Trent you’re 100% right, a debate is a place to begin an issue. That’s what got me to question Calvinism after listening to you debate with James White. Eventually led me out of it. Keep up the great work.

@davidjanbaz7728

Жыл бұрын

Calvinism isn't Protestantism: its only a system of interpretation. U left Calvinism or Protestantism?

@lkae4

Жыл бұрын

@@davidjanbaz7728 Good question. I'm curious about that myself. Did the debate with James White lead you to question Sola Fide?

@GranMaese

Жыл бұрын

@@davidjanbaz7728 Calvinism is 100% a form of Protestantism. Any of the multiple thousands of "churches" that came out of the Reformation [including Calvinism] are Protestant by default since they protest the Catholic Church [the true, original Christian Church]. that's where the name comes from.

@justinfoard3322

Жыл бұрын

@@davidjanbaz7728 two shades of devilishness

@MrEvoXI

Жыл бұрын

@@davidjanbaz7728 I left Calvinism and I wouldn’t call myself a Protestant either.

Trent, I’m a Protestant who loves ecumenical discussions/debates like this. And you are the first Roman Catholic apologist I’d wanna grab a coffee or a beer with. I am always encouraged to give RC a fair shake when I listen to you. I am always encouraged by your charity.

@enshala6401

Жыл бұрын

Hey, that's pretty cool! You know, any time, you can always sit in a Catholic church with your Bible and read or pray or whatever. That's what I did for 20 years before I converted. 😂 God bless

@davidclark5618

Жыл бұрын

Nice! Yeah I go to Catholic Churches to pray all the time. I’ve done a bit of research on sola fide and sola Scriptura that personally I’ve come to believe the differences are actually far more nuanced than presented so I think on those issues Catholics and Protestants aren’t that far off from eachother. I can get on board with both sides. The papacy and the mariology has been a tougher sell for me 😂 Otherwise I’d kinda wanna become Catholic

@enshala6401

Жыл бұрын

@David Clark OH, I totally hear you. For me, I was ok with the concept of a Pope, but the Marian dogmas were a big stumbling block because of how I was raised. At some point, I decided to be neutral about the matter, and that turned out to be OK. Somewhere along the line, I figured that, when it came to information about good things, I would put them into one of four categories: 1. Being open to them, 2. Hoping for them. 3. Believing them. 4. Knowing them. So, when I first converted, I was open to the Assumption of Mary, and today, I believe it. Before I converted, I believed Jesus was the King of all creation, but today, I know it. Likewise, I had hoped for a personal relationship with Jesus, and today I know it. And so on... you get the idea. BTW, The Sacraments are amazing. There is nothing on Earth that could do what those Sacraments do. Just... wow. No words can describe. It's not an emotional thing either. It's peaceful and solid.

@davidclark5618

Жыл бұрын

Those are helpful points! Yeah I might convert one day but at the moment I feel really comfortable with the Anglican/Anglo-Catholic tradition. Mostly cuz it kinda feels like Roman Catholicism before the reformation lol

@enshala6401

Жыл бұрын

@David Clark LMAO I hear you... my husband and I are actually Eastern Catholic, so we don't really have a dog in the NO v TLM fight haha. Our Liturgy is really amazing - we literally lose track of time because it is so immersive... and that is kindof a big deal for us since we are both adhd and fidget in the Roman rite. But the Byzantine rite is like Heaven on Earth, which I know is what all Masses are supposed to be, but there is just something different about the Eastern rite... it's like participating in the rhythm of the Heavens. At any rate, at least you have access to all the Sacraments! Thank goodness... well, have a good night, and God bless!

This man turned his hotel room into a whole studio

DANG!!! I cleared all that stuff behind Suan but I missed the water bottle and iron. My bad.

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

Iron is a nice touch. It makes a comfortable atmosphere

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎙️ This debrief discusses Trent Horn's debate on Sola Scriptura with Gavin Ortland. 00:14 🤝 Trent expresses gratitude for meeting Gavin and Suan Sonna, attendees of the debate. 00:42 📜 Debaters discuss main points without exhaustive rehashing to provide insights. 01:38 🤝 Trent and Suan discuss Gavin's preparation and appreciation for each other's arguments. 02:19 💼 The debate focused on the central claim of Sola Scriptura, without excessive diversions. 03:29 🔑 The core premise debated was whether Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. 05:06 📘 Gavin's argument emphasized inspiration and infallibility, with a theological inference. 06:44 ⚖️ Trent compares the debate strategy to an atheist arguing against supernatural existence. 09:17 📖 McDonald and Poirier's work highlights historical variety in beliefs about infallibility. 11:07 📚 Trent and Suan discuss different approaches to historical sources and interpretations. 12:58 🎤 Trent explains his approach in debates to ignite curiosity rather than conclusiveness. 15:49 📜 The magisterium's priority over interpretation while maintaining the priority of scripture. 18:02 📖 The interpretation of "word of God" in Matthew 15 not strictly tied to scripture. 19:11 🤔 Nuances around Jesus' interaction with Pharisees and their traditions. 20:15 🤔 Perspectives on Paul's Pharisaic background and the role of tradition. 19:26 📚 Jesus challenged the perception of the Pharisees; not just villains to defeat. 19:54 🔍 Jesus' command to follow the Pharisees' words but not actions raises questions about their role. 20:36 💬 Jesus might have adjudicated authentic vs. inauthentic traditions, reflecting oral tradition's importance. 21:04 📜 New Testament references to oral traditions suggest the validity of unwritten traditions. 21:47 📚 The Cross-Examination period highlighted the consequences of sola scriptura. 23:11 🛐 Addressing essential doctrines and interpreting scripture under sola scriptura has challenges. 24:22 📖 Church's infallibility isn't for daily use; it's a well-considered process for crucial matters. 26:30 ⛪ The Church's authority doesn't solely depend on Apostolic authorship but on its Tradition. 28:05 📜 Critical scholars' disagreements on Scripture open a door for subjective Canon revision. 31:16 📚 The Church didn't determine or invent the Canon; it authoritatively declared it. 33:34 👥 Recognizing the Canon implies a guiding Spirit, suggesting a similar role in theological conclusions. 35:13 🕊️ Acknowledging the Holy Spirit's guidance in Canon formation opens the door for theological guidance. 36:39 ✍️ Engaging in meaningful dialogue and debate between Catholics and Protestants benefits both sides.

Thank y'all for this. All of it. It's been helpful to everyone.

@ChrisEAdlay

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for being a priest father. Please pray for my conversion

@FrJohnBrownSJ

Жыл бұрын

@@ChrisEAdlay I will!

Great discussion from 2 powerhouse apologists!

An orthodox (former Catholic) friend saw the debate and was very impressed with how effective Trent was.

@OrthoLou

Жыл бұрын

I really wonder how a Catholic can be convinced by Eastern Orthodoxy... For me, it was either Catholic or Protestant, almost from the start of my reversion and research.

@no_more_anymore

Жыл бұрын

​@@OrthoLou It's typically an emotional barrier (and or spiritual) submitting to Rome.

@OrthoLou

Жыл бұрын

@@no_more_anymore I just always figured that if true Christianity was a church with a magisterium and claims to apostolic succession...then it would be Catholicism. For a lot of reasons, but the most blatantly obvious being that their churches are...ethnic based. All of the orthodox churches in my city are mainly for Greeks, Russians, etc... I've heard some say that they actually seem annoyed when you're an outsider wishing to come in and pray to discern their church.

@no_more_anymore

Жыл бұрын

@@OrthoLou Yeah it can be. Thank God for the most part with my experience, it wasn't such a bad experience. the OCA is more welcoming of course since they "cater" to Americans.

@greekfreak5789

Жыл бұрын

@@OrthoLou this is such a lame argument, similar tier to the one basic Prots make against Catholicism. Do better bro. It's peculiar that virtually all the big name apologists (Horn, Lofton, Fradd, Ybarra) etc. go to Eastern Catholic parishes, which are ALL literally Melkite Greek, Russian, Ruthenian Greek, Syrian etc. Does that mean those churches are "all ethnic" as you put it? Are Horn et. al. SHUNNED from those parishes for not being Greek or Russian? No that's nonsense and its nonsense in regards to Orthodoxy as well. I can almost guarantee by your comment that you've never stepped foot into an Orthodox parish - the vast majority of which are booming with converts. I could easily turn this around and say, "oh which Catholic church are you going to join? Novus Ordo modernist like those in Chicago? SSPX? TLM latin-only? Sedevacantist? Eastern Catholic?". You would respond that any such differences are immaterial, as all are united insofar as they have allegiance to the See of Peter (besides the Sedes). Likewise, Orthodoxy is not "ethnic based" as you put it....autonomous churches have throughout the history of Christendom had ethnic background(s), but the key point is that they are united in Orthodox belief. We all recite the same creed, venerate the same saints, and have the same theology.

Trent, its your channel that has truly opened my eyes, and I dare say my heart to Jesus church. I am truly leaning to start RCIA this coming September. Please pray that my wife will be a willing participant, and that her heart and mind is receptive. We currently attend a nondenominational church; with wonderful group of people. But I have this overwhelming pull towards the Catholic church. Thank you and God Bless.

@edalbanese6310

11 ай бұрын

You don't need the Church to find Jesus. He is there for you right now!

I have not watched your debate yet, but I did watch your interview on Pints with Aquinas. One thing I noticed there and here is your immense mutual respect for each other. I've seen many debates where there didn't seem to be any mutual respect among the debaters. However, not the case here. I may find it easy or more difficult to agree or disagree with a point being made, however, I have a extremely high and tolerance to personal attacks and a lack of mutual respect. Thank you for showing respect for your opponent and coming from the assumption that they are respectable human being.

Rock on gents! Great discussion, God bless you and your families!

I really think we need to go through the week-week lives of the early Christians who had no NT, let alone one they could get from Amazon in a few hours. What did the average Christian do and what was their epistemology? I think this has to be examined and discussed. For centuries, most Christians only had Tradition. And the local churches who received letters only had those letters. Were they all taught incorrectly? So, an hour after the ascension, they were all violating the sole infallible rule of faith? We should spend a lot of time with that, in my simple mind. God bless you!

@user-uc1yb7hy2n

Жыл бұрын

Very well said.

@Davidjune1970

Жыл бұрын

You can find a repository of church father writings for free by looking for below earlychristianwritings

@stooch66

Жыл бұрын

@@Davidjune1970 I have engaged with many/most of these. My point is to really think about the life of the average Christian, based on the writings of the Fathers, but also just the practical reality of being a Christian before a NT was canonized (and, really, before it was generally available 1600 years or so later). If people understood that life, they would see just how unsupportable the idea of Scripture being the only infallible rule of faith is… God bless you.

@dmd418

Жыл бұрын

That is the exact question I asked myself that, after investigation, led me to become Catholic.

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

​@@stooch66 I like your observations about early Christianity. Thanks.

I see 1 Timothy 3:15, the Church is the foundation of Truth is significant in this discussion, are we not searching for the truth? Great discussion.

I really enjoyed listening to the debate and this debrief. It’s good to hear a respectful exchange between two smart guys! Keep up this necessary work…you’re making a difference. God bless!

As a Protestant, watching Catholic discussions really feels like a cross-cultural experience. Our intuitions are very different! It almost feels harder to understand Catholics than understand my wife sometimes...

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

I was raised Catholic but now I just call myself a Christian believer. What do you mean by "our intuitions are very different"? There are lots of things I don't understand about many religions, but I try to be respectful. Only God is all-knowing. He knows our hearts. I appreciate your comments. Peace.

