Demonstrating & Defending Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura and the Upcoming Epic Online Calvinism Conference

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and I am back again with a revisiting guest. Is that how you say it? A guest who's been on before, not that long ago, and we're gonna be talking about a very important topic.

It's not so much relating to presuppositionalism per se, although there is some relationship there, but that's not what we're gonna be talking about today. We're gonna be talking about Sola Scriptura and a defense of Sola Scriptura, positive and negative.

So my guest is going to present a positive case for Sola Scriptura and he's going to be walking through some objections against the doctrine. So this is kind of, you know, just to summarize it from a kind of helicopter overhead view perspective, this is kind of an overview defense of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is a very, very important doctrine.

And so I'm looking forward to my guest coming on. I really enjoyed having him last time, so definitely please check out the other Paul, his YouTube channel. I would highly recommend that you go and subscribe.

He's funny, he's informed, and I learned a lot watching his videos and his shorts too. Not his shorts, his shorts, the YouTube shorts. He's got some great, you know, information and really a good thing going on in his channel.

So I highly recommend that you guys go over there and subscribe. Before we jump in, just real quick, I've been reminding folks of the Epic Online Calvinism Conference, where we'll be having myself, Dr. James White, Dr. Guillaume Bignon, Scott Christensen, and Saiten Bruggenkate, going to be covering various aspects of Calvinism.

Folks can sign up an RSVP for that event. It's coming January 21st, so it's coming soon. And it's going to be from 1030 in the morning to 430 in the afternoon, so it's epic, literally epic. It's going to be going on for quite some time and there'll be opportunities to interact with the speakers and things like that.

And we're not going to be covering TULIP, which is traditionally, you know, the topic of most of these Calvinism conferences. We're going to be covering some specific, you know, applications of Calvinistic theology.

Dr. White's going to be covering certain key passages, biblical texts. Guillaume is going to talk about the correct use of analogies. And he's going to actually critique analogies that are used to criticize Calvinism.

So that's going to be super interesting. Scott Christensen is going to be defending the compatibilistic view of freedom. And Saiten Bruggenkate is going to be sharing with us how to defend Calvinism within the context of kind of just the everyday conversation, you know, kind of a Calvinism of the streets, so to speak.

And my topic, I am still brainstorming. I have a bunch of topics that I'm thinking about doing, but I haven't decided on one just yet. But I'll keep you guys updated on that. So that's January 21st. You can go to revealedapologetics .com, click on the pre-sup you drop-down menu, and you could RSVP for the Epic Online Calvinism Conference.

Chat Questions and Super Chats for Sola Scriptura

All right, well, got that out of the way. Again, we are also going to be opening the chat for some questions. So I do see that we have a crowd already. Thank you so much. If you have a question on Sola Scriptura, preface your question with question or the letter Q, or your question will be lost.

Okay? There are only a few comments in the chat now, but once they start going, I scroll through and I don't know what happens unless you, you know, you preface your question with question. Also, if you find it in your heart, you know, even though total depravity is true and we struggle with sin, if you find it in your heart to send a super chat as a way of supporting Revealed Apologetics, that'd be greatly appreciated as well.

And your question will be kind of shot all the way to the top and we'll make sure we ask your question first. All right. Well, with all of those things out of the way, let's introduce or reintroduce my friend, the other Paul.

How are you doing, brother?

Gone excellent, Eli. Hope you're gone fine this evening. Where you are, I believe.

It is now 9 .05 PM Eastern where I am. What time is it over in the wonderful land of.

Australia?

It's just gone past 1 PM and the heat is really starting to hit. We only just turned on the air con in our house. Thank God for ducted air conditioning because I woke up today, at least the second night in a row, woke up in absolute, absolute muggy heat.

So the summer's in full force here.

Wow. Well, so if folks are seeing, if you, if you see Paul sweat, it is not because he's nervous about your questions concerning Sola Scriptura. It is because he lives in Australia.

Don't worry. I won't be sweating period. The air con's on and it is nice in here.

