Protestant Roundtable Discussion

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today I have a very special episode.

If you guys do remember, just I think the last episode that I did, I had the privilege of having Paul Facey, otherwise known as the

Other Paul, on to talk about the Reformed principle of Sola Scriptura and that was an excellent discussion and I highly recommend folks check that out.

But today we're going to be talking about Protestantism. What is it? What are some helpful ways, useful ways to defend it?

How do Protestants or how should Protestants interact with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and things like that.

So we're going to talk about a wide variety of issues from my guests that I'm very excited to have on and I'll be introducing in just a moment.

But before we do that, I want to kind of throw out another reminder of the upcoming, there we go, the upcoming

Epic Online Calvinism Conference, which will be featuring Dr. James White, myself,

Dr. Guillaume Bignon, Scott Christensen, Saiten Bruggenkate. We're going to be covering different aspects of Calvinism, Reformed theology and not your normal tulip sort of conference.

But we're going to be talking about some topics that I think will be very useful for folks. I have shared on social media the specific topics that we are going to cover and I won't review that today because I want to kind of be able to jump into our discussion for today.

But if you want to sign up for that and participate, there will be a panel discussion towards the end where you can interact with each of the speakers.

You can go to revealedapologetics .com, click on the pre -sup you drop down menu and you could

RSVP that. This is also a very helpful way to support Revealed Apologetics. The money that you use to pay for the conference actually helps support what

I do. So if you're looking to support Revealed Apologetics, that's one way you can do it. Otherwise, you show me great support just by being here during the live streams and I really do appreciate the respectful interaction in the comment section.

I have to say that I'm very proud of my comment section. We do have some interesting folks sometimes, but for the most part, people really interact respectfully and I really do appreciate that.

So just wanted to throw that out there. That is January 21st, the Epic Online Calvinism Conference.

All right. Well, without further ado, I have to introduce this show as a bad joke.

You know, a Calvinist, an Anglican, a Lutheran and a Baptist walk into a bar.

What does the conversation look like? I'm just kidding around. I'm really happy to have such diversity here amongst brothers.

And so looking forward to this discussion. First, I'd like to introduce a gentleman by the name of Jeremiah.

Is it Jeremiah Short? Yes. Jeremiah Short, otherwise known as the

Black Doctor. I had just recently heard about him. He came in clutch as Anthony Rogers was unable to make it and he was able to make himself available.

So I'm greatly appreciative. Why don't you take just a few seconds to tell folks a little bit about who you are and then we'll move on to our other guests.

Sure. For guys who know me and those who don't, I am Jeremiah Short, also known as the

Black Doctor. I do apologetics not only on TikTok, but also on Instagram and on YouTube.

I am a seminarian. I am in school not only from Westminster Theological Seminary, but also

Beeson Divinity School. I'm also a Presbyterian, a pastoral intern at a

Presbyterian church, as well as the interim youth director there. And so I do apologetics, not only apologetics towards Muslims, but also in dialogue with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

I also do teachings on church history and audio books from the early church fathers found on my

Patreon. Awesome. Well, thank you so much. I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say in our discussion today.

So welcome. And my next guest is revisiting the other

Paul. Happy to have you back on, brother. Why don't you just take a few moments to share a little bit about yourself and your channel?

Yeah, mate. Eli, thanks for having me again. I am super happy to be back on. So I am Paul Facey or the other

Paul online, the head of the other Apostles College, the other Apostolic College.

Some of the boys should be rocking up in the chat right now. I am a good old fashioned Sydney based

Anglican in that, yes, very notorious diocese of the Sydney Anglicans, kind of a bastion of tradition amidst a sea of no comment.

But either way, faithful Anglican, only very recently more or less became Anglican. And not really because I've searched the traditions and wanted to find one

I like the most, but I just wanted to find a decent faithful church near me after having left Hillsong and not having had a decent faithful church for a while, especially during the lockdown season here.

And so I found someone, funnily enough, at a mutual Roman Catholic friends party. And then this person told me that goes to an

Anglican church and started going there. Now I'm there. And I decided to say, what did I get myself into?

And having read into at least a little bit of the Anglican sources, Anglican theology, I'm like, you know what?