@steelytemplar

Жыл бұрын

I appreciate you seeking to understand. In my case, understanding Catholicism as a serious Protestant led me to become Catholic. But, even if that doesn't happen with you, the goal of trying to understand is excellent and is what God wants from us. One of my all-time favorite maxims is from Stephen Covey - "Seek to understand before seeking to be understood". Thinking about this, I am reminded of my relationship with my parents, who are still Protestant, and quite possibly always will be. Yet my bond with them as Christians is amazing and we share many meaningful conversations about faith with much edification. We pray for and with each other, the difference in our denomination never being a barrier. Glory and praise to Our Lord for facilitating such understanding and love. I hope that whatever questions you have about Catholicism and the Catholic way of thinking will be well answered for you.

@andrewfox5502

Жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 I mean that the arguments Trent saw as weak felt quite strong to me, and vice versa. For example, the idea of "always reforming", although I think Trent saw that as more of a slippery slope.

@bearistotle2820

Жыл бұрын

​@@andrewfox5502 Why do you think the "always reforming" idea is strong?

@andrewfox5502

Жыл бұрын

@@bearistotle2820 I think the idea of "always reforming" resonates with me because I feel a deep fear of being bound to hold something about Christianity that I can't in good conscience believe (ex/ assumption of Mary). I can't imagine the agony of feeling like I would have to choose between God and the Church...

I made a comment before watching this video about my problems with Gavin's argument, and then about 2 minutes later Trent and Suan laid out my objection in a much better way. Great work guys!

Thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. Thank you.

SUAN IS THE GOAT. I always show my RCIA instructor his videos!!

@soteriology400

Жыл бұрын

Do you know what a goat symbolizes in scripture?

@VinnyZoomer

Жыл бұрын

@@soteriology400 satan, but GOAT is an acronym. Greatest of All Time

@soteriology400

Жыл бұрын

@@VinnyZoomer Ok, thanks. He is intelligent, however, none of these Catholic apologists are good at hermeneutics.

@VinnyZoomer

Жыл бұрын

​@@soteriology400 The brevity of a concise video format can present challenges when attempting to explore a topic in depth. Therefore, I would highly recommend delving into the more comprehensive works of these scholars. For instance, Trent Horn's "The Case for Catholicism" is a thoroughly fleshed-out tome on the subject, and Susan's series on the papacy provides a similarly exhaustive treatment of the subject matter.

@soteriology400

Жыл бұрын

@@VinnyZoomer Trent is very intelligent, and knows how to persuade people and knows how to use debate tactics. However, he is extremely weak in hermeneutics. His identity is in Roman Catholicism, not Christ. I don’t put too much weight on people who are extremely weak in hermeneutics. I see Trent as an empty suit. No disrespect.

The Evidence for Sola Scriptura is simply lacking in fighting the early heresies. Marcion, Valentinus, Docetists, etc.

@Justas399

Жыл бұрын

What do you mean?

@user-uc1yb7hy2n

Жыл бұрын

@@Justas399 What I mean is, that although scripture is clearly used, it’s the authority to properly interpret scripture that defeats these groups. Again, all these groups were using scripture as well. Extensively using scripture.

@Justas399

Жыл бұрын

@@user-uc1yb7hy2n Its by Scripture we know what false doctrines are. If a doctrine is not supported by the Scriptures, then its false.

@user-uc1yb7hy2n

Жыл бұрын

@@Justas399 The problem lies with the interpretation of these groups. They would point to scripture and say look, there it is right in scripture.

@user-uc1yb7hy2n

Жыл бұрын

@@Justas399 what we see in the Early Church is the proper interpretation of scripture that uncovers false doctrine. Not Scripture Alone. The Gnostics would have loved that.

I enjoyed the debate. I did think that, a couple of times, there was a conflation of Tradition and magisterium. I think this is a common issue. Yet, they are technically distinct. It maybe possible, actually, to say that Tradition is inspired just as Scripture is. The magisterium, however, is the sole authentic (i.e., authoritative) interpreter of both, and is not itself “inspired” but is infallible (in certain cases/under certain conditions).

@masterchief8179

Жыл бұрын

🎯 precisely!

@hanssvineklev648

Жыл бұрын

@decluesviews2740. When not concentrating on the issue, they conflate because, in point of fact, the church itself tends to conflate them. I mean, be honest, there’s really no such thing as Tradition. Not in a way that can be nailed down. There’s not a single sentence of apostolic oral tradition that has been preserved. It’s all up to the church to “paraphrase.” So, it’s really just the Magisterium when it comes down to it.

@edalbanese6310

11 ай бұрын

How can only the Magisterium be the sole interpreter? Can the Magisterium ever be wrong?

@matthewoburke7202

2 ай бұрын

@@edalbanese6310 Not on matters of faith and morals. The holy spirit protects it from error.

@matthewoburke7202

2 ай бұрын

@@hanssvineklev648 No that's absurd. There are several unwritten traditions that we can speak of that have been preserved. One example, the canon of scripture.

Sola scriptura functionality always means importing some previous tradition. And have you noticed how the format of evangelical preaching encourages more and more tenuous "exegesis" under the license of sola scriptura? It's like every week they feel the need to come up with something new that might not even make sense. Part of it is just a hazard of modern consumerist life I suppose

@soteriology400

Жыл бұрын

Sola-scriptura involves a great level of hermeneutics. People who are anti sola-scriptura are typically not very good in hermeneutics. Suan, Trent, Jimmy Akin, has demonstrated over and over they are not very good in hermeneutics.

@TheThreatenedSwan

Жыл бұрын

@@soteriology400 lol. That just disproves sola scriptura, and shows that it's not really what it is purported to be. Do you people really not get this that there is so much implicit knowledge you take for granted

@soteriology400

Жыл бұрын

@@TheThreatenedSwan The only difference is we are not the original audience, so we have to look at it from a third person perspective. This does not disprove a single thing.

I'm a little confused how 2 Peter or the Pastorals could be not written by the claimed apostolic author and it not be a problem. Wouldn't that be deception? I don’t think the Spirit would inspire that to be written or approved. I'm guessing both Trent and Suan would say the letters are genuine but I guess I'm a bit confused how councils fix that if they are not genuine. I definitely share the same canon within the Canon concerns and it's sad for me to see how many Protestant scholars and apologists downgrade say, John or the catholic epistles or pastorals.

I loved your point, Trent, that there is no point in catholics and protestants debating things like the Marian dogmas- they always come back to authority. So authority is the issue.

Do you notice taught by the apostles "whether by word, or our epistle"? 2Th 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

@joshuarivera2422

Жыл бұрын

Do you think the scripture teaches stuff not teached via oral tradition?

@pmlm1571

Жыл бұрын

@@joshuarivera2422 Tradition holds BOTH the written and unwritten faith. --Hand on the Tradition, both oral and written, as you have received it from me-- It is the magesterium which "teaches."

@Theunspokentruth77

Жыл бұрын

@@joshuarivera2422 No, the scriptures teaches exactly the same stuff teached orally by the apostles.

@joshuarivera2422

Жыл бұрын

@@Theunspokentruth77 so what makes you think that the apostles also teached stuff not in the bible?

@Theunspokentruth77

Жыл бұрын

@@joshuarivera2422 well, i don't think that the apostles taught stuffs other than that are in the Bible. They wrote all that were necessary to tell us.

Hello brother Trent Horn, can I have request a book from you, like biblical Canon? 🙏🙏🙏Thanks and God bless you

@jattebaleyos116

Жыл бұрын

Gary Michuta did a book on this specific topic brother

The central incoherence of Sola Scriptura is that it is not defined in Scripture. So if the only source of infallible authority, is Scripture and Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura then Sola Scriptura is in fact a non-biblical fallible doctrine and we are not obligated to accept or follow it. There is no solving this incoherence and it is central, not incidental to it. If we then add all the other philosophical problems with it plus the historical fallout of what it has caused, it becomes basically impossible to take seriously or defend.

I think someone else mentioned this already, but the thing that makes 0 sense to me is the following Protestant logic: 1. Sola Scriptura is the only infallible rule of Faith 2. We took 7 books out the Bible and 2 parts of other books after centuries and centuries of them being canonical 3. Yet, the Bible is the supreme authority... How can you hold to Sola Scriptura if YOU choose which books are staying and which books are non-biblical?

@Justas399

Жыл бұрын

The council of Trent added 7 books to the RCC canon. No Protestant took out any books out of OT canon.

@TortekMr

Жыл бұрын

@@Justas399 With all due respect, that is simply not true. 1. Have you seen the 4th and 5th century list of inspired books when the question of canon was settled? 2. Why would the Eastern Orthodox and other Oriental churches have the same books (i.e. deutercanonical) if they were added by a western council? 3. Why did the early protestant Bibles have them in between the Old and New Testament if it were a Catholic addition?

@Justas399

Жыл бұрын

@@TortekMr Cardinal Caietan (at the time of Trent) who wrote commentaries on the Bible wrote that the books Trent included into its canon were not considered before then. “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage”. Cardinal Caietan (Jacob Thomas de Vio), Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Tesdtament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.

@TortekMr

Жыл бұрын

@@Justas399 This is an opinion of a Cardinal. How does this help to show that the Deuterocanonical weren't in the early canons or explain why the Orthodox and other Oriental churches have them? Moreover, why did the early protestant Bibles have them in the middle? They accepted the Catholic authoriy? The Septuagint has those books. The findings in the Qumran show them. How does a single quote from a Cardinal confirm something else?

@Justas399

Жыл бұрын

@@TortekMr how could a cardinal who wrote commentaries on the Bible say the extra books in your Bible were not Scripture?

Where is Sola Scriptura in the OT? That's right - it's not there either - in fact Jesus tells the people to 'listen to [those in Moses seat] & do what they tell you' - Matthew 23:2-3 Glad this was briefly brought up in the debate as it clearly conveys that Jesus expects us to 'hear/listen' to those whom HE establishes as shepherds/stewards!

@imunzni7069

Жыл бұрын

and yes who were on moses' seat? Scribes and Pharisees. And How do they know what to do or tell to the people what to do? Through the Scriptures. and that's what Jesus was talking about. not everybody had the copies of scripture at that time. Only the Scribes and Pharisees had them. and they used to teach people the knowledge they get through scriptures.

@cronmaker2

Жыл бұрын

​@@imunzni7069 the scribes and pharisees weren't just automatons reciting the OT. Christ and the apostles could not have been teaching SS by definition as even James White admits given it only applies to post apostolic era, so no scriptural verse can be appealed to in support of it. One of many issues with the doctrine.

As a french catholic, thanks you for your work Trent! Your knowledge about catholicism is so stong but i dont understand why you never speak about "Dei Verbum" (Vatican II), especially for this debate? For example, this dogmatic constitution speaks about Tradition like "act of transmitting" (which is the origin of Scripture). I think its a good way for explain the equivalence beetwen Tradtion and Scripture... But maybe you won't because you refuse the Concile Vatican II? I don't understand too the position of the american catholics about the concil Vatican II ? Someone can clarify this point? Please! Gloire à l'agneau vainqueur ressuscité ! Geoffrey

To paraphrase a hockey movie (Miracle): "You think you can win on scripture alone? Gentlemen, you don't have enough scripture to win on scripture alone." Luther never imagined an ever schisming church - he tried to reconcile the other reformers, and ultimately failed because the root of the effort turned out to be pride. If sola scriptura were enough, then protestantism wouldn't be a schism machine constantly leading the faithful into error. The essential authorities missing are proper context in history (from apostolic tradition) to ground a doctrine according to how those closest to Jesus considered it and avoid novel reinterpretation and a "living document" status that constantly reflects the word of men rather than God, and a way for the clergy to come together to discuss conflicts in binding dispute resolution where the losers of a theological debate don't get to walk (eg the magisterium).

