This is a fascinating line of thought. One theme that came up when I was converting to Catholicism from Protestantism was that I realized all of these unchallenged assumptions I was making. Thanks for identifying another one!
There5 5omething 5eriou5ly off bout thi5 rxore55ionnof converting from RC to prote5tant5l, nd vice ver5a. Both 5ide5 5hould 5ay Chr5tian, ca5 each do not really believe rhe other i5 a, real Chri5tian. Pathetic.
The way I've conceived of this question is like this: If I used historical critical methods to come to believe that the Gospels reliably record the person of Jesus and what he taught and then believed in Jesus, how could I get the bible? The gap between historically reliable gospels and inspired canon is unbridgeable without a source of divine authority outside what Jesus directly says in the gospel. (He never tells us there will be a new testament, much less what's in it.) But I can look and see Jesus said he would establish his church, that the Apostles would lead it, and that it would have the authority to settle disputes. I can then use the historical critical method to identify that church, and they can tell me that one of the disputes they settled was 1.) if there is a New Testament, and 2.) What's in it. It seems to me there's no other way to get to the inspired canon without assuming what you need to prove. It's one of the major reasons I left protestantism.
@@davidjanbaz7728 which Christian’s? There was no way to know which ones were infallible. Did they have the same exact 66 book canon (no more and no less) before the 4th century. No there were commonly held ones and less commonly held ones.
6:38 "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.[a] 13 And the rest of the Jews acted HYPOCRITCALLY along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their HYPOCRISY." Peter was condemned for his hypocrisy, not his teaching.
"If these promises that Jesus made are true then they require to exist other criteria other than just scripture for us to believe this is God's word" - great point!
This also ties into a thought of mine, based on the centrality of the notion of the imago dei: Man being created in the image of God, having lost through sin his similarity, but restored in the true icon of God, Christ the Lord - now after that to refer to corpus of texts as the primary authority is in contradiction to that restoration of the imago dei in the baptized, as if resurrection and pentecost never happened and the church wasn't the body of the Lord. Though I am not able yet to flesh that thought out in a concise manner. Maybe this way: In the word's taking of the flesh God chose man as his supreme way of his self-revelation, which was fitting as man is tge only thing created in his image (in a sense man was always primed for that task). It seems unfitting, that God would choose anything else (eg. for his primary tool for continuing his salvific work in history and tradating his self-revelation through history than man, restored in his body, which is the church. Saying that this would primarily or solely be achieved by the authority of scripture would be like saying the Bible is more the Word of God than Jesus Christ, the Lord, himself (in any case he didn't hold up a bible at the last supper and said "this is my word"). In other words mistaking the category.
Great argument from the perspective of a 21st-century Roman Catholic. Unfortunately, the original church taught unilaterally that Christian doctrine originates from the apostles. This argument would have been soundly rebuked by every church father. A better understanding of the early church could correct some of the misconceptions here.
It is one thing to say "the apostles were not infallible in everything they ever said or wrote," which includes a wide variety of topics besides the faith. It is QUITE ANOTHER thing to try to demonstrate that assertion by claiming there are examples in the Bible itself where the apostles, including Peter, publicly/officially taught heresy, citing Gal 2 specifically. That line of argument is incoherent because, if true, it would ultimately logically undermine the whole of Christianity, which is based off the witness and authority of the apostles, including and especially Peter.
His claim about the Apostles and the Galatian heresy seems like an odd claim to me, as he said apostles like St. Peter were heretics at the time. I don't think that's true. If i remember correctly, St. Peter was outwardly proclaiming the truth, lacking heresy in his teaching. But in his practice, he behaved contrarily to this proclamation. That's different than being a heretic
I try not to take the bait on shallow Protestant arguments. Instead I counter with exposing their presuppositions about the infallibility of scripture. It’s a slam dunk unless they are one of those rare Protestants that have a firm grasp on history in addition to scriptural memorization skills. Even the devil quoted scripture. It’s not merely self evident as they think even though we agree on the infallibility of scripture (despite different canons of course)
Scripture is not infallible but inerrant - two very different things - the Scripture is not infallible because, in that case, it would ensure by itself a ibnfallible interpration of what it teaches - which is clearly not the case
@@silveriorebelo2920 you are right I would have been more precise saying inerrancy of scripture. My mistake. My point remains despite that distinction.
This is not the argument against the lie of the apostolic canon that protestants tell, it's an argument about how if there is no Tradition, then there is no guarantee that the church hasn't consistently and always gravely misunderstood something in Divine Revelation. Since the whole goal of the Church according to christ is to feed the flock, to withstand the gates of hades, to bind both on Earth and in Heaven, a consistent grave error in understanding of God's will is impossible, it would constitute a complete failure from God to properly make His will known. So it doesn't relate in any way to 2 Peter 3.
