Protestant/Catholic Authority DEBATE, Jimmy Akin vs.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- In this debate, Jimmy Akin and The Other Paul discuss the topic of Authority -- how should we form our doctrine, whether by some form of sola scriptura or by a combination of scripture, tradition, and magisterium?
3 Months FREE at Hallow: www.hallow.com...
Jimmy Akin's channel: / jimmyakin
The Other Paul's channel: / theotherpaul
--------------------------- FREE STUFF ---------------------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CC...
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on RUclips: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchris...
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
Here's what the debate came down to from my perspective:
Jimmy argued that there was an existing authority structure (Scripture-plus-Tradition) that existed prior to the writings of the NT and that we should assume this paradigm hasn't changed, that is, unless we have good reason to suppose that it has. He challenged Paul to give good reason to suppose that a change has taken place (from Scripture-plus-Tradition to just Scripture). I can't recall Paul directly responding to this argument. He didn't build a case that a change has taken place. What it seemed like he did instead (and I could be wrong about this) was argue that the authority structure Jimmy argued existed prior to the NT is not *identical* to the authority structure taught by the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic authority structure is more specific/has more properties. Hence, Jimmy didn't actually establish that the Roman Catholic view of authority has continued today.
I have a few thoughts on this objection from Paul. First, notice that Paul didn't address Jimmy's argument. He didn't argue that Scripture-plus-Tradition wasn't the paradigm prior to the NT. Nor did he argue that the paradigm shifted at some specific point in history. All he did was point out that Jimmy's conclusion was too generic. Failing to respond to someone's argument is a big no-no in a debate. Second, even if Jimmy's conclusion was too generic (ie: it didn't uniquely prove that Catholicism is true), it was still highly significant; it ruled out Protestantism. Third, Paul's objection is similar to when atheists claim that the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't get you all the way to Christianity. Like sure, that's true, this one argument doesn't do all that, but no one that defends the Kalam thinks that it proves that Jesus rose from the dead. Rather, they think that it establishes part of the case for Christianity. This is probably similar to how Jimmy sees his argument; he thinks that it establishes part of the case for Catholicism. A full defense of Catholicism will include additional pieces of data and a litany of other arguments.
Given what I've said above, it seems to me that Jimmy had the upper hand in this debate.
I should also mention that Paul wasn't very clear in this video--it's very possible that he made points or responses to Jimmy's argument that I didn't catch. If you think I've missed something, make sure to let me know in the comments below.
I could be wrong about this, but it seemed they agreed on the authority structure that existed prior to the NT. Seemed like Paul conceded that. I think the best that Paul was arguing was that the apostles' deaths in and of itself changed the paradigm. I think that's the strongest argument in favor of the Protestant view. But clearly, post-NT Church history does NOT bear that out when one reads 1st Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus regarding the Church at Rome, as well as how early ecumenical councils (ratified by the pope) were viewed.
Paul also tried to argue for the superiority of script epistemologically vs oral tradition. (Or if he didn't say that, I think that's a better way to say it!) But I'd say there's no basis for that in salvation history (as Jimmy argued) and that the oral tradition was written down early on by the early Church fathers who claimed certain teaching were taught by the apostles and handed down.
@capturing Christianity I think you got it mostly right but there were a couple things here that don’t follow, maybe because you missed where Paul said it.
Here’s what doesn’t follow: Jimmys generic paradigm doesn’t disprove Protestantism. That doesn’t follow.
That’s the point Paul was trying to make. As a Protestan he grants a similar paradigm of Scripture, tradition, and magesterium. You can be a Protestant (an Anglican for instance) and hold to this paradigm, which he said this frequently. He just doesn’t think this paradigm is infallible (the generic version isn’t) So this is why it’s not enough for Jimmy to argue for a generic paradigm. It doesn’t rule out Protestantism or Sola Scriptura. This is why Jimmy needed to specifically argue for the *Roman* paradigm, which *does* rule out Protestantism. A generic paradigm doesn’t do this.
Also it’s helpful to note that SS doesn’t mean Scripture is alone. You can have other authorities. They just aren’t infallible authorities. Scripture is alone only in that sense: it’s the sole infallible authority, but not the only authority. Hope that helps.
@@CranmanPhotoCinema I believe Paul thought the generic paradigm was true AND infallible during the apostolic age; he believed the apostles (their writings, traditions, teachings) were infallible (how could any Christian even deny this?). This consistent generic infallible apostolic paradigm IS what Jimmy argued for (or at least a dispute-settling authority) and what both agreed existed prior to the apostles' deaths. So, what Jimmy argued for in the post-apostolic age was a continuance of the infallible 3-legged paradigm into the post-apostolic age, which WOULD rule out Protestantism.
What ultimate good is a post-apostolic authority if it cannot be infallible or at least settle disputes?!? So the distinction between sola and solo Scriptura or the Protestant allowance of other fallible authorities rings very hollow. Such authorities can be and often are unknown, ignored, and/or denigrated by the rank-and-file Protestant at whim.
@@tonyl3762 are you talking about the Apostolic Paradigm? If so, then I’m not sure why we are calling that the “generic paradigm”. Jimmy just called it the “Apostolic paradigm.”
I took “generic paradigm” just to refer to *any* paradigm that includes scripture, tradition, and the magesterium. Essentially just any 3 legged ecclesial structure, which even Anglicans like Paul can hold to as well. And he said he did. And that was the problem. Jimmy needed to argue for something more specific.
And even Jimmy said it *shifted* after the last Apostle died. So it’s not clear that even he was saying it’s still around, at least the Apostolic qua Apostolic paradigm.
@@tonyl3762 I also am not sure why the burden is on Paul to disprove the Apostolic paradigm (if that’s what you mean by generic paradigm) as no one thinks the Apostolic paradigm is still around, including Jimmy. His assertion was that it *shifted* but retained some level of infallibility. But he has a burden to demonstrate this. Arguing for the Apostolic paradigm doesn’t entail Jimmys paradigm is true, especially if infallibility was grounded in the Apostles, which was Paul’s point. So once they have died off we need a reason to think the office is still every bit as infallible without the Apostles. That’s the very thing in question, as well as Paul’s paradigm. I don’t really think either of them proved their cases.
In 100 years there will be a very successful podcast by the name of Pints With Jimmy (someone buy the domains now!)
I know that's right. Dude is a straight-up savant
More like ‘Pipes With Jimmy’
I want my jimmy challenge coin. 🙂
“Vapin’ with Akin”-the new name of the podcast formerly known as “The Other Paul.”
I feel bad for the other Paul! He was no match against the brilliant and Biblical and Historical genius, Jimmy Akin!
Started playing a drinking game every time other Paul said “that’s the problem”
I once heard a joke that Catholics never raise their hands in church to worship because they always have a drink in their hand. I think Tim Hawkins made that joke?
This…was painful to watch. This debate would alone be enough to drive honest Protestants home to Rome. Someone clarify if I’m wrong here, but it seems to me the ENTIRE take away “argument” from Paul here was “All beliefs for a Christian must be found in Scripture, except for our belief that all beliefs for a Christian must be found in Scripture. That belief we just made up and I can’t even attempt to really prove it from Scripture.”
He just goes in a circle over and over, all the while asserting confidently that he’s going in a straight line.
I’m sending this to my Protestant friends. That was so well said. Thanks!
Nope. Happily still Protestant here. Rome’s extra-biblical teachings are more than enough for me to not touch their religion with a 10 foot stick.
Since you suggested, I will clarify. The answer is that you are in fact, wrong here. Defining ‘Sola scriptura’ accurately seems to be the issue. Something that I would’ve mentioned is that according to confessional strands of Protestantism, doctrine can be deduced from good and necessary consequence. Regarding our view of ‘Sola scriptura’, we do say that Scripture is a final or “ultimate” authority (as Akin accurately notes). However, he should’ve also added the qualification of infallibility, since Protestants can affirm that there are other binding authoritative sources, but will deny any claim of infallibility for them, even if one concedes their inerrancy.
Bingo
@@scholasticismreformed166 And that is taught in scripture where?
Jimmy wishing Other Paul happy birthday was such a wholesome moment
Hell trembled when Jimmy Akin came home to the Catholic Church. He deserves a papal knighthood.
Couldn't agree more
Seconded. Well, third ed?
Around 1:11:00 the Other Paul says he's not addressing Jimmy's points because he favors more nuanced, slower explanations... Dude it's been over 40minutes and you still haven't addressed any of his points. What is going on lol.
I salute young Paul for taking on Jimmy Akin, aka The Catholic Cyborg. I am sure he has learned a lot from this experience that he can use in future debates/discussions.
Jimmy was humble and patient as ever and, as always, put forth an excellent argument. I appreciated this informal debate/discussion very much.
I found Jimmy condescending.
@@stephensuttles6913 Jimmy was a thorough gentleman.
