SOLA SCRIPTURA DEBATE - JesusandWhatnot Vs. David Cipriano

All right, everybody. Welcome to the debate on Sola Scriptura featuring Noah from Jesus and Whatnot and David Cypriano. Today, Jesus and Whatnot will be trying to show you why Sola Scriptura is false and David Cypriano will be trying to show you why Sola Scriptura is true.

David, really quick, if you want to tell everybody where they can find you on your social media, please go right ahead.

Yeah, so my main platform is YouTube. If you just type in David Cypriano, uh I should pop up there. On Instagram and uh TikTok, it is it's David Cypriano. Uh and if you just type in my name, you should probably find me pretty easily from there.

Amazing. [clears throat] And Jesus and Whatnot, I wonder where we can find you on social media. Please tell us.

Uh all platforms, Jesus and Whatnot. I like talking about Jesus and whatnot.

Beautiful. Absolutely amazing. Okay, so quick disclaimers. We will have opening statements about 15 minutes long, a 10-minute rebuttal from each person, a 20-minute cross-examination, and a disclaimer for the cross-examination, the affirmative can interrupt the negative. So, do not be surprised if there's a little bit of harshness from either side, whoever is the affirmative in the cross-examination. We will have a 25-minute open dialogue and then 5-minute closing statements. Everybody understands that. We are all good there.

David, I believe you are starting off as the affirmative here with your opening statement. Whenever you are ready, please go ahead.

All right. Well, first I just want to say thank you to uh Noah for having me on for this debate. Uh it's my first ever debate and one of the reasons why I decided to take Noah up on this offer just because I've always seen how educated he is and how well-studied he is. He's also very respectful to the to the other side. So, that's one of the reasons why I wanted to say yes to this one. Also, thank you to Sam for moderating this debate. Also, as a side note, Noah and I did agree that we would do slides uh for our opening statements, but due to some technical errors on my end, I'm not doing my slides. Just want to put that out there.

So, as we talk about Sola Scriptura and as I give my opening statement, first of all, I just want to say what Sola Scriptura is. Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith. It's not a pope, not a magisterium, not a pastor, not any certain denomination, certainly not any Christian. Scripture alone is our ultimate authority.

I also want to talk about what Sola Scriptura is not because I feel like Sola Scriptura typically gets misrepresented by people who don't believe in it. Sola Scriptura is not the belief that the Bible is our only authority. So, we can recognize the authority of um things like parents, um husbands, wives. We can see the authority of the church. Even um if we recognize the authority of the Roman Catholic magisterium, uh that doesn't um contradict Sola Scriptura because the Bible's our only or Bible is not our only uh authority. It's our only infallible authority.

Next, we don't believe that the Bible contains all truth. We do believe that everything in the Bible is true, but not everything true is in the Bible. So, whenever people share verses that talk about how Jesus taught and did things that weren't recorded in the in the Gospels, that doesn't contradict Sola Scriptura because we don't believe that the Bible contains all truth.

Also, Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that everything we believe must explicitly be found in the Bible. One of the most common um attacks I see against Sola Scriptura all the time is that Sola Scriptura is um contradictory and ironic because the Bible doesn't even teach it. And for one, I would argue that the Bible does actually teach it and I intend to show that throughout this debate. But even if the Bible didn't explicitly say that scripture alone is our only infallible rule of faith, that doesn't really contradict the doctrine because the doctrine doesn't say that everything you believe must explicitly be found in the Bible.

And so, the argument for Sola Scriptura is really simple. For one, the Bible is an infallible rule of faith. For two, we have no other infallible rule of faith. So, as the conclusion, the Bible is our only inf- infallible rule of faith.

So, I just want to start with that premise one right there. The Bible is an infallible rule of faith. I don't uh plan on spending a lot of time on this point because Noah and I would both agree uh not too much no no need to spend too much time on that point. But I just I do want to um um demonstrate to the scripture does claim infallibility. Uh 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. It is theon- neustos. It is God-breathed. 2 Peter 1 says that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And so, the Bible is the inspired word of God. The scriptures are ontologically unique and therefore it has the highest level of authority. So, the Bible is an infallible rule of faith.

Premise two is that we have no other infallible rule of faith. And again, I'm not trying to say that we have no other authorities, but that we have no other infallible authorities. Now, there are many sources that claim to be infallible, such as the pope or the magisterium or tradition or the apostles. And the Bible shows that none of those sources are infallible. None of them have an equal level of authority as the Bible. And so, I want to share with you three reasons why we have no other infallible rule of faith than the Bible.

Um for one, none of them are an equal level or nature to the Bible because the scriptures, as I said earlier, are ontologically unique. They are theon- neustos. They are God-breathed. Nothing else is described in this way. God is unique, therefore his word is unique. Uh >> [snorts] >> my opponent in one of his recent debates uh said, and I quote, "Church authority, although not um ontologically equal to scripture, is still the infallible word of God." But my question is, how can something that's not ontologically equal to scripture be infallible? Does inspiration mean anything to us? Are we going to ignore its ontological uniqueness?

And as we we talk about how no other source has an equal level of authority, I want to turn our attention to Galatians chapter 1 because I think it really speaks to this. Paul says, starting in verse 6, "I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that um that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, which is not another, but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed." And so, right there in verse 8, we see this warning about apostles and angels potentially preaching a false gospel or another gospel. And the fact that this warning exists in the Bible proves to us that apostles and angels were not infallible. An apostle or an angel could cont- could potentially be anathematized. And so, I see no other source as being infallible. Uh the church is not infallible. As we look throughout the New Testament, we see that churches were rebuked all of the time, not just for their um for their practices, but for their doctrines. We see that the churches in Laodicea, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Thyatira, nearly every church that's in the New Testament was being confronted for something. And so, churches aren't infallible, apostles aren't infallible, angels aren't infallible, spiritual leaders such as pastors, popes, bishops, et cetera, they are not infallible.

And so, I think [snorts] that um sources can be true authorities and have a valid binding authority without being infallible. And I think that one example of this comes from Mark chapter 7, where the Bible talks about the hand-washing ritual that the Pharisees had, um something that you supposedly had to do to be pure. But we see that Jesus' disciples didn't keep this tradition. This tradition wasn't in the Bible, it wasn't commanded by God, it was just simply a tradition that the elders had been imposing on the people. They had essentially added to God's word. And in Mark 7 uh verse 5, Jesus is confronted about this. It says, "Then the Pharisees and scribed at scribes asked him, 'Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?'" Uh verse 8, uh Jesus is responding and he says, "For laying aside the commandment of God, uh you hold the tradition of men as the washing of pots and cups and many other such like things you do." And he said unto them, "Full well you reject the commandment of God that you may keep your own tradition." Verse 13, uh "making the word of God of none effect through your tradition which you have delivered, and many such like things do you." And so, um in the Gospels, Jesus actually affirmed the authority of the Pharisees, but Jesus didn't see them as infallible or as ultimately binding. And this certainly isn't isn't to say that all traditions are bad or that Protestants shouldn't care about tradition, but the traditions of men, whether it's Pharisees or the magisterium or if it's pastors or Popes, they can have true authority, but it's not on the same level as the Bible. And often with a lot of these traditions, even if it doesn't go contrary to scripture, such as the handwashing tradition, we are not bound to them. Jesus didn't have his disciples keep this tradition, even though it was a tradition that wasn't contrary to scripture, it came from a valid authority, and yet Jesus still didn't see this thing as binding. He was confronting the Pharisees over how they had their own words, they had added to the scriptures, and they were holding their own words at an equal level as the Bible. Jesus clearly taught the authority of scripture over man's tradition.

Now, a lot of Catholics or people who are anti-Sola Scriptura, they will want a verse that says that scripture is the one and only infallible authority or something similar to that. And I don't think that such a verse is necessary because we see from 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, that the scripture is clearly infallible, and we see throughout the rest of the Bible that the other authority figures, the other candidates that could be considered infallible, just aren't. For example, Galatians 1:8, apostles and angels aren't infallible. Acts 17:11, when it's talking about the church in Berea, we see that apostles weren't infallible. We see from the rebukes to the churches in Corinth, Galatia, Laodicea, that the church is not infallible. We saw it in Mark chapter 7 that the Pharisees had legitimate authority, but they still were not infallible. And so if the Bible is infallible, and if every other suggested candidate is fallible, then I think that Sola Scriptura is the obvious conclusion.

So for one, no other source has an equal level of authority to the Bible or an equal nature as a Bible. Second, all people must be held accountable to the Bible. The famous example, Acts 17:11, which I just talked about, it says that these, the Bereans, were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so. And so the scripture had a higher level of authority than the apostles, proving that the scripture is the ultimate authority, the sole infallible rule of faith. And in addition, it also proves that laymen and individual Christians can and should interpret. It's not just up to a magisterium, not just up to a board or up to a denomination. Individual believers need to be interpreting the scriptures and holding their spiritual authorities to be accountable.

Number three, we are not to add to or remove from God's words. The Bible contains many warnings against doing so. We see it in Deuteronomy 4, Deuteronomy 12, Proverbs 30, Revelation 22. And I think it's adding to God's words whenever we teach a new doctrine and hold it to the same level as the Bible. And sadly, many traditions have have done so, whether it's through the Marian dogmas or through icon veneration or the teaching of no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. We see that men have taught their own things that aren't found in the Bible, and yet they are holding their claims at an equal level of authority to the Bible. And this isn't just about the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. We also see it in the Mormon Church, how they've come up with the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, books that they see as an equal level of authority to the Bible, but the Bible tells us that we are not to add to or remove from God's words.

Now, our job as Christians is to contend for the faith which was once to which was once delivered, not to add any new doctrines. And Jude chapter Jude 1:3 says, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of a common salvation, it was a needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." I recently heard about the story of a man named Thomas C. Oden, and he had this dream about reading on his own tombstone, "He made no new contribution to theology." As a Protestant, this is also my dream, that I would make no new contributions to theology, that I would add no new doctrines, that I wouldn't remove any doctrines, that I would just earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. Like what Irenaeus said in Against Heresies, "Heresies are of recent formation and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles." And while I would not see every dogma or every or every every new dogma or every accretion as necessarily a heresy, I would say that if if if it's not apostolic, it is adding to God's word, and the Bible condemns doing so.

Now, one of the common um arguments against Sola Scriptura is that it leads to disagreement, and so we need some sort of church or a magisterium to unite us and to help us avoid error. But I actually say that whenever they have more power to unite, they also have more power to bind to error. And if Sola Scriptura leads to disagreement, then what about the Orthodox Church or the Anglican Church or the Jehovah's Witnesses? And so my argument for Sola Scriptura is simply that the Bible is an infallible rule of faith. We have no other infallible rule of faith. Therefore, the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith. And I would say that for my opponent to disprove Sola Scriptura, he must either prove that the Bible is not infallible or he would have to prove that another source is infallible and identify what that source or sources are. Thank you.

Thank you very much, David. Great [clears throat] job, great opening statement. Okay, and we will move on to Noah. So I'm just going to make you move you from the stage here and add Mr. Jesus and whatnot. All right, Noah, take it.

Um Do we Do we have my slideshow? Can Can we put it up? Can we make it bigger? There we go. He's on it. Okay, first of all, David, wonderful job. I don't know if you guys caught that, he said that this was his first debate, and I would have never guessed that. That was super professional, super good job, and I'm very glad to have an opponent who I feel like is actually challenging me and actually stretching my opinions, stretching my brain a little bit. So thank you so much, David, for a wonderful opening statement.

Today [snorts] we are discussing Sola Scriptura, so let's let's dive right in. Before we start, I want to give a quick Thanksgiving to four parties. First of all, obviously God. He is the sovereign creator of the universe, and none of this would be able to happen without his direct allowance. So thank you so much, God, for bringing us together today. I would like to thank David, as I just did, for a wonderful opening statement and for just being here in general. Debates are scary. I get scared by them, so it's it's very nice to have you up here. Thank you to Sam for moderating, of course. You guys all know Catholic Sam, and if you're not following him, if you're not subscribed to him, go do those things. And thank you to all who came to watch. We would not be able to do things like this without you. I would not be able to devote enough time to apologetics, to debates, without you guys watching. So seriously, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for all of the support that you guys have shown all of my accounts recently.

