From watching the Reformed debate, they tend to be like smoke (either intentionally or not). They'll nuance and redefine terms when they're position is challenged. So definitely pin him down and keep pushing a topic till you get to the core of his position
Just an example of this is RZ will agree and use the language that Baptism Saves, or the Real Presence. But when pushed on the topic it becomes clear that he doesn't believe in those things as the historical church and Catholics understood them
God bless both of you in this search for truth. A thought I have had is that in protestant dialogues often a dichotomy of: "infallible" or "not Infallible" creeps in. There is a 3rd category of "*authoritative enough*" to come to the conclusion over time of its Infallibility. As with many converts to Christianity, we first come to judge the scriptures as historically authoritative and reliable... And then from that position of *high* authority grant it's "self declaration" as "infallible". All the Catholic and Orthodox need to show is that the councils are *authoritative enough* that Infallibility of EC is a natural doctrinal development rather than accretion. Just my 2 cents 🤔. Keen to watch!
The definition of the Trinity is an infallible statement, to say otherwise is to say Arianism or Modalism is a valid biblical interpretation. Change my mind
I think you are arguing: "if you cannot disprove my interpretation of the Trinity from the bible it must be correct" BUT... That's a strawman.... You could have MULTIPLE positions that are unfalsifiable from the bible. So not only do you have to refute objections to the Trinity. You have to refute every other position. And there are some verses that imply one way and some the other way. And tradition is your particular method of harmonisation (And there is FAR more alternatives than the two you listed) I thought I'd point this out. I won't argue because I think you are correct... But you should try this argument with with *skilled* modalists, Unitarian, JW And if you are being charitable I think you will see the other position is genuinely trying their best to understand scripture. It's not that perpiscuous. In discussion with St Augustine, the ARIANS took the Sola scriptura approach. Hebrews 6 calls baptism instruction a "ELEMENTARY foundation" Yet I understand both the infant and creedal positions. Food for thought brother
@@RedRoosterRoman I never made that argument. I simply stated that WHO God is simply cannot change. St. Athanasius argued from tradition against the Arians which the deposit of faith is held. Both written and oral. Of course there are more than 2 but these are the 2 most popular. I haven’t mentioned Unitarians or tritheists there. The issue is that people can be sincerely wrong about something and to say that there are other possible explanations on who God is is essentially saying there is no objective morality.
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6).
St. Athanasius (c. 297-373) was a great Church Father and heroic opposer of the heresy of Arianism. He is probably the most-cited Church Father after St. Augustine in the writings of Protestant apologists who wish to show that the fathers were closer in substance to various teachings to Protestantism than to Catholicism. He is cited as a supposed proponent of Sola Scriptura - the Protestant rule of faith and notion that the Bible is the only infallible source and standard for theology. It follows logically from this definition that the Church (including ecumenical councils) or sacred tradition (including apostolic succession) cannot be infallible sources or standards for theology. Therefore, if someone asserts that one or both are infallible sources, then by definition and logic that person cannot possibly adhere to Sola Scriptura. It's rather easy to demonstrate that St. Athanasius did indeed believe in infallible sources of authority alongside, and in harmony with Sacred Scripture. I cite his words from the 38-volume edition of the Church fathers edited by Philip Schaff (available online in its entirety at the New Advent website): “But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides forever.” (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 2) “But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so hold them fast (1 Corinthians 11:2).’” (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 10) “For had they believed aright, they would have been satisfied with the confession put forth at Nicæa by the whole Ecumenical Council; ... Observe how entirely they disregard the truth, and how everything they say and do is for the sake of the Arian heresy. For in that they dare to question those sound definitions of the faith, and take upon themselves to produce others contrary to them, what else do they but accuse the Fathers, and stand up in defense of that heresy which they opposed and protested against?” (Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae, 5) “Who, then, that has any real regard for truth, will be willing to suffer these men any longer? Who will not justly reject their writing? Who will not denounce their audacity, that being but few in number, they would have their decisions to prevail over everything, and as desiring the supremacy of their own meetings, held in corners and suspicious in their circumstances, would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure and Ecumenical Council?” (Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae, 7) “It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this.” (Letter No. 59 to Epictetus, 3) “What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic Church …?” (De Synodis, I, 3) “… the sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning the Faith.” (Against the Heathen 1, 6, 3) “... the soul is made immortal is a further point in the Church’s teaching which you must know ...” (Against the Heathen 2, 33, 1) In seeking to establish that a particular Church Father believed in Sola Scriptura, Protestant apologists will often cite passages in their writings having to do with the material sufficiency of Scripture: which means that Scripture contains everything