Did Christ Establish an Infallible Magisterium? Suan Sonna and Dr Steven Nemes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- Suan Sonna is a third-year philosophy student at Kansas State University. Suan has two published papers - one in Cornell University's undergraduate philosophy journal LOGOS on the presumption of innocence in legal and social settings, and a second more recent paper "Roman and Catholic: A Biblical and Historical Defense of Vatican I Papal Theology in Response to Jerry Walls" published in the Heythrop Journal. He currently runs the RUclips channel, Facebook page, and podcast "Intellectual Conservatism".
Dr. Steven Nemes has a PhD inTheology from Fuller Theological Seminary, where he studied under Profs. OliverCrisp and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen. He teaches philosophy at Grand CanyonUniversity in Phoenix, Arizona. He has articles published in such journals asIrish Theological Quarterly, Journal of Analytic Theology, Heythrop Journal,Perichoresis, and Open Theology. He has been happily married to Rachel sinceSeptember 2020.
🔴 FORMAT
Opening Statements - 20 min each
Discussion - 30 - 40 min
Audience Questions 30 min
Closing Statements 5 min each
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquin....
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Homeschool Connections: homeschoolconn...
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
Suan is a genius and a gift to the Church!
Nemes was brilliant and pretty much shut out Shan’s position, but yeah, he is brilliant, too.
Also, please be kind to Steven. He is my good friend. I remember having to deal with the "Orthobros" online, and it was an experience I hope others don't have to experience again.
What are Orthobros? Sorry Im ignorant to this term. You did great by the way Suan.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker No worries, and thank you so much for your kind words. The "Orthobros" are online Eastern Orthodox users whose main intention is to insult and troll.
@@intellectualcatholicism They have to insult and troll. The alternative is thinking and if they did that they would not be Eastern Orthodox.
Sorry to hear about your issues. I’m familiar with online debates being completely full of trolls. I think many are sadly.
@Nameless Fisherman Would love to hear your thoughts. I assume you’re for Eastern Orthodox Then?
Amen, we should be charitable.
The thing that bugged me with this debate was that Steven seems to think the magisterium is just for unimportant and overcomplicated theological nuances, and that to be a Chistian you just have to repent from sin, and believe in Jesus. Anyone who is catholic will know that is precisely the magisterium that guarantees things like: What exactly to believe about Jesus, what is sin and how to repent from it. Of course any protestant will say we have the Biblie, but then who tought the Bible is reliable?
Who taught that the Bible is reliable? Lol, umm the people who received the letters of the apostles?
So Suan is basically facts and logic and the Steven is more like “I’m just not sure”. I’m swayed by logic, history and logic.
Can I interview you on my show? Email me at suan@ksu.edu.
Wow you're here ! I like what you do
@@intellectualcatholicism absolutely. I’ll email you! Shalom.
@@lonelyberg1808 all glory to the Most High. Thank you
@@TheJewishCatholic I love your channel man. God bless you
My opening statement in written form with all of the relevant citations included: www.academia.edu/49351757/The_Biblical_Case_for_an_Infallible_Magisterium
Suan did fantastic
Steven’s main point seems to have been that an infallible magisterium isn’t necessary for God to preserve truth and accomplish salvation, i.e., that God can do these things apart from infallible magisterium.
The question, of course, isn’t what God *can* do but rather what he has, in fact, chosen to do. I think Suan did a good job arguing that God has chosen to operate through an infallible magisterium.
@Steven Nemes I look at the history of Catholic dogma and I can't find a single instance of error or contradiction. How does this not provide evidence for infallibility?
@Steven Nemes the sensus fidelium, ecumenical councils promulgated by a pope, and ex cathedra decrees
Thanks, Tre! God bless. Let me know if you'd ever like to talk sometime.
@@taylorbarrett384 was not the immaculate conception of Mary claimed to be infallible? That claim is falsified by a number of Scriptures.
@@Justas399 If you think so, post the Scriptures here
One key point that I think needs to be highlighted is that Steven believes Jesus is infallible on the basis of trust that He is the Son of God, and Steven goes so far as to trust Jesus when He says things that seemingly "anathematize" people who do not believe that He is the Son of God. I was arguing based on that same trust in the words of the Son of God, one may see that Jesus built a magisterium that has the power to declare halakha on faith and morals, excommunicate heretics, and its institutional powers are passed on only by historical succession. Whether or not the Church experiences itself as infallible is not necessarily relevant when, using the same epistemology as Steven, all I need to argue is that the Son of God historically built an institution that can definitively teach with the power of heaven behind it through successors.
Another key takeaway is when Steven said that we can't know what binding and loosing mean, which is the same argument Ty Nienke raised in my debate against him. Despite what the historical scholarship of even top-tier Protestant New Testament historians say, it is still insisted that we do not know what Jesus meant. This kind of skepticism towards historical research is self-destructive, and, as I argued in the debate, appears to be applied selectively.
The authentic teachings of Jesus and the apostles in their historical context is that the Messiah built a Church with a magisterium. As the New Moses, He restored the courts of Israel and fulfilled Isaiah 1:26-27. The whole emphasis of my presentation is that what makes the Church infallible is God's promise and His faithfulness (as Vatican I teaches on papal infallibility), hence "whatever you bind on earth SHALL HAVE BEEN BOUND IN HEAVEN; whatever you loose on earth SHALL HAVE BEEN BOUND IN HEAVEN."
This fairer standard towards historical research on the Bible is what helped me become Catholic. Just as in the Old Testament God built the courts through Moses to definitively settle matters of dispute on the Torah, God as the Messiah made a magisterium for New Covenant halakha.
Where in the gospels does Christ identify a magisterium as the bishops of Rome? Where did He say they have infallibility?
@@Justas399 If your argument is that if Christ didn't say it, it's un-Christian then you're going to lose numerous traditional Christian doctrines.
@@don7502 if Christ didn’t teach it then there is no such thing as an infallible human being. The only one was Christ.
@@Justas399
I did a whole video and wrote a whole paper on that question
ruclips.net/video/2pvbeOQqm6g/видео.html
@@Justas399 Your argument against the infallibilty of the magesterium was that if Christ didn't say it, we can't accept it. Christ didn't say "Trinity" or "Incarnation" or "1 Corinthians" or many other things Christians accept.
If you can't handle an infallible authority in this life, how are you going to handle it in the next ?
@420rgb2 2 not even scripture?
@B looo what is total depravity?
@B looo do you agree with that?
@B looo do you believe this?
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
- Ephesians 2:1-3
@B looo that is a good definition of total depravity.
God is raising up a huge generation of converts who will defend and promote the unification of Christians under the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church. Praise the Lord! I am not an intellectual; my job is to pray and fast for God to raise up those who can do the big intellectual work! Love from India!
Steven Nemes: "Our theological knowledge is fallible." So why should we listen to him?
Suan Sonna: "People's interpretations can be fallible, but the authority of the office established by God isn't and God removes immoral men from His office, but the office stays." So far seems like Suan got a good point there and Papal office authority makes sense.
@Steven Nemes Thanks for replying. I don't see your point, would you clarify?