Not sure this is really new. Even though he makes some familiar good points, he undermined his credibility early on by proposing Peter was a heretic based on Galatians. Was Paul a heretic for circumcising Timothy right after the Council of Jerusalem? "Force God's hand" is also a dangerous phrasing if he meant it literally, though there is a way to interpret that in orthodox way.
Thanks for listening! With respect to St. Peter, I was simply rephrasing Galatians 2:11, “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” According to the inspired Scriptures, Peter at one point “stood condemned” because he was influenced by the “men from James,” i.e. the Judaizers. St. Paul was not a heretic for circumcising St. Timothy because observing the Law is not a sin, but rather excluding non-Law observers from the Eucharist is, and that’s precisely what Peter was doing, which Paul condemned. “Force God’s hand” is not incorrect at all to say. It is simply another of saying that “the Lord has sworn and will not repent” (Ps 110:4). God made a promise to protect His church from error and so He has bound Himself to keep that promise.
@@benjaminjohn675 you are using heresy loosely. Actions might give rise to the canonical designation of "suspicion of heresy" but they do not in themselves qualify as heresy. However, I would probably consider your view heretical since the apostles were infallible in their public teaching, otherwise it would undercut the infallibility of Tradition and Scripture.
@@contrasedevacantism6811 All I am saying is that, if we do not presuppose apostolic infallibility, we have good reason to suppose that the apostles could err in their teachings. As a consequence of this, we need some principle to appeal to to ensure that none of their public teachings that have been handed down were errant, and that principle is the infallibility of Tradition.
@@benjaminjohn675 Many of us are very familar with the passage, which has been interpretted in MANY ways, even in the early centuries of the Church, often favorable to Peter and none of them with your interpretation, as far as I know. "Precisely"? It is not wise for us to think we know precisely and/or for certain what the situation was in a vague reference in an ancient letter with little context. The notion that it was Eucharistic in nature is not required or even evident from the text. It was not necessarily a sin to temporarily refrain from socializing and dining with Gentile Christians out of prudence in dealing with Jewish Christians early on, just as Paul circumcised Timothy out of prudence/fear of Jews. If it was a sin, it was merely the sin of cowardice and/or hypocrisy in not acting according to his own beliefs and authoritative statements (Acts 10:9-16, 28), which is NOT the same as heresy. Nowhere in the text does Paul even imply that Peter was teaching/preaching error. All the apostles sinned, including Paul, even after becoming apostles, but you go too far in apparently saying/proposing they ever taught/asserted error, especially as recorded in Scripture. I never used the term "incorrect." The phrase "force God's hand" is dangerous because it can be VERY misleading. It makes it sound like God's sovereign will/mind was changed because of man. But the fact is that God's will has already taken into account everything He already knows will happen (same with prayer). Nothing outside of God forces God to do anything. If any hand is forced, it is the hand or mouth of the Church away from error by God's force. I believe we agree here, but I don't think that phrasing is very prudent or clear at all.
@@benjamind547 Your previous comment seems to imply that because there are many denominations of Christianity, that that somehow impinges on the Bible being the clear word of God. It Doesn't. The Bible is the Word of God even if no person believes it. Romnas 3:4 No, even if everyone else is a liar, God will always do what He says. As the Scriptures say about Him, "You will be proved right in what You say, and You will win when people accuse You."
Protestant here. My issue with arguments like these is that the Catholic or the Orthodox Christian will ALWAYS appeal to the Trinity about the Church not being led into error - which is a doctrine that is CLEAR in Scripture. Try this line of argumentation with a practice like the veneration of icons or on a doctrine like the Assumption of Mary and I think we will quickly see this kind of argument fall apart. I think all this argument gets you is that the Trinity is definitely a true doctrine (which we can agree from a deduction from Scripture alone), but not that tradition itself should be viewed as infallible.
You said, "the Trinity is definitely a true doctrine (which we can agree from a deduction from Scripture alone)" Can you provide how you deduce that all the verses that can be understood in an Arian or Modialist interpretation are explained in scripture to be understood in a Trinitarian interpretation instead? And if you can't, then do you admit that the Trinity is implicit rather than explicit? And if you admit that, then by what authority do you conclude the Trinitarian view over another view (all of which are equally possible going by the text alone)?