24:32 this section seemed like it wasn’t characterizing Gavin correctly/charitably. I could be wrong. However, the cross examination seemed to be about what was “necessary” in terms of what an individual needs to assent to in order to be saved rather than what is necessary in a more general sense. Gavin was trying to be conservative in how he was answering because defining exactly what is necessary to believe for salvation is tricky. But that’s a different question than “is it necessary for Christ to have a human mind” for God’s plan of salvation to be accomplished. To that, I believe, Gavin would wholeheartedly agree (Gavin certainly doesn’t seem to be in disagreement with Gregory of Nazianzus when he says, “that which is Unassumed is not healed”). But again, these are two separate questions, what is necessary for salvation and what is necessary for an individual to consciously assent to in order to participate in that salvation are distinct. I don’t think any of us want to say that if our sweet faithful grandparents can’t articulate Maximus the Confessors distinction between the gnomic and natural wills they aren’t saved, even if we think that the doctrine’s content is a necessary part of salvation.

@Adam-ue2ig

Жыл бұрын

Well said.

Could you discuss the difference between inerrant and infallible as it relates to Catholics and Protestants? Some people seem to use them interchangeably. Forbexample: you called the Bible infallible and Patrick Madrid called it inerrant.

Second!

@Blasian62

Жыл бұрын

💯

@Gerschwin

Жыл бұрын

Hey @howtobechristian... you have work to do... shooo. go be busy.

@hervedavidh4117

Жыл бұрын

Your Nemesis !

The debate was great. Well done to both Trent and Gavin. But as a protestant, I do think the brick wall we hit in this conversation is "we bring your best evidence for Sola Scriptura and you bring your best evidence for Tradition and Magesterium". Can anyone recommend a good discussion, debate or argument for why the magisterial authority is infallible?

@cronmaker2

Жыл бұрын

My first suggestion would be reading the various articles at calledtocommunion website (primarily articles by Bryan Cross and Michael Liccione) that directly engage the SS position (the comments are also very worthwhile as there are some sharp Protestants who enrich the discussion) - many of the contributors at CtC are ex-Reformed converts to RCism. That's probably the single most comprehensive source. I'd also suggest Perry Robinson from EOxy and his energeticprocession website where he also makes strong arguments for ecclesial infallibility (obviously not precisely the same as the RC view, but many of the same principles apply). Ed Feser who is a RC Thomist philosopher also has written some thorough articles on his blog.

The main purpose of any debate is to persuade the opposing side. It can be appreciated why neither of the two persons in the debate were persuaded at all by the other’s opposing arguments, but this event was simply a presentation of differing viewpoints which persuaded no one to be moved on any point from their side (entering in) to the other because of the debate. No matter by how close of a margin, it should be conceded by one side and celebrated by the other that there was a winner. That did not happen here.

Gavin’s belief is rooted in his personal experience. He knows God ONLY through the Bible, so this is WHY he accepts that. Because he already accepts the truth of the Bible, he doesn’t really critically question how exactly it came to be inerrant. He has EXPERIENCED God through the Bible, so he has no reason to question it. It is easy for him to dismiss contradictions in Protestant biblical interpretations between denominations, because he focuses on the positive fruit he sees as a pastor in his church and in other churches. He sees this positive fruit as affirmation of Protestantism in general. He sees God accomplishing things, so this means the differences can’t be TOO significant. If people are coming to know Christ… then it must be as God wants. But then how to deal with those Catholics and their very different claims? Well, they are still Christians, but they really aren’t as fruitful overall because of all the extra things they add that take away from Christ. He doesn’t give any leeway for the things he thinks are “troubling” in Catholicism, because he doesn’t “see” the same fruits that he sees in his own ministry and in Protestantism. The Reformation largely sorted out the biggest problems in Christendom, and he is on the right side. I really think these views are what he is rooted in. I don’t suspect any argument will persuade him about the claims of the Catholic Church. He is very smart and WANTS to back up Protestantism with all his heart. He applies the fullness of his intellect to MAKE it work. I suspect with someone like Gavin, conversion to Catholicism would NOT be based primarily on reason. It would be based on his heart. I think it would be from coming to understand and EXPERIENCE Christ in the Eucharist. He needs to know that this Jesus he loves is REALLY FULLY PRESENT in the Eucharist and is waiting for him. I really like Gavin, and if he converted to Catholicism it would be wonderful, as I know he loves God - and I think it would really open the floodgates to so many more! I think we need to be bold in what we ask God for. He doesn’t want us to be shy. And I pray for the same thing for any Protestant reading this. Christ wants us to be one. We can tie ourselves up in knots for years with theological debates with all the millions of pages of materials we can read on different sides of issues… but I think it really all comes down to this: Is Christ REALLY PRESENT in the Holy Eucharist as Catholics say? If so, then this should change… everything.

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

I like your questions, especially the question regarding the Eucharist and Jesus' presence. I was raised Catholic but I don't think I ever felt a strong conviction that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Do you think such a conviction comes through faith ? Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I appreciate your comments. Peace

@joeterp5615

Жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 Hi, yes, I think it comes from both faith and through the Holy Spirit. I grew up Catholic and haven’t always fully appreciated the Eucharist either, though I have always believed in the real presence. I think part of that is natural. We need to be taught about this from holy people who believe this themselves. And we need to see how people we respect revere the Eucharist. It is easy when young to almost go through the motions, since Christ comes in the appearance of bread. Once we are older, other things can impact us too, like reading about the Eucharist, how it impacted the lives of Saints, Eucharistic miracles, how it relates to scripture. I’ve had periods in my life where I wasn’t living out my faith as much… but after going to Confession I really looked forward to being united to Christ and receiving Him in the Eucharist. Faith and the Holy Spirit are keys like you suggested. We have to get the mindset of surrendering ourselves to Christ and His will. You can pray for greater belief. “Lord, help my unbelief.” The more we surrender ourselves to Him, I think the more we become aware of His presence. Personally, I’ve watched some amazing videos on KZread in the last couple weeks related to the Mass too, which has heightened my awareness of the spiritual reality of what happens at every Mass. It is really beyond all words. Do a search for “Dr. Scott Hahn on how the Holy Eucharist made him Catholic.” Scott’s story is amazing, and he will give you something to think and pray about. But really, just give it time. Pray about it and receive the Eucharist with the faith you do have while also praying for more. The Eucharist is supposed to be the center of our lives, which makes absolute sense based on the claim that this is Jesus Christ himself, becoming our very food, You can also find out when your church has Eucharistic Adoration, and just spend some quite time with Christ reflecting on Him. Don’t worry if you don’t “feel” anything special initially, just be faithful in asserting your belief and asking for more, and letting God reveal Himself to you over time as you sincerely try to love Him and live out your Catholic faith.

@markv1974

Жыл бұрын

@@johnbrzykcy3076 my faith goes through ups and downs. Sometimes i feel unworthy. But at the end of the day, I know he is there. Pray for more faith. The sacraments are channels for grace. I notice if i get the sacraments my faith gets stronger.

@ericcarlson9885

Жыл бұрын

@JoeTerp Pretty much everyone's faith is rooted, at least to some extent, in personal experience...including yours. And the Jesus Gavin loves is REALLY FULLY PRESENT in the Eucharist at any Magisterial Protestant church. So no move to Catholicism is necessary for Gavin.

@joeterp5615

Жыл бұрын

@@markv1974 At some level, but not necessarily at the same level. And Gavin is not part of Church that has the Real Presence. I pray that we may all be one, as Christ desires.

Trent did miss such a good point which is that there are teachings of Christ not found in the canon but directly repeated by the successors of the apostles like 1 Clement.

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

What teaching by Jesus are you referring to in 1 Clement?

Amazing debate, between listening to that and this debrief I think that the two sides can be boiled down to: Gavin: "Scripture is the only infallible authority THERE IS", Trent: "Scripture is the only infallible authority WE HAVE". As a Biblical Christian I come down on the Catholic side for this one with HEAVY skepticism against anything else claimed to be infallible authority.

Thanks much for this video..

This was like the religious version of the NFL half time show lol. Loved the break down!

Can someone explain how Ortlund's position--given his premises--does not suffer from the fallacy of unwarranted assumptions?

Does anyone else find it strange that there are a lot of questions here about whether we should regard the Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith (which we all agree is infallible) but never once do we get an argument as to why we should think that the Roman Catholic is infallible?

Hey Trent ! You should respond to Gavin orotund on his latest video about doctrinal development (:

I think that, when dealing with questions like changing teaching on the death penalty, I don't see a weakness or problem for Catholicism but rather a strength. To start with, I would like to suggest that teaching on the death penalty is not itself a fundamental doctrine, but is instead based on fundamental doctrines. When the Church looks at something like the death penalty, it takes the unchangeable teaching regarding things like the sanctity of human life and human dignity, then considers that in the context of the world in which we now live. We don't live in the first century or the tenth century, so our context is different while the fundamental doctrines remain the same. In times past, the capabilities of society to deal with violent criminals were far less robust in comparison to what we can now achieve. The Church has always had to consider the sanctity and dignity of human life for both the criminal and the rest of the population whom they might victimize. From the Church's perspective, the goal is to use the least harmful measures that would assure the safety of society from the criminal and then, if at all possible, to rehabilitate the criminal. The change in the Church's teaching on the death penalty reflects the judgment by the Magisterium that modern society has the capability to effectively protect the lives of the population without resorting to taking the life of the criminal. Hence the change. It's a strength that the Church is able to, with authority, provide guidance for our times that is rooted in absolute and unchanging doctrine.

I'm glad that you don't debate them on Mary. its really saddening how they are degrading her 😞

@mj6493

Жыл бұрын

Degrading?

@franciscoguzman1065

Жыл бұрын

@tina kek read saint augustine‘s piece on nature and grace.

@franciscoguzman1065

Жыл бұрын

@@mj6493 yes

@joshuarivera2422

Жыл бұрын

Protestant do not degrade her. She is an important person, the same as Moses, Peter, Paul, etc. We just don't raise her as Catholics do.

@pmlm1571

Жыл бұрын

@@joshuarivera2422 So when was the last time you personally complied with the biblical injunction at Luke 1:48?

At 10:00 I'd also like add that we Catholics and Orthodox believe that Sacred Tradition is also inspired. So Christ's critique of relying on man-made traditions would't apply - in our mind - to us.

The problem with sola scriptura and thinking the Bible is so perspicuous is that ink on a page, even words per se, doesn't actually contain any semantic information or the substance of any doctrine. Rather we have all this implicit knowledge about what words mean that we bring to the table and take for granted. The atheist should say it is indeed all arbitrary. The Calvinist would not say but believe that it's all pre-determined by God and that he damns people: people have differing interpretations not because of natural reasons but because everyone except (some of) them are blinded by the fallen nature a tyrannical God inflicted on us. Most low church evangelicals are stuck in the bind of denying an authoritative interpretive tradition but also affirming a perspicuity guided by the holy spirit that interacts with our natural modes of transmitting meaning despite the diversity of opinions, and totally novel exegesis, they consider acceptable. This is one reason why indifferentism has always been a problem for people with such a low ecclesiology

Trent….I think there should be a debate on What is the Church? Not something like: Is the Catholic Church the true church, but in more general terms. Has any non- catholic ever proposed such a question or topic for debate? There have been many other topics debated, but none that I know or heard of that dealt with only the nature or essence of the church.

