¶1Hello everyone. I'm looking at my audio here. Welcome to the second debate between Matt Frad and Cameron Batusi on topics that divide Catholics and Protestants. And on this one, we're talking about solar scriptor. So yeah, how should we start this?
¶2Should you actually asked me a question right before we started and we should probably do that first, right? What was the what was the question? Oh, yeah. Just I was just kind of cool. Yeah, you go.
¶3Well, no, no, ask it so people know what we're where Well, I just want to know what this process has been like for you. Um, you know, we we decide to do these once a month. I mean, I I think it's just nice to come out there and say it. I mean, part of the reason we're doing this behind the Patreon wall is for money. The the other part is I don't feel comfortable because I don't feel myself an authority on these issues.
¶4I don't feel myself to be a skilled debate or anything like that. Right. Don't you think that's part of it? It's like you and I getting our training wheels on That's not That's not it for me. That's not it for me.
¶5But I I think that's a sort of by that's a good thing I think because yeah, we're we're and I I I mean we I was thinking about making that caveat right before we get started is that like again we're not experts and we we interview the experts and we have them on our shows. So you and I are not necessarily like the people that should really be standing in as like the people that represent our positions. But I think that it's afforded at least personally me it's afforded me the opportunity to really look into some some stuff like so with soloscriptor I didn't even have like a good understanding of of like what it that actually meant. I didn't even know what that what that meant. And so it's it's given me the opportunity to look into like what what are like the smartest Protestants have to say about this.
¶6And you correct me if I'm wrong but you kind of came to kind of embrace Christianity based on philosophical arguments for God's existence then maybe the resurrection right? It's not it's not like you were kind of a died in the wool Protestant having learned kind of Protestant uh kind of theology as regards to solid solar scriptor. I might be wrong. I never I never studied those things. I I just grew up Protestant basically and so that's where that's where I I I came from.
¶7And so you would you would probably have a much better kind of grasp on sort of like theistic apologetics. And as you and I discuss these things that divide us, you're now kind of educating yourself on these specific topic. Yeah. Yeah. That's cool.
¶8Yeah. Exactly. And so what it's what it's afforded me for this one in particular, the other one was just really cool. Like it was it was really fun to when I say the other one, the Eucharist. Those are the only two that we've done so far.
¶9The Eucharist and now Solos Scripura. But the Eucharist one was a lot of fun because I had never really looked deeply into a topic like that. And also theology is just not something that I do a whole lot. And because I think it's actually really really challenging. I think it's more difficult than philosophy.
¶10But I mean theology and philosophy are very intertwined in a lot of ways. So it's difficult to make a distinction there. But theology of scripture looking into what the Bible says and yeah and solos scriptor and stuff. It's it's challenging. It is but it's been a lot of fun.
¶11There's that saying that the more you know the more you know you don't know. Like it's it's easy to know nothing about a topic, hear an impassion talk about that topic and then feel yourself an expert and then you encounter somebody and realize oh wow there's there's a lot more I don't know here and so you then realize you don't know and then the more you study the more like I mean there's a reason people write doctrinal dissertations on these things. It's not because these these are really easy topics. So, um, for me, you know, like I I've been really enjoying this as well because I used to work as a Catholic apologist at Catholic Answers, and so this has kind of I haven't really kind of delved into these topics of late. Um, so it's really kind of given me an opportunity to kind of like revisit them.
¶12So, yeah, it's been it's been good. Yeah. Probably the main thing that I've enjoyed out of this one was learning more about the canon and and how Christians think that the cannon arose, or at least Protestants think that the cannon arose. And so, that has been really rewarding. That was a real weak spot for me in understanding or having some kind of idea of how that came about.
¶13So, and we can get in we may we may touch on that. I have some stuff prepared, but I don't I don't know that we we'll get there. We'll we'll just see. So, how should we Well, here's what I'd like to do because I think last time when we discussed the Eucharist, right? Like obviously both of us had a burden of proof to shoulder because each of us were coming to the table making a specific claim about the what the Eucharist is.
¶14I I would think that today you have more of the burden proof burden of proof than I would because you're trying to make the case for solar scriptorer, right? Like it it could be the case that Catholicism is false and solos scriptorer is still false. So I and I mean this I'm actually really looking forward to learning from you about Soloscriptura because I've actually been you you pointed me to a few people like Michael Michael Krueger and and a few other folks and I've been trying to understand what what what their point is and I think we can fall into this trap on both sides of the Protestant Catholic divide. Right? It's like we don't begin by listening to what the other side says.
¶15We begin by listening to what our side says the reputations are to their points. So, I really would like uh a good chunk of this, at least the first half, to to just just kind of understand where you're coming from. Uh so, kind of like Yeah. But before we do that, I really would like to just say one thing about what the Catholic Church has to say about scripture. Is that okay?
¶16Yeah. And and I say this because I think sometimes the Catholic position is um kind of uh caric, you know, uh caricatured. Caricatured. Yeah. spoken to in a disparaging sort of way like Catholics don't respect the Bible.
¶17So, I just thought it would be helpful just from the from the get-go like what does the Catholic Church teach about the Bible? And so, I just wanted to offer this very short quotation um uh from the Second Vatican Council. It says, "The books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety with all their parts are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the church herself. The books of scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writing for the sake of salvation." So the Catholic Church believes I believe that the scriptures are inherent that they are theto god breathed. Um and we're not reading the opinions of men.
¶18We're reading the very word of God uh when when we read the scriptures. So just in case somebody kind of grew up thinking that Catholics had some, I don't know, wonky understanding of the scriptures or maybe they learned from some kind of liberal Catholic professor, that is what the Catholic Church teaches about scripture. So I just thought that might be helpful just to kind of start with that. Yeah, that's good. I I I had no misconception about that at all.
¶19I I have Yeah, since I started doing the study on solos scripture, I I even the people that I've been reading have all said that the Catholic position is officially that, you know, scripture is authoritative and it's infallible. So that's not something that I've dealt with myself. I I didn't think you would think that. I guess I was saying that more for your your patrons in case weren't aware. Yeah.
¶20Yeah. I don't actually know what the mix is from from my patrons if like if they're mostly Protestant or Catholic. I I have no idea. Thumbs down if you're here for Matt, thumbs up if you're here for Cameron, but I don't know if you want to do Nah, let's not do that. Uh I did want to say though that we're at like 47 or 49 people watching live.
¶21So that's really cool. I I just wanted to say thank you guys for supporting me personally. Thank you for supporting this ministry. Uh it's it's it's really important and the stuff that we have planned, these conferences and these, you know, the courses and all the different things that we have going on right now. Uh none of this is possible without you and your support.
¶22So, I just wanted to say thank you. I didn't want to take too long and say that, but I'm sure Matt feels the same way about his people that are watching from from his he doesn't like you guys. Super grateful. Okay. So, yes, here let's start off with a definition.
¶23I could give you one of what soloscriptor is, but it's probably a better idea that you you give me one since you're the one. Yeah. So, I I came into this and I'm coming into all of these because I I don't have a familiarity with like what these what these teach what Yeah. So, so the Eucharist like I I didn't have a developed view until I started to study it and research and and same with solos scriptor. didn't come into this thinking that I was going to be on the side of solos scriptor which I think actually is going to sort of open the door to Catholicism if you know solos scriptorer is not true or if there's no good understanding of solos scriptor that that sort of makes sense because I think that if you reject it it opens the door for other traditions and other things other authorities so soloscriptor uh and this is this is based on let me actually hold up the book so there's a guy that I've been rating John Peekom He's actually going to be on my show pretty soon in like two weeks.
¶24Seventh Day Adventist, isn't he? Actually, I don't know. I think he is. Doesn't matter. I don't know.
¶25I'm trying to see if it says it on here on on the book. Uh anyway, so this this is the book that was recommended to me by another guy that I that actually wrote another book that I've been reading on this whole subject, Roman but not Catholic. Jerry Walls is one of the co-writers of this one. Oh, Jerry Walls is a 7th Day Adventist. I apologize.
¶26I I I'm almost hurt. I'm going to shut up. How about you talk and I'll just I'll just drink my water over here. All right. Do that.
¶27So, uh Jerry Jerry Walls recommended Canonical Theology by John Peekham and I've been reading through that. I actually had a phone call with him to kind of like understand what his view is and I'm also going to be doing an interview with him in a couple weeks. So, and we'll probably talk about some of the things that we talk about in this debate. Uh should we even call it a debate? This is more of a discussion.
¶28This this may not be any kind of debate is sexier, but discussion I think is more accurate. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. All right. So, let's use debate to get the patrons in and then once they're in, we'll just acknowledge that it's a friendly discussion.
¶29Okay. So, the summary. So, this is what I have as a summary and this is this is what I wrote. So, apart from God himself, scripture is the ultimate rule or standard for Christian faith and practice. Experience and tradition must conform to scripture.
¶30So I think it's about ultimate authority when it comes to divine revelation. Now that is like the summary and I have like he gives John Peek in his book gives a three point like three different technical Go ahead. You want me to repeat? Could I could I could I offer like another definition that I hear and think about a lot just to make sure you know I think this is what you're saying but I don't want to throw it back at you and you be like that's totally not what I'm saying. Um, and maybe this isn't so much a definition, as just a way of understanding it.
¶31Would you say as a as a Protestant or as as Christians, we're not bound to believe what is not taught explicitly or implicitly in scripture, which is the only source of Christian truth. We're not bound to believe. We're not bound to believe what is not taught explicitly or implicitly in scripture. In other words, if I'm telling you you as a Christian must believe this, your response to me is probably like, where is that in the Bible? And if it's not, wouldn't you say, well, I'm not I'm not bound to believe that since it's not taught explicitly or implicitly.
