The tradition of christiaity can be authroitative while not being infallible, there saved you 1.5 hours. I love all of your content everybody, keep on representing us
Thanks for the summary. But I don't understand. If you say: I can contradict anything that is not infallible, then what does "authority" mean apart from infallability? Or are you saying that the church has authority and you will obey that, even though you think it's false, as long as all agree that it could be false?
If I may give my own two cents. Whether you can contradict an authority isn’t determined by its infallibility or fallibility. You CAN do that no matter what & face the consequences (good or bad). But whether you should contradict them has to do with the reliability of that authority & whether or not God has instituted that authority. So you could have a good reliable friend (an equal who is neither above or below you in any hierarchy) who says something you disagree with and you are free to disagree with him all day long. You can have a good reliable bishop that tells you to believe a doctrine you’re not convinced of and still submit to that teaching because God has put him in authority over you & he hasn’t done anything obviously worthy of being excommunicated. Long story short it’s just a matter of humility & learning to discerning wisdom from folly.
This is awesome. Love to see the community come together. Trent’s arguments are often poorly founded and target low church evangelicalism instead of Magisterial Protestantism.
"...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 peter 1:20
All* of them were. They held to the Westminister Standards, basically*** why they didn't conform to the Church of England. Thomas Watson's most loved work is a commentary on the Shorter Catechism.
@matnic_6623 Thanks for that info. I also thing of congregationalists of the 17th century as Purtians, like John owen and the Savoy Confession. I think John bunyan can be called a Purtian, although he was a Baptist/Congregationalist. Charles Spruegon, the 19th century Retormed Baptist pastor in London, often recommended reading the old Purtians, or course he recommended Bible reading first. He re issued the Baptist Catechism attributed to the 17th century Baptist pastor Benajmin Keach, but he recommended children be taught Bible reading even more then Catechism memorization.
At 52 minutes when you say those that are arians would be excommunicated from Presbyterian, lutheran, anglican etc...they would be "excommunicated" from non denominational local churches too because they are denying something explicit in the statement of Faith of the church on Christology. I can't speak for all non denominational but that would be the case at the local nondenominational I am a member of.
You can't become Arian because Scripture reveals who Jesus is (not an angel or created being). The council addressed this because arians and gnostic were coming in and making it necessary to address. That doesn't mean ecumenical councils or councils in general are infallible just because they got that thing right.
both can be true. The criterion for a church to be true is not whether it accepts Monothelite or non-Monothelite members. A church to be true does not need all its members to be doctrinally perfect and have the same opinions about everything. It's not all or nothing.
@@ACReji”who get it wrong every single time normatively” is itself a fallible assertion, in which you decide what is true and not true. The historical Protestant churches affirm that the church in its consensual tradition is most probably correct, yet fallible, but certainly more reliable and trustworthy than that of an individual. The baptists have introduced an ahistorical ecclesiology that has been quite bad and harmful.
Baptists can easily affirm the Nicene Creed. Nothing in the actual text is contrary to Baptist beliefs. And its obvious that the Nicene Creed has influenced the Baptist Confessions.
“We confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” - this line is an article of faith that Baptists can’t confess. The Fathers of these Councils Nicea and Constantinople firmly believe Baptismal Regeneration.
What's wrong with not adopting the Nicene Creed? It is not sacrosanct and is even quite poor and ambiguous. The 1689 Baptist confession of faith is much better.
