Is Scripture Enough? (Protestant vs Catholic)

Well, greetings and thank you all for being here. My name is Miles and welcome to Canon and Creed, the channel that's committed to exploring historic Protestant faith, practice, and piety.

If you are new here, as many of you are, let me properly orient you. When I use the term Protestant on this channel, I'm referring to the traditions of the Reformation, not anyone who simply isn't Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Now, I understand lots of people will disagree with that, but understand that's how it's being used on this channel.

Now, this is the first live stream on this channel, and to kick that off, I have a good guest with me, and we're going to discuss the subject of sacred tradition and the Protestant Reformation. The goal being to help move the conversation, excuse me, beyond uh surface level tropes and slogans. Because on this channel, I'm not primarily interested in winning arguments as much as I am interested in examining why certain arguments sound compelling in the first place. Looking at what assumptions they rest on, what questions they answer well, and so on. And in order to do that, it requires that as Protestants, we listen to other people's positions and seek to understand them on their own terms. In other words, the aim here is to think carefully before arguing loudly. So, if that sort of thing interests you, hit like, subscribe, and come along for the ride.

Now, the rundown for tonight. We're actually going to begin by steelmanning one another's positions to show that we're operating in good faith and then hopefully help orient the audience as well. Then we're actually going to interact with a clip from a recent Gavin Ortland video which will transition us to our open discussion portion where we're going to ask each other some questions, open dialogue for about h an hour or so. Um and then at the end we'll take some audience questions for those that want to super chat in a question that you might have.

Now with that said with me to discuss tonight is Kevin Fernandez. Kevin is a Roman Catholic apologist and he runs the YouTube channel Since 33 where he explains and defends Roman Catholicism often interacting with Protestantism and Orthodoxy. He's currently studying Catholic theology for a master's program at the Augustine Institute. Kevin, thank you so much for being here.

>> Thanks for having me on, Miles. Appreciate it.

>> Yeah, thank you. Um, bear with me, folks. I'm recovering from some sort of head cold, it seems. Just a second. So, I have a lot of crud in my throat. So, we discussed beforehand. You want me to begin with my steelman and then you will give yours. So, with that said, I'll do some more talking and you can sit and listen. And at the end, um, well, let me preface by saying this is tailored specifically for my understanding of your view, which is definitely more rigorous than the sort of run-of-the-mill popular level Roman Catholic engagement that most people are going to encounter at the popular level. And I'm going to try and explain it as if I were trying to help the average Protestant understand it. And then, of course, Kevin, you can let me know how I did at the end.

So Kevin and Roman Catholics believe that there is one divine revelation, not two. Protestants: one, not two. God revealed himself once for all through Christ and the apostles. And that revelation doesn't continue, expand, or grow in content after the apostolic age. One divine revelation. It doesn't get added to after the apostolic age. However, Kevin distinguishes carefully between revelation itself and the ways that revelation is transmitted, recognized, and authoritatively taught in the church.

So, first we have scripture, which Kevin believes is inspired, intrinsically authoritative, and ontologically unique. And those are big words, but they're necessary words. Meaning he believes that sacred scripture is inspired in a unique and singular way just like Protestants do. God is its primary author and the human writers are secondary authors. So because of this, scripture is not merely accurate or protected from error. It is the physical word of God proceeding immediately from God himself, which is what makes scripture a trifecta, if you will. Like I said, it's intrinsically authoritative, intrinsically infallible and ontologically unique. Scripture is not said to receive its authority from the church. And the church does not make scripture authoritative. Scripture has authority from God alone.

However, and this is crucial, the fact that a book is inspired is itself a supernatural truth. Inspiration cannot be detected simply by historical research, internal beauty, uh coherence or even apostolic authorship. Those things can suggest inspiration but they can't produce divine faith because inspiration belongs to a supernatural order or the supernatural order. So while scripture is authoritative in itself, our knowledge of books or of which books are inspired doesn't arise automatically or privately. We need an infallible proposer for that, namely the magisterium.

Now, regarding tradition, capital T tradition, sacred tradition, Kevin believes this to be the living transmission of revealed truth. When Roman Catholics speak of sacred tradition, they're not talking about human customs, devotion practices, or like later ecclesiastical habits. Those are lowercase t traditions. By sacred tradition, they more specifically mean the living transmission of the apostolic deposit of faith. The church receiving, preserving, and handing on what was revealed by Christ and the apostles. Which means they don't believe that sacred tradition is inspired the same way that scripture is, including ecumenical councils. It's not the word of God in the same physical sense. Okay? But it can still convey divine revelation truly and infallibly because it faithfully transmits what was originally revealed. Importantly, tradition is not a second source of new revelation. It doesn't add content beyond what God has revealed. Instead, it's said to preserve revealed truths, hands them down or across generations, and sometimes clarifies what was already present implicitly or virtually.

Now, regarding the magisterium, Kevin also believes that Christ gave the church a real teaching authority, the magisterium, which is entrusted with the task of guarding that revelation, interpreting it authentically, and definitively setting doctrinal or settling doctrinal disputes like it councils. Like sacred tradition, the magisterium is not believed to be inspired like scripture. I hear this from Protestants all the time. Its teachings are expressed in human words and concepts and formulations. But when it teaches definitively on matters of faith and morals, it's infallible by divine assistance. Meaning that God protects it from error even though it's not the source of revelation. The source of revelation is God himself. So this is why Kevin will say he believes the magisterium is not above scripture. It doesn't create doctrine. It serves the word. But the magisterium is above individual Christian believers in authority because Kevin believes that Christ authorized it to make binding judgments for the church.

Now, regarding the canon of scripture and divine faith, this is going to be a a I am theorizing here. This is probably going to be a big topic for tonight. A key part of this view in is Kevin's understanding of divine faith. He argues that for something to be believed with divine faith, it must be one revealed by God and two proposed authoritatively by the church as revealed. And since inspiration is a supernatural property, he argues that no private judgment, whether based on historical reasoning, internal marks, or personal spiritual experience, can produce certainty at the level of divine faith that any given book of the Bible is inspired. Therefore, Kevin believes the canon becomes known to us through the church's authoritative proposal, which belongs to sacred tradition and is exercised through the magisterium. This does not mean he's saying the church gives scripture its authority, though, only that the church identifies and proposes what already has authority from God, and that is protected in doing so.

Now, regarding the sufficiency of scripture, this is carefully qualified. Roman Catholics will often say that scripture is sufficient, but not in the way that we as Protestants usually mean. They affirm that scripture contains everything necessary for salvation, and all essential doctrines are present in scripture, at least implicitly or virtually, what is called material sufficiency. However, scriptures not believed to be a self-authenticating, self-regulating rule that is capable by itself of guaranteeing doctrinal unity and resolving disputes across the whole church. And this is because scripture is not a systematic theological manual. It's sometimes difficult or obscure and um sometimes subject to competing interpretations which is why Kevin believes that God intended it to function within the living authority of the church alongside sacred tradition and the magisterium rather than as what the scholastics call the sole proximate rule of faith.

So here is a visual to hopefully help some viewers comparing the two views. In the Protestant framework that I'm advocating for, the apostolic deposit of faith was delivered once for all. That deposit was inscripturated, meaning preserved in stable public form. Scripture then functions as the sufficient norm of that apostolic revelation. It is interpreted within the life of the church and the Holy Spirit illumines believers to receive what God has spoken when that word is administered in the church. Now that doesn't mean interpretation's easy, but it means the normative content of revelation is fixed and publicly accessible in scripture and then the spirit works through the word to produce divine faith. And if I understand Kevin's model correctly, there is one deposit of faith delivered once for all. And that deposit is transmitted in both scripture and sacred tradition. It is all materially present, sometimes formally, sometimes virtually. Scripture is supreme in dignity because it's inspired, but it's not formally sufficient as a proximate rule of faith. Therefore, the magisterium serves as a living infallible clarifier and regulator of that singular deposit. So, the difference is not whether there's one deposit. We agree on that. The difference is where that deposit is normatively accessible and how it functions as a rule. Is scripture itself sufficient as the public norm under which the church ministers? or does the deposit require a co-extensive infallible clarifying office in order to function as a rule at all? That's the structural question between us.

So Kevin, if I misrepresented anything here, I want to correct it before we go further, especially on how you understand inspiration, canon, and the magisterium.

>> No, I think that was great. You did a you did a great job. Thank you. I think the only clarification not really not a correction but really a clarification is when you were talking about tradition as the living the living tradition of the church that is more like what we would call preservative tradition. Uh but sacred tradition really speaking is just a source of revelation which is so it is a source of revelation but it's you know what the apostles preached in the first century and then we can kind of say like oh sacred tradition you know through the ages but it's that we're really talking about preserving that source that revelation given in the first century. So um so you're right to say that um that the living tradition of the church is not uh receiving new revelations but uh sacred tradition is a source of revelation which is again what the apostles preached uh in the first century that that whole deposit but other than that I think that was fantastic. I can't really think I guess to the to the um to the last diagram you ch you showed the last step for the Protestant model was the spirit producing divine faith. We would also obviously say that that for any supernatural act whether it be faith, hope or charity, um the spirit also produces divine faith. Um but at least for me, and you can clarify this, I'm not going to speak on your part. At least for us, um the spirit is not, you know, uh the the the actual propositions of what we are to believe is coming from either either the explicit passages in scripture or the um the um propositions of the magisterium. So, but my point is, I'm not excluding the work of the spirit at all uh in that and I'm not going to speak on on your on your part, but that just I think that's all I would clarify really. I think that was great. Fantastic.

>> Cool. Yeah. I uh with that I was just like uh I guess I wasn't trying to say to the exclusion of the other side, they don't think that the spirit is like involved in these sorts of things. I was mainly just trying to have some sort of visual for my uh visual learners out there. So, all right, the floor will now be yours to do the same.

>> No, that was that was awesome. And I I don't have anything prepared uh that fancy, so uh you already talked a lot about your position, so I won't be as formal or anything, but um what I was kind of you kind of were explaining what our positions were when you said steelman for this, and it's not your fault. I just misunderstood. When you said steelman, I thought we were going to try to kind of defend the other side, like why the other side's position makes sense. So, since you already explained our positions, I'm going to do I'm going to do that. Totally fine. That's totally fine too because we'll get into a bunch of the other stuff later.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So, so I would say uh you know the Protestant view of tradition at the re or scripture and tradition at the Reformation, right? is that uh they seem to be uh there seemed to be a lot of doctrines uh in the church at that time and you know obviously mixed in with corruption that when looking back into history and looking back into scripture uh many of the reformers regardless of the tradition uh they are in disagreement with the Catholic Church uh and they're saying that this is not part of the original deposit of faith right that these are as Gavin Ortland would call them later accretions right these are corruptions these are things that were brought in maybe from paganism sometimes that I'm not saying that they all agreed on that right but uh sometimes could be from paganism. It could just been, you know, a development that was inaccurate, that was a corruption. Um, and so we need to return to the source. We need to return to the first centuries of the church. Um, uh, and really to really preserve the word uh, you know, what God actually delivered. And even though we have tradition as a very authoritative uh you know uh uh role I in our uh in ecclesiastical life and in doctrine even if we have the pastors of the church even if we have church fathers who are geniuses and and who were very holy men and and you know who the Protestants were not the Protestants were not saying that they were more holy than St. Augustine or or St. chrostm they were not claiming to be wiser than them right um you have the church fathers you have you know ecumenical councils you have all these other things but all these you know they're all they all have one thing in common which is they're all men okay, they're not God. Um and because scripture is ontologically unique uh we know for a fact that it is infallible um you know, it's inspired uh so it's not just it's not just that somebody took notes but rather God himself is telling us like, hey, I want to you know, this is what I this is what I want for you and for the church um uh as as authoritative and as important all those other things can be, they simply cannot compare to scripture. Uh they they are not ontologically unique like scripture, they're not God breathed. And even within scripture, we have the self-praise of scripture itself like in 2 Timothy 3:16, how scripture is is God breathed and it is able to make the man perfect for every good work. You even see in scripture itself you have uh oftentimes traditions of men being tested uh by the very word of God by Jesus himself. Uh which you know, if we want to read the gospel and learn something from it. It's almost as if he's giving us an example of that we should be able to test uh you know, whatever a teacher uh gives us which which by the way we're told to avoid false prophets and false teachers uh and presumably what are we going to test them with if if not the word of God right? But Jesus is kind of giving us the example there of testing traditions with with scripture and what God has what we're certain that he has laid down. Um you also see the Bereans right even testing right examining the scriptures daily uh to see the apostolic preaching uh if that is actually accurate. Um and uh because it's perfect because it's it's so unique it doesn't need additions. It doesn't need this extra biblical tradition right uh that that you came to have. And even going back to the first centuries of you know, the first few heretics right the gnostics what were they claiming to have? They were claiming to have this secret tradition, right? Uh and they were trying to, you know, impose that onto the church saying, "Well, the apostles didn't really know everything, but we have the secret tradition." And so, your knowledge is not complete. Your knowledge is not complete unless you have these other traditions that the apostles delivered secretly and privately to others. You know, some some, you know, maybe they didn't know everything. Sometimes they did know, but they they told uh some people in private. And so, no, no, no, the scriptures are complete. They're perfect. They're a perfect rule of faith. They are the judge of controversies. Um uh and when it comes to regulating the mind and the ascent of faith, they have to be at the pin at the very top. Uh because that is simply what we owe. That is the reverence that we owe God and his word. Um and so that wasn't as as formal as you, but I that's all I think that's how I would steal man your your position coming from the Reformation. What what do you think about that?