I was shocked when Paul admitted that sola scriptura would’ve failed in the time of Irenaeus. The debate was over at that moment.
Yes, Jimmy should have asked at that point okay what about the year 300? 400? When did tradition get corrupted?
@YAJUN YUAN Can you link it?
@@bumponalog5001 Its on his channel (Yajun Yuan)
it's a common position among protestants though, because the alternative implies the biblical canon went through a real process of completion.
The less scandalous version is to say that before the synods of Carthage, "the Bible you had" was whatever was authoritative in your diocese. The problem with that is that it would lead to accepting certain books that aren't in the Bible, very much had supernatural authority at one time but now they don't.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj But that doesn't make any sense. If a book was considered authoritative that means it was inspired by God, and a book can't become not inspired by God. It makes much more sense that the Bible did go though a canonization and completion process, because that's what happened.
Hard to take Paul seriously when he doesn’t even consider Catholics to be “brothers in Christ” or Christians.
Oh! That's such a shame. 😢
Catholics are the original Christians. The opinions of late-comers doesn't matter
yes there has been a great divide purposefully created between catholics and protestants....division.....some of the reason is false doctrines. For instance idolatry in the catholic church. Idols....what you sometimes call relics. The OT is VERY clear on that matter and it was why he brought judgement on Israel time and time again...make no image of anything on earth or in heaven. You basically turned Mary into a goddess and the saints into minor gods....call it what you will but idols whether you call them relics or statues are condemned by the Father Yahweh.....He hates it.......this is paganism integrated into the church.....That being said the belief Christ is the savior redeemer is common between them both. Hatred and hostility between the two is not the answer...
but if someone or something is warned about some form of ungodliness and they turn not from that way then we are to shake the dust from our heels....we are to separate ourself from the things of the world...I can also bring examples of errant teachings in protestantism....the glorification and worship of a people calling themselves jEws who are NOT judah seed....Genesis 3:15 but are the serpent seed.....this is equally wicked.....furthermore each of us no matter what we claim to be a part of as far as christianity are wicked and prone to sin...the key is in seeking truth at all costs regardless of where it brings you and regardless of the cost...Men will attack you as they attacked the prophets of the OT...."speak unto us smooth words"
The Catholic position is so straight forward that the Protestant position has to be very circumvented.
@YAJUN YUAN I recommend converting to Catholicism seeing as neither Jesus, nor the Apostles who wrote the New Testament, nor the Catholic Church who formed it advocate for sola scriptura; let alone Seventh Day Adventism.
@YAJUN YUAN In what church do you congregate?
@YAJUN YUAN Great!! So you fallow man-made doctrines!! Ellen G. White is a false prophet, as simple as that. And I’ll excuse myself by telling you this:
Colossians 2:16-18
“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,”
God bless!!
@YAJUN YUAN I don’t either!! Nor Catholics do “worship” any saints nor any angels!! Ellen G. White has distorted the Bible, you are a follower of her, you are on the wrong side!
YAJUN YUAN, if you really cared about what the Apostles wrote and hate hierarchies so much, why are you a Seventh Day Adventist? Why go to any church at all if The Holy Bible alone is sufficient?
The Apostles didn’t write for Seventh Day Adventism, Ellen G. White was neither an Apostle nor did she acquire Apostolic succession.
If you want to talk about ignoring what the Apostles wrote, why do you ignore this? Which was spoken by the Word and is the will of the Father:
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
- St Matthew 16:18-19
Notice how the Church that was built upon the rock, St. Peter, is the Holy Roman Apostolic Universal Church. Again, as God intended.
Why do you ignore that? Because Miller, who started your Great Disappointment, or White told you to?
Some hierarchy you got there. Not even God-given, unlike with St. Peter and the Apostles.
Just to drive the point home about how you are the one who ignores what the Apostles wrote, here’s a quick reading from the same (Catholic) book you claim to know and love:
“I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.
Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”
- Galatians 1:6-9
Are you done perverting the Gospel, yet? A Gospel that, literally, neither the Apostles nor the Lord ever preached. Paul didn’t rely on sola scriptura for his conversion either, he went to the Church.
You can, too.
Jimmy's argument in one of the strongest ones I've heard
I am a Protestant; however, I agree with Brother jimmy on the fact that we can not assume secessionism of the Apostolic office from silence. I might even have to rethink sola scriptura based on this dialogue.
The fact that you are considering the Catholic position with an open mind can I ask how scripture is considered infallible in your view. Iam sincerely asking this in a charitable way. Ive tried to take out all bias from a Catholic view and the stumbling block for me is that without a Magesterium capable of making infallible decisions, what gives authority to the canon of scripture to be infallible. Without a prophet of God giving us a canon, we are relying on human decisions to say that each book is truly infallible. If humans are incapable of teaching infallibly, then I just can't understand how we get to an infallible canon.
Hope to hear from you.
God Bless.
@@pete8684 the point you are making is actually why I am examining sola scripture 😊 it also makes me appreciate and cherish my Catholic Brothers and sisters for there Godly Work of Helping us collect the canon.
@@nelsonbaker88 Ill be praying for you. I've almost finished writing my own laymans guide in fleshing out my thoughts in a lot more detail. Happy to share once finished if you are interested. 🙏
@@pete8684 absolutely would love to learn from you. 👍🏻😊
@@pete8684 without God’s help the Church would have gone away a long time ago. In fact, it’s a miracle it’s here after 2,000 years; something to consider.
Maybe you believe God’s Church started in 1520. Wouldn’t that call into question the promises Jesus made in AD 33?
With respect, anyone who sits down to debate a world-class apologist and represent their religion whilst sending vape signals into the air and calling his opponent by his last name, is not quite right upstairs.
1:32:17 that is such a huge concession that I don't even think Paul realizes how big it is
As a Protestant considering the Roman Catholic Church, watching this debate I’m extremely impressed with how Jimmy Akin absolutely won this debate. His opponent did not give any real arguments, he simply appealed to vague assertions & he did assume sola scriptura.
I'm not Catholic, but The Other Paul vaping and downing an energy drink while debating this kind of subject matter did not make for a promising start 😅
Yeah as an Anglican that really did embarrass me. That's not a good way to represent your community. People have to remember that the way they present themselves in public is perceived as a representation of their community.
He could have waited to vape until after the debate.
Nah cut him some slack, I would be dying for a cigarette after thinking that hard, nicotine really is that type of vice
You can say that again
To be fair, I was the one that told Paul I didn’t mind if he vaped on stream.
Akin was amazing. So blessed to be Catholic!
Which argument did you think was convincing? Could you summarize the Other Paul's argument?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 the other Paul’s argument amounted to personal incredulity (which is no argument at all), and that he just personally doesn’t like that the authority of the church is still ongoing.
Paul’s arguments also are self refuting when he claims to affirm the authority of the apostolic age and uses the authority of the apostles as the standard by which he determines true/sound doctrine. Well if that were the case then he would have to abandon all the Protestant solas, which are not at all apostolic traditions/teachings.
@@chad_hominem well, Christ and His Apostles taught 'Drink this, All of you' and that the Lord's Supper has 'bread' (1 Corinthians chapter 11) which Rome rejects. Additionally, the Christ said 'handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you SEE that I have." (Gospel of Luke). Yet Rome insists on Transubstantion, which undermines the reliability of senses and contradicts the Scriptures. The Apostles were eyewitnesses of the Resurrection, and Christ appealed to the reliability of their senses to prove his bodily and physical Resurrection. Yet Rome denies the Scripture and it's dogma of transubstantion undermines the reliability of senses. Should you believe Scripture and your own eyes or should one believe Rome? Christ is the Head of the Church according to Scripture, nowhere is the bishop of Rome identified as the Head of the Church. Scripture equips the man of God for every good work, and Scripture is able to make one wise for salvation through is through faith in Jesus Christ. Now knowing who the Head of the Church is either faith or a good work. Yet Scripture only tells us that Christ is the Head of the Church. Therefore Christ is the only Head of the Church. Therefore the claim of the bishop of Rome to also be the Head of the Church is not of faith nor a good work. Therefore the claim of the bishop of the Rome to be the Head of the Church is false, arrogant, and blasphemous to the only Head of the Church, the Lord Jesus Christ.
@@chad_hominem plus the "bishop of Rome" is not the Church. The church is all believers in Christ, past, present and future, heaven and earth. The Church existed before there was ever a bishop of Rome, and the Church existed before the Papacy existed. Christ died for the Church according to Scripture, and Christ did not die only for the bishop of Rome. According to Scripture, Acts 20, bishops can error, and the solution is the Word of God. 2 Timothy chapter also teaches that the solution to false teachers is the Word of God.