I'm not sure it is fair to say that William Lane Craig's view is 'solo scriptura' rather than 'sola scriptura.' At least a couple things concerning his Christology, he frequently cites Chalcedon's ruling that there are two natures in Christ as one of the axioms he is trying to hold to in his theology. Furthermore, he argues in favor of Monothelitism partially on the basis of trying to avoid the council-defined heresy of Nestorianism. In the particular podcast that Trent is citing (it's Craigs recent one titled 'Does Jesus Have One or Two Wills?'), Craig says, "...scripture alone is our ultimate and final authority. I think that even the statements of ecumenical councils have to be brought before the bar of scripture, and I see nothing in scripture that would warrant saying Christ has two wills." That sounds pretty legit as far as a solid classical protestant definition of sola scriptura goes. I can certainly imagine saying something like this regarding Nicaea II, just replace the bit about Christ's wills with the veneration of icons. I haven't listened to everything Craig's ever put out, but this seems pretty consistent with how I've heard him describe sola scriptura in other contexts (and he is a philosopher after all, so I imagine he chooses his words carefully). As for saying that he is mainly appealing to his philosophy rather than scripture to override the council, I think that is only partially true. It seems that he basically claims scripture doesn't comment on the dyothelite/monothelite question directly, so we need to use reason to try and put together the puzzle pieces we do find in scripture. Then he eventually comes to a conclusion that he believes is more consistent with other councils, the puzzle pieces scripture gives us, and reason in how that's all put together. To me it sounds similar to how PlantChrist mentioned one might reject Nicaea II on the basis of not only scripture but also earlier church fathers/creeds/etc (around 46:50). It can probably be argued Craig leans more on his reasoning than the Nicaea II rejecter, but he does certainly include the other elements in his evaluation. For the record, I am a protestant! I love this content and I am totally on board with like everything else in this video. I just felt that this bit needed a comment. 😅 I also think it might be a bit harsh to say Craig's soul is in jeopardy on these bases when he still affirms all the things his critics say his propositions can't uphold. He may be logically inconsistent in the way he puts the puzzle pieces together, but he does affirm all the same foundational pieces that dyothelites claim that only their position protects.
Martin Luther adopted the view of Jan Hus, which was previously condemned by a council. Since he could *not* be corrected by that council, he is either wrong or infallible.
The problem with Sola Scriptura is that it can be, and is, applied in various ways. I have come across Anglicans online who really consider their church teachings as authoritative even if the teachings are not found in Scripture (nor contradict Scripture). Yes, for those kind of Christians - Sola Scriptura can more or less function the way it is commonly understood as. Many Protestants on the other hand pay lip service to authority, and apply Sola Scriptura in such a way that they believe they need to compare everything that their church teaches with Scripture and assume the right to reject anything not found in Scripture and which they dont like. For these, their own interpretation becomes the final authority. To use the simplistic example of parental authority - in this scenario the child can in principle refuse to obey their parents if they interpret the Bible in ways that favors their case ,like for example, disobey them when they forbid them from eating ice creams because in their reading of the NT - the NT itself nowhere forbids ice cream or food in general. I have actually seen Protestants tossing important doctrines out this way. Can, in theory, SS be applied in a sensible way? Yes, in principle. Is SS applied sensibly by most Protestants? Probably not. The reason why SS is a doctrine of anarchy is that the principle in itself allows for both approaches. It gives the individual interpreter the sole right to accept or reject teachings based on his understanding, rather than the understanding of his communion. This is why Trent's critique is on the mark. Watch Trent's interview with Kelly Powers for example to get a taste of the second scenario.
So, what you are saying is that there is a proper understanding and application of sola scriptura and an improper understanding and application, something we could describe as a "high" view and a "low" view. Pastors and theologians from the more liturgical branches are going to have a high view, as will most of their parishioners. The low view will be taken by those who follow more "low church" traditions. All of this will be further conditioned by the level of catechesis and observance; regular attenders will generally trend to the higher view, and the hyper-individualists towards the low. Yet, Rome, has its own similar problems. The high view of the sacraments is not shared by the majority of the parishioners which indicates a serious lack of catechesis. This spills over into a lack of any distinction in praxis, and in belief for many, between dulia, hyperdulia, and latreia, particularly with respect to Mary. All of which gets excused and swept under the rug of "Tradition" which usually means, "We've been doing this for 40 years, it's got to be the way the Apostles did it!" and it becomes, rather quickly in time, "the way the Apostles taught us," with no recourse to actually identifying the Apostle or Apostles who taught such, nor how it came unbroken down through the ages. Thus, Tradition becomes unmoored from Scripture and is far more subject to human fallibility in interpretation, purpose, and transmission. Can Tradition be good? Yes, absolutely, when it serves the purpose of what "traditio" means: to pass on. When Tradition passes on the Holy Scriptures, when Tradition provides understanding of what those Scriptures mean, when Tradition provides ordered means for those Scriptures to be heard. Tradition goes bad when it is elevated to be on the same level as Scripture, when Tradition is used to adopt practices and doctrinal positions of the Church that are extra-Scriptural and not "God-breathed." Thus, under the cover of Tradition, man-made doctrines and practices creep in and corrupt and obscure the truths of Scripture, and man places himself above Him.