Okay. Very good. Well, why don't you tell folks a little bit about yourself, where they can find you and what you're up to in terms of your YouTube channel, and then we'll just jump right into our topic.

Yeah, a hundred percent. So I am the other Paul or real name, Paul Facey. I am a Sydney-based Anglican, so out here in Australia. I haven't been Anglican for a super long time, and I really only did because I was just desperately trying to find a good and faithful church after leaving Hillsong, funnily enough.

That's where I actually went for quite a long time. Not that I thought like, oh, it was an evil cult or whatever, but primarily because I believe that their form of worship is, is not, shall we say, up to par, even though, even though there's many genuine people within it.

So became an Anglican just to find a faithful church. And so it was really backwards for me. I didn't investigate the different Protestant traditions, find the best one to go with. It was more the opposite.

I just wanted to find a good church with, if you will, the good marks of the church, where the sacraments properly administered, gospels preached, found this Anglican church. And I thought, you know what, I'm here now, so I may as well see what I got myself into.

And by a good happenstance, I happen to really, really like the Anglican tradition. So thank God for that. That's where I am now. On my channel and blog, I basically cover any and all topics regarding scripture, history, and theology, which I find to be needing some good content, which interests me and will help others.

In particular, in this season, I'm interacting a lot with other Christian traditions, such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, simply because like they really fire on all cylinders of various topics and presuppositions of scripture, history, and theology.

And so they really are among the most important things to be interacting with, but otherwise I have made and continue to make other content on various other topics in those areas, which I find to see of good need.

So I do want to start, for example, some new content specifically just on the historical method. How do you do history properly? Because that's like a very foundational thing, which so many people don't get.

And it leads to a lot of really crappy claims, even from the seemingly best of apologists on both sides of many issues. So yeah, that many other issues, including like the issue of sexuality in the Bible, what's the relations of men and women, what's the nature of marriage, so on and so forth.

Those are the big topics that I've been really, really big into. So yeah, that's me. That's my channel. That's what I do.

Protestant Distinctives and the Importance of Sola Scriptura

Yeah. And guys, I really do highly recommend you subscribe to his channel. I'm not just saying this because I have him on the show right now. I find his content really helpful. And I think this is kind of a big gap amongst a lot of Christians today, at least here in the United States, where a lot of churches are just not very much informed on issues of like church history and what it means to be a Protestant.

And so I think Paul is doing a good job filling that gap. I know there are many others who are doing it as well, but I think he brings his unique flavor and humor to the things that he does. And I think it's an excellent way to inform yourself as to church history and how to understand and defend Protestant theology.

So super, super, super, super important. So definitely subscribe to the other Paul YouTube channel. Now let's jump right in, Paul. Here in the United States, in kind of modern evangelicalism, and I know that term is very difficult to define.

It's an ambiguous term. It can involve a wide range of perspectives. And in Australia as well, do you see a moving away from or an ignorance of the Protestant understanding of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

How was that from your experience?

Man, oh man, oh man, that is a very hard thing to judge just because like really the big vogue issues across the West, really, but including in Australia is not really like Protestant versus Catholic as even though it might've been, especially in the, especially older times, say 19th, 20th century, how the Anglican church would have interacted with the Catholic church when they were first coming in.

But today it's more just faith versus no faith. That's really the big thing. That's the thing that's much more easier discerned, like very, very big trends. Both of people coming out saying they're not Christian.

A lot of people like to say that, oh, it's like more people becoming non-religious, but really a big factor is that for a very long time, a lot of people would have called themselves Christian, even though they never really were.

And so really a big factor would just be that they're being more honest. But otherwise with respect to knowledge of Protestant distinctives, I would have to say, even though it's not as big of an issue compared to like outright apostasy here in Australia, I'd say that, yeah, I'd say so that there is a lot of ignorance on the foundations of reformation belief and well, foundations of reformation belief, especially because easily the most populous and fastest growing churches in Australia, really across the West would be those of the more evangelical persuasion who do have certain Protestant foundations, but not all of them, including, well, not all the good ones.

