For the record, Trent said “Scripture is prior but not higher than tradition.” I messed that one up a little in the video but eventually corrected myself 😅
Tradition is definitely prior (as far as the NT goes). And NT Scripture is a product of Tradition. It has to be. God left a Church and that Church taught. It did so orally and through written word. At some point, it became necessary to canonize the NT in order to advise all the particular churches on what they could use to teach in the liturgy. This is not a constitution analogy. I mean, there is usefulness to the constitution analogy in that you need those who were there to explain what it means…but, in this case, those who were there mostly taught orally. Think if St Thomas in India, almost completely disconnected from the written epistles. Did he not have the fullness?
@@stooch66 they use Paul's epistles all the time to talk about the authority of scripture and salvation by faith/ works. Did Paul know his letters and the old cannon would all be placed together in one book? Maybe he did but I haven't seen that in scripture.
@@jamessheffield4173 totally agree with that. But, your quotation is a non-sequitur to my comment. That verse is Jesus’ teaching in his time about the OT, not the NT, which hadn’t yet been canonized, or even written! So, calling the OT “scripture” at the beginning of the Church is not a problem for us. Calling any of the NT at that time is. The question is: in AD 40, 7 years (think about it, a long time in human life!) nobody had any NT scripture, yet they were being taught the Truth by the Apostles and their disciples. Were those people not saved? Did they not have the Truth? Did Christ intentionally depart our physical presence and forget to leave the one book that was necessary behind knowing that it would take centuries for it to be canonized? He left those centuries of Christians without the only rule of faith for that long? No, he left a Church- made up of 11 Apostles (and then St Matthias and St Paul) to create a teaching body. They did so through the liturgy and through letters and mostly through traveling and teaching orally. St John wrote down his gospel decades later. Were the early Christians somehow deficient in their understanding that Jesus was God? No, they certainly were not. The Church Fathers and the Didache testify to that. They knew. How did they know that without “In the beginning was the Word”? They knew because they were taught by the Apostles and their disciples (better known as bishops). Finally, think about this practical issue: even after the NT was canonized, almost nobody could have laid their hands on it. It took the skin of hundreds of sheep and years of work of men to put just one copy together. If it was meant to be the “sole, infallible rule of Faith,” Jesus wanted us to wait until the 1500s to finally get it to people??? Even then, they still would have been difficult to get. I think many people think getting a Bible was always like going on Amazon or stopping into the local Christian shop. The scriptures were elements used in the liturgy to teach the faith, by the Church. Canonizing it was about defining for the churches what they can use in the liturgy. The Faith is and always has been liturgical.
I'm a former Baptist Pastor (currently Lutheran and transitioning over to Catholicism) I have some thoughts. While one debate doesn't settle the issue, I thought Trent's arguments put me over the top to Catholicism and am actually planning to become Catholic as a result. Of course, I was already on my way to being convinced. Perhaps it's because I was on the way anyway that I thought Trent clearly won. I could see where a Protestant may remain Protestant after listening to Gavin's arguments. I agree with Kyle that there could have been more engagement with epistemology, which was one of the big draws for me to Catholicism. I think the Protestant has big epistemological and historical issues to resolve that the Catholic has an easier time with, while the Catholic faces more of an uphill battle on the Biblical front, perhaps. To me, anyway, Catholicism resolves them all harmoniously. Nice job on examining the debate, guys.
@@collin501 Trent I believe gave the best overall argument, bringing in all the different angles to the table. His cross-exam certainly put Gavin on the defensive, and the comments in the channel reflected that. Of course, more could have been said. A big historical question I would have raised to Gavin is where was Sola Scriptura in any of the major thinkers prior to Luther, other than a few quote mines? If there is a de facto standard and bar for all truth, one would have to think it would have been articulated and defended, or at least mentioned explicitly, during the earlier parts of church history. But as an observer, I don't think it was even close. The debate was titled "is Sola Scriptura True", and presumably Gavin had that burden, and I don't feel he even came close to demonstrating it. Just IMHO.
@Scott Oakland Was it more of a general feel then that Trent did better? Or was it particular points? Because when I listened to it, I didn't really hear them engaging with each other's points, but simply giving their own points talking past one another. Sola scriptura is not really a doctrine that anyone would have articulated in the early church. They were simply zealous for that which was authoritative. You hear the early writers like Ignatius and clement and Polycarp and realize they sound a lot like Paul. In other words, they were zealous to rest upon that which was handed down to them, not to go beyond it. A hundred years later you can see more free thought in trying to explain what was handed down rather than simply following the pattern to a tee. You see this in Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Melito, Tertullian, Irenaeous, etc. Then as the earlier authoritative writings become further entrenched over time by the traditions of the church, writers begin to delve deeper into how to explain those writings, and they often went much further in their explanations than in past generations. So you can see the pattern very clearly. When whatever is authoritative becomes firmly established, then there is enough freedom that people feel to start trying to dig into it further and explain it. When it is too new and fresh, people simply want to preserve it lest it be lost or tampered with or an incorrect interpretation be embedded into it. Simply put, Sola scriptura in the early church is just a way to say that they were zealous for that which was authoritative, and they clung to it and preserved it. They left many of their notes for us to follow and we trust them. Protestants and Catholics are in the same camp really. We take a look at the notes they took during the way and trust them. There are only two differences. Catholics have more doctrines they derive from the set of notes the early church left. Maybe they have a slightly expanded set of notes. And two, they have a different INTERPRETION of that same set of notes that us protestants are looking at. If both Catholics and Protestants are trying to find that trustworthy set of notes and correct interpretation on that set of notes, then what makes one more true than the other apart from how accurately we've determined which set of notes is trustworthy and the correct interpretation on that?
@@collin501 What was that authority though? And also many denominations of protestantism goes against very explicit teachings of the early Church like baptismal regeneration. It's not an accretion but a doctrinal U-turn to use Gavin's terminology.
@@jon6car that authority was the authority passed down by Christ. Some protestants believe in baptismal regeneration. I do. Do you have any other examples?