@@pete3397A good response to Neil. Anglicanism unlike other Protestants have the highest view of the church’s consensual interpretative tradition yet rejecting the RC view of tradition being a source of divine oral revelation , separate but equal to scripture , that is binding for the post apostolic in matters of salvation.
Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian and the Christian church. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.
Which then begs the question who has the authoritative interpretation. If Scripture alone was sufficient than people wouldn’t still be debating if the Trinity is biblical.
Nope Baptists can easily affirm the Nicene Creed. And the Nicene Creed has influenced the Baptists Confessions. Baptists historically have not rejected creeds or Confessions. As a former Papist who now affirms Baptist beliefs, I easily recite the same Nicene Creed. In fact, the Creeds match Protestant beliefs much better then modern Romanism. Also the Confessions and creeds, which summarize Scripture, can have a kind of authority, as Baptists have often used the Nicene Creed expel heretics, such as Mormons and jehovah witnesses and oneness pentecostal. Trent horn doesn't hold the same beliefs and practices of the writers of either 325 or 381. We worship Jesus because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have all taught us that. We believe the God breathed Scriptures. We didn't need to wait around until 325 or 381 to starting worshipping Jesus because He is God, as some have implied. Baptists pray to the Lord Jesus, because He is God, and only God received prayer, while Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses don't. And we know that Jesus is God and true man, so we know that Transubstantiation is false. We know He is the Son of rhe Father, so we know that oneness pentecostals are false.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 I invoke the “double nope” thereby negating your nope 🤓. Will keep praying for ya’ll. Jesus gave us a Church not a Bible. His Church did that. And, Jesus started his Church, not any man, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Cheers!
We compare Protestantism with all its confusion inducing glory with Rome because the said confusion is part and parcel of the Protestant system. Protestant apologists trying to weasel their way out of that is cute! Ecclesialism has no confusion. You either believe EO or OO or RCC or CoTE. Depending on what you choose, you can then choose to relegate the other churches to hell if that works for you. Protestantism with SS at its helm just doesnt work that way.
The mistake you are making is that, on the one hand, you claim Protestantism is this vast confusion, c.f the 35,000 (or pick a random number) denominations screed, all the while claiming on the other hand a unity of ecclesial practice that is the same for all Protestants. Both of which affirms that Rome will gladly argue out of both sides of its lying mouth whenever and wherever it has the opportunity to do so. The question comes down to what is the unifying factor: in Protestantism it is doctrinal unity and that can exist between many denominations, while the single unifying factor for Rome is the papacy. Effectively, Rome has one (maybe two) sacraments: the papacy, and maybe Baptism. As long as you pay lip service allegiance to the pope you can believe, or not, in any or all of the supposedly unifying teachings and doctrines of the Roman confession.
I really tried to get through this but you guys are being absurdly dense for no reason. Of course when Trent says "can" he means it in the sense of "and still be Christian". What else would he mean? You don't need to bother with specifications about subjective and objective meaning because it's obvious what he means and if you can't tell that you shouldn't bother trying to create a rebuttal.
It's not at all clear that's what Trent means, because it's not at all clear that Trent thinks Eastern Orthodox Christians (for example) aren't Christians when they deny the filioque. If he means "one can just deny Nicaea and remain a Christian in Protestantism", then this is false for the vast majority of Protestants.