According to revelation chapter 1 to 3, local assembles (churches) can error, and are corrected by the Lord Jesus in writing. Churches and pastors/bishops/elders do have authority, but they can error, as Acts 20 and Revelation chapter 1 to 3 teach. Scripture, being God breathed, cannot error, and always tells the truth, because it is impossible for God to lie. Claims of alleged divine tradition can be corrected by the higher authority of written Scripture, as Christ did in Matthew 15. And we know from 2 Thes chapter 2 that what the Apostles taught publicly was identical in content to what He wrote in his letters (by word OR letter), so there cannot be a secret Apostolic teaching. In fact, Jude traches that the faith was ONCE for all delivered to the saints. So the "bishop of Rome" cannot add new required beliefs and new required practices of his new religion. In fact, Galatians chapter 1 teaches that anyone who teaches another Good News is cursed by God. Yet what Rome teaches isn't Good News, but a false gospel. Christ was offered ONCE, and had ONE Sacrifice, sufficient, completed, And he Sat down at the right hand of God. Only Jesus Christ can Offer, and He did it once, 2000 years ago. He died and rose again. He dies no more. Nor can He offer or Sacrifice again, nor is the offering continued or the sacrifice. Since only Christ is the Priest, and His bloody death is the Only offering and only Sacrifice, which has been completed (Chriet was offered ONCE just as men die once, not that he should offer Himself often, otherwise he would have to suffer - Hebrews) and takes away the sins of the world, and it is finished, the Sacrifice of the Mass is false, arrogant, impossible, and blasphemous. Since transubstantion is false, that makes the Sacrifice of the Mass impossible, false and blasphemous. Since Jesus Christ is the only Melchizedek Priest, and had an unalterable and unchangeable Priesthood, those who claim to be Roman 'priests' who 'Offer' a literal 'Sacrifice of the Mass' to propitiate God are false, arrogant and blasphemous. Christ's Sacrifice is not being continued, as His sacrifice was offered only once by Himself and nobody else, and He suffers no more therefore He cannot offer again. God the Father has accepted His perfect Sacrifice already, which propitiated God's wrath and justice against sinners. Repent of your sin and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Savior, the only true Priest, the King, the Head of the church, God and Savior.
I've never seen someone work so hard to dodge a simple question. Protestants will rail against catholic beliefs with "where is that in the bible?" but God forbid we ever use that question about sola scriptura.
They want to go sola scriptura but they left out the apocrypha out of the bible…
While there are Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible…
How does that work for sola scriptura?
Im not a catholic but this is a question to you Protestants… and who gave you churches the permission to leave this out of the bible… ??
@shqipebelgjike1274 while they profess to be the true followers of scripture they proceeded to destroy it by picking and choosing what books they want in or out.
Grateful to be Catholic. Praying for the unity of all Christians.
The 1st thing Catholics must do if they want unity is to dismantle the papacy.
@@Justas399 Can't dismantle something established by Christ Himself.
@@johnprentice1474 No mention of the office of a papacy in the NT nor did anyone in the 1st century claim to be the chief shepherd of the church.
Grateful to be Christian. Longing for unity. Whatever it takes to fulfill Jesus' heart desire.
You do realize we do not have one written account of an eyewitness don’t you? How could you possibly believe things on hearsay of people half a century later?
Former Protestant here. I am VERY grateful for my evangelical upbringing.
But sola scriptura - if taken seriously - is enough to drive anyone insane.
There is no way to determine who has the correct interpretation, you leave and start another church.
Amen
If sola scriptura, and by necessary extension perspicuity and sufficiency, are taken to their logical conclusions, either everyone who disagrees with me after sufficient study and discussion are anti-Christs or else I am. That’s a real problem as it negates room for charity and simply believing the other person has made a mistake in their logical processes or has granted too much weight to what feels familiar to them.
The Other Paul’s views are closer to Catholicism than 21st century Protestantism
Anglicanism is quite decent in relation to what came after. So is Lutheranism for that matter
@@Qwerty-jy9mj As an Anglican who was raised Lutheran, I would second Luther’s quip, “I’d rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with [folks like Zwingli].” Contemporary American Evangelicalism has a complicated history, but its distinctives are rooted much more in Zwingli’s low church Swiss tradition than in the Anglican or Lutheran high church traditions. Zwingli himself claimed never to have been influenced by Luther, and a fair amount of research has largely confirmed that. (That said, though I find that some of Luther’s thought has stood the test of time-like his Baptismal theology-I wouldn’t say I’m particularly married to the finer points of Luther’s theology, either. I left Lutheranism for a reason, after all.)
Re: "TOP's views are closer to Catholicism than 21st century Protestantism": Yep, they are.
But a question remains: Is High Church Magisterial Protestantism is the outcome of a principled-working-through of Protestant principles, and Zwinglian Congregationalist-Sentimentalist Evangelicalism is the poorly-thought-out spinoff, adrift from its moorings?
Or is it the other way 'round? Is High Church Magisterial Protestantism more common in _early_ Protestantism because it retains some inherited features which only make sense _given Catholic principles_ but have nothing to sustain them given _Protestant_ principles? Is Zwinglian Congregationalist-Sentimentalist Evangelicalism the natural, logical, eventual outcome of Protestant principles, if they're given enough time to play out?
After all, "Ideas Have Consequences" (as Richard Weaver famously noted). But the consequences of a shift in _ideas_ are what economists call "a lagging indicator." Ockham's nominalism is the philosophical ancestor of Nietzsche, Sartre, and even Foucault. But it was several centuries before we learned where the loss of hylemorphism _really_ would lead us.
Food for thought.
He is Anglican, derived from the Church of England.
The creation of that church by a king who made himself grand puba because he wanted a divorce and the pope wouldn’t give him an annulment. So Henry the 8 made his own church and gave himself an annulment. Then executed St Thomas More because he would not bow to the king but remained loyal to the church. They retained most of the traditions of the Catholic Church … hence the similarity you will find with their more historically orientated ones.
Not exactly a great start to a denomination.
Thanks a tonne again for hosting Cam! It was an honour.
@@vincomortem NOOOO 😭
@@vincomortem LOL!
Please edit your comment to spell ton correctly.
What’s your opinion on you belonging to a church started by a king wanting to divorce his wife and ended up with 6 wives total?
@@Veritas463 I am sure no one has ever brought that little tidbit up to him. Plenty of time for gotcha questions later. Be happy for him now.
Jimmy Akin all the way. TOP made me dizzy and frustrated that he was completely unable to prove or answer anything directly. TOP sorry, you are extremely beight and glad the you are studying and trying to understand the truth, but you need a lot more practice before stepping in the ring with these level of apologists.
As always, the one with the longer beard won the debate. When will they learn?
Exactly
@YAJUN YUAN As long as they have beards I’m in.
@YAJUN YUAN How about no
I see a major difference in humility between people like Jimmy and Trent horn versus the protestants that engage them. As I view it the protestant seems more indignant about being "wrong" or "questioned" based on what they studied a lot. I see more of a calmness and confidence from Jimmy. I try very hard to watch these with an open heart and mind from a very skeptic view. It's hard I will admit. It's so hard when our identity is grounded in our beliefs. I'm first to admit that but I feel like we must always pray to discern when our pride comes into play. Something I'm always working on. So difficult. God bless everyone listening. May the Holy Spirit open our hearts to exactly what we are needing to hear. ❤️🙏
It's weird to me that Paul is only 23, but I guess that justifies some of the immaturity. He'll cross the Tiber when he grows up, if he grows up.
Jimmy killed it!
Not really, he just misunderstood sola scriptura once again.
@@TheOtherCaleb If Scripture ALONE is infallible,, then we can never know what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", and who the Woman is in Revelation 12, correct? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
To say that Akin was wrong because he “just doesn’t get it” it to forfeit the case. Akin clearly understands Sola Scriptura. That’s just a flaccid counter to his devastating arguments.
@@TheOtherCaleb I’m pretty sure he understood Paul’s case for why sola scriptura wasn’t self refuting, lol. Jimmy wanted him to understand that the reasoning behind his argument was circular.
@@matthewbroderick6287 You're right. In the Bible you can't know anything about God's will for man, not even that He loves us or that He wants us to repent. That's why we have the living voice of the 12 apostles and the prophets in the church of the LDS. They are the voice and the means God uses to interpret the scriptures because we can't understand what the Bible says without the Apostles and the prophets....sarcasm. The fact that Rome thinks we need Pope Francis to tell us that we can't understand God breathed Scripture which are profitable for teaching , correction and profit to make the man of God perfect then God is incapable of communicating perfectly through the Scriptures because it delimits his power to communicate and is only bound through the Bishop of Rome. My God is greater than that and is able to communicate His will for salvation to his children.
Paul presented highly tangential and often fillerbustered to stay away from basic questions. I found always trying to circle the wagons rather than answering question about Solascriptura. When he mentioned that catholics were not brothers in christ until pinned down It revealed to me where he was really coming from.
I am grateful that Jimmy didn’t go full Mortal Combat mode and just “Finish Him” he came across as a good professor gently teaching his students :)
Cringe.