So I'd like to start off with a definition of Sola Scriptura. I think David did a pretty good job of defining it, but I figured I would give a more formal one from the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, specifically article two. It says, "We affirm that the scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the church is subordinate to that of scripture. We deny that the church needs councils, creeds, or declarations that have greater authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible." In simpler terms, the Bible is the one and only infallible authority for Christians, as if you believe in Sola Scriptura. And then church councils, bishops, Popes, etc. are not infallible. That is the claim of Sola Scriptura.

So I would like to also define infallible. Infallibility in relation to the church means that the leadership of the church cannot lead its faithful astray, no matter how hard the people that make up the church try. Whatever the church declares as binding, and remember that word binding, will be fully correct in the eyes of God. Infallibility does not mean that the church is perfect, though. Okay? So we believe that the Pope messes up. We believe that bishops mess up. We believe that priests mess up. But when they are binding teachings to believers, they will be perfect.

I would like to clarify what my views are, as well. I believe that the Bible is infallible. I believe it is the word of God, and I I don't deny this. So any attempts that you'll see from David throughout this debate where he tries to say that the Bible is infallible, I fully agree. That's not what we're debating. I also believe, though, that apostolic tradition, church councils, and ex cathedra papal statements are infallible. Now, sola scriptura is wrong if I can prove that just one of these are indeed infallible. If I can prove prove that the apostles were infallible, sola scriptura is wrong. If I can prove that church councils are infallible, sola scriptura is wrong. And if I can prove that the Pope can speak infallibly, sola scriptura is wrong.

Now, the church is not ontologically equal with the Bible, but they are both infallible. So, what that means is that the Bible gave us public revelation. This book right here was written once and it's done. And the church actually teaches in the Second Vatican Council that we cannot add to what is in the scriptures. We do not add. We believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. However, we believe that we have the infallible authority to interpret the Bible. We are not adding to it. We do not add any new doctrines for salvation, but rather we interpret what the Bible has already said. Um but like I just said, there's the public revelation and the interpretive. So, the public revelation is new teaching for salvation. This comes from the Bible. Interpretive, this comes from the church today and it continues to help us understand what the Bible is teaching us.

In order to win this debate, my opponent David must prove that the Bible teaches that scripture is the only infallible source of authority for Christians. If he can't do this, he is simply stating his opinion and that is not enough. If he can't show with an infallible authority that the Bible is the only infallible authority, then again, this is just his opinion. It's not binding to any of us. He must also prove that the Bible rejects the New Testament Church and the Pope and the apostles as an infallible authority. If he cannot do that, all of the verses that I supply will trump his opinion. And finally, he must disprove all of the verses that I show um as other sources of infallibility. If he cannot do this, he will not win the debate.

Um I would also like to clarify what this debate is not about. This debate is not Catholics versus Protestants. Now, I agree Catholics reject sola scriptura and Protestants affirm it, but there are many different churches that reject sola scriptura. The Eastern Orthodox Christians, the Coptic Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Syrian Church of the East, and even certain high church Anglicans. So, the rejection of sola scriptura is not just for Catholics. It's for many churches. So, attacking the Catholic Church will not prove his point. This debate is also not about which church has the infallibility. Like we said, many churches believe that they are infallible. So, we're not going to debate which one actually has that infallible authority. All I have to do is show that one of the churches has infallible authority. This debate is also not about how we receive the infallibility. It could be through the Pope, through councils, through the fathers, or just plain oral tradition. If I can show one of these to be infallible, I win the debate because sola scriptura will not be true. And then finally, um I plan to show that infallible authority exists outside of Bible. If I can show that at all, I will win.

Um I'd like to start off in Acts 8:31 uh with the Ethiopian eunuch. He's reading from Isaiah 53 and he asks the church, "How can I understand these things unless someone guides me?" That's a great question. He's reading from the Bible, from the holy word of God, and he says, "This is great and all, but how can I under thing said unless I am guided by someone else?" And that is the doctrine of the ecclesial infallibility. Because we don't want just anyone reading the Ethiopian eunuch, but rather those who are instituted by Christ himself.

Next, we have Acts 15:28 where where there's they're holding the first church council, which is the Council of Jerusalem, and the apostles state, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." The council says that they are making necessary things, binding them to Christians according to them and the Holy Spirit. Notice how the scriptures are never mentioned. That is infallibility. It literally says that they are necessary things. Not according to the scriptures, but the Holy Spirit and to the apostles.

Then in 1 Corinthians 11:12, uh we read from Paul, "I commend you because you remembered me in everything and maintained the traditions just as I have handed them on to you." We must hold on to tradition, right? I believe that this tradition is an infallible source of authority and Paul is affirming that. He says we must hold to that. He doesn't say, you know, hold on to them if you want. He says, "No, I commend you for holding on to these traditions." Uh and then in 1 Timothy 3:15, we read that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Really think about that. How can the church be the pillar and foundation of truth if it's wrong sometimes? If it's not infallible, how can it be the very pillar and foundation of truth?

Then in Matthew 18:17, Jesus Christ himself says, "And if he will not hear them," meaning the apostles, "tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." If you do not listen to the church, Jesus says that you should be treated like a heathen. That is infallibility. If you reject what the church says, you will be treated like a heathen. The church has the ultimate say on morality.

Then we can turn to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, a direct commandment from Paul the apostle. He says, "Hold fast to the traditions taught to us either by word of mouth or by letter." He mentions by letter. Remember, Paul wrote letters and those are now the scriptures. We have just like David brought up, right? The letter to the Corinthians, to the Thessalonians, right? He's writing letters. So, he says, "Hold fast to those traditions, but also to those traditions I have taught by word of mouth." That is the infallibility of oral tradition. He is equating the written tradition, the scriptures, to the authority of those of oral tradition.

Then in John 21:25, we read, "But there are also many things which Jesus did which, if they were written by everyone, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." John is telling us that he knew of things that Jesus said and did which he did not write in the gospel. That means that John had an infallible knowledge of certain things that Jesus said outside of the scriptures. And that in itself refutes sola scriptura. It means that John had an infallible authority outside of the scriptures.

Luke 10:16 uh shows us where Christ says to the apostles the apostles, "If anyone rejects you, they reject me." Rejection of the apostles is rejection of Christ. That means the apostles had infallible authority outside of the scriptures.

Then in Ephesians 2:20, we read that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. Well, hold on a second. It says that the apostles and the prophets hold up the church. Hold up the truth, right? Cuz in 1 Timothy 3:15, the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. So, the apostles and the prophets. Now, the prophets is a reference to the scriptures. Jesus says that the prophets are the scriptures, right? So, if the apostles are being equated to the scriptures, that means that the apostles were also obtaining of infallible authority.

Matthew 16:18 and I'm sure we both knew this one was going to come out, but Jesus says to the apostles, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." So, that's why I mentioned that word binding earlier. Whatever the apostles bind to believers will be bound in heaven, meaning that it will be true because nothing is false in heaven. So, if the apostles say something on earth, it will be true in heaven. That is the exact doctrine of ecclesial infallibility.

Now, outside of the Bible, which is fitting for this debate, we can also prove that sola scriptura is false. The Bible does not have a table of contents, meaning that it doesn't show us which books should go into the Bible. In fact, we can see this because I believe that there are 73 books in the Bible and David only My question to David is how does he know for sure which books should go into the Bible? He claims that 66 books are divinely inspired, but how does he know that each and every one of those is divinely inspired? How can he prove that? How can he believe in sola scriptura if he doesn't even know which books are supposed to be in the Bible? That doesn't make sense. Now, I know that my Bible is infallible because my infallible church has told me so. Councils like Carthage, Hippo, and Rome helped decide the canon of scriptures in local binding councils, and then the canon of scriptures was dogmatized at the Council of Trent. I know what the Bible is because my church said so and my church is infallible. But David doesn't have an infallible church. So, where on earth is he getting his Bible from?

Now, there's another problem with sola scriptura outside of just the scriptures. Um the last book of the Bible, Revelation, wasn't written until about 95 AD. And then the Bible wasn't canonized until the 4th century. That is a 300-year gap between Christ's resurrection and the official canonization of the Bible. So, how were the early Christians practicing sola scriptura if they didn't have a Bible? And keep in mind, the early Christians, most of them couldn't read. So, how are they going to read the Bible and interpret them for themselves like David David is arguing for if they can't read the Bible? That doesn't make sense. It's the oral tradition of the scriptures that kept the church alive in the first three centuries.

Now, to close out, I would like to use some tradition. Um and remember, Paul tells us to hold fast to these traditions. This is from um St. Athanasius of Alexandria, 350 AD. He says, "But beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the apostles preached, and the fathers preserved. Upon this, the church is founded. And he who falls away from the church would not be a Christian and should no longer be called so." Here, Athanasius is saying, and remember, this is a tradition that Paul told us to hold to. If you reject the church, you are not a real Christian. So, pay attention to what David is about to do. He will not provide one single verse that says scripture is the only infallible source of authority. In fact, in his opening statement, he admitted that no verse says that scripture is the one and only infallible source of authority. We both agree that scripture is divinely inspired. So, if he provides a verse that says that it's divinely inspired, we're not going to disagree. But he cannot show one that says it's the only inspired thing. Thank you very much.

All righty. Yes. >> [snorts] >> Uh everybody back up. Okay. So, and now we have the 10-minute rebuttal starting with David, if I am not mistaken. So, thank you very much for that, Jesus. It went out as well. I'm going to unmute David and then remove me and Noah. David, go ahead.

All right, thanks, well, Noah. I think that was a very good opening statement. You can tell I can tell that you did your research, and I think that you presented your case pretty well. But there are a few things I would say that I would disagree with. Uh for one, you used uh 1 Timothy 3:15, uh where the Bible refers to the church as the foundation of the truth, allegedly. This actually isn't true. Uh that word that's translated as ground, at least in the King James Bible it is, uh that's the word hedraioma. There is another word that you uh that's translated as foundation. That word is themelios. But Paul doesn't use that um that word whenever he writes 1 Timothy 3:15. He refers to the church as hedra- hedra- the the hedraioma of truth, meaning that it's the the bulwark or the support, rather than the foundation. Now, there are some Bible translations that do say foundation rather than ground or buttress or a word like that. Uh but um those typically tend to be the less accurate or more or less word-for-word translations. But even if we were to grant that the church is the foundation um of the truth, um foundation is also a word that's used in Ephesians 2:20, where it says that our faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. And so, if we want to use that word foundation to say that the church is infallible, we should also use that word um for the apostles and the prophets. But as I showed earlier through Galatians 1:8, the apostles aren't infallible. An apostle would be in danger of an anathema if he preached a another gospel. So, therefore, foundation doesn't mean infallible.

Um another verse that you used was 2 Thessalonians um 2:15, which says, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." And personally, I just don't see how this would disprove sola scriptura. Now, in the past, I believe that Noah has used the argument that scripture and oral tradition are equal because they are paired together, because um the church is commanded to obey um what they've been taught by word or our epistle. Um but just because we have a command in the Bible to obey something, doesn't mean that that thing is infallible. For example, the Bible says, "Children, obey your parents." Parents are not infallible. The Bible says for um wives to submit to their husbands. Husbands certainly are not infallible. And just the fact that um oral tradition and uh the written scriptures are paired together in one sentence is not um does not mean that those two things are equal. For example, if I were to get in front of my uh youth group on Wednesday night and I said, "Obey God and obey your parents." I'm not trying to say that God and parents are equal sources of of authority. I'm just saying that they are two things to obey. Also, on that that verse um 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where it talks about the oral traditions, my question to you is, what are they? Because uh if we don't have any record of them, how could we use that to be an infallible rule of faith?

