the Church, but quite specifically, it proves Suan's assumption about the nature of God and what we can expect and assume God will do, to be a wrong assumption. It simply isn't the case that the goodness of God necessitates that He gives His people a Magisterium. He didn't do that in the past. So if He is doing it now (as I've already agreed He is), it's not because something about His goodness necessitates it. That's the argument here, my friend. You are getting caught up thinking I am a Protestant, and aren't paying attention to details.
Short answer: No
the way God tells us how the text should be interpreted is called The Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit manifested through the magisterium.
@@benjaminsisson5808 i understand that to be the RC view but I have a hard time reconciling that with what I see in Scripture. Every individual believer is filled with the Holy Spirit and from the Bible I deduce that the challenge for humans is not how to interpret God’s commands, but rather the act of obeying, since God’s main commands are already clear and he intended them to be clear See Deut 30:11-20
@@freddymansour4881OK, but no Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23, proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism, which is biblically false with optional baptism, symbolic Eucharist, rejection of papal authority Mt 16 18-19, heretical sola Scriptura etc
@@freddymansour4881 St Paul refers to the church as “the pillar and bulwark of truth”
Yes, you have to start with the premise that God is good, has not left us orphans, and has provided an eternal and unbroken true Church and true Tradition in every age that can truly settle Scriptural disagreements. If you reject that premise, fine, you can't get to Catholicism, but then where does that rejection actually take you logically?? Is there really reason for optimism without God's continual Incarnational authority in history?? Have mere appeals to the Holy Spirit been sufficient? History has proven that that kind of skepticism/relativism is acidic and takes you all the way to atheism eventually. You end up questioning and doubting the very inspiration of Scripture. All these Protestant appeals to the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit apart from the Church/magisterium are a fundamental denial of the continual Incarnational presence and authority of God in the Church that both Scripture and history testify to.
How can I know for sure that the magisterium is correct without circular reasoning?
Amen 🙏 praise be to Jesus Christ for giving humanity His body, the Catholic Church
Sola Scriptura is the textbook definition of circular reasoning
Sola Scriptura simply means scripture is the highest authority. No circular reasoning needed.
@@Isaiah53-FL Where is that taught in Scripture?
perspicuity does not mean all christians agree on all doctrines, but essential ones like how are we saved. we have the Holy Spirit to guide the people of the faith. man is fallible
Can you lose your salvation? Many disagree on that, but that seems like an "essentials" question
@@jarrahe i don’t believe you can, but i disagree that it is an essential doctrine. at the same time, just because many people disagree on a particular topic doesn’t mean it’s not clear
@@jarrahe i think 1 John speaks pretty clearly on that issue
@freddymansour4881 I'm not making a point to debate the doctrine itself. Rather, on what grounds is it not an essential argument? You said in your original comment "essential ones like how are we saved." That's exactly what it is, isn't it? A doctrine pertaining to salvation? That seems to me like it fits the essentials category you described so I'm curious as to on what grounds it is not an essential.
@@jarrahe i see your point. i would say that there are related issues relating to salvation that some may disagree on, but that the way we are saved is what the essential doctrine is.
i would hate to be the one arguing that God’s Word is not enough
The argument is that God’s word is not confined to scripture.
@@benjaminsisson5808 let’s assume that the magisterium contains God’s word. Who will interpret for us what it says? Or will you say that the magisterium’s words do not need to be interpreted, thus elevating it over the inspired words of the Holy Spirit
God’s Word ie the Truth is contained in the deposit of faith comprising Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Christ, Sacred Scripture which the CC codified in 382AD under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium which is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, hence the claim of Fullness of Faith!
@@freddymansour4881 I understand what you’re saying, but that would imply an endless chain of interpretation could be necessary. The magisterium exists to guide the faithful, just as scripture promises.
What does it even mean to ask if Protestantism works? What a fundamentally horrible question. I should think the same question toward Catholicism is equally as pejorative. What does utility have to do with truth?
What does Protestantism have to do with Truth?
It certainly doesn’t work given the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects resulting from personal interpretation which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 21-23 & hierarchy & authority Mt 16 18-19
@@geoffjs neither of them do. Thats my point. Was that not painfully obvious by my comment!? The Truth is Christ and his word. Both Protestantism and Catholicism are attempts to understand and apply those truths. And if we are to move toward utility, the Catholic Church has murdered its fair share of detractors and even went so far as supported the Nazi’s as they escaped Germany after knowing precisely what they had done!!! It wasn’t until the 1970’s that any pope made an apology for the overwhelming atrocities performed by the Catholic Church including the inquisitions and slaughter of Muslims. Considering the application of truth as is prescribed by Christ, the sword was the most abominable application levied by the Catholic Church. If that’s the tradition you want, go for it! I stand with the hundreds of thousands persecuted and murdered by the Catholic Church for any violation of their “authority”. The gospel has spread because of Protestant missionaries, not the Catholic Church. Every country where Catholicism is the dominant religion, I see poverty and ignorance. So if we want to make this an argument of utility, Catholicism doesn’t have a good record.
@@EveryHappeningYes, His One True Church has existed for 2000 yrs in spite of sinful men, proof of her divine origin!.
Are you aware that the CC made a major contribution to the development of Western Civilisation as we know with
- schools & universities
- medicine & hospitals
- science & astronomy
- law system from Canon Law
- economics
- double sided accounting
- social services
- human rights
- architecture
- arts & music
etc
which in todays world, is politically incorrect to acknowledge, all covered in an excellent book by Thomas Woods
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal in 110 which codified your bible in 382. His Church is the fullness of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of its divine origin
No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21
No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!