DEBATE REVIEW: White vs Horn on Sola Scriptura (w/ Sean Luke & Seth Kasten)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- I am joined by Sean Luke (Anglican Aesthetics) and Seth Kasten (Scholastic Lutherans) to review the recent debate on Sola Scriptura between Dr. James White and Trent Horn. I especially wanted to schedule this review to point out the shortcomings of the debate as a whole (not necessarily with the participants individually) and discuss how the future conversations and debates on this matter should develop.
Sean's channel: / @anglicanaesthetics
Seth's channel: / @scholasticlutherans
~~~
My official website & blog: www.theotherpa...
Follow me on Gab: gab.com/Paulos
Become a financial supporter: theotherpaul.l...
Join the official Discord server (The Theocrat Lounge): / discord
Listen to streams in Podcast Format: anchor.fm/the-...
Follow my social media & consider supporting my ministry in other ways. All links are here: linktr.ee/The_...
Intro music:
To God Be The Glory, composed by William Howard Doane (1832-1916) with descant arranged by Richard M S Irwin (b. 1955). Melody Public Domain, Descant © 2020 Richard M S Irwin
Performance ℗ 2020 Richard M S Irwin. All rights reserved. ISRC: UKTU21900097
play.hymnswith...
![ทางเดินชีวิต - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ x อ.ไข่ มาลีฮวนน่า [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1f3wcG16dd4/mqdefault.jpg)
"The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Catechetical Lecture 16
Nearly every modern Sola Scriptura debate rarely scratches the surface of the needed discussion. The typical arguments that you hear (and responses) take up the vast majority of the time and rhetoric takes up much of the rest.
because it's the same recycled argumentation against Sola Scriptura that have been answered for centuries.
@@MetaphysicalArchive You have no living and breathing human authority to tell you what all of that Sacred text means. And no Prots cannot answer satisfactorily why Sola Scriptura has resulted in disunity and division rather than clarity.
@W1AL We do yet again a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura we accept all authorities and these authorities can discern what scripture means ie the Church, Councils, Catechisms and Church fathers however these are all fallible authorities and we go back to Scripture to verify the predication being made about doctrine.
Division has happened due to the lack of understanding of Sola Scriptura.
@@MetaphysicalArchive No, it is rather a lack of understanding of the text. Anglicans, Reformed, and Lutherans all have the same understanding of SS yet they are still divided. That is historical fact.
@W1AL We are not divided at all we accept each other actually your more divided when it comes to acceptance you wouldn't accept a sedavacantist or Eastern Catholic etc as they are heretical
One of my tasks as a doubting Thomas is to try and find and read Catholics who have a genuinely high view of Scripture. Modern Catholic Apall-logists (who are appalling, if you missed the pun) like Trent Horn just dont cut it.
It seems like Trent Horn couldnt defend the Trinity from just the Bible if his life depended on it. This is common in modern Catholic apologetics. To elevate the church, denigrate Scripture as unclear. Its a zero sum game for these modernists. Neil
In 2006 when I was debating lay Protestants, my primary argument was the Scripture CLEARLY points to Rome. Today, these professional appallogists seem to teach that Scripture is so UNCLEAR, it can point to ANYTHING - hence you need Rome. Those are VERY DIFFERENT PARADIGMS.
@@hisservant7200 scripture is obscure though. Anyone who went to graduate university could easily tell you this.
@@haronsmith8974Saying it doesnt make it so. To say that some portions of scripture is obscure is one thing. To say (or imply) that all of scripture is obscure is quite another. Anyone who went to graduate university could easily tell you the difference between the two.
@@hisservant7200 sorry but any proposal of a "cannon" on PhD basis is met with intense scrutiny, going through a PhD program I have seen many people who believe in the "Clarity of Scripture" lose their faith altogether.
Paul, James, and Jesus all use the word "Works" incredibly different, it's very clear that Paul has no real intention of his letters being used later than their current immediate use. Paul even seems to believe that Jesus would be back in his lifetime as well.
The way the epistles and the gospels use the word Righteous is also different. Either you're being intellectually dishonest or just dishonest intellectually with yourself.
@@haronsmith8974If scripture is obscure, Rome/EO/OO cannot help much either. If the way words used in the Bible are so different that they lack any harmony - or are simply unrecoverable in their meaning - then the Bible is a jumbled mess of a book. Thats the logical conclusion of your argument. Your case proves too much. I wonder why Catholics and EO are coming out with a study Bible and even standalone Bibles when they supposedly teach that the Bible is an obscure, difficult to understand book? The irony!
As for my intellectual dishonesty - I wouldnt rely on the assessment of those who cannot contextually interpret the Bible because they find it obscure as I find them intellectually challenged myself. I mean, a person who cannot tell what a bunch of words mean in their context - its not a sign of high level of intelligence.
