@@newkingdommedia9434 We can believe in the books of the New Testament because after 300 years of dispute, there was an organ of infallible teaching authority to declare which books were inspired. Chirst established His Church on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His Name, in every generation, until the end. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15), and not private interpretation. Without it there is doctrinal chaos.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England (Different from the Church of England) Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church. (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England. (Different from the Church of England) Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Protestants in fact have theri own "magisterium"- private interpretation of the Written Tradition. They have simply replaced the "Church As Final Authority" with "Private Interperation of Written Tradition As Final Authority".
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England (Different from the Church of England) Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations
Please stop Sir. I can only take so much edifying and excellent instruction. After hearing this, and your Justification by Faith Alone video, I think you might be my very favorite Anglican. You're living proof that there is extremely great unity within Protestantism on the core doctrines and issues.
@@newkingdommedia9434 you were also extra based to mention in a stream with The Other Paul that you don't trust the US government, because they killed MLK and JFK, and almost certainly had involvement in 911 (all of which they covered up). This is unconnected with anything else, but it's nice to know people the world around have awareness of these things. God bless you and your church/channel!
@@TCM1231 the five Solas define the magisterial Protestants - Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Deo Gloria (to God be the glory alone), Sola Christus (Christ alone) and Sola Scriptura (scripture alone). These make up the starting point and foundation at least.
I learned a lot from this one! Even though I'm more Anglo-Catholic you still hit the nail on the head for so much around this topic (including private judgement which I do agree with you on). What is your opinion on the textual variants topic? I'm aware of the Anglican translations and such, but what is your opinion? (I have an opinion but I wanted to just hear what yours personally was).
@@newkingdommedia9434 Ah the ecclesial text position! I'm still doing my study but I would tend to agree. I'm not certain of course because it's a new idea to me, and I tend to be skeptical of the Textus Receptus/Majority Text due to some bad experiences with the concepts driving it (it's a more "feeling" based doctrine from what I've studied), but I'm much more inclined towards that. I'm in between a stage of being a "fallible canon of infallible books" guy, so I tend to still be more skeptical, but that's just a me thing. Thanks for the input! I'll try maybe doing a video of sorts on it soon to give my thoughts.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England (Different from the Church of England) Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations.
What is the Anglican view of the “disputed verses” that are in the Textus Receptus but not the Critical Text that relies on older manuscripts. Are they original? Later additions? And if they are, did God providentially allow for their insertion so we should keep them in our Bible’s or should they be removed?
All official Anglican translations, including the KJV, have included them and they are in the readings found in the Book of Common Prayer, so we accept them as inspired Scripture
3:21 Hello Rev. River! I think you could go even further refuting The Catechumen in regard to the early church. It may have been easier to assent to the authority of the disciples of the apostles, but this is not the apostolic teaching. St. Paul himself instructs that: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9 I think it would be difficult to argue that, even for the early church, they ought to differ to church authority “we, or an angel…[or] any man” instead of differing to the Lord’s Word as delivered by St. Paul. Obviously all of Holy Scripture had not yet been written or canonized at the time of writing this, but it was no less the inspired Word, and it should follow that this teaching of trusting the Gospel over man-even St. Paul himself, should he contradict what was previously delivered- is nominative for the Church since the beginning. What do you think?
Is this what you would tell a skeptic who approaches you and asks you how we can know these books are part of divine canon? Kruger (whom you cite) seems to concede that any discussion on the canon (be it the Roman Catholic or his self-authenticating view) is ultimately circular reasoning, do you make that concession as well?
@@newkingdommedia9434 So you'll also concede to the atheist that the only way we know what books are divinely inspired is by its divine qualities (i.e. self-authentication)?
@@newkingdommedia9434 how then does this distinguish between Christianity and other religions? Can it not also be said that, say, the Qur'an is divine because of the internal testimony from Allah, as well as the providential guidance of the Islamic community?
@@vinxit Because, as I said, the inner testimonium is not the ground of faith, it's only the cause of it, and so cannot be used as proof to someone else.
Historical evidence and criteria in play being a 19th century German invention with modern, arbitrary criteria. For example, a holy text has one author, the eponymous author, who sat down and authored the whole thing in one shot. Hang in there John 8! F.F. Bruce blew that up.
This is another reason why I love being part of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, the Magesterium of the Church with the Holy Spirit protects it from error on a fundamental levels as Jesus declared that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church and that Church is still standing 2024 years later. I encourage anyone to find a local Global Holy Roman Catholic Church in your area and inquire about RCIA. Come home and God bless!