The historical record is clear. The Apostles preached and founded churches in various places - the letters of Paul etc were written to Churches that already knew the gospel since they were taught it orally from the Apostles - thus the early church received the written gospel which reinforced the gospel they already knew. This is the Catholic perspective - we receive the gospel within the milieu in which it was delivered. The Protestant by contrast receives the written word outside of the milieu in which it was delivered (thus they take the product of the church - the written word- and apply it in a way that was never intended by the writers). Which is why the Protestant can come up with all sorts of interpretations that vary from those churches which have apostolic pedigree - those s churches which have an organic connection to Christ and the apostles through apostolic succession. Simply put - this is why those churches with apostolic pedigree believe nearly all the same things whereby the sola scriptura crowd have so many different interpretations of the same scripture.
@YAJUNYUAN What do you mean by that? I would agree some Catholics may not even know their faith, poor catechism. They may individually not have the knowledge and understanding because as humans do impose their beliefs which may be incorrect due to lack of knowledge, sin...making excuses for their behaviors ie I don't agree with the Church because I want to continue and rationalize my sin...not me personally etc...but the doctrine doesn't change and is not confusing....Holy Tradition and Scripture explains apparent discrepancies from fallible personal interpretation because we have apostolic teaching Fathers who guided by the Holy Spirit have the authority to tell us what scripture means...yes God gave us faith and reason...we can read Scripture to our own peril as the bible says this is why Jesus said the Church and its authority is guided by Holy Spirit not to teach error...yes there are sinners in the Church...yes there may be bad shepherds who if we know our faith we are to disobey...but the Church proper has never taught error. As the people are prepared for truth and understanding increases...the Church can expound on better explaining the Gospel but not changing it...this is my explaination as a Catholic to you my friend.
@YAJUN YUAN Stating that "Catholics have many interpretations" is similar to me saying "folks in that non-denominational church believe various things outside the official church dogma." What does that prove? The actions or beliefs of adherents does not substantiate or deny the truth of their church authority. Also, saying that "Catholics don't base their beliefs solely on interpretation of Scripture" is incorrect...you make it sound like they have unbiblical beliefs, which is a totally different level. All of their traditions are checked and pondered to ensure that in fact they do not violate Scripture, and they have the special charism to do so. Unless you are saying that every one of their traditions do not all flow perfectly aND directly from Scripture....which is a debatable point. I'm sure a Catholic can chime in here.
@Rightly-Ordered okay it was worded more generally than that. Apostolic succession was very important when the authoritative writings and teachings were being established. I accept that. It reflects how zealous they were to preserve what was handed down to them. Then they left us their notes on the tradition they received. We can read those notes and come to a similar conclusion on what is trustworthy. So no, I accept that milieu as well. It was something they practiced as a necessity, but to accept that tradition does not mean to extend what they were practicing at the time to something beyond the spirit or intent of what they were practicing. A protestant may very well receive that tradition better if they receive the spirit of that succession in the way it was practiced in the 1st through 3rd centuries rather than making it an timeless doctrine where the way it is practiced today is read back into the way it was practiced in the early days.
I think one thing we as Catholics miss sometimes is the simple fact that most Protestants do not care if they disagree on interpretation, which therefore means they do not care about absolute truth. They are good with just "truth". I think so many times we assume they are all aspiring for perfect truth, but they are not, and they are perfectly okay with that. There may be a need to argue the difference in "perfect truth" and "truth" if there is such a thing.
It’s not truth when you state most Protestants don’t care about absolute truth. Please don’t lie when criticizing others for not caring about the truth. Thank you. God bless
Read Romans 14 where Paul talks about issues that are secondary (whether or not to eat meat offered to idols, etc.). In I Cor. 15:1-6 , Paul says that the Gospel itself is of "First importance." The Gospel is "Christ died and arose again for our sins." Also,, Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is an illustration of how the Apostles preached "The Gospel" message. He identified who Christ was and what he did to accomplish our salvation. Then he told them to repent and follow Jesus. He used Scripture and witnesses to prove everything he said. Notice how the people responded.
@Richard Brockway I was trying to understand the original comment. Protestants can sometimes disagree on interpretation because they think the contrary interpretation is "untrue". Or they tentatively hold to a view and allow for other views, which they can open handed issues, only because they are unwilling to say that they know for a fact they are infallibly true about their view. But this is because they care about absolute truth and don't want to hold onto a view so strongly that they miss the truth. Doesn't that show how much they care about absolute truth?
Because it is unscriptural. Paul says that now we see through a glass darkly & will not be exposed to perfect truth until we are united with Him in Heaven. Any illusions of perfect truth on this side of the veil are deceptions of pride.
I think the analogy of the constitution/ courts argument is a really good way to reach our protestant brothers and sisters. It could also be a really bad one based on some of the justices we've had.
When using an analogy, it’s important to remind folks that every analogy breaks down eventually. The US government isn’t protected by the Holy Spirit. So that’s the main difference there.
@@danvankouwenberg7234 That's a really good point... Maybe that's why people stop listening when I lead with "so here's why we need to bring back the monarchy"
@@KyleWhittington baby steps lol. The main issue is that most of Luther's issues with the church of his time have been reformed. There's less and less reasons for them to be away from the Church.
@@collin501 There are a few ways you could know. One would be God directly tells you. Two would be God tells you in inspired Scripture. Three would Be God tells you through the Traditions of His Church he founded. If you don't have an infallible way to prove it then I think Public Revelation could be on the table as a Infallible rule of Faith since it could be as infallible as when Public Revelation occurred during apostolic times.
@Matt Peach You're referring to the way we trace the idea all the way back to its infallible source, right? How can you "prove" that the catholic magisterium is "infallible"? I don't think I have the tools to trace that back to its source without making fallible assumptions. We all have to face God and His revealed truth on our own, although we have the help of the Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, as Ephesians 4 says. But I still don't have the tools to prove the infallibility of the catholic magisterium, so like the early church I cling to what we all believe to be trustworthy, the scriptures, and I proceed with skepticism about adopting what is not agreed upon.
Clement of Rome claims to speak with the voice of God at the end of his letter to the Corinthians and commands obedience. I think that's actually the earliest evidence of infallibility, not just of the Church, but of the Church of Rome. Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus implicitly but clearly mention successive teaching authority. More emphasis needs to be put on this. Trent did much better in his online debate on the canon and his debate with White on losing one's salvation. Part of the reason is due to Gavin's slippery style that resists being nailed down and cornered, but part of it was Trent failure to recognize that going in and plan how to corner Gavin.
this is true about Gavin. He's all over the place and if you do not know your bible or Christian history, I can see how ignorant people in the pew could accept everything he preaches.