@@ElenaRoche 😅
@@ElenaRoche fallibility doesn't say much about probability (really it only deals with the possibility of being wrong).
But we take many things in science, history and philosophy to be true even though its possible they could be wrong.
@@callums6570 I don't take many things in science and history to be true, only those for which there is irrefutable evidence. If you do, I suggest you review what is true and what isn't, you will discover all the falsehoods you trust. Personally it bothers me how scientists misuse words possibly, might have, likely, etc. then go on as if they are 100% sure they are right only to say years later - we now know, we used to think, or new discovery uproots everything we knew about so and so.
@@callums6570 So, you are saying there is a probability Steven Nemes is wrong, but you don't know how small or big that probability is. What about the probability of Soan Sonna being wrong? He claims it's not his word on Papal authority but God's. And it's not him alone claiming it but 2000 years of Catholic scholars, saints, martyrs, and theologians. All of them vs. Steve Nemes and 500 years of Protestant reasoning.
Would've loved to hear Nemes on the offense.
Last time we saw a battle of beards (Akin vs Cooper), now we had a battle of mustaches (Sonna vs Nemes). Next time eyebrows? ;)
😂
Hahn?
Suan makes a very compelling and coherent case, but we shouldn't believe him because someone out there could theoretically come later and disprove him ... 🤔 This is not a reason to believe there's no infallible magisterium. The fact that it was used as a closing "argument" is telling.
The two books I'm most looking foward to are Erik Yabarra's on the Papacy, and Sonna's (hopefully) future book on the Papacy and it's Jewish roots :)
@@carsonianthegreat4672 Sonna is his last name
Joe Heschmeyer's book "Pope Peter" is excellent as well.
You should try The Invention of Peter by George E Demacopoulos.
Augustine never denies that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18. He merely offers a different possible interpretation; however, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Hence, his statement, "But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable."
Elsewhere Augustine clearly affirms that Peter is the Rock.
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build my church . . . " [Matt. 16:18]. The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius (36th Pope). In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found." (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" (Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 [A.D. 393])
"Peter...head of the Apostles, doorkeeper of heaven and foundation of the church." (Augustine. Ep 36)
"Why did He shed His blood? That He might gain possession of those sheep which He intrusted to Peter and to his successors." (St. John Chrysostom, AD 387)
"Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty ...even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387))
"Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe." (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)).
"Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church." (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387))
"(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ ...he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world." (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3 St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)).
"In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as entrusted by Christ with the flock ...he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren." (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix. St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387))
"He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ' 'Simon, Simon,' etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: 'Simon, Simon, etc.'" (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5 St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)).
"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387))
"Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder (frixate) at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. (1 Thess. iv. 17.) What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! (Is. xxxv. 1) what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church. (1 Cor. xv. 38.) Would that it were now given me to throw myself round (pericuqhnai) the body of Paul, and be riveted to the tomb, and to see the dust of that body that "filled up that which was lacking" after "Christ" Col. i. 24), that bore "the marks" (stigmata,) (Gal. vi. 17) that sowed the Gospel everywhere yea, the dust of that body through which he ran to and fro everywhere!" (Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans,Homily 32:24 (c.A.D. 391), in NPNF1,XI:561-562)
Origen also affirms that Peter is the Rock. “And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).
Thank you for pointing this out. I was thinking this same thing and was concerned that counter point was missed.
I noticed it too. Thanks, brother! God bless!
Im afraid your prejudice is coloring your view of Augustine. It is clearly not merely a different possible interpretation. He does in fact say that previously he said Peter was the Rock but now at a later time he changed his mind nevertheless says let the reader decide for himself (but it is clear that he in fact changed his view on the passage).
I really love Matt’s peace and respect to both debaters. And his restraint.
Very interesting debate/discussion. I wonder if there will be a debate/discussion on the eschatological views between Catholics and Protestants. Because of the emphasis of Protestant preaching on the Second Coming of Christ, I am more familiar with their views despite the fact that I am a Catholic. It's only recently that I have been learning about Catholic views of the Blessed Hope.
This is what we must do to be saved, but we can't know it infallibly ??????
From conception the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. If you read Acts 1 and if you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met.
Notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. Next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). So two of the three requirements are met.
The third requirement is that there must be a nasi (prince/temporal) and ab ( father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why?
In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the beit din gadol. However, in this new beit din which is actually a beit din gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two offices back together the way it originally was. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the prince of the apostles and the pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope is both nasi and the ab in Catholicism.
Christ appointed Peter as His steward with the keys as per Isaiah 22 vs 19-24. It doesn't mean the other apostles (successors) were/are sidelined, they had/have an equal place, Peter is just First amongst equals. In the davidic kingdoms there was always an al-bayith (steward), that is Peters role.
First book of Kings lists all the Kings and it always has the royal steward/vizier listed next to the King as well because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. (Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier and the keys are the keys of the temple and government.
Jesus instituted a new temple, reinstitute the Melchizedek priesthood in a new davidic kingdom and placed Peter as the steward and the (rock/Cepha). The Eben Shetia the foundation rock of Solomons Temple which the ark lay upon) as in the Talmud, Mishnah and Baraita - the Jews believed that this Eben Shetia rock was placed by God's hand during creation at the very spot that the holy of holies of Solomons Temple was built and from this spot the rest of creation was spread. Jesus by His hand placed the rock/Peter/Cepha in the middle of the pagan Roman Empire and from there this small “cult” destroyed paganism and installed christianity in its place by the power of Christ and it spread throughout the Roman Empire eventually becoming the State religion (a new creation).
In the Talmud it talks about the keys to the First Temple which in the midst of being destroyed the young priests took the keys up a mountain and shouted to God to forgive them for not being able to protect the Temple and they threw the keys towards the sky and a palm reached down and grabbed the keys. So the keys of the temple is not just symbolic.
Jesus knows the Second Temple will be destroyed, He has those very keys to the first Temple and He presents the keys to Peter.
"First amongst equals" is an Orthodox conception, never believed by the Catholic early fathers.
@@namapalsu2364 Of course it was believed by the Early Church Fathers. There was only ONE church when the Early Church Fathers were alive.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Then find me the designation "first amongst equal" in the early fathers.
@@namapalsu2364 In the Ravenna Document, issued in 2007, representatives of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church jointly stated that both East and West accept the bishop of Rome's primacy at the universal level, but that differences of understanding exist about how the primacy is to be exercised and about its scriptural and theological foundations.
In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, some understand the primacy of the bishop of Rome to be merely one of greater honour, regarding him as primus inter pares ("first among equals"), without effective power over other churches.
Other Orthodox Christian theologians, however, view primacy as authoritative power: the expression, manifestation and realization in one bishop of the power of all the bishops and of all the bishops and of the unity of the Church. This second view in particular is incorrect because the Catholic Church has never taught that the Pope has power over all the Bishops, it has always taught that he is equal to his brother bishops. Eastern Orthodox disagree with each other on a lot of things, and so do Catholics obviously too. But Catholics at least can say they have something to turn to that has the Final say. Orthodox don’t have that luxury. There are current schisms in Orthodoxy. If they become permanent, how do you know which side you should stick too? Which side is correct? Just a few questions to ponder.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Ravena Document is in no way binding. It's a working document. It was when the head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is the infamoys Cardinal Kasper.