I converted from atheism because I began to believe that the Bible had to have a transcendent mind behind it, and it was not just myths ,because other myths were radically different than the Bible. I gave up atheism and began to believe the Bible was truly inspired. But since I am reading without any denominational biases one thing that I am most lost about in the Protestant side of things is the concept of “Sola Scriptura.” I watched this debate and still cannot figure it out. When I read the Bible really closely like 5 or 6 times, I don’t think I could have figured out the doctrine of the Trinity or the Doctrine of the Incarnation which says that Christ has 2 perfect natures in that he is fully human and fully God. He is 2 perfect natures in one person. These doctrines are far from clear in the scriptures. Don’t I have to rely on the "early church" for those doctrines? If I chose 5 random Christians and ask them to explain to me how the Bible teaches that there is one God in 3 persons (Trinity) and why Jesus should be considered the 2nd Person of a Trinity who is “Fully God and Fully man in one person” (Doctrine of the Incarnation) could those 5 people all come up with the same explanation for the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation from the Bible alone? I honestly don’t think they could. I know that I cannot. I asked the pastor in my step daughter's church if he could explain the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation to a beginner like me from the “Bible alone.” And he said “no.” He said he had to rely at least somewhat on the Church Fathers. Christians believe that Jesus is of the same essence as the Father. In the Nicaean Creed it says Jesus is “consubstantial” with the Father; but that is nowhere in Scripture. We need the early church for those doctrines do we not? And if we need to depend on that early church at least somewhat then “sola scriptura” is refuted. What am I missing? The Bible says that Jesus and the Father are one but Jesus has a body so they cannot be exactly one. Maybe it just meant" one in purpose." How would we know for sure unless we trust the early church? It took the church to go through 4 Councils to define those important doctrines. The Council of Nicaea in 325 was against Arius who denied Jesus' divinity. Arius used scripture to claim Jesus was a “created being” and that Jesus was NOT consubstantial with the Father as the Council stated. And then in 381 AD the Council of Constantinople condemned a heretic named Apollinaris who argued from scripture that Jesus was only “one person” with “one nature.” But the church rejected that and said that Jesus was “2 perfect natures in one person.” And then it needed the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD to reject another heretic named Nestorius’ who allegedly believed that Christ was not God in the womb and that God just assumed upon Jesus or adopted him after his birth. But the church again rejected that and stated the Jesus was fully human and fully divine in the womb and at birth. Then there was yet another dispute almost immediately from a heretic named "Eutyches" who said that Jesus was a fusion of human and divine. The church rejected that at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD and the church stated that Jesus had ; “two natures, human and divine, without confusion, change, division, or separation, and that he was one person in two natures, the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Nothing from Nicaea in 325 to Chalcedon in 451 AD is solved by “sola scriptura.” Why do we trust the church and not Arius or Apollinaris, or Nestorius? Is it not because Jesus said he would build a church with these characteristics? 1. The gates of hell will not prevail against it 2. Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the church forever. 3. Jesus said that he would be with the church until the end of time. 4. Paul said that the pillar and foundation of the truth is the church. 5. Jesus said when it comes to sin (like false teachers) then it is the church that has the ultimate authority (Matthew 18). It just seems to me that we HAVE to trust that church and those early church fathers at the very least from 325 AD to 451 AD when the bishops all saw themselves as part of an "episcopate." I just do not see it being okay that two Christian churches can have conflicting doctrines. It seems as thought if we are going to have a firm foundation for believing in the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Obviously scripture is the inspired word of God but to believe in the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation we need to trust THAT CHURCH in the early church for important doctrines. Whatever that church was whether it was Catholic or whether it was proto Luther or whatever it was. I just do not see how “sola scriptura” does not directly contradict Matthew 18. Jesus started a church he promised the Holy Spirit would guide the church in "all truth" and "forever." Then when sinful behavior was debated it was supposed to be taken to "the church" as the final authority. That is exactly what happens in Acts 15. There were false teachers called Judaizers who were saying that non-Jewish Christians have to get circumcised. But that was a sinful false teaching. Paul confronted them and they did not stop. So what happened? It was taken to “the church.” The church held the Council in Jerusalem and determined that the Judaizers were wrong. The church wrote a letter that says: “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” The church was doing exactly what Christ instituted in Matthew 18. It was “THE CHURCH” that had the final authority. And we see the exact same thing happen at Nicaea in 325 AD, Constantinople in 381 AD, the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and Chalcedon in 451 AD. In those situations, everyone was arguing from scripture - - or at least what would become scripture because the canon had not been set until 382 AD. It seems like we absolutely must trust scripture AND "Christ's Church for a proper interpretation. Can we just set aside which church that might be for a second and just agree that that there is a church that we must trust? But I guess my main stress and frustration trying to get my arms around Christianity is how does Sola Scriptura not contradict Matthew 18? I would love to hear a Protestant perspective on that. It just seems like anything that was eventually taken to “the church” a person could always claim that “sola scriptura” is dogma. And then claim that the church has to let the person interpret scripture the way they want to. Sola Scriptura makes Matthew 18 which was instituted by Jesus Christ himself null and void because no matter what "the church" said a person could claim "sola scriptura" and thus Matthew 18 is meaningless. Thank you. Praying for church unity.

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

Greetings from Florida. I never knew much about Sola Scriptura but I do like your comments. I personally don't think Sola Scriptura should be considered as the interpretation of scriptures according to each individual. However I do think the Holy Spirit can enlighten a person to better understand the teachings of Jesus. The doctrine of the Trinity is historically important but I myself don't see it as a foundational teaching by Jesus Himself. From my understanding, the love of our Creator toward mankind, as shown by Jesus' life and crucifixion, is the foundational teaching of Christianity. I appreciate your clarification and honesty. And your time and effort. God bless and peace to you.

@edalbanese6310

11 ай бұрын

I have been exploring Catholicism but I am not sure I can agree with all their practices and beliefs. There is no way I can fully embrace them. My main issue is when Catholics say that if you join the church you will find Jesus and be saved. I don't see that in the bible (of course i am not Catholic). Of course, look up Gavin Ortlund has he has some great points, as Trent does.

@stevenwall1964

11 ай бұрын

@@edalbanese6310 You said "My main issue is when Catholics say that if you join the church you will find Jesus and be saved." I do not know where you are getting that from but that is not the official teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church believes that initial salvation comes from "faith alone" and nothing that humans do to warrant salvation. It is God's grace that attracts us to Christ and empowers us to learn about Christ and the evidence that exist which shows that Christ died for our sins through a substitutionary atonement. If one has faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice and dies the next moment then they will be saved. The Catholic Church believes that through God's grace a person is "justified." When a person has faith in Christ he is afforded the grace to empower him to actually become holy. God declares the Catholic "not guilty" and God can say "not guilty" because his grace changes people and moves them from a life of sin and egotism to a life of charity so that a person can love God and love neighbor which are commandments of Christ. But it is a real change. And the important thing for me is that this was the belief of all of Christianity for 1500 years. Just look in history and try to find a church in the first 1500 years that had a different view of salvation than this. And if you find it tell me. Because I read the Bible Jesus makes 3 predictions about His church. He said that his church would: 1. Be persecuted and its members would be killed. 2. His church would stay united. He said that is how you could recognize his church is that they would "be one." 3. He said HIS church would go to all nations in spite of all the persecution. When I look and see what church did all of that; I read these early church fathers. Clement 95 AD - - Ignatius 107 AD - - Paipas 130 AD- - Polycarp from Smyrna in 150 AD - - Justin Martyr of Rome (150 AD) - - Hegesippus 170 AD - - Irenaeus of Lyon (France) in 180 AD - - Origen (215 AD), - - Cyprian (250 AD) -- Hilary 315 to 367 AD - - Athanasius 298 to 374 AD - - Eusebius 260 to 339 AD - - Gregory of Nyssa 335 to 395 AD - - Gregory of Nazianzus 329 to 390 AD - - Ambrose 339 to 397 AD - - Jerome 347 to 407 AD - - Augustine the Great 354 to 430 AD All of them saw themselves as members of one church that in the Greek was "Katholicos Ekklysia." Katholicos just means universal and they all viewed themselves as Bishops in one Catholic Church guided by a college of Bishops with the Bishop of Rome having a special authority. And more importantly they viewed salvation as God's grace imputing Christ's righteousness to the believer by actually making them holy. No other view existed. That early Christian Church that held the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, and the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD; what church was that? It was the Catholic Church. If one thinks the Catholic Church is false then one has to have the odd belief that the risen Christ used a false church to be the one united church that fought off persecution and spread to all nations like he promised. When Martin Luther came along in 1517 he had a different view of salvation. He was the first to deny that God's grace actually makes a person holy. Luther's new claim was that when one expressed faith, then Christ's righteousness was imputed over the believer like a covering. To Luther the believer was still totally depraved and so broken that he could never become holy. Luther called it an imputed righteous by FAITH ALONE. Luther believed a person was declared holy like judicial judgement that declares a person innocent when they are really still guilty. But to Luther a person did not really become holy. To Luther FAITH ALONE caused Christ's righteousness to be imputed over the believer. But Scripture seems to refute this. There are 115 direct references to judgment in the New Testament and NONE of them mention that what matters is that by FAITH ALONE Christ’s righteousness is imputed over the believer while the believer remains depraved. The Catholic belief is that Christ righteousness is imputed to us because grace makes us actually BECOME righteous. receive the grace that makes them righteous. Luther's idea of a covering of Christ righteousness over the believer was a brand new view. Church historians and scholars Alister McGrath and Robert Gundry and many others agree and prove that Luther's view was new and unique. If Luther is right, then Jesus' church was wrong for 1500 years! And that just boggles my mind. How can that make any sense? When Luther was asked how it makes sense that the church for 1500 years had a different view and when he was asked to provide evidence of his view he refused and said that he did not care what the church had said and done for 1500 years. He said he was going to go by the “BIBLE ALONE.” He said he could interpret the Bible and did not need the church. He said everyone had the right to read the "BIBLE ALONE" and make their own determination. But when others did the same thing they disagreed with Luther. Their version of BIBLE ALONE was different so they formed their own church with contradicting doctrines. His followers Agricola, Karlstadt, and Bucer all split and formed their own version of different views of FAITH ALONE by "imputed righteousness" systems. Then other men name Zwingli, Calvin, Muntzer, Knox, Simon Menno, and John Smith all disagreed with Luther and with each other and started their own different versions of FAITH ALONE. And even Heicko Oberman who was a sympathetic biographer of Luther wrote about the utter futility of Luther's view of BIBLE ALONE (which in Latin is SOLA SCRIPTURA). Oberman wrote: "Application of the principle of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty [Luther] anticipated. It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretations that seem to render ABSURD any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures (Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, 220). Oberman points out that by the time Luther Died there were 40 sects that had contradicting beliefs. For me I wondered if the church that existed for 1500 years was false then how could I ever choose one of those 40 other “Protestant” groups was right? I have asked Protestants all over the internet and in my own area and all the Protestants I know how it can make any sense the Jesus would predict that his church would be persecuted, but stay united and go to all nations all as proof that his church was the true church. And then when you look at history the church that meets all those predictions is clearly the Catholic Church. How could it make sense that the church that meets all of Christ's predictions is a false church? Why would Christ use a false church to spread Christianity and then in the 1500's send 40 different people who claim in retrospect that the Catholic Church was wrong in their doctrines and then form 40 different churches as an alternative? Paul says in Ephesians 4:11 that the church has to unified in its doctrine. The only church I see that had a uniform set of doctrines for 2000 years is the Catholic Church. That is why I am Catholic based on all the evidence of the 115 Bible verses regarding judgment being based on a person's moral acts (enabled by grace) and the evidence of history. The Catholic Church is the only church that remotely comes close to being a church that meets the description of what Christ states in the New Testament. I pray for Christian unity and hope that we can all be one some day.