>> Yeah. Um, let me read a a quote here. Um, I know some people always hate when we do this because it's not YouTube native and and not um algorithmically friendly, but that's just kind of the nature of how things are. I want to read a uh quote here. This is from Jaroslav Pelikan's church history set. This is from volume four because I think he does a really good job in simple terms really kind of explaining the difference. This later statement about belief in the Bible formed the introduction to a larger examination in which the principal controversial issue of the Reformation was whether only those truths which are asserted explicitly in the canon of the Bible or which can be deduced solely from the contents of the Bible are Catholic truths and should be believed as a condition for salvation. or whether there were also many truths not found in sacred scripture, nor necessarily deducible from its content alone that ought to be assented to as a condition for salvation. Both these views of apostolic tradition would have divi defined it as that of which all must ascent and from which none of the faithful may deviate and by contrast would have defined the unstable tradition of the children of this world as that which was to be rejected. Both of them held moreover that the authority of scripture stood first and foremost in the determination of articles of faith. Neither of them on the other hand was rejecting the authority of the church or proclaiming a doctrine of Bible alone as certain heretics were seen to be doing. The question between the two views was whether the church in exercising this doctrinal authority had the right to promugate as apostolic doctrines even some beliefs that could not find explicit warrant in what was written in the Bible or in what was deduced from this alone by an obvious conclusion, but that were rather purported to have come down to us through the successive transmission of the apostles and others as equivalent ent to the canonical scripture in authority and apostolic authenticity. Close quote.

Now what he says there I would summarize as this and I kind of said it in the steelman. I think that the the real question between us is not whether there's one deposit of faith because you know you'll hear some people who say well they believe that there's just this ongoing adding to the deposit and it's just this kind of like growing thing like the Marian dogmas and all these things are just kind of added on later on and they're just being deposited in the argument is not that one side's claiming one deposit of faith and the other side's not claiming you know one deposit of faith but whether that deposit is normative accessible in scripture itself or whether it requires an infallible magisterium in order to function as a rule at all. That's really what Pelican is getting at is that we're working with two different definitions functionally of apostolic tradition. We both agree in apostolic tradition and the authority of apostolic tradition. The question becomes where can we access all of that?

So before we transition into discussing I want to play a clip. It's only 5 seconds long. Okay, so it's going to go really quick, folks. But I just want to pull this one part out because I think it's a perfect segue for us. And I want to preface by saying this isn't about dunking on the people who who it's getting pulled from, but it does serve a very good function and purpose. So I want to play it here really quick. Like I said, pay very close attention, folks. It's only five seconds. This is going to go quick. And then Kevin, I want to hear your response. Okay.

The church didn't create the word as Rome teaches. The church didn't create the word as Rome teaches.

>> Okay, Kevin, what are your thoughts when you hear something like that from Dr. Horton?

>> Yeah, I was shocked when you uh when you first told me you were going to be kind of reacting to that. Uh it's obviously wrong and it's a very simple mistake. So, and he has a PhD. He's a doctor. So, I I want to assume he just kind of misspoke and and spoke very loosely. Uh but obviously it's wrong. Uh because you know like in a sense the apostles were in the church and they created like they wrote scripture but that's even then we wouldn't even say that the church wrote it. They would we would just say that men who were the actual first promulgators of divine revelation who were entrusted to do so which you and I would agree they happened to be in the church and they wrote scripture. But I don't really see in any other way how you would actually agree with that as a as a Catholic. Um the the and this is this isn't even like a a deep theological thing. It's just you you hear Catholics say it all the time how um we don't think that we give scripture it authority, but rather we we receive the scriptures and and the church makes you know makes it known to us which ones are scripture and which ones are not. But the church did not you know give scriptures authority. So it's a pretty simple I guess response. I don't know. I I actually if you look at Dr. Coopers and Gavin Ortland's face after that in the original clip. They seem kind of like confused, too. So, I don't know. I don't know.

>> Now, I get in discussions like these, you're sometimes speaking more loosely or kind of like off the cuff. It's just kind of like a stream of consciousness type discussion kind of like we're doing here.

>> Yeah. We we've all been there.

>> So, this isn't an attack on Dr. Horton. Like I said, that's not why I wanted to bring this up. But, I do think it provides an example of the sort of thing that I'm passionate about seeing Protestants avoid. It's kind of the purpose of of this channel is I want us to better articulate the the beliefs of those that you might disagree with. Um, now you can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that Dearbum explicitly says that scriptures authority comes from God, not from the church. So, formally speaking, like uh, you know, you've pointed out, the teaching isn't that the church created the word. However, I will say this is likely what Dr. Horton was pressing. And Kevin, I'll be curious to hear your thoughts on this assessment that Roman Catholic theology teaches that one, the church has infallible authority to define the canon. Two, the judgments about which books are scripture is irreformable. And three, one can't have certainty about the canon apart from the church's authoritative role in identifying such because reformed theologians often argue that Roman Catholicism functionally makes the church prior to scripture at the epistemological level even if they deny doing so ontologically. In other words, the dispute is not about inspiration but about authority and epistemology. That's likely what Dr. Horton was critiquing if I'm being charitable. But with that said, Kevin, I'll let you go first and you can kind of segue us here into our discussion. Um, but what are your thoughts on that assessment if that's if that's what he's saying? Is is that a better assessment of the position than just the sort of like what was the first thing you said exactly?

>> Well, I was just explaining that

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's correct. And I mean, going back to the reformation, the the the responses to the reformers is is that clarification. Like just to be clear, we're not saying that that the church gives scripture her authority. So you're correct on that and yes, David says that. Uh so good point on that. Uh with regard to the church has the authority to define a canon as long as we don't understand that to mean like yeah, they're not conferring

>> inspiration to the books, but rather they're defining it in respect to us. Right. Quados. Right. Right.

>> Um, and then uh irreformable. It depends. Right. So like if you have a local council, if you have a local region of bishops, if you have just one bishop, uh and this is of course before the the promulgation of of uh before the canon was you know completely decided uh then those are always reformable just like any anything else. uh but with regard to uh a final you know uh dogma whether it be the universal magisterium the ordinary magisterium or gathered in ecumenical council or maybe a pope which it didn't happen through a pope um then uh that would be irreformable just like any other dogma not just there's nothing special about uh again because really it's special in so far it it it concerns scripture but uh the fact of inspiration is you know a supernatural truth just like the trinity or or the incarnation so just like anything else once it's a dogma or once it becomes clear to us that it is a dogma. It is, you know, irreformable. So, yes, that that would be true.

>> Cool. Well, with that said, you can kick us off. What do you want to discuss in particular uh with within uh the the scope of of this uh discussion topic?

>> Yeah. So, I have just a few things. I don't have much for you. I'm more curious to hear what you have to say, but the few things I I wrote down is uh just beginning with with tradition. uh we we can speak of tradition as the original source and the original the first promulgation or the first transmission right which in the old testament would have been uh the patriarchs right to their family and then as as the people of God grew to uh you know like a nation it would have been you know Moses and then it would have been you know David or or the prophets and all that stuff um and then in New Testament you have the first transmission coming through the apostles right so that's you can talk about tradition in that way you wouldn't deny that that is a source of tradition then you have the the preservative uh tradition or the you know transmitting tradition active tradition through the ages right um would you would you agree that theoretically or hypothetically speaking our view of tradition is possible in other words um I often encounter uh Protestant apologists uh or even sometimes uh uh Protestant theologians arguing against argue of tradition because of how uncertain tradition can be. I mean, look back to the first age of the church. Plenty of church fathers, you know, were were appealing to things as being apostolic, which really were not. Um, and they're saying, well, therefore, we can't rely on tradition. Um, whereas there are other Protestant theologians that I've found uh which is a very common view where they say that, um, obviously the view is at least theoretically possible. We don't think that it's actually the truth now in the New Testament, you know, or the new covenant. Um, but it it has to be it's obviously within God's power to preserve the truth uh only by tradition just as it was before the Old Testament was written down from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. So, but that's not, you know, that's not actually something that you're bound to hold to be part of any confession. So, it's it's more of like different theologians can have their view. What is your view? Do you think it's, you know, hypothetically possible within God's power and so on, right? Or what would you say to that? Do I think your view hypothetically could be true?

>> Right. And not only that, but also without scripture. So the pro so the pro so the transmission of revelation preserved in in the church of God, right? By the power of God, of course, uh without uh scripture. And again, that doesn't mean that that doesn't mean that you're not going to write anything ever. There's going to be creeds and stuff like that that the church itself is going to write, but an original uh source of scripture being transmitted without that. Do you think that tradition is possible in that sense?

>> So So I'm functionally Can you say it again? And it helps if I type things out. So just say the whole question.

>> So basic so basically just imagine we're we're here in this world today, but the apostles wrote nothing. Absolutely nothing. And again, I guess assume we don't have the Old Testament, right? It's just an authentic magisterium with us today. And the apostles just preached orally um and they didn't write anything. Do you think that is hypothetically possible within God's power to preserve the truth in the church today only by tradition?

>> Well, yeah, in this in this hypothetical where there's no Old Testament, there's only an authentic magisterium with us today. And the apostles only preached orally. And in that framework is your could your position hypothetically be true? Is that the question?

>> So I guess the I guess the Old Testament part can come or go. You could have it or not. Um, but do you think do you think it's within God's power? Right. Cuz cuz what I'm getting at

>> within that within that hypothetical. Sure.

>> Okay. Cuz cuz I guess my let me know if I'm misunderstanding something, but I I will see you know apologist. I'll give an example. Again, not trying to to attack but just giving an example. like Gavin Ortland often says, "Well, tradition is just unreliable." And there and and because of that, they try to argue for the absolute necessity of scripture. Um, whereas when I read reformed theologians and even Lutherans, they're like, "Well, you know, technically it's within God's power to only transmit the truth uh via, you know, authentic teachers and whatever uh like he did before the Old Testament was written from the time of Adam to Moses, but we simply don't think that's the case, right?" And so I'm like, well, you know, if they're saying this, I don't think Gavin or any other Protestant apologist should be argued for the absolute necessity of scripture. Uh because uh just because human tradition can fail, doesn't mean that God, you know, couldn't have done it uh in that way. Does that make sense? I know it's a little messy. Yeah. I want to get your mind.

>> Yeah. Cuz I you're kind of talking about like I've heard some of them will say like, you know, like think about like the telephone game.

>> Exactly.

>> And how like like that. And I've talked with him in private so I know kind of what he's trying to say when he says that. And I know that there have been some people who have like either mistakenly or knowingly misrepresented what he's because analogies break down at some point. Obviously, they're not like exhaustive. So, if you're trying to make like a single point, I can understand. Um, but no, I'm I'm not really a fan personally. Now, to be fair, I probably haven't studied this as much as some people have, this very particular point of like the necessity of this. Um, I'm not a big fan though of like this sort of um well really just like that line of of argumentation personally because I think that actually scripture is just a logical way that makes perfect sense for why God would preserve apostolic tradition the way that he did. Um, so just in terms of the the you can't remember the way that you phrased it. You said uh they'll argue a against your view for the the

>> it sounds it so to me it sounds like the way that Gavin argues sometimes is that he's saying that our view is is you know kind of almost impossible and that because tradition is uncertainty

>> we need scripture whereas when I read some other theologians who are in the Protestant tradition they'll say um that obviously it's possible because that's how it happened before the time of Moses you didn't have scripture before, you know, the Torah, uh, the five books of Moses. So,

>> yeah,

>> I just wanted to get your thoughts on that. We don't have to dwell on that for too long.