Well, they're all good because they're Protestant, of course, but they otherwise don't share all the necessary Protestant foundations and they miss out on a lot. And so there's a very, very truncated reflection of Protestant distinctives in the various evangelical churches and traditions.

Whereas the more class, even the more classical traditions, such as the Anglican church, for example, even they have a more evangelical trending these days. And so you'll see a lot more of a low church worship.

And I'm not dogging that at all, even though I do believe that good liturgy is the better form. That, and then also even in their preaching and teaching, they won't have anywhere near as much emphasis on learning from the wisdom of former major giants of the faith, whether it's church fathers or even foundational Anglican figures.

And so, yeah, I would say that across the board, and I'd say the same Roman Catholicism as well. But then again, at the same time, there's also little enclaves, whether it's Roman Catholic, or in this case, Anglicanism and other traditional pro branches, there's little enclaves where people really do know their stuff and they really try to practice them.

Otherwise, generally, yes, there is a widespread ignorance of good Protestant thought in Australia.

And how important do you think Sola Scriptura is? I mean, I know a lot of people who consider themselves quote unquote, Protestant, but yeah, you know, Sola Scriptura. Yeah, I kind of understand it seems pretty important, but I can see how people can, I mean, is this kind of a really like a dividing line, super important issue that people really need to, you know, kind of wake up and say, Hey, we need to be defending this.

We need to be living this out. What are your thoughts there in terms of its importance for Protestant theology? Yeah, sure. So I want to, I'll definitely.

Make a distinction between a dividing line qua Christianity, there's a dividing line qua Protestantism. So, um, what I would first say, and this is something very important to note, um, because this is actually going to be a key, uh, refutation of a certain objection to Sola Scriptura, which we'll address later.

Sola Scriptura is not an article of faith. It's not a doctrine that we believe is delivered by the apostles itself. It is rather, um, it's what we would say is a necessary, good and necessary consequence, um, of the facts of scripture and history taken together.

And thus epistemically speaking, it is necessary and true. And so if you don't hold it, you're on very dangerous ground, but that doesn't mean you're believing like heresy or whatever. So that's a very, very important distinction and we'll see.

Later why that's necessary. So Paul, you can be, so you're saying that you can reject Sola Scriptura and still be a Christian, but it's a very dangerous ground to walk on when that's right.

That's right. Yeah. Because the rejection of Sola Scriptura can, or does make you much more susceptible to accepting things which are heresy. Um, otherwise though, with respect to being a so qua Protestant, um, if you question or reject Sola Scriptura, you're not a Protestant.

I just, I just simply say that, like just historically speaking, like however fluid the term can be in history, which, which it has been. Um, nonetheless, the co one of the common core, um, claims amongst all definitions of Sola Scriptura I've seen both good and bad is the belief in Sola Scriptura.

And so if you don't affirm Sola Scriptura, you can't call yourself a Protestant. Simple as that, you're something else. Okay. Just because, just because you're not a Protestant, um, sorry, just because you reject Sola Scriptura, um, that won't make you a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox.

You might just be something else entirely, but you're definitely, you're definitely.

More susceptible to adopting those other perspectives. Oh, certainly. Certainly. Yeah.

Or, or the other way. Cause I know people who, um, there are more liberal Christians, quote unquote, who will openly reject Sola Scriptura because like they reject certain key things or the authority of scripture.

Um, but they'll raise them like Baptist churches in that. And it doesn't make them more susceptible to Roman the East, but more to liberalizing tendencies. So it can go either way. It's just, when you reject the ultimate authority scripture, you can go any which way.

And that's a very, that's a very, very important thing for.

Defining Sola Scriptura as the Sole Infallible Authority

Sola Scriptura. Um, but yeah, that's what I'd say about that. Excellent. So perhaps we should do something that we should have done a few moments ago. Um, and this is, this is vitally important because there are huge misunderstandings as to what Sola Scriptura is and what Protestants believe about it.

Um, can you define for us Sola Scriptura? Tell us what it is. And if you can also tell us what it is not, and maybe perhaps have in mind the kind of the caricatures that maybe Catholics and Orthodox folks tend to project on, on Protestants.