¶32Uh may maybe I'd have to think more about that. But the way the way that I look at it is like everything sort of answers to the Bible. It's got to be consistent with with biblical teaching. So uh so that's that's like the summary of it and then there are three Yeah. Sorry.
¶33I I was just quickly I would believe that too, right? Like I I would believe that everything has to be consistent with biblical teaching. Okay. Yeah. Um so here's here's probably some stuff that you wouldn't agree with though.
¶34Okay. So here's here's solos scripture and I've got it on the screen so you can see it. Can you see it? Thanks. Yep.
¶35Yep. All right. And this is for everyone else too. So number one, scripture is the uniquely infallible source of divine revelation that is available to contemporary humans collectively. So I think that's something that you would disagree with.
¶36Number two, scripture alone provides a sufficient and fully trustworthy basis of theology. And all three of these are different and important. Number three, scripture is the uniquely authoritative and final form of theological interpretation that norms all others. So that third one is a little bit interesting and kind of weird, but yeah. So that's that's the view that I've found and it avoids a lot of the common objections that that you hear from Catholics.
¶37Why do you say uniquely infallible and not only infallible? uniquely infallible because it's it's sort of like could you change uniquely for only? Um I I so I it's about divine revelation. So I guess you could say only that would seem to fit with what solar scriptor means in Latin, right? Yeah.
¶38By scripture alone. Um, I I don't I don't super care about what the the solo means in Latin, but I I care more about Yeah. Anyways, I don't I don't have real deep thoughts on that. Okay. Um, so yeah, so we can come back to this if we if we need to, but I think at this point it might be good to to go over some biblical data that might support this.
¶39I just want to kind of get really clear on what what you think solos scriptor means. So could you just say say that again cuz I think sometimes we Catholics make the mistake of thinking like Protestants have a you know one view on solos scriptorer but Protestantism is obviously a very diverse movement with many different opinions on many different doctrines. So I want to be sure that I understand what you think solos scripture. Let me pull it back up. So these are the three different things that are these are quote these are basically taken verbatim from John Peekom's book and he wrote this in 2015 I think maybe earlier.
¶40Is it is it okay? Is it okay if you want to just like unspool for a bit? I'm happy to sit back and shut up, but I just I'm I also don't want this screen to fade and then me kind of not really understand what what you're saying solura is. Does that make sense? So, could I ask Yeah.
¶41Could I ask some questions about it or did you want to un Yeah, let's do that. Yeah, let's because that's that's actually really important. it when I first read through these these things, it's like it just seems that's part of my frustration with with Solos Scripura is that it's very difficult to understand. And so it took a while to really get what what what it what it's getting at and I've been trying to boil it down and I can I can give you my best attempt at what I think is really happening. So what I think is really happening behind Soloscriptor is the it's basically highlighting the difference between and this this may not be actually accurate.
¶42I think it might be inaccurate, but I to me it's like Protestants believe that the apostles and people that were close to the apostles were like the last people that had something that was sort of god breathed that was either oral or written down or written down from oral tradition, right? And Catholics believe that that is not the only that that was not like the last thing that is infallible or God breathed. Yeah. Yeah. So that that's really so so to me the whole debate about solos scripture and maybe I'm completely wrong about this but this is just sort of like where I was trying to think about what is this even about like what are we even debating?
¶43Yeah. What are we debating and what and what do we agree on? Right. I think it's about the Yeah. I I think it's about the line.
¶44Like where do you draw the line basically? And this is a a good question for like the Old Testament too. when the the intertestamental period like what was the line how do you draw that line like when when did the prophet stop speaking you know what what should we keep keep as old testament canon I think these are just difficult questions and that's why solos scriptor is such a difficult thing is because it's difficult to know when it stops like where where do you draw the line but see I think we're talking about two different things now right we're talking about what is solos scriptorer and what is the cannon and maybe we can put the cannon to one side for a moment because I think we can know what solos scriptor is even without knowing even without discussing the canon which we can do later if you want. Yeah. Um but I just want to try to really understand this because again I think I'm giving it a fair shake because I've listened to Krueger.
¶45I've listened to James White and I know those two are quite friendly actually. I think I think Krueger's reformed as well and and from my understanding it it it doesn't seem that complicated. It might start, it might be complicated as we begin to try to defend it or something, but um but that scripture is the sole and infallible rule of faith for the Christian and that we are not bound to believe what is not taught explicitly or implicitly in scripture. That scripture is the only thing we need to do theology essentially. I don't think I'm straw manning and I'm certainly not trying to set set you up to accept that definition so I can then pounce.
¶46I I just think it's that's people can tell us in the comment section, but I think that's generally what Protestants say. I mean, this is what Luther was all about. It's by scripture alone. That's how we come to know what what God wants us. Not tradition, not church authority.
¶47And we can we can look at those things, right? Tradition might be important. Councils might be important. We can learn from the elders in our particular church. We're certainly not dismissing all of that, says the Protestant, but that scripture alone is all we need.
¶48Um, it's it's the sole and infallible rule of faith for the Christian. Why why why not just accept why is that so hard? It maybe it's because you maybe it's because you jumped from not really thinking about this into like some of the best and brightest minds in the Protestant world who've written like dissertations on this issue. That's That's all I do. That I I always look for like the best.
¶49I I I just skip over all like the I mean that's why I did I didn't listen to a single thing. Well, actually, no, that's that's false. I listen to the debate on your channel this morning between James White and Patrick. Yeah. Yeah.
¶50So, I listened to parts of that debate, but other than that, I I don't I haven't read any of his work. I think I read part of his work as like because he was quoted on like a Catholic resource. Who do you think won that debate from your from your listening? I didn't listen to the whole thing. Oh, okay.
¶51No worries. Yeah, I heard some some fireworks. I think I I got into like the this the first rebuttals. Yeah, for those who are watching right now, I I actually have Patrick Madrid on my show tomorrow. Yeah, people wants Yeah.
¶52All right, can you can keep going. I I think so I think I think we're on the same page about what soloscriptor is. I would just I would just want to I would just want to nuance it and and say it in the exact terms that I I put on the screen. I think that but you've given me like three different definitions almost. So I'm trying to boiled down.
¶53Um so I boiled it down at the very beginning. I gave a summary. So apart from God himself, scripture is the ultimate rule or standard for Christian faith and practice. Apart from God himself, apart from apart from God himself. Yeah.
¶54So when we're thinking about so God is infallible, right? So but we don't have like you know God God is not speaking sort of directly to our brains. He's using or or you say he might right that's possible and that if he did possible that would be that would be the inherent word of God as well but it's not public revelation it would be private revelation that no one else would be bound to accept necessarily. Mhm. Yeah.
¶55And this so this is about the this is concerns divine revelation special revelation specifically. Okay. But it's yeah it's about scripture being the ultimate rule or standard apart from from God himself. Mhm. Ultimate rule and standard.
¶56Okay. And then experience and tradition must conform to scripture. Yeah. So there are some so a lot of time like Catholics will often at least from this the study that I've done and people who who argue against it and there's there's like tons of articles online that you can find and stuff is what they'll do is they'll look at the Bible itself and like try to provide some verses that either support or don't support solos scriptorer because you know if it if it falls if it doesn't meet its own standards so to speak then if you know solos scriptura can't be found in scripture then there's something wrong with solar scripura, right? Can I can I rephrase that?
¶57So if like solos scripura is a doctrine, I don't think you could say it's not a doctrine. It's the do it's the doctrine, right? That when and forgive me, but I'm going to just say it the way I've been phrasing it since you don't seem to have a problem with that and I forget how you put it. It's the doctrine that we're not bound to accept what isn't taught explicitly or implicitly in scripture. Right?
¶58So if if if so therefore if that doctrine of solos scriptorer isn't taught explicitly or implicitly in scripture then it's sort of a self-refuting my my my camera's gone blurry. It's a it's a sort of self-refuting doctrine that that's kind of what you hear from Catholics. In other words, so if I could formulate it as an argument, right, it' be premise one, we're not bound to believe what is not taught explicitly or implicitly in scripture. Um, you know, the scriptures don't teach that we're not bound, yada yada. Therefore, scholar scripture isn't something we're bound to hold to.
¶59Yeah, that's that's that's definitely my position, right? So, just my my position is that solos scriptorer is is a tradition of men. It's an unbiblical teaching that we should reject. Okay. Yeah.
¶60Yeah. You go. So the first thing that I have in in my notes to to talk about is the the biblical data that I think supports solos scriptorera and that that like there's I think there's some data that supports it and I think that there is some data that may go the other way. So but and I'm still sort of working my my way through it. But I I would say the balance of the evidence probably weighs in favor of solos scriptorer in a in a couple couple different ways.
¶61But so here's a here's a let's just go through a couple verses. So on the authority and infallib infallibility of scripture, you and I already agree. You and I already agree on that. So I could give some verses that support that, but I don't think I need to. Good.
¶62Right. Yeah, that's right. The Bible Bible is inherent. Yeah. It's funny when I when we say when I say infallible, I think infallible usually has to do with a teacher uh who could be wrong or not.
¶63Inherency has to do with like a written text, I think. But I think we're using infallible and inherent interchangeably. So I'm happy with that. So here's one. Uh so so there was basically only three things that could count as as authorities.