Um another verse um you used was um or the passage I would say is Acts chapter 8, where the Ethiopian eunuch is reading a portion of Isaiah 53, and he says that he can't understand it without an interpreter. And to be honest, I also don't see why this passage is used to disprove sola scriptura. And the argument, as I understand it, is that we can't understand the Bible ourselves, so we need an infallible interpreter, which means that sola scriptura can't be true. But just because we see here that a person was struggling to understand, and he couldn't figure it out on his own, and then somebody else guided him, that just doesn't disprove it. Because we have to go back to the definition of what sola scriptura actually is. Sola scriptura is the belief that the Bible is our only infallible authority, and that all other um authorities are fallible. And there's just nothing in this passage that would contradict that idea. And just the fact that the Ethiopian eunuch needed help doesn't mean that that help had to have been infallible. For example, I'm terrible at golf. So, if I wanted to um get better at golf, I would hire a golf coach, because I just wouldn't figure out how to get really good all on my own. But would you say that that golf coach was an infallible golf coach? No, you wouldn't. And so, the same thing is true with Philip and the eunuch, because yes, Philip did help him, and yes, he was a true apostle, but no way does that make Philip infallible.

Um another um argument that you used, um the Bible has no table of contents. And um if I'm misquoting you, I'm sorry. I was trying to write this down really quickly whenever you said it. But you said something along the lines of, "I know my Bible is infallible because my because my infallible church has told me so." Basically, this is the argument about how Protestants have a fallible list of infallible books. And a couple of things I would say against um this argument, what would you have done if you were a Catholic before the 1500s? Because for all of that time in history, Catholics did not have an infallibly defined canon. And so, are you going to say that you don't know if you have infallible books, because for all of that time, you didn't. So, if um the fact that the Bible is a fallible list of infallible books is a problem for Protestants, it is equally a problem for Catholics for 1500 years. And also, I'd say that if you require for an infallible um statement to declare that something else is infallible, then let me ask you, how many infallible Catholic declarations are there? How many uh infallible statements have they put out, or whether it's some other church? If you um have the requirement that um an infallible statement is needed to recognize something else is infallible, then it really just starts this never-ending chain. Because let let's say that we need an infallibly defined canon to have an infallible Bible, well, then you'd have to have another infallible statement to make that other statement infallible. And then you'd need another infallible statement to declare it that one as infallible. It's just a never-ending chain. I know the fact that we have a fallible list of infallible books may sound scary, in reality, it's not bad at all. You don't need to be infallible to discern what is infallible. I think one uh example that we see um of this in the Bible is how back in King Josiah's day, they found a book of the law, and they were authoritative enough to be able to discern that the this book of the law was infallible, and yet they were fallible themselves. After all of that um infallible um book, the infallible scriptures, showed them that they were in error. I think about Moses at the burning bush. He was listening to the infallible word of God, and yet he was able to discern that it was God's voice without needing a second voice to declare that one to be an infallible um declaration. And I think that this also um this idea of the um fallible list of fall- of infallible books being a problem, I think that um that still doesn't really get to um disproving sola scriptura, because as I said earlier, not every um it doesn't mean that everything you believe must explicitly be in the Bible. That's just not what we believe. And so, the fact that we believe that the 66 books are all the canon, uh that doesn't really um have a problem with sola scriptura.

Um Noah also asked a question, how would you practice sola scriptura um without um the Bible? And I think that this, too, is a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura is, because this is a timeless principle that doesn't require for all for all of the Bible to have been written or canonized. I showed some examples earlier um in my opening statement of how the early church um practiced sola scriptura. Well, they didn't have all of the Bible written or canonized yet. I mean, think about it this way. If a mother has five children and she says that she loves her children above everybody else in the world, would you ask that mother, "When did you start loving them above the rest of the world? Did Did you have Did you um start that after the second child or after the last child?" Well, no, it's kind of a dumb question because it's a timeless principle. And similarly, sola scriptura is a timeless principle that doesn't require for the Bible to have been um completely written or canonized yet.

Uh, I know I'm running out of time, but um just as my last um rebuttal to this, Noah said that um I will provide no single verse that says a sola scriptura. Um I actually um think that there are many verses that that show this principle. And Noah also asked, "What about the Trinity?" And we we don't really have one good verse, I don't I don't think, that um defines the Trinity all by itself. But whenever we take the whole of scripture and we combine it and we um um compare verses and we learn these different things, then we see that the Trinity is true. And so, even if there isn't one singular verse that that teaches sola scriptura all on its own, we look at the whole of scripture and we say, "The scripture is our only infallible rule of faith." All right, thanks. Time. Lit- Like literally, it just hit 10:00. So, great job. Nice.

All right. Um >> [clears throat] >> I'm removing him from the stage. Add Mr. Jesus 101. I actually do have a slide with some more slides on my slideshow, if you could put it up for me while I while I begin here. >> [snorts] >> Um David, that was that was a great rebuttal. Nice job. Um No, that was that was very good. Uh okay, so I would first like to address the verse that he brought up, 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17. It says, "All scripture is God-breathed and profitable to teach, to convince, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect and thoroughly furnished to every good work." First of all, I fully agree with this. Okay, I'm not doubting that the scriptures have authority, but second of all, David used this verse to show that scripture is infallible. He used the verse that said, "All scripture is God-breathed" means it's infallible. Now, don't forget John 20:22, where Jesus breathes on the apostles, meaning that the apostles are God-breathed. Therefore, the apostles are infallible. David just admitted that something being God-breathed makes it infallible, and the apostles, according to scripture, are God-breathed. Therefore, David has conceded sola scriptura.

I would also like to mention uh Acts 17:11, um it where David brought up this verse. It says, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, because they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so." I agree, reading the Bible is good. Again, that's not what we are debating here. This verse never says that scripture is the only infallible authority. In fact, it never even mentions papal statements or councils, even though councils are found within the Bible. Never mentions them, because it's not a pitting of authority outside of the Bible and authority inside of the Bible, rather it's just an affirmation of the scriptures, which again, I fully agree with.

Um and then he also brought up the verse Matthew uh 15:3, which says, "But he But answering them, he said to them, 'Why do you also transgress the commandments of God by your tradition?'" But we also need to turn to the Markan text 7:8, which says, "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold to the traditions of men." Jesus is condemning man-made tradition here, not church tradition. So, remember, the Pharisees were contradicting scripture with their traditions, right? They were not loving God because of their traditions. I would disagree with that. That's a man-made tradition. Remember, Paul tells us that tradition is good in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. We went over that.

Um and then he mentioned a few verses uh multiple from the Old Testament and also this one from Revelation 22, um where basically it says, "If anyone adds to the book of Revelation," right? It says, "If any If a man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words within this book of prophecy," now remember, it says prophecy, so he's only talking about Revelation, "God shall take away part of his life out of the book of life um and the holy city and from these things which are written in this book." Okay. This simply means don't don't change scripture. It never says that we can't interpret it. Of course we're supposed to interpret it. I would never change scripture. I would never remove or add a book to the Bible. Fun fact, Martin Luther, the person who coined sola scriptura, actually tried to remove the very book of Revelation from the Bible. He called it not of equal worth to the other scriptures. And I know that David doesn't believe that Martin Luther is infallible, but this is the guy who affirmed sola scriptura and made it a widespread Protestant belief. And he tried to remove the book that David used to condemn people who don't hold to sola scriptura. Maybe Martin Luther is what John the Apostle was trying to warn us about.

Okay, in 1 Corinthians 4:6, it says, "And these things, brethren, I have applied to myself and to Apollos to for your sakes, that ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written, and so that none of you may be puffed up one against another." And David did not mention this in his opening statement, but I would like to bring it up just in case it comes up later in the debate. Paul is not condemning anything outside of the scriptures, but rather condemning new public revelation. Remember, I clarified in my opening statement that new public revelation is not happening, but rather we are supposed to interpret the Bible. I believe that that interpretation can be infallible. David does not.

Um and then here's a blank slide that I have for the other things that were mentioned by David. I will read those now. So, he mentioned Galatians 1:8, right? It warns of people twisting the scriptures. It says, "Even if an angel from heaven or one of us comes and preaches a gospel other than the one which we have given to you, let them be accursed." Now, Paul is not condemning people having infallibility. He doesn't say that. Rather, he's condemning people contradicting the scriptures. Of course that's what he's saying. He says, "If someone preaches a gospel other than the one that we have given to you, let them be accursed." Now, that that's pretty simple. Um and remember, Paul tells us to interpret. He says that Oh my goodness, sorry. He tells us that tradition is good, that oral tradition is good. Um and then he says, David said in his opening statement uh and in and in his rebuttal, he said how uh that people are going to be twisting the scriptures. Okay, well, David, how do you know who is twisting the

scriptures, and who isn't? Because we're both quoting from the same scripture, so someone has to be right. And I don't believe that Christ would leave us with an authority that will not be right.

Um, now, he also brought up the fact that churches are rebuked, and I agree. I've read the Bible before. Um, and like I clarified in my opening statement, infallibility does not mean that the church is perfect, rather that its binding teachings to believers are perfect. I believe that my church can make mistakes. I just don't believe that the binding authority of my church can be wrong. Um, and that's why Jesus says, "Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven."

Um, then he says that the apostles aren't infallible. He said that, uh, about six minutes in. Um, and that, that's that's insane. We, we can get to there later. I just want to clarify. I want everybody to remember, he said the apostles are not infallible, even though the Bible literally says that whatever they say will be true in heaven. I quoted that verse, right? Whatever they say will be true in heaven. Um, and we also talked about that God-breathed verse, right? John 20:22. Jesus literally breathes on them. And David himself admitted that being God-breathed means that you're infallible.

Um, he also attacks the partim partim approach a lot, um, and I don't hold to that. The partim partim approach is basically that, uh, part of public revelation is found in the scriptures and part of it is found outside of the scriptures. I don't hold to that. I don't believe in that, so there's no need to attack that belief. Um, David condemns traditions of men, so do I. Um, remember, I only hold to traditions of the church. Uh, Jesus rebukes, uh, Pharisees because they were not infallible, right? He rebukes the Pharisees. Jesus never said whatever the Pharisees bind on Earth will be bound in heaven. He gives them the right to, uh, bind in the Old Testament, but he never says that whatever they bind will be bound in heaven. So, they weren't infallible.

Um, and then about 11 minutes into his opening statement, David said that the Bible, um, does not say that scriptures are the one and only infallible source. Um, he said that. So, he is concluding that the Bible does not say that it's the one and only infallible source. I'm not saying that means I automatically win, but just keep in mind, he admitted the Bible does not claim that it's the one and only infallible source. He said that verse doesn't exist. And then he actually doubled down in his rebuttal.

Um, and then he kind of rebutted against my, uh, 1 Timothy 3:15. He said that the word foundation isn't actually supposed to be in the Greek and he said that it's really only non-trustworthy translations that have the word foundation. I have a list here of translations that have it. It says the CBS, the NLT, the TPT, the NAB, the GW, and the ISB all have that word foundation. But he said that he would hold to the word bullwark, which means support or protector. So, Paul is saying that the church is the protector or support of the truth. That's still fully defends what I'm saying. If it's the protector of the truth, how can it be wrong? Because if the protector of truth can be wrong, can make errors, then the truth might be error. And Jesus says that the gates of hell will never prevail against his, against his church.

>> [snorts]

He also asked me what the oral traditions are. I would say that that it's that handed down to the church fathers and also through the church continually through public revelation, not public revelation, sorry, private interpretation. The Bible, he said the Bible tells us to submit to our husbands, right? Wives, submit to your husbands. And then he said, "Well, that doesn't mean that the husbands are infallible." I agree. The Bible, however, does not say whatever your husband binds on Earth will be bound in heaven. That's quite different than submit to your husband. So, yeah, if it said that, then I would believe that husbands are infallible. But it does say that about the church, right? It says the church, whatever it binds on Earth will be bound in heaven. That is infallibility.

He also asked me the question, um, there was no canonization, right? Before the Council of Trent. For 1,500 years, there was no dogmatic definition, no infallible statement of what the Bible was. And that's not a problem for me, right? Because I believe that the church is also infallible. The Bible isn't my only infallible source of authority. So, that's not a problem for me because without the Bible, I still have the church. It is a problem for David, though. He's kind of arguing against himself. He's admitting that the Bible was not fully canonized for 1,500 years. That's a problem for him, not a problem for me.