In the end, for Gavin, the only thing that is stopping Protestants from going into total doctrinal anarchy is to appeal to Magisterial Protestantism, specifically the Reformed Protestant Magisterium, having cited more than once the Westminster Confession. But even though Gavin may say de jure that the Reformed Magisterium is not infallible, he in fact (perhaps unconsciously) treats it as de facto infallible, or else it would not be a deterrent to doctrinal anarchy. For instance, if someone appealed to the Westminster Confession on their interpretation of Scripture regarding the propriety of infant baptism, what's to stop Baptists from violating THAT part of the Confession? If the Presbyterian Westminster Confession is correct, then the Baptists have misinterpreted Scripture, but if the Baptists are correct, then the Westminster Confession is not as sola Scriptura as it claims, having retained an aspect of Catholic traditional doctrine. Therefore, to appeal to Magisterial Protestantism to avoid doctrinal anarchy is to unconsciously argue against both sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture simultaneously while at the same time treating the Reformed Magisterium as if it was an infallible interpreter of Scripture. That is because if the Westminster Confession is treated as the final arbiter to determine the proper interpretation of Scripture, then it is treated de facto as infallible even if claimed otherwise de jure. To paraphrase Trent Horn, why would one appeal to the interpretation of a fallible Magisterial document/authority (in Gavin's case, the Westminster Confession) that fallibly interprets an infallible Scripture? If the Westminster Confession is wrong to promote infant baptism, how is it right promoting sola Scriptura? By what authority makes the Westminster Confession right in one place and wrong in another? In fact, by appealing to Magisterial Protestantism, Gavin seems to have redefined sola Scriptura with the definition that properly defines prima Scriptura.

Are there consequences for Catholics who disobey the commandments of the church that are not infallible and end up being false?

You who say that the inspiration Jesus gave to the Apostles, including Paul, he did not want to give to anyone else, do not know Jesus or his heart or his mission. During his Passion, what do you think he withheld?

One of the problems with Sola Scriptura, is that it doesn't fully define the practice of the Moral Life. The New Testament doesn't explicitly condemn Gay Marriage, Abortion, Pornography, the "M" word, or Transgenderism, in a fully developed and robust way, by name. That's why we need Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests, etc. To be a living and current Magisterial Voice, to speak Authoritatively to the issues of the current age.

When you debate, you have to look for the strongest SIMPLEST arguments, and you have to go on offense and constantly shift the burden to your opponent. That's how you "win" practically speaking. Jimmy Akin's approach meets all this criteria: establishing the status quo during the apostolic age (the apostolic paradigm) and then shifting the burden to the Protestant to prove how or why the paradigm shifted to Sola Scriptura.

@tonyl3762

Жыл бұрын

@@_ready__ I don't recognize the distinctions you are making as relevant to the topic. There was no sola Scriptura while the apostles lived. So the burden is on Protestants to demonstrate (from Scripture) how or why sola Scriptura came to be after the apostles' deaths.

@tonyl3762

Жыл бұрын

@@_ready__ I see plenty wrong with your view which pits Paul against the apostles and pits Jesus against Jesus. The apostles (and not just Paul) preached not only to Israel but to the Gentiles also. If you think the CC follows the Old Law of Moses, you are showing a lot of ignorance. So much you "know" that just isn't true. Go pick a fight with someone else. I'm afraid you are wasting our time.

I always go back to the words profitable and all.

@pmlm1571

Жыл бұрын

You mean, All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2 Tim 3:15 Funny how it doesn't say it is the only or sole teaching :-) Only that it is profitable--which who would deny?

Augustine was IN the Synods that clamped down on what IS Canon. In Hippo and in Carthage. He tried to get from, "He helped come to a decision for the List of Books," To, "He was a total Sola Scripturist."

@RedWolf5

Жыл бұрын

Augustine is not superior to scripture and scripture teaches almost exclusively something like “Sola Traditio” he also is not superior to the church and scripture teaches “the church is the final authority” also from Augustine himself we read: “God has established the doctrine of truth in the cathedra of unity” “I will rest secure in the church… whatever difficulties arise” “taught the church that which they learned in the church” “[the church] the resting place of authority,” “I would not believe the gospel, did not the authority of the catholic church compel me.” . Etc etc

As a french catholic, thanks for your work! In France, we need more apologetic! Is the Number of Protestants Converting to Roman Catholicism Growing in USA?

@stevenlee5673

Жыл бұрын

Je prie pour ta nation!!! Pour le Seigneur et l’Église catholique et apostolique!!!

The problem throughout the debate that Gavin never approached in his argument was the logical gap that he left from “Scripture is the only “God-breathed” authority of faith” to “therefore Scripture is the only infallible authority.” The mere fact that scripture has a unique ontology in how it derives its infallibility does not de facto prove it’s uniqueness in infallibility, but he and Protestants in general assume the very question to be answered; is only that which is spoken by God in that specific “God-breathed” manner infallible? Can not God grant infallible authority to other things outside of that which he himself directly or indirectly speaks? Can he not exercise his will to secure the faith in ways outside of speech by the prophets or Apostles? By virtue of him being God, he obviously can. And by virtue of sacred scripture and the sacred tradition of the Church, he did and does will so. But Gavin never reaches that point because he takes as given the erroneous idea that there is no other infallible authority without having anything to prove that. “Scripture is an infallible authority”(yes) “There is no other infallible authority” (no, unsupported) “Therefore Scripture is the only infallible authority” (no, non sequitur). It’s Circular reasoning to posit that there is no other infallible authority outside scripture, therefore Scripture is the only infallible authority and it’s a non sequitur to assert Scripture is the only God-breathed authority, God-breathed authorities are infallible, therefore it is the only infallible authority. I appreciate Trent’s approach toward the consequences of sola scriptura, but I think it’s a mistake to let Protestants run away from the central question: are specifically God-breathed authorities in the manner scripture is described the only means of infallibility? God is infallible, so it follows that that which comes directly from him would be also, but they draw a limit on what God can make infallible. From that follows the counter argument, “well God can make other things infallible but we can never truly know what else is infallible outside of what directly comes from God” which is an entirely different position altogether than what those that advocate sola scriptura tend to propose. Now that citations from scripture on the founding of the Christ’s Church, his protection of the faith, and the Sacred Tradition of the Church has grounding in light of this new perspective that other means of infallibility are even possible.

But the death penalty is still allowed it’s just not… recommended. Isn’t that the stance of the Catholic Church?

@OstKatholik

Жыл бұрын

Yes

@jendoe9436

Жыл бұрын

That’s bout my understanding. The Death Penalty is a hot discussion and honestly, it’s too much of a heavy thing to just make a sweeping statement. It needs actual, robust discussion to understand it’s place in the world. We are all called to forgive, and those who have wronged someone deserve a chance to change. But, justice is still needed so we have to weigh everything before taking someone’s life. Before decent prisons/jails, understanding of human psychology, environmental, social, and political factors, the DP was one of the only sure ways officials could make sure the public was safe from an aggressor. Now, there’s new understanding and issues that makes it where the DP is no longer something that should be frequent. On one hand, people call for the DP as a viable means of justice. On the other hand, some of those same people moan how the state/government is corrupt and the DP is ‘racist’ and all that. I think Pope Francis had a valid point about only using the DP in extreme circumstances, because it is a very extreme measure.

....still enjoy listening toTrent & his apologetics! Just cuz i disagree on this or that, doesn't mean i can't like or learn from him tho 😎

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that you need criteria to decide which books are scripture and solve interpretative disputes. History teaches us that the Bible is far from clear when it comes to questions such as the Trinity, Eucharist, Mary, Baptism or the Communion of Saints. Typological interpretation doesn't make things easier, and yet it is indispensable. Scripture tells us that the Church is the final authority. It is the pillar of Truth. Sola Ecclesiae.

@colepriceguitar1153

Жыл бұрын

Except maybe it is clear on all these topics

@jonatasmachado7217

Жыл бұрын

@@colepriceguitar1153 yes, the Bible is clear when it says that the Church built upon Peter and the Apostles is the pillar of Truth. And there is only one Church that can trace its origin to Peter and the Apostles: the one who gave us the Bible.

@jamesbishop3091

Жыл бұрын

@@colepriceguitar1153 if it was then all Christian’s would be in agreement on every biblical topic.

@colepriceguitar1153

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesbishop3091 Cause people complicate it.

Gets kind of annoying when Gavin attacks my mother. His favorite target in debates .

I think an important point to make here is that, as a Calvinist, Gavin believes that everything is inspired, as it is all ordained by God. Heck, even Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler is the inspired word of God, if you follow the Calvinist systematic to its logical conclusions.

One thing about the debate I thought made no sense was when Trent said that Gavin had to prove that there are no other sources of divine revelation. That’s not how any court determines anything. Both sides agree that the Bible is authoritative, the one asserting that there is something else that is authoritative has the burden of proof. That was a pretty strange and obvious blunder on Trent’s.

I'm a Christian believer but to be honest, I don't personally think a perfect understanding of scriptures can come from either Sola Scriptura ( depending on how you define the phrase ) or from the Church fathers ( of the Catholic Church ). I'm not negating either approach because I don't know it all, especially when it comes to theistic studies and beliefs. Most important to me are the foundational beliefs within the Gospels such as God's love for us through Jesus. My lack of scholarly knowledge and interest in this subject should not be considered as a negative attitude regarding the discussion. Or should it ? Peace of God to all...

@enshala6401

Жыл бұрын

You know, that's a great question. I wonder if the answer depends on both your vocation and your cross... 🤔

In 1Corinthians, Paul basically says: "I think that that's everyone I baptized. I'm not sure. Don't quote me on that. But that's all I can remember." Atheists often use that passage as a Hammer when saying they refuse to believe in Biblical Inerrancy.

So the Catholics split from the Orthodox. So which one is the sect?

@fantasia55

10 ай бұрын

Orthodox split from Catholic.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: "In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not Sacred Scripture.” So, since purgatory is not a Scriptural teaching, upon what non-scriptural source do Catholics base their beliefs that purgatory exists?

@eternaltunes4138

Жыл бұрын

Sola Tradictum

@cbooth151

Жыл бұрын

@@eternaltunes4138 What is that. Explain.

@biblealone9201

Жыл бұрын

The only place you find that is a comment By a Jehovah witness not the New Catholic Encyclopedia

@Mach15-20

Жыл бұрын

The encyclopedia is wrong on that one (if it’s a true quote). Purgatory is scriptural.

@cbooth151

Жыл бұрын

@@Mach15-20 "The encyclopedia is wrong on that one (if it’s a true quote). Purgatory is scriptural." You are in a serious state of denial. Consider this. The Catholic Encyclopedia was published between 1907 and 1912. And in its pages, it states that "the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not on Sacred Scripture." In 1967, that encyclopedia was updated by The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Does the newer encyclopedia modify what the first one says about purgatory's not being based on "Sacred Scripture"? Uh, NO!! So, tell me, upon what basis do you conclude that The Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong when it clearly says that purgatory is based on Catholic tradition instead of on Sacred Scripture? Do you usually make statements that you can't prove?

For me, SOLA SCRIPTURA means 2 in 1 which means "Oral and Written as ONE" (no conflict matters/issues), and not ABSOLUTE ONE... just like the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit united as ONE (3 in 1 God)... Praise be to God in Christ... Amen...