Yeah, a hundred percent. So, um,.

Really there's, there's, there's kind of two ways you can, you can give the definition of Sola Scriptura, although they're functionally saying the same thing, just highlighting different aspects. So the much more common one you'll hear today, and which is well faithful to the, um, to the historic understanding of Sola Scriptura is that scripture is the sole infallible, um, authority, sorry, is the sole infallible authority with respect to faith and morals.

Although I like to personally slightly modify that, um, to recognize the distinction between infallible authority versus inherent binding authority. So I'd like to say, Sola Scriptura, scripture is the sole infallible and inherently authoritative slash binding source of doctrine to recognize the distinction between infallibility and inherent authority, which is a very important one.

I believe that as we'll get onto later, um, the, another definition, which is simpler, but functionally says the same thing and which you can find more common among, uh, classical Protestant writers, for example, and it was also today is that scripture is the, and by implication of saying the, it's the only Supreme judge in matters of faith.

Um, and so entailed from those definitions, there's a constitutive parts of, well, for one, the divine authority of scripture, which everybody Protestant and non-Protestant grants, um, the formal sufficiency of scripture.

And so if scripture is the sole infallible and inherently binding source of doctrine, if it is the Supreme authority on matters of faith, then it must be by nature sufficient. Um, then it is also uniquely unerring, um, versus other authorities.

So scripture, unlike these other authorities cannot, uh, um, and yeah, those, those are the basic constitutive parts of it. Now, logically prior to this claim of solus couture, that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith is first before that, the claim that the words of God and, and through, through the prophets, through, uh, the apostles through Christ and so on, uh, they, their authority is infallible and inherently binding.

And it's important to recognize that because, uh, in some objections that Roman Catholics and Orthodox will bring up, um, mainly on the pop level, cause it's just utterly silly. Um, is that they will say, Oh, a text doesn't have authority.

A text doesn't speak for itself. Only an agent, a person has authority and speaks for itself. Uh, and therefore you need the church, blah, blah, blah. Um, of course, this is a ridiculous category error, um, because solus scriptura is itself based on the prior claim that Christ and the apostles, for example, are as agents inherently binding and could speak with infallibility.

And so to say that, to say that we just believe in a text and that, and that's it, it's utterly stupid because solus scriptura is based on the idea that no, we're actually basing ourselves on the authority of persons, but how we access them, the only certain access we have to them is through their written records.

And so there's a key distinction there. Um, everybody accesses their infallible authorities through written records. You access the historic Roman Catholics and Orthodox. They access the historic testimony of the church of their ecumenical councils via written documents.

Um, so this is, this is something that everybody it's ridiculous to pit texts versus agents, because there is no difference between us on this issue.

Interesting. Now I, I like how you emphasize that it is the soul infallible authority, which is to say that we do not reject other authorities, but we are affirming that scripture is the, as a certain kind of authority, namely an infallible one.

So, um, so that's connected to an objection that I want to bring up later on. Um, but, uh, okay. So thank you for, um, defining that for us. Um, what is Sola Scriptura not in other words, what is it not so that we can kind of, uh, explode some common characters of the doctrine.

I'm really glad you brought that up,.

Even though we didn't discuss it because I have a specific bit in my notes that says exactly that. So Sola Scriptura is not one, as we mentioned before an article of faith directly given in the apostolic deposit once for all delivered again, critical, especially to certain objections, as we'll address later.

Uh, second, Sola Scriptura is not the claim that scripture is sufficient for all beliefs, including epistemically necessary knowledge. That's not the claim for Sola Scriptura. Um, people, unfortunately, a number of apologists like to claim that like, Oh, if, if Sola Scriptura true, Oh, then what, then why learn English language?

You can just look at it and just get zapped into and like legit someone actually gave that objection to me. And they said, Oh, can you understand this? And he posted some random Chinese and like, Oh, therefore you need other authority.

It's just, it's just stupid. Like basic answer charity. You will know that the reformers do not mean looking at a piece of paper that has scripture on it. We'll zap with you all epistemically prior necessary knowledge.