@Wgaither1 I don t know how the authority works there, but if the school receives public funding, it gonna be hard to prohibit public events even if they go against the Church teachings. And not everyone speak up today.
Michael Lofton would say that Trent ( ecumenical council) did not close the cannon and it's technically open . Also didn't Clement only recognise 2 offices for the church ie bishops and deacons ?
Very convenient for Luther and Calvin to claim Sola Scriptura, after having just ripped 7 Books out of their Old Testament Canon, and after Luther tried to remove James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, from the New Testament Canon, but failed to acquire enough cultural support.
Re: The meaning of anathema. That totally needed to be said. It is serious and all this softening hasn’t been helpful. But then what followed about being damned to hell because of denying a dogma - this illustrates the worry of Protestants. Notice how Suan elevates these additional dogmas to the level of denying Christ, which is to elevate it to the Gospel itself. Imagine thinking that a dogma like the Bodily Assumption is in the deposit of faith - on the same level as Christ - even though there’s not a single word about it. And then attaching an anathema to it? This is a huge problem.
Gavin's take on Sola Scriptura is actually quite simple. He worries over the alternative of Sola Scriptura, meaning if NOT for Sola Scriptura, horrors of horrors, we have to depend on God made defective sinful man! We have to depend on NON Democractic means! I wonder what he was thinking when God made David, Solomon and all those Jewish kings hold so much authority and yet they were so sinful! Did God send a bunch of men who says look we have the 613 laws, lets interpret those ourselves, because the alternative will be to depend on sinful hateful kings! Let God be God.
I caught that too. The only thing is that Democracy isn’t inherently Christian. It’s not necessarily opposed to Christianity, but the Bible is far from endorsing it. The Bible does however endorse a monarchy. The government in heaven is a monarchy (Christ is King) so of course it’s acceptable for us here on earth to imitate that.
You know how much those kings neglected the word of God, so much so that it later got unearthed in the temple. It was often the prophets, far outside of the kingly hierarchy, who brought the word of God. And more often than not they were condemned by the kings.
I summarize Gavin's views this way: Gavin is so worried about being yoked to erroneous and untrue doctrines that he chooses to be yoked to no true doctrines. That idea seems to undermine everything Christianity is about- bringing truth to the world.
preceded or proceed? I didn't listen to it, but the Creed says that the Holy Spirit and Son proceed from the Father, so if there's a misunderstanding there hopefully that's resolved since it's a universal Christian belief.
I think we are forgetting Jesus' promise for an infallible rule of faith and that is the Holy Spirit would remind and guide the Church to all truth and that claim is clearly mentioned in the Bible. See Matthew 16:17 and Matthew 18...the first was said by Jesus to the first pope, Peter and the second was said by Jesus to the first bishops of the Church we call them the Apostles. Good enough for me to realize that despite the flaws of men God the Holy Spirit would lead Jesus' Church, now know as the Roman Catholic Church to all truth. Notice it doesn't say all the time but what is implied is that eventually the truth would come from the Church. Bye bye sola Scriptura.
For Trent to imply that theópneustos means "life giving" instead of "God breathed", thereby nullifying the very root of the word, is incredible! Something like a man drowning in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of a storm grabbing at a floating plastic straw. Unbelievable!!
Exactly. It seems like Paul was the one who coined the term anyway, and his writings are the earliest example we have of it. Therefore we need to look at what that means in the context Paul wrote it. How it was used after that is inconsequential.
In point of fact, the meaning "life-giving" doesn't nullify the root of the word at all. In fact, it recognizes that the act of God breathing is life-giving, and that every Greek source that uses the word prior to Origen (in the third century) uses the word that way. For the evidence, see John C. Poirier, *The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture* (London: Bloomsbury, 2021).
lets look at JW's as an example... A young man picks up a bible, like the KJV. He see a word "Jehovah" in the bible. He gets excited because he thinks that he discovered a word that never existed. This young man doesn't understand that the KJV, is an Anglican bible, and the term "Jehovah" is am man made word coined by a Jesuit priest for reading purposes. He then thinks that all religions are in error based on his own fallacy. Now what could possibly go wrong with that? oh ya, just ask an ex-JW, and they will tell you.
You have got to be kidding me. His entire cross-examination proved he has a huge misunderstanding about what SS actually is from the Protestant perspective.
Problem is that if you don't have Sola Scritura you end up with something like the Roman Catholic Church which bears very little resemblance to the first century Church.
I’d be curious to hear what Sola Scriptura tradition most resembles the 1st Century Church then. It was the investigation into the 1st Century Church that led me to Catholicism.
Seems ironic Trent did a talk about how Protestants argue like atheist yet he seemed to be arguing like an atheist introducing doubt and skepticism about things that are well established such as 2nd tim 3:16 interpreting it in a way that does not mean God breathed...look up the scholar and that guy doesn't even seem to believe in the Pauline authorship of the epistles.
@@MrPeach1 it's not an accurate characterization to say poke hole in proof text, 2nd tim 3:16 is a well established and agreed upon meaning by all the churches "God breathed" so to introduce a novel and or fringe interpretation that even Roman Catholics don't use is indeed strange.