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

Doesn’t make sense, pls explain yourself! Sola Scriptura is unbiblical & rebutted by 2 Peter 1 20-21. Rather combine Sacred Tradition which existed from the time of Christ with Sacred Scripture which was only mass printed in the 16th century & even then most people were illiterate, so sola Scriptura was unworkable for 1600 yrs, proving again that SS is false. ST & SS under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium gives us a balanced three legged stool providing reliability & objectivity, a rare feature of Protestantism which fails because of flawed personal interpretation

@jvlp2046

3 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs ...God allowed His Words to be written down, mostly those necessarily needed for the Salvation of Mankind through the INSPIRED MEN, like the Prophets and Apostles guided by the Holy Spirits... The Holy Scripture is a WRITTEN GUIDELINES (S.O.P.) to check whether the Oral Tradition aligned with the interpretation of the Written Scripture... It must be harmoniously the same, with no conflict... Therefore, the AUTHORITATIVE one is the Written Scriptures... it can not be the other way around... Can the Oral Tradition practices and interpretations be against the Written Scriptures?... NOPE... it must be SYNCHRONIZED the same... as ONE... The MAGISTERIUM are groups of Catholic Human beings interpreting the Scriptures... According to 2 Peter 1:20-21, the interpretation of the Scriptures does not come originally from MEN (humans)... To whom God gave His Interpretations through the Holy Spirit?... to the Prophets and the Apostles... not to the MAGISTERIUM... How do we (Christians) know if the MAGISTERIUM interpretation is ALIGNED without the Written Scripture?... History has attested that there have been so many abuses and corruption inside the Catholic Church since the 4th Cent. A.D... Without the Written Scriptures, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to know whether they are saying the TRUTH with invested INTEREST or not... that was the main reason why God allowed His Words to be written down... as AUTHORITATIVE GUIDES (S.O.P.)... Analogy, when taking a BAR EXAM, do you rely on what the Professors taught you ORALLY, or do you check the written LAW books to see if the Professor is teaching the correct way and telling the TRUTH?... the same analogy... Can a person be a LAWYER without books but just relying ORALLY?... NOPE... but a person can be a Lawyer with Books and written References ONLY... Many INMATES (incarcerated temporarily) became Professionals when they came out from prison with only BOOKS and REFERENCES to study and pass their government licensure... Now, when it comes to Spiritual matters, God alone can interpret His own WORDS rightfully through the Holy Spirit which God gave to His Prophets and Apostles... Those Prophets and Apostles have already written down for us before they all died the TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Word of God through the H.S. ... There is nothing to be interpreted now but to follow OBEDIENTLY... The Scriptures and Interpretations were all written down for the Fulfillment of some of the Prophecies that have not been fulfilled yet... "LET THE WRITTEN SCRIPTURES SPEAKS FOR ITSELF."... how?... through the guidance of the Holy Spirit... How do we know they have the H.S.?... "By their FRUITS"... God commanded us to TEST every Spirit whether they are from God or not... (ref. 1 John 4)...Amen.

Most Protestants would distinguish between infallibility and inerrancy. It’s incorrect to say that a Protestant who doesn’t fully agree with the Chicago statement cannot maintain Sola Scriptura.

Suan's Supreme Court analogy strikes me odd, yes there is a body that "interprets" the law, but there is only 1 constitution, "sola constitution" lol, they interpret not create the constitution or add in new amendments

The subject of whether Christ has a human mind led to me realizing that, although I was a believing Protestant until I was around 19-years-old, I never recall ever having been told about Christ being "full God and full man" (or any other formulation if the concept) until I converted to Catholicism. I definitely understood, as a Protestant, that Christ was God incarnate, but the specific theology of that was not ever taught to me. I don't think that this was necessarily because the Protestant churches and other sources I encountered didn't believe that Christ was full God and full man (probably most of them believed something along those lines). Rather, it just didn't come up. So I guess I would say that, for my own experience, there was a lack of rigor to Protestant teaching of what we would call doctrine in Catholicism. The teaching that I received as a Protestant was, as an adult, primarily either what a given pastor wanted to talk about or else a verse-by-verse progression through the Bible. And, with that kind of teaching, I cannot recall anyone addressing Christ's nature on a deeper level. Meanwhile, as a Catholic, it's unimaginable that I could attend Mass and pay attention to it without learning that Christ is full God and full man. The essential parts of what we believe are stated and emphasized consistently so that these important matters are not left for when a pastor gets around to talking about them. Now, to be sure, experiences will surely vary among Protestants, and some people may have experienced a much more deliberately rigorous formation than I did. But my experience definitely lacked in this way, and I don't think what I experienced was uncommon. EDIT: I want to make clear that, despite my criticisms of the way that I generally received teaching as a Protestant, I am not discounting all that I learned in those years. I did learn many crucial aspects of faith as a Protestant and there were numerous things I had believed as a Protestant which didn't change much at all as a Catholic. I am grateful for the formation I did receive, even if there were problems that allowed certain important questions - like the exact nature of Christ incarnate - to somehow not get properly addressed to me over so many years. My Protestant upbringing introduced me to Christ and taught me to love Him. My love of Christ then brought me to the Catholic Church.

@Adam-ue2ig

Жыл бұрын

Many people I talked to receive "poor cathechsis " and lack of "formation" in the Catholic church. It is encumbent of each to read their Word, study theology and church history, etc.

@steelytemplar

Жыл бұрын

@Adam There is a reason I mentioned paying attention. I'm not interested in stories about people who didn't take their Catholicism seriously and, lo and behold, didn't learn their faith very well. I paid attention when I was a Protestant. I took it seriously. I wasn't any slouch on theology. The formation was not of the quality that I immediately found in the Catholic Church. The teaching lacked a coherent focus on important articles of faith like the nature of Christ because there was no Catechism and no authority to define fundamental beliefs. Things like the recitation of Creeds and other articles of faith that teach the clear foundations were uncommon.

@enshala6401

Жыл бұрын

Oh man, can I empathize! I was a Protestant for 30 years, and we spent more time learning about the evils of D&D than we did about the nature of Christ. In fact, when I was a kid, my church explicitly taught that we can't even pray directly to Christ! Because THAT would be praying to a "human". 🤦‍♀️. Protestantism creates all sorts of confusion because of their ad hoc approach to discerning and teaching doctrine. 30 years ago, the fad was to get rebaptized to get saved. Today, baptism doesn't do squat. It is unbelievable. Really, really sad.

@Adam-ue2ig

Жыл бұрын

@@steelytemplar that has not been my experience, sorry you feel that way.

@Adam-ue2ig

Жыл бұрын

@Steely I'm sure a many "were paying attention " and yet they have/had quite a different "experience " than you did.

If early church fathers after the apostles contradict the apostles teachings written in scripture or add to, they are in direct violation of Paul’s words in Galatians 1:8. Therefore they are unreliable and wrong. Yes scripture alone because scripture alone decrees nothing can be added to or altered or tweaked or anything. So if scripture is parallel to someone else’s word, someone else’s word that is different or in parallel to or in addition to scripture is in error according to scripture.

I noticed that when it came to the issue of the Canon, Gavin mentioned several times that it has “fuzzy edges”. How does that fit with Sola Scriptura? Who defines the “fuzziness” of the edges? In the end, the issue, like the rest of Sola Scriptura is simply arbitrary.

12:09 The Bible teaches the development of the old covenant to the new covenant. The law of Moses was the law for an earthly nation, the law of Grace is the law for the kingdom of Heaven, which is not earthly. Therefore there is a clear difference between what those laws should prescribe. There is no such reason for the church to change its stance, other than the fact that it realises it is fallible & has made a mistake, & it seeks to become better.

Hey Trent. I'm a protestant who listens to you regularly. I think you're pretty rad, and I enjoyed your debate with Gavin almost as much as I enjoyed your debate with Cosmic Skeptic. You're awesome man. I do think you're following a dead end when you say protestants argue like atheists though. I'm not nearly as well studied as you, so forgive me if I'm being ignorant here. But it seems to me that both protestants and atheists argue like people who are being asked to change their views from a given starting point, and don't find the arguments convincing enough to make such a large leap. Intelligent atheists usually have great arguments. To change your view, it takes time. One argument won't do it. An argument can be good and internally consistent, but insufficient to convince. At the same time, that very argument can be a source of comfort to those who already agree, because it's a good argument. When talking with my atheist friends, I don't expect to instantly convert them with, say, the contingency argument. I expect them to push back. I don't then accuse them of arguing like another group I don't like. So do protestants argue "like atheists?" Well, yes. Atheists argue well. That's beside the point. Almost (not quite, but almost) an ad-hominem. People being asked to change their views to something they don't see enough evidence for will be very likely to make the same arguments. Some of my catholic friends argue "like atheists" when they say they don't see sola scriptura as having enough evidence. From a protestant perspective, it looks like a shield thrown up to reassure your party. I can dismiss them because they argue this way. It will reassure your following, but for those you're trying to convince, well, it seems counter productive. If I feel dismissed by catholics, I'm not motivated to become catholic. I hope I came across in a kind manner and didn't seem too ignorant :)

@TheRealDealDominic

Жыл бұрын

I can't speak for Trent ofc. However I've noticed when you are debating different world views there must be a premise that is debatable in order to have a fruitful dialogue. I would think Trent is referring to that mentality. If you have a stream of water contained by cement, you cannot make inroads. If it's made with dirt, you can dig into the ajde and divert some of the water. That stream is a world view and if the opposing view is unwilling to grant some aspects of your position, then it's an impossible task to make inroads. If a Atheist cannot grant the uncaused cause (Big bang from infinite power outside of space/time) how will you even convince that one of God?

@teamhren1000

Жыл бұрын

​​​@@TheRealDealDominic :) an atheist won't grant an uncaused cause if they have no reason to do so. They might say they have no reason to believe in one (a phrase trent uses in this video), and then also say they don't know how to solve a contingency regression. If all posed answers don't satisfy, you aren't required by reason to accept one of them. Think black swan. Ignorance is preferable to error. That Sherlock quote about all other possibilities being eliminated doesn't work if the minds doing the thinking are finite. So rejecting an argument isn't making a concrete dam. To further the analogy, it could be possible that the digging implement isn't as strong outside one's bubble as those within the bubble like to tell each other it is. :) Speaking from experience. I remember the shock of showing up at college and discovering just how weak my former church's arguments for 6 day creation were. I never left the faith, but it took me a few years to settle on creative evolution. But I remember how ironclad I thought my old congregations arguments were.

@teamhren1000

Жыл бұрын

​@@rightly-ordered didn't know he'd written one on that. Since he makes that statement in his videos, particularly this one, it's not unreasonable to expect people to engage with it as it appears when he says off the cuff. When Christopher Hitchens was condescending, atheism was made unattractive. Why would I want to be like him? When catholics or protestants are condescending, same result. So in the context I've been encountering this claim, no, my objection does not fall flat.

@TheCounselofTrent

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for the thoughtful criticism. If you message me at trenthorn.com I can send you a copy of the book and you can see my goal is to point out where some Protestant arguments can actually undermine Christianity itself if the logic is extended.

@yajunyuan7665

Жыл бұрын

@@TheCounselofTrent Wouldn’t undermining the Canon of the Bible undermine Christianity itself if the logic is extended? *Both* Atheists and Muslims attack the canon of the NT. How can you show that Catholic Answer did not steal this argument from them? I don’t find any pre-Vatican 2 literature saying the Bible would be a fallible collection of infallible books if it was not for the Papacy.

Context matters

@pmlm1571

Жыл бұрын

Yes. How's this for some context: You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build My church.... The pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church.

it can be demonstrated that Scripture (66 books) is inerrant in all areas on which it speaks; it is from God to us thru the Prophets & Apostles. One must demonstrate the existence of another infallible rule of faith; not just assert it. RCC uses Scripture to substantiate its claims ultimately. Scripture is inspired by its nature, not by magisterial decree or rubber stamp.

Trent: Protestants argue like atheists Also Trent: Early Christians had no idea what scripture was

@bearistotle2820

Жыл бұрын

I am genuinely confused. I think I kinda see the point you are making, but would you mind explaining how Trent is "arguing like an atheist"?

@jamesbishop3091

Жыл бұрын

I second that, care to elaborate?

I believe the burden of proof falls on both parties, personally. With the RC church the burden comes from the fact that they are claiming that I am sinning for not believing in what they tell me to believe, for Protestant's it comes from the claim that Catholics are sinning from going outside of the Bible with tradition. If either side claims that the other is sinning, then I feel that you need to back it up (burden of proof). I'm only technically a protestant, I don't believe in sola fide but I do believe in sola scriptura. I'm just wondering, can the authority of the Church be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? If not, how can you so confidently tell me that I'm commiting a transgression against Yahweh by not believing that Mary was assumed into heaven?

@TheBadTrad

Жыл бұрын

The authority of The Church absolutely can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Christ established a Church-One Church-and explicitly gave that Church and its leaders the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19). That is absolute power and authority to govern in Christ’s absence. And, only the Catholic Church can trace its roots all the way back to St Peter in an unbroken line of succession.