@@captainfordo1 not at all cringe
😂 Made my day. Haha 😂
@YAJUN YUAN I recommend converting to Catholicism. The original, true Christian faith.
Not even Jesus nor the Apostles who wrote the New Testament nor the Catholic Church who formed it advocate for sola scriptura.
@YAJUN YUAN The deposit was closed in 100 AD? That sounds like tradition to me buddy boy!! That’s nowhere in scripture!
“That’s the problem.”
- the other Paul
“What’s the problem?”
- Jimmy
“That’s the problem.”
- the other Paul
and paul ranted on his youtube channel about how jimmy attacked him and forced him into a corner when he literally just asked him the biblical evidence for sola scriptura
@@Numenorean921 "but that's the problem. It's a framing issue."
Cameron: "what do you mean it's a framing issue?"
TOP: "we're having an issue with framing."
Cameron: "But what do you mean?"
TOP: *goes on for 5 minutes without getting to the point*
Jimmy: "so here's why I'm not convinced..."
TOP: "but that's the problem."
@@Numenorean921 I think Jimmy either doesn't understand or is intentionally misrepresenting what Sola Scriptura is.
@@Cori761 It's TOP's job to represent SS, but he utterly failed.
@@jerrytang3146 yeah I guess he didn't do a very good job defending it, but I think JA knows what it says
At 1:15:47 I have to wonder if Jimmy busting out the "Show me the money!" was a callback to The Other Paul referring to him as the "Tom Cruise" of Catholic apologetics, or if he would have said it anyways. Either way, I was amused.
You know it was intentional on his part! He said it 2-3 times.
Jimmy was trying to "HELP ME, HELP YOU!" ha ha
That totally went over my head 😂
@@asiaaviator5353 lol, he should have said that too!
That's 100% his sense of humor 😅
Jimmy "won" in this exchange, Paul was all over the place and didn't actually deal with the specific problem in his view of authority.
I think in some ways this is true but I feel that Jimmy was clever in terms of debate tactics (which is fine I guess - as this IS a debate) but when I actually think about the meaningful content I got from each speaker, I think it's much closer to a tie.
@@georgegabriel5808 I agree with you completely
@ktownbball ktownbball sola scriptura obviously must be proven by scripture alone it’s in the definition
@ktownbball ktownbball Jimmy point is that the magisterium is the ultimate authority for interpretation. Sola Scriptura allows for anyone with a Bible to have the own interpretation. Protestants and Catholics both follow the 3 stool paradigm, the question is who has the right interpretation?
@ktownbball ktownbball But how do you reconcile the fact that Sola Scriptura can never have a unified understanding among believers?
The other Paul was terrible. He was driven by what seemed to be elitism and emotion. Jimmy’s position was the most logical.
Loved this! I'm Catholic, and got what I expected. Jimmy is as good as there is! Thanks to other Paul as well! Good stuff Cameron! Love seeing your intensity, while just listening.
It seems like Paul is more used to explaining his points in a long podcast format and he was expecting Jimmy to just sit and listen to him speak an entire podcast length argument, but Jimmy was trying to have a dialogue so Paul never got past trying to frame his statements.
Unfortunately, it seemed that Paul never actually got to the points he was trying to frame. I believe if he had focused on making his points more succinctly and directly it would have made this dialogue more useful.
At the same time, Jimmy allowing him to make his point would also be good form. But, for sure, I'm with ya.
@@NickQuient The problem is TOP takes so long the debate would be 90 percent him talking. The amount of assertions he makes trying to get his point out, it would be criminal not to challenge it.
@@NickQuient He needs 40 minutes to make a point. He is neither clear nor concise.
Let's give the OP some credit. There are very few 23-year-old Protestants who would be brave enough to debate Jimmy Akin in the first place.
Paul was never there for the events and we don’t even have evidence he talked to anyone that was there. How could anything he has to say is worth much?
Jimmy Akin thank you for keeping your cool during this debate.
The Other Paul did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that Sola Scriptura is provable by Scripture alone and he dodged the question like the plague in this debate. His only choice is to conclude it through logical and historical reasoning but that fails on many fronts. The big admission was the fact he himself (The Other Paul) mentioned he would not adhere to Sola Scriptura if he was living in the time of Saint Irenaeus. This is an admission that Sola Scriptura is not a historical doctrine or one proposed by the earliest Christian authorities. So you can kiss the historicity of this false doctrine goodbye 👋.
Then he tries to reason it by saying the Catholic understanding of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium is being assumed in the Scriptures but no weighty evidence was given against it (that could be its own debate tbh). The Other Paul admitted, as he should, that the apostles had an infallible teaching authority and agreed with Jimmy that it can be transmitted by Oral Tradition and Written Tradition. The only caveat for the Other Paul being the Oral Tradition somehow loses weight and corrupts overtime. If you take that view then you have to be as critical to the writen text as well, especially since the Old Testament and New Testament were both Oral at first, this is especially the case if you don't have a definitive Magesterium which Protestants don't. Jimmy also addresses this question well by saying that's only if you allow the Oral Tradition to be corrupted which would not happen if the Holy Spirit is guiding it. That is quite literally the same thing Protestants would say about the Written text in the face of constant criticism to the text, it's one I would agree with but Protestants like the Other Paul need to be consistent and affirm that same protection to Oral Tradition or it makes no sense.
The Catholic paradigm which is as Jimmy stated the Apostolic Paradigm, is just that, APOSTOLIC. The Protestant paradigm is one that encourages pride and rebellion from the Church. Repent of this false doctrine and embrace Christianity to its fullest. There is no evidence for it logically and its anything but historic and most certainly not Apostolic.
I have been having this pull to become Catholic and I have been studying I’m not sure if the church near me has any classes or how they feel about converts…
All are welcome to the catholic church, we love converts and visitors alike. I should know because I was baptised in 2019 at a latin mass community. It wouldn't be the one, holy, universal and apostolic church if we didn't :)
Oh, and all parishes will be able to set you up on a course (approx 6 months, after Sunday mass) called the rite of christian initiation for adults (RCIA). That generally builds up to first sacraments at easter. Just approach the priest after mass and he'll happily give you all relevant information. If your more confortable sending an email, there will probably be an email address available on the local bulletin.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *🎙️ Introduction and Debate Setup*
- Introduction to the debate on Catholic vs. Protestant Authority.
- Setting up the format of the debate with 10-minute openings from each speaker followed by moderated dialogue and Q&A.
01:52 *🚀 Introduction of Participants*
- Brief introduction of The Other Paul and his background.
- The Other Paul introduces himself, highlighting his perspective as an Anglican and his focus on Bible, history, and theology content.
06:13 *📜 Positive Case for Protestant Authority*
- Emphasis on the supremacy of Holy Scriptures as the ultimate authority.
- Recognition of non-revelatory authorities throughout history, such as kings, judges, and bishops, for guidance and edification.
- Stress on the sin of resisting ecclesial leaders' authority unless promoting false teaching.
13:09 *🔍 Negative Case: Oral Tradition*
- Distinguishing between written and oral teachings of Christ and the apostles.
- Arguing that only written teachings are preserved and therefore authoritative, while oral traditions are subject to fallible articulation.
- Asserting that oral tradition lacks the certainty of scripture unless governed by a divine magisterium.
17:04 *📖 Positive Case for Catholic Authority*
- Emphasizing the convergence of both speakers' views on the ultimate authority of God's word.
- Acknowledging historical development in receiving God's word, transitioning from oral tradition to written scripture.
18:00 *📜 The role of oral tradition in transmitting God's word*
- Oral tradition served as the primordial method of transmitting God's word before the existence of written scripture.
- Scripture and tradition coexisted as authoritative sources of God's word throughout both the Old and New Testament periods.
22:06 *🔍 Development of the magisterium in early Christianity*
- The New Testament Christian community acknowledged the existence of a teaching authority, known as the magisterium.
- Initially vested in the Twelve Apostles, the magisterium expanded to include other authoritative figures like Paul and Barnabas.
26:00 *❌ Problems with the doctrine of sola scriptura*
- Sola scriptura, the belief that doctrine should be formed by scripture alone, lacks biblical support.
- The doctrine of sola scriptura must itself be proved by scripture alone, creating a circular argument.
38:36 *📜 The debate revolves around the topic of authority in Christian doctrine, specifically focusing on sola scriptura versus other forms of authority.*
- The debaters discuss whether doctrine should be formed solely based on Scripture or if other sources, such as tradition and magisterium, should be considered.
41:19 *📖 The importance of authoritative tradition in forming Christian doctrine is highlighted.*
- The discussion touches on the role of tradition in interpreting Scripture, citing examples such as baptism modes as passed down through Christian tradition.
- The debaters delve into the significance of early Christian writings, like the Didache and the letter of First Clement, in shaping doctrinal understanding.