@Matt Peach on the other hand Matt 16:18 has a variety of interpretations historically even among the patristics... historical research done by Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick regarding the early church’s view of Matthew 16:18. Archbishop Peter Kenrick wrote a paper on this subject, which was to be delivered to Vatican I (1870). However, it was never delivered, but it was published later, along with other points.[5] He points out the 5 interpretations of Matt. 16:18, to which Fathers held: All Christians were the living stones, held by very few Fathers-. Origen who is a common source of patristic exegetical tradition: states “‘If we also say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter . . . for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew). All the apostles, 8 Fathers (Cyprian et al). Christ as the Rock, 16 Fathers (Eusebius, early Augustine). Eusebius of Caesarea (D. 263-339), in his view (“rock” as Christ), He links this interpretation with the parallel rock and foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 3:11 and 10:4. Peter as the Rock, 17 Fathers. The Rock upon which the Church was built was the Faith that Peter confessed, 44 Fathers, including the most important Fathers (e.g., Basil of Seleucia [448]; Cyril of Alexandria; Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary,[6] Jerome, and Augustine again. Note, that Augustine (later in life) stated: Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (Retractations).[7] Thus, only 20% of the Fathers held to Rome’s now canonized “infallible” “Petrine Rock” interpretation of Matthew 16:18. That is far from being the norm of the early church. Kenrick concluded: “If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that the “rock” should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.”[8] As Roman Catholic apologist, H. Burn-Murdock actually admits: “None of the writings of the first two centuries describe St. Peter as a bishop of Rome.”[9] In fact, no one before Callistus (c. A.D. 218-223) used Matthew 16:18 to support the primacy of the Roman bishop (i.e., “Pope)
@Matt Peach 5] Cf. An Inside View at Vatican I, ed. Leonard Woolsey Bacon (New York: American Tract Society, 1871). [6] Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity (Book II): “Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God” (On the Trinity). [7] Augustine wrote The Retractations late in his life to correct points expressed in his own writings. Here, Augustine corrects his earlier opinion that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16:18. According to Augustine the rock is Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ [8] Speech of Archbishop Kenrick, 109, An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon. [9] H. Burn-Murdock, The Development of the Papacy (1954), 130f.
@Matt Peach that the Scripture is God breathed and thus infallibe/inerrant is what (as far as I'm aware) all Christians including Catholics agree on...where the dispute comes in is whether other Infallible/inerrant categories that are to be binding/rule on the church exist. So to suggest a possibility of otherwise (that it doesn't even mean God breathed) really undermines an established Christian premise as a whole...thus it is arguing like an atheist.
@Kyle Whittington We need an infallible interpreter to explain God's word because it's infallible but we don't need to be infallible to understand the infallible interpreter.
@@yellowblackbird9000 So, you're actually touching on one of my complaints with the debate. Infallible and inerrant are not interchangeable words, and they never made that distinction. The Bible is not infallible, it's inerrant. The interpretation of the Church is infallible. The Bible contains no errors and the Church will not give a failed interpretation.
@Kyle Whittington that distinction still doesn't remove the circular nature of the RC argument. You need an infallible interpreter but no one is infallibly interpreting what the infallible interpreter says.
Solo and Sola both mean one or solitary, one in English and the other in Latin. People use that distinction to be pedantic weasels, who refuse to concede debates. Let's get real, it is a lame semantic hairsplitting.
I think we all love Gavin. I personally didn’t get to meet him, but I was extremely impressed by everything that I saw from him. Just out of curiosity, were you on the fence prior to watching the debate or were you already firmly Protestant? This isn’t a challenge or an attempt to start an argument, I just genuinely want to know where you’re coming from.
I gathered that much, but before watching the debate, were you on the fence at all? Or would it be fair to say that you were already firmly Protestant and this debate didn't really move the needle for you?
It seems to me that the reason we need Sola Scriptura to be wrong is because of the absolute failure & insufficiency of scripture to support several of Catholicism’s claims. We need excuses for why Jesus, the disciples, & St Paul completely forget to give instructions to the future believers on how to centralise & institutionalise & standardise & dogmatise the faith. This shows that either a) they didn’t think there would be future generations, or b) they thought the Holy Spirit speaking through the recorded word would be enough. Both options are just plain old sloppy, right?
@@KyleWhittington I was reacting to the part about infallibly closing the canon. It seems to have been closed without the parts that confirm several doctrines that are pretty important to Catholics. Canonical silence only makes sense if there is a sequel to the canon.
@@geomicpri yeah, I’ll be real with you. I’m gonna have to dig some more on the topic of the Canon of Scripture being closed or not. I’ve heard conflicting reports. If it is truly closed, that’s gonna make reunification with the Orthodox pretty awkward since they have varying canons (all of which have more than 73 books).
@@KyleWhittington I’m not sure it’s closed either. Like, if it could suddenly be proven that a book, or part of a book, was forged, I’d be open to getting rid of it. Or if a new text came to be discovered which could be proven to be the authentic writings of some early disciple, I’d be open to including it, at least tentatively. As I see it, the men of faith in the council of Nicea did their best to compile the books that were known to be authentic, books which they’d studied & followed even to their own physical harm. I believe the Holy Ghost lead them to select well, & we’ve spent the last 1700 years trying & testing & poking at it, & it has held up.
@@geomicpri The Council of Nicaea didn't deal with the Canon, but I get what you're saying. As Catholics, we're bound to hold the 73-book canon as defined at the Council of Trent. Trent Horn appeared on R&T today and mentioned that there are certain Protestants that do exactly what you mentioned here about dropping parts of the Bible. But in a Catholic context, open canon means that books can be added, not subtracted.
For the record, Trent said “Scripture is prior but not higher than tradition.” I messed that one up a little in the video but eventually corrected myself 😅
I must have misheard Trent. I thought he was saying tradition was "prior not higher" given that the church existed prior to canonization.
Tradition is definitely prior (as far as the NT goes). And NT Scripture is a product of Tradition. It has to be. God left a Church and that Church taught. It did so orally and through written word. At some point, it became necessary to canonize the NT in order to advise all the particular churches on what they could use to teach in the liturgy.
This is not a constitution analogy. I mean, there is usefulness to the constitution analogy in that you need those who were there to explain what it means…but, in this case, those who were there mostly taught orally. Think if St Thomas in India, almost completely disconnected from the written epistles. Did he not have the fullness?
@@stooch66 Luke 16:29: Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
@@stooch66 they use Paul's epistles all the time to talk about the authority of scripture and salvation by faith/ works. Did Paul know his letters and the old cannon would all be placed together in one book? Maybe he did but I haven't seen that in scripture.
@@jamessheffield4173 totally agree with that. But, your quotation is a non-sequitur to my comment. That verse is Jesus’ teaching in his time about the OT, not the NT, which hadn’t yet been canonized, or even written! So, calling the OT “scripture” at the beginning of the Church is not a problem for us. Calling any of the NT at that time is.