@anglicanaesthetics Yes, that is what he means. You can tell this because he references Craig denying Nicea as the reference point. Clearly there are protestants, such as Craig, who think you can deny eccumenical counsels. I've actually heard people claim you can disagree with the Apostle's Creed. I don't think Trent would say that of the Fillioque since the fillioque was not decided in an eccumenical counsel.
@@ethancoppel But then we addressed that. We think Craig puts his soul in danger by denying Nicaea. That's not antithetical to the primacy of Scripture for all the reasons we mentioned.
@anglicanaesthetics That's great, but Trent's point is that a lot of self-proclaimed protestants, especially quite relevant ones like Dr. Ortland or Dr. White, seem to think it permissible to deny an eccumenical counsel. Even if you agree with the concern about Craig the question still remains: Are you willing to have your mind changed on a theological matter due to an eccumenical counsel disagreeing with you? If so, then ask next: How many Christians and Christian leaders must disagree with me before I must submit despite my intellectual hangups?
Javier is becoming one of my favorite Protestant apologists similar vibes as Ortlund.
The tradition of christiaity can be authroitative while not being infallible, there saved you 1.5 hours. I love all of your content everybody, keep on representing us
Thanks for the summary. But I don't understand. If you say: I can contradict anything that is not infallible, then what does "authority" mean apart from infallability? Or are you saying that the church has authority and you will obey that, even though you think it's false, as long as all agree that it could be false?
If I may give my own two cents. Whether you can contradict an authority isn’t determined by its infallibility or fallibility. You CAN do that no matter what & face the consequences (good or bad). But whether you should contradict them has to do with the reliability of that authority & whether or not God has instituted that authority.
So you could have a good reliable friend (an equal who is neither above or below you in any hierarchy) who says something you disagree with and you are free to disagree with him all day long. You can have a good reliable bishop that tells you to believe a doctrine you’re not convinced of and still submit to that teaching because God has put him in authority over you & he hasn’t done anything obviously worthy of being excommunicated.
Long story short it’s just a matter of humility & learning to discerning wisdom from folly.
The fact everyone is hopping on the Young Anglican 🤔 thumbnail pose has me more hyped than you can imagine
I am flattered that you associate the pose with me
Looking forward to this
@theosophicalwanderings7696 It released! 😁
This is awesome. Love to see the community come together. Trent’s arguments are often poorly founded and target low church evangelicalism instead of Magisterial Protestantism.
Well done. Excellent theology from a gathering from various traditions. Javier, more like this would be great!
„Vatican II sect member, Trent Horn, who claims to be Catholic but sadly is not…” Peter Dimond 😂
😂😂😂
Sure thing, believer in the church founded to allow royal divorce
"...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 peter 1:20
Lots of Purtians were confessional.
All* of them were. They held to the Westminister Standards, basically*** why they didn't conform to the Church of England. Thomas Watson's most loved work is a commentary on the Shorter Catechism.
@matnic_6623 Thanks for that info. I also thing of congregationalists of the 17th century as Purtians, like John owen and the Savoy Confession. I think John bunyan can be called a Purtian, although he was a Baptist/Congregationalist. Charles Spruegon, the 19th century Retormed Baptist pastor in London, often recommended reading the old Purtians, or course he recommended Bible reading first. He re issued the Baptist Catechism attributed to the 17th century Baptist pastor Benajmin Keach, but he recommended children be taught Bible reading even more then Catechism memorization.
@truthisbeautiful7492 yep the Reformed baptists came out of the puritan movement
At 52 minutes when you say those that are arians would be excommunicated from Presbyterian, lutheran, anglican etc...they would be "excommunicated" from non denominational local churches too because they are denying something explicit in the statement of Faith of the church on Christology. I can't speak for all non denominational but that would be the case at the local nondenominational I am a member of.
Praise God for that
Wonderful video you four
You can't become Arian because Scripture reveals who Jesus is (not an angel or created being). The council addressed this because arians and gnostic were coming in and making it necessary to address. That doesn't mean ecumenical councils or councils in general are infallible just because they got that thing right.
Right!!