I actually kind of like this. So that's me right now. And with my channel, I basically do any topics of regarding Holy Scripture, theology, and history that I see value in producing at the time, something that I see there's a need for.

And particular right now, and really for a long time in my channel, and it's never really not going to be this way.

That particularly will include issues of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, interacting with them, their major claims, and getting really into the deepest depths of theological presuppositions, church history.

But otherwise, I'll deal with any number of other topics. So I do, for example, intend to angle again back to soteriology a bit more, interact with non -monogists more generally, among other topics.

And so that's more or less me in a nutshell. And I hope to bring all these things from the highest tiers of academic literature on these topics down to the understanding of the layman.

And so that's me. Well, thank you very much. I think you're doing an excellent job. And I told folks before that they should definitely check out your channel.

You've got some great content there. So thank you for that, Paul. I'd like to introduce first time guest,

Jordan Cooper. How are you doing? Hey, good. How are you doing? I'm doing wonderful. Happy that you're here. Why don't you tell folks a little bit about yourself?

Yeah. So I'm Jordan Cooper. I am not a Calvinist, and I'm not a presuppositionalist.

But thanks for having me on anyway. There's more to me than that.

I actually have a filter. It's overlaying your face. You actually look like Greg Bonson as you're talking. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, I figured you'd do something like that. I do think that the

Bonson -Stein debate is a classic, even though I'm not a presuppositionalist. I still appreciate it. So I'm the executive director of Justin Center, which is a

Lutheran theological education organization. So we publish books. I host a weekly podcast.

We do some seminars, and I have a YouTube channel. The YouTube channel is under my name, Dr. Jordan B.

Cooper, not Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, though I get emails nearly every day with somebody calling me that.

Name is just a coincidence. Somebody told me I had a clickbait name the other day. I was like, I didn't name myself.

But I'm also the president of a theological seminary, the American Lutheran Theological Seminary. And we have a completely online distance

MDF program. And I teach doctrine courses. I've written a bunch of books.

I don't know, whatever else you want to know. Sure. Well, that's excellent. That's perfect. Thank you so much for that. And a returning guest,

I had Dr. Ortlin. And I apologize if anyone else is a doctor, and I didn't call you doctor.

There's just certain names the doctor just rolls off the tongue. I think of Gavin Ortlin. I think of Dr. Ortlin. So I apologize if anyone else has a

PhD. I didn't give you your props there. But Gavin Ortlin, Dr. Ortlin, is a second -time guest.

And I'm happy that you're here. Why don't you share with folks a little bit about who you are, where they can find your stuff, and then we'll just jump right into our conversation.

Yeah, happy to be back. I'm happy to be with everybody. You've been putting a lowly battle. One second, Gavin. I do apologize.

Your voice sounds really staticky. I don't know if that's. Was it Gavin Ortlin or GavBot3000?

What was that? It doesn't still sound bad now. Yeah. And I'm not sure.

I'm not a tech guy. So I'm not sure what you can do to fix it.

Is it getting any better now? Yes. Yeah. That's better. Okay. I did an interview the other day, and this happened, and I changed the settings and it helped, but then it started creeping back in.

So if it happens again, let me know. Sorry about that, everybody. Well, no worries, because when that happens, people in the chat come up with cool nicknames.

Someone just called you RoboGavin, because you sounded like a robot. I'm so curious what it sounded like now.

Well, anything I can do to keep people's attention, you know. Yeah. Yeah. I'll just be real quick.

Yeah, I'm happy to be back. I'm happy to be talking with everybody else here. I'm a pastor. I'm a

Baptist. So it's cool. We've got major different Protestant traditions represented here, which will be fun.

I run a YouTube channel called Truth Unites. My academic work is in historical theology, and I'm interested in both ecumenical work, apologetics, and historical theology in general.

So yeah, I'm looking forward to this conversation. Excellent. And if anyone's wondering, I go to a non -denominational church, but personally

I hold to kind of a more Reformed Baptist perspective. So that's where I'm coming from, just in case anybody wonders or cares.