What I want to look at is wheter in the fathers we get the notion of first amongst equals.
It's true that the second view is incorrect. The correct view would be that the Pope's prerogatives and power trumph all the other bishops combine.
Steven’s argument seems to reveal a need for a magisterium.
Right on. He just gave three good reasons not to believe Luther. God can choose any means for the transmission of faith. I agree. God chose the church. It's called Catholic church today. To say otherwise, the burden of proof is on them of a new commissioning. He talked about Moses, judges etc.. You see the hand of God in those transition. I don't see that in Luther.
That 7 part series from Suan is definitely worth the $10 a month price. Check it out!
Where do we get that? I'm looking for it and can't find it.
@@trying-to-learn Google matt fradd and patreon
@@shlamallama6433 just Matt Fradd, Matt Fradd & Team, or Pints with Aquinas. there are three separate Patreons.
@@trying-to-learn Matt Fradd and team, sorry for the late response.
@@shlamallama6433 im a protestant looking into Catholicism, I find catholic arguments very sound 💯.
I see you're talking about a 7part series from Suan, I would love to watch or read however it's presented, did you ever find what you're looking for,and can you share with me how exactly I can find it?
There is a reason why I left Protestantism: Steven’s case is incredibly relative. If we could be possibly damned to hell for a false interpretation and God has provided no means of keeping that interpretative structure necessary for salvation safe, I would have no reason to trust that the NT was inspired by God to begin with. It seems God is not entirely concerned with the salvation of souls if the Protestant case is correct. Rather it looks to be a man made religion. I’d simply be an atheist.
What happens when the pope starts blessing same-sex relationships?
Is Dr. Nemes implying that literally nothing can be known? He should also realize this destroys Sola Scriptura.
This Protestant is a theological, and epistemological skeptic. He doesn't and actually can't truly have genuine knowledge about anything in light of his own philosophical assertions. Makes for a hard to watch debate because he's so slippery that's its difficult to get any traction intellectually.
Which makes sense because he has to find some way to avoid converting to Christianity, at least someway he can pretend in his mind is reasonable.
His point is that the same epistemological issues that catholics like to hurl at Protestants actually applies to them as well. If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that he said as an argument that the Gospel is actually easily able to be understood through our God given faculties. You clearly didn’t understand his argument
There is a real power to the experience that Steven is speaking of: to take and read the Scriptures and to be able to gain deep, life-changing insights that can help to bring a soul to believe and experience an interior conversion of heart. Let no one diminish that reality, which has been the beginning for countless souls to move to believe and live a life on fire for Christ. That fire if properly kindled leads a sincere soul to want to love and please God. Christ said “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” “God is not the author of confusion but of peace as in all the Churches of the saints.” We who want to know the truth are promised by Christ that we can know it (Jn8:32). And we are instructed how. Ask to receive--Knock for it to be opened. We must never grow complacent but continue to knock, ask, and seek. To beg of God for that light. When we continue to ask, He will continue to keep His promise to lead us into all truth.
“He who hears you hears me.” What is that foundation that Christ has given so that we may know the truth? These books of the Bible compiled together centuries later by fallible men who claimed God’s authority say that the final authority is not these books, though they are incredibly profitable, but these books of the Bible say the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church (1 Tim 3:15).
We cannot escape this reality. While not all have the benefit of the amount of knowledge of the truth as others, once it is made known to us, we have then the obligation to act. When Christ comes to us and asks, we have the duty to respond. We do not want to be caught as the women without oil in our lamps when He comes. We must respond to this invitation and enter the one Church that Christ has founded with the fullness of spiritual resources and benefits, the power of the holy sacraments that nourished the lives of the Saints like Augustine and Francis as mentioned, and to enter the fullness of communion with God here and now. Life is too short to put off this call. When is the best time to respond? I invite you if you read this and you have not yet answered the call to sincerely consider today to enter Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
This 🙌
Dr. Nemes is the Magnum PI of theology. The mustache!! Awesome.
If Magnum PI was wrong about what he believed, then yes 👍🏼
I do disagree with Dr Nemes, but I think it's refreshing to hear "I don't know" as opposed to hastily formulated ad hoc justifications and sophistry to avoid losing a debate. My impression is that he is intellectually honest from this appearance.
@@danieljoyce6199agreed
I agree with Patrick Madrid's comments that I heard him say when he debated James White... one, that the reformation (in his opinion) was pure anarchy at best, and two, no matter what formidable argument that you put together for Catholicism (clearly as Mr. Sonna has accomplished here), and even the amount of evidence that I bring forth with my Protestant wife (as another example)... questioning the validity of Protestant's beliefs... it does not make a dent to persuade them. Because, as Mr. Madrid stated, these type of Protestants simply will not or do not want to admit that their interpretation of the bible and the faith are in fact wrong. For example, Dr. Nemes agrees with just about most of the evidence that Mr. Sonna has introduced here but that makes no difference to him- he does not see it. The Catholic church today has many - heavy hitting- Protestant converts- Dr. Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Trent Horn, etc. If I were a Protestant, it seems obvious and begs the question as to "...how did these strong Protestants became Catholic if Protestantism is the true faith? It is very unsettling. But as Trent Horn stated before... these presentations are not meant to change the minds of those participating as much as it may help others who are listening that their hearts may be opened to the fullness of truth- and the truth is Catholicism.
As a Protestant who was relatively anti-Catholic 4 months ago, you have to take small steps. The papacy is totally crazy at first, but rejecting sola scriptura isn't nor is rejecting sola fide. Most protestants basically agree with the Catholics on tradition and salvation but have been warped into resisting it. You have to really get over that initial hump and everything else starts to make a ton of sense all at once
I pray you've helped your wife understand since writing this comment last year. God bless
I don't have a denomination and I don't know if I ever will, but I am looking forward to learning about every Christian's beliefs.
I'm a Christian and I don't consider myself as belonging to a certain denomination...I think it's silly. Are you a Christian?
Before Jesus left this earthly dwelling place he gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter and created his Church. He vowed to be with it until the end of days so that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Did he forget his promise and forsake it? Despite being full of sinners it has survived for 2000 years as one church, one head, one Bible and one catechism. What he didn't want was a few fallible theologians to come along 1500 years later, show contempt for various books of Scripture and create another church that would disintegrate into 10s of thousands of denominations inventing or arguing over various doctrines and how to interpret them.
Have you looked into Eastern Orthodoxy ?
"Only the Church has the Charism of Truth"- Saint Ignatius of Antioch.
Did Ignatios of Antioch really write that? I haven’t read his epistles in ages.
My old pastor used to complain about his epistles (and some of the other early church fathers) not being included in the New Testament canon, acknowledging that the only real reason why they aren’t is that they were eyewitnesses to Christ Himself.
@@GuadalupePicasso not really it's a quote from the hbo series the Young Pope. I was hoping someone would get it. Saint Ignatius more or less had a whole chapter in his epistle to the Smyrneans, where he says to do nothing without the bishops.