>> No, you're good. Well, that's that's immediately where my mind kind of went of the like, well, I don't know if it's necessarily a good argument because you have to account for and this is kind of just standard fair in this area of discussion, you kind of have to account for the period prior to inscripturation. So, like if you're going to just completely

>> Well, I guess it depends on what a person's trying to specifically argue. But just off the dome when I think about it, I'm kind of like, yeah, I would be hesitant to go the the first route that you said and I would probably go the second route, but again, that's kind of like a general stream of consciousness answer. Uh that's something I need to probably look into.

>> Yeah, that's fine. And I I I mean I'd love I know I know Dr. Orland would have a more nuance explanation if pressed on that point. Uh but and he's not the only one. I didn't want to pick him as an example, but but yeah, I guess the other thing I wanted to talk about before we get to the the canon uh is uh so this is a very particular thing, right? Like the verse uh 2 Thessalonians 2:15

>> when St. Paul tells the Thessalonians, you know, therefore, brethren, stand firm and uh hold to the traditions you have received from us uh whether by word of mouth or by letter. It's often said, it's often used as a proof uh by Catholics saying, "See, we have to hold to the traditions just as we would hold to scripture." And the Protestants reply, um, well, yeah, we're getting them from St. Paul. Of course, there's no question there. Uh, we just can't identify those traditions today. First of all, and second of all, if they were distinct, and second of all, we simply believe that um that everything that was because, you know, second Thessalonians was was written before the entire New Testament was written. So it makes sense for still there to be some oral tradition not yet copied down. But the Protestant response is usually that by the end of the of the first century whatever those oral traditions not written down yet by St. Paul were eventually written down so that now scripture is that perfect rule of faith for us uh not needing that uh that uh you know extra biblical tradition whatever you want to call it. My view on that is I think I think that from 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is yes the Catholics cannot prove that everything wasn't eventually written down but being as fair as possible I al and the Wallenbergs say this. I don't think Protestants can prove their assertion that everything actually was written down. So I wouldn't use it as a proof like bam like there you go we have these extra biblical traditions um uh and and I I got to clarify this isn't part of the main thing but some people might not understand when I say extra biblical. Honestly, uh I can't besides the canon of scripture, I can't think of a single Catholic dogma that isn't at least suggested by scripture. When I mean extra biblical, I mean like like it's not a clear proof. I can't give you like a like a slam dunk, you know, a theological argument that is going to convince you right away, right? Like like I for example, I can give you an argument for the two wills of Christ or the two intellects of Christ, but but for some other things, I really I can suggest it to you through scripture, but I can't, right? Um, so that's where I stand with with a verse like that about, you know, hold on to the traditions written or or unwritten. I don't think the Catholics can show for sure um uh that everything was not written, but I also don't think the Protestants um can show that it was written. And I point to that verse because that was a pretty significant verse at the Reformation regarding tradition. So, so what are your thoughts on that? Would you just would you push back or would you agree like yeah, it's kind of uh yeah,

>> I I don't think it's a good text for sufficiency. Um, what I do think is not proven there or would need to be proven there for the way that I've seen it often used. Um, I actually responded to this in uh, part

>> was it the orthodox uh, video that you made response to orthodox video?

>> Yeah. To Josiah Trenum because Josiah Trrenam used the very just sort of standard fair popular level thing. And my point with that was again kind of the same thing I'm going to say here. I don't think that the text demonstrates that. Well, he says by word or by letter. So people say so therefore you've got oral teaching and written teaching. So therefore you have to hold both. Protestants only have one. So therefore and the problem is it nuances away that we believe that the oral teaching of the apostles was written in that's what the scriptor is. That is the apostolic deposit. So there's that level of nuance. But the text doesn't tell us the oral stream continues after the apostles die. It doesn't tell us that the oral stream remains materially extent apart from scripture. It doesn't tell us that the church possesses an ongoing parallel unwritten deposit, which is basically what Trrenum tried to advocate for. And it doesn't support or establish for us a future infallible magisterium will clarify its contents, if you will. He basically just affirms that during the apostolic period teaching came in both spoken and written forms. That's not controversial. Both sides agree there. So the real issue in my estimation is not was apostolic teaching ever oral

>> because we all agree there was a period of time where it obviously was oral.

>> The real issue is is there apostolic revelation today that's not preserved in scripture. And I don't mean

>> like I already steal man. I don't mean like net new you know

>> enthusiasms those types of things. I think that's the hinge because you know if the oral teaching of the apostles was later inscripturated or no longer extent then this text doesn't establish like a perpetual second stream if you will. It establishes the you know historical reality of apostolic preaching basically. Um, and then you can get into the which this is what I grabbed this because I have the the reformers commentary on that and exactly what you said is a lot of what they are interacting with. And that's kind of when you get into the exeetical arguments, but um I I don't think it's a text that establishes sufficiency,

>> right? But I I guess so I am with you there 100%. But I guess my question is still kind of there. So the assert the reply if you read through the disputations on scripture from the reformers is always this is true at the time especially if if there were still gospels maybe written later the gospel of John maybe or other Pauline epistles whatever still written later um because we simply hold as protestants that everything was eventually as you said inscripturated right but that's usually just replied without an actual uh reference that from what I've seen when I've read so I guess we're I I don't think Protestants actually can go to show hey everything that the apostles preached at least materially is actually written down. That's kind of what I'm saying. So I agree the Catholic

>> but but I but I we we wouldn't say that everything the apostles ever ever spoken was written down.

>> Sure. 100%. So so no 100% I understand. So I said materially at least not uh

>> uh formally.

>> Yeah.

>> So so I guess so I guess that's what I'm trying to transition to. So is there an actual verse to kind of back up that hey we actually believe that by the end of the first century what was sufficient was actually because we don't we don't disagree on this. So let me let me make this clear from from what I understand and what I'm the way I see this is that we don't disagree on the sufficiency of scripture for salvation. But it seems to me that you guys see that as something that's almost at least relatively necessary um in so far as it's it's uh you know inherent in scripture. Whereas for me because I receive scripture I don't see anything in scripture necessitating that it that it's going to be sufficient for salvation but rather because I've already rece after I have received these doctrines whether from again the the passages of scripture or from the magisterium uh then I can uh reflectively say oh wow it happens to be and and I'm sure God did that for pro out of providence I'm sure that uh out of God's goodwill even those maybe who are not Catholic uh but God maybe still wanted to save uh who are in good faith outside of the Catholic Church. Controversial issue uh they have sufficient inscripture for that. So I'm not saying that like uh it's it's randomly or arbitrary, right? But my point is I'm not saying that oh inherently I know scriptur is going to have everything uh logically prior, right? But rather reflectively I look back at scripture and say, "Oh, look, everything that is necessary for salvation is in scripture. So I can agree with the Protestants." Do does that distinction make sense? Because I don't I I guess I'm kind of challenging you here. I don't think that Protestants can establish that sufficiency uh inherent in scripture. I think we can only agree on that reflectively looking back at well this is what this is what scripture happened to turn out. Does that kind of make sense there?

>> Well yeah that so that's I was saying though is I wouldn't go to that text for sufficiency. There's lots of other texts I would go to.

>> Where where would you go?

>> Um transition.

>> The obvious one you can start there if you want is 2 Timothy 3:16.

>> Okay.

>> And I can and I can explain why beyond the sort of like you know James White trope. Were you going to Were you going to bring that up in your part uh or or No,

>> um not particularly. I was actually going to focus on something else entirely um based on something you said in in one of your videos. Kind of what I think is the whole for me is really the hinge of of all of this. Um so, no, I I wasn't planning on bringing it up there. So, we can go there.

>> I I didn't want to we can look at Luke.

>> So, what what would you say from that from that verse second?

>> Let me read here. um not to be confused with Martin Chemnitz but uh Christian Chemnitz. He was a another Lutheran. This is from his commentary on this text and then I will kind of reiterate what he says because he provides two very basic syllogisms and then I'll kind of explain why I think that this is no pun intended sufficient. So he says quote this is a well-known passage from which we prove the perfection of holy scripture against the papus. Wherefore also Bellarmine in book four of his on the word of God chapters 10 calls saying the Achilles heel of Brenius and Chemnitius and in turn in book four in on the unwritten word of God he attempts to defend the statement about the scriptures without traditions are not uh sorry let me start that sentence over again it's a long sentence. Wherefore also Bellarmine in book four of his on the word of God chapters 10 calls this saying the Achilles heel of Brentius and Chemnitius. And in turn in book four of on the unwritten word of God he attempts to defend the statement that the

Scriptures without traditions are not sufficient. That is not all things to be believed and done are contained in the scriptures. But the saying is so very important that Paul at the end of his life wrote it to Timothy and so testified as to where those things which are necessary for our salvation are to be sought, to wit, from scripture alone is divinely inspired.

And indeed, Baldwin makes two arguments on this basis. One, whatever provides all things that are necessary, both in regard to teaching and to practice, that is sufficient and perfect for the instruction of the Christian. But scripture is divinely inspired. Two, a perfect effect presupposes a perfect cause. The effect of scripture is perfect. Therefore, scripture that is divinely inspired is perfect.

This can also be formulated as follows: Whatever produces a perfect effect, that too is perfect. Sacred scripture produces a perfect effect. Therefore, it's perfect. The minor premise is proved in two ways: from an enumeration of the effects which it produces, with the exception of those in which there's nothing of relevance to Christianity, from clear words so that the person of God would be made perfect. Therefore, whatever the minister of the church should do and propose to his hearers, that is contained in sacred scripture.

Now he provides two arguments there with two syllogisms. The first is from effect to sufficiency. So P1 is: whatever provides all things necessary for teaching and practice is sufficient and perfect for Christian instruction. P2 is: that scripture is divinely inspired and provides all those things. Therefore, scripture is sufficient and perfect. So if valid, that would seem to contradict the Roman claim that scripture is materially but not formally sufficient as a rule of faith. So that kind of gets us closer to what it is that you're saying. You're saying essentially it's not, if I understand correctly, it's not formally sufficient.

Now Paul attributes to scripture a rule-like function, if you will, of teaching, reproof, correction, and training. Whatever else we say about councils and teachers, Paul locates the equipping power of the ministry in scripture itself, not in a second infallible rule required to complete it. He gives us the effect that is produced by the scriptures, which is ministerial completeness. And the phrase "teaching and practice" that he uses is, I would say, somewhat decisive because that's something that requires norms, standards, um, those sorts of things. The authority to correct error, etc. Reproving, correcting, training, all of that presupposes a rule, not simply access to information. So when we talk about material sufficiency, we're really talking about access to information. But there seems to be more going on here than just there's sufficient information there.

In other words, if scripture does not merely contain doctrines, it actually authorizes what the minister may teach. And if scripture lacked formal sufficiency, then ministers would require an additional normative source to know what they may bind consciences with. But Paul says scripture itself already does that. So that's one.

Two would be the argument from cause to effect. So very similar, another syllogism. P1 is: a perfect effect presupposes a perfect cause. P2: scripture produces a perfect effect, i.e., equipping the man. Therefore, scripture itself is perfect. So those would essentially be my, my arguments is that it seems that this text isn't merely saying that scripture is materially sufficient, but that it's actually formally sufficient for the man of God to actually be able to be complete for the office, beyond just having access to all the necessary information. And then from there, you would deduce as a necessary consequence that by the end of the first century, everything was, uh, or everything sufficient was written down. Right?

>> Well, I don't know necessarily about the timeline because then this gets into the arguments of like, was revelation, you know, um.

>> I guess sure.

>> By the time the end of the close of the New Testament, right? Uh, at the close of the New Testament, pretty much.

>> Sure. Because if, because if, because if the text, again, if the man of God can be sufficiently, uh, equipped and complete for the administration of the word, and he has more than just all of the information. If he has all the information, well, then all the information has to be readily available somewhere.

>> Gotcha. Yeah.

So I, I guess a few thoughts. Um, I, uh, because you talked about two propositions, so I don't remember much of your first one. You can correct me if I'm, if I'm, uh, misrepresenting you here, but, uh, I just want to make sure we stick to, to the what the text says. Uh, sometimes, you know, uh, it's read as in like, well, it's sufficient for teaching, for reproof, or correction. I'm not sure if you did that. Uh, but I, I do want to harp on the word, uh, profitable or or useful, right? Uh, which is what the Greek is using there, which I think does change the sense in terms of of, uh, right? Because I could say, well, uh, the Ten Commandments are useful for teaching, right? Uh, but they're not sufficient for, for absolutely everything, right? Or, or the Gospel of John is useful for teaching, but it's not sufficient for absolutely everything. So that would be one, that'd be one very important point.