52:09 *🔍 The debaters scrutinize the nature and extent of the magisterium's authority in post-apostolic Christianity.*
- Points of contention include whether the magisterium has the authority to establish new doctrines beyond what is found in Scripture.
- The discussion also explores the concept of infallibility and the transmission of authoritative teachings after the apostolic age.
59:48 *🏛️ A debate on the concrete historical basis of authority within Christianity*
- The debate revolves around the concrete historical existence of authority in Christianity, particularly regarding the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
- The contention lies in whether there exists an institutional office capable of establishing inherently binding and infallible teachings apart from the written teachings of the Holy Apostles.
01:01:15 *📜 Scriptural basis for a universal teaching office beyond the Apostolic age*
- The discussion centers on whether there is a scriptural basis for the establishment of a universally binding magisterium or teaching office beyond the Apostolic age.
- Arguments include references to passages in Scripture such as Acts 15, Matthew's Gospel, and Paul's writings in 1 Timothy to support the existence of such an office.
01:05:21 *🔍 Interplay between Scripture and tradition in determining doctrine*
- The debate touches on the interplay between Scripture and tradition in shaping Christian doctrine, emphasizing the continuity of authority from the Apostolic age to the present.
- Key points include the transmission of authority from the Apostles to the Bishops, the role of Church councils, and the concept of infallibility in teaching.
01:13:34 *💬 Examination of sola scriptura and its implications*
- The debate delves into the concept of sola scriptura and its implications, particularly regarding the sufficiency of Scripture as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and doctrine.
- There's a disagreement over whether sola scriptura can be supported solely by Scripture or if it requires additional historical and theological considerations.
01:17:59 *📜 Discussion on Sola Scriptura*
- Exploring the concept of sola scriptura in Protestant theology.
- The distinction between necessary beliefs for salvation and additional doctrines.
01:22:17 *📖 Interpretation of Deuteronomy Passage*
- Analyzing the Deuteronomy passage and its relevance to sola scriptura.
- Understanding the Old Testament context of the passage.
01:28:07 *🔄 Argument on Historical Frameworks*
- Debate over the framing and interpretation of historical evidence.
- Questioning assumptions about the apostolic paradigm.
01:36:10 *📜 The debate on the authority of doctrine, particularly the reliance on sola scriptura.*
- The debate revolves around the reliance on sola scriptura for forming doctrine.
- The discussion questions whether historical testimony supports sola scriptura in the absence of living oral voices from the apostles.
01:39:51 *🔍 Examination of the development and authority of the Canon of Scripture.*
- The discussion delves into how knowledge of the Canon of Scripture is obtained within different theological paradigms.
- Arguments are made regarding the urgency of defining the Canon under sola scriptura versus apostolic tradition.
01:43:41 *📖 The role of tradition in determining the Canon of Scripture.*
- Tradition is explored as an authoritative source for determining the boundaries of the Canon of Scripture.
- The early church's method of discerning canonical books is discussed, involving tradition in both church readings and doctrinal consistency.
01:49:22 *💬 Examination of the concept of Doctrine and its relation to sola scriptura.*
- The concept of Doctrine is defined as authoritative Christian teachings, encompassing various theological subjects.
- Distinctions are drawn between different types of Doctrine, including soteriology and angelology.
01:55:38 *📜 Office Establishment Post-Apostles*
- Establishing the concept of office post-apostles in scripture.
- The bishop's authority compared to the authority of the state.
01:58:36 *🤔 Understanding "Anathema"*
- Explaining the meaning of "anathema" in Church documents.
- Clarifying the misconception of "anathema" meaning damnation.
02:03:05 *💬 Conversion to Catholicism & Brotherhood*
- Consideration of Anglican bishops and priests converting to Catholicism.
- Definition of a Christian and its relation to doctrinal differences.
02:04:16 *📚 Authority of Unwritten Traditions*
- Differentiation between authoritative Apostolic Traditions and human traditions.
- Role of the magisterium in discerning genuine Apostolic Traditions.
02:10:11 *📖 Apostles' Infallibility vs. Magisterium*
- Distinction between infallibility and inspiration in Apostles and the magisterium.
- Explanation of infallibility as protection from teaching error.
02:14:26 *🕊️ Discussion on Schism in Christian Community*
- Schism as a sin and its implications.
- Interpretation of Paul's usage of "schism" in the New Testament.
02:16:31 *📜 Apostolic Magisterium vs. Roman Magisterium*
- Comparison between the Apostolic and Roman Magisterium.
- Evolution of the teaching authority from the apostolic age to the present.
02:18:25 *🔍 Understanding the Infallibility of Scripture*
- Differentiating between the infallibility of Scripture and the infallible witness to its authority.
- The intrinsic authority of Mark's gospel from both Catholic and Protestant perspectives.
02:21:01 *📚 Terminology of "Separated Brethren" in the Catechism*
- Introduction of the term "separated brethren" in the Second Vatican Council.
- Distinction between canonical crimes and sins in theological terminology.
02:23:23 *💬 Debate on Doctrinal Grounding in Roman Catholicism*
- Exploring the concept of doctrinal grounding in Roman Catholic theology.
- Examination of the distinction between partum partum and material sufficiency.
This was a knock down debate from akin! Well done.
Jimmys such a smart man
@YAJUN YUAN 70,000 Protestant Denominations all claiming they can infallibly interpret the Bible
@@IHS333 Where on earth do you get the 70k figure from? And you do recognise there is very little difference between Protestant groups (or at the very least, less difference than Catholic apologists make it out to be)
@YAJUN YUAN Imagine cutting up 5 second clips out of context from several videos and presenting it as evidence to your claim.
@@calebp6114 When I was a Presbyterian, I would have considered Seventh Day Adventists to be part of a cult. When I was Anglican, I would not have considered baptists to be part of the Church or to have valid sacraments. I certainly can’t speak for your experience, but my own has shown me that there are some very massive differences between Protestant denominations.
@YAJUN YUAN some "interpretations"!
I love being catholic!!
"If I was Irenaeus, or I lived at the time of Irenaeus, would I believe in sola scriptura? No, I wouldn't." *Cue the Academy Award's background music that they play when someone has been speaking for too long. Cue Cam thanking everyone for joining us.* At this stage of the debate, TOP is in a situation similiar to Brother Dimond (the sedevacantist) who debated on Pints with Aquinas a few weeks ago: both of them explicitly argue that the essential (not accidental) integrity of the Church founded by Christ has been compromised, and instead of simply leaving Christianity entirely as a false or falsified religion, they decide to hang around and fall in love with their *idea* of a Catholicism or Christianity that is true in spite of the mortal wound they're conceding. Dimond claimed to believe in the hierarchy while at the same time saying that no living individuals were members of the hierarchy. TOP claims to believe in apostolic Christianity while at the same time insisting that outside of a bunch of written texts (whose authority needs to simply be granted), there is no way of knowing for sure what early Christians believed and/or, of knowing if, or how, this is binding on the Church of today.
Pray that Jimmy lives to be around for at least 100 years. This guy is awesome
Paul it’s already an hour haven’t prove the sola scriptura yet and he keep circle back circle back Jimmy you did a good job !!!!
Paul seems to say a whole lot without actually saying anything.
you cannot defend the indefenceble and expect to win the debate.
it's about time people comprehend the fact that sola scripura is a false teaching and move on from this error
I think he should go into politics...
@@asiaaviator5353 Lol
Isn’t that with every religious “scholar”. I mean we have no evidence that not one eyewitness took the time to write anything down with what would have been the most important event in human history. So bizarre that People a few thousand Years later take any of this seriously
I could feel The Other Paul's 2 hour heart attack.
Didn't he take a heart pill or something at one point? Maybe it was just a breath mint. I felt like TOP was trying to catch a caffeine high and a nicotine high to speed up his brain and "catch" Jimmy on something... ha ha
"where does the bible teach sola scriptura?"
*shits himself*
🤣🤣😂😂
It was just a debate and I am thankful. Thanks to them too.
Go Jimmy 🐐... the futuristic cyborg send by God to defend the faith, God bless catholic answers 🙏
Jesus did not give us the Bible.
He gave us a Single Church
And that Church gave us the Bible.
Arguments over.
A compiled Bible, yes. But God gave us the Scripture
I don't tghink Paul is explaining well. He keeps repeating himself but I still don't get what he is trying to say
No contest, J A all the way!
Yep
A rough takeaway is that it seems that either Jimmy is correct and there is a distinguishable but organic relationship between the apostolic paradigm and the Catholic magisterium, or sola Scriptura is just our best attempt to surmise what the apostles might have taught maybe and that that’s all we can go on. If the latter is correct, I see an analogy to the chaos that irrupted in Islam after the death of Muhammad, who apparently didn’t have an articulated plan for succession either.