@@tysonguess A few things: 1) We have an implicit axiomatic belief that starts everything off - the Bible is internally consistent with itself and is our ultimate authority. 2) With that in mind, the Father, Son and Spirit are all called God in Scripture, yet there are distinctions drawn between them. 3) We have 3 persons being called God, but this is a monotheistic religion, and we have verses that say "God is one." So we have 3 Persons who are One in Essence. ^ The Trinity, though a complicated doctrine is not difficult to deduce from passages in Scripture. Going back to our axiomatic belief - If Scripture is internally consistent with itself and is our ultimate authority, then if there are verses that appear to be able to be read with alternative interpretations, they must be reconciled with the clear teachings of Scripture - that there are 3 Persons properly called God, but are One in Essence. My authority for this is Scripture, though that's been repeated twice in my axiomatic belief.
That's not a response to the argument though. Saying "yeah but the Trinity is pretty clear" doesn't at all speak about your ecclesiology. You have to hold that Christ's church didn't exist for most of the christian age, you have to hold that every doctrine is up for grabs always at all times, and it's just a matter of when and where the tide turns. Baptism of infants is the most important issue that protestants are vehemently divided about: if pedobaptists are right, then half of the protestants are exercising untold neglect on their childern, despite meaning the best and putting in effort in deducing things from the Bible. If they are wrong, then the whole church has been wrong since the first century. Both those options are absurd if you believe that God guides the flock through books rather than through ordained shepherd. And that same problem applies to Mormons, oneness pentecostals, historical arians and Jehovah's witnesses. To say that they disbelieve the trinity despite having access to the Bible, all explanation a sola scriptura protestant is allowed to propose, are absurd: 1-they are all illiterate 2-they are all lying 3-they are all accursed by God and relinquished by the Spirit, unlike you, for some unknown reason. The real explanation is that they do not have access to the whole Word of God, which has been handed down in both written and unwritten form. From the whole Word of God, well meaning people will know to submit to the appointed leaders, who will know to submit to the faith of the pope and of the college of bishops, made infallible by Christ's prayer.
@@natebozeman4510 "1) We have an implicit axiomatic belief that starts everything off - the Bible is internally consistent with itself and is our ultimate authority." Sure, but on a side note, the Bible isn't 'an authority' as 'authorities' are agents that can 'make decisions' and 'wield power'. Books (or collections of books) can only be 'authoritative' but anything that is 'authoritative' presupposes an authority that can 'wield' the truth in that which is authoritative. So, the assumption that the bible is 'internally consistent' is circular given that you have to assume its nature to arrive at that conclusion. "2) With that in mind, the Father, Son and Spirit are all called God in Scripture, yet there are distinctions drawn between them." Yet, none of those verses make a distinction to alienate the possibility of an Arian or Modalist interpretation. This would just be you saying, 'well this is how I interpret it' or 'this is what seems most obvious to me' but that is exactly what the Arian or Modalist would also say which leaves us with no resolution. "3) We have 3 persons being called God, but this is a monotheistic religion, and we have verses that say "God is one." So we have 3 Persons who are One in Essence. Yeah but the Arian would just say, there is only one God, the Father and God created Jesus who is a (g)od and both are one in the Godhead (along with the spirit). Or, the Modalist would simply say, 'Yeah its all the Father, just different modes' So, you'd still be simply assumiing the Trinitarian view here. "^ The Trinity, though a complicated doctrine is not difficult to deduce from passages in Scripture." I'd say its impossible to deduce with certainty. Its simply a possible interpretation but how would one know with certainty that interpretation is the correct one without some sort of divine interpretative authority? "Going back to our axiomatic belief - If Scripture is internally consistent with itself and is our ultimate authority, then if there are verses that appear to be able to be read with alternative interpretations, they must be reconciled with the clear teachings of Scripture - that there are 3 Persons properly called God, but are One in Essence." Yet this would just beg the question since you're assuming the very interpretations that justify the conclusion. I would point out there are far more clear examples of Arianism in scripture than Trinitarianism. Additionally, every verse a Trinitarian would point to also has an Arian interpretation. So, Scripture could be internally consistent with Arian, Modalist or Trinitarian interpretations.....which is the point I'm getting at. If Trinitarianism is clear, then what verse or combination of verses explicitly teaches that God's nature is Homoousious (of one substance) with 3 Hypostases and why, if it was so clear would the church literally make the words themselves binding which were imported from Greek Philosophy rather than jewish or christian thought/heritage?