@@SirMemesAlot71 “not really......” either St Ignatios of Antioch wrote this or he didn’t. Based on a quick Google search, he didn’t.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve had a great love for St Ignatios of Antioch for many years now (he’s the patron saint of my hometown church), and his writings of the Eucharist, the faith, church hierarchy are amazing; but, so far as I can tell, he didn’t write this (not that I think that he would disagree with it).
cocamojoe that was a typo. I meant “it’s not really a quote”
cocamojoe it’s just a reference from a show I like.
I think Suan is correct in putting faith in the magisterium. When I read statements from Jesus like Luke 12:12 where Jesus says the Holy Spirit will teach them what to say in real time. I have to believe Jesus would do the same for the church he founded. If he can't or won't then I think that would mean we are orphaned. And Jesus said in John 14:18. He wouldn't leave us orphaned. I know he was speaking to Apostles here but he never specifically said this only applied to the Apostles.
Clicks on a video about the magisterium, gets ad about the Book of Mormon.
Loved the civility.
A lot of protestants object against Catholicsm arguing that the teachings are man-made, adding up to what's on the bible, and so on. In reality though, whether they realize it or not, they also have their own authorities. How could one make sense of the bible when there are literally hundreds of different ways to interpret the same bible verse? An easy example is the verse on divorce. Different protestants churches have their own version of the teachings all the way from where it's simply "not encourage" to the stricter "it's not allowed at all". Would a perfect and most holy God really will people to have their own ways with regards to divorce, though? I don't think so.. While lots of protestants reject the central authority of the church, at the end of the day they really are their own authority. They reject a single Catholic Pope, but in reality they have thousands of "popes" -- themselves.
Interesting that you bring divorce. I am now discerning what church to be a part of and I was talking with my calvinist friend, who pointed out that God allowed divorce in the Old Testament. Israel were the people of God, yet He allowed them to have multiple wives ect. Maybe he didn't want to make all this divorce stuff clear in every respect? Even in the New Testament? At first I didnt find this probable, but the more I think about it, there is less of opposition in me. Catholics disagree about other moral stuff like lying in some circumstances, adopting frozen ebrios, etc. It all boils down to this: Does this objection really refute protestant worldview? If not, lets leave it aside and go to the more substancial stuff. God bless!
@@ScrabsPL Jesus and Paul are very clear that divorce and remarriage is sin.
@@Justas399 Yes, I think a good case can be made for what you are saying, but one could argue about passages in the Gospel of Matthew (5:32, 19:9), where it seems that Jesus is making an exeption to His teaching. I dont say that it convinces me. What Im saying is that I see how one could end up with position different from that of Catholic Church. And because there is a dispute in protestant circles, it does not follow that whole protestant worldview is incorrect. I hope that it makes a bit of sense, Im willing to hear someone correcting me. God bless
@@ScrabsPL Matthew 5:32 But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
Matthew 19:9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
@@ScrabsPL your disagreement with others on the issue of divorce just proves the point that there are thousands of ways to interpret the bible. The Catholic tradition of interpretation can be traced back to the early church and the apostles while Protestants are at most a few hundred years old
Steven’s argument can apply to everything! We can’t be sure about anything, even Steven’s own argument.
Exactly, and that’s the point. If an argument can be turned right back on the one bringing it, then it’s a failed argument. Catholics are subject to the same epistemological darts that they throw at Protestants, they just don’t realize it.
I appreciated the humility of both speakers.
Wow. These two. If I'll have to give the best example of a charitable dialogue, this is it.
Nemes' method of argumentation is "well my completely self refuting metaphysics says certainty isn't even real so there"
Suan 🤘🏽
Catholic guy won this one. Steven seems like a nice. Respectable guy hope he becomes. Catholic one day
“I’m willing to grant Suan everything he says.” - 1:10:00 ish
Oof.
Both debaters are reasonably fashionable. 👏 Much improvement from the academics of previous decades
Too much relativism/fallibilism/skepticism and egocentrism in Nemes position to convince anyone to be Christian. Sonna rightly points out Nemes selective appeals to Church history and tradition and Nemes's belief in God to be not good and caring enough to give us certainty. Nemes is at least more blunt and consistent than many Protestants.
There is no question that Suan won this debate hands down. When your opponent responds with "I don't know" to many of your questions then you know it's all over.
Or the questions posed were not good? Saying "I dont know" doesnt signify defeat. It just means HE doesnt know. It doesnt mean the knowlege of an answer doesnt exist.
Suan: "I don't want to Dominate"
Me: "Too late 🤯"
Someone in the chat said no church father ever applied John 21 to St. Peter. They obviously haven't read St. John Chrysostom's homily on John 21!
This was a total win for Suan Sonna. Literally most of this debate is just Steve saying "idk" or "that's a possible interpretation" whenever he's pressed by Suan with evidence and all that. It's so bad
Epic debate? Steven was way out of his depth. His knowledge of church OT history and writings of the early church fathers like most Protestant theologians was primitive compared to Suan. As former Anglican minister, John Henry Newman rightly said "to be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant".⛪☦️
1:27 is so frustrating! "Well, if you just read the text like random Joe Lunchbucket down the street, you assume x". Does he not see that HE is assuming that's what the Scriptures are for?
I like Steve and he’s obviously a great thinker, but he’s wrong or at least a bit too skeptical.
One wrong step with epistemological presuppositions and you can end up very far afield.
How do you know he’s too skeptical? Who revealed this truth to you, or did you arrive at it on your own? Could you be wrong?
Stevens point was actually not that of skepticism as he made know the idea that the Gospel is actually very simple and able to be received with our God given faculties. His skeptical argument was to show that catholics are subject to the same epistemological issues that they think only applies to Protestants
@@TKK0812 yes, I could be wrong. And no, Catholics do not share the same epistemological status as Protestants. That’s basically obviously false. Think about it. But that point doesn’t matter anyway and has little to do with arguments Suan has made here. Take care.
@@defeatingdefeaters Telling me to "think about it" is not an argument. How do you know you interpret the church fathers correctly? How do you know they were without error in passing on traditions? How do you know that God definitely kept traditions from being corrupted along the way and that they aren't just man made? How do you know that the word for traditions "paradoseis" actually means what you think it means?
The point is, is that we all presuppose God for knowledge and we all rely on His providence and giving of our faculties to comprehend truth. The Gospel is simple.
@@TKK0812 I am not sure what you mean when you say “we all presuppose God.” That seems to me to be a controversial philosophical claim. You also seem to think the relevant Catholic claim entails knowledge being accompanied by psychological certainty. I’m Catholic and I don’t hold that view. Anyhoo, I’m not interested in having this conversation with you right now. I’ll simply say that the reasons for Catholic belief, according to me, are sufficient and IMO superior to competing Christian claims. Yea, I’ll not marshal an argument to establish the claim. That would require a bit of work and I don’t have time. Best of providence. 👍🏽
Man... Suan outperformed Dr. Nemes.
Can we get a debate on Catholicism vs Buddhist perspectives on Metaphysics or maybe suffering? There is not enough Eastern vs Western perspectives in this realm.