¶64So reason or experience could be something that counts as as an authority. A lot of uh progressive Christians actually use their own reason to sort of subvert scripture. They'll like you know reject the teachings about homosexuality in order to because they're they're sort of yeah their authority is ultimately their own ethical principles. Right. So So reason and experience.
¶65So it's not of God you're dealing with at that point. Yeah. Well, so the the point here is that I'm I'm sort of categorizing the biblical data that that shows that reason and experience is fallible and subject to scripture. Yep. So and you and I pretty much agree on that.
¶66Let me just give a couple just for for people to if they're interested. Proverbs 9:10, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. Proverbs 28:26, "Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered." Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick who can understand it." So what these verses and others show is that reason and experience is fallible and therefore is subject to scripture. Scripture is the ultimate authority. So then the next one, the the big one is religious authority/tradition is fallible and therefore subject to scripture.
¶67So, Matthew 15:6, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. Colossians 2:8, see to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Acts 5:29, we must obey God rather than men. 1 Thessalonians 2:13. And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.
¶68And then there's one more. Galatians 1:8-9. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preach to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one that you received, let him be accursed. So I think that that that's that's some of the biblical data that I think supports that religious authority and tradition is fallible or at least sub subject to to scripture.
¶69Would you would you though recognize that scripture talks about tradition in a positive way and and not just a positive way but in a binding way? So it certainly talks about traditions of men that have to be rejected. But would you also acknowledge that St. Paul for example tells us talks about tradition in a positive way? Yeah.
¶70So the the view of solos scriptura that that John lays out in his book is completely consistent with other traditions having some some authority, some level of authority, but just not at the same level of authority as as scripture as holy scripture. Why is your camera going in and out? Sorry to Oh, dude. I'm sorry. I don't know.
¶71Is it It's back now. It's back now. I'll try not to move my my head. Um well, but I mean 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." So right there, Paul puts oral tradition on the same footing as written tradition. Yeah.
¶72Now I I agree that the oral tradition from the from the apostles that were commissioned by Christ, I agree that the the oral tradition from them was on the same level as the written tradition. Cool. So that's why I think it it kind of comes down to the scope of the cannon because we like if the scope of the cannon is limited to the people who were sort of close to to Jesus himself like the apostles and and prophets if you want to include prophets people that were sort of involved in the divine commission laid out by Jesus then the scope of the canon is basically limited to those people. It's limited to the people who wrote who who were going out and commissioned by Jesus himself or people who are close associates with with the apostles. So that's Go ahead.
¶73You keep going. I was going to Oh, uh, I was just I was just I was just going to reiterate that that's why I think that it comes down to where you draw the line like where do you draw the line at the apostles that were close to Jesus or commissioned directly by Jesus and and their associates associates or do you go further? So I think that that's to that's like to maybe maybe I'm wrong about that. Yeah, sure. Well, I mean, first of all, I would say that what you're talking about here, the idea that um, you know, the fact that there are there are to be no more apostles, right?
¶74The fact that there are to be no books of scripture, that there is to be no new publicly binding revelation before the second coming. I would say that none of that is taught in scripture, but it's something that we accept by tradition. I would say that's an example of tradition. Say, say that again. So, you know, this idea that you accept and I accept, right?
¶75Like there's there's going to be no more apostles and and you made the point, right? Um that it's not just uh apostles whose words are binding, right? You've got you've got Luke, you know, you've got Mark, neither of which were apostles. Um Acts 1 talks about the importance that the 12 had to be an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry. But we learn in Acts 14, I think, where Luke calls both Barnabas and Paul apostles, right?
¶76But you and I would believe like I'd say you Protestants Catholics both believe these three things. There's there are no more apostles, right? Secondly, there's going to be no more books of scripture. It's not like another one will be written and that will be binding upon us. And and and I guess along with that, there's going to be no new publicly binding revelation before the second coming.
¶77Like we Protestants and Catholics believe this, but I would say we believe this by tradition, not by scripture because none of those three things are taught in sacred scripture. Let me you can respond to that, but I just want to back up and say something that might show you and some of your viewers that we might be more in agreement than people might originally think. Okay. One legitimate way of viewing scripture from the Catholic perspective is that scripture contains all truths that are necessary for salvation. And so what's tradition then?
¶78Well, tradition contains the orthodox way of understanding scripture. So I have a show called Pints with Aquinus. There was a Dominican theologian who was also a domin Dom Dominican like Aquinus and he said this quote there is not a single point of belief that the church holds by tradition alone without any reference to scripture just as there is not a single dogma that is derived from scripture alone without being explained by tradition. Now, I'm not sure how far I'd want to push that because, as I say, there the idea that there's no more apostles, no more public buying revelation, I think isn't taught in scripture. But that's B.
¶79You know, I think sometimes when when Protestants hear tradition, they think of a list of things somewhere. Um, but it's really the way of interpreting sacred scripture in the traditional way, the way the early church did, the way the apostles intended us to. Um yeah, this actually touches on a really important part is like what do we mean by tradition? What do you mean by tradition? Well, tradition I would say scripture is part of tradition.
¶80Tradition comes from a you know word that just means the handing on. So I mean right so like Christ never commanded that his apostles uh write scripture. um he founded a church and told the church to teach. The first generation of Christians obviously were reliant upon the apostles and the elders. Um and but so I would say that scripture is evidence of tradition.
¶81So I would say and I think sometimes we get this backwards. I would say and I I'm think I'm taking this from Scott Han who said um the church is sorry scripture is not an instruction manual for a church still in shrink wrap rather the the the scriptures presuppose a church already in existence. Um, can I just stop and clarify here because I I I made the claim earlier that if solar scriptorer isn't taught in scripture then solar scriptor is a self-refuting doctrine and I'm I just I was wondering do you have a scripture in mind that teaches it? Cuz you what you did is you you pointed to tra traditions of men not being binding and you said that experience is fallible. I agree with those things and I'm not trying to like put you on the spot here because maybe there is one and you just haven't found it yet.
¶82But is there a scripture that you can point to that teaches solos scriptorer? Yeah. So um so the second prong, let me actually pull it back up here. Sure. So the second prong scripture alone provides a sufficient and fully trustworthy basis of theology.
¶83That's like the second prong of solos scripture according to John Peekom which I think is probably the be one of the best if like it's it's very rigorous. It's very philosophical. He takes a very philosophical approach to the whole issue. So it's really helpful. I think I'm almost in agreement with this.
¶84I think the only word I want to know what you mean by is sufficient. What does sufficient mean? Cuz I agree that scripture Well, okay, it's alone that I have a problem with. Maybe that's what it is. I want to know I guess can't be alone.
¶85Um well, so so anyway, so I I provided a list of scriptures that I think support solos scriptor at least the the the threeprong thing that I gave and I went through them earlier. Matthew 5 15:6, Colossians 28, Acts 5:29, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, and then Galatians 1:8-9, which I think collectively provides some some pretty good evidence. I mean, especially Matthew 15, like if you just read through that, basically the Pharisees were making up their own traditions. And Jesus was like, "No, you're putting these traditions over the word of God." And that I mean that that seems to well I I agree wholeheartedly with that of course you know the traditions of men usurping the authority of God is evil and we should reject that. But then I also pointed to where St.
¶86Paul commands us to hold to the traditions. So I don't see how that's necessarily an argument for solar scriptorer. Well we don't have to go through them if you don't want to. Is there one like what's the strongest maybe uh that you've come across where you're like this this this this teaches solos scriptorer cuz wouldn't you agree with me that if if the Bible doesn't teach solos scriptorera then you and according to solos scriptor you shouldn't hold to it I think so yeah I think so if if it's not taught in the bible then there's not a whole lot of reason to accept it yeah orthodox are like please help me help me see it because I I don't see let me let me get away um from that because I I don't think that solos scriptura means that we can only believe what's taught in scripture, right? It's just that this it's like the ultimate authority.
¶87So, whatever you believe has to be consistent with scripture. See, consistency, that's very different cuz I agree with that, too. Yeah. Yeah. Of course.
¶88But but in but when you have like some kind of disagreement, then scripture is the thing that's going to sort of win out always because it's infallible above any kind of tradition of men. I mean, I'm happy to respond to that. I'm also happy for you to kind of talk. I don't want to keep coming. I want you to I want you to uh if you can repeat what your argument was.
¶89What was the verse in in it was uh 1 Thessalonians 2:15. Is that right? Right. And that was just a all all I was saying there is that we we Paul commands us to hold to tradition and he puts oral tradition on the same footing as sacred scripture. Wait, what was the verse again?
¶90Yeah, sure. 2 Thessalonians 2:15. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Yeah. And actually, I think Yeah, you go.
¶91I I think that's that's completely consistent with it because if you think of the canon as being sort of collected or at least one of the attributes of the canon is that they were written or at least the letters were written by apostles or people that were close to the apostles. But then also that they there was an oral tradition that was going on at the same time. But so I yeah I already touched on that earlier and I think that that's that's what this uh this verse is saying. So then brothers and sisters stand firm and hold fast to the teachings. that's this translation to the teachings we passed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter.
¶92So again I I I I think that's completely compatible with it. Okay. I would just say that you know Jesus Christ rebuking the Jews for usurping the word of God to you know like false teaching is not an argument for solos scriptorer. It doesn't teach that the Bible is the sole and infallible rule of faith. it.
¶93I mean, certainly the Bible is an an inherent rule of faith, but I don't see in scripture where it says it's the only infallible rule of faith. I see what you're saying. So, you want you want some some more biblical data that says it's only, right? I mean, don't you think I if if solar scriptorer is to be something I have to I'm going to accept, it's got to be taught in scripture. Otherwise, by its own criteria, it refutes itself.