A few questions/criticisms. First, wouldn’t your epistemology logically entail that the Holy Spirit withheld knowledge of His Scripture from those who disputed the books in question? Or, since the sheep of Christ hear His voice, it would seem that those who disputed books aren’t sheep of Christ (e.g. Martin Luther in disputing James), or are in a state of sin towards God since they are rejecting His voice. Further, what would it make of those Catholics who have claimed they believe the Canon on the authority of the Church? Self-deceivers? Liars to the public? Would a Protestant convert to Catholicism’s confusion on the matter prior to accepting this answer be an example of rejecting God’s voice? That is, the confusion is rejection. second, without the ability to judge hearts, I think your test of Scripture is incredibly subjective, plausibly confirming Mormonism! I believe the Book of Mormon is considered by mormons to add to the story of Scripture and inspire their hearts. Third, I think your reason that God doesn’t preserve specific doctrines in the Church like He does the Canon itself, fails. You said Scripture is all we need. You could similarly say that giving a child a table saw and a hammer is enough for him to grow up and start a carpentry business. The tools aren’t much good if we don’t know how to use them (formal v. material sufficiency). There is great debate about what St. Paul means when he says Scripture is sufficient (e.g. that since he wrote his epistles before some Gospels and other NT books, it would mean he instructed his readers to believe only the prior existing works were all they needed). So now you’re at a dilemma. Take Baptism for example. Does it save us? This answer determines how we go about fulfilling our command to do so. The sheep go two directions on this, which should make it clear that Scripture does not answer this question itself. Either it is unimportant how we follow this command, or it is important yet we are left without an answer, or there is an answering mechanism God provides but which would create a Magisterium of sorts. For these reasons I disagree with your argument, but I will give it more thought. God bless!
These are some astute and thoughtful criticisms, and I in fact address each one in my dissertation (remember that this video is simply a summary of its main points). 1. All Reformed theologians who spoke of the inner testimonium were clear that it could be resisted from time to time, or resisted outright regarding certain books. So, someone ignoring, resisting, or doubting the Spirit’s witness inside them to a certain book can indeed happen, and is not something that jeopardizes their salvation, at least as it regards the antilegomena. If someone resisted the Spirit’s inner testimonium regarding books like John or Romans, that would be very troubling, but regarding lesser books like James or 2 Peter it is simply a result of our fallen nature and not an indication that one is reprobate. Moreover, it is technically speaking idolatrous to say that one *only* believes in the canon because of the Church. If someone claims that the only reason they believe the Gospels are the word of God is because a council said so, that person is an idolater who has made the Church, not God as He has revealed Himself, their master. Thankfully, despite what they might claim, almost all Roman Catholics don’t actually believe in the Bible for that reason. If a Pope or Ecumenical council declared the Gospels or Paul’s writings to be unscriptural, I’m sure that most Roman Catholics (minus the Popesplainers like Michael Lofton whose minds have been blinded by the Devil) would immediately reject that council/Pope 2. The Divine marks/Orthodoxy criteria is indeed highly subjective, but remember this video is focusing on why an individual can believe for themselves in the Scriptures, it is not focusing on proving it to sceptics. Regardless, surely you would agree that the Scriptures *do* in fact objectively possess evidence of their inspiration? And so, while those marks can only be subjectively apprehended, they are still there nonetheless. 3. I simply do not agree with your views on this. Besides, the Bible is in fact crystal clear that Baptism saves, it literally says that it does (1 Peter 3:21). God bless you too.
the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit does not carry evidential weight, anyone can claim it. Orthodoxy is also not evidence that a book is scripture. even if a book does not contradict sacred tradition or other scripture, that doesn't necessarily mean it is scripture I believe that God guides the Church as a Catholic, but why should you believe this as a protestant? the passages you cite do not support this even if there is guidance from God, why limit it to the Canon?
@@newkingdommedia9434 none of those passages you cited prove God will guide the Church with the Canon, at best they show that it is fitting for God to do so but just because it is fitting for God to do X doesn't mean it happened and even if it did I can just appeal to this argument and expand it beyond the Canon to disprove Protestantism as a modern innovation that goes contrary to the providential guidance of the Church.
We can believe in the books of the New Testament because after 300 years of dispute, there was an organ of infallible teaching authority to declare which books were inspired. Chirst established His Church on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His Name, in every generation, until the end. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15), and not private interpretation. Without it there is doctrinal chaos.