He also asked how many infallible statements there are. It doesn't matter. All of the infallible statements are binding. So, I have to submit to all of them. So, that, that's not really a problem for me, either. He also confuses epistemology and normative authority within the church. We can get into that a little bit more. I'm assuming he's going to go into that in my cross-examination. But basically, he was kind of crossing the hairs between, well, if this infallible source needs this infallible source to make it infallible, then don't you need an infallible source to make that infallible? No. That's the difference between epistemic certitude and normative authority. So, I believe that the church has normative authority, but my epistemic certitude is not infallible, and I'm willing to admit that. So, when I say the church is infallible, that could be wrong. I'm looking at the church and I'm saying, I think this is infallible. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm 100% correct. But he's going to say the Bible is infallible, he needs to be certain that every part of that is infallible. If he can't provide a reason to say that, then he doesn't have a normative authority. I think that's all I have.

Yeah, your, your time is up anyways, so I was about to come cut you off. But, um, >> [laughter] >> but yeah, thank you very much for that. I will get your thing out of here and then I'll bring all of us up. David, come back up. And then I'll get out of here. Okay. So, 20-minute cross-examination now. David being the affirmative cross-examining Jesus and whatnot. Correct? Sounds good. All right, guys. Have fun. See you later.

All right. So, one of the things that you just said in your rebuttal is that I said the Bible doesn't say the scripture is a one and only authority. I don't think I said that. Maybe I accidentally slipped and said that, but that's certainly not what I believe. I think that was kind of misrepresented right there. I do believe that the Bible says scripture is our one and only infallible authority. I would say that you can make the argument that you don't find that teaching in just one singular verse. But just as I said with the Trinity earlier, I don't really see that as a problem. I think that the foundation for sola scriptura is really all over the Bible. We don't need to have it in just one single verse. I think there are many verses that you could use to say that. I just wanted to clarify that in case somebody thought that I believed it.

I feel like you kind of ran away from the question about a list of infallible statements because you attack how Protestants don't really have an infallible canon list. But I'm not really sure why it's a problem. Could you like tell me more about that one? Why is it a problem? Yeah, why is it a problem that we have a fallible list of infallible books?

Okay, so a great question I like to ask regarding that question is, do you know that the book of Hebrews is infallible? Yes. Do you know that for sure? Yes. Okay. For sure means infallible, right? I wouldn't say so. Well, is there any chance that it's not infallible? Um, I wouldn't say so. I would say like I'm 100% sure in my mind, but that's not really what infallible means. Like I say that it's inherently inspired or inherently part of the canon. But there's a difference between inerrant and infallible.

Well, okay. So, you say that you're 100% sure in your mind. Sure. Yeah. So, meaning that there's no chance that you are wrong about that. You believe there's no chance you're wrong. I mean, like I think that you could be 100% sure about something where it's a fallible statement. Well, well, not, not if you're 100% sure. If it's 100% true, then it, it's not fallible. I guess I don't really know what you're getting at here. So, so you're saying that the book of Hebrews is infallible. I'm asking you if you know that 100%. If you say, "Yes, I know that 100%," well, how do you know that? Where's your infallible source saying that it's 100% true? And if you don't know that, well, then you don't even know if the book of Hebrews should be in the Bible. And that's problematic to me.

I would contest that I need an infallible source to say that Hebrews is infallible. Because you don't need to be infallible to recognize what is infallible. I agree. You can say that it's infallible, but just saying that doesn't necessarily make it true. So, I'm asking you how you know it's true. Like how, 'cause we don't know who wrote the book of Hebrews, right? We don't know that for certain. We don't know when it was written or necessarily who it was written to. We can infer, but we don't know all this. Well, I, we can infer, but which Hebrews it was handed to. Um, so there's a lot of mystery about the book of Hebrews. And you're saying I'm 100% sure that this book is infallible. Where is that certainty coming from?

It is kind of the, the problem. I'd say it's a lot of things. Like for one, it doesn't contradict any of the, any other books of the Bible. Hebrews was accepted by the church. As I said earlier, I think that we can recognize the authority of the church. Like for example, Hebrews was canonized at, or, or recognized as canon at councils like Rome, Carthage, Hippo, Trent. So, we can even recognize that the Catholic Church has authority without having to say that that authority is infallible.

So, so the councils do have authority, though, is what you're saying. They can. Yeah. So, so the book of, because the councils say so, the book is 100% supposed to be in the Bible. No, I wouldn't say that. Like that's one of the reasons why I believe that Hebrews is inspired and part of the Bible, but it's not the only reason. You also said that because it doesn't contradict any of the other scriptures, but I could write something right now that doesn't contradict any of the other scriptures. I don't think that's a very good line to draw.

Well, but like if it did contradict the other scriptures, it certainly wouldn't be. And as the early church was determining the canon, that was one of the criteria they used. You're aware, though, that like Jerome, people like Tertullian rejected Hebrews. They said it wasn't the word of God. I'm not familiar with that, no. Okay, well, they, they did. So, so why, why would you appeal to the council, those, those certain people that made up the council versus the people earlier who rejected it?

Well, for one, I'd have to say that I'd have to do more research on Jerome and others who did reject it because I'm not really familiar with that one. But I think that a good way to determine what's true often times is to look at a consensus. And like since Hebrews was more universally recognized than rejected, then that's one of the reasons why I believe it's inspired.

Yeah. And so, so you asked me the question, why is that problematic? So, what we've come down to is you're saying we can vote on which book should be in the Bible. And that, that's like, you said, when there's consensus. Well, first of all, there wasn't full consensus. It was just a majority vote. There was not that full consensus. And, and so, it turns the Bible into like this democratic truth. And I don't believe that the truth can change. That's why it's problematic.

>> Well, I would, I would contest like I'm, like I'm not sure if you're like meaning to misrepresent what I believe, but like I'm not saying that the Bible is up to a vote. I think that like that can really be like that can be one of the ways that we, we recognize and have more confidence whenever more people see it as inspired, but even if, uh, there was a council where they all voted no, it could still be canon if, because it's God's word whether or not people recognize it or don't recognize it.

Um, I also want to move, uh, on from that. We can, uh, bring it back to that idea later, but since this is my chance to cross-examine, I want to move to to some other things. Um, Acts 17:11, you talked about this verse and I felt like your, um, explanation was insufficient because you would say that the apostles were infallible, correct? Yeah. So if they're infallible, why are they being checked according to the scriptures? Why are they being checked?

Because people can still make mistakes. I'm not saying that, uh, the apostles as a person was infallible. I still believe that they sinned. I believe that they made mistakes and that they could even [clears throat] say things that are wrong, but rather they had the ability to teach infallibly. So their binding authority was infallible.

So I just, I just don't know why you can make that distinction though. Like if you, uh, like have the ability to speak infallibly, that's not the same as being infallible. You know what I mean? Um, well, okay, yeah, I wouldn't say the person of the apostle, but rather the office that the apostle holds. Are you, are you aware of like ex cathedra statements and like how those work?

I thought it was pronounced ex, ex cathedra, but sure. It goes both ways. I prefer cathedra because [snorts] it's faster. Okay. But yeah, whenever like the Pope makes a statement that is, um, basically claimed to be authoritative, it's not like a press conference answer or something like that. Yeah. So the Pope could go out and say the White Sox are the best team to ever play in baseball and we would know for a fact that that's not true. Now, that doesn't affect his papal infallibility because he's not using the power of the Pope. Meaning ex cathedra or ex cathedra statements. And so in the same way the apostles can be checked by the scriptures because they were not using their apostolic authority, their infallibility in that, that position there.

So I guess how would you know when the apostles were using their apostolic infallibility versus whenever they weren't? If they were intending it to be binding for all believers. Same with the ex cathedra statements. And how would you know if they're intending besides them making a like a, um, a, uh, clarification statement at the beginning of the sermon or whatever it is?

Well, they actually make those clarification statements. Like in Acts 15, like I quoted, they say, "We are binding you to these necessary things according to us." So they do make those clarifications and they were saying that orally. That was only written down later by Luke. So those things were bound to people infallibly for I think about 30 years until the book of Acts was actually written down. Maybe 20, 20 years.

Yeah. I just don't know how you can keep saying like keep making the distinction between being infallible versus having ability to speak infallibly sometimes because if you're not like actually using that all of the time, how can you claim to be, um, infallible? Because I feel like you made a really big deal about how I said that the apostles weren't infallible, but I feel like you would agree with that.

Uh, well, well, no. So again, I'm talking about the apostles, the, the seat of the apostles, the bishopric of the apostles. So when Jesus says, "Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven," that's talking about the binding authority of the apostles, the seat of the apostles. The office of the apostles. So that is bound to the apostle, is bound to just the first 12. We believe that an apostle is somebody who has apostolic succession. Like 2 Timothy 2:2, uh, 1 Timothy 1:4 or 4:14, right? All of these confirm that apostolic succession. So when I say that the apostle is infallible, I'm referencing all apostles throughout history.

Yeah, yeah, I want to, uh, bring up Matthew 16:19 again because you keep, um, referring to, um, how Jesus said like whatever you bind will be bound in heaven. And I think that you're really stretching the definition of whatever. I know that might sound like mental gymnastics to say that, but like for example, if we were to go to McDonald's and I told you I'm buying, get whatever you want, and then you tried to order like a A5 wagyu steak, well, like I meant whatever whenever I said it, but I didn't truly mean it. Where like it has to be within the bounds. And like whenever Jesus tells Peter like whatever you will bind or loose on Earth will be loosed or bound in heaven, like Jesus had an understanding of what Peter would teach. Like Jesus, uh, knew what Peter was going to do. And like immediately after Jesus says, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose," he says, "Get thee behind me, Satan." So if we're really going to take that, um, um, that word whatever and like really stretch it out like you keep trying to do, I don't know why Jesus would have said that immediately after.

Yeah, so a couple things there. Um, you, you said your McDonald's example, you said, "I didn't really mean whatever." Are you saying that Jesus didn't? Is that your, your >> Well, no, I, I meant whatever within the bounds of what's possible. Well, yeah, I believe infallibility is possible. So what, what's the problem there? Well, like just 'cause Jesus said, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose on Earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven," that doesn't mean that like Peter could say literally whatever and then it couldn't possibly be wrong because Jesus is saying it with foreknowledge of what Peter would say and he knew that based off of what Peter would say that yes, whatever you bind or loose.

What does, what does Jesus say right before this verse? Do you know off the top of your head? Uh, that he, uh, I say unto thee, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Something along those lines. The verse right before that one, too. Ooh. Uh, I can tell you. It's not >> [laughter] >> Bible top quiz or anything. Uh, it's like, uh, Peter, like he asked them, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter says that he's the Christ, son of the living God. Is that the verse before? Yes, he says, "You are the Christ, son of the living God." And then Jesus responds and says, "What you just said was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father who is in heaven." So he's already saying, "Peter, the things that you are saying are not coming from you, but from God himself." And then he says, "Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven." So he's saying he's not saying whatever Peter does 'cause it's not flesh and blood, but whatever the Holy Spirit speaks through Peter. So when he says, "Get behind me, Satan," he's not talking about God, obviously. That would be pretty blasphemous. No, he's talking about Peter's fleshly desires. And there's that distinction, right, between the person of Peter and his apostolic office.

Okay. But then you have to like become an interpreter or a judge yourself over whether or not he's using his infallibility. Uh, again, so that, that's the, the problem of epistemic, uh, certitude and normative authority, and we can get into that if you want. I think it would probably take up the rest of the time. Um, so yeah, probably.

Yeah. Uh, how much time is left in this cross-examination? That is a good question. We, we can, we can take this >> I'm trying to figure out where to go next with this. 6 minutes. 6 minutes. Sorry, I didn't know if 6 minutes? 6 minutes and you can, you can go over if you need to. I can give you an extra minute or two.