I agree! From what I know about buddhism, it's hard to get any distinctions and make sense out of it, imo
@@Roxasguy13 I tend to agree with you as someone who comes from a more western rational perspective....but I think it's worth trying. They're plenty of intelligent Buddhist scholars whom I'm sure could elucidate complicated topics like "Interdependent Being" and "No Self." I'd be fascinated to see what a Catholic thinker would think of these concepts.
@@Roxasguy13 alot of what you're referring to in terms of "distinctions" is the Buddhist Non-Realism in their religion. Very similar to how it's difficult to discuss questions of Faith and Reason with Fideists...Buddhist views on realism and rationality tend to flip the whole thing on its head.
@@kiwicoproductions2828 Yea, I won't deny that there are buddhist scholars and such. 'Interdependent being' is something I have to look up later. As for 'no self', I get how some people can see that as virtuous but going so far as to annihilate all your desires but this seems impossible to anyone and everyone. Along with buddhists teaching that everyone having no soul despite rebirth being a thing too. The more I try to understand the quasi-religion, the more confusing it gets 😭
@@Roxasguy13 Totally understand your confusion. Alan Peto and Doug's Dharma on youtube are two sources for you if you want to understand more of the doctrines. Personally, despite being a traditional Catholic, I'm fascinated by Eastern Religions. Not that I plan on converting...perhaps I'm playing with fire studying them....but my analytic brain can't help it. Anyway, they elucidate on these ideas of no self, and basically, they deny the annihilation or nihilism you alluded to (which I get it, it certainly seems like that on the surface). And their view of "rebirth" has many interpretations but technically speaking I don't think they hold to you literally being reborn like your soul goes into a new body or creature...it's more like the composite parts that make you up will basically become something else someday...like your material parts could someday be what make up a Bug, or a new person or a tree etc. anway. let's keep bothering Fradd to have a debate!!! haha message me anytime
Thx chaps.
Is this your dear leader?
Pope Francis has addressed criticism over his consent to priests to bless same-sex couples, saying the pushback from African bishops was “a special case” influenced by culture.
The Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM), an association of Catholic bishops on the continent had opposed the pope’s decision to approve nonliturgical blessings for gay couples, describing such blessings as inappropriate.
But in an interview with Italian newspaper La Stampa, published Monday, Francis said critics of his declaration “belong to small ideological groups” except Africans whom he said were “a separate case” because “for them, homosexuality is something ‘bad’ from a cultural point of view (and) they don’t tolerate it.”
I agree Nemes didn't seem well prepared for this but I appreciate his honesty and humility about the topic. I'm also a protestant and still am not convinced of the Catholic arguments.
This was a great debate on rabbinic Judaism. In all seriousness, Protestants don't seem to understand that God's relationship with the Church is unlike His relationship with Israel. God entered into a covenantal relationship with Israel that was conditional. He enters into a new covenantal relationship with us through His Church, which is His body. The Spirit doesn't interact with the Church; He indwells it. So while any individual might fall into error, the Church itself cannot.
Also, I'm amazed that Korah's rebellion wasn't raised during the debate. God raised the earth to swallow those that rejected Moses' annointed authority. Why now in the new covenant does His body have less authority?
The church can indeed fall into error and the apostles warn about it:
"But false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves. 2 And many will follow their debauched lifestyles. Because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation pronounced long ago is not sitting idly by; their destruction is not asleep." 2 Peter 2:1-3
"28 Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. 29 I know that after I am gone fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Even from among your own group men will arise, teaching perversions of the truth to draw the disciples away after them." Acts 20
We see this in some of the doctrines of the RCC and how some of the leaders live in luxury.
@@Justas399 the false prophets are outside of the Church. They're Simon Magus.
@@al-bosniak2580 they are also inside the church as Peter and Paul tell us.
@@Justas399 A key distinction is that they do not remain in the Church but they draw disciples away from it to follow those teachers instead. These are the same people that are warned about who cause schisms and draw followers after themselves. Look at the early Church history. It's full of these groups that opposed the successors to the Apostles and who drew followers away to believe all sorts heresies. Arianism was dealt with later in 325 AD at Nicea, which was still 70 years before the Catholic Church put together the first New Testament canon.
@@Justas399 If we are to believe that immediately after the death of the last Apostle that the Church everywhere universally started believing strange doctrines because of these wolves and that all the key hand picked people that the Apostles left in charge all universally started lying and saying that the Apostles taught them things they did not teach and then these same people would then be persecuted and go on to become martyrs for those same teachings, then not only would Christ's Apostles have been utter failures but Christ himself would have been made a liar when he said he promised to be with his church all days even until the end of the world. His church would have ceased to have been visible or even in existence for what 1500 years until a rebel priest found some hidden secret interpretation of books of the Bible that that same "corrupted" Church itself canonized 350 years after Christ but not before he excised from its contents 7 books that were there from the beginning. So many more problems with this historical understanding. Logically, historically protestantism simply does not follow. It's Catholic or nothing.
i think Stevens, was Troubling answering the Arguments of SUAN, of coursed he's a Protestant and maintained opposing to his opponent
So, in conclusion, we cannot know anything at all
Indeed.
Suan, you did an amazing job. Dr. Nemes seems like a nice guy. But unfortunately, his thinking exposes why protestantism eventually leads to skepticism, liberalism, and ultimately indifferentism.
Is the Pope part of the Magisterium? Or is the Magisterium a separate body that exists without the Pope? Sorry for the dumb question I need a beginner's guide.
Dr Nemes has impeccable style
Take the hermeneutical argument to its logical conclusion and nothing can be believed independently of personal experience, which suggests that Jesus cannot even be known; let alone infallible.
Sorry, i couldn't finish the whole thing. Lots of eisegesis on all parts and no offense but the lack of preparedness or knowledge by the protestant counter part contributed to the debate appearing to be won by Suan. But again maybe in the last 30 minutes Dr. Nemes stepped up. There are several things i'd have done differently. First, one of Matt's questions right around this time was about the magesterium; 'what if' God set it up this way. Or that we can know 'without a doubt'....Well, if thats the case when is Rome gonna start doing this? Seems to be a lot of doubt in the rcc today huh? How many verses have been 'infallibly' defined in 2000 years (allegedly)?
I didn't buy into any of Suan's arguments regarding a n.t. magesterium or apostolic succession. Heres why.
Eph 4:11-13
11 *And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,* 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. NASB
We have this list. I don't see pope in here, or magesterium. But look at what those in this list are to do;
Equip the saints (all believers)
Work of service
Build up the body of Christ
God uses these people in those various positions 'until we all attain to the unity of the faith....' The very thing catholics argue for the magesterium. Except Paul never mentions a magesterium.
2 Tim 2:15-16
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, *handling accurately the word of truth.* NASB
Regardless of your position, 2 Tim 2:15 is part of the God breathed scripture. And its clear that the word of truth can be handled accurately. And Paul is not addressing any magesterium but Timothy whom he calls a 'workman'. The greek word simply means a worker, a laborer...i.e. one of the guys. No infallibility needed.
As far as apostolic succession goes, it certainly can include people but by and far its teaching. Jesus commanded the disciples to Go and make disciples 'teaching' them to obey....Paul tells Timothy in 2 Tim 2:2 to pass along what, a list of people? No, teaching.