P.S. The Ph.D program comment was dishonest because you left aside all the other reasons why people loose their faith in cemeteries - I mean seminaries or other such places. Besides, your anecdotal experience will hardly have any impression on others.
P.S2 Your unfamiliarity with the doctrine of inspiration aside, I actually really think that the Bible is obscure to YOU. Maybe you are not lying. Maybe it is indeed beyond you. I mean who am I to say its not, when you confess it is?
It seems like a decent counter to Trent's strategy of quoting random Protestants is to be prepared with quotes from Popes, Saints, or popular Roman Catholic apologists and push the argument right back at him.
Timestamps would be incredibly helpful!
28:40 is a great point
Great stream Paul👏🏻
Thanks for video; edifying!
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 39 Articles of Religion
Sometimes when the Fathers speak of tradition, it's clearly about something that isn't perspicuous or even humanly deducible from Scripture. For example, the Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus, which was highly popular in the east, contains precise details about Liturgy and ordination rites. Your explanation? @ The Other Paul @ Anglican Aesthetics
Sola Scriptura isn't the claim that Scripture is the only authority. It's simply the idea that Scripture is the only infallible authority, and is the Benchmark for Truth. So, if a tradition doesn't contradict Scripture, it checks out.
We're all onboard with traditions from the Apostles regarding rites and ceremonies that only came down orally/thru practice. After we went offline me and Seth actually discussed the Didache as an example of this.
Right, what Paul said. We're fine with there being liturgical elements that come from outside of Scripture. That doesn't contradict the primacy of Scripture, because we claim only that Scripture is the ultimate norm which reforms and judges tradition, not the other way around. But a tradition like ordination rites and such helps us carry out elements that are in Scripture, and so are consonant with it (even if not deducible from it).
Tradition is an authority but not an infallible authority+rule, we refer back to scripture when we see something that's in tradition that doesn't seem biblical.
From Bill Webster: “In the wrtings of the Church fathers, the term tradition came to include three major categories historically:
1) The apostolic teaching or doctrine handed down from the apostles to the Church-called the apostolic tradition.
We mean that often certain early church writers use the term ‘tradition’ to refer to basically the information that was contained in the early creeds or confessions. Often referred to as ‘the rule of faith’ or ‘the canon of truth’.
We finds this in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian. This ‘rule’ was essentially an early form of The Apostles Creed that could even be taught to ‘Barbarians’ who could not read. And was taught ‘traditioned’ orally by the apostles and contained scriptural truths. Later when these two early church writers were providing ‘apologia’ to the gnostics they argued that the gnostics denied these ‘apostolic traditions’ and therefore were denying the ‘rule’ which contained specific teachings that were biblical in their content (not extra-scriptural doctrines) and proved that they (the gnostics) were not in accord with the apostles.
2) Ecclesiastical customs and practices.
3) A patristic consensus of the interpretation of Scripture.”
Nice one lads
It will be amazing if you respond to me The Other Paul but in regards to the quote The Other Phillip brought. I read it in proper context and it's quite good. If people didn't get the proper reference please check Summa Theologiae First Part Question 1 Article 8. I love Aquinas use of Augustine's writing since from Augustine he suggests that the scripture is different compared to Church Fathers writings. After the quote The Other Phillip mentioned, Aquinas brings up Augustine and said this, "For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."
At 20:21, seth says that "Lutherans have an open canon". Ive looked at the BoC and found nothing corroborating this, and asked my pastor and he had no idea what I was talking about. Where did he get this idea that our canon is open?
I think he means that we don't have a canon listed in our confessions.
@@yellowblackbird9000 but that's not the same thing as having an open canon...
Maybe a better way to say it is that they're open to some disagreements on the Canon for corner cases.
@subzero4190295 it kind of is, Lutherans are not confessionally bound to the 66 books, and so they can hold to the Deuterocanon being useful or even if another book was discovered that could be completely verified as written by an Apostle it could be added. I know that is unlikely.
@@yellowblackbird9000I wouldn't call that an open canon though. Luther speaks of them being useful, but we wouldn't include Deuterocanon books a part of canon because they're not inspired. I don't think being useful to pull from should be considered canon, because we could easily define including many useful books and notes of tradition from early Christianity as part of "canon" too.
At that point, it doesn't feel very helpful to call it open canon, since 99.9% of all Lutheran's are just going to be pulling from the Protestant canon for spiritual reference.
As for including new books, I'd be curious if any other denominations would include "open canon" as being open to including new books if discovered, which personally, I don't think that we would. If one of our arguments for scripture is partially based on the Holy Spirit maintaining a canon for us, it feels like it would completely defeat the argument to concede that there's a possibility We are just missing a new book for the last 2,000 years.