That's not really what I'm, what I'm mostly concerned with. I, I guess the two responses would be that, um, what is the perfect effect being caused here? Right? Is it, uh, perfect, uh, knowledge? And not as in like every person is going to possess that. I obviously know you're not saying that. But as in, uh, perfect, uh, uh, content, right? To to drive out the, to derive those articles of faith. Uh, or is it something else? So when he says in verse 17, that the man of God may be complete, and then he explains what that means, well, equipped for every good work, uh, that seems to refer to me more regarding morals, not faith, right? When we're talking about the rule of faith, I mean, it's in kind of in the name, right? It's rule of faith. Um, uh, and talking about what we are to believe, the articles of faith, and so on. Uh, the especially what God has revealed. Whereas equipped for every good work, especially going back to, uh, you know, obviously refers to morals, not what we are to believe. Uh, which I would totally concede there. I mean, just look at the Sermon on the Mount. That is very clearly able to make you good, ready for every good work. Uh, you don't need, you know, the entire canon of scripture for that. I'd say that Matthew 5-7, and maybe the Ten Commandments, and maybe a few other passages in the Gospels, can make the man of God complete, equipped for every good work. Uh, we're talking about morals and how you ought to act. So there's no question about about that. Um, and also, I guess the man of the man of God could be taken in different ways, right? It could be, well, it could be related to faith, but if man of God being complete, and then that's explained by for every good work, I, I think the term man of God also, uh, tends to highlight a, or suggest a moral character, right? Oh, that that guy's a man of God. He might not know everything, uh, but he is, he's virtuous, right? And so that's what I think that that's really teaching there, right? Scripture is, uh, is profitable, and I would even say more than sufficient. I would say the Old Testament is makes it even extra sufficient, right? But with the New Testament, even the Gospels and the maybe the Ten Commandments, as well, you have, uh, that verse fulfilled, equipped for every good work. Uh, not really talking about articles of faith here.

And then also, I'm, I'm sure you've heard of this argument. It's not going to be, it's not going to be new for you, uh, but it might be new for the audience, which is that, and, uh, in the Greek, right? When when St. Paul says, uh, *pas*, which I could be mispronouncing, all scripture, uh, it's really talking about each and every scripture. So everything that we can talk about being scripture, you know, is the Gospel of John scripture? Yes. Uh, is Matthew scripture? Yes. Is Mark chapter 7 scripture? Yes. Um, is, uh, so, so everything that is scripture has all of those attributes or has that entire predicate, right, of, you know, useful for for teaching and reproof and all that stuff. Uh, so really, St. Paul is not talking about the canon of scripture, um, as a whole, as a whole complete work, but rather everything that qualifies as scripture, whether it be, you know, a chapter of scripture or or a whole Gospel, right, has those attributes, which would really cut against the the Protestant view of of sufficiency that's being trying to be drawn out from here. So, uh, those would be really what where I would kind of focus my response. Uh, your, your first proposition, I'm not saying it's your fault. It might be, it's probably just me. I wasn't able to understand too well. So, I don't really, I really want to focus on your, on your second part. Um, so, so what are your thoughts on on that, on those two replies?

>> Yeah. >> So, let's, let's look at the, the text here and then I'll walk through again those syllogisms. So, I'll read 10 through through 16. So, in his sign-off here, Paul says, 'You, however, talking about Timothy, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecution, sufferings, what kind of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, the p the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you learned and have become convinced of because you know those from whom you learned it and how from infancy you have known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuke, correcting and training in righteousness. So that the servant of God, some translations will say man of God, like you said, may be thoroughly equipp equipped for every good work.'

Now the question becomes, what do you believe is being addressed contextually here? Do you think Paul is speaking to Timothy, letting him know about how to be fully equipped for the ordinary office of ministry within the church, or do you think he's addressing something else?

>> Um, well, I think it's a little bit of both. So, I, I think that um when it comes to teaching, that's obviously obviously only pertains to Timothy here. Uh, but when it's talking about the man of God, which I'm trying to look at the at the Greek here, the Greek Bible website is saying every person. Um, so, I, I think it's, uh, here, give me a second. Yeah, I think it's, I think man. So, servant, man, whatever. Um, that could be applied to anybody, not just Timothy. So, I think it, I think there's two things going on here. The teaching part doesn't refer to me or you um since we're not, we're not, you know, pastors. Uh, but so I think it's talking about two types of people here as well.

>> Yeah. Okay. But it is addressing Timothy being equipped for the ordinary ministry and office in the church. Correct.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So if that's the case, does that, in order to do what he's saying, ministerial completeness, that's really the the effect that we're we're getting at here. If, if the man of God who is administering the word in the ordinary office in the church from scripture can do everything necessary. He doesn't just have access, or do you think that this is saying he only has access to all the necessary information?

>> Because if he had access to all, I don't. So, no, but, but I'm curious what, what you would add on to that, and then maybe I could agree. What, what would you say? What would you go further on? Maybe I could agree on that.

>> Well, it having access to all, think about it. Having access to all the information doesn't necessarily mean that a person would be completely equipped to do a job,

>> right? So,

>> you could have all the information, but you could still be lacking something else that's that's necessary in conjunction with having all the information. See what I'm saying? Like, well, let's say for example, and this is going to be, again, analogies always break down at at some point, but like a person could have all the necessary information they need to do their desk job, but if they don't have the computer, well, they don't have. There's still something they're lacking to be able to actually complete the job, even with the knowledge they have, correct? Yes. Okay. Well, what I would argue is being described here is not just that Timothy has access to all the information to be able to do the administrative role of administering the word in the church, but that he also is complete, fully, meaning there is no necessary. Because this is going to get into when we get into my, uh, we'll transition here in a little bit, but we'll get into the crux of what I think the the main issue is, which is the office of an infallible proposer, if you will. Um, and it doesn't appear from this text that such a thing is actually necessary. That Paul is essentially telling Timothy that the scriptures, now we can argue about what are those, what's the canon, those those types of things, but that the the scriptural deposit is in and of itself enough to complete the man of God to be able to actually fulfill the necessary function of the office, which would require that you have both material and formal sufficiency,

>> right? But we wouldn't really be opposed to that. That's not. We don't draw an argument for the magisterium from some sort of deficiency in the scripture itself. I guess, uh,

>> how would, how do you understand formal sufficiency?

>> It, it depends, uh, if you're talking about content.

>> That's what I'm asking.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So, so you could talk about it as content of scripture, because so you can, so in terms of containment, you can have formal, which breaks down into explicit or implicit, and then you have virtual conclusions. Okay. Uh, or material. Sufficient, virtual, and material are the same thing. And so if you're talking about content, um, then Protestants don't actually even believe in formal sufficiency because there are things that are virtually drawn forth, not merely implicit. Um, that, uh, but they're still considered good and necessary consequences for the Protestants. Um, that is more philosophical scholastic jargon. Um, so in, in that case, Protestants, um, cannot actually affirm a formal sufficiency. And I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to attack you here. I'm just saying that is what it is, right? Uh, you can either have something explicit or implicit that falls under formal or virtually. Uh, but with regard to formal sufficiency in respect to us and the regulation of faith, then yes, it's true, it's not formally sufficient, um, to bring about a uniform obedience of faith in the church, as St. Paul talks about, right? St. Paul talks about in, I'm not trying to get you to jump to a different verse now. We can stay here. But I, I do like the verse 2 Corinthians 10:5, where he talks about, right, the the apostolic ministry being his job is to, um, take into, take into captivity, right, um, all the minds, right, and subject them to Christ, and strike down all doubts, strike down, uh, every every mind that, uh, arises against the the word of God. And so obviously, uh, a smart man like you, maybe like me, uh, can come to the, we can, we can deduce the Trinity. We can deduce all these things from scripture in and of, in and of ourselves. But to have a, a uniform faith throughout the entire church, um, for all ages, um, it is not formally sufficient for that. And I, I think it's just very clear. I mean, there's nothing you can do to make a Lutheran convert to be Reformed except, uh, scripture and give them all these arguments. Um, uh, and you would have to prove, right? And that that could take forever, whereas within the Catholic paradigm, no matter, and I guess the important thing here is, right, this this Lutheran would be suspending the assent of faith until he is convinced of that. That's not, I would argue, what you see in the New Testament. Rather, in the Catholic paradigm, all doubts and all insecurities, right, squander, they go away because I have absolute certainty that what is being proposed to me is true, and that is why you can have this uniform faith throughout the church. Um, so in my opinion, and I don't think the Protestant, you can tell me your thoughts, that's fine. Um, I don't think the Protestant would be opposed to that. I, I've seen some really, some Protestants I, I respect, I won't mention them, who are also YouTubers, who will say that's true. I just don't think that's the end of the New Testament. Uh, they would say I have a point, but they just don't think that's the point of the New Testament, whatever. Uh, so that's what I, that's what I mean when I mean, uh, for sufficiency. Going back to what all scripture means, I'm not say, I'm not talking, I'm not questioning you on the canon per se. I'm saying whether that talks about, uh, the whole canon together, or an individual book, or an individual part, because you wouldn't, you wouldn't say, right, that, uh, that just the Gospel of John is, um, is, uh, formally sufficient. I don't think you would, uh, or, or maybe, I don't know, Jude, right? But I think that is what St. Paul is talking about here, which should make us reinterpret the predicate. So I know that was a lot, and we've already been live for an hour, dude. What the heck? And you haven't even done your part.

>> Um,

>> No, no, you're good. And then, uh, well, here's why I brought up the the magisterium with this text, and I asked you about formal sufficiency, because what I'm talking about, here's how I would like to succinctly say it, is I think this text proves that scripture is a sufficient norming rule for the church's teaching, such that no other source has coordinate revelatory authority. That's what I mean is that the man of God here is equipped to actually know as well what can and cannot bind consciences. So Paul attributes to scripture here the rule-like functions of teaching, reproof, correction, training, etc. So whatever else we say about councils and teachers, Paul locates the equipping power for the ministry in scripture itself, not in a second infallible rule that's required to complete it. So that's what I'm, I'm saying. I think this text personally, I think that this text definitively shows that that the man of God isn't just scripture doesn't just provide you the necessary information, but he ascribes to it a sufficient norming rule for the church's teaching, such that the man of God can sufficiently know what he has the authority to bind and not bind without having some sort of secondary, um, minister, you know, infallible like rule required to complete it. It is complete in and of itself. And the effect it produces is a minister who is complete for that work.

>> Okay. But I don't really see, if I were to agree with that, I don't really see how that would challenge our view. Um, so one,

>> because I, I guess where are you drawing the sufficiency from? Because it says profitable. Uh, which it's profitable. But so yes, if it was absolutely sufficient, then yes, there wouldn't be a second source of revelation. But he doesn't just, but he doesn't just say it's profitable. The the key is the effect is that the minister can be complete. The key word being complete, the completeness. So that's really where

>> do you think the man of God is talking about only ministers there, not individuals?

>> Well, you can get into that as well, but I, that's why I asked you at the beginning. Do you think that this text is speaking about Timothy in the ordinary, you know, ministerial office?

>> Gotcha. I mean, I would just first I would say even if I were to concede that, that doesn't really change, doesn't really challenge, uh, the the Catholic side, or it doesn't, it doesn't, uh, contradict anything in the, in the Catholic side, which I assume you're bringing this forward as something that would contradict it. Uh, and also I would just say every good work is not, is refers to morals, not articles of faith. But you were going to explain, and I cut you off, why that would contradict the Catholic side. So please do.

>> Well, I was just saying that if formal sufficiency is understood as scripture is a sufficient norming rule for the church's teaching, you think Roman Catholic theology can agree with that.

>> So I think you're, I think you're reading it, reading something into here. So you had said that this, you know, tells the minister what they can teach, right? Well, it would be, it would necessarily entail that if it completes the minister, if it completes the ordinary ministerial office, if it completes it, then part of that role is to be able to know what, like my pastor has to know what he can and cannot bind my conscience with,

>> right? When I went to confession,

>> two weeks ago, whatever, and I, I'm confessing and these types of things, and he's administering the word, all these various functions where he's in the life spiritually of his sheep, he has to know where the line is drawn. So in our paradigm, you have to think, in our paradigm, there's only this singular supreme sufficient source. And so if, if that's correct, and the man of God can be complete from that alone, then that would mean that scripture is a sufficient norming authority.

>> And he applies rule, and he applies rule, you know, like rule-like functions to it, teaching, reproof, correction, training, he says all of these things can be sufficiently done solely from the scriptures,

>> right? But the question there would be, is if you, um, if you disagree with something that your teacher says, even if, even if scripture itself is sufficient, your minister, right, can still, or at least your, your overall magisterium, um, Presbyterian or Reformed, right? Not Presbyterian, right?