2 Tim 2:2
2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. NASB
So its not simply a list of people. And if those people do not teach according to scripture then they aren't successors are they? And they certainly can't 'bind or loose' nor do they hold the keys. If your teaching is contrary to scripture you aren't apostolic. And the teachings of the rcc are decidedly not biblical.
So basically you don't buy into any of his arguments because you are a fundie that is not willing to be honest enough to actually engage them.
@@thepalegalilean Maybe you need to lift your eyes and read the post you responded to. Let me know what you disagree with.
Prophets are infallible, but what infallible mechanism does anyone have to know which prophet is or is not a false one?
The first 2 minutes of this video are just an advertisement for how much alcohol the mug can hold
Nemes is not a protestant, he is an anabaptists, and anabaptists are nor protestants.
Steven argued well. Suan argued even better though it didn't seem to be more than eisegesis of passages. In the end, there seems to be no way to know if the magisterium is infallible because all Suans points are hotly contested by many and for good reasons (not that Suan is wrong either though, I just don't think it can be known). It would seem that a good way to go would be to accept Suans interpretations because that is what the magisterium teaches, but believing magisterial infallibility to accept what it says about its own infallibility seems rather circular, afterall this is the thing that needs to be proven. In the end I end up in the same spot again. No way of knowing whether the magisterium is infallible or not. It would seem I have to take a leap of faith to accept the magisterium but I already did that when I decided to believe in God and accept Jesus etc (Afterall you need to start somewhere). I see no reason to take another leap of faith especially since this leap would involve a leap of faith that does not seem to be required. There was only one leap of faith that the apostles talked about not two. This is my dilemma and this is why Catholicism isn't convincing for me. Though some may see Stevens arguments as slippery, I actually saw them to be very weighty. I think rather than destroying Suan, Steven tactfully exposed a major issue and may I say, with a lot of style. That being said, I love my catholic brothers and sisters, I hope we can have more discussions like this, there's no reason why we can't all unify one day.
Suan is the best...
Paul saw, even in his own day, the descent into error. (Acts 20)
He told the Corinthians "But the natural man does not receive
the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him;
nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
What was the difference between the Peter that abandoned Jesus
to the Romans and hid fearfully in the shadows of the crucifixion,
the stinging of a guilty conscience on the shores of Galilee;
- and the Peter that stood up on Pentecost and called all Jerusalem
to repentance, then challenged the Sanhedrin without a hint of hesitation?
What? Some forgotten robe of spoken authority by Jesus months before?
Some reiteration of an ancient Jewish priestly tradition?
No! It was this new indwelling Holy Spirit of God!
Paul told the Roman church "Now if anyone
does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Suan dominates is an understatement. He's a cerebral assassin 😎
So the Catholic conclusion is that everything issues by the Pharisees and Sadducees is infallible and we should be reading and studying their works? Rofl
Have you read Mathew 23 where Jesus repeats the same?
so glad that dude escaped the lies of the RCC
The Christian Halakha ... I like this concept introduced by Suan.
I'd like to read an intro, something kind of smallish because I don't have a lot of free time, on some of the things Suan was saying about, I can't remember exactly, I think it was on Mat 18 and binding and loosing as it relates to old testament Judaism. Any suggestions?
When it comes to the Matthew 23, I think Catholics need to respond with the words attributed to Pseudo Chrysostom in Thomas’s Catena. That is, the Scribes and the Pharisees preached Christ in a hidden way, for their ministry was the shadow, and yet they did not observe the reality. Thus, the Scribes and the Pharisees told the people to observe the Sabbath. But, in teaching they themselves did not observe it. Because Christ is the Sabbath, whom they rejected. (“Come to Me and I’ll give you rest”) So the Pharisees observed the Sabbath according to sign, but Jesus was telling the people to observe according to reality. For Scripture is polyvalent. So the Pharisees were earthly minded and didn’t preach the soul of the Scriptures. But the Church is heavenly minded, “seated with Him in the heavenlies.” Thus, it naturally follows, “call no man ON EARTH your father.” But, of the spiritual, “I became a father to you.” Both the earthly man (Pharisees) and the heavenly man (Church) preach the same thing, namely, the word of God. But the Church, unlike the Scribes and Pharisees, observe and do what is commanded and penetrate to the soul since “we have the mind of Christ.” This is the only really logical argument I have found on Matthew 23 that doesn’t lead to a contradiction. Thus, it doesn’t harm the argument against the Papacy since the Papacy is the Church Magisterium.
Does Suan have an email address? I have question about one of the books in his background.
What would you like to know? - Suan :)
@@intellectualcatholicism I would like to ask what books you recommend on solidifying Jesus as the Messiah as opposed to what the Jews think? Thanks a bunch Suan
@@intellectualcatholicism It was a pleasure watching this debate (and many others of yours)! I was myself curious what the Loeb editions you have on the middle right shelf are :)
I feel Steven basically denied certainty in most things in how to interpret scriptures. The bottom line message one can interpret scriptures any way he or she feels like it, especially when we begin to speculate the mindsets of biblical figures at the times of the events while leaving the boarder logic in the historical and social context at the times. I hardly doubt “anyway you want” method is what Jesus intends.
Wow great stuff i like it
Can we stop getting heretics to debate Catholics on behalf of all Protestants
Wow!
You have to really appreciate the fact Dr. Nemes sit there for 45 minutes and let Suan try to cook him. Dr. Nemes handle the whole thing with a lot of class and gave a different argument than most would. Great debate from both men!
My biggest problem is it undercuts any epistemological certainty
Did Matt say "patreon saint"?
Matt said "Patron Saint" which is "one who has been assigned by a venerable tradition, or chosen by election, as a special intercessor with God and the proper advocate of a particular locality, and is honoured by clergy and people with a special form of religious observance." (Catholic Encyclopedia www.newadvent.org/cathen/11562a.htm)
Maybe someday Matt will become the patron saint of crowdfunding
If you have to make 10 arguments to try to establish your position, then you are engaging in argumentum ad infinitum, and chances are that none of the arguments are actually sound.
Can you demonstrate that ANY of your arguments are actually sound arguments?
Susan's debate skills won this one.
22:13
RCC: Do you believe that Jesus was (always) infallible?
P: I believe so?
Me: so wouldn't that demand that his every thought, deed, premonition, vision, inspiration was infallible? Ergo, wouldnt that deny the fact that Jesus was fully human, as well as divine.
Me: what did it mean to say "he grew in wisdom and knowledge"? So why is nothing recorded about his preaching until he was in his 30s?
P. ? Not sure, haven't thought about it, I think so, that sounds about right!
Me: Being infallible would imply that he knew every word or event in his future and that his life was merely a charade, (laid out like a movie script).
Conclusion: this guy may know his Goto Pauline sola verses but has learnt little about what the early church fathers preached to an illiterate world. Perhaps because the whole reformation hinges on Sola Scriptura and thus need to deny a Divinely instituted authoritive teaching magesterium.
*Conclusion: this guy may know his Goto Pauline sola verses but has learnt little about what the early church fathers preached to an illiterate world.*
Maybe because church fathers aren't the standard by which we test things?