But at any rate, we're talking about Protestantism today. And so my first question for you guys, if you guys can maybe kind of give your own rendition of how you would define core historic

Protestantism and why you define it the way that you do. Something that I often hear from Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox folks is that Protestantism is almost impossible to define because, of course, you know, look at us.

We have all these different denominations and things like that. How would you guys define kind of a basic historic

Protestantism? And feel free to kind of make various qualifications and maybe add a little bit if the previous person doesn't capture it the way that you might define it.

Jeremiah, why don't you go first and share that with us? Sure. I would define

Protestantism mainly in relation to the historic, the historic magisterial

Reformers, in my belief, primarily looking at the top three traditions, the

Lutheran, the Reformed, and the Anglican, even though each of them tend to, they tend to mingle sort of.

But when you get to the original core of the Reformation, you find a union within the core doctrines of Protestantism, such as the five solos, monergism, a high view of the sacraments and things of that nature.

And if we stick to that definition, we find not only just a core union of Protestantism, but also a recognition to call others who call themselves

Protestant, but don't lean into that particular definition, to be called into that higher historical emphasis on what the

Reformation originally was and what it claimed to be. All right.

Thank you for that. Paul, why don't you share your thoughts? Yeah, sure. I'd largely go along that same definition.

And I'd also qualify it with also adding that the whole problem of like, oh, you can't, the definition of Protestantism is so airy -fairy.

It's all over the place. You guys don't have a coherent definition. To that, I just say, well, whoop -dee -doo, so what?

Because Protestantism in the end is not a term for a consciously united single ecclesial movement and tradition.

It's a historical umbrella term from after the fact that denotes like certain common core presuppositions, common core, oh dear, under certain traditions from a certain period of time.

And so that's something I find really the most essential bit to make clear before even defining it, that we're not pretending to be a single ecclesial body, per se, with unity on everything.

We are self -consciously, these Protestant traditions are self -consciously independent bodies with distinct flavors within their tradition, almost like the best analogy

I've heard is like - I apologize. I just have to interject. I do apologize. I am getting some comments from the audience if perhaps when a speaker is speaking that the rest of us can mute our mics because there is getting some kind of feedback there.

So I'm making sure I'm going to mute my mic as well. So I do apologize for interrupting there. So thanks, Scott. No problem.

If you're not on, you could mute your mic. And then when I kind of indicate that, you know, okay, it's your turn to go, then you can turn your mic back on.

Thank you guys. Sorry about that, Paul. Go ahead. Yeah, no problem. That's a good idea. And so, yeah, that's the first clear thing

I like to get out of the way, that Protestantism is first a historical category, not a theological or united ecclesial category.

And then once that is out of the way and dispels of any arguments of disunity, because it's not even meant to be that,

I would more or less go along the same definition as Jeremiah, that the best definition refers to those magisterial traditions that came up in the milieu of the

Reformation and particularly in the medieval West. And I would actually, I used to not do this, but more recently,

I've grown on the idea of distinguishing that pretty strongly from evangelicalism.

So kind of like the holiest movements and post holiness movements, pietism, Puritans and all that stuff. I think there is a very strong and very reasonable distinction to make between Protestantism, the classical movements versus evangelicalism, these distinct later movements, even though they do share some presuppositions.

So that's what I'd say. We've just been listening to Father James too much. True. I'm not going to lie.

Well, just to give you guys a heads up, I'm hearing from the audience that it sounds much better when we do that. So thank you very much.

Jordan, why don't you share your thoughts there? What is historic Protestantism from your perspective? Maybe you can agree with what's been said and maybe piggyback on that and, you know, make some more distinctions or how would you engage that question?

Yeah, sure. Gavin and I just had a long conversation about this. If you want to check that out on YouTube, give you a much longer answer there.

But yeah, Protestantism, it is something that's kind of hard to define in a lot of ways.

And when I think of myself, like where I fit, you know, theologically, I do think of myself as a Lutheran first. But that is,

I think, within a broader umbrella of movements that have some similar concerns that come out of the same kind of historical movement, though they do come out of that movement in different ways.

