Do Protestants Have the Correct Old Testament Canon - Trent Horn Vs Steve Christie Debate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- Catholics apologist Trent Horn and Protestant apologist Steve Christie (author of Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller) debate whether Protestants have the correct old testament canon.
Become a Patron of PWA and get cool stuff in return! / mattfradd
🔴 Sponsors
Ethos Logos Investments: www.elinvestme...
Exodus 90: exodus90.com/m...
🔴 Video small group for those looking into becoming Catholics: onmarcopolo.co...
Bios
Steve: I graduated from a Catholic college, where I converted to a Protestant in August 2004. I also earned a Bachelor degree in psychology & a Master of Business Administration. I was the Chairman of the Missions Committee at my former church. I have spoken at several churches in the northwest Ohio, northeast Ohio, & southeast Michigan areas on the canon of Scripture, as well as the keynote speaker on the 500-year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. I was a guest on Reason & Theology (a Catholic TH-cam ministry), and later I debated Gary Michuta on the canon. I have been interviewed on Christian television & radio. I have been teaching home Bible studies for 13 years, and the author of two books: “Why Protestant Bibles are smaller” & “Not really of us: why do children of Christian parents abandon the faith?” I currently worship at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Toledo, Ohio.
Trent Horn: After his conversion to the Catholic faith, Trent Horn earned master’s degrees in the fields of theology, philosophy, and bioethics. He serves as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers, where he specializes in teaching Catholics to graciously and persuasively engage those who disagree with them. Trent models that approach each week on the radio program Catholic Answers Live and on his own podcast, The Counsel of Trent. He has also been invited to debate at UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, and Stanford University. Trent is an adjunct professor of apologetics at Holy Apostles College, has written for The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, and is the author of nine books, including Answering Atheism, The Case for Catholicism, and Why We’re Catholic: Our Reasons for Faith, Hope, and Love.
🔴 Debate Format
Affirmative Opening Statement (15 minutes)
Negative Opening Statement (15 minutes)
Affirmative First Rebuttal (7 minutes)
Negative First Rebuttal (7 minutes)
Affirmative Second Rebuttal (4 minutes)
Negative Second Rebuttal (4 minutes)
Affirmative cross examines negative (12 minutes)
Negative cross examines affirmative (12 minutes)
Audience Questions (30 minutes)
Affirmative Closing Statement (5 minutes)
Negative Closing Statement (5 minutes)
Really waiting for Steve’s objective standard for determining what is and isn’t scripture. I’m a protestant that is looking for an intelligent reason not to become catholic and I’m struggling to find one
Any updates on your journey? 🙏🏻
The main argument against the Catholic canon is from the apostle Paul who stated the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, which refers to the OT Scriptures. And no Jew ever embraced the Catholic OT canon, like they did the Protestant OT canon. Trent was not able to produce even a single ECF or early council prior to the fourth century that embraced all 46 books of the Catholic OT canon, while you can find both early Christians & Jews from antiquity that embraced all 39 books of the Protestant OT canon. That's why I began my debate quoting the Council of Trent, Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Dr. Anders from EWTN who all stated that the canon was passed down from Jesus & the apostles "hand to hand." IOW, it did not "develop" well into the church age the way contemporary Catholic apologists believe. The problem from the Catholic side is that the canon lists in the church age are inconsistent, except for their lists being identical or near identical to Protestant OT canons. For example, Baba Bathra 14b which is a second century written tradition enumerates EVERY book from the Protestant OT, but NONE from the Catholic OT. And this written dates its source back to Gamaliel from the book of Acts in the NT, who was the mentor of the apostle Paul. However, you don't get an IDENTICAL Catholic OT canon list until 1441.
I crossed the Tiber myself … evangelicals make the best Catholics :)
@@3leon306 I crossed the Tiber the other way. Ex-Catholics make the best evangelicals, because they know all the false narratives made by Rome, including their arguments about the canon.
@@BornAgainRN I’m well aware of the toxic stew of ego, resentment, and Jacobin rebelliousness that creates the kind of Protestant obscurantist “truth” you’re clinging to ... good luck.
So this is what I learned.
The more I learn, the less I know.
Mutual respect shown during debate.
I agree
Well said.
That's where I decided centuries of writings written by men who spent a lot more time studying(the apostolic father's) is like finding a cheat code l
Note to self
0:01 Welcoming speech
1:25 Sponsor acknowledgement (Exodus 90)
3:06 Introducing Steve
4:35 Introducing Trent
6:00 Format
6:30 OS: Steve - 15 mins
21:27 OS: Trent - 15 mins
36:35 Rebuttal: Steve - 7 mins
43:44 Rebuttal: Trent - 7 mins
50:48 2nd Rbttl: Steve - 4 mins
55:03 2nd Rbttl: Trent - 4 mins
59:07 Spnsr Acknwldgmnt (Ethos Logos Inv.)
1:00:52 Cross examination format
1:01:24 CE: Steve - 12 mins
1:13:28 CE: Trent - 12 mins
1:25:46 Support Pints
1:27:17 Q&A - 30 mins
1:50:03 CS: Steve
1:55:11 CS: Trent
2:00:08 Debaters info
"Now, rule of thumb is, never ever buy a whiskey that's flavoured. If you have to flavour it, it probably wasn't good to begin with. This is also true with coffee. - Matt Fradd
Thank you!
Do smoked whiskeys counts as flavored?
Trent is the most compelling and respectful Catholic apologist of our generation
what do ya think of him compared to jesse romero? I like trent..hes cool
@@TheAdrian91706 Not too familiar with Jessse Romero's work so couldn't comment
I love Trent! I’m ready his book “ Why We’re Catholic”.
@@TheAdrian91706 jesse cannot stand in same sentence with trent in theological and aplogetics terms
Tim Staples trained Trent...Tim is the man!
Btw, Catholicism is the fullness of Christianity
Btw, the Papacy is not what defines the Catholic Faith.
You are right kirito kun
Purdy Persuasive † it IS Christianity. Every other Church broke off the Mother Church is not in the fullness of the Faith. You are right.
Barely Protestant what defines catholic church includes every single point and without a pope there is no catholicism. Christ Himself wanted a shepherd for His Church. Peter was chosen to be that shepherd and therefore the seat of Peter is honored. There can be bad popes and saintly popes but not one single pope has the right or authority to change the teachings. Check out what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is.
@@ilonkastille2993 nope, you're wrong. The Papacy is an innovation.
IF YOUR BIBLE IS MISSING: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Daniel and Esther, then you are using a Bible that was codified by the Jews AFTER THEY HAD REJECTED CHRIST.
If your Bible includes these books then your Bible was codified by the Catholic Church which was founded by Christ, the same Church that wrote and codified the canons of the NEW TESTAMENT.
Actually not-"Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God." Romans 3
@@Justas399 That the Jews had the words of God says neither (1) which books contain them or (2) which words they accept or reject (such as Romans itself...)
@@AveChristusRex Paul is referring the OT.
@Phil Andrew If they were entrusted with the Scriptures then they would know what all the Scriptures were in the OT.
@Phil Andrew What Jews at the time of Christ asserted that the Song of Songs or Esther was not Scripture? Who were they and where can I see their writings that assert this?
I’m Catholic now because of this debate. I hear you Trent Horn
I highly doubt that.
Trent believes the church over the Bible. The Bible is subservient to the church! NO its the other way around!!!!! Staying put ,...I'm fine even more so!
@Idyllic 🍂 wait till you find out that, by your reasoning, every single Christian to ever exist until the 1500s was a pagan
@@simonfinley864 You highly doubt that he’s catholic?
@@simonfinley864 me too
I saw many people lying like these
They say i am Catholic now because of this
Another video they say i am Catholic now because of that
@Steve is mistaken to assume that Jesus would have revealed everything he knew to the disciples. But the scriptures shows that Jesus would rather set a way for the Church to come to the understanding of the full truth in time which he didn't yet fully revealed to his disciples. John 16:12-14 "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
wow. that's great
@@zwijac " don't think I have come to abolish the law, no, but to fulfill it. Not one letter of the law will be erased until the end of time"
@@thecatholicrabbi4170 christ is the end of the law for righteousness for everyone that belive Rom 10 , 4
I like Mr Steve Christie but Mr Trent Horn had the more convincing arguments and very clear and precise conclusions.