My problem with this argument is that it sounds good in theory, until you remember that the Magisterium never infallibly defined the canon until the Council of Trent. That means every Christian who lived before the Council of Trent (including Aquinas, Athanasius, Tertullian, Jerome) would have had the same problem with the canon. Any solution that could work for Jerome (who taught from and translated Scripture before the canon was infallibly defined) would be in keeping with historical Christianity and could be appealed to by protestants today. If all those options you considered failed, they would have failed for Jerome too and we have to say Jerome could have no confidence in the canon.
The level of Teaching on canon reflects the level of opposition. There clearly was a 73 book Canon in the Catholic Church that was clearly established by the late 4th century. Pope Innocent's Letter in 405 to Exsuperius. The councils of the Church of Carthage had a canon defined in 397, similar to the Pope Damasus canon from 382. The Church n Carthage in 419 AD met and confirmed again the 73 book canon and that was sent to Rome when Boniface was Pope for confirmation to ensure the 73 book canon was still the standard in Rome. The Council of Basel-Florence in 1442 with the Bull of Reunion with the Coptic (Oriental Orthodox) Church clearly states that the 46 book OT (with 7 Deuterocanicals) and 27 book NT = 73 books was the standard for the reunion. (See Session 11, 4 February 1442). Of course, the Protestant rebellion and reformation totally changed the canon and went with a 39 book OT canon for which was confirmed in much stronger language at Trent in Session 4 in 1546. But the Catholic Church considers the Council of Basel-Florence a valid Council as such the canon confirmed there is an exercise of the Magisterium
@@palermotrapani9067 yes I agree 100% because when the council of Trent happened, it was only because the Bible was being tested by protestantism. So it was just like any other church council before that. This is why protestants still use that old argument to say the Apocrypha books weren't added until Trent 🤦🏻♂️ Which is erroneous 💯
You have to observe all teachings, not just the infallible ones. So your point doesn't stand. Also the argument is designed to build your confidence on Tradition, not the magisterium.
@@onlylove556 Correct, it is 100% historically not accurate. That is why as soon as one them goes that route, which is an argument that goes back to the 1990's by the likes of Dave Hunt, Eric Svendsen, William Webster, etc, etc since all the Protestants ever looked at was the Council of Trent which ended in 1563. Many Catholic apologist back then did not use the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442, perhaps because the canons and Bulls were not available for it whereas the Catechism of the Council of Trent was still available in Print as were its Canons, etc. So the information for The Council of Trent was more available, but there were some Catholic Biblical scholars and Apologist who wrote about it. Very similar to the old debates back in the 1990's on Papal Primacy and Mt 16:18, I had some protestant guys back in the day tell me the entire papacy is tied to that verse since that was the only verse he ever say in debates that was being debated on. I said, well again, that does not mean it is the only Petrine text, I asked that guy had he ever read the Dogmatic Definition on Papal Infallibility and he said no and since it was available on the internet I referred him to it and showed him Mt. 16: 16-19 (footnote 43) not the only Petrine Text, John 21: 15-21 (footnote 44) is cited in the same paragraph in the definition and the closing paragraph cites a 3rd Petrine text Luke 22: 23 (footnote 60).
@@palermotrapani9067 Jerome lived before Basel-Florence too, so the point still stands. Sola Scriptura is compatible with tradition too. If Jerome could know the canon just by fallible traditions, then Protestants can use fallible tradition to know the canon.
Acts 17:11“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Notice: Even the Apostle Paul was checked out by Scripture
@@tafazzi-on-discord They didn't receive the preaching and check it out against Scripture. Luke 16:29“Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.”
Thanks for having me on! Apologies for the audio quality
Great presentation! Do you have the link to Ybarra's article you quoted?
Thanks for your presentation. Deeply fascinating and mind blowing
I'll forgive you...this time!!!
This is a fascinating line of thought. One theme that came up when I was converting to Catholicism from Protestantism was that I realized all of these unchallenged assumptions I was making. Thanks for identifying another one!
There5 5omething 5eriou5ly off bout thi5 rxore55ionnof converting from RC to prote5tant5l, nd vice ver5a. Both 5ide5 5hould 5ay Chr5tian, ca5 each do not really believe rhe other i5 a, real Chri5tian. Pathetic.
Great to see Catholic / Orthodoxy working together
The way I've conceived of this question is like this: If I used historical critical methods to come to believe that the Gospels reliably record the person of Jesus and what he taught and then believed in Jesus, how could I get the bible?
The gap between historically reliable gospels and inspired canon is unbridgeable without a source of divine authority outside what Jesus directly says in the gospel. (He never tells us there will be a new testament, much less what's in it.)