>> I think I'm, I think 6 minutes is, uh, fine with me. Okay. Um, let me, uh, so I guess one question I had, um, was about, uh, 'cause you, you believe that like tradition or ex cathedra statements aren't ontologically on the same level or aren't ontologically equal to the Bible, correct?

>> [snorts]

Yeah, ontologically, not meaning in authority. So I want to clarify what that word ontological means. Yeah. It's in the way that they are acting, in their being of interaction with the world and interaction with God's word, they are not the same. So I agree that they're both infallible. They have the same authority, but the Bible serves the purpose of new public revelation and then the church serves the purpose of interpreting that new public revelation.

Okay. So you would say that tradition and, um, the magisterium are not ontologically equal to the Bible then. Tradition, Oh, oh, okay. Um, yeah, I would say ontologically equal, no. Authoritatively equal, yes. So how is it that the words of men are equal to the words of God? If it's not the inspired word of God, how can it be equal in authority?

No, it is the word of God. Well, I, I said inspired word of God, though. Yeah, well, they're guided by the Holy Spirit infallibly, but it's not new public revelation. That word inspired is referencing new public revelation for salvation. And so it's not the words of men. I still believe it's the words of God. It's just not for new public revelation. Interesting.

Uh, another question I had, uh, about, um, infallibility of the church, if they were, if they were to get it wrong, um, how would you know? Like if they put out like a ex cathedra statement and it contradicts the, um, the scriptures, how would you know that?

Yeah, so that's kind of like asking, "Okay, if Paul's letters contradict the gospel, how would you know?" Well, they wouldn't. And I, like I understand that it's a hypothetical, but they're both infallible. Like that question in itself is a contradiction. You're saying, what, it's kind of like the question, can God create something he can't lift? And then atheists will try and prove, say that disproves God. Well, no, the question itself is wrong. So, I don't believe that it's even a logically possible for the church to contradict the Bible 'cause they're both infallible, meaning they are both 100% correct.

Why would it be impossible for the church to contradict the Bible though? Because like the, the question that you gave, like, like the hypothetical one about like, can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? I don't really have a problem with saying no, God can't do that. Because whenever we talk about omnipotence, it's not saying that a God can, like, defy the laws of logic. It's just that God has the ability to do what he wants. So, like I don't think that God can, uh, create a lot of rock so heavy that he can't lift it. But like, either way, like getting back to the one, like why, what evidence do we have that the church, um, isn't able to contradict the Bible?

Uh, well, okay. Well, first of all, I would be careful. I think Aquinas is rolling in his grave a little bit. Uh, >> [laughter] >> like, uh, esoteric theology or anything, but I, I don't think that there's anything God can't do. I would, I would be careful. >> Titus 1:2 says that God cannot lie. Well, again, because it would be a contradiction of himself. And it's not that God cannot but will not. We, if we look at the Greek there, it's, um, it, it, it's could be interchangeable with will not and cannot because of God's character. But again, this is esoteric theology. We can get into that if, if you want to use your cross-examination, uh, on that. Or we could talk about, uh, Well, well, sorry.

>> Yeah, I'll just, I'll just like stick to the question of why do you think it's impossible for the church to contradict the Bible?

Okay. So, the church is 100% true in my mind. The Bible is 100% true. So, it is impossible for two 100% truths to contradict each other. That's not possible.

But why do you believe that the church is 100% true though? Because Jesus said whatever they bind on Earth will be bound in heaven. And I believe that heaven does not have any errors.

But Jesus was speaking to Peter whenever he said that. He wasn't speaking to people 2,000 years later.

Well, you do realize though that it says the church is built on the apostles. I actually provided that verse. It says that the church is built on the apostles. And then we see apostolic succession. We haven't really gotten into that, but the power of the apostles being handed on in Acts chapter 1, uh, to Matthias, who is not actually an original apostle. So, yes, it does apply.

>> say that like the fact that Matthias replaced Judas as an apostle means that a pope 2,000 years afterward is also infallible?

Well, no, it shows that they were making new apostles. Would you agree that the apostles had the ability to make new apostles? I don't really see anywhere in scripture where they made new apostles. Like I see where they, like, replaced Judas with, uh, Matthias, but I wouldn't really read too much into that.

>> Was, Was Matthias an original apostle?

No. Okay, so therefore they made a new apostle by making him an apostle. Yeah, but that's very different than saying like the apostolic succession that the Catholic Church has. Uh, I don't, I don't think it's different at all because I think every single bishop, every single priest has the authority that was handed down by the apostles in the same way that Matthias received it. We can actually track that through history.

Yeah, but like if you, if you want to keep appealing to Matthew 16 and, um, the office of Peter, like where do we see that Peter's role, like, is specifically his would, um, be succeeded, uh, for thousands of years afterward?

Well, they wouldn't have an equal level of authority. Well, Clement of Rome writes about, uh, the seat of Peter and the passing on. We see people like Cyprian of Carthage. We see people like Ignatius of Antioch. I'm not saying these guys are infallible, right? That's not what I believe. But I'm saying that they are a historical testimony to the fact that the apostles believed that that authority would be handed on.

Time is up. 20 minutes is over. [snorts] Okay. Uh, we'll just keep the same format. I'll just remove myself again. And then Noah, you can begin your cross-examination. Okay. Uh, David, I, I will give you some time if you wanted to conclude your, your cross-examination. You can take up some of my time.

>> Yeah. I think that I think I was fine with where we left off. I feel like that was a good stopping point. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. I mean, obviously we have our disagreements about that one, but, you know, it is what it is. Yeah.

>> Okay, so I, I want to go back to the book of Hebrews now that we've had some time to let that sink in. Okay. Do you believe that the book of Hebrews is the word of God? Yes. Is that statement 100% true? Yes. So, you said that statement is 100% true. I just want you to repeat that. Yes. Okay, so there's no chance it is impossible for the book of Hebrews to not be the word of God.

Um, I have to think more about that one before I answered that one. Um, I guess since I believe that we have a fallible canon, I guess it, I don't really have a reason to say that it couldn't have possibly been. But like we're really, like splitting hairs on that one. Okay, so, so you would say that there is a chance that the book of Hebrews is not the word of God. Um, not necessarily. So, there's not a chance? Sorry, what? So, there's no chance that it's not the word of God, therefore it's an infallible statement? I think it's the word of God, but I wouldn't claim that to be an infallible statement, no.

Okay, so it's fallibly, you're making a fallible claim that it's the word of God, meaning therefore there's a chance, there's a chance that it's not the word of God. I wouldn't. Um, I would, I just wouldn't see fallibly as with that definition. I think it's an inherently the word of God.

Okay, so, so if I said >> infallibly whenever we say Hold on. Uh, so, so if I said the Pope is 100% correct all the time, would you take that to mean that he's infallible? Um, not necessarily, no. Wow. So, it, so, do you believe that the Pope can be correct 100% of the time? Uh, can be or is? All right. Can, can you, can you clarify the difference between infallible? Well, 'cause I think that like in Don't interrupt me. I, again, I don't want to be rude, but this is, this is cross-examination.

>> So, can you clarify the difference between 100% correct and infallible?

Well, 100% correct would be an errant. But I would say like not having the ability to be wrong would be infallible. Like think about it like this. If you, like, bowl a perfect 300 game in bowling, that was an errant. But like whenever we say infallible, it really speaks to the source of where it's coming from. So, like I can make statements that are 100% true while still being fallible.

Well, again, but a statement is something that can withstand test over time. So, if I said I'm a bowler and no matter what, I will always bowl a perfect 300. Well, I would say that means I'm an infallible bowler. Would you agree? Uh, no, because you could still have the ability to not bowl a perfect game. So, you would still be, you would be fallible. I don't have the Oh, you did? No matter what, I will always bowl a one, a 300. Okay, I misheard that one. So, if you don't have the ability to roll a non-strike, then yes, I'd be infallible. Okay, so again, when we go back now to the book of Hebrews, when you say there's no chance it will ever be wrong, it will ever not be the word of God. Doesn't that mean that you're making or claiming that there is an infallible statement about the book of Hebrews being the word of God?

Um, Wait, what's the question again? I, I got lost in When you say that the book of Hebrews is 100% the word of God, Uh-huh. when without error and that it will never not be, doesn't that mean that that is an infallible statement? Just as we used with the bowler example. Um, I wouldn't say so, no. Okay. Uh, well, that, that's surprising. Okay, we can, we can Let me, let me rephrase this. Who gave the Bible to the church?

>> God.

Agreed. How did God give the Bible to the church?

>> Um, through inspiration. God giving the words to humans who wrote them down.

I'm more referring to the list. How did God let people know what the list of scripture should be? Where did that consensus come from that you talked about earlier?

I mean, part of it came from the scriptures themselves. Like for example, in 2 Peter 3, um, I agree, I agree. Peter, Peter confirms that Paul's letters are the scriptures. I'm not denying that. But you and me disagree on which book should even go in the Old Testament. So, what I'm asking you is where did the consensus come from? You say that it's from God. Okay, by what means did God give that consensus to the church?

Uh, I think God gave it to, like, the church, like the early church and who was able to recognize what, um, scripture was.

Hold on. So, you just said that God, who is never wrong. You would agree God is infallible, right? Correct.

>> So, God made a decision through the church. Therefore, that decision was infallible, correct?

Uh, I would, I wouldn't say the church decided that though.

Well, I didn't say that the church decided that. God made God made the decision through the church.

Well, what's that mean that like God made a decision about what? About which book should go in the Bible. Um, I guess, yeah.

Okay.

>> Wait. Wait. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. So, so God >> I, I answered the question yet though. It's fine. I think I've got all I need. So, you said that God made an infallible decision through the church. Just to clarify that. Um, I guess so. Okay, that is the doctrine of ecclesial infallibility. That God has the ability to make infallible decisions through his church. I mean, God has the ability to do that, but like I wouldn't say that the church is infallible, though. So, at one point did the church make an infallible statement because God made that statement through them? At what point did the church make an infallible statement?

>> Or did it ever happen?

You just said that it did. You said that the church, the church's decision was infallible because God made the decision through them.

I, I didn't say that.

Yeah, yes you did. I, I promise. We can walk through it one more time if you want.

Can God make infallible decisions? Yes. Did he make a decision through the church? I mean, God made a decision and I think that he guided the church in recognizing that decision, but I think that the way that you're framing the question, I feel like it's kind of like either a loaded question or it's a trick question or something.

>> I'm not trying to trick anyone. You just said again that God guided the church. Why would God choose to guide the church at one point instead of just guiding it the entire time? Why would he do that?

I never said that God isn't hasn't been guiding the church the entire time.

>> Okay, so God is guide Do you believe that God is guiding the church the entire time?

Sure, yeah. That's infallibility. If God is guiding something, it cannot be wrong.

But what if people aren't listening? Do you think people can go against the will of God? Yeah. You, you disagree? Is God not sovereign? He's sovereign. Okay, so if God wills something and guides something deliberately, do humans have the power to take that away from him?

Sure, because humans have a free will. Like for example, do you think it's God's will for people to sin? Um, do I think it's God's will for people to sin? Uh, I, I, I first of all, I don't think it's your turn to ask questions. I mean, you, you asked some whenever I, I was asking, you had the full right to tell me not to do that. Again, I hate being rude. I hate this. Like, I, I hope you know that this hurts my heart. Um, but this is like, I have to do this. We, we can Okay, we'll come back to that one later. Let me write that down. I think I proved my, my point well enough.

Um, can you be a true Christian if you reject Sola Scriptura? Yes. Okay, perfect. Glad we're on the same page. Are >> [snorts] >> there people who disagree? Yes, I've met many people who disagree. Yeah, I haven't. Matt Dillahunty, great example, actually. Talked, uh, to him about Sola Scriptura. He told me I was not a real Christian because I did not accept Sola Scriptura. Really? I listened to the debate, I didn't hear that part. Was that like outside of it? Yeah, uh, no, I think it was, it was within the debate. I might be mistaken. My cross-examination.