Precisely...protestants can not answer straight just making his own interpretation..
This was a phenomenal debate. As an atheist, I must say that I love Trent Horn
HMMMMMMMMMMM
he really is a level-headed guy.
Why would an athiest have any interest in this debate?
@@gideondavid30 as someone who’s had a very long atheist phase, it isn’t surprising at all, especially if you’re interested in what intelligent people with other perspectives have to say, especially debates within that world of perspective
@@gideondavid30 atheists who are listening to people talk about their belief for God are in search of answers. Those who search for knowledge are open to God but are looking for convincing faith to ponder their value system.
Every atheist who converts to Christianity is one who began their journey by learning more about God and why people have faith in him.
Steve literally just said that the church would not lose sight of what books were in the canon but also he follows a new canon from the 1500s. Even if he makes the case that it was the same one that the apostles believed in, they definitely lost it if that was the case
At the end (1h54m30s) Steve Christie showed his true motivation by mentioning 2 Cor 5:21 as a slam dunk for Imputation against Catholicism and real reason why he is Protestant. I happen to specialize in this verse and can use it as a silver bullet against Protestantism to wipe out any exegetical credibility. This verse says nothing about Imputation, it is pure presumption. In fact, the only time Imputation is mentioned is two verses prior, where of all things Paul says sin is NOT imputed. No mention of sin being imputed to Jesus and His righteousness imputed to us. The problem is that Imputation has such scant evidence in the NT that Protestantism has bet the farm on 2 Cor 5:21. Yet they won't even do a word study of the Greek word "impute" (Logizomai), which the Bible conclusively defines as the opposite meaning Protestants think, nor do they even use the Catholic principle of Scripture interprets Scripture on 5:21 (I've checked their top scholars). Instead, they can only say it must mean Imputation. But if you look at the consensus of Church Fathers who comment on 2 Cor 5 21 (which Protestantism hasn't checked), none of the ECFs ever mention Imputation. Rather, the ECF consensus all say "God made Him to be sin" in 5:21a refers to the Son becoming Incarnate, as they cross reference Romans 8:3 where it says "God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," which means Incarnation. No Imputation going on here. Even major Reformed Protestant English translations (ESV, NASB) cross reference 5:21 to 8:3, yet you will not see a single Protestant scholar, apologist, or pastor even show any awareness of this exegetical, cross reference, patristic interpretation of 5:21. I've looked at the Protestant sources for myself!
catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/09/is-imputation-taught-in-2-corinthians.html?m=1
I am not sure which side of the question you favor, but One thing is true. When I see a long diatribe not broken down into paragraphs or bullet points, I just will not read it. It becomes gobbledegook. EVERYONE, please break up your comments to be inevitable to readers.
Trent was a guy who really keep his composure, he really speaks cool and has a wide knowledge about the history of the Church ..Trent I've watched atleast 3 of your debates and this one really made me believed that you're a person gifted with a talent to proclaim the truth to all of us..God bless you Trent ..keep on doing this and we're here Catholics to pray for you😊🙏✌️♥️
As Trent noted at the beginning of his closing statement, Christie's closing statement at 1:52:20 starts with a falsehood (but I'll be charitable and presume Christie got the information second hand, as it's pretty clear he got it from a "Beggars All" blogpost, based on his phrasing). Christie cites Peter Duncker as writing that "only 44%" of the Fathers of Trent approved the canon. This is false.
Duncker, Peter G. "The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 3, 1953, pp. 277-299. JSTOR 43720511.
p. 289:
"After much disputing, also on the question of the anathema, the Fathers were invited to vote on these points:
a) Should all the books be approved that were approved at Florence? All: Placet
.
b) Should an anathema be added? Del Monte (together with the other 2 legates, one vote) + Pacheco + 22 others - 24 pro. Madruzzo + 14 others - 15 contra."
"Placet" is a vote of assent; the Florentine canon was approved UNANIMOUSLY, contrary to what Christie claims. The Council Fathers were, however, divided as to whether an anathema should be added to the definition of the canon (the anathema won out). Two different votes, two different questions.
That’s a very important point, my friend!!! 👏👏👏 Thanks so much!
What's funny here is that Protestant cling to scripture alone principle but did not realised when they disagree on one thing they'll end up forming another denomination of church/es. Scripture alone does not even found in the Sacred Scripture whether implicit or explicit in the full context of the Gospel. 44% of the Fathers? as if you knew about the Fathers? if you knew them then you would have changed your personal opinion on scripture. The first 400 years of Christianity there was no NT, that you'll have to wrestle with. Catholics understood that Protestantism follow the Hebrew list of scripture as if there was a such; which according to the dead sea scroll there was no approved nor agreed cannon by the Jews. Oh! The original KJV included the 7 books yet protestants despised them because it's one of the Achilles hills of the protestantism. Finally, what I notice protestants always cite the Church fathers but those names they often mentioned were either Bishops of the first century or great Saints in the Catholic Church: Just a brotherly caution, Napoleon tried to destroy the Church, Emporors, the Jews, Hitlers even Bishops and we are still seeing that today and we Catholics are truly cautious what is happening in the Holy Mother Church as these has been foretold by the Blessed Mother whom She appears in Fatima, Akita, Guadalupe, America, La Sallete, Philippines and many parts of the world, the message is the same. How cool to be in the Church founded by Jesus Christ -a complete story of a Family!
@@Rob-mr1vk well some people dont want to be part of Gods family. Soo many prodigal sons we have to pray for.
First, I appreciate that you broke your comment into readable text. I hate text that is one massive paragraph. Now my comment...The necessity of your response to the question was necessary. Most of the time I find the kind of typical Protestant answer which is only "partially" true. In this case, it was not even partially true.
I love Trent man, such an humble and nice guy. From a "protestant" who is now currently studying Catholicism and orthodoxy I have to say that Trent won in my eyes.
Sorry my friend he was on the defense the whole time. Unfortunately most of the time he couldn't answer directly though he is great at pacifying the topic without admission of a councils inability to define its inclusion of the apocryphal books.
@Prasanth Thomas where? Open yourr eyes and not your ears then? Lol Septuagint? Go to who held scriptures WAY prior to any catholic church? The Jews held the oracles and were responsible? Was there any of the extra books? NO! Did God forget somehow? Off course he forgot so catholic god could make corrections!!!! Lol Keep your extra books i have no problems with that? My opinion/s is as good as yours at every level. Sola Ecclesia!!! Lol
@Prasanth Thomas i use a dictionary does that make it God Breathed? Not all truth is God breathed Yes?? Lol So if they Quote from pagan writings that it is heretical so the writing is Scriptures? Lol Silly argumentations please comeback with more im thoroughly entertained 🤣!!! Congratulations on your conversion ! Cheers! That former catholic priest was just too learned for Mr Trent. SORRY!
@Prasanth Thomas obviously you would be the expert on human tendencies! Right? Adding Books, false doctrines (Marian WORSHIP, indulgences, purgatory, papal infallibility etc. Etc ) Yes please school me as you would be the expert on human tendencies. Lol.
Just because he did know a source of an argumentative point does make an historical document God Breathed! Let alone win a debate?
Almost every debate against catholic apologist no matter how embarrassingly one sided (not saying this debate in honesty) comes with a victorious outcry.
I myself am a former catholic. My direct uncle is the former Arch Bishop of the Dolce Nombre De Maria Basilica on the island of Guam. Not hating just not in agreement teachings. Blessings.
@Prasanth Thomas I’m Protestant and I’ve watched both debates Steve Christie had with Trent Horn and Gary Michuta and I have to say that Steve Christie got SCHOOLED by Gary Michuta and Trent Horn. I told Steve Christie this and he got butthurt about it and started acting like a troll. William Albrecht has called him out for being a troll on the “Apocrypha Apocalypse” channel. Steve Christie’s TH-cam channel is @BornAgainRN
Gary Michuta and Trent Horn both provided historical evidence that the ancient Pharisees accepted the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture, but Steve Christie is still in denial about this. Steve Christie is a liar and a deceiver.