¶94Now, what I see Protestant apologists often doing is pointing to 2 Timothy 3:16, right? Where they say, "All scripture is breathed out by God." That's that seems to be what Protestants turn to, but I'm utterly unimpressed by that. Yeah, you didn't point to that first. I I didn't go to that one first because I I put that one under actually the uh the verses that we didn't talk about authority and infallibility of scripture. Okay.
¶95Yeah. So, that one. Yeah. I I I didn't talk about that one, but yeah. So, I I think that wouldn't you agree though that the verses that I mentioned earlier, especially with the one in Matthew 15 that at least support like it's it's it's pretty ex you we would expect to see some kind of verse like that if solos scriptor were true.
¶96Uh yeah, I think it's also something we should expect to see if uh solos scriptor were false because the word of god doesn't just come to us in one form. it comes to us in oral tradition as well as written tradition. Mhm. Um yeah. So how what is like because we don't we we can't talk to the apostles right now, right?
¶97So we don't have their oral tradition. We only have their written tradition. So that's why the first prong I'll pull it back up. The first prong is scripture is the uniquely infallible source of divine revelation that is available to contemporary humans collectively. Right.
¶98So we don't have I would say that the church Christ established and gave authority to also can help us understand what what scripture means. Can help us. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
¶99I agree with that. I mean the Catholic Church. I'm not talking about I'm not talking about Protestant denominations because I don't see them as as the church Christ established. And so I would say like I would say and and I know you obviously know this right? I think that there's a claim that's often made RC Sproul tried to get out of it that solar scriptorer is a circular position.
¶100you point to scripture to justify scripture. Whereas in in the Catholic church, you don't do that, right? What you do is you recognize that there was this historical figure Jesus Christ and he established a church and he gave that church authority and then that church wrote, compiled and canonized the scriptures. And so the reason I know that the 27 books of the New Testament are the inherent word of God is because the infallible church which Christ established tells me. So if I if I if I are we talking about the canon now?
¶101Uh well yeah I guess I guess we're kind of bleeding into that. But still I I still haven't I still I'm not I I don't think that you've given me a a scripture that shows solos scriptor. I think that uh this this is kind of why I think that the debate or the the the whole like question about solos scriptor comes down to like what when when does it stop because I think it all public revelation. Well, that's the thing. Yeah.
¶102Uh I don't want to say divine I don't know maybe it's not May maybe I'm just wrong about this. I think I think you mean public revelation, right? Like when does it stop? Is it still going on? Like the Mormons think it's still going on.
¶103They have a prophet who apparently hears from God and what he has to say is just as binding as the scriptures. I think obviously that's not something I believe. I I believe that that the public revelation stopped with the death of the last apostle. Yeah. But I also think that that I also think that that statement is a tradition that we should accept that isn't taught explicitly in scripture.
¶104So let me make a concession. I I want to make a concession here. So this is I was I think at the beginning of this I was saying I think that the biblical evidence sort of weighs like the total evidence sort of weighs on the side of solos scriptor but I'm not like completely sure about that. I'm still kind of like working my way through it. So I think that like for instance the this verse in Galatians 1 8-9 but even if we are an angel from heaven should preach to you I I'll just read it but it's going to work in your favor.
¶105So don't worry about it. If we uh so even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one that we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one that you received, let him be accursed. Now, to me, I think what what the Catholic would say and what you would say is that yeah, we're not we're not teaching anything that's contrary to to what Paul preached. Mhm.
¶106Right. So, so I don't think that that necessarily supports solo scriptor, but I think that the yeah, I think the the data overall I think provides some some evidence for solo scriptor. How how much evidence is is maybe up to up for debate. Yeah. And I would say that scripture certainly teaches that scripture is inherent and an authority.
¶107It just nowhere teaches that it's the only authority. So I I agree with you that it's an authority. Yeah. So so this is this is an important point is it that scripture doesn't have to say you know the Bible is the only source of infallible authority in order for a solos scripture to be true. I think it does or or if not okay fine it doesn't have to be explicit like that.
¶108It could also be like the trinity right? So the word trinity isn't used in scripture, but the scriptures do teach that the father is God, the son is God, and the holy spirit is God. And so we can draw from that the implication, right, the true implication that God is triune. But I don't even think that it's implicit in scripture that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. Yeah.
¶109Yeah. So, so that I mean I I still sort of think that it does come down to like when the when the canon ended like what were the what how do we know like that we have the the 27 books of the Bible? How do we know that those are inspired and infallible? But even if we could both even if we could both agree on that it we would still need to look into the scriptures to say do the scriptures teach solar that's why I wanted to kind of put that off for a second. Yeah.
¶110Yeah. Yeah. So, so what do you think like in addition to to scripture? What what are your like what are what are your views? What is what is the sort of Catholic position?
¶111Like you reject solos scriptor. So what do you accept? Yeah, good. So I reject solos scriptura because I think it's self-re refuting. I think that what we are bound to accept is the word of God and the word of God comes to us through scripture and tradition and is is is held in its the way it ought to be interpreted through the magisterium of the church.
¶112Um I actually have you know it's funny because I know I said at the beginning of this I want you to kind of unspool and I apologize if I've been interrupting you too much. Um but you know I I'd be happy to kind of make my case as as to why I think solar scriptor is false. I I've I've kind of I haven't really done that. I've just been asking you questions and maybe interjecting here and there, but I also don't want to take too much time. Yeah, let's do that.
¶113I want to I want to hear your uh your thoughts. Actually, in in about 15 minutes, we're going to do some Q&A. So, if you guys have some questions for us, we'll we'll talk for another 15 minutes and then we'll stop and ask you guys or answer some of your questions that you have. So, if you have a question for me or for Matt, leave it in the live chat. And so, I know I know this sounds rather before we do that.
¶114Sorry. I wanted to I wanted to do one thing. I wanted to uh to push back on your your claim that solos scriptor is self-refuting. What's the argument for that? Especially with like not with respect to the the version of solos scriptor that you found but the one that I found.
¶115Uh okay. Well, if you throw it up on the screen again, yeah, I can I'd be happy to do it. Okay. So, because I don't think you're Can I ch Can I choose any of these? You can choose any of them.
¶116Right. Cuz trying to trying to get through three on the spot is a bit difficult, right? Yeah. So this number two, scripture alone provides a sufficient and fully trustworthy basis of theology. The only problem with that is that scripture does not teach that scripture alone provides a sufficient and fully trustworthy basis of theology.
¶117See now this is why I think it's important that the the language the way that this is worded is important because it says fully trustworthy basis. So it says actually scripture alone provides a sufficient and fully trustworthy. So sufficient and fully trustworthy are qualifying those words. I'm okay with this. I'm not okay with the word alone.
¶118They're calling they're what? So, what they're doing is they're um they're qualifying basis. So, it's about a foundation of theology. In other words, I agree. I see what you mean, but I just I still disagree.
¶119I think that I think you could say scripture and tradition. So, I think you could say written tradition and oral tradition alone provides sufficient and fully trustworthy basology. So, here's my point here is that what what you're doing is you're saying that number two is false. You're not saying that solar scriptura is self-refuting. Well, I'm saying it's false, but I'm also saying like if that's how you want to define solos scriptorera and so and and the Bible doesn't teach that, then in in that sense it's self-refuting.
¶120It it's not self-refuting in the sort of epistemological sense of when you say there is no objective truth. But if you say scripture alone provides a sufficient and fully trustworthy basis of theology and I know that obviously because of scripture because it's that which provides a sufficient fully trustworthy basis of theology. And if scripture doesn't teach that, then you should reject it. Yeah. But see, that's that's just different.
¶121Yeah. I think that's just different than than so I I'm kind of clinging on that. This is like a a real popular objection to solos scripture is that it's self-refuting. And so what I when I was reading through the materials that I have, this this one I I don't think falls prey to that at all. You might you might just think that it's false or that it's not taught in scripture.
¶122I think that's a separate objection or separate question and a really good question. And I think that it's important to to look at and I mean you've already raised a really good point about that is that like yeah it still seems consistent like the verses that I that I brought up. Yeah, it still seems consistent with the with the traditional Catholic view. So I I think that that's an important point but it doesn't follow from that that it's self-refuting. Okay, let fair enough.
¶123Let could you put it up again and I'll have one more swing at it because I don't want to misunderstand it here. Scripture alone provides a sufficient and fully trustworthy basis of theology. So what I want to ask you is where does scripture teach that? And if it doesn't if it doesn't teach that am I bound to accept number two? So let's maybe it's not self-refuting.
¶124Let's forget that because maybe that's too tricky a thing to think about on the spot. But is that second point there taught in scripture? And I don't think that it is. And therefore I think by its own standard I'm not I I'm not obligated to accept it. That's all that mean.
¶125Yeah. for that one. For that one, we would we would have to go to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. That's that's like the the sort of proof text for for that one. Yeah.
¶126And I don't I haven't been I haven't been focusing on that one. I've been focusing more on the first one. Would But would you tell me what you want to do? Do you would you like to talk about that or would you like me to kind of give a quick overview as to why I think solos scriptor is false? Uh let's do both.
¶127Why can't we have both? So let's do we'll talk about it for like uh just a minute or so. So let me read it out loud. Sure. For for people who don't know what the verse says and then you I can get your response to it.
¶128So 2 Timothy 3:16-17, all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training and righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. I love that we both use use the ESV because that's what I have here, too. Oh, yeah. Yeah. ESV is the best.