*Perhaps because the whole reformation hinges on Sola Scriptura*
Thats an extreme over simplification of the reformation don'tcha think?
I’ve greatly enjoyed this highly educational video, but my mind won’t stop laughing at the idea that the Roman Church is like the Sanhedrin & Pharisees from the New Testament. Out of all the arguments for the Roman Catholic Church this argument that their just like & the descendants of the bad guys from the New Testament that rejected & crucified Jesus is probably the funniest that I’ve heard. Like as a Protestant how exactly would you expect me to have a problem with that? But it’s a good video & educational, I just thought that was funny.
You won't be laughing when you realize David didn't protest when Saul went haywire, he still submitted to Saul so submit to RCC because of the seat of St Peter.
@@koppite9600 um you need to read 1 Samuel again because David definitely protested Saul’s persecution of him, David even wrote psalms about it. He protested when he cut Saul’s robe in the cave and again when he snuck into Saul’s camp and took Saul’s spear. David protested a lot that Saul’s persecution was unjust. David left it up to God to be the judge and God killed Saul and established David. So I do agree with your analogy that Saul represents the RCC and that means David represents the Christians of the Reformation.
@@ameribeaner coming along fine.
Saul is the immoral leader of the Catholic church and God will remove him in his own time, meanwhile we have David to show us we should persevere and not go build someplace else like Martin Luther, come home God will remove Saul.
@@koppite9600 yes and just as Saul persecuted David not because David declared himself king and was setting up a new royal line but because of Saul’s own immoral nature being revealed by David’s moral fortitude so to did the RCC persecute Martin Luther not because he wanted to create a new church but because Martin’s reformations revealed the RCC’s immoral and heretical beliefs. And just as David was established by God and then created a new capital, Jerusalem, so to did God establish Martin Luther and a new Church, based on the infallible Word of God, that has spread over the world.
@@ameribeaner now convince yourself that after 1500 years, Martin Luther was chosen by God to start a new church.
Before Martin Luther died there were already many factions of Protestantism, clearly his house was not built on The Rock.
Our analogy should've brought you to the Catholic church and radicalized you to be faithful amidst all immorality rocking the Ark.
David picked up from Saul he didn't create a different house.
Let's compare Martin and David amidst their persecution.
David remained and submitted to Saul while Martin Luther failed to do the same to The Pope, should we be David or Martin Luther?
The truest thing Dr. Nemes said was in his opening statement “I’m going to be defending myself and why I didn’t become a Catholic.”
That’s one of the most honest statements I’ve heard from any Protestant trying to argue against an element of the Christian faith.
I will pray for him because his lack of understanding of God‘s plan shouldn’t lead him to live his life in such heretical error, separated from God‘s one true Church. The heresy defined by a vicar of Christ as “Americanism“ has enraptured millions of people who otherwise might be (many of them at least) disposed to becoming Christians. Because the heresy has gained such power in a mostly protestant nation they’ve been led to then believe they are correct, without error and represent a true faith. When the 21st-century versions of Protestantism we seem most popular nowadays, non-denominationalism, is SO far separated from the true original Christian faith and it’s practice, but so far away from Luther in the original revolutionaries! Luther wouldn’t consider these people heretics for their lack of belief in the Christian faith. It is so so sad. And I say that as someone who was raised in the protestant heresy and by the grace of God he called me home.
I think he’d make a great Catholic.
Come home Dr. Nemes, Christ is waiting for you.🙏🏼
SONNA: Here is an unbelievably detailed historical & theological explanation of the magisterium, how God has used it and evidence Christ kept the framework of the original covenant as promised in the Word of God (Comprised of holy scripture work the church canonizes and the holy church herself in her sacred tradition).
NEMES: We can’t really know anything because it’s all interpretation.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 either you know that that is a dishonest (mis)representation of what Nemes actually said and prefer to intentionally exaggerate for rhetorical effect, or you're too stupid to figure out that it's a misrepresentation. Probably a combination of both in varying degres.
This is mostly a beside, and please correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t it true that Moses (probably) didn’t exist according to modern scholarship?
I've read that in passing, especially when I was gathering the High Court's existence from Moses to Jesus 12-1400 years. I haven't studied enough to have a definite opinion on the scholarship itself. Some, I hear, believe Moses was a conglomeration of various revolutionary figures into one man. Although, research into the presence of Jews in ancient Egypt is highly controversial, because some worry that such a finding would legitimate the state of Israel.
@@intellectualcatholicism I would be very okay with legitimizing the state of Israel, personally. Thanks for your reply!
@@intellectualcatholicism Moses' existed irrelevant to Israel being a country.
@@mr.molina8008 How so? Do you know why people have made that claim?
Anytime someone says "I have 10 arguments for this," you can be assured that they are all garbage.
One sound argument is better than 10 nonsense ones. Unfortunately, Roman apologists can't come up with a sound argument for their key positions, so we get things like this.
Aside from the fact that Suan cooked Steven
@@aydentrevaskis8390 writes "Aside from the fact that Suan cooked Steven."
Only someone who knows little-to-nothing about philosophy and philosophical dialogue would make such a statement. Suan is a philosophical neophyte who doesn't respond to, blocks, and perhaps doesn't even understand the fundamental philosophical objections to his arguments. With time and work he may mature into a person who contributes meaningfully to these issues. We can hope and pray.
Nemes holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Theology, a Masters of Divinity, and a BA in philosophy and religious studies, and is a professor who teaches philosophy, Greek, Latin and humanities at the university level. These two men are at entirely different levels with respect to scholarship and philosophical/theological precision.
@@philoalethia I’m currently writing an article on the magisterium right now and can send it to you when I’m finished. However, the fact that you are attacking Suan’s philosophical grounds highlights that you are only considering the debate from Nemes’s POV, as that’s his argument, and the uncertainty and ambiguity of Scripture wasn’t even something that Suan wanted to argue.
Also, Nemes’s argument demolishes any epistemological basis for belief, aside from personal interpretation, which is a huge indicator that a position is flawed. I’m watching a movie with my family now though, so I’ll respond to whatever else you have to say later. Also, Nemes isn’t even an orthodox Christian, he’s a binitarian, so that just goes to show how flawed Nemes’s theology becomes when it ends up resorting to personal interpretation as a final authority.
@@aydentrevaskis8390 writes: " the fact that you are attacking Suan’s philosophical grounds ...."
Let's stop right there. I didn't "attack" anyone. I truthfully pointed out Suan's (lack of) expertise and how it compares to Nemes' in response to your claim that Suan "cooked" Nemes. Having routinely engaged (both physically and philosophically) with amateurs, I am quite familiar with how it looks when a professional gently engages an amateur, and that is what I discern in the engagement between Sonna and Nemes.
"you are only considering the debate from Nemes’s POV,"
No, I'm not.
"Nemes’s argument demolishes any epistemological basis for belief,"
No, it doesn't. If it "demolishes" anything, it demolishes assertions regarding infallibility. Infallibility is not necessary for belief.
You aren't doing well so far. If I need to respond to almost every one of your statements with "no, that isn't true," then things are probably not going to proceed well.