Wisdom Chapter 2 Gives me all confidence That Catholic Canon is the correct one.
Why?
+1 to @Noel Tan 's question of why?
@@noeltan1455 I'm not sure if this is exactly what Sam meant but I'm assuming it's the overly explicit prophecy about Christ.
@@renjithjoseph7135 Just tagging you so you get the notification
@@josephgoemans6948 Right, basically that whole chapter is a Messianic Prophecy. It is so explicit that it is Impressive that Protestants reject that as the Word of God, I mean if that is not Inspired by God, then by whom?
I really believe that the Holy Spirit has led perfectly his church as Christ promised.
Trent: who is the first christian who did not included the deuterocanonical books ? Steve: heiwbwvsodbshw😂
Melito of Sardis, 2nd century bishop.
@@Serquss Well, that's not fair. Steve didn't know the answer, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I am catholic, but there are definitely Christian thinkers - even saints - who didn't hold the view that the Church's magisterium has confirmed as the correct one on this. St Jerome, St Melito of Sardis and St Gregory the Great all did not hold the deuterocanon as inspired scripture.
@@grzesiekzdomeyko9707 his included Wisdom.
Serquss there were also early church fathers who did not believe in Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Origen is one of them. Origen didn’t believe in the books I just said above, but he wanted to include The Shepherd of Hermas in the canon. This is why you can’t believe everything the church fathers say because there were false teachers back then even when the Apostles were still alive. Read Jude 1:4 and 2 Peter 2:1
@@AnimalLover-yi5ik we use the Church Fathers' beliefs as evidence, taken with a grain of salt, not proof. The note Fathers in unison, the more likely it is the Truth.
When I heard Steve say he is an ex-catholic, I said to my self: "self, ex-catholics are the worst protestants ; ) !!" But ex-protestants are the best Catholics!! God bless both!!
Did your self reply??? 0_o
Aeroedge 😂
Us ex-catholics who became evangelical, then returned to the Catholic Church again.....only to return to the evangelical church.....are pretty good
So I'm gonna be a really good Catholic, since I was an anti-Catholicism Protestant! haha
Lol I’m an ex-protestant becoming a Catholic but i was raised by an ex-Catholic protestant 😂🤣😂
You can tell that Trent has heard these objections so many times
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
You’re grabbing single verses and not looking at the whole context.. this is old.
Trent Horn is the best! I am a proud Catholic.
Horne is great, but there are others I find even deeper thinkers like Father Spitzer
I just don’t see how you would not accept the canon Christ himself would have read and used in the Septuagint. Protestants deny “tradition” but have the hard pill to swallow in accepting a reformation era tradition with 66 books instead of the original 73.
protestantism opetates by tradition in every aspect, imposing artificial interpretation on Scripture in order to legitimize their doctrines... it's totally deceptive and disgusting...
Yeah, Protestants have plenty of traditions, most of them in contradiction to Catholicism and then claim they don't have any traditions and are "bible only."
@Don Espoleto yes, isnt that odd
And the irony is that most of them claim that Jesus is there only mediator, their savior and they’ll quote John 14:6
@@silveriorebelo8045 it's not disgusting but it is deceptive
He said there is no prophecy in the apocrypha. Please read the 2nd chapter of Wisdom and tell me it ain't talking about Jesus Christ The Lord
As I mentioned during the debate, Wisdom 2 is referencing BACK to the Psalms which is prophesying about Jesus.
As a former Protestant, I’d say yes! They do not have the complete Cannon of Scripture although, the deuterocanonical books were in the KJV until publisher’s removed them in the mid 1800s and many Protestant Christians would read them back then and really it is a recent phenomena that those books are not appreciated like they once were. I will say something I’ve heard from many a priest, both Catholic and Orthodox, “all you need to live a productive and fruitful Christian life is the NT and Psalms.
Arguments for the canonicity of the Apocrypha:
1. The Book of Tobit prophesied about Jesus Christ, which proves that it is divinely inspired, since man is unable to predict the future, only God can predict the future. Tobit represents humans when we are still enslaved by sin and before we are born again. Tobias represents Jesus. Sarah represents the church/the elect/humanity. The demon Asmodeus represents sin/Satan. Tobias killing the fish represents Jesus' sacrifice. Tobias marrying Sarah represents Christ marrying the Church. Like, there are just too many similarities between the story of Tobit and the story of Jesus as recorded in the gospels and the New Testament in general.
2. In Tobit 12:15, the angel Raphael said, "I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand in the glorious presence of the Lord". In Revelation 8:2 John said "And I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them". Keep in mind that "seven angels who are before God" has never been mentioned in The Bible at all until Revelation, and Revelation was written like hundreds of years after Tobit was written. So my point is that, if Tobit is not divinely inspired, and was just written by a regular guy without any guidance from the Holy Spirit, how did the author know about the details of Heaven? How did the author know about the seven angels who stand before God? This further strengthens the idea that Tobit is indeed divinely inspired.
3. Whenever Jesus or the NT authors quoted a passage from the OT, they usually quote the passage from the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the OT that contains the Apocryphal books. The fact that Jesus and the NT authors love to quote passages from the Septuagint implies that they had no problem with the inclusion of the Septuagint in The Bible; since they literally used a translation that contains the Apocryphal books.
4. Some of the early Christians who lived during 100-300 AD quoted from the Apocrypha and considered it to be canon. Augustine quoted from Tobit in his book called "De Civitate Dei", and many other church fathers also quoted from the Apocryphal books. The Council of Carthage which was held in 397 AD also placed the Apocrypha in the list of canonical books.
5. Jesus and the New Testament authors never said anything bad about the non-canonicity of the Apocrypha. Jesus and Paul never said "Woe to you for accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture! Woe to you for accepting the words of man as the words of God!" or anything like that. If the Apocrypha is non-canonical, we would expect Jesus, Paul or at least one of the NT authors to say something negative about it and discourage people from considering it Scripture.
Now I will respond to some objections that Protestants like to use against the canonicity of the Apocrypha:
Objection 1: The Jews did not consider the Apocrypha to be canon. Therefore, we should not consider the Apocrypha to be canon.
My response to objection 1: First of all, Judaism is diverse, not all of the Jews rejected the Apocrypha. Some Jews accepted the Apocrypha as canon. You cannot generalize all Jews and say that "Jews rejected the Apocrypha!". Like, the Alexandrian Jewish Community in Alexandria considered the Apocrypha to be canon. The Septuagint also contains the Apocrypha. Second of all, during the Second Temple Period, there was no universally agreed upon canon of Scripture among Jews. Some Jews believed that these books are canon and those books are non-canonical, some Jews believed that those books are canon and these books are non-canonical. Third of all, some Jews also did not consider the New Testament to be canonical. So by your logic, we should also remove the New Testament from The Bible.
Objection 2: The New Testament never quoted from the Apocrypha, therefore it is non-canonical.
My response to objection 2: First of all there are many Old Testament books that the New Testament never quotes from, these books are: 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi. So by your logic, these books are non-canonical and should be yeeted out of The Bible? If whether or not a book is quoted in the New Testament is your standard in deciding whether or not a book belongs in The Bible, then you should also consider books such as Enoch and Assumption of Moses to be canonical; since Jude quoted from those books. The Apostle Paul also quoted from Pagan Greek poets and philosophers such as Aratus and Menander, so by your logic, the works of Aratus and Menander should be included in The Bible? Third of all, the New Testament actually quoted, or at least made references, to the Apocryphal books. In John 6:35, Jesus said "I am the bread of life, whoever comes to me will never go hungry, whoever believes in me will never be thirsty". When Jesus said that, He was referencing Sirach 24:21; He is showing that He is far more valuable than wisdom. He is showing that He is far more important than wisdom and is far better than wisdom. Jesus also quoted Sirach 10:14 in Luke 1:52.
Objection 3: The Book of Tobit "promotes witchcraft" because in the book, Raphael instructed Tobit to harvest a fish's organs and turn the organs into medicine.