Rather, they are assuming that once you achieve the, uh, the necessary prior knowledge for understanding texts, just as with all other texts, then you can understand Holy scripture as it is, just as you do another text.

That's the key thing, the context of the reformation. It wasn't that, uh, they want, it wasn't the reformer saying you can understand scripture without any prior knowledge period. This is the Catholic saying, no, you need some presupposition.

That wasn't it. The issue was, can you understand scripture as you do other texts versus requiring.

The authority of the church? That was a key issue. And the Protestants would say that you can.

Right. Yes. And I think we meant to be charitable as well. Many well-learned Roman Catholics and Orthodox will also affirm that yes, you can understand the scriptures. Um, even on, uh, on, on vast majority of the time, uh, by normal means of study.

And that's, that's a very important thing to recognize. Um, uh, I've very recently, for example, had a stream with a Roman Catholic friend, uh, Christian Wagner, also known as scholastic answers. Uh, unfortunately his wife accidentally deleted the stream, but it should be re uploaded very soon.

Yeah. Yeah. Funny story of that. But, um, nonetheless, we'll be back up and we both actually, uh, attacked an argument by a Roman Catholic who more or less tries to forward the argument, um, that the Roman Catholics are on like an epistemically higher plane than Protestants.

But we both said, no, we all involve private interpretation. And he would further adamantly affirmed that scriptures can be understood via normal means of hermeneutics. Many well-learned Roman Catholics will affirm this.

Um, unfortunately there's also many, um, both not so well-learned and also well-learned Roman Catholics and Orthodox who will try to throw epistemic doubt at being able to properly interpret and apply the scriptures.

Um, very common, including in the counter-reformation, that's a very important thing. And I do intend to make some content on that soon, um, to kind of flip the script when Roman Catholics like to say, oh, the Protestant started the enlightenment when actually it may actually be the other way around because of the skepticism that the counter-reform was brought up.

But anyway, um, that's not what soul scripture claims. Doesn't claim that scripture gives you all necessary prior knowledge. And finally, uh, I don't know if you may think of other ones that you may want me to address, but finally, um, soul scripture does not claim that we do not rely on tradition or as I prefer to call it historical testimony, just because the word tradition is so mad with, uh, with loaded assumptions.

So I like to say it, even though in reference to the same thing, I like to call it historical testimony, in particular historical testimony of prior Christians. Um, it's soul scripture does not claim we don't rely on that on things like, for example, the Canon of scripture.

And for that, I would love to cite Martin Chemnitz and his examination of the council of Trent in book two, where he's has an entire section where it goes over seven different definitions of tradition, uh, as historically defined throughout the period of the church.

And he gives examples from the church fathers and basically says, Hey, we Protestants, we accept the vast majority of these. We're fine. Including, he says that the Canon of scripture is a tradition reverently received, reverently received by unbroken succession from the church.

And so soul scripture does not reject that claim. In fact, it's the opposite. The Protestant reformers recognize against part of that epistemically prior, uh, knowledge issue, um, the necessity of tradition for establishing certain foundational things.

But once it's all fully formed, Holy scripture is there as that shining jewel, as that final judge for everything, all other authorities are subordinate to it. So those are the things that soul scriptura.

Is not. Right. So, so in essence, so solo scriptura is not solo scriptura.

So we make a distinction and that is bad Latin, but it is nonetheless a common, common designator. I think it might be a deliberate thing because like it's bad Latin, um, but it designates something that is a caricature.

So I guess that's kind of appropriate. So new descriptor would be more accurate. Like if you want to do a good Latin new descriptor, um, yeah, that's, it's, it's not that that's not historic Protestant doctrine.

Even, even I'll add, uh, well-learned, uh, evangelicals, even well-learned evangelicals don't do those.

Caricatures. Right. Right. So we're not saying me and my Bible under the tree sort of thing. And that's not, that's not what we're saying. Okay. Yeah. I do want to touch on the issue later on. Um, because I hear this all the time from Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is that when a Protestant is called to defend, um, look at Yolo script.