>> Well, I, I am, I'm Reformed Presbyterian.

>> Okay, so your presbytery, or maybe the larger scale, right, is not able to bind your conscience to a particular, uh, to a particular, um, interpretation or or whatever, right, to a particular proposition, whereas everything you said, it could be true. The the Catholic magisterium examines the scriptures. She, like, as you said, she knows what she can and cannot teach. She can't bind her mind to, you know, things that are not revealed, right? To things that have nothing to do with, uh, you know, she can't bind her mind to, uh, something that's not related to faith or morals, right? Like a scientific fact, unless it's unless it's super related to, you know, maybe God or creation, right? Uh, but she can't bind her mind to things like that. And she does so by examining the scripture. You know, she doesn't just kind of go out and promulgate on her own. She examines scripture. She also happens to examine tradition, which I understand is not what you accept. But my point is, the art, my ministers, right, my teachers are able to do just that. The difference is, when they propose something to be believed by faith, I can't reject it. Uh, which you would say, no, there's always room for, in terms of faith, right? Not, um, lower level teachings or whatever. Uh, you would say, no, with regard to faith, they cannot bind me in, in and of themselves, to the assent of faith. So, so I think functionally, my, my magisterium is doing what you're do, what yours are doing. They're looking at scripture and saying, "Okay, this is what it means." But it's not combined. So I, I don't.

>> Right. But, but the end line. So this really gets into the question of basically like, why can your, why can my, actually, hold up, hold up, hold up. Didn't you recently, uh, I saw one of your videos and you talked about good and necessary consequence, didn't you?

>> Maybe I did. Yeah, I think so.

>> You brought up good necessary consequence, and there was something you said in there to the effect of like, why, why can your virtual conclu, like, why can the Reformed virtual conclusions bind, but Rome's can't? And that's basically what you're asking right now. You're basically saying,

>> well, you didn't say it exactly that way, but that's what I understood you to be saying is basically like, if the Reformed affirm good and necessary consequence, then, and, and what you're saying right now is basically the same thing. I don't, you're saying I don't really see the difference here. So the whole point of me is not to put words in your mouth, but I'm bringing this up basically to say, let me answer exactly that. The re, the difference is, is that you all don't restrict the binding authority to necessary consequences from scripture. So your leader, whoever you want to plug in there, would could allow doctrines to become normatively identifiable as revealed through magisterial definition. Correct.

>> Right. Yeah. But that would be, but they would be re,

>> even when they're not unavoidable, even when they're not,

>> even when they're not unavoidable from the text, because like when we talk about good necessary consequence, we're talking about when it's like unavoidable from the text.

>> I don't think that's, uh, I don't think that's always true for Protestantism. I think there's many things you guys, this is going to, this could be a whole other conversation. I think there's many things you guys hold that are not unavoidable from the text. But I know that's a different, I know that's,

>> I was going to say that that'll open a whole can of worms. But I know that, I know, man.

>> Just in, just in answering that question before we kind of transition to some some questions I have. Um, just you were like, I don't really see what the difference is here. And so the difference is, is that you all don't restrict binding authority to necessary consequences from scripture. You also allow doctrines to become normatively identifiable as revealed through the magisterial definition. Correct.

>> Yeah. Well, so that would,

>> so that's not a yes or I can't just say yes or no to that because I could be misunderstood. When we affirm, when we affirm, uh, for example, um, the the two wills of Christ, which which is a good necessary consequence, uh, that is revealed, even if not explicitly, it's we can still say it's contained in scripture.

>> Well, it's unavoidable from the text. You would create contradictions.

>> Right. Uh, but there are other things that aren't unavoidable that don't that are not clear and immediately obvious, which I would again, don't want to open the can of worms there, but,

>> I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm sorry.

>> No, you're good. The, and again, I'm, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry. And I kind of like, I thought about this just because I was thinking about your video from maybe last week or something like that, where you brought up good and necessary consequence, but regarding 2 Timothy 3:16, you said, "I don't understand what you're saying and how it's different from what we're saying." And what I'm trying to get at here is that I don't think that you can actually say that what Paul, I, if, if my understanding of this text is correct, that the man of God can be complete sufficiently just from the ruling norm of scripture. That's why I bring up the normatively identifiable as revealed through magisterial definition. Now, again, that could open up a whole can of worms as well, because you may push back and say, well, all of the magisterial defined sort of things do come from scripture, etc. Um, but when Paul talks about things like correction, reproof, etc., I think that that actually proves the formal sufficiency, not just material sufficiency, and that it demonstrates that scripture can function as a sufficient normative rule, because, and this is where actually good necessary consequence can be employed. It doesn't directly verbatim say the man of God can be, you know, insert whatever we, you know, have have said here specifically, but I think that that can be deduced basically from that text. But where are you get? So I, I was just, I'm kind of repeating, complete.

>> Where are you, where are you getting the sufficiency from? Because it says profitable.

>> Profitable for, right? But then it explains complete for every good work, not faith.

>> Like for, so, like for example, you know, think about all the evangelical councils, or think about the Sermon on the Mount, right? Uh, those are, those are every, those are good works.

>> But not the content of what I am to believe.

>> Right. Right. But, but we already established that's why I asked you at the beginning. We already established that you're agreeing that Paul is giving instruction here for the ordinary ministerial office. This is a pastoral epistle.

>> Sure.

>> So I'm not ex, I'm not saying it's exclusive to that. So I'm not ruling out, you know, any other application, you know, aside from that. But if we're already agreeing on that, then in that context, if the man of God can be complete, and he uses language of rebuking, correcting, training in righteousness, these are all rule-like, these this is rule-like language. And he says that the person doing the ordinary ministerial office from the scriptures can be complete to do it. Not just that they have access to all the information, but that they can actually normatively know how to do and, and, like I said, what they can bind consciences to, etc.

>> Yeah, I don't see a, I don't see a problem with that.

>> Well, we don't have to spin tires on, uh, on that. Maybe we can, uh, maybe we can do some video responses back and forth on, on this specific text. Um, I have questions for you though, if that's fine.

>> Sure.

>> I want to do this canon, but it's, we've been here for an hour, so go ahead.

>> Well, we can do that. Do you want to do this?

>> Go ahead.

>> Let's do that. Well, well, let's do this. I, I'll have some questions, but let's, let's do, um, let's, you want to ask about my guess is divine faith.

>> No, no, no. I'm cur, the canon can wait. I'm curious to hear what you, I generally want to hear what you want to say.

>> Well, well, let me, okay, let me give one thing on the canon conundrum, just because I do think that that is, uh, man, the amount of people that that comment anytime you do videos as a Protestant on the canon, it just, every time, it doesn't matter what you're addressing, man. And I'm sure you see this as well. You get people who comment that it's like, well, did you listen to the actual thesis of the video? We weren't addressing that. We weren't addressing that. That's why, why wasn't this addressed? Because that wasn't the topic in focus. That's why.

>> Wait, you're not enlightening us on 2 Timothy 2:15, friend. Yeah, I've never read 2 Timothy 2:15. You got me.

>> Yeah.

>> Well, I always inevitably get people who hit me with the canon conundrum. So there's, when I hear this, what I hear is, why doesn't the Protestant account reduce the canon to fallible historical judgment, leaving us with moral certainty at best rather than divine faith? Is that fair?

>> Yeah, I think that would be a conclusion. Yeah, a good conclusion. Yeah.

>> Yeah. So here is how I would answer that. I think the key issue here is that the canon conundrum for the people who propose it, I think it actually creates a time conundrum for them. But I'll explain why it's not actually a conundrum internally. I understand why from the person proposing it. So from that paradigm, it is a serious conundrum. But the problem is, is it doesn't work as an internal critique. It doesn't work as an internal problem. And I, I said this, some of it in my response to engaging with Christians, "Sola Scriptura is Impossible" video. I think the key issue here is a category distinction that often gets missed, namely, the distinction between the object of divine faith and the means by which that object is recognized. And this will actually segue us perfectly just into my own questions. So this is actually perfect. That's where the discussion hinges for Protestants. The object of divine faith is God speaking, meaning the content of scripture as God's word. Divine faith terminates on God's speech itself, not on the historical or ecclesial process by which the church came to recognize which writings are inspired. So strictly speaking, we don't treat the canon as an additional revealed proposition like the Trinity or the Incarnation that must itself be believed as a separate article of faith. And I think this is why there's a lot of hang-up for people who, not necessarily you, I don't know about you, you personally, but just a lot of your average people who propose this, I don't think they actually understand that we don't view the canon like that. The canon is the church's recognition of those writings in which God has already spoken. Which is why the certainty of faith rests in scripture as scripture, not in historical reasoning abstracted from it. Now, that doesn't mean that the historical process is irrelevant, because I mean, historically, Protestants have always affirmed the necessity of tradition, but in a subordinate ministerial sense. Now, Richard Baxter is actually good on this. He articulates this well. He identifies at least three ways that tradition functions: One, uh, I was in this earlier, the transmission of the sacred text itself. Two, the church's consistent reception and use of those texts. And then three, the historical testimony concerning things like authorship, use, and doctrinal coherence. Those realities clarify, stabilize, confirm the recognition of the canon. But they don't become a new object of faith. That's the fault line. The assumption behind the objection is that divine faith requires an infallible external proposer as its formal ground. We would say divine faith requires two things: an infallible object, God's word, his act, his speech. And two, the internal work of the Holy Spirit, illumination, not revelation, illumination. We're not saying that the p, that the Spirit like privately reveals, you know, in each believer like a separate datum that scripture is inspired, like he whispers in your mind, you know, James is inspired, John is inspired, that sort of thing. We're saying that the Spirit bears a witness through the word itself to its divine authority. No new content is given. That's why it's not revelation. So the same Spirit who inspired the text testifies to that text as it's encountered in the church's public administration.

Now the reason why this is the case, and this will segue us kind of into my questions, is because of the scriptural pattern. So this is where my hang-up is, and I just, I can't get over this because basically you'd have to convince me, I guess this isn't clear and you're misunderstanding it. That'd basically be it. The pattern in the book of Acts, in Acts 2, Acts 10, Acts 13, Acts 17, over and over and over, even in the Gospels, Luke 24, we see a consistent pattern. First, the word of God is objectively present. So Peter proclaims God's promises fulfilled in Christ. The message itself carries divine authority because it's God's word delivered through apostolic preaching. Then second, the hearers come to divine faith. So Acts 2:37 says they're cut to the heart. They believe. They repent. And Peter never says anything like, "You can know this is God's word because an infallible magisterium has proposed it to you," or anything along those lines. Scripture simply attributes belief to the Spirit's work. So we see the Spirit opens hearts to receive what is preached as the word of God. There's no second stream, revelation, anything like that, or any supernatural certification is required. The Spirit simply illumines the hearer to recognize what God's already spoken. And just like Paul says in Romans 10:17, that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. So the word is the object of divine faith, and the Spirit illumines the hearer. And that structure is the same structure I'm applying to basically the the canon question.

Now I think that brings us back kind of to the hinge of the discussion. Is the whole of the deposit normatively accessible in scripture itself, or does it require an infallible, you know, magisterial act in order to function as a rule at all? And I just, all throughout Acts, I just don't see that sort of thing being a problem. I don't see the individuals there needing revelation about revelation. They don't need some sort of confirmation that what they heard is indeed the word of God. So therefore, they're able to have divine faith. They simply hear, and God uses the the mechanism of the the apostle, the conduit to herald the message. The Spirit works with the word in the hearts and minds of the hearer, illumines the minds and hearts of the individual, making them receptive to believe, and as the formal cause gives them the divine faith to believe that which they heard. So as they encounter it, the Spirit does the illuminate illuminating work. So I just don't understand, I guess, why it's necessary. So this will get me to my first question here. I don't understand why it's necessary to insert that. Well, Protestants can't actually have divine faith when that just what we're putting forth is the pattern that you just see from the scriptures. So, why, why in your mind does it make sense that it's necessary to have a supernatural proposer?

>> Well, to be clear, I mean, you have, um, um, Protestant theologians would agree with me here. They say that, and I, I don't, I'm not saying you would disagree. I'm just saying let's be clear about what we're asking.