My response to objection 3: This is an equivocation/correlation = causation fallacy. It is like saying "Your Name promotes transgenderism because it's a movie about a boy and a girl body-swapping!". Using the organs of animals as medicine was common back then. It is not "witchcraft", it is not "Making potions". It is like saying "Resident Evil promotes witchcraft because in the games, you can combine herbs together and make potions out of herbs!". Second of all, who are you to tell God how to and how to not do miracles? God can do miracles in any way He wants; even if the ways are strange and weird. In the Book of Samuel, King Saul told the witch to summon the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel, and his spirit was actually summoned, and the spirit told Saul that the next day, he would die. In the Book of Kings, the prophet Elijah used salt to perform miracles many times (He placed salt into a pot of poisonous stew so that the poison would disappear). Is Elijah "performing witchcraft" and "making potions"?
Trent is a powerhouse.
Trent is good, but the other dudes a nurse. He shouldn't have had that much trouble.
@@MegaRoadwolf Trent is good, but the other dudes a nurse. He shouldn't have had that much trouble.
DM-Simplistic arguments are difficult to disprove. For example, I heard the nurse say that the Catholic Church teaches that the canon was handed down by Jesus Christ through the Apostles. Which is true. But, for those of us who study Catholic Teaching, we understand that this is an allegorical reference to the fact that the Catholic Church had to sift through thousands of books to determine which were actually authored by Apostles and their disciples.
In a verbal debate, which one looks like the slam dunk and which one looks like an excuse?
All we can rely upon is the fact is that the truth is true whether anyone believes it or not.
Strawman opponent.
Thankful to God that I am catholic, the church that God Himself founded🙏🏻❤️
Amen
You cannot possibly say that if you know ANYTHING about the horrific murderous, sexually immoral popes and church leadership over centuries since Constantine merged paganism from Rome into Christianity birthing the RCC. That organization is absolutely NOT the church Christ founded. Please do your research.
kk doc. Please do your research. If you would have researched you would have know that the only thing Constantine did was legalize Catholicism for the people under his rule. Many Christians at the time were being mistreated and all Constantine did was make the religion a recognized by law and therefore protecting Catholics from all sort of abuse. Constantine did not create the Catholic Church religion. You heard this from someone and YOU DID NOT research. Hypocrite
@@donjon2023 just like most Catholics I talk to. Arrogant, self righteous and nasty name callers. Assuming that I have not done any research is a bit disingenuous and reflects your confirmation bias in order to twist history. Sorry but I would prefer to have a dialogue with a fellow Christian in order to discuss facts. You don’t fit into that category mainly because Jesus would not respond to me the way you have. I suggest you read the sermon on the mount again about humility.
th-cam.com/video/dNRZnqcr5bQ/w-d-xo.html
kk doc. You call that link you gave me research? Give me a break. You can research better than that.
I have to say, my favorite thing of this debate is the cordiality and good humor they both have. Regardless of disagreement, Steve and Trent would probably both be fun to have a discussion with over dinner.
Steve accepts the traditions of the Hebrew Talmud for closing the OT canon?? 🤣🤣🤣 I thought Protestants didn’t accept tradition? 🤦♀️ Didn’t the Talmud also say Mary had an affair with a Roman soldier? Talmud seems pretty shaky ground to formulate doctrine. 🤔
Yeah I thought it was really interesting when he talked about how it had been preserved for 600 years as oral tradition to the year 200ad. And then just rejects apostolic tradition. Very interesting.
Talmud also inadvertently supports Jesus Christ. Talks of miracles were happening 100 of years after Christ ascended.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh what are we to do when Protestant teachings directly contradict the scriptures? All Protestants cannot be teaching the scripture correctly since there are approximately 25,000 different Protestant denominations who disagree with each other in their teaching of the same scriptures. So which Protestant denomination is the correct one whose teachings are not in contradiction with the scriptures?
@@joebrinson5040 Hi Joe. Great question. Please do not think that, because I spend so much time talking about the Bible with Catholics that I am not just as concerned about many of the protestants! It is written, "Many will strive to enter, but will not be able to." That is, many will be seeking to enter (i.e. Catholics, protestants, etc), but narrow is the way that leads to life! Most Catholics and protestants won't make it. Moreover, this is, indeed, the most important conversation a person can have: at least one of us is living and preaching a false gospel.
That said, can the world turn to me as a fount of knowledge, as a guide through life? At first, my answer will sound extremely arrogant, but 'yes you can!' Why? Because I will point you to two Bible verses, "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth" and "Whoever continues in My Word will be My disciple." Certainly, I will look at Scripture, doing my best to understand it and to live it out. Yet, ultimately, I do not trust in my own wisdom, but the Spirit of God, as promised, to lead me into all truth. I will let you know when I get there!
That is why it doesn't bother me that there are so many denominations, as most 'Christians' are not Christians! Yet, can the same not be said about Catholics, that most will not make it? However, the closer a person gets to accurately dividing the Word of God, the closer that person will be to God.
That said, I think there are more protestants who are saved than Catholics, as Catholics - trusting in the Church rather than the Spirit to lead them - have fallen into such grievious error. For example, Romans 10.13, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved."
I had one Catholic tell me, flat out, that Romans 10.13 is not true! Others, in a more circular approach, quote verses that 'contradict' the words of Paul, saying, "No! Calling on the Name of the Lord is not enough! You must take the Eucharist!" Isn't that your position? To me, that seems like a prime example of, "Whoever preaches a different gospel should be accursed." I am concerned, as I can give a hearty 'amen!' to Paul's gospel; I do not contradict it!
Yet, what about places in the Bible where it is 'necessary' to partake of communion. First, does that doctrine not contradict Romans 10.13? Moreover, I have an answer for the 'Eucharist Chapter,' John 6. That is, rightly or wrongly, I can defend my position, yet no Catholic has ever taken on Romans 10.13. They all have avoided it, quoting 'contradictory' verses, calling down the wrath of apostolic tradition on me - everything but telling me what Paul meant! That is, what did Paul mean, then, by, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Do you take that to be true? If so, explain how, without communion, a person can be saved?
I write in the hope and prayer that you will have a saving encounter with Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
God bless you Trent, keep up the great work for the salvation of souls
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
I like Trent's question in 1:21:15 how could all those early church fathers be all wrong when it was so widespread?
Just watched this last night, the protestant is on the affirmative and the subject is "Do the protestants have the correct OLD TESTAMENT canon" but Steve (protestant) failed to enumerate any categories why protestants have the correct OT canon, he just spent the entire time attacking the Deuterocanon hoping that if he keeps attacking them somehow it will make the protestant OT canon correct. Trent Horn keeps reminding everyone that Steve failed to do what he is supposed to do and that is to provide categories why the Protestant canon is the correct canon.
Listen again, you missed some.
I'm a return cradle Catholic. 1984 18 yrs old went nondenominational, had a great time of scripture, kindof looked from a Catholic learned perspective from my gradeschool upbringing. Atleast as it was in the 70s.
I just recently returned 2019 through scripture and the Lord showing me things.
In 1984 the loose sect I came into were more open to revelation.
Probably a result many childhood chatechized Catholics were persuaded in that direction in a charismatic move that I believe was of the Lord. In some ways i think converting Catholics influenced them more than they influenced us. And as in my case, God used the journey as a training making us able to defend the faith biblically, which is the only way many of them can hear.
🤷🏽♀️ I may not know what is said in every council, but I can defend by scripture and reason because of my full circle journey.
Thanks for your testimony
btw, didn't Martin Luther attempted to remove the books of James, Hebrew, Jude, and Revelation?. where did Martin Luther get the authority to remove the 7 books of the O.T. and attempt to remove the four books of the new testament?
When it comes to Judith and Nebuchadnezzar: Nebuchadnezzar would likely have been both king of Babylon and King of Assyria, in the same way James I of England was also James VII of Scotland.
There are tons of documents historically that equate Assyrians and Babylonians etc. with each other. That argument is nonsensical. Xenophon for example.