Deo Nomon dei patris

16:31 Even if Jesus was talking about scripture, he's not downplaying the authority of tradition here. Remember in the wilderness when Satan attacked Jesus with principle in scripture, the Lord defended with a higher principle. Was he negating scripture when he did that? Of course not. He was just doing what always did - opening our eyes to the Truth.

God allowed His Words to be written down, mostly those necessarily needed for the Salvation of Mankind through the INSPIRED MEN, like the Prophets and Apostles guided by the Holy Spirits... The Holy Scripture is a WRITTEN GUIDELINES (S.O.P.) to check whether the Oral Tradition aligned with the interpretation of the Written Scripture... It must be harmoniously the same, with no conflict... Therefore, the AUTHORITATIVE one is the Written Scriptures... it can not be the other way around... Can the Oral Tradition practices and interpretations be against the Written Scriptures?... NOPE... it must be SYNCHRONIZED the same... as ONE... The MAGISTERIUM are groups of Catholic Human beings interpreting the Scriptures... According to 2 Peter 1:20-21, the interpretation of the Scriptures does not come originally from MEN (humans)... To whom God gave His Interpretations through the Holy Spirit?... to the Prophets and the Apostles... not to the MAGISTERIUM... How do we (Christians) know if the MAGISTERIUM interpretation is ALIGNED without the Written Scripture?... History has attested that there have been so many abuses and corruption inside the Catholic Church since the 4th Cent. A.D... Without the Written Scriptures, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to know whether they are saying the TRUTH with invested INTEREST or not... that was the main reason why God allowed His Words to be written down... as AUTHORITATIVE GUIDES (S.O.P.)... Analogy, when taking a BAR EXAM, do you rely on what the Professors taught you ORALLY, or do you check the written LAW books to see if the Professor is teaching the correct way and telling the TRUTH?... the same analogy... Can a person be a LAWYER without books but just relying ORALLY?... NOPE... but a person can be a Lawyer with Books and written References ONLY... Many INMATES (incarcerated temporarily) became Professionals when they came out from prison with only BOOKS and REFERENCES to study and pass their government licensure... Now, when it comes to Spiritual matters, God alone can interpret His own WORDS rightfully through the Holy Spirit which God gave to His Prophets and Apostles... Those Prophets and Apostles have already written down for us before they all died the TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Word of God through the H.S... There is nothing to be interpreted now but to follow OBEDIENTLY... The Scriptures and Interpretations were all written down for the Fulfillment of some of the Prophecies that have not been fulfilled yet... "LET THE WRITTEN SCRIPTURES SPEAKS FOR ITSELF."... how?... through the guidance of the Holy Spirit... How do we know they have the H.S.?... "By their FRUITS"... God commanded us to TEST every Spirit whether they are from God or not... (ref. 1 John 4)... Amen.

And a book being from an apostolic man isn't sufficient for inspiration.

Council of trent, Trent Horn, the Bible says don't go beyond what is written, and ADD no other doctrine, so what do the naughty Catholics do, they go beyond what the Bible says and ADD their erroneous doctrines to the Bible.

@fantasia55

10 ай бұрын

the Catholic Church predates the New Testament by more than three centuries.

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

Pls name some of those erroneous doctrines, not forgetting that Luther removed 7 books & added the word ALONE to Rom 3:28 without authority Deut 4:2, so beware of hypocrisy!

Third!!!

The bible is clear regarding the infallibility of Peter and his successors. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. This promise can't be made unless the Petrine office is infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit.

ive been doing a dive into this trying to help others understand this from a loving standpoint. Too often i feel Catholics get jaded by this conversation and theres always deep resentment and animosity in the conversation. I think if both sides are honest with the conversation that there could be a consensus reached. Sola Scriptura defended conversation. God has spoken, scripture is his revealed word of God. Gods word is found no where else. Scripture is the only thing the Church has that is God breathed. “well who do you think gave you those scriptures?” Moses gave us the law and formed the levitical priesthood and the profits gave us the rest. The Torah is the backbone of scripture. It predates the church and the church cannot survive without the Torah. Jesus and the 11+Paul quote and echo ONLY the Torah during their ministry. The early church after the Jewish 12 were Hebrew deficient and knew nothing of the Torah in detailed comparison to the Gospel. Given the Gospel is a fulfilled reference point of the Torah, it would be an impossibility for Torah deficient men to manifest the NT scriptures. The NT letters and scriptures were written and circulated by-the 11+ Paul while they were alive and well before 70ad with Jerusalem’s destruction. Peter and Paul both affirm this and Pauls writings echo this reality continually. “Well, without the Tradition of the early historical church you only have scripture and your own interpretations.” Scripture interprets its self through and analogy process and always has since Moses. Scripture validates its self. There was never a discouraged interpretive break in scriptural understanding like there is with Rome. Oral tradition over time warped the levitical priesthood to usurp the word of God for Tradition. This is why they missed it with Christ. Tradition expected a conquering King vs a savior of Sin. Christ NEVER condoned tradition and the apostles only likened tradition to the Gospel teachings. Never extra-biblical practices. “Well how do you know you are correct and history is wrong. By what standard do you measure truth?” The word of God is only understood by spirit filled believers in Christ. This is a radical difference between the believing and unbelieving. “The message of the cross is foolishness to those perishing, but to those being saved it is the Power of God. “ The power of God is available to those in repentant obedience. Those in dwelt by the spirit of God in Salvation. Those without forgiveness from the Cross cannot understand the mind of God or scripture. Those of only the flesh are blinded by the god or this world from seeing the light of the gospel. Therefore 2 types of people exist. Unbelieving - unable to understand scripture Believers - scripture is revealed by God by the spirit placed in you. The Text is clear and EASY to understand. The radically changed do not remain complacent but are transformed by the renewed mind and thrusted into holiness by convicted sanctification through the scriptures. And such individuals live God, and love their neighbor. When they love this way, argumentation becomes the sin in the way of fellowship. This is why those in-dwelt by the holy spirit are one church. Catholic, Protestant, all who trust in Christ. “Well, what about the 30,000 denominations. everyone sees things different. None of you are aligned” This is a classic uniformed perception perpetrated by argumentative politics designed to tear down others, so that they can only see One Direction. This is not an opinion from informed knowledge. Truth is revealed to the the person who’s contrite and broken before God. Truth is not revealed to the ambitious power hungry pastor looking to grow his numbers beyond depth to mega-size standards on the skewed scripture twisting of prosperity or themed churches like rapper churches. The message of Christ is the cross, and it’s one message, not an adaptive allegory meant to fit within the human social constructs. So, divergent spiritual views are only problematic in radical contrasts. Theres a major difference in the revealed Torah and Gospel message between the Mormon and Reformed Baptist or the Baptist and Red Hill Churches. Only one is Biblically Formed. ALL faiths must be tested against scripture. All Churches answer to scripture and the evidence of those who are spirit filled revealed will teach a pure rigid Gospel message word for word in holy Scripture WITHOUT personal opinion or side stories or conjecture. The Word of God is sharper than a 2 edge sword and fully sufficient for salvation. ALL must be measured by scripture. Churches who’s sole mission is the Gospel even in the face of congregational, dwindling or collapse are not only biblical but blessed. The Church is not measures by its numbers but by its message. MOST reformed non catholic denominations are unified in scripture with minor divergences like the rapture, communion or tribulation. If we all agree salvation is an inner spirit transformation and radical change by God through his son, minor diverging differences are meaningless until they compromise the message of the Cross. This is why 30,000 denominations are still worldly unified yet minorly different. Those TRULY born from above WITH an obvious radical heart/mind change recognize one another across the spectrum of religion, culture, race, age, gender.

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

Try as much as you like, there is no justification for Protestantism & its false & heretical teachings & hence there is no possibility of consensus. Catholics believe in the Truth of His One True Church which we are not prepared to compromise esp on the heresy of sola Scriptura with is not biblical & rebutted by 2 Peter 1 20-21 A 500 yr old man made belief system without hierarchy & unifying authoritative interpreter can’t compare with His Church & its 2000 yr experience. Here are some more points supporting the claim that the CC is His One True Church: - the CC has existed, in spite of sinful men, for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin - the CC has hierarchy, structure & unifying authoritative interpreter in the Magisterium by Jesus’ design - the CC has the four signs of being His One True Church ie One or Unified, Holy, Universal & Apostolic - the CC has an unbroken line of apostolic succession from St Peter to today - Jesus gave us His Church not a bible, which the CC codified in 382AD - the CC is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 You can choose to believe in sola Scriptura but that is unbiblical because a book can’t interpret itself & is rebutted by 2 Peter 1 20-21. For at least 1500 yrs there was no mass printed bible & even then most people were illiterate so sola Scriptura, if valid, which it is not, would not have been workable. The genius of the CC founder.was to complement Sacred Tradition which existed from His time with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium, a stable Three legged stool providing reliability & objectivity You may well regard me as biased, however, as a cradle Catholic, much study & prayer has convinced me of the Fullness & Truth of His One True Church for which Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-23. Try to be objective & try to compare the falseness of Protestantism with the Truth of the CC, like chalk & cheese. Protestantism was the first satanic attack on the CC, followed by Freemasonry 1717 & Communism 1917 & whilst damaging, none was successful as Jesus said that He would protect His Church Mt 16 18-19 The Magisterium of the CC is regarded as a mother figure who raises & teaches her children in the same way that our earthly mother did. Not everything that she taught us did we like or agree with but, in obedience, we accepted for our greater good. Personal interpretation, one of the many errors of Protestantism, encourages individualism resulting in confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects

@HillbillyBlack

3 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs well I choose to believe the Moses Law and prophets. I choose to believe the word of God. But let me ask you this, what does the megesterium have that you don’t? According to Ezekiel 36:26-27 ESV And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. This is the exact word of God through his servant Ezekiel. Is that hard to understand? Doesn’t Jesus Echo this and John 15? It’s a very odd thing to me to say that you need to be led by other corporeal men when the scripture itself in the Old Testament says we are led by the Holy Spirit. When the old testament teaches the reading of itself as a tradition outside of any “magisterium” teaching of the old Sanhedrin system. I’m really confused. Why would the new testament saints suddenly be inept without a magisterium where as the old testament saints encouraged the reading of the word of God??? King David, 100s of years before Christ - Psalm 119:11 ESV I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you. Even your own early church fathers support this. - Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) - Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3) Your Catholic position is such a belligerent antagonistic position in opposition to the loving nature of Christ. Have you given That any thoughts? It would certainly makes sense if you don’t know who Jesus is. If you don’t know the word of God, how could you possibly know who Jesus is. You’re certainly not going to get that through the mass.

@HillbillyBlack

3 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs what’s the one thing the magisterium of the Catholic Church has that you don’t?

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

@@HillbillyBlackToo long to digest so we agree to disagree! You say that I’m belligerent to which I confess brought on by poor Protestant thinking & lack of logic which is consistently common. The magisterium has many things that we mere mortals don’t, but the most important is 2000 yrs of experience of pastoral experience all around the world under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which no other human institution can compare!

@HillbillyBlack

3 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs i agree, human intuition cannot compare to the holy spirit. So the question is, do we as followers have the spirit or just the magisterium?

Obviously, Luther coined the phrase Sola Scriptura, but was there such a concept in the early church that he simply put the name Sola Scriptura to?