"Nemes isn’t even an orthodox Christian, he’s a binitarian"
That is irrelevant to the discussion and your "cooked" claim. If we are going to be making such appeals, let us also not that Nemes is also a phenomenologist, which was the specialty of Pope John II.
"that just goes to show how flawed Nemes’s theology becomes when it ends up resorting to personal interpretation"
Everyone engages in personal interpretation. There is no escaping this. Welcome to phenomenology. The problem is that some are delusional and believe that they are not engaging in interpretation. It is a problem.
@@philoalethia oh, in addition to what I said before, Nemes recognizes that things can’t be known infallibly, and so even concedes to my point in a paper he wrote titled “against infallibility”
Nemes: "I dont know...I dont know...I dont know...." what kind of "dr" is this man who does not know anything....good grief....
Either Fuller made a mistake in giving the PhD to mr Nemes, OR mr Nemes needs to be seriously evaluated.
Sonna missed many slam dunks that could have made his opponents arguments obviously stupid. Like when Steven said that the bible is clear and we don't need any official interpretation. That was an incredibly dumb argument.
I do believe that was an argument comming from a person who believes in the free will of a person, and his ability to discern for himself, as far as I understood dr Nemes spoke about the core meaning of the gospel in the same way.
I actually totally agree. I sometimes worry about coming off too aggressive, but I could have really dug deeper on some cross examination questions.
@@intellectualcatholicism otherwise you did a great job. Keep up the good work!
Thanks!
Protestant gets owned with facts and logic proceeds to argue that his evidence is invalid because he doesn't understand them...
"Dr. Steven Nemes has a PhD inTheology"= "I dont know...."
Suan’s interpretation of the “binding and loosing” passages strikes me as very implausible. It seems to me that Jesus is revealing to his disciples that, once he is the king of Israel after the son of man comes, they will serve alongside him as judges of Israel. When he says that whatever they bind “will have been bound in Heaven”, this is probably just a way of saying that, as future judges, their earthly judgements will be upheld in the coming kingdom. This is why they are in a position to settle disputes between members of the church.
This does not imply that such authority could be shared by future successors. Insofar as the authority to bind and loose derives from their future role as judges of Israel, the disciples are in no position to pass this authority on to others. Indeed, this is a perfectly natural reflection of the fact that Jesus anticipated the imminent arrival of the Son of Man. There would be no need for authoritative successors on his apocalyptic timeline.
Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that this authority extended to matters of theological doctrine. As the context of Matthew 18 makes clear, the earthly role of the disciples primarily concerns the settling of disputes between members of the church. Indeed, insofar as their authority derives from their future role as judges of Israel, the earthly authority that this future role secures cannot extend beyond the judicial. This is also supported by the parallel between Jesus’s divestment of authority to his disciples and Moses’s divestment of his legal authority to lower courts.
It is no coincidence that Jesus reveals Peter’s authority to bind and loose after Peter recognizes him as the messiah. This promise only makes sense in light of Jesus’s apocalyptic vision and his messianic role within it. Suan’s claims neglect this context. Jesus was not interested in establishing successive authority because he did not believe successors would arrive. He was not concerned with doctrinal infallibility because his disciples were going to be future judges. The Catholic portrayal of early Christian authority misrepresents these points and, consequently, tears Jesus away from his historical mission.
Why would Jesus found his church through future judges? Because his mission was to promote true adherence to the laws of Moses in preparation for the coming judgement. The foundation of such a community could only be figures capable of teaching and applying the law as Jesus understood it.
First, I will recommend my written version of my opening statement with all of the citations included: www.academia.edu/49351757/The_Biblical_Case_for_an_Infallible_Magisterium
Second, I think it would be worth specifying that this is not just "my" interpretation.
Third, rather than answering point by point, let me ask:
1. As you know, Christians even during the time of Jesus were aware of claims that He would be returning soon. Although, it seems as if the proper approach, even based on the words of Jesus (Matthew 24:36), is that no one knows when Jesus will return and therefore one ought not become idle lest they face judgment when He returns like a thief in the night (Luke 12:42-48; 1 Thess. 5:2). Why do you then further insist upon an imminent eschaton?
2. Do you accept that the power to bind and loose can be passed through the laying on of hands? And, do you accept that this was practiced in the New Testament period onwards?
3. How do you then handle 1 Clement's testimony that Jesus told the apostles to establish and protect the office of bishop through successors? That seems to be an early and direct counter-example to your claim that Jesus anticipated no succession of authority: (1 Clement 44:1-3; 68-69 AD) So too our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that strife would arise over the office
of bishop. For this reason, since they understood perfectly in advance what would happen, they appointed those we have already mentioned; and afterwards they added a codicil, to the effect that if these should die, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry… Indeed, we commit no little sin if we remove from the bishop’s office those who offer the gifts in a blameless and holy way."
Truth is dependent on conditions, circumstances and variables.
When you say the Church was so and so at a certain time, we would verify such a claim by our access to history and valid or reliable witnesses.
But to say, as the Church, during a time it was surrounded by heresy, that She is the ONLY source of salvation, would be validly true at that time and place, but to say the same now would NOT be true, recognizing that many forms of Non- Catholic Christians have adopted, if even unknowingly, so many basic tenets of the true faith (Trinitarianism, The aspect of the Father and the Son in the creed, and baptism and confession) that they can no longer be refused, but considered as separated brethren.
This is a change is teaching because it has conformed to the season in which The Church found itself, but we see that She was, in both times, infallible in her interpretation.
That is, unfortunately, in modernist heresy that has been promoted since the second Vatican Council.
What you just stated, that there are Christians who reject the Catholic faith, is a lie from the pit of hell.
You may think you are being charitable, nuanced and ecumenical, but your position leads people to stay separated from the Church. Not partially, fully separated.
Because while one could in a heterodox way argue that non-Catholic baptisms are valid, they offend God. The use of them and their practitioners offend God. And that person who is baptized in some sort of protestant heretical community continues to live their life rejecting the church, and is therefore not a Christian.
Only Catholics are Christians.
The term ‘Christian’ has always been used to describe people who belong to the Catholic Church. Simply because the protestant heresy has really gained a foothold in a nation, America, do we see this idea that protestants are actually part of the true faith.
Your positions denies the charity to look someone in the eye and lovingly say “brother, you need to come in to the church that Jesus Christ founded for the sake of your soul. And I’m going to say that clearly to you because I love you.”
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 It is actually your way that is lacking in charity. No one who converts because they recognize the truth of the holy Catholic Church, will ever say they were not a Christian prior to that conversion.
The call for conversion is expected and required, for the salvation of their soul, when they recognize that She is the true Church. Or would you deny our separated brethren, but confirm those within the Church who disregard all their promises while bearing all their Sacraments?
Does not the scriptures say that those coming from the east and west will take part in the banquet with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the sons of the kingdom with be thrown out.
You have in mind the things of men, and are far from the love, patience and mercy of God.
There are seasonal truths and there are eternal truths.
Jesus as the eternal begotten Son of the Father, consubstantial, not made, the eternal from eternal made into flesh. Who's perfection perfected flesh and made even this eternal, is an eternal truth.
How much to fast on a Sunday before mass or what food is clean or unclean, is a seasonal truth.