¶129I I did a video about it. I know. Someone someone really awesome gave you a Bible. True. Yeah.
¶130So I would say it says all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching for reprove, correction, training and worship that the man of God may be complete equipped for every good work. And I completely agree. It doesn't say only scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching. Um certainly scripture is uh profitable for teaching and reprove and correction and training and righteousness so that you and me as people who want to be men of God can be complete and equipped for every good work. But it's not the only thing that uh that brings that about if you go one.
¶131So I think Matt, I think you're getting you like you want it to say only and it doesn't necessarily have to say only cuz I mean if you look at the last part there that the man of God may be complete equipped for every good work. That seems to support this the second the second one. Scripture alone provides a sufficient and fully trustworthy basis of theology. Right. I disagree and I disagree by looking at other verses of scripture because if you go one chapter one chapter earlier in 2 Timothy 2:21 um it says therefore if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable right he will be a vessel for honorable use set apart as holy useful to the master ready for every good work uh in James 1 chapters uh verses 2 through 4 it uses even stronger lang language talking about being pers persevering in the faith.
¶132It says, "Let steadfastness have its full effect that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." But if I said to you, "Well, therefore, perseverance is is all we need to be perfect, complete, and lacking in nothing." You'd say, "Well, no, you also need to be holy, right? We also need the word of God in scripture." Like, there are other things that we need to bring this about. So, if you're going to say Yeah, I was just going to say that's a good point. Yeah. Wow.
¶133Yes. That's that's one of the reasons I don't I don't accept this. There's other reasons as well, but because I agree that that it's that it's everything in that statement. I agree that it's profitable for teaching, reproof, and correction, right? Yeah.
¶134And this is what's so important about I mean, yeah, sorry. Studying the Bible and understanding what the Bible actually says is that you've got to look at the broader context. You can't just like do these proof texts and assume that it's going to give you everything that you need. you've got to go beyond it. So, I think that's really good.
¶135I Yeah, I mean I I would I want to look at those uh those verses more. I I and I want to reiterate that I am completely open to being wrong about this. Like I there's part of me that wants to be wrong about this. So, if if I can be convinced that solos scriptor is not true, then that's good. I mean, yeah.
¶136I mean, the ultimate goal is is truth again. So, yeah, I love your humility. It's it's it's really great and I I pray that I'm actually before this talk tonight, I knelt down and just begged our Lord that I would be humble because I think one of the reasons both you and I felt some anxiety to doing this is no, you don't want to look stupid. You know, you don't want to you don't want to you don't want to be caught out. You don't want to I'm not saying you maybe you're a lot more humble than me, but that's certainly my thing, right?
¶137Like I'm afraid like I I don't know how to respond to you and I'm going to look like an idiot. And that just comes from pride. But as you say, if what we want is truth, uh then then we should say, Jesus, give me humility because I want to do your will. I want I want to be obedient to your word. Could I then give a brief overview for why I think solar scripture is false?
¶138And I'll try to give this in five minutes, please. So So I think that solar scriptorer is unhistorical, unbiblical, and unreasonable. Okay. So starting with with history, right? And I've already talked about this.
¶139We don't get we don't get uh the church from the Bible, right? Right? We get we get the Bible from the church. It was the Catholic Church exercising its apostolic authority that determined what is and is not the scripture. And this is something that was understood in the early church.
¶140And I know that you don't put a lot of, you know, credence or not maybe that's not maybe the way I put it at all. I put some Yeah, I put some I think it weighs into the whole equation. So St. Augustine, but it's not like it's not all it's not the the end all be all. There's other stuff you got to consider.
¶141Yep. Yeah, I agree. Certainly the the the fathers weren't inherent like the scripture is. But St. Augustine in his letter against the fundamental epistle of Manakius said this um but should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say I do not believe.
¶142And then Augustine says, and this is a direct quote, "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." So I think that if you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, you call into question the cannon of scripture which was written, determined and and compiled by the Catholic Church. No one is saying that the church invented scripture. Certainly the church but it infallibly recognized scripture. Um and I think you see this in Luther for example, right? Who when he calls into question the the infallibility of the church that gave him scripture, he starts to call into question scripture.
¶143He called uh James an epistle of straw and actually moved both James along with the letter to the Hebrews to the back of his translation of the Bible. Um I I think it's contrary. So I think it's unhistorical. I think it's unbiblical. I don't think the Bible teaches solos scriptura explicitly or implicitly.
¶144And as I've said, not only is the Bible silent when it comes to that solos scriptura, but I think scripture is remarkably plain in teaching oral tradition to be just as much the word of God in scripture as um as as as in a written in written form. And I pointed to those verses from second Thessalonians. And then I would say um I think it goes against common sense. And and this this might be like a really interesting point, maybe it's not. I I to me it's really compelling.
¶145I think just that any written document that's meant to play a crucial role in determining how people live must have a living continuing authority otherwise it leads to chaos, right? Like text is tonedeaf. We've all had that experience where someone sends us an email or a text message. You're like, "What the hell did they were they angry at me? Are they and you really have no idea." And then you speak to them and they clarify what they meant.
¶146Right? Text is difficult. And I think we see in Protestantism an incredible array of conflicting beliefs from people who hold to to the principle of solos scriptorera and yet they disagree on the most fundamental things like Lutheran believe in baptismal regeneration. Baptists don't. Presbyterians believe in the baptism of inf infants.
¶147Quakers don't even practice baptism. Some Anglicans believe in the real presence. People like yourself, Cameron, and and and Baptists, you know, think it's merely symbolic. Some Protestants like Randall Rouseer, who you just had on your show, reject hell and instead opt for annihilationism. I just think if God is going to reveal truths to us that we need to know, he should also, it seems like obvious to me, he should also help us to know those things with certainty.
¶148And I think once you get rid of the authority of the church he established, you're just left to in to your own interpretation of scripture. And I think the the kind of the anarchy that you see in Protestant Protestantism among these competing beliefs on these fundamental things, I don't think that is what Christ had in mind when he when he established his church. Um gosh, so much more to say, but let me just I I guess I would just close with that. I I think those are the three things I would say. I think it's unhistorical, unbiblical, and unreasonable.
¶149Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So on on the point about interpretation, there's a lot to there's a lot to say. I think that was like that was kind of a a lot of that most of what you said may maybe it's not most a lot of what you said fell under the category of like we need the Roman church or the Roman Catholic Church to uh give us give us an interpretation of scripture.
¶150I would say the Ro it could be true that the Roman Catholic Church is false but still be the case that Jesus Christ established a church and gave it authority and that's who we need to listen to. So for example in Acts chapter gosh where is it 15 that council where Paul and Barnabas come up because people were saying you got to be circumcised like that's a really interesting example of how the church handled disputes in the early church. They didn't all pull out the Bibles, their Bibles, their scrolls of the Old Testament and debate scripture and verse. Rather, Peter and James spoke authority with the authority of an apostle and the and the matter was settled based on that. So, so here's uh let me push back a little bit.
¶151So, here's I I don't think that the the Catholic position really helps a lot in in interpretation. Okay, so for a couple reasons. So first first reason is that we still need uh to interpret the interpretation and I think that's going to lead to the same problem. It's going to be like okay well how do we interpret what the the church is saying? Right?
¶152Can I can I can I tell you why that's not a problem? Okay. It's a living authority. So it's not it's not like it's an endless thing. If if if there's someone who can tell me what it means and answer my question, that's different to reading a Bible which doesn't interpret itself.
¶153So if I see so like if baptism So if you go to like a priest, is that what you're about to say? Or like maybe not a priest but someone else. Yeah. Like if I if I have a question about say like should we baptize infants? Is that really a thing?
¶154And suppose I then like look at I don't know some text from the council of Trent or whatever and says it says here I do but I wonder what it means. I mean this could mean all sorts of things. text is tonedeaf after all. So aren't I stuck in the same position? No.
¶155Because there is a living authority which can settle matters for me. Just like if I I read something from Cameron Batuzi, if all I've got is the text in front of me, I can interpret that in multiple different ways. But if Cameron Batuzi is alive, I can ask him, "What did you mean by this? What what am I to take from this?" And you can you can clarify the matter and I'm not stuck in this kind of perpetual loop of well, how should I interpret his words? All right.
¶156So that leads me to my second concern. So the first one is just about like we still need to interpret it and the second one is so which tradition is authoritative. I think that is a very difficult question to answer. What do you mean by which tradition? Like which which church tradition do we do we follow because there's it's not as if the church has just been in complete unity for forever.
¶157You know there was this the split that happened. So it's like which which tradition is the infallible one? And I think that when you answer that, you're going to be right back to where you started and in having to to just kind of go with your own sort of subjective, you know, view of like what the what the right church is because you can't you can't point to things that the the church that you follow says, you can't say like if the Catholic Church says I you know I we are the the true church like that's not going to count. So the question is what tradition do we follow? What tradition is infallible?
¶158I think it's a serious problem. Yeah. I mean, I I agree with you that a church saying we are the true church, listen to us, obviously isn't a good argument. You know, anyone could say that. Uh but I would say that I could give good reasons for thinking the Catholic Church is the church Christ established and gave authority to.
¶159Now, I might be wrong, but you know, I would give arguments for why I think I'm right. And then you could reject those arguments and then maybe you would you would think the Orthodox church is or or some other church. But um certainly since since solar scriptorer I think is false or maybe the Methodists. No but but see since solar scripura is false um you wouldn't want to join any Protestant denomination since I don't know about that because is based on on on the those solers. Yeah.