The question is: in AD 40, 7 years (think about it, a long time in human life!) nobody had any NT scripture, yet they were being taught the Truth by the Apostles and their disciples. Were those people not saved? Did they not have the Truth? Did Christ intentionally depart our physical presence and forget to leave the one book that was necessary behind knowing that it would take centuries for it to be canonized? He left those centuries of Christians without the only rule of faith for that long? No, he left a Church- made up of 11 Apostles (and then St Matthias and St Paul) to create a teaching body. They did so through the liturgy and through letters and mostly through traveling and teaching orally. St John wrote down his gospel decades later. Were the early Christians somehow deficient in their understanding that Jesus was God? No, they certainly were not. The Church Fathers and the Didache testify to that. They knew. How did they know that without “In the beginning was the Word”? They knew because they were taught by the Apostles and their disciples (better known as bishops).
Finally, think about this practical issue: even after the NT was canonized, almost nobody could have laid their hands on it. It took the skin of hundreds of sheep and years of work of men to put just one copy together. If it was meant to be the “sole, infallible rule of Faith,” Jesus wanted us to wait until the 1500s to finally get it to people??? Even then, they still would have been difficult to get. I think many people think getting a Bible was always like going on Amazon or stopping into the local Christian shop.
The scriptures were elements used in the liturgy to teach the faith, by the Church. Canonizing it was about defining for the churches what they can use in the liturgy. The Faith is and always has been liturgical.
The open canon argument definitely needs some more attention.
Do you have a channel recommendation for someone to explore that argument more?
@@KyleWhittington looks like it’s time to write the next script 😂
I'm a former Baptist Pastor (currently Lutheran and transitioning over to Catholicism) I have some thoughts. While one debate doesn't settle the issue, I thought Trent's arguments put me over the top to Catholicism and am actually planning to become Catholic as a result. Of course, I was already on my way to being convinced. Perhaps it's because I was on the way anyway that I thought Trent clearly won. I could see where a Protestant may remain Protestant after listening to Gavin's arguments. I agree with Kyle that there could have been more engagement with epistemology, which was one of the big draws for me to Catholicism. I think the Protestant has big epistemological and historical issues to resolve that the Catholic has an easier time with, while the Catholic faces more of an uphill battle on the Biblical front, perhaps. To me, anyway, Catholicism resolves them all harmoniously. Nice job on examining the debate, guys.
What was persuasive to you about Trent's arguments?
@@collin501 Trent I believe gave the best overall argument, bringing in all the different angles to the table. His cross-exam certainly put Gavin on the defensive, and the comments in the channel reflected that. Of course, more could have been said. A big historical question I would have raised to Gavin is where was Sola Scriptura in any of the major thinkers prior to Luther, other than a few quote mines? If there is a de facto standard and bar for all truth, one would have to think it would have been articulated and defended, or at least mentioned explicitly, during the earlier parts of church history. But as an observer, I don't think it was even close. The debate was titled "is Sola Scriptura True", and presumably Gavin had that burden, and I don't feel he even came close to demonstrating it. Just IMHO.
@Scott Oakland Was it more of a general feel then that Trent did better? Or was it particular points? Because when I listened to it, I didn't really hear them engaging with each other's points, but simply giving their own points talking past one another.
Sola scriptura is not really a doctrine that anyone would have articulated in the early church. They were simply zealous for that which was authoritative. You hear the early writers like Ignatius and clement and Polycarp and realize they sound a lot like Paul. In other words, they were zealous to rest upon that which was handed down to them, not to go beyond it. A hundred years later you can see more free thought in trying to explain what was handed down rather than simply following the pattern to a tee. You see this in Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Melito, Tertullian, Irenaeous, etc. Then as the earlier authoritative writings become further entrenched over time by the traditions of the church, writers begin to delve deeper into how to explain those writings, and they often went much further in their explanations than in past generations. So you can see the pattern very clearly. When whatever is authoritative becomes firmly established, then there is enough freedom that people feel to start trying to dig into it further and explain it. When it is too new and fresh, people simply want to preserve it lest it be lost or tampered with or an incorrect interpretation be embedded into it.
Simply put, Sola scriptura in the early church is just a way to say that they were zealous for that which was authoritative, and they clung to it and preserved it. They left many of their notes for us to follow and we trust them. Protestants and Catholics are in the same camp really. We take a look at the notes they took during the way and trust them. There are only two differences. Catholics have more doctrines they derive from the set of notes the early church left. Maybe they have a slightly expanded set of notes. And two, they have a different INTERPRETION of that same set of notes that us protestants are looking at. If both Catholics and Protestants are trying to find that trustworthy set of notes and correct interpretation on that set of notes, then what makes one more true than the other apart from how accurately we've determined which set of notes is trustworthy and the correct interpretation on that?
@@collin501 What was that authority though?
And also many denominations of protestantism goes against very explicit teachings of the early Church like baptismal regeneration. It's not an accretion but a doctrinal U-turn to use Gavin's terminology.
@@jon6car that authority was the authority passed down by Christ. Some protestants believe in baptismal regeneration. I do. Do you have any other examples?
This one is DEFINITELY eating my popcorn
The fun part was, I didn’t even prepare him for that. So the look of confusion is genuine.
The historical record is clear. The Apostles preached and founded churches in various places - the letters of Paul etc were written to Churches that already knew the gospel since they were taught it orally from the Apostles - thus the early church received the written gospel which reinforced the gospel they already knew.
This is the Catholic perspective - we receive the gospel within the milieu in which it was delivered. The Protestant by contrast receives the written word outside of the milieu in which it was delivered (thus they take the product of the church - the written word- and apply it in a way that was never intended by the writers). Which is why the Protestant can come up with all sorts of interpretations that vary from those churches which have apostolic pedigree - those s churches which have an organic connection to Christ and the apostles through apostolic succession. Simply put - this is why those churches with apostolic pedigree believe nearly all the same things whereby the sola scriptura crowd have so many different interpretations of the same scripture.
When you put it into historical context and consider things like lack of technology/ literacy, the debate gets really silly.