Well done video gents! Keep up the good work.
Would William Lane Craig’s monothelitism get him excommunicated from your church?
No
Yes
👆 Which Protestant church is the true one?
both can be true. The criterion for a church to be true is not whether it accepts Monothelite or non-Monothelite members. A church to be true does not need all its members to be doctrinally perfect and have the same opinions about everything. It's not all or nothing.
Should be. Monothelitism is heresy and teaches a false Christ.
Yes
How does the Bible enforce or exercise its authority?
Through fallible men...who get it wrong every single time normatively...unless it arbitrarily supports my theology.
@@ACReji”who get it wrong every single time normatively” is itself a fallible assertion, in which you decide what is true and not true. The historical Protestant churches affirm that the church in its consensual tradition is most probably correct, yet fallible, but certainly more reliable and trustworthy than that of an individual. The baptists have introduced an ahistorical ecclesiology that has been quite bad and harmful.
The same way Roman Catholics and Orthodox do, through fallible men.
Baptists can easily affirm the Nicene Creed. Nothing in the actual text is contrary to Baptist beliefs. And its obvious that the Nicene Creed has influenced the Baptist Confessions.
“We confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” - this line is an article of faith that Baptists can’t confess.
The Fathers of these Councils Nicea and Constantinople firmly believe Baptismal Regeneration.
And yet, the SBC chose not to adopt the Creed. 🤔
What's wrong with not adopting the Nicene Creed? It is not sacrosanct and is even quite poor and ambiguous. The 1689 Baptist confession of faith is much better.
@@Democracyofthedead well the convention isn't a church.
@daniellennox8804 why don't you think baptists can affirm that? They have and they do.
I'm not sure it is fair to say that William Lane Craig's view is 'solo scriptura' rather than 'sola scriptura.' At least a couple things concerning his Christology, he frequently cites Chalcedon's ruling that there are two natures in Christ as one of the axioms he is trying to hold to in his theology. Furthermore, he argues in favor of Monothelitism partially on the basis of trying to avoid the council-defined heresy of Nestorianism. In the particular podcast that Trent is citing (it's Craigs recent one titled 'Does Jesus Have One or Two Wills?'), Craig says, "...scripture alone is our ultimate and final authority. I think that even the statements of ecumenical councils have to be brought before the bar of scripture, and I see nothing in scripture that would warrant saying Christ has two wills." That sounds pretty legit as far as a solid classical protestant definition of sola scriptura goes. I can certainly imagine saying something like this regarding Nicaea II, just replace the bit about Christ's wills with the veneration of icons. I haven't listened to everything Craig's ever put out, but this seems pretty consistent with how I've heard him describe sola scriptura in other contexts (and he is a philosopher after all, so I imagine he chooses his words carefully).
As for saying that he is mainly appealing to his philosophy rather than scripture to override the council, I think that is only partially true. It seems that he basically claims scripture doesn't comment on the dyothelite/monothelite question directly, so we need to use reason to try and put together the puzzle pieces we do find in scripture. Then he eventually comes to a conclusion that he believes is more consistent with other councils, the puzzle pieces scripture gives us, and reason in how that's all put together. To me it sounds similar to how PlantChrist mentioned one might reject Nicaea II on the basis of not only scripture but also earlier church fathers/creeds/etc (around 46:50). It can probably be argued Craig leans more on his reasoning than the Nicaea II rejecter, but he does certainly include the other elements in his evaluation.
For the record, I am a protestant! I love this content and I am totally on board with like everything else in this video. I just felt that this bit needed a comment. 😅 I also think it might be a bit harsh to say Craig's soul is in jeopardy on these bases when he still affirms all the things his critics say his propositions can't uphold. He may be logically inconsistent in the way he puts the puzzle pieces together, but he does affirm all the same foundational pieces that dyothelites claim that only their position protects.
If something or someone have a capacity to be reexamined and corrected through councils then it's not and can never be infallible.
Martin Luther adopted the view of Jan Hus, which was previously condemned by a council. Since he could *not* be corrected by that council, he is either wrong or infallible.