>> Uh, I think I have specifically the Lutheran, uh, halats in mind. I know you know who he is. Maybe the audience might not, but he very clearly says that the reason we can't listen to the church is because the church is fallible, and faith rests on infallible truths. And if the truth promulgated is going to be infallible, then the promulgator, right? Or at least the original source. So what I mean by that is your pastor is not infallible, but at least he's getting it from an infallible source. Um, so the proposition has to be infallible, and you have to have a rational certitude that it is infallible. Um, I think it is,

>> laws, sorry, sorry.

>> It is very care, I think it's very careless to throw around the assent of faith, and I'm not saying you're suggesting that, right? So I'm not saying that I am not saying that you need, um, what's it called? Uh, yeah, I'm not so sure what what you're asking here.

>> I,

>> could you refresh, because I think I think even you would agree with what I'm saying when it comes to the essential faith must rest on an infallible proposition, and you can't just throw it around like, oh, I believe this, you know, uh, that would be,

>> yeah, but do you know what says the infallible proposition is the scripture itself?

>> Yeah, exactly. So I, I guess I don't understand because, and you would disagree with him. You'd say, well, that's still not sufficient. Right?

>> Right. So, so what I would say is that actually in the book of Acts, there's actually a lot more going on, and it's, I, I would actually see exactly the Catholic paradigm, which is, you have, um, before the assent of faith is given, you have to, since it's not immediate revelation coming from God himself, like, you know, the enthusiasts would later say, you know, with, you know, kind of speaking in you, it's immediate revelation, so it's coming from the vine leggings. And so if you, if someone comes and says, "Hey, I, I come in the name of God," and you just believe that, that would be credulity, that would be a sin against prudence. But rather, what God does is that he sends, uh, miracles, and he sends other motives of credibility to make that assent of faith rational, right? And make it, uh, you know, listenit, in a sense, listenit. And so what he's doing there with those miracles is he's authenticating, um, the message and making it, and, you know, before we would call, before the tribunal of the mind, right? Like, oh, this is really God speaking through these men.

>> Which doesn't even necessarily have to be inspiration. I could accept something as true, um, and it could be in the speaker's own words. It doesn't have to be the very, like, as you said, the physical word of God. The content could be what God has said, but it could be in the speaker's own words. So inspiration is, you know, is not inherent in revelation, at least immediate revelation, right? If it's immediate, obviously, if God's speaking to you, it's inspired. Uh, but the apostle speaking, um, doesn't have to be inspired for me to believe in that. What you really see is you can't just separate, oh, they spoke, and then, and then they believed. Uh, yes, they were cut to the heart, but that's that's because of the content of the message of, oh, you killed God, right? And so that's no different if I'm walking around and hearing a preacher, an an evangelical preacher, you know, and I'm moved to repentance. I'm cut to the heart because of what Jesus did for me. That doesn't mean he was inspired, right? Um, and so what you really see is before that, there are miracles going on. You have them speaking in tongues, right? That is a pretty big deal. Uh, which is one of the motives of credibility, uh, to make the assent of faith rational.

>> Uh, the other thing that's going on there in Acts is, and I'm talking about Pentecost now. There's, but there's other, there's other episodes. I mean, they're going around doing miracles, right? Um, and that's why they believe. You also have another special and unique motive of credibility for the Jews is that they have the Old Testament. So if something aligns with a prophecy, it doesn't, it doesn't work for for pagans, but it works for the Jews, right? And so the whole message of, oh, David said this, right, that he will not let his holy one see corruption, but he's dead, so it has, you know, it's it's about Jesus, who you guys talk, it's like, hey, okay, that that checks, right? So these apostles are, these guys are really authentic legates, and therefore they believe. But what are they assenting to? Are they assenting to their propos, what are the apostles proposing? Are they proposing, hey, by the way, I am inspired right now? No, they're just proposing, you know, this is Jesus, he's the Messiah, you killed him, uh, and he's risen from the dead, and you have to believe in him to be saved. That's what's being proposed to them. That's what they're assenting to. At no point are they assenting to the apo, oh, by the way, the apostles are inspired right now, which is specifically what the Bible is. So they're not just, they're so the the Holy Spirit produces faith by making by, you know, making the assent of faith as you would do in the act of charity or in the act of hope, any other supernatural virtue. But, but, uh, and and so we would agree there. But the Holy Spirit, uh, is not working without those motives of credibility because without those motives, uh, it would be irrational to give the assent to faith. I would, I would point you to, and this could open a can of worms. We don't have to talk about it here, but I would actually challenge the Protestant view in John chapter 9. Again, I, I'm sorry for doing this, but I think a perfect example of this is John chapter 9, starting, it's the whole chapter. It's about, right, the man who, who Jesus healed. And in around verse, uh, 35, I'll read it. Because Jesus heard that they had cast him out from the synagogue, or I think it was the temple. Yeah. Whatever. And having found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" Uh, he answered, and this is the guy who Jesus healed. Right? So he has that motive of credibility already there. He knows that Jesus, whatever Jesus says is true. Uh, he answered, "Who is he, the Son of Man, that I may believe in him?" Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you." He said, "Lord, I believe," and worshiped him. So this man doesn't know that Jesus is God just by hearing him. Jesus is obviously inspired. He's speaking the word of God. This man says, "Who is the Son of Man, right?" So he knows that Jesus, this man in front of me is an authentic.

legate. And whatever he proposes for belief, I as sense because he's done all these miracles. And go, you know, as as uh uh what's that Pharisees name? Uh in John 3, I forgot his name.

>> Nicodemus.

>> Nicodemus says, "God has to be with you otherwise you wouldn't be doing these words." That's what motives of credibility are, right? Um but it's not until Jesus proposes you're speaking to him, I am God, that he worships him, right? Right? And so I would ask the Protestant, why couldn't he just recognize that he that that was the word of God's right there? Why did he have to ask Jesus, "Hey, by the way, who is the who is the son of man?" So, so I would say Acts is not really uh showing the Protestant paradigm um in of itself. It's always accompanied by miracles to make these faith rational. And it's not we can't just vaguely talk about well, they're they're having faith in what propositions in what the apostles are preaching, which is not, you know, always, oh, by the way, I am inspired right now. So that's that would be my answer.

But did but they had divine faith. Correct.

>> Yes, they did.

>> And did some did they have to have some sort of supernatural uh e extra I I don't want to use terms that you're like, well, we would qualify that. So, correct me if if you're wrong. I'm just kind of trying to speak off the cuff here. They didn't need like a revelation about revelation, though. Correct.

>> Right. But we wouldn't say that either. Well, you would in the sense of the the canon question. You would in the sense of you you can't know, right? And so you would take umbrage with the way that I'm essentially wording that. But you would essentially say that I can't know what the cannon is with divine faith apart from insert what you would insert,

>> the fact of inspiration being proposed to you.

>> Right. Right. So there has to be the the proposer, right?

>> But you but that's not revelation about revelation. That's revelation about inspiration.

>> I know. And that's why I said you'd probably take umbrage with the way that I'm using language there. And I'm not trying to use Revelation in the way that So, sorry that was probably just not a good way of saying that there. My point with Acts, let's actually go to a very specific place. Do you want to go to Acts 13, Acts 2, or Acts 10?

>> Let's just do Acts 2 since you were you were in Acts 2 uh earlier. Now, the pricky there is a little bit long because it's like 14 through. Let's see here. It's like 14 through like 41. So, I'll bring this up here.

>> It's long,

>> but we'll have it up. And then I I just want to kind of explain to you the the point of what I was trying to get at with this. So I would argue that in this text and when I use scripture here obviously we're speaking about a period of time when I say scripture I mean the the word of God the the speech the speech of God which is coming through the the Peter in this case. I would argue that in this text scripture functions as a decisive authority the interpretive key to all of redemptive history. It is publicly accessible and it's the ground of conviction and repentance. Wait, I'm sorry. You're talking about the scripture that Peter is citing. So, the psalm,

>> correct? Sorry. Should Yeah. Yeah. Because, and I'll I'll get to those because he cites a number of them here.

>> Nothing else is introduced alongside it as any sort of like co-extensive, you know, cl whatever term you would prefer. Well, you said earlier, a proposer, etc.

>> He But but he is proposing. He's proposing,

>> right? But but but the but that's just the single word of God. Are you saying that there's two infallible sources moving here? The word of God and then Peter is functioning as like the infallible magisterial confirmation. So, so Peter is well the apostles right but I guess in this passage specifically Peter he is a divine legate and he has been authenticated as one because of the miracle of speaking in tongues and also um as the apostles so as the Jews are listening to this and they say oh that prophecy was prophesying about Christ then I know what this man is saying is true

>> and it's actually from God

>> so go on

>> right okay so he stands up at Pentecost and what does he He starts preaching.

>> Yep. And does he have to explain to them in you know and again I'm just speaking crude here. You know he he doesn't say you can know that what I'm proclaiming is God's word because the church authoritatively proposes it to you or anything like that. Correct.

>> Sure. He doesn't say that. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Or and obviously not verbatim but just he doesn't say anything along those Oh shoot. Well, the text is still up for you there, but it's not up for me. Sorry. This just like jacked up all my stuff over here. I don't have a very good setup in uh I don't have a very good setup in where I'm at now regarding uh having to use all the stuff. I'm in like a computer space.

>> No problem.

>> Oh goodness. Sorry, man. Okay. Let's try this again. It took me back to my opening section and I'm not trying to be in the opening section. Okay. Yeah. So, he doesn't instead he just opens the scriptures

>> and he quotes Joel 2, Psalm 16 and Psalm 110 and he argues well he says this is what was spoken by Joel by the prophet Joel.

>> Mhm. So the authority of the sermon rests on what God has already spoken in scripture. Correct?

>> Um yes, but even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter. So for example, like for example, when St. Paul preaches to the Greeks, he can't cite scripture because they don't consider that an authority already. So his miracles would his miracles would would be sufficient for that and maybe other other motives. So yes, but but it's not uh absolutely necessary. You're talking about Acts 17, right?

>> Really? Paul's entire ministry, but uh Sure. Athens, right?

>> Yeah. Um, holy smokes, it's already been an hour and a half, man. Um, okay. Well, we we may not get to that. We'll we'll have to do this again because I did not expect the time to to go by like this fast. And like I told you before we started, I was like, I can just get going and we could be here for hours and hours and hours.

>> But

>> the authority of of this particular sermon rests on what God has already spoken in scripture. Correct. because he's appealing back to what God has already spoken. Correct.

>> Yes.

>> Yep. So Peter's painting a picture here basically of or his structure is God promised, scripture recorded, events fulfilled. This would include the sort of things you're talking about with miracles, etc. Because because what does Joel do? He prophesies about miracles occurring, people prophesying, dreams, these sorts of things. So Peter's structure is God promised, scripture recorded, events fulfill, the apostle expounds, the spirit moves, and then the hearers respond. That's basically the the general overview here. Which means when we're talking about binding authority, which is why I'm trying to go to this text, God's prior speech fulfilled in Christ is publicly expounded. So that's the Pentecost framework. The object of divine faith here is God speaking. Do you agree or disagree?

>> Uh I would say that's that's the the object of the object of what? Sorry.

>> So for the the hearer the hearer believes that you know 3,000 people come into the church that day. Correct.

>> Yep. Yep.

>> So what are what are they believing that they come into the church? Is it God's word or like God's speech or is it something else?

>> They're believing divine revelation.

>> Correct. I I think I I think I would appreciate just to make this go a little quicker so I don't have to clarify each time God's word um could exist in inspired text where it's like you know God's speaking through the human author or um you know just just uh morally so it's the content is is what God has revealed but it can be in his own words. So sure it's God's word which is just his revelation whether inspired or not inspired. Yeah.

>> Okay. Well, the text shows us. So, verse 37 says, as we talked about earlier, they were cut to the heart.

>> Do you agree that this is when divine faith is being produced? Not necessarily temporally, but logically speaking.

>> Could be. Yeah.

>> Are lost, you know, lost people are not really cut to the heart over the the word of God. Now, we could get into to nuances on that, but the point is is that the divine faith is being produced in the hearing of God's word. And notice how it's not by like a separate sort of proposal like a dogmatic definition, secondary reveal, whatever you want to insert in there. The spirit doesn't give the hearers new revelation. He simply illuminates their mind and their heart to receive what God has already spoken. So the word is the object of divine faith and the spirit enables recognition and reception. This and and the structure is not church word faith. It's word faith church showing us that the word can't be you know epistemically dependent on the church. Revelation has to be public. And I know you'll probably take umbrage with this, but revelation has to be public, identifiable, and judicially applied. And Acts 2 gives us that the revelation is public- so scriptures quoted. It's identified by content and fulfillment. It's judicially applied through the apostolic preaching as the divine, you know, as the the representative. And then it's received by like a spirit wrought faith, divine faith. And that's all without any sort of like infallible magisterial function as the epistemic ground. So what why is that structure suddenly insufficient after the apostolic era because basically that's just what we're saying is exactly what we see here. That's the exact thing that we're saying.