Um, okay, so did the Christians living in 40 AD have an infallible rule of faith? Uh, yes. What was it? The scriptures that they had received so far. In, in 40 AD, there were no scriptures, uh, no New Testament scriptures written yet. Uh, but the Old Testament's infallible. So, did they have an infallible rule of faith regarding Jesus Christ? And, and specifically his life, death, and resurrection. Uh, I guess not, no. They did not have an infallible rule of faith. Well, about Jesus Christ, like life on Earth as in the Gospels specifically, no.

Do you see how that's problematic? Why? So, let's say, could, do you think Christianity could survive today without the Bible? Um, I don't think it would, but like >> then how did the, how did the Christians in the, in 40 AD survive? How did Christianity survive then if they didn't have an infallible rule of faith regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Well, like for one, they had the Old Testament and they had like reported history and they also had the Gospels.

>> I'm talking about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Well, the Old Testament talks about it, though. The Old Testament tells us about his life, death, and resurrection.

>> Tells us. It doesn't tell us the soteriology of the New Covenant. So, when we, when we're talking about that, how did the first Christians who were alive before the Bible, their first book of the New Testament was written, how did they have an infallible understanding of how they were saved? If the soteriology wasn't written yet.

Well, what do you, what do you mean by infallible in this context, though? Because like, who of us humans really has an infallible understanding because we are imperfect and we're not omniscient. So, that's kind of an epistemic absurdity then, 'cause now I can just ask the question, well, why do we even need the Bible if we're all, none of us are infallible. None of us can know for sure. Do you see how that's problematic?

Well, like if the, if the problem is that we're not infallible, that's why we need the Bible, or one of the reasons. So, so I'm, I'm just double-checking. Do you think that we can survive as a Christian religion without an infallible rule regarding Jesus's life, death, and resurrection? I don't think we would, no. So, then how did the Christians living in 40 AD do it?

Well, people shared the Gospel. They had the apostles. They had the church.

>> That's Wait, was the church and the apostles infallible then?

No. So, then how did they survive? You said that we wouldn't survive without an infallible rule of faith regarding Jesus's life, death, and resurrection. So, how did they do it if we can't?

Well, I feel like you're kind of misrepresenting what my argument here is here because you don't have to be, you don't have to have an infallible, um, um, rule of something to be able to believe it. That's not what I'm saying, but you said you don't think Christianity would survive without the New Testament. Yeah, well, like up to, up to this day for sure.

Well, now let's say we lost it. We lost all knowledge of the New Testament or all infallible knowledge of the New Testament. Every quote from the New Testament, every manuscript lost for 20 years. That's the gap between Jesus's resurrection to the first writing within the New Testament. If we lost all of that for 20 years, would Christianity survive?

I mean, I think that God could, uh, provide means where like we would receive our knowledge of that again, but I'm just talking about like practically speaking. Yes, practically speaking, would it work? No.

Okay, so then how did it work for the Christians in 40 AD?

Well, it's, it's such a different question, though, because you're talking about like 2,000 years after the fact, but like back then it was like real life events for them. It was like their current history.

Well, well, again, I'm not arguing that. But how, you said that we wouldn't survive without it because of the nature of the infallibility of those books. And if they don't have the nature of infallibility of those books, how are they going to survive if we couldn't?

Well, because it was closer to their time. Okay, I, I think. And like, like I, I, I just, like, don't see in my mind how Christianity would have logically carried on and people would have continued believing it for 2,000 years without the scriptures. Okay.

>> Like, is there any religion that has worked like that?

Uh, again, not your turn to ask questions. I hate doing this. I promise I, I'm not enjoying any second of this. Uh, do you believe that scripture alone is sufficient to guide Christianity? Yeah. Okay, what denomination is correct? Um, I believe it's Baptist. I mean, you're free to debate that, but Well, okay, well, no, that's not really the question I'm asking, though. Presbyterians believe that they're correct. Baptists believe that they're correct. They're all reading the same scriptures. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, we're all reading the same scriptures. If the scriptures are enough to guide Christianity, why do I believe that you're going to hell? Why does my Eastern Orthodox brother believe that I'm going to hell? If it's sufficient, then why don't we know what soteriology actually is for sure?

I mean, I'd say it's just because the Bible's infallible doesn't mean that people understand it properly. And that's why we have sufficient, though. Yeah, it's sufficient, but we're not. Well, then in other terms, it's not sufficient to guide Christianity on its own if sinners are able to twist it just like Paul says in Galatians 1:8.

No, I disagree with that. So, if it is sufficient, if it is enough, then why is Christianity so fractured?

Uh, well, it kind of goes to what I said earlier. Like, just because God has spoken doesn't mean that we'll always be listening.

Uh, I, again, I agree. That's not necessarily what I'm asking. I'm asking, if the Bible alone is enough for us to know for sure what the truth is, well, why do we disagree so much on what the truth is?

Because we're humans who are fallible and we have an imperfect understanding.

Do you think that's how God intended it? Do you think God, when he gave the Bible to the church, do you think he was intending for everybody to have their own interpretation and for Christianity to be fractured?

No. Okay, so do you think that he intended unity? Yes. Okay. So, why wouldn't he institute a visible head of the church like the Pope to guide it and to preserve that unity? 'Cause Catholicism is not fractured, but Protestantism is.

I don't know. I've been seeing a lot of things in the news about how Catholicism seems to be very fractured. Uh, can you give me an example of a, a faith doctrine that's being debated within the Catholic Church right now?

Well, I think one could be about, I mean, this isn't just right now, but like, um, their view of Muslims because like some of their, um, history would say that there's no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, but then some of their tradition would say, uh, Muslims are saved and they worship the same God. So, I'd say that's, that's fractured.

Yeah, so we get into the soteriology of the invisible church and the visible church. That's a debate for, for another time. But your claim was that God intended unity. And I believe that if he wanted that, he would provide us with a visible head of the church. Just like it says heaven has a visible head and then that the church is the body of Christ. How can we claim to be the body of Christ without the church as its head?

Wait, without the church as its head or without Christ as its head? Without Christ or the vicar of Christ as its head. Sorry, I misspoke. Oh, so sorry, what was the question again? Heaven has a king that guides it in unity. That king is Christ. How can we expect the church, which is supposed to be heaven on Earth, right? How can we expect that to be unified like heaven is without a visible head?

Well, I, I don't think that the head has to be visible. I think that Christ is the head of the church and I think that Christ is sufficient.

Would it be better if it was visible? Would it be more if it was visible?

Well, Jesus said whenever he was leaving the Holy Spirit with them that it was good for them that he would leave because he is leaving them the Holy Spirit. And so, I don't think that it would be better if God did something else. I think that God did what was right.

Who did he leave the Holy Spirit to? Was it all of the people that were there or just the apostles?

Um, the Holy Spirit's given to all Christians. That's not the question. When he said that line, did he give it to all of the people there or just the apostles?

Um, well, I believe that the, the apostles were the only ones there, but like from other New Testament writings we see that all Christians receive the spirit.

Again, again, that's not the question I'm asking. When he said that in specific that the spirit would guide them. Not that they have the spirit, but the spirit would guide them in interpretation. They were actually, it says all throughout the New Testament that many people were following Jesus pretty much everywhere he went, but he only says this to

The apostles. Which means that the interpretation that you're claiming all Christians have was actually only given to the apostles and those with their succession. How much time do I have? So, Sam? Is Sam asleep? My bad. 2 minutes? All right, David, you can you can respond to that question. Well, so like is it And then we're good. I'm just trying to figure out what you're trying to argue here. Are you trying to argue that because Jesus only said it to that specific audience means that it was only true about that audience? Uh, no, but I'm saying that you're claiming that the guiding spirit is given to all Christians, that the spirit specifically with the fruit of leadership within the church is given to all Christians. Right? Cuz he says that it's the guidance, the spirit giving guidance. You're trying to claim that all Christians have that, but we don't see that that guidance and that authority is given to all of the Christians. In fact, 1 Timothy 3 directly contradicts the idea that all Christians have that guidance. So, you think that people have the Holy Spirit but aren't guided by him? Uh, not in an authoritative way, no. Interesting. Like how do you mean by not in an authoritative way? Like you don't have to listen? Like surely you don't mean that.

I don't think that their their guidance by the Holy Spirit is able to be enacted on other people like the apostles is. Right? Cuz in 1 Timothy 3 we read that there are qualifications for those who are going to lead the church. It gives the word presbyteros, meaning presbyters or priests or deacons. And I'm saying that the spirit that was given to the apostles is the ability to lead the church. Like we see in 1 Timothy 4:14 it says that Timothy needs to pass on the guidance and the authority that was given to him onto other faithful men. Now, and that and then is quali- previously in 1 Timothy 3. So, I'm saying that that spirit of guidance is not given to all Christians because there's qualifications on which Christians should have that spirit of guidance. Huh. I would say that like not all Christians are equal in their leadership or authority, but not because the Holy Spirit isn't guiding them that way, just because that wasn't God's position for them. Um, yeah, I think we're we're pretty much in agreement with on like certain people have different roles. That's that's pretty much what I'm saying, but I believe that that role is infallible because again again, Jesus says to the same people he gave that guiding spirit to, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Yeah. I mean like we're I feel like we're kind of going in circles here and I'm not really sure how any of what we're talking about right now would disprove sola scriptura though. Because like sola scriptura, like the belief that the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith, I feel like we've kind of gotten far away from that right now. Yeah, we can talk about that. Looks like Sam has something to say though.

Yeah, time's up for the cross-examination, but now you guys can have a discussion about that in the open dialogue. So, we got 25 minutes. Discuss amongst each other. And then we will end off the 5-minute closing statements. So, have fun. You said 25 minutes? Sorry. Yes, 25 minutes.

Okay. Thanks. So, I wasn't sure if you wanted to continue where we were at or if you wanted start talking about a different topic. I am down to do anything. I am out of my cross-examination persona and I am gentle Jesus and whatnot again. So, you can choose the topic you want to talk about. Oh, you're you're fine, man. So, uh, we I think we had a disagreement earlier about God's will always happening and I wanted to come back to that one. Um, which I don't I don't want to spend too long here because as I kind of complained about, this isn't exactly sola scriptura, but isn't your belief that God's will always happens?

Um, okay. So, when it comes to the free will of human beings, I don't necessarily take the Augustinian or um, Thomist approach to like the um, and I don't want to call it Calvinist, but the predestination total predestination view. I don't necessarily uh, believe in super lapsarian and I would probably not even hold to infra lapsarian Calvinism. I got to be honest, I don't even know what those words mean. Oh, oh, no, no worries. They're just different different understandings of how predestination works. Um, we do believe in God's sovereignty in the Catholic Church. Um, so we believe that he is sovereign over all things and that if he One second. If he decides, if he makes an active decision that something will happen, it will happen regardless of anything. But there's also the passive decisions and the passive will. So, there's explicit and implicit will is how it's described sometimes. Um, so for example, God's implicit will or God's sorry, God's explicit will is that nobody sins, right? But then his implicit will is the allowance for that to happen. Okay. So, let's say for example, God in his explicit will says that the church will never fall away. Well, that's what he's telling us, but there could also be behind the scenes, right? And it's not that he's contradicting himself, but rather that it's how God's will works in accordance with our free will. Um, but if his implicit I feel like you have a similar understanding as I have, but like the reaction that you had whenever I said that I believed God's will didn't always happen, I feel like uh, you're a lot more opposed to that than you actually are. Well, that's that's what I was getting into with the implicit will, right? If God's implicit will from the very beginning was for us to never have free will, we would never have free will. Would you agree with that? So, if God's implicit will now further down the line is that he wants to override the human sinfulness when talking in ex cathedra statements or in church councils, he has the power and the right to do that because he created us. So, God can step in and intervene and override our free will, but through the normative means of human decision, he does not do that. And that's the explicit will. Okay. I guess like we we started talking about that because your argument is basically that like would it be God's will for the church to be in error about something? And I would say like no, like God's will isn't for anybody to be in error about anything, but I would also say that just because something is God's will doesn't mean it'll automatically happen. So, I don't really see that as a contradiction to say that like the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church or whatever church you want to say uh, be in error about something because yes, God's sovereign, but God doesn't like force his will. God's not um controlling us like uh, puppets on a string, you know? Yeah, so I I agree with that, but when we talked about that overriding, right? I believe that when somebody becomes Pope, God then has the authority to kind of override the decisions that they make. And not in everything they do, but when they're speaking in that protected office like we talked about earlier. Um, so when Jesus makes the promise, and I know that you think this is going in circles, but when he makes the promise that whatever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, right? Uh-huh. I believe that that is a promise and I believe that Christ cannot lie. And I believe that whatever he said is true. So, when he says that whatever the apostles bound on earth will be bound in heaven, I believe that he means that wholeheartedly in the meaning of explicit and implicit wills of God. Yeah. I I I just want to like say again on that one, but like I I I do agree that like whatever they bound or loosed would be bound or loosed in heaven. But then I just um so like God said that like Jesus specifically said that based on his foreknowledge of what Peter would be teaching. Like I don't think it was meant to be like succeeded by people in a never-ending chain for 2,000 years and those people had the same um authority and infallibility as Peter. But I guess we we already had that conversation.