As to the question about Judith referring to Nebuchadnezzar being the King of Assyria while he was actually the King of Babylon, there may be a historical case made that he was the king of both. The Siege of Jerusalem was 597 BC, and about a decade earlier Babylon had conquered Assyria in 609 BC.
That’s definitely correct, my friend:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medo-Babylonian_conquest_of_the_Assyrian_Empire
It says he rules from Ninevah. That is inaccurate. He ruled from Babylon.
@@davidanderson6055 For one, having conquered Assyria he would've ruled over Assyria.
But I'll do you one better: according to Judith 4:3, the story is set shortly after the jews returned from some sort of captivity. If this is the return from the Babylonian exile around 537 BC (strongly implied by Judith 5:17-19), by that time said Nebuchadnezzar II was dead, so the book is likely not referencing the same guy that everyone recognizes from Daniel. Cyrus had conquered Babylon in 539, after which the Jews were allowed to return to Israel, and Ezra even mentions Assyrians helping with construction. So the Babylonians weren't really a thing in that time but the Assyrians were.
An intriguing theory is that this Nebu was an Armenian claiming to be Nabonidus's son and actually called himself Nebuchadnezzar (IV) though his name was Arakha, and he was seeking to reestablish the Babylonian empire. In the rebellion, Nebu IV would take over Babylon while his general (Holofernes) would take over Assyria and Palestine. After Judith killed Holofernes, Nebu IV's rebellion broke apart and Darius conquered Babylon again. This would seem to correlate with Darius's Behistun inscription.
It always comes down to this. We either trust that the Holy Spirit led his Church into all truth by means of the councils or we believe that it is up to us to reconstruct history and figure it out for ourselves. One way leads to consistency throughout the centuries, the other leads directly to textual criticism and eventual denial of the truth of Scripture.
No, the Holy Spirit guides the believer into all truth through systematic study of scripture. Too easy.
Canonizing the Apocrypha 1500 years later than the original 66 is not an example of being CONSISTENT. The Roman church has bogus books in its "Bible."
@@danielcristancho3738 ayesha, but there argument was no need to formalize it because no heretic challenged it.
@@gideondavid30 the Holy Spirit does guide the laity, but Christ bestowed the authority of teaching on dogmatic issues to the apostles only. Jesus didn’t say this to disciples in general … Jesus says it specifically to the apostles he chose. And Luke 22:31-32 Jesus tells Peter that Satan would assault you (plural - all the apostles) who would lead Christ’s church, but that Jesus was praying for you (singular) Peter that when you turn back (from betraying Christ) that his faith would be strong enough to support the rest of the other apostles.
This passage shows how Jesus was providing Peter with his primacy. As it was done during the argument when the apostles were trying to get Jesus to say who among them was the greatest.
John 16:12 Jesus tells the apostles that he has more to teach them than they could bear. But that the Holy Spirit would guide them as leaders of his church. Jesus did not say this to common followers, he said it only to the apostles who he said would teach others (laity) of the church.
The discerning of new teachings for the church however is with the apostles and their successors the bishops.
amen, brother!
Orthodoxy vs Catholicism discussion would be great.
Yes please!
@@MajorasTime to be fair , Orthodoxy hasn’t engaged in apologetics for centuries, having said that it is my belief that the biggest difference is the papacy of the modern Catholic Church vs the Orthodox view of the primacy of the See of St. Peter. And that includes dogma like papal infallibility and Supremacy of the bishop of Rome over all other bishops.
@@unam9931 papal infallibility? Where is that from? It’s one thing to unite behind the see of St Peter, it’s a wholly different thing to claim infallibility for the chair.
@@EricAlHarb
And that Mary was born without sin.
Catholics: Mary born without sin
Orthodox: Mary born with sin
The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
@@joeykordahi9927 I actually don’t consider the Marian dogmas contentious, if the papacy is figured out everything flows from there.
People like Christie and White, Winger, etc, are all good showcases of different protestant personalities each with their own inconsistencies and authorities. For someone being fair, it's obvious how flawed their reasoning is, but it is incumbent on the learned Catholics to find the best way to combat their error
Ad hominmes are not arguments.
@@rjay5603 >different personalities with their own inconsistencies and authorities
>flawed reasoning
Virtue signal all you want, it wasn't as hominem, and simply saying "muh ad hominem" doesn't justify your own views
@@TheThreatenedSwan You offered no analysis of their supposed flawed reasoning or examples. You just made a claim, insulting their reasoning abilities. That is an ad hominem. At least provide an example, instead of making an empty claim.
With respect, I think most debates of this sort are not worthwhile. Trent's point around the 1:30:00 timeframe was exactly right; the tone adopted by the protestant guy is so utterly dismissive of anything he doesn't already believe that it's difficult to believe he is genuine in other areas. To paraphrase,
"Jacob was a spectacular farmer so he can make a color-changing goat on-demand, and that's totally valid and unquestionable, but if God has an Angel use fish guts as an incense to drive out demons that one time, then Trent Horn has to smear fish guts in his eyes as modern medicine."
Even if I considered any of the protestant's points as effective, his tone is so JamesWhite that it's difficult to hear them. If you have the Truth and the Love of God, then don't be such a dismissive and petty debater.
Most protestants ask me where is this or that found in the bible
I say to them even if it were dumbed down to your level you would still not believe in it and would discard it like maccabees
Yes, if they cant see what's being discussed in 2 maccabees then why bother
Dude "dumbed down" really? Come on, we as Catholics should know better. What image you leave when calling them, indirectly, dumb
@@Tvoj_Prijatelj_Vili Catholics are trying to be overly nice to a point of being completely un assertive, I was a protestant my whole life and wish I was challenged harder by catholics (even called dumb) people today are so sensitive. My son became catholic and he challenged me hard, I started to seach and guess what, now I am busy with RCIA.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh everything we Catholics believe in today was believed in by the early Christians
You are not scaring anyone away from the Catholic church
Matt please help debate on the eucharist between Dr.Brant Pitre vs James White
Are we still taking james white serious? 😅
Dr brant also a good defender
James White already got destroyed by his own statements contradicting themselves, (see "the video that made James White go ballistic") so Dr. Brant Pitre is going to destroy this man
@@TheEdzy25 He's a good unintentional proselytizer for Catholics so let him speak.
The guy on the right wiped out the guy on the left.
I would have enjoyed this a lot, but most of it truly went over my head. I need to do a lot more research to understand what's going on here. Anyways, best of wishes to whoever is reading this in finding the truth.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Steve is incredibly biased and not objective.
His upbringing doesn't actually give him any leverage here.
God told Ezekiel to eat over cooking poop.
And Jesus used mud to heal blindness.
We don't see healing properties in mud for blindness.
And a history book can include sarcasm.
And scribes often updated locations, and also OT writers applied names in sarcasm often. It's common throughout scripture..
I'm surprised nobody ever brings up Matthew 11:13. Seems like a pretty clear-cut proof that the argument that prophecy ended hundreds of years before Christ is completely false. Straight from Jesus' mouth, too. "The prophets and the law prophesied until John came." Now, if protestants want to argue that "until" doesn't necessarily mean they continued prophesying until John came, they have to explain why they insist that the word "until" must rigidly conform to our modern English equivalent when Catholics interpet Mary being a virgin _until_ Jesus was born as not indicating that she stopped being a virgin at that time.
I know I’m watching this just as a mere non-scholar laywoman, but Mr. Christie is pretty hard to follow along with.
Agreed, I don’t feel like he answered any questions asked of him and the questions he asked Trent were honestly of no consequence.
Here are two smart people who come to different opinions. If both are being led by the Holy Spirit, then who is right. Jesus gave us the only way to discern truths free from human opinion, and this is when Jesus gave The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, on whom God built his Church. This is what the infallibility of the Magisterium is today. It is the ONLY way we can know what is truly Gods will, and without that, then nothing is trustworthy. I tried to make this brief, and hope It makes sense for what I was trying to say.
Steve Christie when asked certain questions replies with, "The answers are all found in the MacArthur Study Bible, just trust me on that" -- besides this answer lacking any actual argumentation to the questions asked of Steve, why would we (blindly) trust MacArthur's thoughts more than Church Fathers, Saints, Popes, Councils, etc.?