>> So two things uh St. Peter is functioning he he is functioning in the kind of in the role as the magisterium. He's proposing he is proposing new things. So he is explaining the fulfillment of prophecies but he's not just drawing out good and necessary consequences consequences of that. Um so Jesus this man named Jesus and who did all these other things fulfills all these prophecies but that's not all that he did right because you don't have like a sort of doctrinal development from the old testament and new testament right grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. So there is actually new sure there's a fulfillment of prophecies but but it that doesn't just mean that you have a good and necessary consequence from what was you know virtually contained in the Old Testament. There are actual new objects of faith proposed in the new covenant right um uh shoot for example uh maybe the the Eucharist right which sure was prefigured but the actual institution is a new object you can't just uh you can't just conclude that uh virtually conclude that from the Old Testament. Um and so the that's what that's the the apostles were serving as that proposer of but the difference would be that they were the first promagators. The magisterium is the you know the second transmission or the they're preserving it. Uh but St. Peter is doing exactly that actually.

>> Well if he's doing that then where does he confirm to them in the way that you guys are saying it needs to be confirmed to me today? Where does he do that for the hearers there? Um he he so God confirms it because he gave miracles to make to to authenticate him as a legate. So here in in acts two you think that he gave miracle.

>> So so the motive so the motives so the motives for the Jews that I would identify here would be the miracles of of speaking in tongues and everyone's hearing them in their own in their own uh tongue right and also the fact that there is a prophecy being fulfilled here.

>> Um

>> and that and that was the equivalent of what the magisterium does today for the believer who needs

>> no because we're talking about God authenticating the message with the motives of credibility. Those would be those would be more the marks of the church and other mods of credibility. Um uh that's that doesn't talk that's not a proposition that is the authentication of the legate. Uh but the proposition would be for example St. Peter talks about here he talk he talks about prophecy right and he says uh let's see come on uh this Jesus so verse 32 this Jesus God raised up and all all that we are all witnesses that is a proposition. So now they have to believe that God raised up even if many of them didn't see Jesus be raised up. They have to ascend to that now. Uh being at the right hand of God having received from the father the promise of the Holy Spirit he has poured out on this. Okay. So so these propositions uh he's actually proposing that to them.

>> And what is he grounded in? What is he grounded in in 34?

>> Well let me see 34. For David did not send to heaven. Sure he's referencing scripture but that would just serve as a motive of credibility. That is not that does not mean that uh everything else would have to come from scripture because then you have to explain your way for so this is no different than for example the Bereans right the Bereans they studied the scriptures but it was as a motive of credibility not because then everything else that Paul said to them had to be grounded in scripture because unless you're saying that the apostles did not bring anything else new uh if they did bring something new then that means you have to admit that there are some things we can't test the apostles by. Uh and then you also have to answer the question of the pagans who don't already have scripture as authoritative. And so sure there there were prophecies about Jesus that Jesus fulfilled and these would authenticate the apostles as as his messengers because these are fulfilled in Jesus. Um but that's not the case. That doesn't mean that that is why Peter has authority. That's I I would say I'd say that's really problematic. Peter has authority and the apostles have authorities because they receive it from Christ. He who hears you re he who hears you hears me. So even if Peter's not citing his sources, um I still have to hear I have to hear him as I would hear Christ. He who believes will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned. Um so if I said, "Well, St. Peter, can you give me a prophecy for that?" I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but it kind of sounds like that. It's like, "Can you give me a prophecy for that, please?" Like, "No, I have to hear him regardless, but after he has been authenticated, right? I can't just receive what anybody comes and tells me, right?" And so further, you know, further uh propositions don't have to be cited from from a from previous scripture or whatever. They can propose new things uh without having to grind it in scripture. So

>> I I was just trying to point out that the things that all the things that you pointed to there are things that Peter he roots in things that's why I said that God has already spoken already spoken. So we were I was asking you here about why do I today need the model that you're proposing to me where in order for me to know the word of God what all do I need for it to be divine faith I it not just human faith what all do I need to know that I'm encountering the word of God

>> you need to know that it's authentic and how does that happen well the mo the mo As I already said, the motives of credibility

>> and and what are those?

>> Well, when it comes to the Bible as just a historical text, you can authenticate it through normal historical means. There are great

>> that's the Matiaske approach which continue. Sorry. Sorry.

>> So, so that would be one of them, not the only way, right? And also the the other motives of credibility which I would say are especially in the Catholic Church, but they also apply to I guess you could say Christianity as a whole, right? So the holiness, the the conversion of nations, the perseverance despite persecution, all these are motives by which you can give the assent of faith to what is proposed in the book. But you're giving the assent of faith to what is proposed in the book. What I'm say what I'm saying and you said right well God has already spoken these things. I would simply say where has God spoken that Jude is inspired? I can give a sense of faith to what Jude tells me. You know I could pull up Jude whatever but Judas Jude every verse of Jude is proposing things right or talking about things. I ascent to that, okay? Because it's authentically Jude was a messenger of Christ and and he did miracles and all that stuff. I know what he says is true. Where has God spoken that Jud is inspired, right? The fact of inspiration there. Those are two different things pretty much. So, so yeah, a Protestant can authenticate the New Testament as reliable and and trustworthy and and not separated from the Christian religion, right? Uh but that doesn't get you to, you know, Judas inspired or or Matthew's inspired or Hebrews inspired.

>> So, that would get into a different question. the m the the main thing and then I do want to get to because if people sent through super chats I I want to be uh faithful to to what

>> and by the way I just I just want to make it clear if we if we end this short it it would be on you because I'm good. I mean I told my family it was going to be an hour but they're they're already asleep and and they understand this happens frequently with my stream. So if you have to go we can go but I'm I'm good man. So

>> yeah. Well, we'll like I said, I want to be uh faithful to to what we said. So and and if people sent those through I do want to answer those questions. But the main thing I was trying to get at here though, Kevin, is that the things the things that you pointed to, ironically enough, are all the things that Peter he roots in God's word already spoken. Already spoken. And the the person didn't need some sort of you're saying that he's operating here in the magisterial office. So I'm asking the question, okay, why is it different today? What ontologically changed today that is any different than back then? You're saying basically nothing did because you have the same structure taking place. You have the the object of God's speech. Sure. But then you also have this magisterial function working alongside it, Peter, who is then giving the confirmation to the hearer that what they're hearing is, you know, divine speech. Correct. Um, no, he's not. He never St. Peter never says that he's that God is speaking through him.

>> Well, he he does in the sense of him appealing to scripture.

>> Where does he say where does he say that?

>> Well, he says now this was spoken by the prophet Joel

>> which the hearer would have understood to be scripture,

>> right? But that doesn't mean that Peter himself is inspired in that moment, right?

>> Okay. Um well, now

>> what he says so what he says is true and it's infallible but it's it could be in his own words. I actually because they were speaking in tongues. I I would concede maybe they were being inspired since it was like the Pentecost. Like come on, it's a big deal.

>> But see, that's that's that was spoken of before in scripture. In scripture, how and my question is, how did these individuals know that? Where where is the the confirmation that you're telling me today I need that they didn't apparently need? How did these individuals know that they were encountering the word of God? Kevin,

>> uh, I already said the motives of credibility. So the the motives of credibility was what? And you said it was what? The miracles and signs.

>> The miracles and the confirmation of prophets.

>> But that but those were told about what God had spoken prior.

>> But even even if he hadn't, it's still so so so can you explain then the pagans?

>> Well, that would be a different we we would go to Acts like I said like Acts 17.

>> You would still have to if that's your entire being.

>> Well, no. In this in this particular text, I'm asking what is ontologically changed today? that is different from Pentecost. And if the argument is well fundamentally nothing because Peter is acting in the magisterial office and the divine object of God's speech is still present. So you have both things that are necessary. But the acting in the magisterial office, all of the things that you're pointing to are all rooted in God's speech of things he's already previously said. How does the individual even know that they're encountering the word of God? It's through the illumination of the spirit. They don't need some sort of extra divine, you know, whatever terms you want to use. They don't need an infallible proposer to tell them that they're actually encountering the word of God. Somehow they're able to know that they're encountering the word of God without some sort of infallible decree letting them know and confirming to them that it is the word of God. And the things that you're pointing to to say, "Well, these are the things that are confirming it. Those are things that were told in the word of God. How do they know that that's the word of God? That's kind of the hang-up that I have here. I understand that not that this isn't like a knockout blow for every possible thing in this scenario or or in this area of of discussion because there's a lot of different ways that you could go into. But for me, I just struggle to see how what's happening here is different than how it happens today. I don't see the necessity of needing an infallible proposer to confirm to me, well, this is the word of God. So therefore, you can have, you know, you need divine faith in X, Y, Z. I don't I don't see that being the case here. I see it being what the Protestant model puts forth.

>> Are you saying that the reason that St. Peter had authority is because uh he was he was telling them something that God had already spoken? Well, it isn't it isn't about Peter's having authority and whatnot. I'm trying to to get to the hinge for me in all of this is the idea that we that scripture isn't sufficient and we need some other infallible source to basically be able to ground and for you to be able to have divine faith in the word of God and to know when you're encountering the word of God. No, but we don't No, we don't say that you need a magisterium to have faith in the word of God.

>> Well, I know. And I'm trying to That's why I'm saying I'm trying to use kind of like looser like whatever terminology you want.

>> I think I do think it's dangerous. I think it's misleading. Sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt you, man, but it's

>> So So what do you need? That's what I was asking you. What do you claim that you need to be able to know that you're authentically encountering the word of God? Is the magisterium necessary in that?

>> Uh to us today, yes, but not absolutely. to you.

>> So when you say when you say encountering the word of God, if you mean that to mean divine revelation, then it's the motives of credibility.

>> Well, I mean God I mean God's speech where God's Yeah. Where God's

>> the fact of inspiration has to be proposed to you.

>> Correct. So that's what I'm saying. So So that's that's what I'm getting at. They didn't need to know that here. Are you saying that they didn't know anything about inspiration here? uh nowhere here does so first of all to ascent to what Peter is saying here does not require that Peter is inspired. Peter could say the sermon and be speaking in his own words.

>> Yeah. But see

>> first of all that that's that and and I could be cut to the again if I'm if I'm walking past an evangelical guy preaching. He doesn't have to be inspired. I could be cut to the heart uh by his message in just the same way, right? Um so there's that too. There's no sign here that they that they uh confirmed or believe that Peter was being uh Peter was or the Holy Spirit was speaking through Peter. Um so they have divine faith in the word of God, but they don't have

>> but how do they know they're encountering the word of God?

>> Um they didn't. So they didn't have So you don't think the people here had divine faith in the word of God?

>> They had divine faith in the word of God. It was never they didn't have divine faith that what Peter was saying was inspired. It doesn't follow. The word of God is everything Peter uh proposed at least uh revelation.

>> Right. Right. But he's inspired for that. But he's proposing and psalms and and Joel the why would the would the person who have heard who would have heard him say this would they have known Joel is scripture? The psalms are scripture. The wood the Jews would have. Yeah. But not Peter's sermon. Right. Right. But he appeals to the Old Testament scriptures. Correct.

>> Right. Which they knew, right? They they believe that those were inspired. Sure. And

>> Okay. And how did they know that?

>> Uh they would have received it through tradition as well, the prophets. So that would have also been proposed to them. Yeah.

>> Okay. So So right. Okay. So we're back. Okay. I I wasn't trying to misrepresent you. I promise. I I don't know always what terms people necessarily prefer, etc., but okay. So, we're we're back at it. Well, then I don't understand why the idea of in order for you to know that this is inspired, which really this hinges upon and and this would get us into a whole another can of worms. Maybe we can have a discussion on this sometime. Is it your understanding that the apostles were not inspired in their office at all times?

>> Correct. They were not inspired.

>> So, what was it like a light switch? like it was on sometimes off other times.

>> Well, it wouldn't be it wouldn't be on their part. God would it would be on both.

>> No. Right. Right. But but just in terms of like like a picture or like analogy. So they weren't under inspiration the entire time in their office.