More problematic for Protestants is that they have to posit the passive infallibility of the “church” (for them the consensus of the Christian body), which undermines the definition of sola scriptura, i.e., that scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority.
@@clivejames5058 your response has nothing to do with my comment. River believes that the consensus of the church is an infallible assurance of the canon (i.e., passive infallibility). positing a distinct infallible source undermines the very definition of sola scriptura. furthermore, how is it an oxymoron to posit an infallible ecclesial authority?
@@contrasedevacantism6811 Fair enough. I wanted to listen to River but have a houseful of guests here at the moment (Waitangi weekend). Apologies and have deleted my comment. Will have to listen next week :)
@@contrasedevacantism6811 Protestants in fact have theri own "magisterium"- private interpretation of the Written Tradition. They have simply replaced the "Church As Final Authority" with "Private Interperation of Written Tradition As Final Authority".
@@contrasedevacantism6811 The Church being correct on the canon does not make it infallible. The OT Church was certainly not infallible and yet they recognised the correct canon.
💯 6:10 - “Historical evidence, even if it was really good, is simply not a good enough basis to have faith anyway.”
Indeed! To believe without doubt, we must have our faith grounded on that which is also beyond doubt.
@@newkingdommedia9434 We can believe in the books of the New Testament because after 300 years of dispute, there was an organ of infallible teaching authority to declare which books were inspired. Chirst established His Church on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His Name, in every generation, until the end. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15), and not private interpretation. Without it there is doctrinal chaos.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church.
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England.
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations.
Nice. Thanks for making your thesis into video format!
You're most welcome, hope you found it useful.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Protestants in fact have theri own "magisterium"- private interpretation of the Written Tradition. They have simply replaced the "Church As Final Authority" with "Private Interperation of Written Tradition As Final Authority".
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations
@@DD-bx8rb🐪
Really glad you shared this. Thank you!
You're most welcome, glad you liked it!
I love you Mr. NewKingdomMedia
Romans 12:10 moment
Great job and very important in this time. Keep it up, bro.
Thank you!
Great video. Looking forward to future content.
Thank you!
Please stop Sir. I can only take so much edifying and excellent instruction.
After hearing this, and your Justification by Faith Alone video, I think you might be my very favorite Anglican. You're living proof that there is extremely great unity within Protestantism on the core doctrines and issues.
Thank you for this encouragement brother! Our Protestant heritage and theology are indeed very consistent, logical, and Biblical. Cherish it.
@@newkingdommedia9434 you were also extra based to mention in a stream with The Other Paul that you don't trust the US government, because they killed MLK and JFK, and almost certainly had involvement in 911 (all of which they covered up). This is unconnected with anything else, but it's nice to know people the world around have awareness of these things. God bless you and your church/channel!
What are the core doctrines and issues? Just a forewarning I’ve never gotten a straight answer on this..
@@TCM1231 the five Solas define the magisterial Protestants - Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Deo Gloria (to God be the glory alone), Sola Christus (Christ alone) and Sola Scriptura (scripture alone). These make up the starting point and foundation at least.
I learned a lot from this one! Even though I'm more Anglo-Catholic you still hit the nail on the head for so much around this topic (including private judgement which I do agree with you on). What is your opinion on the textual variants topic? I'm aware of the Anglican translations and such, but what is your opinion? (I have an opinion but I wanted to just hear what yours personally was).
Glad it was helpful! I'm not a KJV onlyist but I believe the Majority Text is God's final word.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Ah the ecclesial text position! I'm still doing my study but I would tend to agree. I'm not certain of course because it's a new idea to me, and I tend to be skeptical of the Textus Receptus/Majority Text due to some bad experiences with the concepts driving it (it's a more "feeling" based doctrine from what I've studied), but I'm much more inclined towards that. I'm in between a stage of being a "fallible canon of infallible books" guy, so I tend to still be more skeptical, but that's just a me thing. Thanks for the input! I'll try maybe doing a video of sorts on it soon to give my thoughts.
God bless you all!
God bless you too!
Catching a hint of Van Til in this. Are you presup?
You bet I am.
You ever watch Bahnsen debates? They are fantastic@@newkingdommedia9434
All the good Anglicans are! @@newkingdommedia9434
@@newkingdommedia9434 Haha nice. I’m not personally, but I appreciate your enthusiasm!
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations.