¶160It's got to be the only infallible source. Right. Right. So if there's another infallible source, so if solos scriptor is is let's just say if solar scriptor is false, yeah, then I agree that doesn't lead me right to the Catholic church, it might lead me to orthodoxy. It might lead me to uh the Coptic church, but I have to abandon Protestantism if false.
¶161No Protestant and reject solos scriptor. I I think so. So it depends on what you mean by solos scriptor because there's not like that that's part of the the issue is that there's not solos scriptor there solos scripturas like people have different interpretations of what what that means. So really the point of contention for us I think has really come down to like what does the bible actually say about solos scriptura and your contention is that it's not in there. It's not taught by by scripture at all.
¶162And you've said you've said some other things about like needing the church in order to to give us interpretations and stuff. And I think that there's there's problems with that like I like I've already mentioned. But suppose that we didn't have uh suppose that we didn't have the biblical data that we have that I think supports a little bit toward the the side of solos scriptura. Suppose we didn't have that. Could we still think that there is no other infallible source beside scripture?
¶163Because I I think we could. And and part of that is because I think that we can know truths about the world that are not only contained in scripture, right? I know that my wife loves me, but that that's not in like any anywhere in the New Testament, right? So, I can know things that are true even if I don't have biblical data that supports it, right? But that you wouldn't be bound as a Christian to believe those things, right?
¶164Like I I have beliefs about how my car works, what caffeine does to me, uh what the computer will do when I press the on and off switch, but but as a Christian, I'm not bound to those things. You're not bound to believe that your wife loves you as a Christian. That's so what we're talking but I don't use that language like I don't I don't use the language of of bound. The one that I the one that I like is the one that John gives is that it's it provides a sufficient basis for theology. Let me uh there was one other thing that I wanted to uh to say.
¶165I actually have a bunch of quotes that I that I didn't get to but um go for it. So on more a little bit more on interpretation have have a bit of wine here while you talk. We're getting to the end. Go for it. We're about Yeah, we're about to do some Q&A.
¶166Sure. So, um, a little bit more on the interpretation stuff. So, I I don't think that having a sort of Yeah, I I don't think appealing to the Catholic Church is really going to help a whole lot here because, uh, especially going back to like the whole denominations questions. Like, there's there's too many Protestant denominations. Like, that's just a big deal.
¶167So, here's a quote from a guy named Ronald Ritkers. He's a professor of history and theology and humanities. And, uh, here's a quote. Protestants separated from a medieval church that was itself in schism with the Christian East. If unity is theological truth, uh if unity of theological truth is the ideal, then one must conclude that medieval Christendom failed long before Protestants were on the scene.
¶168Right. So you want me to respond to that? Yeah. Yeah. What do you think?
¶169So it's it's well, it sounds like his assumption is that the it was the Catholic Church which is in sism with the east. Um I think it's a little more complicated than that but uh from the Catholic point of view at least it was it was eastern it was it was the Orthodox Catholic Church which broke communion with Rome and that if you were to trace say Pope Francis's lineage you can trace and you can trace an unbroken line of successes back to back back to the back to Peter. So just because people are breaking away from the church, that's not an argument that the church isn't, you know, the the church Christ established. I mean the word Catholic came into use in about well the first usage we have of the word Catholic comes from Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnans in AD 110. And Catholic comes from two Greek words means according to the whole.
¶170that when Ignatius uses the term Catholic, he's using it to distinguish the church Christ established from the splinter groups that had begun to arise even back then. And just like those those heretical groups that pointed to the scriptures like the Manachans and the Gnostics, right? Just like those groups that had broken off from the church Christ established, you know, that's that's that's not an argument that Christ didn't establish church and give it authority. So too, having Protestants and and other groups breaking off from it isn't an argument against the church's authority. Yeah.
¶171I I was just sort of addressing the comment that you hear a lot with the it's a problem that we have all of these denominations. I think that when you look at the Catholic Church itself, there's a whole lot of disunityity as well. So I think it's just a a problem for people in general that there's disunityity. I would agree with you that there is disunityity but I think the difference is because we have a living m you know authority because we have the teaching office we know who's in the bounds of orthodoxy and who isn't in a way that Protestants don't. So like if I start teaching I don't know something crazy right that Hebrews shouldn't be in the Bible or if I start teaching that Jesus Christ uh is a demigod who didn't always exist.
¶172um the Catholic Church, you know, tells me I'm wrong and explains to me I'm wrong and I I've become a heretic, whereas it seems like in Protestantism, you can just go and start your own church and and still claim solos scriptura just like your friends down the road do. So, here's just a quick point about the uh about interpretation. So, there's interpretation on a on a Protestant view is not something that you just like do just for for fun. It's not just like it's not this individualistic or uh subjectivism. It doesn't lead to that at all.
¶173Just because you're using your own mind in order to like, you know, figure out what the Bible says, that doesn't give you the liberty to just interpret the Bible however you want. Basically, that would be uh that would be wrong. It'd be unethical to do that. There's a I mean the golden rule that that Jesus gives in Matthew, the golden rule we should do unto others as we'd have th them do unto us basically. And when you misinterpret someone that is a that that's a wrong.
¶174You're you're doing something wrong. And so we want to interpret people correctly and rightly. And so there's all the reason all the all there's there's tons of reason to take the Bible seriously and take interpretation seriously. And that doesn't lead to like this this view that we can just believe whatever we want or the like you know Protestants are little popes. There's a there's a bunch of quotes.
¶175There's a really good book if you guys are interested. It's called For the Love of God's Word, an introduction to biblical interpretation. I read this back a couple years ago and there's a there's a whole lot of really good rule a whole lot of good information in here and how to do biblical interpretation. And so, uh, I I have a couple quotes that I that I've got pulled up here. I'll just give one.
¶176Biblical interpretation is not an indiv individualistic enterprise. Rather, it takes place in the community of believers. And the failure or success of the interpretive task affects not merely the interpreter, but other believers as well. Yeah, there's a I already talked about the sort of golden rule. I'll just give the quote from them.
¶177The golden rule of interpretation requires that we extend the same courtesy to any text or author that we would want others to extend to our statements and writings. And the golden rule is in Matthew 7:12. So yeah, I think that Protestants have uh they can do interpretation just fine without needing to have some sort of infallible interpreter for them. And I think that there are still very serious issues when you when you raise that kind of argument or or give the Catholic Church as like an answer to interpretation. I think that there's a challenge of like well how do we do we need to interpret the interpreter?
¶178I think that's that's true. We do. And then the question is what tradition are we following? Like who is the true church? Who is the the one that can give us the true interpretation?
¶179And I think that once you give an answer to that, the answer that you give to that question, who is like the true church or how do we come to to acknowledge that the same type of tools that you're going to be using in order to answer that, you can use the same tools to get good interpretations of of scripture on your own. So anyways, that's that's all I had to say. Yeah. Thank you. All right.
¶180I like how you're just like, "All right, cheers." Okay, so let's get to some questions. I have to be honest. I feel like I've been interrupting you too much and I feel bad about it. So, I'm happy just to let you speak and I don't want to cut you off. So, sorry if I did that.
¶181Yeah. All right. So, let's do some questions. If you have a question for me or Matt, I I don't have access to the other video, so I don't have the questions that you guys posted there. Really, really sorry about that, guys.
¶182But that we're going to be taking questions here on YouTube, this unlisted YouTube video just for our patrons. Don't uh don't write the question in the Patreon comment section. Yeah. Right. I mean, you can, but here's the questions we'll be answering will be here.
¶183Exactly. And uh what else was I going to say? We're only going to be doing this for another what 10 15 minutes. So, we're going to try to to wrap this up pretty soon here. So, I'm looking for for questions.
¶184Here's one from uh for Matt from Father Matthew Marinelli. Do you know who that is? No, I don't know all the priests. Camera. Oh.
¶185I thought you did. Yeah. All right. Here you go. It's like when people say, "I know this Australian bloke.
¶186Do you know him?" No. Matt, can you explain material sufficiency and formal sufficiency? Yeah. So, there are two different views of sacred scripture. One is that it is materially materially sufficient and the other is that it is formally sufficient.
¶187The Catholic rejects the idea that scripture is formally sufficient. Material sufficiency means that it has all the material material you need to get a correct theology. Right? But it but you still need church the the church's authority and tradition to help you to know how to understand the scriptures. Uh formal sufficiency is the idea that you don't need anything else but the scriptures really.
¶188Um, and you might say, well, you don't want to read it in isolation of these sorts of things. But at the end of the day, if if you if your interpretation of scripture is in discord with a particular council or a particular church, you would say, well, you know, given the perspectuity of scripture, I understand this and I'm in the right and they must be in the in the wrong. Difference between maturity and formal sufficiency. So, I would reject formal sufficiency. Okay.
¶189I think I would accept Yeah, I would accept material sufficiency. Okay. But I wouldn't But but what I wouldn't Yeah. What I wouldn't say is so I think the Catholic view is overkill. I think that you don't need an infallible church to give you an interpretation of scripture.
¶190I think that you can use a community of believers in order to come to some understanding of what the Bible says. So, but I don't think you Yeah. Go ahead. If that were true, why is there so many competing and conflicting views among Protestants? If you're all holding to the to the material sufficiency of Christ without reliance on tradition or church teaching, you don't even know what saves you.