Yeah.

So. We can we can touch on it a little bit if you're willing. Um because we do see in verses like 2 Timothy 2:2 um and 1 Timothy 4:14 where the authority that the apostles had the direct authority is is passed down. Same with Acts 1. It says that Matthias or Mattias or Matthias, whichever one of the many ways you want to pronounce that. Yeah. It says that he was one of the apostles. He's made equal with them through the laying of hands. And so if you would would you agree that Peter was a leader of the apostles? Yeah, I'd say that. So we believe that when that direct authority when Peter lays hands on someone then his authority to be the leader of the other apostles was also handed on. And so that promise of whatever you bind on earth, whatever you loose in heaven or whatever you loose on earth you know what I'm saying. We've covered it.

Yeah, I get it. Um I I flight footed it every single time. Yeah. That that promise is also passed down. So and that it's pretty clear within that that equalness of the institution of new apostles. Yeah, I just disagree that that's uh equally passed down because again I would say that Jesus is talking to Peter not like to some office. Like why would you say that it's an office?

Um Not that Because we agree that Peter sins, right? He's he's rebuked by Paul. We agree with that. So whatever you bind on earth, whatever you loose on heaven, we're not going to make the scriptures or Christ a liar, but rather it's the logical conclusion that it's not talking about Peter's individual decisions, but rather what he binds to other believers. Um sure. But I don't know. I I guess we probably already made our full case for why we why we believe what we believe on that one. Uh is there anything particular you want to talk about more? I have like some things that I could um bring up, but I I kind of chose the last question.

Um yeah, sure. I I want to I want to ask the the verse 1 Timothy 3:15. It says Okay. that the church is the pillar and foundation or pillar and bullwark of truth. Sure. What what do you take that verse to mean? Uh that the church is um supposed to um teach the truth. They're supposed to contend for the truth. They are the support of the truth. Yeah. Okay. So so the verse doesn't say though the church is supposed to be the pillar and foundation of truth. It says that it is. It makes a >> a confirming statement. So >> Yeah, and as as the as the pillar or foundation or ground or whatever uh they are supposed to do that. Okay. So which church do you believe Paul was talking about? I would say it's the universal church. Okay. So then you would take that to mean all people who believe in Christ. So Baptist, Presbyterian >> Catholics. Okay. All true believers, yeah. So you and I disagree on a lot of stuff. Right? How can we be the pillar and bullwark of truth if we don't really know what the truth is?

Um well, what do you mean by we don't know what the truth is? Just because we have some disagreements about some things? Well well yeah, cuz the truth is 100% it's in totality. So if let's say that I'm we'll say that for niceness, we'll say that you're correct about everything and I'm wrong about all the things I disagree with you on. Uh-huh. Well, then you would be the true defender of the truth, the true pillar and bullwark of the truth. But then I would not be that because I don't have the fullness of the truth. How can I protect the truth? How can I be its pillar and foundation if I don't have the truth itself? I mean I'd say that we don't have to agree on every single thing to both be able to say that we are supporting the truth because there are a lot of things that you and I agree on. Like we agree that the Bible is infallible. We we believe in the Trinity. We believe Jesus is God. We believe in salvation through Christ. Like we don't have to agree on every single thing in order to both be on the same team. Yeah. Well, I think we do disagree on some pretty important things though. Like soteriologically I believe baptism is necessary for salvation. As a Baptist you do not believe that. I believe that partaking in the Eucharist is a necessary thing for salvation according to normative means of salvation. Um same thing with confessing your mortal sins to a priest. And those are big things. I would say that if you do not have those things in your life, if you do not receive those graces from God, you will not go to heaven. And so I understand you're saying we agree on a lot and I agree. But I also agree on a lot of things with a Mormon. I we both agree that Jesus is God, but we don't mean the same thing by that. Sure. My I don't really think it's fair enough to say well we agree on some things cuz we agree on so much, but we also disagree on possibly even more. So how can we one more time, how can we be the pillar meaning holding it up and the bullwark meaning protector or foundation depending on how you translate it, how can we be those for the truth if I believe you're going to hell and you don't believe that about me, but many Protestants would say that I am going to hell. How can we have those coincide? Well, again I I just still say again that you don't have to agree about everything to be fighting for the truth and I think that there are a lot of um unbiblical things that you would believe and practice and so maybe if you want to support the truth better then become Protestant, man. That's fair enough.

Um So is it your belief that I wouldn't be saved? Uh I mean And don't worry about and don't worry about hurting my feelings cuz you know, it's whatever. So we would teach that through the normative means of salvation anyone outside of the Catholic Church will not be saved. Because we believe that if you're rejecting part of the truth of Christ you can't enter into the kingdom of heaven cuz you're rejecting part of the truth and the truth is Christ. Um and we're we're in reference to faith, right? Um rejecting part of the truth uh can you like elaborate a little bit more on what you mean by that? So there's a lot of things. Like there's salvation issues, right? Like soteriology. We have baptism, confession, the Eucharist, um holy orders, matrimony, all seven of the sacraments. I didn't name all of them. That was only five, I think. Yeah. But the seven sacraments, you're rejecting seven of well not baptism. You're rejecting six out of seven, six seven of No lie. sacraments that he instituted for us to have grace. How am I rejecting those? Do you go >> I Do you go to priest? Uh no. Do you have a Eucharist that is instituted by a Catholic priest? No, but Catholics view other um Eucarists as valid though. Uh an Eastern Orthodox one, but not a Baptist one. Sure. So you don't you don't have a valid Eucharist in my eyes at least. Yeah. Uh I I just don't know how that can be true whenever I I feel like that's not what Catholics really teach though because if they also see Muslims as being saved how is a Muslim saved but a Baptist isn't? We don't believe Muslims are saved. So why does Vatican II say what it says? Well, it says that they worship the one true God, but we actually distinguish a lot in that same passage Nostra Aetate that they are not saved. Um and then it says that they are part of the plan of salvation, but that doesn't mean that they're saved. It means that they are a part of God's plan. Just like Mormons are a part of God's plan. Just like um you know, Hindus are a part of God's plan. So no, nowhere in Vatican II does it ever say that we believe Muslims are saved. Huh. Cuz it talks about being included in the plan of salvation and there like among whom is it in the first place is are the Muslims. Mhm. And like you have like Pope Francis saying things like all religions are paths to God. We're all children to God. And I and and I realize I'm not claiming that his statement right then was infallible uh or meant to be infallible, but I think that you have to agree that the Pope's view of who is saved is the Catholic view, right? Uh no. No, we've had Popes that disagree that Jesus is God. Like we we've had multiple Popes that say that. Interesting. But they don't bind it to other Catholics. They don't bind it to believers. That's the difference. We we we actually I kind of like talking about this. There's this 300 year period of Popes that were literally they bought their way into the papacy. And there there are Popes that are Aryans that reject Jesus as God and Popes that are murderers and rapists. Like YouTube might not like that one. Horrible people. Um Yet not one of them has ever committed heresy. Not one of them, even if they believe Jesus isn't God, they've never said if you're Catholic, you must believe Jesus isn't God. Pope you can commit heresy without binding it to other people. I mean, even um who who is it? Um Honorius was uh condemned officially as a heretic. Yeah, but he never bound that to other Catholics, and that's the whole point. That's showing we have these horrible Popes throughout history, and none of them are able to infiltrate the protection given to the church by God. I just feel like uh what Catholics do with all the infallibility stuff is kind of just mental gymnastics because like they'll claim uh infallibility and all that kind of stuff, but then every single time that like you could call it into question, then it's like, "Oh, but they didn't bind it." Or "Oh, it wasn't an infallible declaration." Like you see what I'm getting at? Well, we laid out actually pretty clearly in Vatican I. Um it says any extraordinary magisterial teachings are infallible. Um any ordinary magisterial teachings consistent throughout papacies um also infallible. And then there's the normative teaching of the church through just regular bishops, and that's not infallible, but it's binding. And so, it's pretty clear which ones are infallible. I don't think it's mental gymnastics. So, why why earlier in the debate whenever I asked you for a list of all the infallible Catholic statements, why didn't you answer that question? Well, first of all, are you referencing infallible papal statements or just infallible things from the church as a whole? Um I guess either one. I guess it'd be better to have all of them. Well, I would say all of the ecumenical councils, right? With the Eastern Church as well would be infallible. So, like Nicaea I and II, Ephesus, Chalcedon, all of those, those are infallible um because they're ecumenical and binding to the church. Um and then there's also the ex cathedra statements, um things like certain Marian dogmas, right? And then also councils that are um consistently taught and meant to be binding. So, um there is some scholarly debate on whether or not that includes Vatican II, but I would say that it does cuz it's consistently taught to be infallible. Um but others would say that it's not. And again, I don't believe that that's a problem for me because all of the teachings are binding, and they can continually correct and declare and refine what is infallible and what isn't. So, I don't need a all-in-one list when everything is binding to me as a Catholic. Like including um the Pope. I forgot his name, but the one who signed an Arian document. He signed an Arian document, but he didn't say that it was binding for Catholics. Hmm. Yeah, it just goes back to what I said earlier about how I feel like uh it's just like convenient ways out because like I think it's pretty I'm using the phrasing that Jesus used though, right? I'm saying, "Well, he didn't bind it." Well, that's it's what Jesus said. Whatever you bind, not whatever you say or whatever you think, but whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven. So, I'm not really committing mental gymnastics. I'm just kind of talking about what Jesus said. Yeah. I feel like we've kind of exhausted that one point. I know we disagree on that one. Um did you have a another topic or can I go somewhere with it? Yeah, do whatever you want, man. Okay. Um um let me look for a second here. I wrote down a lot of things. Some of them I've written down. Too many things. Uh So, I guess one of the things I want to talk about was um I think I've I've heard you use this argument before, at least I've heard a lot of Catholics um use it, but that one of the problems with um sola scriptura is that it leads to um disagreement. Is that uh something that you would say?

Um not just disagreement cuz I disagree with my Catholic friends on a lot of things, but I will say ecclesial schism is is my main problem. Yeah, I'm just not sure. I I get that it can, but I feel like within the Catholic Church, you still have many people disagreeing there. But do we do we break off and start a new church though? Or do we just disagree and then wait until there's a statement that says which one's right? Um well, I think both uh things have cuz like some people will just sort of you know, say whatever and I'll submit to the church's authority, but then there have been um schisms in the past or in situations where the church excommunicated excommunicated people who were um fighting for reform. But I don't really see like how like sola scriptura leading to disagreement, at least allegedly, how it's really a a problem for Protestantism because I feel like it implies that believing or not believing in it leads to unity. And I I haven't really seen that happen because there's several uh churches that don't believe in it, and yet they're not unified like Catholics, um Orthodox, even like I don't consider them as Christians, but like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I feel like all of us um have disagreement whether or not we believe in sola scriptura. So, I don't really see that as a negative necessarily result of it. Yeah, again, my problem isn't disagreements. That's not my problem. The problem is ecclesial schism because of those disagreements. So, I'll give you I'll give you two examples. Let's say 50% of the bishops in the Catholic Church do not think Jesus is God. 50% of them do. And then the Pope says, "Yes, Jesus is God." Okay. If you disagree with that, you're now no longer Catholic. You're not a part of our church. And you can either change your mind or go start another church, and then we don't have to deal with you. Okay.