sufficient for one to be saved. But Catholics and Protestants agree on that doctrine, so it’s irrelevant to the debate about Sola Scriptura. The Church Fathers - almost to a person, as I have discovered in my own research on the topic - reject Sola Scriptura, which is the same as the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Invariably they do so in the sense that they believe there are infallible sources of authority and theology alongside the Bible. Another error and fallacy that is very common in these sorts of Protestant treatments of Church Fathers is the belief that if a Father cites a lot of Scripture in his argumentation (and not infrequently only Scripture), that he must, therefore, believe in Sola Scriptura. This doesn’t follow at all. It’s two different things; apples and oranges. It’s undeniably the case that one doesn’t have to believe that only Scripture is infallible in order to use Scripture in theological argument. I massively cite Scripture, myself, in my many apologetics articles and books. One of my specialties, and what I am most known for, is “biblical evidence for Catholicism.” Yet I vehemently deny Sola Scriptura, and have written three books against it. St. Athanasius could (and did) make many arguments from Scripture alone. But he also made arguments of the authority of Tradition or councils alone, or from an appeal to apostolic succession alone. In his statements about the Council of Nicaea (above), he clearly didn’t think that it erred at all in its pronouncements, or (so it seems to me) even that it could possibly assert error. Many times, Athanasius mentioned the infallible authority of both Scripture and non-Scripture in the same context. For example, he wrote about Scripture: But ... if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. (On the Incarnation of the Word, 56, 1-2) But this is not Sola Scriptura, because the very next thing he wrote contradicts it: “But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them ...” (Tradition and apostolic succession).
Also, from a bit before in the de synodis 6: But if no such event has happened, and they have it not to show, but rather they themselves are uttering heresies, as holding Arius's irreligion, and are exposed day by day, and day by day shift their ground , what need is there of Councils, when the Nicene is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which it has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith?
Let's go deeper...Is the Masoretic text type family infallible (Catholic/Jerome) or is the Septuagint text type family infallible ? St. Paul agreed with the Septuagint; Jerome embraced the proto- Masoretic, which in my opinion, led the Catholic Church away from an "infallible" view of the Scriptures.
@@roddumlauf9241 you're going to need to go back and adjust your hypothesis. Jerome did not include the Deuterocanon therefore you can't say Catholic/Jerome
@@Godfrey118 I didn't say anything about the Deuterocanon. I was talking about Jerome's error in using the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text type family VS. the Septuagintal Greek text type family when he translated the Old Testament into Latin ( which became the Latin Vulgate).
You have to bring up unitarianism in the debate. If the councils aren't infallible, then basic dogmas like the trinity are up for grabs. Therefore, unitarians aren't heretics because they reject the trinity, but protestants that went all the way to the end of their own logic and questioned what was established by councils and not by scripture.
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6).
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyThat's the problem with protestants (or heretics by that matter), always taking Scripture out of context, hence infallible councils are needed to explain it to people that love to cherrypick paragraphs or verses without context, missing the whole point of Scripture (ironically). Plus the things that are not find in Scripture still need to be infallible defined, because Scripture is not all there is to faith, but one of the basis.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty I do, but I take the full context, instead of focusing on a sentence taken out of context. Therefore you should take your own advice, brother.
@@GranMaese I posted the entire paragraph for a reason, which was to provide context. Let’s break it down. 1. Athanasius believes that Scripture is “above all things”. 2. If a council is needed, we should follow the proceedings of the Nicene Bishops. 3. The declaration of the Nicene Bishops clearly articulates the faith of the apóstoles, as found in holy scripture, and therefore Athanasius agrees with it. 4. Therefore, councils should not be trusted in and of themselves, but rather should be trusted they align with the Scriptures. Hope this helped.
The only thing that really bugs me is redeemed zoomer said he wouldnt be doing this debate if it wasnt for the money. Makes me feel like his heart just wont be in the fight. Still best not to underestimate him, his debate with Jay Dyer would be good study material.
Protestants are always motivated for personal gain, never motivated to defend truth, but their own interests. His heart, in this regard, will be the exact same as in any other day.
Brother is making it up in the world
I love your videos dude your a good inspiration for Christian’s
@@PoppinPsinceAD33 thank you!
@@SanctusTheology Love your use of Aquinas lol.
This is hype!
Can't wait!
From watching the Reformed debate, they tend to be like smoke (either intentionally or not). They'll nuance and redefine terms when they're position is challenged. So definitely pin him down and keep pushing a topic till you get to the core of his position
Just an example of this is RZ will agree and use the language that Baptism Saves, or the Real Presence. But when pushed on the topic it becomes clear that he doesn't believe in those things as the historical church and Catholics understood them
@@Godfrey118 I think more Catholic apologist should push the Reformed on these types of debates!
So that's his last time doing Protestant Apologetics?
