Ultimate REFUTATION of Sola Scriptura

#SolaScriptura #Christianity #Protestant

[Onlyafool]

Bro is tryharding to convert redeemed zoomer

[Sandman]

The Other Paul definitely woke up from his Australian slumber in a cold sweat when this was dropped

[JpegDotPng]

I wake up
Wagner uploads
West = saved
I go to sleep

[christianbenedict]

I need to watch this a few times to get it properly. God bless you Christian.

[AspiringThomist]

Protestantism was destroyed the moment st Thomas was born

[Kingofkings]

Brutal destruction of the prots (haven’t watched yet but common W)

[justinbeale]

I have an IQ of 105, I'm not stupid, but not a genius either. I'm very often completely lost in these videos, I really try. I never know when he's done with one topic and off to another.
I need more pictures and charts. It saddens me because I need to convert my family to Rome.

[St.DemetriostheMyrrhGusher]

The number of protestants in this comment section that did not watch this video is honestly laughable.

[jackreid]

Christian “unmitigated W” Wagner back with a instant CLASSIC

[vso]

I never have any idea what you’re saying but I keep watching your videos because you seem like you know what you’re talking about 😂😂

[sentjojo]

Catholic apologists hammer Protestants with the problem of the canon so often because every Protestant attempt to justify their canon has been frankly embarrassing. It's a clearly losing issue for Protestants. And any appeal to Church tradition is a contradiction to sola scriptura.

[dominicluke]

Akin mogging is NOT what I expected to see on Scholastic Answers today

[thecatechumen]

Fantastic treatment. This serves as confirmation that I should just study philosophy and thomism so that I can *actually* have the sufficient vocabulary to describe what I’m trying to say. I find myself at a loss for words oftentimes when I’m writing scripts for videos. I tried making a similar argument as this in my “true church vs true canon” video. One thing that I may want to see touched upon in the future is the criteria by which we might recognize sacred tradition as authentic. It would seem to me that the reliability of the Church as witness to what is divinely revealed needs to be established prior to the content of divine revelation since divine revelation isn’t self attesting.

[TheThreatenedSwan]

That Jimmy Akin point is completely fine and appeals to more contemporary low church protestants. In the past protestants appealed to muh early Church and a lack of evidence to avoid having to explain how we went from an authoritative Church that could explain doctrine via appointed men to the sola scriptura case they make. And as far as I've seen, the other Paul combines tired anti-Catholic bigotry with the same arguments contemporary protestants make about sola scriptura and what happened to the Church

[Sandman]

“Thumbnail Aryan Wagner isnt real he can’t hurt you”

Thumbnail Aryan Wagner:

[DJ_Frankfurter]

Another fantastic video! You are easily the best apologist on the Internet.

[truthtransistorradio]

Jesus rebuked the pharisees for teaching the traditions of men, rather than the word of God! Protestants have created their own traditions based on Augustine, Calvin, Luther and Darby that I disagree with because I hold the sola scriptora.

[johndeighan]

so… are you basing your argument on the premise that St Paul (and the other inspired writers) must have said, at some point, to someone or other, of each of his inspired books, “by the way, this is inspired”? Or have I totally misunderstood? Because that looks like a very weak premise to me.

[CatholicDweeb]

Where can I read some of the theologians you brought up at the beginning? I looked up Pesch in the PRDL, but he’s not on there, I’ll have to keep looking into the others.

[kyoto]

hey christian, protestant here. i thought this was a good video but I have a few thoughts/objections. first, i haven’t read the work you referenced from pareus but from what i have read, usually our divines don’t give *necessary* arguments for the divinity of Holy Scripture from natural reason. most of the time they seem to say that believers find their full assurance of this from the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. the natural reasons are (as you said) probabilistic/fitting given in order to give a convincing reason to an unbeliever and to aid one’s own faith. Bishop James Ussher says: “Question: Are these (natural reasons) Motives of themselves sufficient to work saving Faith, and persuade us fully to rest in God's Word? Answer: No. Besides all these, it is required, that we have the Spirit of God, as well to open our Eyes to see the Light, as to seal up fully unto our Hearts that Truth which we see with our Eyes. For the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Scriptures, inclineth the Hearts of God's Children to believe what is revealed in them, and inwardly assureth them, above all Reasons and Arguments, that these are the Scriptures of God.” I could also add John Calvin’s Institute’s book 1, chapter 7, section 5.

now to answer your syllogism i would deny the minor premise. and also deny the minor premise of the syllogism given to prove the previous minor premise. the fact of inspiration is going to be virtually contained in the revelation of the inspired work itself. but not as some sort of extra semantic content. for example, if my father tells me to clean my room, he doesn’t also need to say words that express that he is the one telling me this because that fact is virtually contained and supposed by him telling me it. now the difference is just the mode by which i have justification to assent to the fact. in the analogy it’s by the senses wherein i can hear my father speaking to me. regarding Holy Scripture, it’s by the inward illumination of the Spirit wherein i can “hear” (speaking in a human way) my Father “speaking” to me. i think this is sufficient to answer your response to objection 1. basically i would deny that there needs to be “a speech on behalf of the speaker in order for us to assent to that speech”. if this were true then every speaker would have to provide extra semantic content that communicates that the speaker spoke what he spoke in order for us to justifiably assent to the fact that he spoke it, which is clearly false.