¶191You don't I mean Protestants can't agree on whether they can lose their salvation, what makes them saved, whether the scriptures are inherent. So I think that there's a whole lot of disagreement still among Catholics. So you're you're not solving the problem. You still you still got a problem in the Catholic Church, disagreement. But I think ultimately there's a real easy and tidy explanation of why there's disagreement like this.
¶192And that's just sin. Yeah. I think I think we we certainly have we certainly have disagreements in the church, but you know very quickly that you're a heretic or not. Whereas in Protestantism, you just start another church. I don't know because I mean yeah, people people have a lot to say about Pope Francis, right?
¶193And there's a whole lot of controversy there, right? And I'm not a massive fan of Pope Francis, but that doesn't put me outside the bounds of orthodoxy because no one is meant to needs to be a fan of a particular pope. I mean, St. Paul confronted Peter to his face. It didn't put him outside.
¶194Well, same same thing applies to Protestants, right? I mean, most Protestants still agree on the core doctrines, but there's little things on the side that I disagree. First of all, this the scriptures don't teach you what the core doctrines are. That's something like different Protestants have different opinions about. So it comes down to your interpretation.
¶195What are the core doctrines? But I've I mean I laid out a few like what like is baptism necessary for salvation? How do we baptize? Who do we baptize? Can one lose their salvation?
¶196Is scripture inherent? Does hell exist or is annihilationism true? These are the most fundamental things I think that we can wrestle with. And Protestants are all over the map on these things. Yeah.
¶197I I I guess I still don't see why we'd appeal to like or why we would need to go all the way. I I think it's overkill to go to like an infallible church in order to to give us the cuz I think that we can just use like the the normal tools that we use in everyday life to figure stuff out. Well, the fact that y'all the fact that we disagree on this very issue shows that you're wrong. Like the fact that you and me read the scriptures and disagree fundamentally on them show that solos scriptorer is like a blueprint for anarchy like and that we actually need uh the authority of the church which Christ gave to it in order to help us when we need that. It's not like the church says don't interpret scripture for yourself.
¶198We can and we must. God gave us intellects. We're supposed to read the scripture and interpret it for us. Uh but if if somebody comes up with a novel interpretation that nobody's heard for the first 1500 years, then the then the the church which Christ gave authority to, the same church which had the authority to, you know, declare infallibly what the scriptures were and are can declare that someone is wrong when they say hell isn't a possibility or doesn't exist or that sodomy is now a moral action or something. Yeah.
¶199So, I I think that on the topic of of anarchy, I think that you're still going to have to to deal with that because again, what church is the true church? And any response that you give to that, the the Protestant can use the same tools, the same type of reasoning in order to to come to some kind of, you know, correct view of what the Bible teaches, just like you can come to a correct view of what is the right church, the or the true church. I I I don't think Do you see what I'm saying? It's like if there's problems on there's problems on both sides. There's problems for the for the Catholic position is what is the true church and the Protestant position is like well what does the Bible actually teach maybe.
¶200So you still are going to have to appeal to like some kind of you know your your own reasoning in order to figure out like what's what's the what is the true church? What is the true interpretation? Let me see if I can sum up what you're saying. And I don't have a response to what I think you're saying yet and so I'd have to think about it more. But it sounds like what you're saying to me is here I am saying to you, okay, Protestant, you have very fallible.
¶201You you are fallible. You could be wrong. You look at the scripture, you come up with different interpretations. And what you're saying to me is, yeah, okay, Catholic, but you're using your same fallible um understanding to decide what the true church is to get you to scripture. Is that what you're saying?
¶202Yeah. Yeah. That that's a really interesting objection. I'd need to need to think more about that. Yeah.
¶203Good. I'm glad uh we we've both had one of those moments. Isn't it nice when you can finally hear each other because it's so frustrating when you like you're like you're not hearing me. Uh so that's that's good. I mean I think I could I could try and respond to it if you would like but but I also Why don't we move on?
¶204All right. Why don't we move on and take some more questions? So from uh from Shannon Rooen, she has a question for me. Can Cameron respond to the scripture Matthew? Sorry, my screen is not showing me.
¶205Yeah. Matthew 18:15-17 where Jesus tells us to take our disagreements to the church. He mentioned that we should take disagreements to the scriptures. So I think that solos scriptura is about the ultimate authority. So I think that there can be sort of authorities under that.
¶206So I think that the the church or elders or people there can be authorities and you can take your questions to the church. So there's there's no problem there explicitly with solos scriptura. You're not saying that there's only one authority ever. You're just saying that the ultimate authority is what's written down in holy scripture. So that that's how I would respond to that.
¶207Feel free to respond if you want. Yeah. So I think this is a really good objection to Protestantism to read this in context. If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you've gained your brother.
¶208But if he doesn't listen, take one or two others along with you. That every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And he who refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a gentile and a tax collector. This is really strong language.
¶209And I I would really invite you, Cameron, to reflect upon this because I think this is this is this is really serious stuff. The church has the authority, right, if you don't listen to her, to make you basically like an outsider. That's authority right there. And so if you and I have a disagreement about something, what are we going to do? Go to your church and then go to my church?
¶210No, we're going to go to the church. And I think as I said earlier, that's kind of what we see at that first council of Jerusalem. I believe it's Acts 15. I'm sorry I don't have my script, my Bible in front. I guess I could look it up.
¶211Um, yeah, Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem, that this is what we see taking place there. Right. there was there was there was a confusion about whether or not people should be circumcised right when when once they were coming into the faith these these people who weren't Jewish and so what did they do well they took it to the church and the church made a proclamation now if people were to say well that's fine but as I read scripture it says they still need to be circumcised they would be wrong likewise when we see that the Bereans who searched the scriptures and were praised for that uh if if they had have rejected did Paul after searching the scriptures they would have been wrong. The church in the New Testament has legitimate authority. It did then.
¶212It did when it defi defined and proclaimed the canon and it does now. And so my argument is the the the church Christ established, right, has always been in existence and has always had the authority that it had when it in Acts 15. And that that church is the Catholic Church. Man, I I had a I had a thought and I lost it. Completely lost it.
¶213Um I had a thought and I lost it. It was about when you were expand when you you gave the context to the verse of the of the passage in your brother sins against you. Take it to the church. Yeah. So I think um I'm going to do it to you what you did to me.
¶214Okay. You did to me. you were like you're like where does the Bible say that it's uh you know the the Bible is the only infallible source or the only the the ultimate source of authority like you don't have those words there so in that passage you don't have those words either don't have what you don't have that the church that the church or or tradition is you know infallible or or on equal level with with holy scripture so you don't have those words in there either yeah I do cited them to you right in second Thessalonians I said I no no no in this passage I'm talking about this passage, right? But I don't need to get my entire theology from one verse. Yeah.
¶215Yeah. Well, we were talking about this verse. That's what that's what she brought up. So So tell me the other one again, and let's see if that does it. Let's see if that one does it.
¶216Because you were saying I I think your objection was, you know, tradition isn't on the same level as uh as scripture. Yeah. What was the verse in uh just looking it up here. Second Thessalonians something. Yeah.
¶2172 Thessalonians 2:15. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught by us, either by word or by of mouth or by letter. So right there, he equates that what doesn't it it it just doesn't uh it it doesn't say or doesn't suggest explicitly that the church or the holy church, you know, the Roman Catholic Church is infallible or on the same level as as scripture. Right. Fair enough.
¶218I thought you were talking about traditions and that's why I reached to that verse. You could Yeah, we could look well tradition too. Tradition too. So So I think that it it it is kind of like overkill like you don't want I personally I don't want to give too much authority to who I who to all appearances is just a you know fallible human. And I think that when I was talking earlier about like we can have sources outside of the Bible in order to come to beliefs, you know, we we don't just have uh uh have what's in the Bible.
¶219We can have we can have other sources as well. And I know myself. I know humans. I know humanity. I know how fallen we are.
¶220I know how, you know, we're susceptible to bias and how we make things up and and want to to believe certain things just because it's going to make us feel good. I know that about humans and I I it's very very plausible to me that that's going to apply to humans that you know are are at a church or that are you know in in charge of handing down traditions and everything. So by all appearances, these are humans. They're not people who are sort of ordained. And it that's why I think it's it's important to have a cristocentric view of the canon and the view of like the the the New Testament and how it was written and how it all ties back to Jesus.
¶221You've got to have these apostles that were right there next to Jesus. And if they weren't right there next to Jesus or were commissioned directly by Jesus, then they were associates associates of those of those people. I think that that's that's probably the safest way to go about it because of how well I know that humans are and how how fallible humans really are. So I think that there's a whole lot of evidence that you know that that human tradition is just fallible. Point blank, right?
¶222Well, but see if that were true, if it were true that you can't trust humans to kind of get it right, you can just trust the scriptures, then you shouldn't trust the scriptures because it was humans who declared what was the inherent word of God. like you didn't figure that out on your own unless you received a private revelation from the Holy Spirit about what the 27 books of the New Testament were, which if you did, then okay, that would work. But but I would say that God guides his church into all truth. And so even though it is true that individual men and women and sin and popes sin and bishops sin and priests sin and I sin, it's still true that God guides his church and said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And so if you can trust the authority of the Catholic Church to declare to you what the 27 books of the New Testament are, then that would seem to go against your argument that you can't really trust the church because it's made up of humans.
¶223You can't trust the the church. You can't trust humans. I I agree to to teach you things that they're not equipped to teach you. But if they are being guided by the Holy Spirit, just like Peter was when he wrote his two epistles, just like Paul was when he wrote his letter to the Romans, you can also trust that God is continuing to guide his church so that they can understand what he's given us in the scriptures. Yeah.