A good debate. I think the key issue was this:
Jimmy's case is that the New Testament sets us up a paradigm in which the elders and apostles can gather in council and their determination will be guided by the Holy Spirit. The New Testament doesn't rescind that paradigm, so we should expect it to continue on down through the ages.
Other Paul's case is that the Acts 15 council was only guided by the Holy Spirit because some of the Apostles were present there. Thus, when they exited the historical picture, so too did the ability of a council to lay claim to that sort of guidance. This left the Scriptures as a sort of last-man-standing.
When Jimmy challenged Other Paul to come up with a Scriptural justification for his idea or deny that it needs a Scriptural justification - other Paul should have bit the bullet and denied that it needed a scriptural justification. I think that would have focused the debate down onto the central issue: Was the infallibility of the Church tied to the ministry of the Apostles.... or could it continue on in their absense?
well said
A thought: If you can choose between a church with infallibility dying out with the 11 (or did Mathias count as infallible?) or continuing on to this day - in which version does God seem most merciful?
Another thought: One could question Pauls claim to apostleship, it was "only" a vision. If every man claiming a vision of Christ could be an apostle, then we would never run out of apostles. Thus never run out of infallibility.
These thoughts, I think, point to the unlikeliness of interpreting the infallible magisterium as dying out with the apostles.
Sorry. Where is that in scripture?
@@CalvinGomes The referent of your question is unclear.
@@CalvinGomes: I agree with "ActsApologist": When you use the word "that," are you referring to something "Morten Simonsen" was describing? Or something "ActsApologist" was describing in the original post which started this thread? And since each of them mention _more than one thing,_ can you please specify _which_ thing your "that" is referring to?
Or, were you just being ironically funny, considering how the invalidity of _that very question_ is, for most circumstances, acknowledged by both of the debate participants? (If you were just getting a laugh by being ironical, be aware that there are people who would ask that question non-ironically. If you were being non-ironical, that's okay...but clarify the referent, and keep in mind what Jimmy argued, and The Other Paul was willing to acknowledge, about the misuse of the "where's that in scripture?" question, during the debate.)
The vaping & energy drink was a really bad look..........
1:32:00 Good on Jimmy for catching that admission. Kind of amazing that in the year 200 a Protestant wouldn’t believe in Sola Scriptura.
Yup because the Canon was still in the process obviously. But Early church fathers already recognized what scripture was in debating against the gnostics.
@@314god-pispeaksjesusislord
the masoteric text is medieval, what are you talking about? There were at least 3 and probably several more extant canons of scripture at the time of the Incarnation and Jesus would have used the septuagint to teach, that's what we have now.
@@314god-pispeaksjesusislord
So now we're deciding the canon on the infallible word of Josephus? what is this?
The point of the dead sea scrolls is that it pointed to an Essene canon which would have included most of the deuterocanonicals. Yes they're in Hebrew and yes they're mostly masoteric, that's the point.
The least they confirm is that there were multiple jewish canons and that the ketuvim wasn't set. As far as the language goes, the notion that any book has to be in Hebrew in order to be in the canon is juvenile, absurd and refuted in St Paul's teachings. Judaizers were the first heretics.
@@314god-pispeaksjesusislord there’s no evidence of the Jewish scriptures being closed before Jesus
@@314god-pispeaksjesusislord there were the jewish scriptures but they weren’t CLOSED, which is why you had the Pharisees that held to a different canon than the Sadducees and the Essenes
Jimmy didn't have to prove the 3 legged stool of authority because his opponent was an Anglican who already conceded the 3 legs completely during the apostolic age and to a great extent even after the apostles but wanted to argue over the nature of the post-apostolic legs. TOP conceded much more than the average evangelical, which made Jimmy's task much easier.
No, like Paul said, he had to prove *his* conception of the 3 legged stool. And he kept equivocating between the Apostolic “3 leg stool” and the Roman “3 leg stool”. He simply assumed his view. And I do agree with others that Paul didn’t do a good job supporting his view, but he could’ve I think if he were a tad bit more organized.
@@CranmanPhotoCinema Jimmy could have definitely clarified that point better for sure. However he did make a point to say that the apostolic paradigm had definitive teaching authority in terms of Oral Tradition, Written Tradition, and the Magesterium. The Other Paul agreed to all those as far as I can tell. Jimmy was just saying those definitive teaching authorities (the apostolic paradigm/ apostolic 3 legged stool) continued past the apostolic age. That is the Catholic position and Jimmy was assuming that because he was given no evidence to accept the contrary, which was Sola Scriptura.
The thing that confused me was that the Other Paul admitted the apostles had a definitive teaching authority (The earliest Christian Magesterium) and that they taught by word of mouth or by letter so both are definitive and he agreed to that. That is literally the Catholic viewpoint which confused me a bit. He just says the Oral Tradition is definitive for the first 100-400 years or so and then it loses weight over the years due to corruption. He also says the apostolic definitive magesterium goes away after the apostles. These are really not convincing arguments and I think Jimmy did a better job explaining his case. So IMO it was actually the Other Paul assuming away the apostolic paradigm and it was Jimmy who was just saying that Paradigm continues and he even gave passages and good reasons as to why it does continue.
@@michaelhodges2391 everyone agrees that the Apostolic paradigm has definitive authority.
The point is *not* whether the *3 legged form* passed on, but whether it passed on *with* the *same* level of infallibility.
Even Jimmy admits it was *not* the same because he admits something ended when the last Apostle *died*.
So now the question becomes, well where is he getting the idea that the infallibility continued on *after* the Apostles. This is the burden he needed to prove.
@@CranmanPhotoCinema I realize that, the thing that ended was public revelation. Even protestants accept that from tradition. The infallible teaching authority of the Church persists because Jesus imbued his authority on the apostles, they passed on their authority to their succesors through the laying on of hands (apostolic succession). There are multiple passages which talk about the Church enduring forever and being guided by Jesus and the Holy Spirirt. The Church being the pillar and foundation of Truth. The Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church. Etc. Etc. The earliest Christians attests to this authority, one that would blow the novel protestant view out of the water, and yes I mean the classical protestant view as well.
@@michaelhodges2391 where does either Jesus or the Apostles teach a divorcing of infallibility from public revelation and that the laying on of hands only imbues infallibility but not revelation - where do we see this taught? This is what needs to be proven.
The Other Paul talks about what binds Christians today. But how do Protestants know what binds them now when sola scriptura has splintered them into about 47,000 denominations?
SAINT IRENAEUS
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Saint Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Saint Optatus
"You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas) ...that in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner."-Against the Donatists 370 AD
Saint Jerome
“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”- Letter to Pope Damasus 376 AD
Saint Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Saint Ambrose of Milan
“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Council of Chalcedon
“Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out." (Acts of the council session 1)
Every time a Catholic spams patristic proof texts for a papacy without context, an angel cries.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Instead of merely asserting its out of context, show how.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl said the Protestant who does that with everything he finds scriptures, fathers and reality
The Other Paul's whole point was that what Irenaeus means by Tradition is not what Rome means by Tradition. There is no Hadith for Roman Catholic traditions, no way to trace the deposit of Verbal Teachings back to them, nor can we see them explicitly in Scripture. Likewise when Augustine Appeals against the Donatist (Who Appeals to An Angel), he Cites Galatians 1:8 before talking of this succession, which the subsequent Succession is used not as proof of Authority, but proof that the same Faith handed to Peter has been taught and handed down. Read the Beginning of Letter 53:3:6 - We rely, however, not so much on these documents as on the Holy Scriptures, wherein a dominion extending to the ends of the earth among all nations is promised as the heritage of Christ.
@@itf2212 apostolic succession= ordination + sacramental power without that, you can not celebrare the eucharist and this is what you dont have
The Other Paul: There is more to the world than America. Cameron in Texas: We can debate that. The Other Paul: Did Cameron just invite me to debate him.
😂
As a former Protestant I remember coming across the Catholic understanding of sin which is a privation of the good, in other words, it has no substance in of itself and it brought many things to light. In Galatians Paul calls schism a sin and many Protestants finding themselves being in schism and therefore sin (To clarify I would attribute sin to the early generations of Protestants. Obviously with the qualification that you know the Catholic Church is who she says she is which many modern Protestants don't so culpability plays into this). It would make perfect sense that Protestantism's conclusion of the Church being only "invisible" and therefore not having any actual substance (visibility) in of itself.
The Westminster Confession of Faith and Many Confessional Protestant Statements of Faith state explicitly the Belief in a Visible and Invisible Church (Chapter 25:4 WCF), though the Visible Church is of Different Degrees of Purity according to its doctrine. It would be vehemently denied that there is no Visible Church by the exact people you're claiming conclude opposite of their Confessions.
I am literally, for the REST of my life, sick of the word “problem”
Paul doesn't know how to debate. He needs to learn how to directly engage the issues instead of dance around them.
I don't know why but Jimmy looks like Paul from the future.