The problem with Sola Scriptura is that it can be, and is, applied in various ways. I have come across Anglicans online who really consider their church teachings as authoritative even if the teachings are not found in Scripture (nor contradict Scripture). Yes, for those kind of Christians - Sola Scriptura can more or less function the way it is commonly understood as.
Many Protestants on the other hand pay lip service to authority, and apply Sola Scriptura in such a way that they believe they need to compare everything that their church teaches with Scripture and assume the right to reject anything not found in Scripture and which they dont like. For these, their own interpretation becomes the final authority. To use the simplistic example of parental authority - in this scenario the child can in principle refuse to obey their parents if they interpret the Bible in ways that favors their case ,like for example, disobey them when they forbid them from eating ice creams because in their reading of the NT - the NT itself nowhere forbids ice cream or food in general. I have actually seen Protestants tossing important doctrines out this way.
Can, in theory, SS be applied in a sensible way? Yes, in principle. Is SS applied sensibly by most Protestants? Probably not. The reason why SS is a doctrine of anarchy is that the principle in itself allows for both approaches. It gives the individual interpreter the sole right to accept or reject teachings based on his understanding, rather than the understanding of his communion. This is why Trent's critique is on the mark. Watch Trent's interview with Kelly Powers for example to get a taste of the second scenario.
So, what you are saying is that there is a proper understanding and application of sola scriptura and an improper understanding and application, something we could describe as a "high" view and a "low" view. Pastors and theologians from the more liturgical branches are going to have a high view, as will most of their parishioners. The low view will be taken by those who follow more "low church" traditions. All of this will be further conditioned by the level of catechesis and observance; regular attenders will generally trend to the higher view, and the hyper-individualists towards the low.
Yet, Rome, has its own similar problems. The high view of the sacraments is not shared by the majority of the parishioners which indicates a serious lack of catechesis. This spills over into a lack of any distinction in praxis, and in belief for many, between dulia, hyperdulia, and latreia, particularly with respect to Mary. All of which gets excused and swept under the rug of "Tradition" which usually means, "We've been doing this for 40 years, it's got to be the way the Apostles did it!" and it becomes, rather quickly in time, "the way the Apostles taught us," with no recourse to actually identifying the Apostle or Apostles who taught such, nor how it came unbroken down through the ages. Thus, Tradition becomes unmoored from Scripture and is far more subject to human fallibility in interpretation, purpose, and transmission.
Can Tradition be good? Yes, absolutely, when it serves the purpose of what "traditio" means: to pass on. When Tradition passes on the Holy Scriptures, when Tradition provides understanding of what those Scriptures mean, when Tradition provides ordered means for those Scriptures to be heard. Tradition goes bad when it is elevated to be on the same level as Scripture, when Tradition is used to adopt practices and doctrinal positions of the Church that are extra-Scriptural and not "God-breathed." Thus, under the cover of Tradition, man-made doctrines and practices creep in and corrupt and obscure the truths of Scripture, and man places himself above Him.
@@pete3397A good response to Neil. Anglicanism unlike other Protestants have the highest view of the church’s consensual interpretative tradition yet rejecting the RC view of tradition being a source of divine oral revelation , separate but equal to scripture , that is binding for the post apostolic in matters of salvation.
Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian and the Christian church. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.
Which then begs the question who has the authoritative interpretation. If Scripture alone was sufficient than people wouldn’t still be debating if the Trinity is biblical.
@@thefirmamentalist9922 The Trinity is biblical because its well supported by Scripture.
@@Justas399I’ve seen people use the same verse to argue opposite sides of the argument. You’ve missed my point entirely.
@@Justas399Arians argued against the Trinity based on Scripture. Catholics outdebated them using tradition.
@@fantasia55 what traditions did they use that proved the Trinity? Please don’t quote Scripture.
