Do Protestants have a 'Creed Problem?': A RESPONSE to Trent Horn

Anglican Aesthetics' channel:

SUPPORT:

Join my channel to get access to perks:

One time donation: $Javierperd2604

FOLLOW:

DISCORD SERVER FOR PROTESTANTS:

IF YOU WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT PROTESTANT APOLOGETICS ON ROMAN CATHOLICISM:

IF YOU WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT PROTESTANT APOLOGETICS ON EASTERN ORTHODOXY:

Chapters:

00:00 Intro

01:50 Defining Protestantism

07:10 Trent Horn's Definitions

11:50 Trent's Primary Argument

33:02 Trent's Supporting Examples

56:01 Trent's Secondary Argument

1:00:11 Trent's Baptist Example

1:30:12 Conclusion

#protestant #protestantism #catholicism #romancatholicism #anglican #reformed #reformedcatholic #churchhistory #reformation #protestantreformation #apologetics #protestantapologetics #religiousocd #religiousscrupulosity #ecclesialanxiety

[mitchellscott]

Javier is becoming one of my favorite Protestant apologists similar vibes as Ortlund.

[ethanmcculloch]

The tradition of christiaity can be authroitative while not being infallible, there saved you 1.5 hours. I love all of your content everybody, keep on representing us

[WittenbergScholastic]

The fact everyone is hopping on the Young Anglican 🤔 thumbnail pose has me more hyped than you can imagine

[Acek-okdp]

„Vatican II sect member, Trent Horn, who claims to be Catholic but sadly is not…” Peter Dimond 😂

[Thatoneguy-puty]

This is awesome. Love to see the community come together. Trent’s arguments are often poorly founded and target low church evangelicalism instead of Magisterial Protestantism.

[pipsheppard]

Well done. Excellent theology from a gathering from various traditions. Javier, more like this would be great!

[jperez]

"...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 peter 1:20

[Adam-ueig]

You can't become Arian because Scripture reveals who Jesus is (not an angel or created being). The council addressed this because arians and gnostic were coming in and making it necessary to address. That doesn't mean ecumenical councils or councils in general are infallible just because they got that thing right.

[Adam-ueig]

At 52 minutes when you say those that are arians would be excommunicated from Presbyterian, lutheran, anglican etc...they would be "excommunicated" from non denominational local churches too because they are denying something explicit in the statement of Faith of the church on Christology. I can't speak for all non denominational but that would be the case at the local nondenominational I am a member of.

[Democracyofthedead]

Would William Lane Craig’s monothelitism get him excommunicated from your church?

[kolab]

Well done video gents! Keep up the good work.

[rdrdmaster]

How does the Bible enforce or exercise its authority?

[truthisbeautiful]

Baptists can easily affirm the Nicene Creed. Nothing in the actual text is contrary to Baptist beliefs. And its obvious that the Nicene Creed has influenced the Baptist Confessions.

[Justas]

Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian and the Christian church. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.

[Gronky-svyp]

If something or someone have a capacity to be reexamined and corrected through councils then it's not and can never be infallible.

[NeilD-qj]

The problem with Sola Scriptura is that it can be, and is, applied in various ways. I have come across Anglicans online who really consider their church teachings as authoritative even if the teachings are not found in Scripture (nor contradict Scripture). Yes, for those kind of Christians - Sola Scriptura can more or less function the way it is commonly understood as.

Many Protestants on the other hand pay lip service to authority, and apply Sola Scriptura in such a way that they believe they need to compare everything that their church teaches with Scripture and assume the right to reject anything not found in Scripture and which they dont like. For these, their own interpretation becomes the final authority. To use the simplistic example of parental authority - in this scenario the child can in principle refuse to obey their parents if they interpret the Bible in ways that favors their case, like for example, disobey them when they forbid them from eating ice creams because in their reading of the NT - the NT itself nowhere forbids ice cream or food in general. I have actually seen Protestants tossing important doctrines out this way.

Can, in theory, SS be applied in a sensible way? Yes, in principle. Is SS applied sensibly by most Protestants? Probably not. The reason why SS is a doctrine of anarchy is that the principle in itself allows for both approaches. It gives the individual interpreter the sole right to accept or reject teachings based on his understanding, rather than the understanding of his communion. This is why Trent's critique is on the mark. Watch Trent's interview with Kelly Powers for example to get a taste of the second scenario.

[thelocoshabab]

I'm not sure it is fair to say that William Lane Craig's view is 'solo scriptura' rather than 'sola scriptura.' At least a couple things concerning his Christology, he frequently cites Chalcedon's ruling that there are two natures in Christ as one of the axioms he is trying to hold to in his theology. Furthermore, he argues in favor of Monothelitism partially on the basis of trying to avoid the council-defined heresy of Nestorianism. In the particular podcast that Trent is citing (it's Craigs recent one titled 'Does Jesus Have One or Two Wills?'), Craig says, "...scripture alone is our ultimate and final authority. I think that even the statements of ecumenical councils have to be brought before the bar of scripture, and I see nothing in scripture that would warrant saying Christ has two wills." That sounds pretty legit as far as a solid classical protestant definition of sola scriptura goes. I can certainly imagine saying something like this regarding Nicaea II, just replace the bit about Christ's wills with the veneration of icons. I haven't listened to everything Craig's ever put out, but this seems pretty consistent with how I've heard him describe sola scriptura in other contexts (and he is a philosopher after all, so I imagine he chooses his words carefully).

As for saying that he is mainly appealing to his philosophy rather than scripture to override the council, I think that is only partially true. It seems that he basically claims scripture doesn't comment on the dyothelite/monothelite question directly, so we need to use reason to try and put together the puzzle pieces we do find in scripture. Then he eventually comes to a conclusion that he believes is more consistent with other councils, the puzzle pieces scripture gives us, and reason in how that's all put together. To me it sounds similar to how PlantChrist mentioned one might reject Nicaea II on the basis of not only scripture but also earlier church fathers/creeds/etc (around 46:50). It can probably be argued Craig leans more on his reasoning than the Nicaea II rejecter, but he does certainly include the other elements in his evaluation.

For the record, I am a protestant! I love this content and I am totally on board with like everything else in this video. I just felt that this bit needed a comment. 😅 I also think it might be a bit harsh to say Craig's soul is in jeopardy on these bases when he still affirms all the things his critics say his propositions can't uphold. He may be logically inconsistent in the way he puts the puzzle pieces together, but he does affirm all the same foundational pieces that dyothelites claim that only their position protects.

[ethancoppel]

I really tried to get through this but you guys are being absurdly dense for no reason. Of course when Trent says "can" he means it in the sense of "and still be Christian". What else would he mean? You don't need to bother with specifications about subjective and objective meaning because it's obvious what he means and if you can't tell that you shouldn't bother trying to create a rebuttal.

[NeilD-qj]

We compare Protestantism with all its confusion inducing glory with Rome because the said confusion is part and parcel of the Protestant system. Protestant apologists trying to weasel their way out of that is cute! Ecclesialism has no confusion. You either believe EO or OO or RCC or CoTE. Depending on what you choose, you can then choose to relegate the other churches to hell if that works for you. Protestantism with SS at its helm just doesnt work that way.