What is the Anglican view of the “disputed verses” that are in the Textus Receptus but not the Critical Text that relies on older manuscripts.
Are they original? Later additions? And if they are, did God providentially allow for their insertion so we should keep them in our Bible’s or should they be removed?
All official Anglican translations, including the KJV, have included them and they are in the readings found in the Book of Common Prayer, so we accept them as inspired Scripture
3:21 Hello Rev. River! I think you could go even further refuting The Catechumen in regard to the early church. It may have been easier to assent to the authority of the disciples of the apostles, but this is not the apostolic teaching. St. Paul himself instructs that: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
Galatians 1:8-9
I think it would be difficult to argue that, even for the early church, they ought to differ to church authority “we, or an angel…[or] any man” instead of differing to the Lord’s Word as delivered by St. Paul. Obviously all of Holy Scripture had not yet been written or canonized at the time of writing this, but it was no less the inspired Word, and it should follow that this teaching of trusting the Gospel over man-even St. Paul himself, should he contradict what was previously delivered- is nominative for the Church since the beginning. What do you think?
Is this what you would tell a skeptic who approaches you and asks you how we can know these books are part of divine canon? Kruger (whom you cite) seems to concede that any discussion on the canon (be it the Roman Catholic or his self-authenticating view) is ultimately circular reasoning, do you make that concession as well?
There will always be a level of circularity with these conversations, yes, and that is also the case with Roman Catholicism.
@@newkingdommedia9434 So you'll also concede to the atheist that the only way we know what books are divinely inspired is by its divine qualities (i.e. self-authentication)?
@@vinxit That and the providential guidance of the Church.
@@newkingdommedia9434 how then does this distinguish between Christianity and other religions? Can it not also be said that, say, the Qur'an is divine because of the internal testimony from Allah, as well as the providential guidance of the Islamic community?
@@vinxit Because, as I said, the inner testimonium is not the ground of faith, it's only the cause of it, and so cannot be used as proof to someone else.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Bible" (or "scripture") in the video. The original manuscripts of the books? Or some of the existing editions?
This reminds me of Canon Revisited by Kruger!
And Webster's Holy Scripure
Historical evidence and criteria in play being a 19th century German invention with modern, arbitrary criteria. For example, a holy text has one author, the eponymous author, who sat down and authored the whole thing in one shot. Hang in there John 8! F.F. Bruce blew that up.
This is another reason why I love being part of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, the Magesterium of the Church with the Holy Spirit protects it from error on a fundamental levels as Jesus declared that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church and that Church is still standing 2024 years later. I encourage anyone to find a local Global Holy Roman Catholic Church in your area and inquire about RCIA. Come home and God bless!
“How do i make this about me”
@@AnglicanFishOr how do I find the one true church that's been around 1500 years before Protestantism even existed? God bless!
@@robideals685Roman Papism is an 8th century invention.
A few questions/criticisms.
First, wouldn’t your epistemology logically entail that the Holy Spirit withheld knowledge of His Scripture from those who disputed the books in question? Or, since the sheep of Christ hear His voice, it would seem that those who disputed books aren’t sheep of Christ (e.g. Martin Luther in disputing James), or are in a state of sin towards God since they are rejecting His voice. Further, what would it make of those Catholics who have claimed they believe the Canon on the authority of the Church? Self-deceivers? Liars to the public? Would a Protestant convert to Catholicism’s confusion on the matter prior to accepting this answer be an example of rejecting God’s voice? That is, the confusion is rejection.
second, without the ability to judge hearts, I think your test of Scripture is incredibly subjective, plausibly confirming Mormonism! I believe the Book of Mormon is considered by mormons to add to the story of Scripture and inspire their hearts.
Third, I think your reason that God doesn’t preserve specific doctrines in the Church like He does the Canon itself, fails. You said Scripture is all we need. You could similarly say that giving a child a table saw and a hammer is enough for him to grow up and start a carpentry business. The tools aren’t much good if we don’t know how to use them (formal v. material sufficiency). There is great debate about what St. Paul means when he says Scripture is sufficient (e.g. that since he wrote his epistles before some Gospels and other NT books, it would mean he instructed his readers to believe only the prior existing works were all they needed). So now you’re at a dilemma. Take Baptism for example. Does it save us? This answer determines how we go about fulfilling our command to do so. The sheep go two directions on this, which should make it clear that Scripture does not answer this question itself. Either it is unimportant how we follow this command, or it is important yet we are left without an answer, or there is an answering mechanism God provides but which would create a Magisterium of sorts.