@YAJUNYUAN What do you mean by that? I would agree some Catholics may not even know their faith, poor catechism. They may individually not have the knowledge and understanding because as humans do impose their beliefs which may be incorrect due to lack of knowledge, sin...making excuses for their behaviors ie I don't agree with the Church because I want to continue and rationalize my sin...not me personally etc...but the doctrine doesn't change and is not confusing....Holy Tradition and Scripture explains apparent discrepancies from fallible personal interpretation because we have apostolic teaching Fathers who guided by the Holy Spirit have the authority to tell us what scripture means...yes God gave us faith and reason...we can read Scripture to our own peril as the bible says this is why Jesus said the Church and its authority is guided by Holy Spirit not to teach error...yes there are sinners in the Church...yes there may be bad shepherds who if we know our faith we are to disobey...but the Church proper has never taught error. As the people are prepared for truth and understanding increases...the Church can expound on better explaining the Gospel but not changing it...this is my explaination as a Catholic to you my friend.
I don't think that's true about protestants receiving the texts outside of the milieu in which they were delivered. Where do you get that?
@YAJUN YUAN Stating that "Catholics have many interpretations" is similar to me saying "folks in that non-denominational church believe various things outside the official church dogma." What does that prove? The actions or beliefs of adherents does not substantiate or deny the truth of their church authority. Also, saying that "Catholics don't base their beliefs solely on interpretation of Scripture" is incorrect...you make it sound like they have unbiblical beliefs, which is a totally different level. All of their traditions are checked and pondered to ensure that in fact they do not violate Scripture, and they have the special charism to do so. Unless you are saying that every one of their traditions do not all flow perfectly aND directly from Scripture....which is a debatable point. I'm sure a Catholic can chime in here.
@Rightly-Ordered okay it was worded more generally than that. Apostolic succession was very important when the authoritative writings and teachings were being established. I accept that. It reflects how zealous they were to preserve what was handed down to them. Then they left us their notes on the tradition they received. We can read those notes and come to a similar conclusion on what is trustworthy. So no, I accept that milieu as well. It was something they practiced as a necessity, but to accept that tradition does not mean to extend what they were practicing at the time to something beyond the spirit or intent of what they were practicing. A protestant may very well receive that tradition better if they receive the spirit of that succession in the way it was practiced in the 1st through 3rd centuries rather than making it an timeless doctrine where the way it is practiced today is read back into the way it was practiced in the early days.
I think one thing we as Catholics miss sometimes is the simple fact that most Protestants do not care if they disagree on interpretation, which therefore means they do not care about absolute truth. They are good with just "truth". I think so many times we assume they are all aspiring for perfect truth, but they are not, and they are perfectly okay with that. There may be a need to argue the difference in "perfect truth" and "truth" if there is such a thing.
It’s not truth when you state most Protestants don’t care about absolute truth. Please don’t lie when criticizing others for not caring about the truth. Thank you. God bless
How does that follow? If anyone made agreement an absolute priority, then they would by necessity bend on truth.
Read Romans 14 where Paul talks about issues that are secondary (whether or not to eat meat offered to idols, etc.). In I Cor. 15:1-6 , Paul says that the Gospel itself is of "First importance." The Gospel is "Christ died and arose again for our sins." Also,, Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is an illustration of how the Apostles preached "The Gospel" message. He identified who Christ was and what he did to accomplish our salvation. Then he told them to repent and follow Jesus. He used Scripture and witnesses to prove everything he said. Notice how the people responded.
@Richard Brockway I was trying to understand the original comment. Protestants can sometimes disagree on interpretation because they think the contrary interpretation is "untrue". Or they tentatively hold to a view and allow for other views, which they can open handed issues, only because they are unwilling to say that they know for a fact they are infallibly true about their view. But this is because they care about absolute truth and don't want to hold onto a view so strongly that they miss the truth. Doesn't that show how much they care about absolute truth?
Because it is unscriptural. Paul says that now we see through a glass darkly & will not be exposed to perfect truth until we are united with Him in Heaven. Any illusions of perfect truth on this side of the veil are deceptions of pride.
Great work gents. Keep it up!
I think the analogy of the constitution/ courts argument is a really good way to reach our protestant brothers and sisters. It could also be a really bad one based on some of the justices we've had.
When using an analogy, it’s important to remind folks that every analogy breaks down eventually. The US government isn’t protected by the Holy Spirit. So that’s the main difference there.
@@KyleWhittington that's true. But second to the Holy Bible, the U.S. Constitution in near and dear to many of them.
@@danvankouwenberg7234 That's a really good point... Maybe that's why people stop listening when I lead with "so here's why we need to bring back the monarchy"
@@KyleWhittington baby steps lol. The main issue is that most of Luther's issues with the church of his time have been reformed. There's less and less reasons for them to be away from the Church.
@YAJUN YUAN that’s not really the topic at hand here.
I like where Trent went with the whole "Public Revelation ended with the Last Apostle" can Gavin say that is known with infalliblilty?
Who can know that with infallibility?
@@collin501 There are a few ways you could know. One would be God directly tells you. Two would be God tells you in inspired Scripture. Three would Be God tells you through the Traditions of His Church he founded. If you don't have an infallible way to prove it then I think Public Revelation could be on the table as a Infallible rule of Faith since it could be as infallible as when Public Revelation occurred during apostolic times.
@Matt Peach You're referring to the way we trace the idea all the way back to its infallible source, right? How can you "prove" that the catholic magisterium is "infallible"? I don't think I have the tools to trace that back to its source without making fallible assumptions. We all have to face God and His revealed truth on our own, although we have the help of the Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, as Ephesians 4 says. But I still don't have the tools to prove the infallibility of the catholic magisterium, so like the early church I cling to what we all believe to be trustworthy, the scriptures, and I proceed with skepticism about adopting what is not agreed upon.
The NT just records some of the infallible act of the 1st century church which at that time was lead by the Apostles.
Great review
I appreciate very much all the Catholic apologists. The best defenders of the Catholic faith right now have almost Protestant background. 😊
I wanna see a Sola Fide debate next…
Clement of Rome claims to speak with the voice of God at the end of his letter to the Corinthians and commands obedience. I think that's actually the earliest evidence of infallibility, not just of the Church, but of the Church of Rome.
Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus implicitly but clearly mention successive teaching authority. More emphasis needs to be put on this.
Trent did much better in his online debate on the canon and his debate with White on losing one's salvation. Part of the reason is due to Gavin's slippery style that resists being nailed down and cornered, but part of it was Trent failure to recognize that going in and plan how to corner Gavin.
this is true about Gavin. He's all over the place and if you do not know your bible or Christian history, I can see how ignorant people in the pew could accept everything he preaches.