¶224So, I think this is actually a good point to maybe end on and it it kind of ties it back to what I said earlier that I think that the the whole debate kind of centers around this idea of like when does divine revelation or authority end, right? That was one of the first things I think it's with the death of the last apostle. I think you think that too. Do what? I think the authority of the church I no I think that public revelation right uh which we are bound to ended with the death of the last apostle.
¶225Okay. And I think I think you think that too. So I think I think that uh yeah yeah yeah but I think that the authority of the church I think also ended at the the people who are closest to to Christ. And I think that that provides a very easy or a very good explanation the difference between like man I'm I'm blanking out here but there was there was something it is it is getting late. I feel good though like I could go another two hours.
¶226I could not no um you said man I'm I lost it. It was it was a good point too. I don't want to I feel like I just gave an argument. I don't want to kind of pile on you with others, but yeah. Um I think that it's important I mean that that's a point that John makes in his book.
¶227It's important to tie the cannon back to Christ. And so if we if we think that the apostles were commissioned by Jesus and there there's a reason why we do that. There's a reason why Christ matters in in all of this. It's because of the the covenant, the old covenant and the new covenant and how Christ was a sort of fulfillment of the law. And so it's important to have people that were tied to Christ, commissioned directly by Christ.
¶228And the question I think end or the question, the the real interesting question, difficult question to answer, which I think is why this is even still a thing is that when when does it end? When when did that commission end, right? Was it was it all was the divine authority given to the apostles and then it ended when they ended or has it sort of still been going on? So I think that's that's a real difficult question, real interesting question. Okay.
¶229All right. Yeah. Good to uh Yeah. I mean, why don't we just both wrap up? Can we do that?
¶230I'm happy to give you the last word, right? Yeah, let's do it. Sorry. I mean, I really apologize. cuz I wish we we we had time to do more questions but the the technical thing just like completely threw us off.
¶231Yeah. So I would say you know we came here tonight to discuss solar scriptorer and I made the argument that solar and and we looked at your definition as well that it is the only infallible rule of faith for the Christian right and I made the argument that scripture doesn't teach that. So therefore you by by solos scriptor you ought to reject it. Right? If if solos scriptura is the doctrine that you you you don't have to accept or you shouldn't accept what isn't explicitly or implicitly taught in scripture, right?
¶232Then then that doctrine ought to be taught in scripture, but it's not. And I don't didn't see, you know, I don't think it is. And I've I've looked I I've I think I've tried my best to be open-minded. I haven't seen it. I don't think it's even implied.
¶233Um you pointed to tradition. I I pointed out more than once, right, that that Paul puts his oral tradition on par with his scriptural w with with the with the tradition passed down through scripture. I also think that, you know, the it is the authority of the Catholic Church which gave us the canon. And that's how we can know that it's that it's scripture. And I think if you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, you're basically breaking the legs out from under your assurance of the inherency of scripture.
¶234Uh, how do you get an infallible effect from a fallible cause? How how how do you get a an infallible fruit from a fallible tree? So, it seems to me to make the most sense to say Jesus Christ established a church and he gave that church authority, right? And he he based it on Peter, right? When Peter made his profession of faith, he said, "You are Peter and on this rock I'll build my church.
¶235The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I'll give to you the keys of to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, etc., etc. And I would say there's no good reason to think that after the apostles died that everyone was just like, well, we don't know. We don't we all we have is is the written tradition, especially when Paul commanded us to be obedient to the oral tradition.
¶236We see this apostolic succession taking place, people laying hands upon others, Timothy, and so forth. Anyway, so bottom line, I I think solos scriptorer is, you know, unbiblical for the reasons I gave, unhistorical for the reasons I gave, and unreasonable because it it leads to the anarchy that we see within Protestantism. Yes, we have infighting within the Catholic Church, but we have a living authority to say who's in and who's who's out. And I'll I'll leave you with a final word there. Okay.
¶237So my final word I I didn't have anything prepared but my final word as I've thought about like just just reflecting on this myself. My my final thought is that part of the reason why solos scriptura seems plausible to me is because I know human nature. I know myself. I know I know how how fallible humans are. And so I want to be as careful as possible in giving authority or recognizing authority of people who are not as close to the Christ event as possible.
¶238So that that seems to me just like a very imminent and imp and plausible thing to to hold and to to yeah a good view. So that that being said, there are a lot of uh mo most of the arguments that I've read against solos scriptor are really targeting really really uh bad definitions or or bad analyses of solos scriptor. So this one that I found in John Peekham's work I think is very nuanced and it it avoids most of the objections that you hear. It doesn't it doesn't lead to individualism or subjectivism. Um there there are responses to to most of these objections.
¶239And I would say on the on the question of like interpretation, I think that that it's a good question. Like how do we interpret the Bible? But I think that there are good answers to it. There's people who who devote their lives to it. There are Protestants who write books on it.
¶240They teach courses on it. And interpretation is not just this thing like I I wouldn't just go around and, you know, interpreting my wife anything that she says. I wouldn't just interpret her just however I wanted and be okay with that. That would be wrong. That'd be wrong for me to do that.
¶241Be incorrect. And uh it would also just be unethical and be unloving. So there are there's a whole lot of reasons and a whole lot of resources that are that are available out there for for doing correct biblical interpretation. And I think that there's a big challenge that Catholics face if they want to to raise this kind of objection that we've got to have an infallible source or an infallible interpreter in order to uh to to tell us what's going on in the Bible. And that is that what tradition, what church are we looking at?
¶242Like which one is the true church? And any answer that you give to that, I think, is equally going to sort of save the Protestant from the objection as well because you're you're looking at good evidence. You're you're getting some good arguments, some good evidence that the Catholic, the Roman Catholic Church is the true church. And that's the same thing that the Protestant is doing with the scriptures. They're they're looking at the broader context.
¶243They're looking at the history. They're looking at the genre of literature of that book. and they're they're they're doing just, you know, what what we normally do when we make judgments about stuff. We take things into consideration. We look at the evidence.
¶244And so that's the if you're going to raise that objection to Protestants, you're going to face the same question when it comes to the true church. And I think when you answer that question, it's going to also sort of absolve the or uh yeah, take take care of the problem for for Protestants as well. We didn't talk I didn't share much of my views on the on the canon, but I think that having a christocentric view is important. We we tie the cannon back to the people who are closest to Jesus and the people that were close to those people. And once we get a little once we get too far from that, I think we start to get into some unsafe territory because of because of how fallible humans are.
¶245But I think that there are definitely uh ways that we could understand and and and know what books are in the canon. Like there are people have been offering criteria over the years and uh I I can just uh give a couple here. So they'll be providentially exposed to the larger church. They'll possess divine properties like beauty, spiritual power, harmony. They'll be written by covenantal apostles, prophets, or by close associates of the apostles and prophets.
¶246They'll be consistent with other scripture. and they'll be accepted by the church as a whole, not merely as a segment. And also in addition to that, the canon will also be self- authenticating. That's that's one of the most powerful reasons I think to accept the 27 books in the canon is because when you read them, they they're self- authenticating. You just sort of read them and you know that this book belongs in the canon.
¶247We didn't we didn't discuss that at a different time because I completely disagree. Yeah. Yeah. That's okay. Uh this is my closing match, so you got to keep your mouth shut.
¶248Sorry, I'll shut up. Yeah. Uh so, uh yeah, this this is where I'm giving all the all the arguments that you can't respond to. Uh yeah. So, so I think that there are there are very reasonable ways of uh coming to accept the canon.
¶249Yeah. I mean, I would I would love to debate you on that too because I think that that is like one of the most powerful reasons to to accept the canon. Um but but anyways, so so I think that there are plausible ways of of coming to understand that we have the canon. We don't need an infallible church. I think that that is overkill.
¶250I think that we need something like that. That's not to say that we don't need any authority. We don't need any church. We don't need any community of believers. I think that that is completely ridiculous.
¶251I think that we should take that into consideration, but we shouldn't take it we shouldn't put too much emphasis on it. We shouldn't think that they're infallible. The church is infallible just because we need some something some some sort of help in order to understand what the scriptures are or help understand like what books belong in the canon. I I don't think that we need to go all the way to assume that these humans were infallible or doing things, you know, based on uh you know, obviously it would be from from God himself, but I don't think that that's happening. And that goes back to the christocentric view of the cannon.
¶252repeating myself at this point, so I'm that's where I'm going to end it. All right. Hey, this has been an absolute pleasure, Cameron. Thank you. Thank you very much.
¶253It was great to kind of get a chance to kind of dig into this. And big thanks to everybody who supports us on Patreon. We really appreciate it. Uh we hope it was helpful. We hope that you'll, you know, comment below.
¶254Even though this is an unlisted video, there's no reason you can't continue this discussion. Oh, that's right. You're going to you're going to edit this and put it out again. I'm going to take these two videos down and post a new one. So, on the new video, how about that?
¶255So on the new one, if you have thoughts or ideas when when that one comes out, which is probably the one that you're going to be watching, then on that one, feel free to leave all of your comments. And then finally, I would say uh you know, Cameron, you have a big discussion on solar scriptura from the Protestant point of view coming out soon. Is that right for people to and uh with with John Peekom, the author of the book that I've been reading. Yeah. And then I interviewed Pat Madrid who debated James White on the issue of solos scripture.
¶256That comes out tomorrow at 10 a.m. if you're interested in watching that. Cool. All right, we'll see you guys later. We're both going to get some sleep.
¶257So yeah, peace, love. We love you. Christianity is true. See you.