Because we believe the Pope is always right. Now, go to a Protestant church. 50% of the presbyters at your church say Jesus is not God. 50% say Jesus is God. We're going to fight back and forth, and eventually they split. Okay. One church one church there is no visible head to help us understand what is right. Back to the Catholic Church, we can just look and say, "Oh, there's the Pope. He's binding this to us, so we know that this group is correct." If we go back to the Protestant church though, which church do I go to? One of them is saying Jesus isn't God. One of them is saying that Jesus is God. Where do I go? That's the ecclesial schism problem that I have. There's no visible head with sola scriptura. And so, disagreements just end up leading to a bunch of different denominations, and you have no way of knowing which one's right. Well, I feel like you're ignoring the fact that we see the Bible as infallible though because like for a topic like that, whether or not Jesus is God, you just easily go to the Bible, and the Bible answers your question. Okay, well well, I don't know if it's needed. It was a dumbed-down example. Well, yeah, but like baptism saves. How about that one? That that'll be the topic. You can also go to the Bible for that one and say that baptism doesn't save. Well, 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves you, and we can debate baptism some other time, but Presbyterians are reading from the same Bible as you are. Lutherans are reading from the same Bible as you are. Anglicans are reading from the same Bible as you are. They say baptism saves. So, when you say, "Well, oh, I'll just go to the Bible." Well, we're all trying to do that. Where's the visible head that tells us who's interpreting it correctly? So, would you see the would you see the Pope as sort of like a tiebreaker vote? I think that's a a somewhat >> Which maybe that's dumbed down, but like Yeah, um a tiebreaker vote. I would say it shouldn't come to that. I I guess tiebreaker vote isn't like the best um phrase for that, but like the way I think about it like for example, uh at my church, we host like a pick-up basketball night every week, and we don't have a referee um because we'd have to pay one. And so, sometimes guys will argue about calls. Like somebody says that's a foul. Somebody says it's not one. And eventually they keep arguing back and forth. And so, eventually I step in, and I make a call based on whatever I believe. That sort of seems um like you're making that sort of um um progression with um like the Pope and how he could step in and say, "This is truth." Is that sort of accurate, would you say? So, so in a sense, yeah, we could say that that the Pope is kind of like the referee in the basketball game, except Jesus said to the referee and again, I know that you want me to stop bringing this up, but if Jesus said to the referee, "Whatever you bind in this game will be bound in heaven." Uh-huh. That that's kind of like what the Pope is. So, it's not only we listen to the referee, but we listen to the referee with the knowledge that he's being guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit. That's how we That's how we kind of view it.

Yeah. That's what it says. Well, the the reason why I bring that that bring up the the basketball referee illustration is because like just because I was like the authority who sort of settled things, it wouldn't mean that I was infallible because if I was, then they never would have argued in the first place because I'd be making all the calls. And I and I as I look at the Pope why is he sort of being like an arbiter of sorts rather than just giving an infallible interpretation of everything? And I That's kind of one of the other things I I I talked about I I wanted to talk about is that like you would see the Catholic Church as an infallible interpreter of the Bible, correct? Uh yes. So, why has the Catholic Church in all of its history and infallibly interpreted less than 10 verses of all time. Because if I had the ability to in Okay, so we're Uh well, we have like 20 plus councils that reference scripture quite often, right? We have dogmatic definitions of Mary being the mother of God. We have the her perpetual virginity. We have her sinlessness. And all of these are quoting many Bible verses. We have the dogmatic definitions of faith alone versus faith alone.

I'm not saying infallible. I'm saying infallible declarations. I'm saying infallible interpretations of verses. Just because you quote a verse or like you reference it, doesn't mean that you gave an interpretation of that verse. Like I'm just wondering why the Catholic Church doesn't have an infallible Bible commentary if they are in fact infallible. It seems like they want to claim it, but they don't actually want to back it up. Well, that's Sam, do you mind if I respond to that real quick? Yeah, I'll let you answer this and then we can go on to our closing statement. Sounds good? David, is it okay if I respond to that too? Even though I

Yeah, go ahead. Okay.

Yeah, sure. So, a couple things. Um First of all, we have a similar question that can be raised with the Bible. Well, these guys were writing infallibly. Why didn't they write down everything about science? Why didn't they write down literally all of theology so we wouldn't have to worry about it. Why didn't they write down explicitly, "Hey, by the way, the Catholic Church will be correct." Or, "Hey, by the way, the Catholic Church will be wrong." It it's not their purpose. It's not how God decided to use those people at that time. So, it would be nice to have all of those things in the Bible. It would be nice to have an infinite number of definitions for each verse from the Catholic Church, but it's not how God decided to use it. Um but also, we have defined things infallibly for more than 10 verses, but we just don't say, "Here is 1 Corinthians 3:3. It means this." No, we we bring them all together. And that's what all of Church history is doing is interpreting the holistic view of the Bible so that we don't risk pulling them out of context. Yeah. I guess there would be more to say, but since we like exhausted our time, then unless you want me to respond to that, like I don't care either way.

put that in your opening in your closing statement or you can say something now. It's not not really a problem for me. You can do whatever you want, man. Okay. I'm just good to go to our closing statements. I feel like I kind of said whatever I believed on that one and you know, I'd I'd sort of just be receding it again. Sounds good. Amazing. Okay, sweet. So, we'll have David going first in his closing statement. Yes, sir. Okay, awesome. All right, David, I'm going to remove me and Noah and take it away, brother. All right. Well, first off, I want to just want to say thank you again to both of you guys for this debate. I think it was profitable. I hope that people um who listened to this will be helped by it and hopefully will come closer to the truth. Uh so, thanks, Noah, for challenging me to this debate. Thank you, Sam, for giving a couple giving up giving up a couple of your hours and moderating this for us. I think you know, I stand unwavering in my belief in Sola Scriptura because and you know, as Noah and I would both agree, the Bible is an infallible rule of faith. There's no really debate there, whether you point to verses like 2 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Peter 1:20 and 21, the Bible is an infallible rule of faith. And I think that throughout this conversation, I didn't really hear any argument that was convincing enough to convince me that another infallible rule of faith exists. I know that Noah would disagree and he's free to do that, but I just wasn't really convinced by any of the arguments um to say that the Catholic Church is infallible or whether it's some other church or the Pope. I just don't really see the evidence for that and I feel like there's sort of a lot of really convenient explanations and dismissals to you know, like a really narrow view of the infallibility because as I as I said earlier, we can point to all the examples of um a Pope getting it wrong or the fact that the apostles were not infallible because after all, they were under danger of an anathema if they preached a false gospel. In Berea, they had to be checked according to the scriptures. I think it's pretty clear that the apostles were fallible, the Church is infallible, the magisterium's fallible. And so, nothing I really that I heard here really convinced me that any of those sources are infallible. And I know that Noah and many other Catholics would argue that um infallibility is only about like ex cathedra statements or ecumenical councils or such things like that, but I just feel like that's really a really convenient way out. It doesn't really answer the issue to be very well. And so, uh I still believe that the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith. Not that the Bible's our only authority, not to say that the Bible contains all truth or that everything true is in the Bible. And not even to say that everything we believe must explicitly be found in one singular verse. No, the Bible is infallible. Every other source is fallible. And so, therefore, the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith. And so, I think that if the if the Catholic Church was truly infallible, they would provide commentary on more verses in scripture. They would have made it more clear where they have um contradicting magisterial statements, which I sort of wanted to get into, but then we didn't really have time for it. But I think they've made contradictions such as no salvation outside of the Church versus Muslims are saved, whether it's Popes are above the council or if it's councils above the Pope. I think that every other candidate for infallibility is clearly shown to be fallible. So, I stand strong on it. The Bible is our only infallible authority. Thank you. Thank you very much, David. I'll add Noah now for his closing statement. All right. Take All right. Well, thank you to David and to Sam both for for this debate. I've had a I've had a blast. I've had a very very fun time talking about a topic that I'm very passionate about. David David said a lot of things in this debate. And one of the things he said towards the end there that I didn't provide any arguments that he found convincing. I I find that hard to believe because during the cross-examination, David said explicitly that God had made an infallible decision through the Church. That is ecclesial infallibility. Remember, we don't believe that the infallibility comes from the power of the Church, but rather God through the Church. And David admitted to that. That is a source of infallibility in our world outside of the scriptures. And that is defeating Sola Scriptura. Um He also kind of struggled from what I noticed a little bit on the idea of the canon. Um That that that's problematic to me that you can't say I know 100% that the book of Hebrews is the word of God or the book of Corinthians or any other book. The fact that you can't say that for sure would be very problematic to me if I didn't have any authority outside of it. Now, I'm blessed with a church that has infallibly said so for me. Um but whatever. You guys saw You guys saw how the conversation went. I would also like to mention what he talked about a little bit with contradictory statements. He referenced Haec sancta where it talks about, you know, is the Pope above the council or the council above the Pope? It all comes down to historical context. I talked to Redeemer Zumer about this. You can go watch my conversation with him, but long story short, one decision, one statement that the council was above the Pope is because they were choosing the Pope. And so, obviously, the Pope wouldn't be above the council if the Pope wasn't chosen yet. And then in the other statement that comes from Vatican 1, uh says that the Pope is above the council because the Pope was already chosen and actually speaking over the council, just like we see uh in Pope Agatho's letter or Leo's Tome, right? All these things throughout early Church history. So, that that's kind of that contradiction. He also brought up the soteriology of Muslims and how that's a contradiction. Um and I think I clarified that pretty well during our open dialogue, but again, we don't believe that Muslims are saved. And if anyone's telling you that, they're trying to mislead you. You can go read Vatican 2 for yourself. It says that they are first amongst others uh or first over others regarding the plan of salvation, but nowhere does it say that Muslims are saved. We do not believe that. Um let me see, what else? Yeah, I would I would ask yourself while you ponder the the opinions that were brought up within this debate, 1 Timothy 3:15, right? The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Is that infallibility or is that authority that can be wrong? I don't think that that's authority that can be wrong. The pillar and foundation of truth, remember, Jesus says that he is the way, the truth, and the life. So, the Church is the pillar and foundation of Christ himself cuz he is the truth. I don't think Jesus would that the pillar of himself be wrong. I don't think he would do that. And remember, Jesus gave infallible authority to men. That's how we have the Bible, right? The book of John was written by a man, right? It's God's words through a man. Why can't he do that still? Why can't he make a church council infallible? Why wouldn't he do that? Why wouldn't he want to continually guide us? That is God's will that we know his plan for salvation so that those who seek it know for sure because there are people in the Baptist Church who I believe are truly seeking the truth but they reject that baptism saves. I've talked to many Baptists and this is a uh personal story so it's not really binding to David here but I've talked to many Baptists who say I don't feel called to be baptized yet. I'm waiting until I feel it's right. Well, that's not what Jesus says. Jesus says that unless you're born of water and spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, right? First Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves you. Well, who's right? Those Baptists are probably seeking the truth to some degree but their church leadership is wrong and therefore they are wrong and therefore they are rejecting something the Bible says and that will lead you to hell. That's why I believe that Christ instituted a Catholic Church to guide us. Um that's all I all I think I have to say. Um overall great discussion. Thank you again to David, um to God of course, to to Sam and to everybody who watched. God foremost of course. You guys are nothing to compared to God but uh you guys I'm all thankful for you. Thank you so much. All right, and that concludes the Sola Scriptura debate between Jesus and One Note Catholic and David Carian. We thank you guys so so much for watching. It was a great discussion, a very fruitful discussion. I hope that all of you watching can learn from that. And without further ado, may God bless you and Jesus Christ is Lord. God bless. Amen. The Jesus and One Note Catholic He left Protestantism >> [music and singing] >> and swore to destroy it since that faithful day.