Romans 10:8“But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;”
@Wgaither1 I don t know how the authority works there, but if the school receives public funding, it gonna be hard to prohibit public events even if they go against the Church teachings. And not everyone speak up today.
It’s a private school
Which school?
@@KyleWhittington Fairfield university
Suan is playing 4d chess with these debates. Always like 8 steps ahead haha!
Michael Lofton would say that Trent ( ecumenical council) did not close the cannon and it's technically open . Also didn't Clement only recognise 2 offices for the church ie bishops and deacons ?
To your first point, I've seen disagreement on that as well. I haven't looked into it though. To your second point, I have no idea.
Very convenient for Luther and Calvin to claim Sola Scriptura, after having just ripped 7 Books out of their Old Testament Canon, and after Luther tried to remove James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, from the New Testament Canon, but failed to acquire enough cultural support.
Re: The meaning of anathema. That totally needed to be said. It is serious and all this softening hasn’t been helpful.
But then what followed about being damned to hell because of denying a dogma - this illustrates the worry of Protestants. Notice how Suan elevates these additional dogmas to the level of denying Christ, which is to elevate it to the Gospel itself. Imagine thinking that a dogma like the Bodily Assumption is in the deposit of faith - on the same level as Christ - even though there’s not a single word about it. And then attaching an anathema to it?
This is a huge problem.
How could Catholics call Protestants brothers and sisters in Christ when we deny these dogmas?
@@Wgaither1 by being inconsistent and retconning past statements is how.
Gavin's take on Sola Scriptura is actually quite simple. He worries over the alternative of Sola Scriptura, meaning if NOT for Sola Scriptura, horrors of horrors, we have to depend on God made defective sinful man! We have to depend on NON Democractic means!
I wonder what he was thinking when God made David, Solomon and all those Jewish kings hold so much authority and yet they were so sinful! Did God send a bunch of men who says look we have the 613 laws, lets interpret those ourselves, because the alternative will be to depend on sinful hateful kings!
Let God be God.
Are you from Singapore?
I caught that too. The only thing is that Democracy isn’t inherently Christian. It’s not necessarily opposed to Christianity, but the Bible is far from endorsing it.
The Bible does however endorse a monarchy. The government in heaven is a monarchy (Christ is King) so of course it’s acceptable for us here on earth to imitate that.
You know how much those kings neglected the word of God, so much so that it later got unearthed in the temple. It was often the prophets, far outside of the kingly hierarchy, who brought the word of God. And more often than not they were condemned by the kings.
I summarize Gavin's views this way: Gavin is so worried about being yoked to erroneous and untrue doctrines that he chooses to be yoked to no true doctrines. That idea seems to undermine everything Christianity is about- bringing truth to the world.
@@cmac369 does Gavin hold to no true doctrines? Do you know what doctrines he holds to?
I was shocked at Trent’s assertion that the Father somehow preceded the Son and Holy Spirit.
preceded or proceed? I didn't listen to it, but the Creed says that the Holy Spirit and Son proceed from the Father, so if there's a misunderstanding there hopefully that's resolved since it's a universal Christian belief.
I think we are forgetting Jesus' promise for an infallible rule of faith and that is the Holy Spirit would remind and guide the Church to all truth and that claim is clearly mentioned in the Bible. See Matthew 16:17 and Matthew 18...the first was said by Jesus to the first pope, Peter and the second was said by Jesus to the first bishops of the Church we call them the Apostles. Good enough for me to realize that despite the flaws of men God the Holy Spirit would lead Jesus' Church, now know as the Roman Catholic Church to all truth. Notice it doesn't say all the time but what is implied is that eventually the truth would come from the Church. Bye bye sola Scriptura.
For Trent to imply that theópneustos means "life giving" instead of "God breathed", thereby nullifying the very root of the word, is incredible! Something like a man drowning in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of a storm grabbing at a floating plastic straw. Unbelievable!!
Yeah, I thought that was an… interesting… tactic. I raised an eyebrow at that one too.
Exactly. It seems like Paul was the one who coined the term anyway, and his writings are the earliest example we have of it. Therefore we need to look at what that means in the context Paul wrote it. How it was used after that is inconsequential.
In point of fact, the meaning "life-giving" doesn't nullify the root of the word at all. In fact, it recognizes that the act of God breathing is life-giving, and that every Greek source that uses the word prior to Origen (in the third century) uses the word that way. For the evidence, see John C. Poirier, *The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture* (London: Bloomsbury, 2021).
lets look at JW's as an example... A young man picks up a bible, like the KJV. He see a word "Jehovah" in the bible. He gets excited because he thinks that he discovered a word that never existed. This young man doesn't understand that the KJV, is an Anglican bible, and the term "Jehovah" is am man made word coined by a Jesuit priest for reading purposes. He then thinks that all religions are in error based on his own fallacy. Now what could possibly go wrong with that? oh ya, just ask an ex-JW, and they will tell you.
Trent won the debate hands down. He refuted Gavin’s Syllogism for SS in his opening. It was over after that.
I have to agree. If one didn't go into the debate convinced of SS, they certainly wouldn't become convinced based on what I heard from Gavin.
You have got to be kidding me. His entire cross-examination proved he has a huge misunderstanding about what SS actually is from the Protestant perspective.
Sola Scriptura was invented in the 16th century.
Problem is that if you don't have Sola Scritura you end up with something like the Roman Catholic Church which bears very little resemblance to the first century Church.
I’d be curious to hear what Sola Scriptura tradition most resembles the 1st Century Church then. It was the investigation into the 1st Century Church that led me to Catholicism.
Seems ironic Trent did a talk about how Protestants argue like atheist yet he seemed to be arguing like an atheist introducing doubt and skepticism about things that are well established such as 2nd tim 3:16 interpreting it in a way that does not mean God breathed...look up the scholar and that guy doesn't even seem to believe in the Pauline authorship of the epistles.
what wrong with poking holes in your proof text for sola scriptura? Don't you guys try to poke holes in our Matthew 16:18 proof text for the Pope?
@@MrPeach1 it's not an accurate characterization to say poke hole in proof text, 2nd tim 3:16 is a well established and agreed upon meaning by all the churches "God breathed" so to introduce a novel and or fringe interpretation that even Roman Catholics don't use is indeed strange.