Speaking as a Protestant, I see in Steve Christie the bulldog spirit I’ve cone to detest among our ministers. Clinical, litigious, and unimaginative. He missed his calling as a District Attorney. Also, he made some blatantly bad arguments that Trent led slide. Name conflation is fine to fix a contradiction in 1 Kings but not in Judith. The church was absolutely given the canon by Jesus, but then not really because it got lost and you can’t depend on oral instruction, so now we have to piece it together using hermeneutic arguments, and this totally means that Jesus solved the issue for the church once and for all. And Steve knows very well that not everything in the 66 books is explained. I typically enjoy these debates, but wow, this one was hard to sit through.
come home
The instant red flag from the Protestant side is his three criteria that they lack for being inspired are all artificial theological limits that presuppose the books are not inspired. Not based on history or outside context. Essentially they do not fit because they are not inside of my bible
Steve's criteria are all of the Church of Steve, not found in scripture anywhere. His criteria below:
1. free from errors and contradictions with previous and later inspired scripture (note, this introduces circular reasoning)
2 written during the time of moses to the death of artaxerxes when prophecy ceased
3. written during a time of miracle-performing prophets
Sola scriptura fails at the table of contents.
I am a Lutheran, and like other lutheran theologians, I recognize the deuterocanon as the Word of God. Our confessions call them “scripture”, we read them in our liturgy.
This is pretty cool
This is really interesting. My WELS pastor says that the idea that we should read the seven books is nonsense.
What denomination of Lutheran?
As the first true protestants, what the hell happened to the other denominations that dropped these books?
@@ashleyjones6888 today protestants followers bcame followers of pastors not Christ ,due to busy lifestyle.
Respect for both debater. I love Trent and Pints with Aquinas. Two of my favorite Roman Catholics. Greetings from an evangelical catholic.
57:38 Trent asks a fundamental and I daresay most important question of this debate, but it went unanswered for the entirety of the session.
We cannot settle the question of errancy without FIRST settling the question of inspiration. - Trent Horn.
Trent makes a great point 30m in.
The protestant view on all this devolves into claiming that what ancient Jewish people thought was Canon should be Canon for Christians.
But if you think about it, it makes no sense.
First, there was no Jewish Canon at that time.
Second, this is a new church. No offense to Jewish people, but this is a new religion.
Third, if Jewish people didn't accept any nt books as Canon why consult them on ot books?
It matters because the Jewish canon was the canon that Jesus recognized as Scripture. Of course they wouldn’t recognize the NT, neither would Christ because it wasn’t written when He lived. That’s a nonsensical objection
I recommend Gary Michuta's channel: Apocrypha Apocalypse. You will find many helpful videos there covering this topic.
I get the impression that steve deep down understands that his position doesn't solve the problem of the canon which presupposes an infallible teaching authority that can compile it.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh
"However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ?"
What you mean to say is Catholics interpret Scripture different than you. I'm pointing out here that you are assuming that how you interpret scripture is the correct way and therefore your interpretation is "God's Word" ....and therefore disagreeing with your interpretation is to disagree with "God's Word". Well, thats kind of the point Ken. When we ask that, then what we discover is that no one taught the Protestant understanding of Scripture in the early church. Which means that the Protestant understanding isn't Apostolic (from the Apostles) because if it were then there would be witnesses to it and so far no one has found an instance of any early church father teaching the Protestant view on the verses that separate us. This precludes the possibility that the interpretation you hold is what God's Word means.
They do, however, unanimously teach the Catholic view and that means it can be traced to the Apostles and all the men that act as witnesses on the matter fulfil the Biblical litmus test of establishing matters by witness attestation.
Deuteronomy 19:15
"Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
2 Corinthians 13:1
"Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
Matthew 18:16
But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
So, if you think you can drop a verse on the Church that wrote and compiled scripture and who can trace its teachings to the Apostles through witnesses then that just tells us that you've never bothered to question your own religion which was invented some time after the 16th century.
In short, Paul doesn't teach what you think he teaches and we know that because of the early witnesses.
steve reading his script for closing statement...if not all, most already refuted.
Steve practically does not answer ANY of Trent’s questions in the cross examination... that was a bummer
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
I am a Protestant who has been a firm believer in the inspiration of the deuterocanonical Scriptures for several years due to reading them for myself, and I have to say that the Protestant side of the debate was very weak. I believe that the easiest way to convince Protestant of the inspiration of the deuterocanon is to have them read through the book Wisdom Of Solomon. That sealed the deal for me.
I am also using Protestant very loosely, as there are many Protestants I know who would not accept my Protestantism, because of my belief in the deuterocanon, as well as belief in the intercession of saints, the veneration of Mary and my openness to Purgatory.
@@iamjason90 You are most welcome to join us Jason. I’m sure you would if there wasn’t SOMETHING holding you back. Peace
just trust your feelings, bro
I guess that your difference with catholics is that you don't accept the papacy?
@@iamjason90 dang you don't sound like you are protesting much.
Thanks for setting up the debate, Mr. Fradd! It was great! One thing I'd change is to mute people who are not speaking during the openers. Some of the shuffling is a bit distracting.
Keep up the great work!
I’m genuinely wondering if Steve walked away from this and actually thought he won the debate.
I'm just in the beginning of Steve's opening arguments. I don't hold to the apocrypha, I'm a mere Christian, but he's already lost me. Something about his cadence isn't compelling. Trent on the other hand is one of the best debaters. People will respond just because it's him. Gavin Ortlund gave him a terrific run in their recent Sola Scriptura debate. I did find myself captivated by both sides of that debate.
This debate is easy, the Church says there are 73 books, debate over.
Exactly what I was thinking
Not everyone is Catholic lol.
@manny4012 The canon was affirmed in AD 397 in the council of Carthage; the Catholic Council of Trent merely reaffirmed the same list in light of Protestantism.
The book of Judith is referenced in the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians written at the end of the first century and fragments of Tobit have been found at Qumran I think.
@Julián Babilonia Here is a link: www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm His comment about Judith is in ch. 55
Clement references Wisdom too
@@BornAgainEnglishmanKJVWhere exactly?
One year later and I've returned to view this video once more. I'm a Bible believer that mostly aligns with Protestant theology however I'm am more persuaded of the parts of the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) being scripture than ever before due to my research. Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach and Baruch were considered scripture as much as Revelation and Esther. If us Protestants exclude all the Apocrypha we are shooting ourselves in the foot with Esther and Revelation as they were many times excluded from officially listed canons in the first few centuries. We must hold the Apocryphal books to the same standard as the 66 books in order to determine truth. Many of the early church fathers us Protestants would use to affirm our theology and the 66 books we dismiss when they quote the Apocrypha. Oftentimes, the new testament authors do not quote exactly the old testament: sometimes it's an allusion, a quote, a paraphrase or a blending. If you research deeply and use the same standard to that we use to observe the new testament authors quoting the old we will use the Apocrypha was used.
@ThecounselofTrent
@PintswithAquinas
The list of biblical books is Apostolic Tradition.
Sola Scriptura can't produce a list of books.
"Sola Scriptura can't produce a list of books". It fails right at the table of contents.
@@TruthHasSpoken yes. Then the next question, to the inquisitive mind, is who compiled the books?
People are starting to become aware.
@@rebn8346 It's a humorous that protestants trying to justify their 39 book Old Testament repeatedly cite Catholics, including Catholic Bishops. ALL of whom believed through their words of consecration, the bread and wine transformed into the resurrected Christ. AND all of them believed in baptismal regeneration (1 Pet 3 21). AND all of them believed in the One Catholic Church. None of them knew of the distinctive protestant beliefs that would occur first in Christian history some ~1100 years later. So when a Steve Christie comes along and cites St Irenaeus, or St Athanasius, or St Augustine, I just shake my head in disbelief at their inconsistency.
Sola Scriptura ***minus a few books
Steve hasn't done his homework. Second hand sources makes him look foolish.