😆
Lol
Jimmy's argument was clear and precise. I was following Paul for a while, but I after the argument continued, I couldn't quite understand where he was going. He was repeating himself. I don't really know what he was trying to say. Maybe I can add what I think Paul could have said. Paul did accept the "apostolic paradigm" thus undermining sola scriptura. The only response I think Paul could say is "yes, the apostolic paradigm is true, but the true magesterium is not the Catholic Church". So the Protestant could say the true "magesterium" is the individual Christian believer. In other words, we are our own authority and interpreter of scripture and Tradition.
Yah like that works?? Nobody can seriously believe they themselves are completely in charge of interpretation. That’s like reading a medical book and then determining on your own what exactly the book mean without proper instruction
@@brianfarley926 I'm not arguing for the Protestant position. I'm only trying to explain what I think fundamental Protestantism is. And it comes down to not just an issue with Church authority, but with all human authority. Thus essentially Protestantism is the belief that the individual is his own authority and interpreter of Tradition and scripture. This doesn't mean the individual does not learn and take inspiration from others more knowledgeable, but rather that God has not delegated any special authority to a specific group of men. Thus the individual can have a direct relationship with God without a human intermediary (e.g. priest for confession). Of course the Protestant position only makes sense if you deny that the Holy Spirit is actively guiding the Catholic Church. And there lies the fundamental disagreement.
@@kurtschneider4202 Sola Scriptura creates 4 billion popes instead of just one. I'd rather have one, personally. lol
If local bishops can teach authoritatively, then if all of the bishops(or the overwhelming majority) get together and teach in unison, then isn’t that necessarily infallible given the protection given to the teaching of the church writ large?
Jimmy Akin definitely won that. The other Paul didn’t want provide his supposed Sola Scripura verses during the debate because he knows how Akin would have squashed him.
"That's part of the problem..."
Brother, you'll have fewer problems if you end your Protest.
Wow, Jimmy just killed a man in broad daylight
Hey cool! Nothing like this* of this sort of quality online. Appreciate it, thank you!
Good day, even in the protestant bible NKJV (1 Corinthians 11:2) it says" I praise you for remembering me in everything and for HOLDING TO THE TRADITION just as I PASSED them on to you. Means not only sola scriptura but with tradition, magisterium, and bible. Thanks Jimmy Akin for defending the Catholic church. God bless.
Cameron, you are consistently one of the best debate moderators--not just with religious debates--but with any debate online.
All the evidence you need for that is how much both interlocutors gave you your props. 😎👉🏻👉🏻
The other paul makes no sense.. he makes up his own resources?????
Still waiting for Paul to show where sola scriptora is taught in scripture..
.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
The passage says scripture *thoroughly* equips the saints for *every* good work. Implying that everything we need to know regarding faith is found *in* scripture, not outside of it.
@@CranmanPhotoCinema He was referring to the old testament as the new testament (especially the Gospels) were not written yet. Do we know what books Paul was referring too in 2 Tim outside of the old Testament? No.
@@eogh is the NT not scripture?
@@CranmanPhotoCinema What does that have to do with what I said, you already know my answer? was any of the Gospels written when 2 tim was written just answer that and allow the falsity of sola scriptura go from your eyes. Just answer that. Paul could not have known the Gospels were even being written at the time he wrote his letter, what scripture could he be referring to but the Torah and Prophets?
@@eogh if the NT is scripture (and it is) then the verse applies to it. Not sure what’s so difficult to understand.
Pride is the biggest enemy for protestant.
It's the biggest enemy for *all of us*
If this new informal style of debate is going to trend, there needs to be an authoritative mc to interfere and keep the debate on track. Aiken is having the dual role of debater and moderator. The Other Paul guy is a terrible debater and irritatingly rambling.
for anyone that denies the sacraments, I would like to know how do they plan to comply to what the Bible teaches about episcopal authority in Hebrews 13:17 since they can't account for apostolic succession via ordination through the imposition of hands as seen in Acts 13:3
Where does Hebrews 13:17 require apostolic succession? You comply by obeying your leaders and not becoming preoccupied with chains of succession, as Titus 3:9 teaches. Same thing in Acts 13:3. Obey Titus 3:9, stop obsessing about genealogies of succession, and make sure you're doing everything faithfully. Not faithful to mere earthly tradition, but to the Spirit.
@@oitpyc2965
who is a "leader" and according to whom?
have you read the full letter to Titus? the point is precisely the opposite, Titus' mission was to appoint bishops wherever he went and when St Paul tells him to avoid pointless disputes, as usual when he says "the law" he's referring to the judaizing faction who wanted to retain the ways of the old covenant, the issue has nothing to do with the authority of the bishops that would then be consecrated through the imposition of hands _by Titus._ This is crucial, it was necessary to send Titus because _he_ had the full authority (as St Paul himself mentions) to make more bishops, not other Christians such as Zenas the lawyer who St Paul entrusts to Titus in the same letter.
@12345shushi
You should read Lumen Gentium. The Catholic claim is that the Church Jesus founded "subsists in the Catholic Church". There can be Christians outside of it, but they are in an imperfect union with the body of Christ because they aren't formally united with the visible institution he left on earth.
And of course, nothing about this resolves the issue of complying with Hebrews 13:17
@@Qwerty-jy9mj What you describe diverges from the text. Titus went to appoint bishops, but Paul says nothing about creating an unbroken chain, or creating genealogies to justify leadership. That's a post hoc interpretation.
Starting right in 1:6-9, we see the vital qualities of a leader are moral, behavioral and attitudinal, and not traditional. Any authority Titus had was instrumental, not intrinsic. All three groups: The Pharisees, the Judaizers, and a certain breed of sacramentalists struggle with the same sin: of clinging to tradition, succession, authority, and the letter of the law, while neglecting the weightier matters of life, spirit and character.
The folly of this move has come home to roost in the Catholic church's epidemic of sex crimes. Catholic leaders evidently struggle with sexual sin, and bring great shame and dishonor on the church because they haven't been effective at working on their moral and spiritual condition, having instead a relied too much on formula, tradition, and other matters, while failing to make progress on the most important issues.
@@oitpyc2965
the chain is unbroken from the first generation of the Church, possibly St Paul himself, to Titus, to his bishops. That's the chain, this isn't difficult. If succession on the other hand isn't necessary, then anyone in Crete would have either taken over the Church or appointed their own bishops, but Titus being there was _necessary._ This isn't merely prudential, he expressly says he is to be respected and be heard from because he has full authority, by which he is referring to his subsequent appointments.
When you refer to this as genealogy, _that's_ a misrepresentation because what St Paul is referring to there are effectively debate tactics from judaizers, not issues pertaining to orthodox Christians.
As far as the gratuitous anti Catholicism, I have no clue of whatever crimes your garage cult may have committed because I've never heard of it, but the notion that crimes in the Church are the result of a sacramental worldview is ridiculous and blasphemous.
To the "other Paul" I do not buy your argument. You ramble sir... it sounds good maybe to someone that does not know the bible but not for anyone looking for TRUTH.
Jimmy Akin 1 : 0 The Other Paul
Jimmy is an absolute legend
Praise Jesus for this open discussion. Thanks #CapturingChristianity
Peace in Christ Jesus from Sydney from your eastern Catholic brother
The other Paul just admitted Protestants have absolutely no clue what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", and who the Woman is in Revelation 12, as all their interpretations are fallible!
And so are yours. Guess what all you have to support yours is your fallible (unless you claim omnipotence) belief that your denomination is infallible.
@@mw-ys1qq LOL, I agree, all my interpretations are Fallible, just as are those of the Other Paul and James White! According to this man made theory anyway, for Scripture ALONE is not found in Holy Scripture, nor is Faith ALONE, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 when will you debate Paul I remember it was offered where is it?
@@mw-ys1qq I wanted to debate The Other Paul on the Gospel Truth Channel if he is open to it. On Purgatory or the Mother of God! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I feel like I just watched a dunking contest and Paul was just feeding Jimmy the ball.
Sola Scripture? Lol.... Catholic Church as always have two authority. Scared Tradition and Sacred Scripture. We always hold Scripture as Sacred.. two authority. Not Scripture alone. Sola Scripture simply means, I'm picking only one side of the coin. There is an imbalance in it. That's why anyone who sided with Scripture alone is sweating when they debate. It's not their fault . It's just that Scripture alone fails them
What traditions of the catholic church are considered to be inspired and inerrant and who says they are?
@@Justas399 the seat of Rome. It has always been considered that Rome is the primacy. God has a plan for his Church. "You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church" look at where St. Peter Basilica was built? Right on top of the Tomb of St. Peter.
You can't pick and choose.. you either accept the whole package or you don't . You either accept the Catholic Church and its history as a whole or you don't .. you can't say you want scriptures alone and not the whole Church. You find alone of problem in it. The Catholics knows what they are doing .. since they have been doing it more than 2000 years...