@Matt Peach on the other hand Matt 16:18 has a variety of interpretations historically even among the patristics...
historical research done by Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick regarding the early church’s view of Matthew 16:18. Archbishop Peter Kenrick wrote a paper on this subject, which was to be delivered to Vatican I (1870). However, it was never delivered, but it was published later, along with other points.[5]
He points out the 5 interpretations of Matt. 16:18, to which Fathers held:
All Christians were the living stones, held by very few Fathers-. Origen who is a common source of patristic exegetical tradition: states “‘If we also say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter . . . for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew).
All the apostles, 8 Fathers (Cyprian et al).
Christ as the Rock, 16 Fathers (Eusebius, early Augustine). Eusebius of Caesarea (D. 263-339), in his view (“rock” as Christ), He links this interpretation with the parallel rock and foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 3:11 and 10:4.
Peter as the Rock, 17 Fathers.
The Rock upon which the Church was built was the Faith that Peter confessed, 44 Fathers, including the most important Fathers (e.g., Basil of Seleucia [448]; Cyril of Alexandria; Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary,[6] Jerome, and Augustine again. Note, that Augustine (later in life) stated:
Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (Retractations).[7]
Thus, only 20% of the Fathers held to Rome’s now canonized “infallible” “Petrine Rock” interpretation of Matthew 16:18. That is far from being the norm of the early church. Kenrick concluded: “If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that the “rock” should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.”[8]
As Roman Catholic apologist, H. Burn-Murdock actually admits: “None of the writings of the first two centuries describe St. Peter as a bishop of Rome.”[9] In fact, no one before Callistus (c. A.D. 218-223) used Matthew 16:18 to support the primacy of the Roman bishop (i.e., “Pope)
@Matt Peach 5] Cf. An Inside View at Vatican I, ed. Leonard Woolsey Bacon (New York: American Tract Society, 1871).
[6] Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity (Book II): “Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God” (On the Trinity).
[7] Augustine wrote The Retractations late in his life to correct points expressed in his own writings. Here, Augustine corrects his earlier opinion that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16:18. According to Augustine the rock is Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ
[8] Speech of Archbishop Kenrick, 109, An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.
[9] H. Burn-Murdock, The Development of the Papacy (1954), 130f.
@Matt Peach that the Scripture is God breathed and thus infallibe/inerrant is what (as far as I'm aware) all Christians including Catholics agree on...where the dispute comes in is whether other Infallible/inerrant categories that are to be binding/rule on the church exist. So to suggest a possibility of otherwise (that it doesn't even mean God breathed) really undermines an established Christian premise as a whole...thus it is arguing like an atheist.
The RCC position here is circular and self-defeating. I don't think Trent really addressed the issue.
I think this comment is just as fair as the claims that Sola Scriptura is circular.
“The Bible is inerrant because the Bible says so”
@Kyle Whittington We need an infallible interpreter to explain God's word because it's infallible but we don't need to be infallible to understand the infallible interpreter.
@@yellowblackbird9000 So, you're actually touching on one of my complaints with the debate. Infallible and inerrant are not interchangeable words, and they never made that distinction.
The Bible is not infallible, it's inerrant. The interpretation of the Church is infallible. The Bible contains no errors and the Church will not give a failed interpretation.
@Kyle Whittington that distinction still doesn't remove the circular nature of the RC argument.
You need an infallible interpreter but no one is infallibly interpreting what the infallible interpreter says.
@@yellowblackbird9000 So how is that different from the Sola Scriptura argument?
Solo and Sola both mean one or solitary, one in English and the other in Latin. People use that distinction to be pedantic weasels, who refuse to concede debates. Let's get real, it is a lame semantic hairsplitting.
I love Gavin. I’m convinced Protestantism is correct.
I think we all love Gavin. I personally didn’t get to meet him, but I was extremely impressed by everything that I saw from him.
Just out of curiosity, were you on the fence prior to watching the debate or were you already firmly Protestant? This isn’t a challenge or an attempt to start an argument, I just genuinely want to know where you’re coming from.
@@KyleWhittington Protestant
I gathered that much, but before watching the debate, were you on the fence at all? Or would it be fair to say that you were already firmly Protestant and this debate didn't really move the needle for you?
Timestamp?
Dang… thanks for the reminder
Approx 8:21
It seems to me that the reason we need Sola Scriptura to be wrong is because of the absolute failure & insufficiency of scripture to support several of Catholicism’s claims. We need excuses for why Jesus, the disciples, & St Paul completely forget to give instructions to the future believers on how to centralise & institutionalise & standardise & dogmatise the faith.
This shows that either a) they didn’t think there would be future generations, or b) they thought the Holy Spirit speaking through the recorded word would be enough. Both options are just plain old sloppy, right?
What part of the video are you referring to?
@@KyleWhittington I was reacting to the part about infallibly closing the canon. It seems to have been closed without the parts that confirm several doctrines that are pretty important to Catholics. Canonical silence only makes sense if there is a sequel to the canon.
@@geomicpri yeah, I’ll be real with you. I’m gonna have to dig some more on the topic of the Canon of Scripture being closed or not. I’ve heard conflicting reports.
If it is truly closed, that’s gonna make reunification with the Orthodox pretty awkward since they have varying canons (all of which have more than 73 books).
@@KyleWhittington I’m not sure it’s closed either. Like, if it could suddenly be proven that a book, or part of a book, was forged, I’d be open to getting rid of it. Or if a new text came to be discovered which could be proven to be the authentic writings of some early disciple, I’d be open to including it, at least tentatively.
As I see it, the men of faith in the council of Nicea did their best to compile the books that were known to be authentic, books which they’d studied & followed even to their own physical harm. I believe the Holy Ghost lead them to select well, & we’ve spent the last 1700 years trying & testing & poking at it, & it has held up.
@@geomicpri The Council of Nicaea didn't deal with the Canon, but I get what you're saying. As Catholics, we're bound to hold the 73-book canon as defined at the Council of Trent. Trent Horn appeared on R&T today and mentioned that there are certain Protestants that do exactly what you mentioned here about dropping parts of the Bible. But in a Catholic context, open canon means that books can be added, not subtracted.
Gavin still defending the indefensible. I wish they would stop encouraging him.
Gavin got smoked
Batman has spoken