Money. That was good. That's a good one. Thanks for that. Yeah. Made me lose my spot. Oh, yeah, we got, I almost forgot. I was saying it made me laugh. I'm not good at multitasking. Um, I want to touch on this issue, uh, that when Protestants are called to defend solo scriptura, we, uh, you know, foul is cried.

It's good. People cry foul when we appeal to anything outside of scripture to defend scripture. So they say, Oh, look there, you have to rely on the tradition now and see, look, you're inconsistent. I want to talk about that later, but you just made me think about that.

So, um, all right. So we know what the soul of scripture is. We know what scripture is not. Um, now let's jump into a defense of solo scriptura. Um, let's first start with a positive defense. How do you positively defend solo scriptura?

Say, let's pretend I'm a Roman Catholic and I don't know if a Roman Catholic would ever say this, but I would say, Hey, Paul, if you can convince me right now that solo scriptura is true, I'll become a Protestant right now.

And I really mean it because this is a sticking point for me, Paul, you have no idea. I've grappled with this. I've watched all the James white debates and I still am undecided. You know, I've heard you process right now.

Can you convince me of solo scriptura? And, um, the world is watching. How do you give a robust defense of solo scriptura if I were to ask you.

Something along those lines? Yeah, a hundred percent. So I would say that solo scriptura, again, not a doctrine, but something that is necessitated by good and necessary consequences, both from the principles of divine that are given to us by divine revelation, which we both accept, as well as the circumstances of history.

So to start with a very basic foundation, if we look at one of our common sources, so the old Testament scriptures, and at this point, as soon as I say that some people, I think if I remember as well, correctly, I think even Jimmy Akin in our debate tried to do that.

Um, when I appealed to the old Testament, he said, Oh, you're already presupposing solo scriptura. And I'm saying, and I'd simply say, no, I'm not. I'm presupposing sources we both accept. And further for the old covenant period, we both only accept the scriptures.

So functionally, functionally for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, uh, they are solo scriptura with respect to the old Testament. So.

We can at least grant. Can I ask you a question? Can I ask you a question? Yeah, go for it. Obviously it's completely different, but you, you say things that make me think like, Oh, I wonder, uh, are you a presuppositionalist or a presuppositional-ish kind of person?

Because I know that presuppositional-ish, I haven't fully studied the nature of the methodology, but I'm very, very friendly to it in certain respects, just because like, as someone who, like my whole thing is like historical method, for example, like going really deep studying this stuff.

Like I've got this old obscure 1940s textbook written by a Jesuit priest, a guide to historical method, which is basically a full fledged rundown of historical method with insane detail. And the first, once you go through studying historical method, the first thing you realize is like, look, this stuff is all theory laden.

It's all presuppositionally. It's all presuppositional. So that's really necessary stuff. Like, you know,.

I had to jump on that for the fact that I'll get, I get this question a lot. How do I use presuppositional apologetics against a Roman Catholic? Now, even if you're not a full blown presuppositionalist, I want people who are interested in that question to pay attention to not simply what Paul is saying, but look at how he answers the questions, how he examines and acknowledges, uh, he, he, you are what Van Til calls, uh, epistemologically self-conscious.

You are aware of the epistemological issues that go into these sorts of discussions. So whether you are one or not, I, I encourage folks who are interested in that sort of question to pay attention to how Paul is thinking, not just what he's saying, but go ahead.

You can continue giving our positive case there. I just wanted to make that application.

No, for real. Thank you so much for that. I'm glad you, I do want to be very self-conscious with my epistemic premises on everything. It really opens up a whole world, but anyway, so both Roman Catholic Orthodox, we accept the old Testament.

It is a, it is a common authority, so we can work from there. What does the old Testament say, um, about, let's say God's words. Um, you will hear, for example, Deuteronomy eight, uh, eight chapter three, where it says, man shall live not by bread alone, uh, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

And so you have there in that statement, you have something that there is a pristine, perfect nature to God's words. God's words cannot, uh, there is no error within them. And throughout the entirety of the old Testament, um, you never hear, it is never stated that any other ultimate source of words or statements has that protection from all error.