Answer = Yep
Bro really commented before the video even released 💀
Nope
Baptists can easily affirm the Nicene Creed. And the Nicene Creed has influenced the Baptists Confessions. Baptists historically have not rejected creeds or Confessions. As a former Papist who now affirms Baptist beliefs, I easily recite the same Nicene Creed. In fact, the Creeds match Protestant beliefs much better then modern Romanism.
Also the Confessions and creeds, which summarize Scripture, can have a kind of authority, as Baptists have often used the Nicene Creed expel heretics, such as Mormons and jehovah witnesses and oneness pentecostal. Trent horn doesn't hold the same beliefs and practices of the writers of either 325 or 381. We worship Jesus because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have all taught us that. We believe the God breathed Scriptures. We didn't need to wait around until 325 or 381 to starting worshipping Jesus because He is God, as some have implied. Baptists pray to the Lord Jesus, because He is God, and only God received prayer, while Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses don't. And we know that Jesus is God and true man, so we know that Transubstantiation is false. We know He is the Son of rhe Father, so we know that oneness pentecostals are false.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 I invoke the “double nope” thereby negating your nope 🤓. Will keep praying for ya’ll. Jesus gave us a Church not a Bible. His Church did that. And, Jesus started his Church, not any man, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Cheers!
@@Jamesps34what church? Eastern Orthodox? Oriental orthodox? Ethiopian Orthodox? Assyrian Church? Roman Catholic? Coptics?
@@carpediem5526The Catholic Church. The Church ruled by the apostle Peter and his successors (currently Francis)
We compare Protestantism with all its confusion inducing glory with Rome because the said confusion is part and parcel of the Protestant system. Protestant apologists trying to weasel their way out of that is cute! Ecclesialism has no confusion. You either believe EO or OO or RCC or CoTE. Depending on what you choose, you can then choose to relegate the other churches to hell if that works for you. Protestantism with SS at its helm just doesnt work that way.
The mistake you are making is that, on the one hand, you claim Protestantism is this vast confusion, c.f the 35,000 (or pick a random number) denominations screed, all the while claiming on the other hand a unity of ecclesial practice that is the same for all Protestants. Both of which affirms that Rome will gladly argue out of both sides of its lying mouth whenever and wherever it has the opportunity to do so. The question comes down to what is the unifying factor: in Protestantism it is doctrinal unity and that can exist between many denominations, while the single unifying factor for Rome is the papacy. Effectively, Rome has one (maybe two) sacraments: the papacy, and maybe Baptism. As long as you pay lip service allegiance to the pope you can believe, or not, in any or all of the supposedly unifying teachings and doctrines of the Roman confession.
I really tried to get through this but you guys are being absurdly dense for no reason. Of course when Trent says "can" he means it in the sense of "and still be Christian". What else would he mean? You don't need to bother with specifications about subjective and objective meaning because it's obvious what he means and if you can't tell that you shouldn't bother trying to create a rebuttal.
It's not at all clear that's what Trent means, because it's not at all clear that Trent thinks Eastern Orthodox Christians (for example) aren't Christians when they deny the filioque. If he means "one can just deny Nicaea and remain a Christian in Protestantism", then this is false for the vast majority of Protestants.
@anglicanaesthetics Yes, that is what he means. You can tell this because he references Craig denying Nicea as the reference point. Clearly there are protestants, such as Craig, who think you can deny eccumenical counsels. I've actually heard people claim you can disagree with the Apostle's Creed. I don't think Trent would say that of the Fillioque since the fillioque was not decided in an eccumenical counsel.
@@ethancoppel But then we addressed that. We think Craig puts his soul in danger by denying Nicaea. That's not antithetical to the primacy of Scripture for all the reasons we mentioned.
@anglicanaesthetics That's great, but Trent's point is that a lot of self-proclaimed protestants, especially quite relevant ones like Dr. Ortland or Dr. White, seem to think it permissible to deny an eccumenical counsel. Even if you agree with the concern about Craig the question still remains: Are you willing to have your mind changed on a theological matter due to an eccumenical counsel disagreeing with you? If so, then ask next: How many Christians and Christian leaders must disagree with me before I must submit despite my intellectual hangups?