19:50 - great stuff on ontology of Scripture
28:21 - book rec on tradition
@paul, would love a book list. Binding your channel, and enjoying the blessing. Thanks
32:50 - early undermining of the Magisterium argument
34:20- the necessity of fallible faculties to come to conclusions that are reliable apprehensions of truth
36:40 - Richard Field reference
41:30 - inerrancy loaded on a single word, and the limitations of God-breathed, vs a theology of the reliability and sufficiency of Scripture.
Reading recommendation: John Wennan on OT and Warfield on Inerrancy.
You made a comment about Van Tillianism being the issue with why White failed to respond to Horn on some particular point. Could you clarify that?
It happens around 39 minutes.
I would love to be as knowledgeable as you guys on SS. Any book suggestions?
Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I, II, III: by David T. King
Please add timstamps please please
It might be worthwhile to address Perry Robinson's "degrees of normativity" as it relates to comments at 33:00.
In what regard?
That the fallible source of canon results in normativity limited to the individual and all articles of faith being open to revision. I just watched his year old response video and it seems reasonable. Btw love you guys properly representing your positions. I am trying to know how sola scriptura does not boil down to subjectivism and will finish watching this video soon. ❤
@@Geego23675 all G man, and I remember this. The claim fails because of the presupposition of fallibility entailing the ultimacy of the individual conscience and the revisability of "fallible" sources. That a source is fallible or claim is made fallibly does not at all entail a blank cheque individual right to question or deny such, because there are normative rules of truth and knowledge that compel the mind to accept such, and to refuse to do so despite demonstration is to knowingly deny the truth, which nobody has the right nor power to change. Thus, a fallible authority can demand assent and obedience, yet can fail to meet the standards by which it has the right to demand such. This is a necessary explanation because the vast majority of real authorities in our life are fallible, e.g. parents, whose authority is divinely granted and whom we are bound to obey per Scripture, yet who are manifestly fallible. They have a real authority over us as individuals which binds us in particular contexts, yet which may be rightly opposed when it conflicts with the higher authority of God (and may be recognised to be such by an individual). I hope this was a satisfying answer :)
@@TheOtherPaul Who should I read on normative rules of truth? Also, which reformer should I read on truly binding articles of faith absent the doctrine of right of private judgement? This will satisfy if these points are true. Maybe Robertson took Hodge and Turretin out of context but it seems like the extent of conscious binding for Anglican is "on paper." Funny though that the practical implications of Prot and EO excommunications are the same. Maybe I should join the discord. Appreciate your time king!
@@Geego23675 yeah king join me Discord, can help you better there. And yes he definitely takes at least Turretin out of context (I havent read Hodge).
When was SS practiced and proclaimed as dogma in the same way the Reformation practiced it? What year? Surely something so central to the faith was declared dogma by some council.
SOLA SCRIPTURA?WHY NOT§ BUT WITH A TRUE EXPLANATION ACCORDING WITH THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH SINCE THE 1ST SIECLE.
Not sure just why you keep on denying the reality that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus Christ. There is zero evidence that Anglicanism is the true faith. All you're doing is "kicking against the goads." I say this from a perspective of a 4 year Bible degree, former Baptist Pastor, and former confessional Lutheran elder. At some point, common sense, objective reality, and the Holy Spirit has to turn on the light switch. Please see this. Blessings.
That's where I recognize you from...You were a pretty staunch Lutheran, weren't you. I remember you from FB I think. Anyhow, you keep making fallacious assertions. Don't know why that is.
BTW, did you actually watch the video? I don't think you did.
Yes I also remember having a go around with you concerning the lack of liturgical integrity of communion in one kind in the Catholic Church, that is to say by the defying of THE liturgical command Christ traditioned to the church and by highly restricting the precious blood in Christs Last Will and Testament, the heart of the mass, namely the New Testament itself, which isn’t just a document (scripture) but is the Eucharist (as handed on by the Apostles and interpreted by the church for the first thousand years)… yes, talk about kicking against the goads
That’s quite the claim considering the lack of liturgical integrity of communion in one kind in the Catholic Church, that is to say by the defying of THE liturgical command Christ traditioned to the church and by highly restricting the precious blood in Christs Last Will and Testament, the heart of the mass, namely the New Testament itself, which isn’t just a document (scripture) but is the Eucharist (as handed on by the Apostles and interpreted by the church for the first thousand years)… yes, talk about kicking against the goads
You cant say that with a straight face and then assert *sola scriptura*
Just another "same old Sola Scriptura debate." That's why all the Protestants are doing damage control debate "reviews" on it - because it's not relevant/is redundant.
how silly, its almost like all apologists from all traditions do debate reviews, but Protestants are doing damage control because "i am right". Get a grip and grow up.