@fantasia55

10 ай бұрын

no

My Personal Opinion (non-biblical opinion) regarding "Sola Scriptura" (Written Scripture Alone)... during the time when the New Covenant Scriptures of God thru Christ Jesus were not written down yet or have not fully completely written down yet... the early Christians of the 1st Cent. A.D., before the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire, their CHRISTIAN FAITH in Christ Jesus thru God's Grace, practiced their FAITH based on VERBAL/ORAL TRADITIONS alone written from the Hearts of the Apostles and Disciples... But after the 2nd Temple was destroyed in around 70 A.D., more or less 40 years after Christ Jesus ascended back to Heaven with God the Father... God decided to ALLOW only those VERBAL/ORAL TRADITIONS to be written down by God's People guided by the Holy Spirit that have significance, relevance, and importance to the process of SALVATION of mankind... Those oral/verbal traditions were practiced by the Early Christians in the 1st Cent. A.D. that was not written down was God's DECISION not to practice no more... most especially after the book of revelation was written down by Apostle John at Patmos in around 92 - 96 A.D. Apostle John said (Rev. 22:18-19/paraphrase)... "I testified and warned anyone who hears the Prophecy of this SCROLL (singular/Book/Bible): if anyone ADDS any WORDS to them, God will add to that person the PLaGUES (tribulation/troubles) written in this scroll (Book)... And anyone who SUBTRACT (takes away) any WORDS of the Prophecy from this scroll (Book), God will take away to that person any share from the Tree of Life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll (Book)."... Amen Therefore, in my personal opinion, today, in our time when the WORD of GOD is finally completed without any FAULT of its OWN (not of Human Scribers' errors/mistakes like handwriting, spelling, printing, grammar, language translation, etc.)... we, Christian believers and followers of Christ must RELY Solely upon the written Holy BOOK/BIBLE (no longer Oral/Verbal Traditions).

@geoffjs

3 ай бұрын

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical & refuted by 2 Peter 1 20-21 Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal in 110 which codified your bible in 382. His Church is the fullness of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of its divine origin No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!

@jvlp2046

3 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs Let us analyze 2 Peter 1:20-21... Was this passage from ORAL/Spoken Tradition from their Hearts and Minds or came from WRITTEN Epistle/Letter?... Ans.: Epistle/Letter... Was this written passage of St. Peter part of Authorative Scripture?... YES When was this passage written?... Ans.: Before St. Peter was executed (died) around 60 - 64 C.E./A.D. while the N.T. Scriptures were not completed yet... When St. Paul said through his Epistle to the Thessalonians (2 Thessa 2:15)...that Christians should stand and hold firmly to the teachings that the Apostles had passed on them either/whether through ORAL/SPOKEN Traditions "OR" WRITTEN Epistles/Letters... Take note #1:... When was this Epistles written?... Before St. Paul was executed (beheaded) around 62 - 65 C.E./A.D., still the N.T. Scriptures were not completed yet. Take note #2:... The Original Greek passage used the conjunction "OR" and not "AND," which means nobody should use both to complement each other, but it must be TIED together w/o any conflict matters or issues... Take note #3:... YES, it was true that Christ Jesus had done so many things that if they were written down, the whole world could not hold them. (ref. John 21:25). However, God had allowed to be written down only those things that were necessarily required and needed for the fulfillment of the Promises of Salvation to Mankind through INSPIRED MEN guided by the Holy Spirit for the sake of the next generation and the generations to come till the return of Christ Jesus on Earth... In Conclusion, when the N.T. Scriptures were finally completed and compiled as a BOOK (Bible)... the conjunction "OR" means there was only ONE CHOICE... After the Book was completed, the Written Scriptures (Bible) were the AUTHORITATIVE guidelines (S.O.P.)... the ORAL Traditions practiced by early Christians must not conflict with or against the Written Scriptures, or else the WRITTEN overruled the ORAL Traditions... The Oral Traditions and Written must be ONE and the SAME (United as ONE), just like the Father and the Son... that is my understanding of SOLA SCRIPTURA... the Oral Tradition must follow the Written Scriptures rightfully and not the other way around... Praise be to God in Christ... Amen.

You should have brung up 1 timothy 3:15

@echomike8591

Жыл бұрын

the conversation did go in that direction

@TheCounselofTrent

Жыл бұрын

I did bring that up in the debate in my opening statement

@franciscoguzman1065

Жыл бұрын

@@TheCounselofTrent thank you Trent. That’s a big one.

@Justas399

Жыл бұрын

Does I Timothy 3:15 identify the church as the RCC?

@franciscoguzman1065

Жыл бұрын

@@Justas399 yes fool. Tell me where Protestants have apostolic succession? RCC is the Catholic Church. Learn about it. The roman rite. Learn about the history before Constantine which you fools think the Catholic Church was started. The church started way before that. We can trace the apostolic succession all the way back to the first century.

Here's the fact: we can prove (not cuz the Church says so) but empirically show the Bible is not just "infallible" but inerrant in all areas; historically, prophetically, & yes, scientifically (facts of nature) The Church is not infallible; history shows us that. RCC historians recognize that truth; not necessarily RCC apologists.

The Catholic Magisterium and/or Tradition is false, therefore it follows that "sola Scriptura" must be true. That sounds perfectly logical, doesn't it?!

Let us analyze 2 Peter 1:20-21... Was this passage from ORAL/Spoken Tradition from their Hearts and Minds or came from WRITTEN Epistle/Letter?... Ans.: Epistle/Letter... Was this written passage of St. Peter part of Authorative Scripture?... YES When was this passage written?... Ans.: Before St. Peter was executed (died) around 60 - 64 C.E./A.D. while the N.T. Scriptures were not completed yet... When St. Paul said through his Epistle to the Thessalonians (2 Thessa 2:15)...that Christians should stand and hold firmly to the teachings that the Apostles had passed on to them either/whether through ORAL/SPOKEN Traditions "OR" WRITTEN Epistles/Letters... Take note #1:... When was this Epistles written?... Before St. Paul was executed (beheaded) around 62 - 65 C.E./A.D., still the N.T. Scriptures were not completed yet. Take note #2:... The Original Greek passage used the conjunction "OR" and not "AND," which means nobody should use both to complement each other, but it must be TIED together w/o any conflict matters or issues... Take note #3:... YES, it was true that Christ Jesus had done so many things that if they were written down, the whole world could not hold them. (ref. John 21:25). However, God had allowed to be written down only those things that were necessarily required and needed for the fulfillment of the Promises of Salvation to Mankind through INSPIRED MEN guided by the Holy Spirit for the sake of the next generation and the generations to come till the return of Christ Jesus on Earth... In Conclusion, when the N.T. Scriptures were finally completed and compiled as a BOOK (Bible)... the conjunction "OR" means there was only ONE CHOICE... After the Book was completed, the Written Scriptures (Bible) were the AUTHORITATIVE guidelines (S.O.P.)... the ORAL Traditions practiced by early Christians must not conflict with or against the Written Scriptures, or else the WRITTEN overruled the ORAL Traditions... The Oral Traditions and Written must be ONE and the SAME (United as ONE), just like the Father and the Son... that is my understanding of SOLA SCRIPTURA... the Oral Tradition must follow the Written Scriptures rightfully and not the other way around... Praise be to God in Christ... Amen.

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!!

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the information. I wish I understood Biblical Greek. Maybe he acquired the definition from a different translation of the New Testament? Anyhow... Peace to you.

Ortlund lost the moment he admitted he accepts the NT canon as authoritative as that came by way of tradition

@killingtime9283

Жыл бұрын

No he didn't. Protestants do accept tradition as _a_ authority. But we do not think that authority to be infallible. And the Catholic Canon is an example of that. I believe that Rome is part the Church and it's tradition. I also believe that the Roman church made an error in canonizing non-inspired books in the Apocrypha. How then can Church tradition be infallible?

@user-se8ld4yp2u

Жыл бұрын

@@killingtime9283 so the NT canon is fallible? You might have incorrect books in your canon? Obviously Protestants DO NOT allow that their canon may be incorrect ie FALLIBLE so once you accept the NT canon as authoritative, you have IN FACT accepted something outside of scripture as an infallible authority. Ortlund LOST the moment he did that.

@killingtime9283

Жыл бұрын

> so the NT canon is fallible The church is fallible in it's recognition of Inspired Scripture. The epistemological Canon is fallible. Yes > You might have incorrect books in your canon? Is it possible? Sure. Is it plausible? No, I don't think so. Do you know what's a more important question than "is the Canon infallible?", it's "is my Canon correct?" You do not need to be infallible in order to be correct about something. And the Church seems to have been fine with this notion for _1500 years_ until the Canon was apparently infallibly settled at the council of Trent. > Obviously Protestants DO NOT allow that their canon may be incorrect ie FALLIBLE I reject that. I do allow for the Canon to be Fallible. I DO NOT however, accept my Canon to be Incorrect. And in the end, you have used just your _fallible_ judgement to follow a supposedly infallible magesterium no? How can you trust that decision to be correct? Questions like these are hyper skeptical nonsense. You'll end up sacrificing truth on the altar of certainty.

the only time I d consider joining the Protestants is if Trent started their 9001 church 😂

I feell sorry being responsible for the 666th thumb up. -_-

Why couldn’t THIS have been the topic you debated James White on? Or Sola Fide, or the Deuterocanon? He is a bulldog on certain topics. His debate with Gary Michuta on the Deuterocanon was an absolute…well…just go watch it…

Oops. Big-time Error by both Trent and Suan: No bible in and of itself is infallible, and it should not be referred to as being infallible as Trent and Suan do. INFALLIBILITY pertains only to charisms or special gifts given to some designated people like the Pope in limited circumstances or a council of the Bishops united with the Pope when they pronounce on certain things. This gift of infallibility is not granted to anyone outside the Catholic Church. It also does not pertain to the Bible itself, but of course the Catholic Bible is INERRANT, which means in and of itself it contains no error. As such, it does not prevent anyone from making an error in how they interpret the inerrant word of God, and only Catholic interpretations of the Holy Bible to the extent that such have been definitively pronounced are infallible interpretations. Accordingly, equating infallibility with inerrancy is sloppy thinking, and both Trent and Suan fall into this trap despite their fine credentials as Catholic apologists. And it also doesn't help if they insist on multiple definitions of infallibility to basically make a secondary definition of infallibility more or less a synonym for inerrancy. Especially in apologetics, great clarity is most important, and so maintaining the simple but very important distinction between inerrancy and infallibility is essential. So good Catholics, keep the following firmly in mind: We rightly believe in an infallible Church when its leadership performs its duties in certain ways, and we fully appreciate the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. However, we do not accept the false Protestant claims arising out of the harmful belief of sola scriptura that the bible itself is infallible, and because of this, their Protestant interpretations and beliefs are also infallible. Accordingly, there is no need for a Pope or Bishops despite the fact that our Lord and Savior established these callings in part to aid us in properly interpreting the Holy Scriptures instead of proudly and wrongly relying on personal interpretation and the wrong-headedness of sola scriptura promoted by Protestants.

@pmlm1571

Жыл бұрын

Thank you. This does indeed help. I am surprised these two notables fail to establish this vital distinction.

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

God's words are infalible. Just because someone interprets them wrongly doesn't mean they aren't infalible.

@pmlm1571

Жыл бұрын

@@snokehusk223 The bible is inerrant in and of itself--without error. A divinely-authorized teaching is infallible--incapable of error. A subtle distinction.

@docverit2668

Жыл бұрын

@@snokehusk223 I have provided a complete response to your statement, but it is now missing. Hopefully such is just temporary and will appear soon. For the time being, note 2 things in particular: Only living beings can be infallible; not inanimate objects. And the sad fact of numerous bible variations illustrates that most bibles are filled with some errors and cannot be considered inerrant, let alone infallible. Only those non-Catholic bibles that match official Catholic bibles enjoy inerrancy.

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

@@docverit2668 When infallibility of Scripture we mean that the meaning of Scripture is infalible. Sure there can be some mistranslations but the meaning stays the same. As for living beings only being infalible why would we believe that? But let's say it is true. Than why can't we say New Testament writers were infalible when writing under the inspiration by God. Just how Pope is infalible when speaking Ex Cathedra, he or someone for him writes that infalible statement and that means the meaning of it is infalible. Same thing for Magisterium. Scripture is just written word of infallible people and thus it conveys the infability which is no different than being infalible.