I’m surprised redeemed even agreed to do a debate
I have a feeling in a few years he might get back into it
@@noahgaming8833 he agreed literally the day before that announcement
@@KyleWhittington hmmmm. Very interesting 🤔
@@WeavileiscoolHe may, as a Catholic now, indeed.
Let's Go !!! Awesome!!!God Bless both of you brothers !!🙏
Looking forward towards this debate..
Praying for you both as you prepare!
God bless both of you in this search for truth. A thought I have had is that in protestant dialogues often a dichotomy of: "infallible" or "not Infallible" creeps in.
There is a 3rd category of "*authoritative enough*" to come to the conclusion over time of its Infallibility.
As with many converts to Christianity, we first come to judge the scriptures as historically authoritative and reliable...
And then from that position of *high* authority grant it's "self declaration" as "infallible".
All the Catholic and Orthodox need to show is that the councils are *authoritative enough* that Infallibility of EC is a natural doctrinal development rather than accretion.
Just my 2 cents 🤔.
Keen to watch!
The definition of the Trinity is an infallible statement, to say otherwise is to say Arianism or Modalism is a valid biblical interpretation. Change my mind
I think you are arguing: "if you cannot disprove my interpretation of the Trinity from the bible it must be correct"
BUT... That's a strawman....
You could have MULTIPLE positions that are unfalsifiable from the bible.
So not only do you have to refute objections to the Trinity.
You have to refute every other position.
And there are some verses that imply one way and some the other way.
And tradition is your particular method of harmonisation
(And there is FAR more alternatives than the two you listed)
I thought I'd point this out.
I won't argue because I think you are correct...
But you should try this argument with with *skilled* modalists, Unitarian, JW
And if you are being charitable I think you will see the other position is genuinely trying their best to understand scripture.
It's not that perpiscuous.
In discussion with St Augustine, the ARIANS took the Sola scriptura approach.
Hebrews 6 calls baptism instruction a "ELEMENTARY foundation"
Yet I understand both the infant and creedal positions.
Food for thought brother
@@RedRoosterRoman I never made that argument. I simply stated that WHO God is simply cannot change. St. Athanasius argued from tradition against the Arians which the deposit of faith is held. Both written and oral.
Of course there are more than 2 but these are the 2 most popular. I haven’t mentioned Unitarians or tritheists there.
The issue is that people can be sincerely wrong about something and to say that there are other possible explanations on who God is is essentially saying there is no objective morality.
What channel will it be on? I could not find it using TH-cam search
My channel
@@KyleWhittingtonany update, or am I blind?
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6).
St. Athanasius (c. 297-373) was a great Church Father and heroic opposer of the heresy of Arianism. He is probably the most-cited Church Father after St. Augustine in the writings of Protestant apologists who wish to show that the fathers were closer in substance to various teachings to Protestantism than to Catholicism.
He is cited as a supposed proponent of Sola Scriptura - the Protestant rule of faith and notion that the Bible is the only infallible source and standard for theology. It follows logically from this definition that the Church (including ecumenical councils) or sacred tradition (including apostolic succession) cannot be infallible sources or standards for theology.
Therefore, if someone asserts that one or both are infallible sources, then by definition and logic that person cannot possibly adhere to Sola Scriptura. It's rather easy to demonstrate that St. Athanasius did indeed believe in infallible sources of authority alongside, and in harmony with Sacred Scripture.
I cite his words from the 38-volume edition of the Church fathers edited by Philip Schaff (available online in its entirety at the New Advent website):
“But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides forever.” (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 2)
“But let the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, ‘Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and as I handed the traditions to you, so hold them fast (1 Corinthians 11:2).’” (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 10)
“For had they believed aright, they would have been satisfied with the confession put forth at Nicæa by the whole Ecumenical Council; ... Observe how entirely they disregard the truth, and how everything they say and do is for the sake of the Arian heresy. For in that they dare to question those sound definitions of the faith, and take upon themselves to produce others contrary to them, what else do they but accuse the Fathers, and stand up in defense of that heresy which they opposed and protested against?” (Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae, 5)
“Who, then, that has any real regard for truth, will be willing to suffer these men any longer? Who will not justly reject their writing? Who will not denounce their audacity, that being but few in number, they would have their decisions to prevail over everything, and as desiring the supremacy of their own meetings, held in corners and suspicious in their circumstances, would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure and Ecumenical Council?” (Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae, 7)
“It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this.” (Letter No. 59 to Epictetus, 3)
“What defect of teaching was there for religious truth in the Catholic Church …?” (De Synodis, I, 3)
“… the sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning the Faith.” (Against the Heathen 1, 6, 3)
“... the soul is made immortal is a further point in the Church’s teaching which you must know ...” (Against the Heathen 2, 33, 1)
In seeking to establish that a particular Church Father believed in Sola Scriptura, Protestant apologists will often cite passages in their writings having to do with the material sufficiency of Scripture: which means that Scripture contains everything sufficient for one to be saved. But Catholics and Protestants agree on that doctrine, so it’s irrelevant to the debate about Sola Scriptura. The Church Fathers - almost to a person, as I have discovered in my own research on the topic - reject Sola Scriptura, which is the same as the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Invariably they do so in the sense that they believe there are infallible sources of authority and theology alongside the Bible.
