The Protestant Problem with the Canon of Scripture w/ Trent Horn

The Protestant Problem with the Canon of Scripture w/ Trent Horn

#theology #debate #catholic #pope #vatican #heresy #magisterium
_________________________________________________________________________
Are you tired of all the confusion in the Catholic Church? So was I! For this reason, I decided to intensely study the Catholic Magisterium in order to discern between what people say about the Catholic Church vs. what it actually says and teaches. If you are a confused Catholic, or are discerning becoming a Catholic, Reason & Theology offers you an in-depth examination of the situation in the Catholic Church that will help make sense of the confusion.

Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.

🔴PLEASE HELP THIS CHANNEL GROW🔴

🔴SUPPORT

🔴VISIT

🔴LISTEN

🔴VERBUM DISCOUNT
As a fan of R&T, you can get 5 free books and 10% off packages if you use the following link:

[johnsteila]

I think that logically, Protestants should have an issue with The Canon. Why trust the books that The Church chose but reject the authority that chose them?

[J-PLeigh]

Or the beautiful & powerful book of Hebrews affirms Catholic doctrine & theology...but of course as its holy scripture & at the same time it refutes, absolutely obliterates Protest doctrine, esp OSAS & Sola Fida. I can't imagine why Calvin & Luther would want Heb, James, or Rev removed from the Canon 🤔

[Blasian]

One of the biggest claims against Sola Scriptura is on the Bible and how many books. They claim the Bible is infallible, but what is the Bible? It is the combination of the Old and New Testaments. They are BOTH part of the Christian Bible, and not the Jewish Bible and Christian Bible. So to take books out of the Old Testament is the same as taking books out of the New Testament, taking books out of the Christian Bible. If the Bible is infallible as they claim with Sola Scriptura, and they also claim removing books from the Bible is heresy, how can they justify removing the deuterocanonical books from the Bible? The fact is that the Bible as it was initially put together, included the 73 books. It doesn't matter how they justify their excuses for why the deuterocanonical books were included. The fact is they WERE included. What was officially declared and understood to be the Bible was the 73 books. Protestants in protest against the Church Jesus built and gave to us, removed those books. There's no way to spin that Catholics added them in the Council of Trent 1500 years later when they were there from the beginning. And just because the some Jews say they shouldn't be part of the Old Testament carries no weight. We are not Jewish, and it was the Jews who crucified our Lord. And the Jews who distorted God's teaching's. So either there was a fake, wrong Bible for 1500 years, where the Catholic Church was partially divinely inspired to assemble both the Old and New Testaments, get every word correct, every book correct, the order of books correct as well, without missing anything in between, but Martin Luther was divinely inspired 1500 years later to finally realize the need to remove 7 books, and almost remove James and Revelation too, and he was able to give us the TRUE Bible, and realize Christians lived a lie for 1500 years, or the Bible was correct and infallible, and Luther was WRONG to remove them, as he was WRONG on so many of his thoughts in PROTEST of the Church Jesus built.

How could Sola Scriptura be true when its idea came from those protesting against the Church and her teachings, removing books from the Bible, teaching against everything inconvenient to their beliefs, and is left up for anyone to interpret without an authority to say what's right and what's wrong?

[tbojai]

The “Fuzzy Edges” is not an answer to the problem of the Canon - it’s the problem!!! Ironic that Gavin would use this kind of terminology

[omarvazquez]

RC Sproul: We have a fallible collection of infallible books. -Scripture Alone

Makes no sense.

[jonathanhnosko]

As a Protestant, I have grown to really appreciate that the Orthodox Churches have no dogmatically defined Canon of Scripture and are able to function just fine. I think it would do us all good to embrace the "fuzzy edges" on our way to reimagining the relationship between the Gospel, the Scriptures, and the Church.

If the Church is birthed by the Gospel and the Gospel is according to the Scriptures (Luke 24:27), they can minimally be identified as those referenced as such and for that purpose by the Apostles in the New Testament. A highly selective list might look something like this: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Haggi, Zechariah, and Malachi.

By this standard, we could conceivably be even more restrictive (gasp) than the Protocanon. Either way, we need not have an infallibly defined or divinely inspired table of contents in order for the Church to have a functional sense of the Scriptures. The early Church did not and the Orthodox Churches do not.

[TrixRN]

Love ❤️the highlight clips. God bless you, Michael & all the work you do. 🙏❤️

[thefuckinglindo]

Because from a protestant perspective, one already thinks the church that compiled the books is fallible

[michaelogrady]

Paul writes to Timothy concerning the Scriptures that Timothy has known since his youth. What Scriptures did Timothy know from his youth? Both of them were Jews of the Diaspora. Historically speaking, we know the Jews of the Diaspora used the Septuagint pretty much exclusively. What Paul wrote to Timothy was obvious to Timothy, and should be just as obvious to us.

[_X_]

7:11
Origen did say only God knows who “wrote” (as in penned) Hebrews but the full context of his statement includes his surety that Paul is the human author of it.
Authorship does not always equate to penmanship. ie Romans 16:22… Romans was written by Tertius but authored (human author) by Paul.

Here’s Origen’s quote.

Origen De Principiis Book 1 Ch 1 Preface…

And therefore I think it sufficient to quote this one testimony of Paul from the Epistle to the Hebrews, *1 in which he says: “By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter…

1 [Here, and frequently elsewhere (some two hundred times in all), Origen, in his extant works, ascribes the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, vi. 25) quotes Origen as saying, “My opinion is this: the thoughts are the apostle’s; but the diction and phraseology belong to some one who has recorded what the apostle said, and as one who noted down what his master dictated. If, then, any Church considers this Epistle as coming from Paul, let it be commended for this; for neither did those ancient men deliver it as such without cause. But who it was that committed the Epistle to writing, is known only to God. S.]

[ShawHortonMusic]

4:41 Did Peter really write 2nd Peter? Eusebius, in his Church History, he states that only the First Epistle of Peter is authentic, which I found interesting. Is there any truth to Eusebius’ claim, or is 2nd Peter actually authentic?

[tonynoname]

Nonsense! “the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books” Bruce metzger
Human beings discovered, not determined what should be in the Bible.
It is noteworthy that no council ever met with the agenda to 'determine' canon. They simply agreed with what was common knowledge. The only council that met to determine canon was Trent, and itcwas to add books.

[YellowGiant]

Im not sure why youre focusing on the NT. We have the exact same NT canon.

[a.d]

You cant discern inspiration/the canon on your own

[mmbtalk]

Nice clip and it helps us protestants, to see where the Catholics have an issue with what we believe. However never ever make a mistake of believing that Sola scriptura, automatically dismisses tradition; in fact we acknowledge tradition as something necessary to get us to the only one who is the way and truth. Just as John the Baptist was not the light, but he was the voice in the desert pointing people to the Messiah. The Samaritan woman was a horrible person, but after her encounter with Jesus, she became an asset in introducing her entire village to the saviour. So we would appreciate if the Catholics stayed in their lane and not assume to be the saviours, if they keep the role of pointing people to the saviour, I have no quarrel whatsoever!