But I can look and see Jesus said he would establish his church, that the Apostles would lead it, and that it would have the authority to settle disputes. I can then use the historical critical method to identify that church, and they can tell me that one of the disputes they settled was 1.) if there is a New Testament, and 2.) What's in it.
It seems to me there's no other way to get to the inspired canon without assuming what you need to prove. It's one of the major reasons I left protestantism.
Well put. You summarized very clearly why Protestants use a circular argument for scripture.
@@forehead949 LOL 😆 the books were viewed as Scripture by Christians long before they were Canonized in the 4th century. AD..
@@davidjanbaz7728 which Christian’s? There was no way to know which ones were infallible. Did they have the same exact 66 book canon (no more and no less) before the 4th century. No there were commonly held ones and less commonly held ones.
Believing in Scripture Alone is like saying the Harry Potter books have more authority on Harry Potter than JK Rowling
6:38
"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.[a] 13 And the rest of the Jews acted HYPOCRITCALLY along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their HYPOCRISY."
Peter was condemned for his hypocrisy, not his teaching.
"If these promises that Jesus made are true then they require to exist other criteria other than just scripture for us to believe this is God's word" - great point!
This is one of the best - perhaps strongest - arguments from the Canon I've encountered! Amazing work!
These people are so much smarter and younger than me!!
Yes to both! 😉👍
Well done by both young men ;)
Making a respose to this today!
I love this intellectual catholicism, fideism must be faced with intelligence, logic and reason.
And a humble spirit.
Timothy flanders from Meaning of Catholic has a very similar defense against Sola scriptura.
He has an even better argument against being Orthodox😀
Let see if Gavin Ortlund will do a rebuttal. 🤦♂️ Hopefully one day he will come around his heresy
unless the Lord has mercy on Him - he is a very bigoted ideologue, and manipulative person
This also ties into a thought of mine, based on the centrality of the notion of the imago dei: Man being created in the image of God, having lost through sin his similarity, but restored in the true icon of God, Christ the Lord - now after that to refer to corpus of texts as the primary authority is in contradiction to that restoration of the imago dei in the baptized, as if resurrection and pentecost never happened and the church wasn't the body of the Lord.
Though I am not able yet to flesh that thought out in a concise manner. Maybe this way: In the word's taking of the flesh God chose man as his supreme way of his self-revelation, which was fitting as man is tge only thing created in his image (in a sense man was always primed for that task). It seems unfitting, that God would choose anything else (eg. for his primary tool for continuing his salvific work in history and tradating his self-revelation through history than man, restored in his body, which is the church.
Saying that this would primarily or solely be achieved by the authority of scripture would be like saying the Bible is more the Word of God than Jesus Christ, the Lord, himself (in any case he didn't hold up a bible at the last supper and said "this is my word").
In other words mistaking the category.
But most protestants i encounter in youtube has this notion that the bible fell down from heaven. Especially the kjv only bunch
beautiful, eternal, infallible Sola Scriptura📖👑📚🕵️♂️
Great argument from the perspective of a 21st-century Roman Catholic. Unfortunately, the original church taught unilaterally that Christian doctrine originates from the apostles. This argument would have been soundly rebuked by every church father. A better understanding of the early church could correct some of the misconceptions here.
It is one thing to say "the apostles were not infallible in everything they ever said or wrote," which includes a wide variety of topics besides the faith. It is QUITE ANOTHER thing to try to demonstrate that assertion by claiming there are examples in the Bible itself where the apostles, including Peter, publicly/officially taught heresy, citing Gal 2 specifically. That line of argument is incoherent because, if true, it would ultimately logically undermine the whole of Christianity, which is based off the witness and authority of the apostles, including and especially Peter.
His claim about the Apostles and the Galatian heresy seems like an odd claim to me, as he said apostles like St. Peter were heretics at the time. I don't think that's true. If i remember correctly, St. Peter was outwardly proclaiming the truth, lacking heresy in his teaching. But in his practice, he behaved contrarily to this proclamation. That's different than being a heretic
I try not to take the bait on shallow Protestant arguments. Instead I counter with exposing their presuppositions about the infallibility of scripture. It’s a slam dunk unless they are one of those rare Protestants that have a firm grasp on history in addition to scriptural memorization skills. Even the devil quoted scripture. It’s not merely self evident as they think even though we agree on the infallibility of scripture (despite different canons of course)
Catholics don't believe in the infallibility of scripture, we believe in the inerrancy of scripture.
Scripture is not infallible but inerrant - two very different things - the Scripture is not infallible because, in that case, it would ensure by itself a ibnfallible interpration of what it teaches - which is clearly not the case
@@silveriorebelo2920 you are right I would have been more precise saying inerrancy of scripture. My mistake. My point remains despite that distinction.