Judith is a historical figure. The Church does not celebrate the intercessions of imaginary people. Francis and JPII referenced her as a historical figure. The Catechism references her as a historical figure. Judith may be a work of "cryptic history" cf Bergsma.
...
We commemorate the righteous Judith, who slew Holofernes.
...
By their holy intercessions, O God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.
"It will have the correct number of books"... where does this come from?
I'm a jew but i read the deuterocanonical books and think they are just as inspired as the other books in the tanakh ("old testatament")
Do your teachers think so?
1 hour 20 minute mark says it all. He’s fine with tradition handed down centuries before in the Talmud, but not the Christian Church. Bizarre.
You don't understand Sola scriptura. Protestants don't inherently reject tradition
@@AcidAdventurer which ones are you talking about though ? It’s kind of hard to talk about Protestants when they believe completely different things from eachother
@@mcspankey4810 🙄 that's just a silly characture. Protestants agree much more than they disagree, but on this particular concept they agree quite completely as it's central to Protestantism.
Protestants don't reject tradition outright, they just don't hold it as infallible or give it a place of authority. Most of the hymns sung in Protestant churches are hundreds of years old. Their confessions and creeds often go back to just after the Reformation. Nothing wrong with tradition, but it is subject to the sole infallible rule of faith, which is the revealed Word of God.
@@AcidAdventurer but don’t you see how having only scripture as the infallible rule of faith causes division and a plethora of different beliefs regarding salvation - it boils down to subjective interpretation on scripture which is why there are denominations popping up every single day - scripture itself is a product of apostolic tradition - scripture and tradition (with a capital t) have been and always will be equal - neither above or below the other -
@@mcspankey4810 not a problem at all because ultimately understanding any literature lands on the individual. A supposedly infallible magisterium doesn't solve the proposed problem. You still have to read and interpret the words of the magisterium in the same way you would scripture. Are you any more likely to arrive at the proper reading of the catechism than the word of God? God's word can be understood sufficiently when you have the Spirit of God leading you into all truth without needing someone to come along and tell you what it must mean. That doesn't mean more seasoned Christians shouldn't advise and instruct newer Christians, but it does mean in regards to understanding scripture, an infallible interpreter is frivolous.
Not to mention there are plenty of disagreements in the Roman church and have been throughout the ages. It also means Rome contradicts itself over time by telling you words don't mean what they clearly do. If anything, the understanding offered by Rome is inferior to the understanding of a man humbly coming to God's word seeking truth.
So close to 100k Matt! Thanks a bunch for all your tireless work! God Bless!
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Yet Jesus Himself said, Those who call upon Lord Lord will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven!!
Also..
By saying that do you mind the heresies and heretics who do accept Jesus as Lord and call upon Him but Reject certain Holy doctrines..!?
Also
What about when Jesus rebukes those on His Left who did MIRACLES (which u do need faith for) as I DONT KNOW YOU!! But applauded those on His right who DID some works!!
So possibly RECONSIDER YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE (among the other 5000)
God Bless!!
@@4thlegion253 Hi. Paul wrote that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. That obviously implies that Christ is Lord of their life, that the "pure in heart shall see God." Yet, simply by asking, you can receive the Holy Spirit. Do you agree with that?
Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." He said, "Ask and you shall receive." That is the beauty and simplicity of the gospel! On the night I met the Lord, I was soundly saved and forever! In fact, in 44 years, I have not had even one second of doubt that I know the Lord and am bound for heaven - not even for a second! Is that not Scriptural?
Paul wrote, "The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." Do not forget the qualifier, "If indeed the Holy Spirit dwells within you." Do you have the witness of the Holy Spirit that you are saved? That is Biblical salvation!
Moreover, referring to the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Me shall have rivers of living water bubbling up inside of him." Do you have that river of life, the witness of the Spirit? If not, then you are not believing on Christ unto salvation! Furthermore, if you do not know the Lord (simply by asking!), then He will say to you, "Depart from Me; I never knew you." Do you know the Lord?
I hope that you will have a personal encounter with the God of the universe! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
I just can’t even imagine how Steve could think that Trent was the biased one after how he reacted to the question on the book of Luke and the year of the census.
Steve needs to work on his debate skills; that opening statement is rough and jumps right into the finer points and evidence without first establishing the foundation of his argument.
12:41 to 12:47 I don’t understand why Steve Christie and William Webster say the glossa ordinaria reject the deuterocanon. I just did a simple search for glossa ordinaria canon and I found a preface from Jerome in it that calls Tobit divine scripture. Can someone enlighten me?
Why did he say the deuterocanonical books were added to the Septuagint after the first century? Not only is there a lot of evidence that they were in the Septuagint. We literally have the Septuagint that includes the deuterocanonical books in a museum from the Dead Sea Scrolls written before Jesus.
I'm honestly shocked that you are the only person in this comment section to mention the Dead Sea Scrolls
@@MichaelAChristian1 The deuterocanonical books were in the Septuagint. No honest person can think otherwise. Btw, who told you what is scripture? I’m not sure how your comment relates to mine
@@MichaelAChristian1 where are you getting these standards? Jesus? An angel? The King James Bible came from the King of England for the Church of England. You should get the King James Bible 1611 version. You’ll see a nice calendar of saints feasts days. And also the books Protestants removed. And also it was translated from Latin Vulgate bible. You know who used Latin
If errors are reconcilable under the Protestant Bible then same logic should be given the chance for the Catholic Bible. If not it shows bias and sound very hypocritical.
I missed this live because...work ☹️ But this is now my Friday night 😄🎉
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Steve needs to return to the Sacraments or I worry for his salvation. Seems like he's trying to justify abandoning Catholicism. God have mercy on him.
The Christian world needs speakers like Trent. We’re living in atheistic times. We need more speakers like him.
Only 16% of the world identifies as atheist.
Christianity 2.382 billion 31.0%
Islam 1.907 billion 24.9%
Secular[a]/Nonreligious[b]/Agnostic/Atheist 1.193 billion 15.58%
Hinduism 1.161 billion 15.2%
Buddhism 506 million 6.6%
Can't blame you for being worried we are running up the ranks.
Another W for Trent Horn
I'm left with the impression this was only really a debate about Steve's own idea about Matthew 23, with the real questions unanswered. To frame Steve's position as a "positive" claim that something is not scripture seems a bit shaky also, where I think it would have been better if it was two cases being made for what should be considered canon, rather than one idea being examined.
Also, I'm a bit disheartened by some of the comments here. Straw-manning other Christian groups and insulting them does nothing for the cause. As is often the case, most of the negative comments here are ignorant of the people and beliefs they're talking about.
Yes, my friend, some commentaries as just not fair enough to the depiction of our faith. That goes beyond unbelievable level when the Catholic Church and specially the Catholic people are and were attacked in the USA, many times more viciously than one could even begin to understand the terms “hatred” or “prejudice”. So I understand your point. Bad representation on Catholicism is ironical since it is very easy to fairly portray it (due to its theological unity, although it is not monolithic) and it is very hard to fairly portray all Protestantism(s) - yet at least there are many, many commentators (and also videos) from Catholic apologists doing a much greater job representing Protestants than the other way around. But we will always feel bad (reciprocally) represented, I came to understand. What I don’t understand is the level of aggression we sometimes engage in. You are very correct, brother. God bless you!
I didn't understand that either. Why was the burden of proof laid upon the amateur instead of the world-famous apologist?
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh if "Whomever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" is just that simple, then we are all saved since we all believe in Jesus, how er where do you leave Matthew 7:21-23!?
Calling the name of the Lord means not only believing but to obey all he teaches, not just what you think he does...
Do you think Jesus left a heretical church from the beginning!?
Do you think Jesus church (the Catholic church) got corrupted after the years!? If so Jesus lied when he said" the doors Hades shall not prevail against it"
And if it was intended to be this way, where is the prophecy telling us that someone in the future will reform the corrupted church!?
By the contrary it is prophecied that from us will rice false teachers, and as far as i know all protestant father were Catholics...