For these reasons I disagree with your argument, but I will give it more thought. God bless!
These are some astute and thoughtful criticisms, and I in fact address each one in my dissertation (remember that this video is simply a summary of its main points).
1. All Reformed theologians who spoke of the inner testimonium were clear that it could be resisted from time to time, or resisted outright regarding certain books. So, someone ignoring, resisting, or doubting the Spirit’s witness inside them to a certain book can indeed happen, and is not something that jeopardizes their salvation, at least as it regards the antilegomena. If someone resisted the Spirit’s inner testimonium regarding books like John or Romans, that would be very troubling, but regarding lesser books like James or 2 Peter it is simply a result of our fallen nature and not an indication that one is reprobate. Moreover, it is technically speaking idolatrous to say that one *only* believes in the canon because of the Church. If someone claims that the only reason they believe the Gospels are the word of God is because a council said so, that person is an idolater who has made the Church, not God as He has revealed Himself, their master. Thankfully, despite what they might claim, almost all Roman Catholics don’t actually believe in the Bible for that reason. If a Pope or Ecumenical council declared the Gospels or Paul’s writings to be unscriptural, I’m sure that most Roman Catholics (minus the Popesplainers like Michael Lofton whose minds have been blinded by the Devil) would immediately reject that council/Pope
2. The Divine marks/Orthodoxy criteria is indeed highly subjective, but remember this video is focusing on why an individual can believe for themselves in the Scriptures, it is not focusing on proving it to sceptics. Regardless, surely you would agree that the Scriptures *do* in fact objectively possess evidence of their inspiration? And so, while those marks can only be subjectively apprehended, they are still there nonetheless.
3. I simply do not agree with your views on this. Besides, the Bible is in fact crystal clear that Baptism saves, it literally says that it does (1 Peter 3:21).
God bless you too.
the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit does not carry evidential weight, anyone can claim it.
Orthodoxy is also not evidence that a book is scripture. even if a book does not contradict sacred tradition or other scripture, that doesn't necessarily mean it is scripture
I believe that God guides the Church as a Catholic, but why should you believe this as a protestant? the passages you cite do not support this
even if there is guidance from God, why limit it to the Canon?
I answered all those objections in the video and was clear that the inner testimonium doesn't have evidential weight.
@@newkingdommedia9434
none of those passages you cited prove God will guide the Church with the Canon, at best they show that it is fitting for God to do so
but just because it is fitting for God to do X doesn't mean it happened
and even if it did I can just appeal to this argument and expand it beyond the Canon to disprove Protestantism as a modern innovation that goes contrary to the providential guidance of the Church.
@@mousakandah5188Inner Testimony of the Spirit is a gnostic heresy.
Interesting to see an Anglican dissertation explain why 2 Maccabees is scripture lol
Yeah just repent
No u
Just saved you some time, repent while you can.
What are u talking about 😂😂
i kno @@legomon
Ok pal
We can believe in the books of the New Testament because after 300 years of dispute, there was an organ of infallible teaching authority to declare which books were inspired. Chirst established His Church on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His Name, in every generation, until the end. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15), and not private interpretation. Without it there is doctrinal chaos.
More problematic for Protestants is that they have to posit the passive infallibility of the “church” (for them the consensus of the Christian body), which undermines the definition of sola scriptura, i.e., that scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority.
@@clivejames5058 your response has nothing to do with my comment. River believes that the consensus of the church is an infallible assurance of the canon (i.e., passive infallibility). positing a distinct infallible source undermines the very definition of sola scriptura. furthermore, how is it an oxymoron to posit an infallible ecclesial authority?
@@contrasedevacantism6811 Fair enough. I wanted to listen to River but have a houseful of guests here at the moment (Waitangi weekend). Apologies and have deleted my comment. Will have to listen next week :)
@@contrasedevacantism6811 Protestants in fact have theri own "magisterium"- private interpretation of the Written Tradition. They have simply replaced the "Church As Final Authority" with "Private Interperation of Written Tradition As Final Authority".
@@contrasedevacantism6811 The Church being correct on the canon does not make it infallible. The OT Church was certainly not infallible and yet they recognised the correct canon.
First prove that other gods don't exist.
Debate Jimmy Akin
>pop apologist
obfuscate and dodge
he beat pauLie
Nope, I don’t believe any of that shit. It’s all ridiculous.
PRESUPPOSIONALISM.
💯