That is never guaranteed for everybody else. It is presumed in the old Testament that everybody, or any even explicitly stated at points where the words of men, they can fail, but the words of God, it's perfect.

It's a perfect foundation. Now I make the careful distinction, ultimate source of words, because obviously God's revelation, the vast majority of the time was not given by him appearing out of the sky and shouting to people, but through means like prophets, for example.

And so while it's technically, for example, the book of Isaiah is technically the words of Isaiah. It is also ultimately the words of God, because the words of God coming through Isaiah through a means.

And so no other ultimate source, no other ultimate originator of thoughts and words and all that has, uh, this protection from all error, like the words of God does. That's a key assumption. And that really, if you grant that assumption, I believe that, that necessitates, that necessitates sola scriptura after a bit of a chain, but you basically have to affirm sola scriptura because, um, that assumption is not changed.

New covenant period. Now that would be probably the hot thing that, uh, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will try to challenge. Like for example, I spoke, uh, I did a debate review after I can finally enough with my Roman Catholic friends, scholastic answers, Christian Wagner, because he's actually sympathetic with my side.

He didn't think, uh, Aiken, uh, properly graphed the nature of the Protestant classical Protestant idea. Um, so he was, he himself is very epistemically, uh, self-conscious as well. And he himself said that would be the key area to challenge that only revelatory words from God are infallible.

He would argue that, uh, in the new Testament period, there was a charism of perfect protection given to certain officers, like with the collective church, for example. So that'd be the key thing and challenge, but I would simply press, um, just in giving a positive case that no other source, um, no other non revelatory source is ever given this protection from all like the words of God.

Now there are statements about the Holy Spirit, about the Holy Spirit's guidance, about the church being the pillar in the ground of the truth. And yet when we look at these various other sources, including the authority of various non-revelatory sources, and yet when we're consistent, um, let's say for example, in acts where it's prophesied, your old men shall dream dreams and your young, your young children or your young people shall prophesy and all that stuff.

So Hey, even they're prophesying, even God's guiding them. Okay. But we all recognize that people can, uh, okay. That's a real thing. And so that brings yet another very distinction. I'm so sorry. I have to make so many distinctions, but it's really necessary.

That's fine. God can in an instance, inspire an individual to say something, even prophesize something. I'm a charismatic that way. I genuinely believe that that stuff can happen today. So God can, in an instance, inspire someone to speak prophecy.

And in that specific instance, granting that God is speaking through them, that person cannot, uh, in that instance. Now that's the difference. Uh, the difference between, uh, the difference between that and say an inspired prophet and Holy Scripture and the words of God is that, um, this protection is not guaranteed for everything a person says.

It is not granted that every time a person claims to be acting in their office as like a prophet or whatever today that they will speak without error. Okay. That's, that's no, no ecclesial office has that right today.

God may, but it's not guaranteed. Whereas with the words of God and that which we grant is the words of God, it is ipso facto acknowledge that it cannot be without error. Full stop. Whereas the words of another person claiming to be a prophet or a teacher or whatever they can and must be scrutinized, um, because it is not a given that cannot be without error.

That's the key distinction. So given that the revelatory words of God are also in the new Testament period, the only thing that cannot, uh, in themselves. Now here's where the issue comes after the apostolic period.

Uh, once the, uh, there wasn't, there was a time when, well, the apostles in the apostolic period were already preaching. And so in those periods of inspired prophets walking and talking, then both their written words and their oral words have the same authority, the same divine authority that is absolutely granted.

Okay. In those periods, soul scriptura is not operative after those periods. However, once those prophets have died, once their oral words are no longer being preserved purely in oral form, once they start to naturally fade away with the sea of other ideas, only that eventually very often, um, there may be exceptions in certain oral cultures that may preserve verbatim words.

Although this does not happen in church history, there's no one who claims to preserve exact words of apostles or Christ. Um, for us in church history, eventually all the oral words of Christ and the apostles that have not ever been preserved in writing have been lost, not necessarily the ideas, but they become subsumed in a sea of other ideas that now need to be discerned.