Check out 1 Timothy 4:1 onwards
2 Peter 2:1 onwards
Galatians 1:6-9
1 John 2:18-19
Acts 20:28-31
Matthew 24:24-25
2 John 1:7-10
And plz tell me where were your believes been tough in the first millennium all the way to the 16 century!?
Check out 1 Timothy 3:15
The church Jesus founded has the truth, and it's entrusted with keeping it
@@JoseMartinez-rx6sl Hi. Thanks for writing. If you notice, I did not interpret Romans 10.8, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord SHALL be saved." I will only give the contrapositive: according to Paul, if a person is not saved, then they did not call upon the Name of the Lord. That is, truly calling upon the Name of the Lord is salvation.
Moreover, do you agree that Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion MIGHT be saved"? No Catholic has ever answered this simple question. Will you answer it?
Moreover, you cannot say that I am misinterpreting Scripture, as I have not interpreted Romans 10.8; I merely asked if it is different that what Catholics teach.
Moreover, I hope you will have the courage and integrity to answer my question: do Catholics believe, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion MIGHT be saved"? A simple yes or no!
Remember Paul's warning, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." I hope you will have a saving encounter with Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Steve, a question for you, is Hanukkah a valid Jewish holiday?
.. Where is it found in the Bible?
If you said Jews reject Maccabees
Then, where do they get Hanukkah?
Are you asserting that God would do a miracle like Hanukkah and then not record it?
If so, then what other miracles of that caliber affecting His people as a whole did God do and not have it be recorded in any scriptures?
1:13:45 How is Steve Christie citing the books of Sirach, Maccabees, and Jubilees as defining which books belong in the Bible when he doesn't believe that they themselves belong in the Bible?
I believe that is called a performative contradiction lol
Hanukkah, an important Jewish festival. The historical account of why it exists can be found in Macabees.
God performed a miracle and yet one is to believe that the book which contains the historical account of the miracle is not inspired or relevant enough to be considered as canonical? This is why I will always trust the Septuagint over the Masoretic text. Who in their right mind would leave out such an important book from the Bible?
I thought the Protestant’s cross was not good. He seemed to try to achieve an agnosticism on 1st cent scholarship, while taking his own unfounded certitude on exegesis as some kinda evidence of its veracity.
Im thankful to be catholic... sola fide, sola scriptura doesnt make any sense;)
You should have invited an Ethiopian Orthodox scholar with their canon of 81 Books of Scripture.
Steve really made a point and that is the Catholic Church the true church! I hope many will see light! Way to go Trent!
I love Trent Horn's opening statement. It's spot-on!
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
1 Corinthians 11:2, "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you."
HEB 13-17 Obey the alders of the CHURCH .
Proud to be a Catholic
1:20:33 - “[this] wouldn’t have been something that was invented then [when it was written], it would be a tradition that was handed down from centuries before”
1:21:36 - “That’s why it’s important to have things written down and not go by oral tradition”
Come one maaan! These two statements are only ONE MINUTE APART!!
True Church got Bishops, existed since 33AD and owned the original Bible. True church is the Body of Christ, One Faith and One Baptism. Bible can prove it why True Church found in Rome, Acts 23:11, Romans 1:8
9:15 and 9:50 and 10:06 and 10:22 and 11:24 - (1 and 2 and 3 Esdras) Did the canons at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage look the same as the canon at the Council of Florence and Council of Trent?
31:05 Trent pointing out that certain Old Testament books in the Protestant canon were never cited in the New Testament.
31:27 Trent uses the Jude-Enoch argument to his advantage. By the Protestant logic, if it’s a rule that we should include books that were quoted, then why not include Enoch in the canon?
Around 32:00 ... Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Maccabees 7
32:45 ... Wisdom 2:18 and a messianic prophecy, parallel with Matthew 27:43
46:36 Trent responds to Steve’s claim that Matthew 27:43 is a reference to Psalm 22. As Trent notes, Psalm 22 doesn’t mention saving the Son of God. The 1611 King James Bible cross references Matthew 27:43 with Wisdom 2 and Psalm 22.
49:43 what about the Aramaic Targums? Apparently, as Trent noted, they don’t include Daniel or Nehemiah either.
56:34 Trent says that, before addressing alleged errors, we must first determine inspiration.
56:42 Luther and Judith
1:02:00 Abel and Zechariah’s blood
1:10:32 Augustine and the canon
1:12:04 and 1:12:59 , ecumenical councils contradicted each other?
Origen and the Old Testament canon - 1:17:35
When was the Hebrew canon closed? 1:18:40 , 1:19:54
Were the deuterocanonicals included in the Septuagint after the time of Jesus? 1:21:35
What percentage voted in the Council of Trent? - 1:55:45
Apparently, Gary Michuta and William Albrecht did a post-debate interview with Trent Horn on our debate. As the saying goes, “There are two sides to every story” (or, in this case two critiques to every debate). Here is the “other side” of our debate, where we critique not only our debate, but also their critique of our debate, including clearing up and correcting some misconceptions and comments made.
th-cam.com/video/Z2kVhBs7btM/w-d-xo.html
Arguments of the "other side" refuted in the comment section of this video:
th-cam.com/video/2ymjeJfZOkM/w-d-xo.html
This was eye opening and gave clarity to somethings I already thought.
The fact that Catholics have a continual revelation within a framework of theology and dogma.
Whereas Protestants are divided by rejecting theology, and being hyperfocused on interpreting verses. And dead in Revelation.
And there is no Protestant Church deciding if God speaks from other sources.
And that's a biblical given anyway.
He speaks through all creation, because He spoke our creation and experiences into being, and did so by His wisdom and understanding.
Sadly Protestants represent God as if He is linear rather than eternal.
Protestants believe that God speaks through creation, through our personal experience. We just don't think that he speaks using those methods in a way that is reliable for basing doctrine upon. Catholics believe this too, btw.
@@SeanusAurelius He speaks through all creation, they are parables.
I don't know of anything in Catholocism that says He doesn't.
@@SeanusAurelius And I was Protestant for 35 adult years and I don't know Protestants that think God speaks through all creation.
They tend to be dense to anything they can't stifle by their doctrines.
Steve, youre the man! Trent, i respect you and youre a kind man, but please stop tap dancing in scripture or using eisegesis to back your doctrine up.
21:28 Trent Begins
Great to see two very good biblical scholars debating in a fair arena ... well done.
Why did St. Paul say, "Hold on to both the Spoken/Oral Tradition and Written (Epistles/letters) Tradition?"... (ref. 2 Thessa. 2:15)... because St. Paul knew he would not see the Final Completion of the WRITTEN TRADITION after his martyred down (beheaded) in around 64 A.D. ... The Last to be written down to complete the Written Tradition of the Word of God were the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation between 100 to 110 A.D. after John died of old age.
According to John 21:25... there were many EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done but were not written down for the whole world can not contain them... Therefore, God had summarized all the EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done and had chosen only those with GREAT IMPORTANCE to Mankind's SALVATION to be written down by Inspired MEN (not women) guided by the Holy Spirit and completed them in around 110 A.D.
Other written books after the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation around 110 A.D. onward were no longer included in the WORD OF GOD (Holy Scriptures)... such as the written Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Magdalene, Mary, Judas, Enoch, Pontius Pilate, etc...
After the Written WORD of God was Finally COMPLETED in around 110 A.D., it became more AUTHORITATIVE than the Oral Tradition. (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)... As long as the Oral Tradition does not contradict the Written Tradition, that means, God still wanted them to be practiced... However, if not, the Written Tradition must supersede, overrule, and remove that particular Oral Tradition to be practiced by True Christians...
This was God's WILL (Prerogative), for if it (Oral) is still required/needed, God would allow them to be written down in the first place... logically speaking.
The Oral and Written Traditions must be UNITED as ONE w/o Division/Confusion... One (United) God, One WORD (Scripture), and One (Spiritual) TRUTH...
St. Paul warned all True Christians, "DO NOT GO/EXCEED WHAT IS WRITTEN," and God's CURSE for those who will DO. (ref. 1 Corin. 4:6 & Gal. 1:8)...
Facts and Truth, Biblically and logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
good job Trent, i will always remember this debate..
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.