Another error and fallacy that is very common in these sorts of Protestant treatments of Church Fathers is the belief that if a Father cites a lot of Scripture in his argumentation (and not infrequently only Scripture), that he must, therefore, believe in Sola Scriptura.
This doesn’t follow at all. It’s two different things; apples and oranges. It’s undeniably the case that one doesn’t have to believe that only Scripture is infallible in order to use Scripture in theological argument. I massively cite Scripture, myself, in my many apologetics articles and books. One of my specialties, and what I am most known for, is “biblical evidence for Catholicism.” Yet I vehemently deny Sola Scriptura, and have written three books against it.
St. Athanasius could (and did) make many arguments from Scripture alone. But he also made arguments of the authority of Tradition or councils alone, or from an appeal to apostolic succession alone. In his statements about the Council of Nicaea (above), he clearly didn’t think that it erred at all in its pronouncements, or (so it seems to me) even that it could possibly assert error. Many times, Athanasius mentioned the infallible authority of both Scripture and non-Scripture in the same context. For example, he wrote about Scripture:
But ... if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. (On the Incarnation of the Word, 56, 1-2)
But this is not Sola Scriptura, because the very next thing he wrote contradicts it: “But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them ...” (Tradition and apostolic succession).
Also, from a bit before in the de synodis 6: But if no such event has happened, and they have it not to show, but rather they themselves are uttering heresies, as holding Arius's irreligion, and are exposed day by day, and day by day shift their ground , what need is there of Councils, when the Nicene is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which it has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith?
Let's go deeper...Is the Masoretic text type family infallible (Catholic/Jerome) or is the Septuagint text type family infallible ? St. Paul agreed with the Septuagint; Jerome embraced the proto- Masoretic, which in my opinion, led the Catholic Church away from an "infallible" view of the Scriptures.
@@roddumlauf9241 you're going to need to go back and adjust your hypothesis. Jerome did not include the Deuterocanon therefore you can't say Catholic/Jerome
@@Godfrey118 I didn't say anything about the Deuterocanon. I was talking about Jerome's error in using the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text type family VS. the Septuagintal Greek text type family when he translated the Old Testament into Latin ( which became the Latin Vulgate).
@@roddumlauf9241 gotcha. So you're not saying they (Catholics) used Jerome's Canon, but they used his translation?
Septuagint does not always have apocrypha.
@@Godfrey118 Correct !
this guy really reminds of that sloth character from ice age for some reason 🤔
You have to bring up unitarianism in the debate. If the councils aren't infallible, then basic dogmas like the trinity are up for grabs. Therefore, unitarians aren't heretics because they reject the trinity, but protestants that went all the way to the end of their own logic and questioned what was established by councils and not by scripture.
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6).
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyThat's the problem with protestants (or heretics by that matter), always taking Scripture out of context, hence infallible councils are needed to explain it to people that love to cherrypick paragraphs or verses without context, missing the whole point of Scripture (ironically). Plus the things that are not find in Scripture still need to be infallible defined, because Scripture is not all there is to faith, but one of the basis.
@@GranMaese Ruminate on the quote again.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty I do, but I take the full context, instead of focusing on a sentence taken out of context. Therefore you should take your own advice, brother.
@@GranMaese I posted the entire paragraph for a reason, which was to provide context.
Let’s break it down.
1. Athanasius believes that Scripture is “above all things”.
2. If a council is needed, we should follow the proceedings of the Nicene Bishops.
3. The declaration of the Nicene Bishops clearly articulates the faith of the apóstoles, as found in holy scripture, and therefore Athanasius agrees with it.
4. Therefore, councils should not be trusted in and of themselves, but rather should be trusted they align with the Scriptures.
Hope this helped.
Get with Michael Lofton for help and Jimmy Akin.
The only thing that really bugs me is redeemed zoomer said he wouldnt be doing this debate if it wasnt for the money. Makes me feel like his heart just wont be in the fight. Still best not to underestimate him, his debate with Jay Dyer would be good study material.
Protestants are always motivated for personal gain, never motivated to defend truth, but their own interests. His heart, in this regard, will be the exact same as in any other day.
Why wouldn't you debate The Other Paul?
Chickened out?
You’re welcome to believe that.
But you know that he clearly says that he doesn't have qualifications to tell about theology?
Why he accepted, then?
Infabability wrong