How does this relate to the first Pope the Apostle Peter, calling the epistles of Paul Scripture? 2 Peter 3 esp 15,16
This is not the argument against the lie of the apostolic canon that protestants tell, it's an argument about how if there is no Tradition, then there is no guarantee that the church hasn't consistently and always gravely misunderstood something in Divine Revelation. Since the whole goal of the Church according to christ is to feed the flock, to withstand the gates of hades, to bind both on Earth and in Heaven, a consistent grave error in understanding of God's will is impossible, it would constitute a complete failure from God to properly make His will known.
So it doesn't relate in any way to 2 Peter 3.
I'd love to hear an argument that affirms the resurrection, and never uses the word "infallible".
Not sure this is really new. Even though he makes some familiar good points, he undermined his credibility early on by proposing Peter was a heretic based on Galatians. Was Paul a heretic for circumcising Timothy right after the Council of Jerusalem? "Force God's hand" is also a dangerous phrasing if he meant it literally, though there is a way to interpret that in orthodox way.
Im about 12 minutes in and was thinking the same thing.
Thanks for listening! With respect to St. Peter, I was simply rephrasing Galatians 2:11, “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” According to the inspired Scriptures, Peter at one point “stood condemned” because he was influenced by the “men from James,” i.e. the Judaizers. St. Paul was not a heretic for circumcising St. Timothy because observing the Law is not a sin, but rather excluding non-Law observers from the Eucharist is, and that’s precisely what Peter was doing, which Paul condemned.
“Force God’s hand” is not incorrect at all to say. It is simply another of saying that “the Lord has sworn and will not repent” (Ps 110:4). God made a promise to protect His church from error and so He has bound Himself to keep that promise.
@@benjaminjohn675 you are using heresy loosely. Actions might give rise to the canonical designation of "suspicion of heresy" but they do not in themselves qualify as heresy. However, I would probably consider your view heretical since the apostles were infallible in their public teaching, otherwise it would undercut the infallibility of Tradition and Scripture.
@@contrasedevacantism6811 All I am saying is that, if we do not presuppose apostolic infallibility, we have good reason to suppose that the apostles could err in their teachings. As a consequence of this, we need some principle to appeal to to ensure that none of their public teachings that have been handed down were errant, and that principle is the infallibility of Tradition.
@@benjaminjohn675 Many of us are very familar with the passage, which has been interpretted in MANY ways, even in the early centuries of the Church, often favorable to Peter and none of them with your interpretation, as far as I know. "Precisely"? It is not wise for us to think we know precisely and/or for certain what the situation was in a vague reference in an ancient letter with little context. The notion that it was Eucharistic in nature is not required or even evident from the text. It was not necessarily a sin to temporarily refrain from socializing and dining with Gentile Christians out of prudence in dealing with Jewish Christians early on, just as Paul circumcised Timothy out of prudence/fear of Jews. If it was a sin, it was merely the sin of cowardice and/or hypocrisy in not acting according to his own beliefs and authoritative statements (Acts 10:9-16, 28), which is NOT the same as heresy. Nowhere in the text does Paul even imply that Peter was teaching/preaching error. All the apostles sinned, including Paul, even after becoming apostles, but you go too far in apparently saying/proposing they ever taught/asserted error, especially as recorded in Scripture.
I never used the term "incorrect." The phrase "force God's hand" is dangerous because it can be VERY misleading. It makes it sound like God's sovereign will/mind was changed because of man. But the fact is that God's will has already taken into account everything He already knows will happen (same with prayer). Nothing outside of God forces God to do anything. If any hand is forced, it is the hand or mouth of the Church away from error by God's force. I believe we agree here, but I don't think that phrasing is very prudent or clear at all.
Anything but the clear Word of God.
So clear that there are hundreds if not thousands of Protestant denominations?
@@benjamind547 And that means???
The Bible is still the Word of God no matter how many 'denominations there are.
@@pastorlarry1950 What do you think it means?
@@benjamind547 Your previous comment seems to imply that because there are many denominations of Christianity, that that somehow impinges on the Bible being the clear word of God. It Doesn't. The Bible is the Word of God even if no person believes it. Romnas 3:4 No, even if everyone else is a liar, God will always do what He says. As the Scriptures say about Him, "You will be proved right in what You say, and You will win when people accuse You."
Protestant here. My issue with arguments like these is that the Catholic or the Orthodox Christian will ALWAYS appeal to the Trinity about the Church not being led into error - which is a doctrine that is CLEAR in Scripture.