>> Correct. And and whether and I know we disagree on that, but I I think I would have just rather than discussing on whether or not they were, I would ask you, do you think it's necessary for divine faith

>> to is inspiration necessary for divine faith? So if if if I have a messenger from God and he is proposing facts for me to believe with divine faith like Jesus rose from the dead and Jesus is now in heaven ascended into heaven when he preaches that to me do those words need to be inspired by God or can they merely be true and reflect the truth of the message but in the preacher's own words and let's assume let's assume that I've already that I already know he's already done a bunch of miracles and I already know that God is uh has authenticated him. God has commissioned him to bring me divine revelation. Do you think that it is metaphysically or in some way absolutely necessary for me to have divine faith in what he proposes like Jesus is God? Um unless he is unless God is speaking through him at that very moment. Well, so this gets into the question of the really the speech of God because and you kind of alluded to this earlier that so we believe regardless of who is speaking it, the word of God is what it is. So when you ask about inspiration, are you asking are the words of the individual who's speaking like is that person under the inspiration of God or are you saying are the are the words of God inspired all the time?

>> No, I'm saying is the person is the Holy Spirit speaking through the person. Second Peter, right? Uh the prophecy came by holy men as the spirit spoke wrote through them or something like that.

>> Right. Right. So, no, not not in like um like if I I we read scripture earlier. Neither of us were under inspiration, but the but the word of God is inspired.

>> It is, but I don't but I don't need it to be for it to for me to give faith. if if if God

>> but you have to have faith in the word of God which is inspired

>> um in the content but the content the content can reach me without without having to be in God's own words or or phrases.

>> So for examp so for example right um St. Paul in Romans 6, he talks about baptism being salvific, right? But he doesn't just talk about baptism being salvific, like baptism saves you or whatever. He specifically connects it to the resurrection of Christ, right? And he says, well, just as Christ has risen from the dead, so we are born into, you know, we have risen into the newness of life and all that stuff, right? Um, so from that I can ascend to uh and that is inspired, right? I can ascent to well baptism saves from this passage or St. Paul can just come and tell me in his own words, baptism saves. Um, both of them are the word of God in so far as it's divine revelation and God wanted that message to reach me. But Romans 6 is in God's own words. But that doesn't affect whether or not I I ascend to it or not because I know that St. Paul is an authentic divine leggy bringing me divine revelation. Whether it be in his own words, in his own message, right? It's still true, right? You can word things in different ways and they're they're both they're reflecting the same truth or in scripture um it's inspired in God's own words, right?

>> Yeah. Um well, man, I'm going to if I keep going,

>> how would you respond Sorry to How would you respond to John 9 then? Because you have a guy here speaking to Jesus and he this this is the Catholic paradigm perfectly. Jesus already did a miracle. So, he knows that this Jesus Quick before you say the Catholic paradigm on what what specific point? Because I think we've jumped around because the reason I was in Acts was for a different reason, I think, than why you're going to John 9.

>> Well, in John 9, the I what's it what's the disease? Is it leprosy or or uh Oh, no. I'm an axe. Well, Jesus heals somebody and it's not until Jesus proposes, hey, I am the son of man, uh which is a divine figure uh that he believes. On the contrary, he has to ask Jesus who he's been hearing speak and he he did miracles and he's been hearing Jesus, you know, talk to him. Uh saying uh he still has to ask him, you know, who is the son of man so I can go and worship him. So this is precisely the the uh Catholic paradigm when Jesus is preaching and when he is um when he is performing miracles, all that all I see is a man and I know that he is being authenticated by God. As Nicodemus says, you know, unless God were with you, you wouldn't be doing these works. Um but that's all I know. So, I can accept whatever he tells me, whatever comes out of his mouth is true. But I don't know that he's God, right? I don't know that. I don't know that he's inspired. I just know that what he's saying is true and it's worthy of of belief. Uh but it's not until John 9:35 where he says who is the son of man, right? He's already been speaking to Jesus for a while. It's not until Jesus proposes, right? Oh, by the way, I'm God. He didn't just recognize, oh, you're God just by your speech. So,

>> so what was the what exact what are you asking me?

>> How would you read that? Cuz I you kind of ask me how I would read Acts 2 or maybe other Acts passages. I'm saying how would you read that? Uh why did after having heard after having seen his miracles and having heard him speak already, why does this man not recognize God speaking in Christ and rather has to ask him who is the son of man so I can go and uh and worship him or believe in him?

>> Yeah. I I I don't know. That's my That's my honest answer off the top of my head because I think you're getting at a different My mind was on like canon stuff.

>> But you But you But so would you not say that you can recognize the word of God in scripture? This is what you're saying. But also from Jesus's mouth

>> c can a per are you saying can a person

>> in your view if you're arguing that you can recognize the word of God in scripture? Um, I assume you would also say that you can rec if Jesus is preaching in front of you, I assume you can also be cut to the heart and and recognize, you know, this is God speaking.

>> Yeah. If this if this Yeah. If the spirit because the spirit's the formal cause of that belief,

>> right? And so um

>> so yeah, so the answer is yes. That's my answer.

>> So so would so then but this man didn't recognize him. He still had to ask Jesus who is the son of man. And I would say this is a distinction between an authentic legate, right? You don't just rec like yeah, you know, he's God and that's a big deal and I'm glad that we know that, but you don't just recognize him by looking at him. He looks like a man. He's preaching things and he's doing miracles, but that doesn't mean he's God, right? And he's preaching heavenly doctrine. It doesn't mean he's God. It doesn't mean doesn't even mean he's inspired. Um it's not until uh this is proposed, by the way, I am God. I am the son of man that this man believes him. So he he believes whatever he says, but he doesn't believe the specific fact of oh this is God speaking until he proes that that I would point to John nine for for that.

>> Um

>> yeah. No, no, no. For sure. Sorry. And do you think that that's what I was getting at in Acts is like that same subject? I'm just curious because maybe I just didn't communicate very

>> arguing for the necessity of inspiration for divine faith. That's that's kind of what

>> right in the word of God in or in the speech, sorry, in in the speech of God. And so it sounds like in John nine, you're you're addressing a little bit of a different angle.

>> Okay. Yeah, we can go on we can go on this forever. I guess would you so I guess my hypothetical of which I I would argue that was the the standard even if you disagree is it is it possible to ascent to a truth proposed by St. Paul, even if he wasn't inspired,

>> like if he just says any truth claim, period.

>> Well, let's let's say it's an actual divine that divinely revealed truth

>> and to ascent to it with divine faith.

>> Yes. Assuming you already know he's assuming you already know that that Christ has commissioned. So Christ, you know, does miracles or maybe Christ even told you, hey, this is Paul. He's going to tell you what I want you to believe, right?

>> Yeah. As as long as the spirit formally gives the faith Which means

>> so yes, the answer is yes.

>> So he doesn't need to be inspired.

>> Well, the reason I was getting at inspiration again was because I was trying to to focus upon specifically we're in the the larger context of like canon. So that's why I was trying to come here and maybe that's why we were talking past one another in the book of Acts. It sounds like in in John nine you're proposing something a little bit or slightly differently that can you believe a truth proposition if you don't know that it's inspired? And that's not necessarily at all like all of what I was trying to

>> I'm saying I'm pointing to how he didn't recognize uh he didn't recognize

>> Yeah. Right. Right.

>> Yeah. But

>> Go ahead. Go ahead.

>> Well, I was just saying it didn't it didn't require him to have an understanding of inspiration. Maybe I just made a uh I just wasn't clear it with Axe. Again, maybe that was my fault and not your fault. Um, my mind was in like the the canon conundrum and then shifting there into Acts. And I don't think you're trying to make a canon point from John nine, right? Or maybe you are

>> kind of

>> kind of because if you can recognize if you can recognize the speech of God in like inspiration, not just divine just not just blanket divine revelation, then it would seem to me that he doesn't have to ask Jesus um uh who is the son of man.

>> Oh, okay. I got you. Well,

>> it seems to me he would have recognized the massive son of man just like you would recognize inspired speech in scripture uh or or in an inspired sermon from an apostle.

>> Yeah,

>> since Jesus was obviously inspired.

>> Yeah,

>> Let me get back to you on that specifically because you and I talked offline. Um, I'll look at uh No, no, you're good. I'll look at I know and I'm like losing my voice here. So, that's I would keep going if I could, but like I said, I am uh

>> Hey, Q&A will be fun. How many do we have today?

>> Uh, two, thankfully. So, it's not too crazy. Yeah. Um, so first one, uh, shoot, I forgot to tell people. Uh, please state who the the question is for that way we know.

>> I assume it's me.

>> This individual says, "Two of the four Marian dogmas, perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, directly contradict scripture. Yes, even the Greek. Why dogmatize them?" So, I'm assuming that's for you, Kevin. What are your thoughts?

>> Um, I would just say you're wrong. They don't contradict scripture. as to why dogmatize them. That's a that's a that's a more interesting question. Um I would simply say it's a matter of of having um uh the reason that the church dogmatizes these things even if they're not immediately necessary for salvation. Um is simply to one to bring about uniform faith so you don't have people in the church believing different things. Um to two to ensure the honor due to God's word. We don't just believe that you know demac conception is a cool privilege that probably happened. We think it it really is revealed in the deposit of faith. Even if it's I admit it's not immediately obvious. Um I would put it like this. It's not immediately obvious to the to the mind who just picked up scripture 20 years ago. To the mind of the church who has been meditating on the divine motherhood for 200 year 18,000 years. It is obvious. And I'm not saying that that's when it came up, right? I would argue some church fathers uh concluded it before way before the dogma. I'm saying the certainty of whether this is actually in divine in uh the word of God or not whether tradition or or scripture. Uh the whole church came to a consensus on this later. Which which really does provide that certainty and therefore because we want to honor what is contained in the word of God. Um that's why we dogmatize him. But I would say you're wrong. I maybe maybe I think Miles would agree that it doesn't contradict the perpetual virginity because I I think I assume you would you would say that. So I understand you believe it's it contradicts it but I would just

>> we can have you know so I don't know. But

>> I have videos on my views of Mary. I'll leave it at that because anytime I go there, uh, I get chewed out.

>> Let I'm gonna let Let me assume that you disagree with the perpetual virginity. You can still agree that there are other people who there are Protestants even who don't and that they would say that they doesn't cont.

>> Oh, you haven't seen my content on Mary?

>> No, no, sorry, I haven't.

>> No, I have a very high Marian theology for a Protestant.

>> Okay. So,

>> you you guys don't get mad. Protestants and evangelicals typically get uh very bent out of shape whenever I talk about Mary because um yeah, I mean I affirm perpetual virginity, her pre- purification, uh her bodily assumption.

>> Oh wow. Nice.

>> Um and for a variety of reasons. I don't want to open up that whole can of worms now. Now I don't hold them as dogmas. Now I always have to clarify with that. That's actually one of maybe we can have a discussion about that sometime. Um I would agree with that person's um aspect of um that that's kind of the big issue for me is the dogmatiz I don't think they should be dogmatized. However um I do think that biblical cases and I have shown Hinrich Bullinger made a pretty good case for the bodily assumption.

>> Can I ask you a brief question?

>> Go ahead.

>> So would you when you say you don't affirm them as dogmas um do you mean merely that you don't think it should be a dogma for the church which I I know you agree with at least that or do you mean that you don't hold it with divine faith and that you only hold it as a theological judgment?

>> That is correct

>> and there is a difference. So you don't hold it with divine faith?

>> No.

>> Gotcha.

>> It's not something that I think a person who does not have divine faith is in uh danger of hellfire.

>> Sure. Okay. This person says, "Once you put the last shingles on the roof, the house is made complete by the shingles." Thank you so much for the super chat, friend. I have no idea what that means. Um, but I appreciate it and thank you so much for the support. Kevin, thank you so much for being here. Um, this was fun and like I said, hopefully there'll be more live streams on this channel. Um, over on the other other channel, if you're here from Answering Adventism, um, thank you. Thank you so much for the support. Thank you for listening to me. Um, I know this was a bit of a different kind of live stream than you're probably typically used to. Um, and I don't know if this is what they'll always look like, but I do think that this is beneficial. I think it's very beneficial for Protestants, evangelicals. You need to learn what other people believe. Okay? You need to learn what they believe on their own terms. That way, you can have actual meaningful dialogue. You got to get past the this sort of visceral just like well they have a false gospel and like these sort of tropes that just they don't really do anything. We we've got to get beyond that and you got to start having these sorts of conversations. And what you're going to find is that you're actually going to start to appreciate some of these things um and start to learn, you know, even if I disagree with this, at least I know what it is that I'm disagreeing with and I'm not disagreeing with a a false straw man of what people don't actually believe. So, Kevin, final words before we shut things down.

>> No, I think you did great on your first stream. I'm honored to be uh your first guest and thanks for having me on.

>> Absolutely. All right, y'all. Have a good night. God bless.