You can claim that but now prove it. What specific "Sacred Tradition" that is not found in the NT is considered to be inspired-inerrant and how do you know?
@@vietfunmk Its in the details where your claim fails. There is no "Sacred Traditions" outside the NT that is considered to be equal with the Inspired-inerrant Word of God.
Anyone who studies Scripture knows there was no office of a papacy in the NT nor did any bishop claim to be the chief shepherd of the church in the 1st century. This alone shows that the chief authority in the catholic church is not grounded in Scripture nor seen in the 1st century. The catholic claim of authority is false.
Jimmy, clearly won the debate. However, hats off to TOP for stepping in and trying.
I never get tired of watching Jimmy Akin charitably wipe the floor with his opponents argument
@Ave Crux Spes Unica trash is wiped on the floor? Who wipes trash on the floor?
I don't know that refusing to answer questions, refusing to accept the burden of proof in any significant way, and utilizing all of the common, oft-debunked pop-level arguments against Sola Scriptura is charitable, but okay.
Private judgement leads to disbelief; disbelief is the father of atheism. In hoc signo vinces ✝
Then all of Christianity is atheism.
@@Justas399 If you take time to re-read my posting, you will observe I did not mention Christianity.
Throughout the entire debate TOP kept stating "I believe this" & "I believe that" pretty much making his own religion at that point as not all Anglicans would even agree with his views.
In essence other Paul can't prove Sola scriptura "scripture alone" from scripture alone.... That's the issue with Protestantism quick to attack but can't defend..
Also Catholics know that the Apostles have a unique authority... But their teaching office was passed on to the bishops... So if the Apostles using their teaching office could be infallible then the Bishops could be under certain Conditions. We have proven our case... Defend Sola scriptura from scripture
Did he actually proved the papacy according to Vatican I?
He was not supposed to prove the papacy according to Vatican I
When Paul said that teaching as :"St. Mark’s Gospel is inspired Scripture and to be included in the Church’s canon" is FALLIBLE, it's basically game over for him.
How can he predicate on Scripture as the only Infallible rule when he can't Infallibly say what is Scripture :/ poor foundation
Matthew 7:24-27 "a wise man who built his house on the rock"
A big problem for Protestants, especially those who are presuppositionalist!
Have you heard about canonicity criteria? what does infallibility have to do with it?
How do you know infallibly that the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church infallibly determined the canon?
@@hc7385 I love it when Protestants try their hand at epistemology lol.
@@hc7385 because the Magesterium has made it explicitly clear for anyone who can read. You would have to be a Protestant to misinterpret the Magesterium on the Canon 😂
@@gd808 I think it's Catholic apologists who generally don't understand epistemology.
Other Paul talking about equivocation but it's him and other protestant apologists who equivocate... By replacing word of God with scripture.
God's word has been passed orally... And God's word has also been taught authoritatively by the Church.. so if God's word is our ultimate authority... Then it is not restricted to scripture but also to tradition as interpreted by the Church in her teaching authority (magisterium)..
Also Writing words can also be corrupted as Jimmy akin pointed out... It's not just preserved or special because it is written down... It is because God preserves it. God can also preserve his words in the oral tradition of the Church and in her. Authoritative teachings (Magisterium)
He said, follow me as the scripture has said, and out of your belly will flow rivers of living water
Has this ever happened???
When the opponent in a debate comes to believe the opposing position...
And Converts?
That would be amazing if it did!
I'm not sure that they _should._ (Hear me out for a second....)
I get that what you describe _seems like_ a good expression of humility, teachability, and intellectual integrity.
But on complex topics like this, even someone very clever and clearheaded can easily fail to consider all aspects of an issue, on the spur of the moment, when surprised by an unexpected rejoinder. That's a failing of the human brain; and it is _not necessarily_ a failure of one's own argument.
If I were in the shoes of The Other Paul, for example, and Jimmy raised something I couldn't meaningfully answer off the top of my head, it wouldn't be right -- it would be rash and imprudent -- for me to immediately say, "Okay, tomorrow I'm signing up for RCIA." After all, I might be merely having a "senior moment." The next day, I might have a very _good_ response. Or, perhaps I can construct an excellent refutation after some research, or consultation with others.
So the best response might be something like this:
"I grant that you have raised a point that I had not considered. Kudos to you! It even seems to me that your point is sufficient to win this debate, _if_ we consider this debate _merely as a sort of sporting event_. I take my hat off to you.
"That said, a debate, _considered as a sporting event,_ is not solely about what's true, but about the ability of each contestant to reason about, dissect, critique, organize, and synthesize his own position, and his opponent's position, _on the spur of the moment._ (That's a very-fallible process, and no human's finite capacity to do _that_ should be regarded as an objective arbiter of truth!)
"So, I think I will take this point, to which I am unable to adequately respond _here and now_, and consider it. I should give it the time, research, and consultation that it merits. If, at the end of that, I _still_ can't respond to it, I am morally obligated either to be convinced by it, or to give a reason -- stated clearly enough that others can freely critique it -- why I am not convinced. I'll get back to you."
Something like THAT ^^^, I think, is the correct way to approach such things. If a person sort of "converts in real time," he's probably not taking the topic seriously enough! ...or perhaps he's overestimating his own brain's ability to understand everything fully on-the-spur-of-the-moment."
Respectfully,
CW
@@cw-on-yt
I hear you on all points. My thoughts weren't necessarily meant for a vonversion during the debate.
More like a seed planting that I couldn't argue after much study.
Then a possible conversion.
It would be something if down the road, The Other Paul had a public conversion and gave Jimmy Akin the respect, for converting him.
Jimmy himself, is a convert.
Something or someone, caused that conversion.
I am sure that Jimmy has moved many people to conversion, why not The Other Paul.
@@rosiegirl2485: Why not, indeed?
But I think TOP needs to find a way to make his own presentation a little clearer to himself, to see if he still believes it, and if it really adequately answers what Jimmy and others are saying. Not everyone can present information as crisply and clearly as Jimmy, but I think even TOP himself must feel that his articulation of his own position was a bit muddled and vague.
Aaaaand, speaking as a male, who was once a younger man, my guess is that _even if_ TOP were to get a creeping feeling that he'd been out-argued not just because of having a bad night, but because his own position was _wrong_ ...well! I'm guessing he'd want to be quiet about that, and talk about other topics until the sting of it went away. (And _that_ can take a while. I can recall conversations in which I was publicly revealed to be wrong-through-oversight, which could still make me break out in a cold sweat if I thought of them a decade later. Pride makes fools of us all, if we let it!)
So, if I were one of his pals, I'd just give the guy some space for a while, and let _him_ bring it up if he wants to! Expecting him to calmly, objectively revise his own worldview right after he'd put it out there for world-wide critique, and gotten a drubbing, is asking too much saintliness of anyone TOP's age!
It seems to me that Paul's defense of sola scripture is solely based on assumptions. God did not leave us a faith where we must assume.
Very polite discussion. Kudos for both of them. In my opinion Jimmy was very consistent. Paul did it very well but at the end he can't hold with consistency the viability of Sola Scriptura. It was not his guilty because Sola Scriptura fails when is tested with the Sacred Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the paradigm of incoherence and incosistency because you can't require for any argument the validation of a supreme norm of verification (Sola Scriptura) that can't verify itself. It's logically indefensible.
If one doesn’t know history they aren’t prepared to give an answer as to how the Church should proceed into the future.
I have just uploaded a video responding to some of Jimmy's points in this debate from a Protestant perspective and hoping to defend Sola Scriptura. I also make a Scriptural case for Sola Scriptura.
Well.. I just watched
I will check it out
This was a tough watch. The other paul was in way over his head with Jimmy. It was like watching a 5th grader debate a college student. Yikes.
Got pretty annoyed at Paul repeatedly claiming Jimmy "just assumed" what he rigorously argued for. Repetition isn't an argument: you have to provide an actual rebuttal to those points.
To be fair. All Arguments on what is right are just assumptions. We cant ignore that Jesus was a Jew preaching Jewish things. What every christian does today is assume they are right when they read the text and are just gambling with their salvation calling Jesus god.
@@DarthKaiju I don't even know where to start with all that you said. So much of it is false.
@@lyterman What did I say that was false? Dont just say it, tell me how.
@@DarthKaiju Let's see.
1) All arguments are just assumptions (seriously?)
2) Christians just assume they are right (we make arguments)
3) Christians are "gambling" that Jesus is God (It is taught in the Bible and Tradition, not a gamble)
@@lyterman It is not taught in the Bible that Jesus is Yahweh.
All arguments are assumptions because we don’t have any writings from people who knew Jesus. For this reason you are literally gambling. Calling Jesus Yahweh when that’s not in the Bible is gambling
With thousands of man made denominations how many are in conflict…all
The holy apostolic Church is ONE.