Try this line of argumentation with a practice like the veneration of icons or on a doctrine like the Assumption of Mary and I think we will quickly see this kind of argument fall apart.
I think all this argument gets you is that the Trinity is definitely a true doctrine (which we can agree from a deduction from Scripture alone), but not that tradition itself should be viewed as infallible.
You said, "the Trinity is definitely a true doctrine (which we can agree from a deduction from Scripture alone)"
Can you provide how you deduce that all the verses that can be understood in an Arian or Modialist interpretation are explained in scripture to be understood in a Trinitarian interpretation instead?
And if you can't, then do you admit that the Trinity is implicit rather than explicit?
And if you admit that, then by what authority do you conclude the Trinitarian view over another view (all of which are equally possible going by the text alone)?
@@tysonguess A few things:
1) We have an implicit axiomatic belief that starts everything off - the Bible is internally consistent with itself and is our ultimate authority.
2) With that in mind, the Father, Son and Spirit are all called God in Scripture, yet there are distinctions drawn between them.
3) We have 3 persons being called God, but this is a monotheistic religion, and we have verses that say "God is one." So we have 3 Persons who are One in Essence.
^ The Trinity, though a complicated doctrine is not difficult to deduce from passages in Scripture.
Going back to our axiomatic belief - If Scripture is internally consistent with itself and is our ultimate authority, then if there are verses that appear to be able to be read with alternative interpretations, they must be reconciled with the clear teachings of Scripture - that there are 3 Persons properly called God, but are One in Essence.
My authority for this is Scripture, though that's been repeated twice in my axiomatic belief.
That's not a response to the argument though. Saying "yeah but the Trinity is pretty clear" doesn't at all speak about your ecclesiology. You have to hold that Christ's church didn't exist for most of the christian age, you have to hold that every doctrine is up for grabs always at all times, and it's just a matter of when and where the tide turns.
Baptism of infants is the most important issue that protestants are vehemently divided about: if pedobaptists are right, then half of the protestants are exercising untold neglect on their childern, despite meaning the best and putting in effort in deducing things from the Bible. If they are wrong, then the whole church has been wrong since the first century. Both those options are absurd if you believe that God guides the flock through books rather than through ordained shepherd.
And that same problem applies to Mormons, oneness pentecostals, historical arians and Jehovah's witnesses. To say that they disbelieve the trinity despite having access to the Bible, all explanation a sola scriptura protestant is allowed to propose, are absurd:
1-they are all illiterate
2-they are all lying
3-they are all accursed by God and relinquished by the Spirit, unlike you, for some unknown reason.
The real explanation is that they do not have access to the whole Word of God, which has been handed down in both written and unwritten form. From the whole Word of God, well meaning people will know to submit to the appointed leaders, who will know to submit to the faith of the pope and of the college of bishops, made infallible by Christ's prayer.
@@natebozeman4510
"1) We have an implicit axiomatic belief that starts everything off - the Bible is internally consistent with itself and is our ultimate authority."
Sure, but on a side note, the Bible isn't 'an authority' as 'authorities' are agents that can 'make decisions' and 'wield power'. Books (or collections of books) can only be 'authoritative' but anything that is 'authoritative' presupposes an authority that can 'wield' the truth in that which is authoritative. So, the assumption that the bible is 'internally consistent' is circular given that you have to assume its nature to arrive at that conclusion.
"2) With that in mind, the Father, Son and Spirit are all called God in Scripture, yet there are distinctions drawn between them."
Yet, none of those verses make a distinction to alienate the possibility of an Arian or Modalist interpretation. This would just be you saying, 'well this is how I interpret it' or 'this is what seems most obvious to me' but that is exactly what the Arian or Modalist would also say which leaves us with no resolution.
"3) We have 3 persons being called God, but this is a monotheistic religion, and we have verses that say "God is one." So we have 3 Persons who are One in Essence.
Yeah but the Arian would just say, there is only one God, the Father and God created Jesus who is a (g)od and both are one in the Godhead (along with the spirit).
Or, the Modalist would simply say, 'Yeah its all the Father, just different modes'
So, you'd still be simply assumiing the Trinitarian view here.
"^ The Trinity, though a complicated doctrine is not difficult to deduce from passages in Scripture."
I'd say its impossible to deduce with certainty. Its simply a possible interpretation but how would one know with certainty that interpretation is the correct one without some sort of divine interpretative authority?
"Going back to our axiomatic belief - If Scripture is internally consistent with itself and is our ultimate authority, then if there are verses that appear to be able to be read with alternative interpretations, they must be reconciled with the clear teachings of Scripture - that there are 3 Persons properly called God, but are One in Essence."
Yet this would just beg the question since you're assuming the very interpretations that justify the conclusion. I would point out there are far more clear examples of Arianism in scripture than Trinitarianism. Additionally, every verse a Trinitarian would point to also has an Arian interpretation.
So, Scripture could be internally consistent with Arian, Modalist or Trinitarian interpretations.....which is the point I'm getting at.
If Trinitarianism is clear, then what verse or combination of verses explicitly teaches that God's nature is Homoousious (of one substance) with 3 Hypostases and why, if it was so clear would the church literally make the words themselves binding which were imported from Greek Philosophy rather than jewish or christian thought/heritage?
did you recieve my reply?
My problem with this argument is that it sounds good in theory, until you remember that the Magisterium never infallibly defined the canon until the Council of Trent.
That means every Christian who lived before the Council of Trent (including Aquinas, Athanasius, Tertullian, Jerome) would have had the same problem with the canon. Any solution that could work for Jerome (who taught from and translated Scripture before the canon was infallibly defined) would be in keeping with historical Christianity and could be appealed to by protestants today. If all those options you considered failed, they would have failed for Jerome too and we have to say Jerome could have no confidence in the canon.
The level of Teaching on canon reflects the level of opposition. There clearly was a 73 book Canon in the Catholic Church that was clearly established by the late 4th century. Pope Innocent's Letter in 405 to Exsuperius. The councils of the Church of Carthage had a canon defined in 397, similar to the Pope Damasus canon from 382. The Church n Carthage in 419 AD met and confirmed again the 73 book canon and that was sent to Rome when Boniface was Pope for confirmation to ensure the 73 book canon was still the standard in Rome.
The Council of Basel-Florence in 1442 with the Bull of Reunion with the Coptic (Oriental Orthodox) Church clearly states that the 46 book OT (with 7 Deuterocanicals) and 27 book NT = 73 books was the standard for the reunion. (See Session 11, 4 February 1442). Of course, the Protestant rebellion and reformation totally changed the canon and went with a 39 book OT canon for which was confirmed in much stronger language at Trent in Session 4 in 1546. But the Catholic Church considers the Council of Basel-Florence a valid Council as such the canon confirmed there is an exercise of the Magisterium
@@palermotrapani9067
yes I agree 100% because when the council of Trent happened, it was only because the Bible was being tested by protestantism. So it was just like any other church council before that. This is why protestants still use that old argument to say the Apocrypha books weren't added until Trent 🤦🏻♂️
Which is erroneous 💯
You have to observe all teachings, not just the infallible ones. So your point doesn't stand. Also the argument is designed to build your confidence on Tradition, not the magisterium.
@@onlylove556 Correct, it is 100% historically not accurate. That is why as soon as one them goes that route, which is an argument that goes back to the 1990's by the likes of Dave Hunt, Eric Svendsen, William Webster, etc, etc since all the Protestants ever looked at was the Council of Trent which ended in 1563. Many Catholic apologist back then did not use the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442, perhaps because the canons and Bulls were not available for it whereas the Catechism of the Council of Trent was still available in Print as were its Canons, etc. So the information for The Council of Trent was more available, but there were some Catholic Biblical scholars and Apologist who wrote about it. Very similar to the old debates back in the 1990's on Papal Primacy and Mt 16:18, I had some protestant guys back in the day tell me the entire papacy is tied to that verse since that was the only verse he ever say in debates that was being debated on. I said, well again, that does not mean it is the only Petrine text, I asked that guy had he ever read the Dogmatic Definition on Papal Infallibility and he said no and since it was available on the internet I referred him to it and showed him Mt. 16: 16-19 (footnote 43) not the only Petrine Text, John 21: 15-21 (footnote 44) is cited in the same paragraph in the definition and the closing paragraph cites a 3rd Petrine text Luke 22: 23 (footnote 60).
@@palermotrapani9067 Jerome lived before Basel-Florence too, so the point still stands.
Sola Scriptura is compatible with tradition too. If Jerome could know the canon just by fallible traditions, then Protestants can use fallible tradition to know the canon.
Acts 17:11“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Notice: Even the Apostle Paul was checked out by Scripture
what did those in thessalonica do? Were they too credulous?
Didn't those in Thessalonica also check the scriptures?
@@tafazzi-on-discord They didn't receive the preaching and check it out against Scripture. Luke 16:29“Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.”
@@BrianGondo Guess not.
@@jamessheffield4173 No, you're lying. What did the thessalonians do? Check it and give me a truthful answers
Saun this isn’t it bro -