I do think it's important, as we're thinking about Protestantism, to distinguish what I refer to usually as more of a classical

Protestantism, which are really what are the roots of those really three traditions, the Reformed, really in some ways the

Reformed and the Lutherans, and then the Anglicans kind of borrow from both of those traditions in some ways. So really those three traditions and then those who are, who have historical roots there within those traditions,

I would consider to be more classical Protestant. So when I think of, you know, more of a Reformed Baptist, you know, that's somebody who really comes out of the

Reformed movement in some way. And I know people debate whether you should use the term Reformed or refer to a Baptist, but I think, you know, you can trace a lineage and theological ideas and conclusions that do go back to the

Reformation. So I think it's important to distinguish that from what you find in what you may consider kind of mega church, pop evangelical

Christianity, which doesn't really have those historical roots or ties. I mean, maybe somewhere

Protestantism led to this or that. I certainly would reject the very common

Roman Catholic characterization of Protestantism that I often hear that includes like, you know, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and other like Sedevacantists, Roman Catholic sects and everyone that's not under the papacy as a

Protestant. So we've got to have some kind of definition that actually has some boundaries or you just end up calling literally everybody a

Protestant. So, so I don't think we want to do that. So, so generally I'll say, I'm defining Protestant pretty much as those three historic traditions.

And then those traditions that kind of develop out of that. So you're saying that in church history, we don't see in church history the practice of what we often see in many evangelical churches today of the, the great pantomime tradition, where they get in front of the stage and do the pantomime.

That's not part of the liturgical process at all. No. Yeah. Yeah. I don't remember reading about that in any of the fathers.

No, no. St. Pantomimus. No, nowhere. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for that, Jordan. Gavin, why don't you share our thoughts?

What is historic Protestantism from, from your understanding? Oh, your, your voice, your voice sounds robotic again.

I do apologize. You're muted.

So once you unmute yourself, how is it now? Is that better? That does sound. That does sound better.

Yes. Okay. Sorry guys. I think I'm the guilty culprit in giving the feedback earlier too, but I just done away with my

USB mic. So hopefully it won't be quite as crisp, but it won't be distracting either. Yeah.

I think one thing I could just add on is just to list a series of the doctrines that all the Protestant traditions have in common because people often say,

Oh, you guys don't have anything that unites the Protestantism as a positive affirmation. You're just, it's just negative energy.

You're just tearing things down and you don't have anything that's common at the core. And that's not true. I would say at the heart of Protestantism are

Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, those two of the five Solas. There's Sola Fide, the thing being recovered in the 16th century.

And then there's Sola Scriptura, the way, the method, the, there's the what and the how there that's at the heart going out from there.

We've got belief in two sacraments, priesthood of all believers. Church discipline is a mark of the church.

An emphasis upon preaching and worship and affirmation of the rights of clergy to marry. The reception of the

Eucharist in both kinds. Those would be all doctrines that are just common to all the

Protestant traditions. They were all saying the same thing over and against many of their, of the non -Protestants. And then one last thing

I'll say is one thing that's common to Protestant traditions in the main is we don't anathematize those of a different institution.

So the lack of institutional exclusivism is common to the Protestant traditions. To my way of thinking, that's one of the best things about Protestantism because I think we look around today and we see there's true

Christians and Jesus is building his church in multiple institutions. It doesn't mean there are multiple churches.

It means that one institutional hierarchy is not where the boundaries are for the one true church.

And so, but most of the other systems have dogmatic claims that are generally held to be infallible and therefore irreformable that deny that.

And so I think this is one of the strengths of Protestantism too. Construed rightly, it's actually the best pathway to Catholicity if you, if you understand that.

So anyway, those are a few touches adding on to the great things that were already said. I'm glad you brought that up because I do think,

I hear an echo. If you guys can turn the mic down. Okay.

All right. Much better. Thank you. Yeah. I'm glad you mentioned that because I think when we mentioned, for example, that Protestants do not hold to the idea that there is no salvation outside my denomination in this kind of really interesting climate today.

Some people more on the extreme side tend to interpret that as going soft, right?

Oh, well, you know, you're you're too ecumenical I believe that we should be ecumenical of course with boundaries.

And I, and I know even within the Protestant denominations, there may be a difference as to how far one goes in that respect as well.

But I do think that that is definitely a positive that we can see our Presbyterian brothers, our

Anglican brothers, and so on and so forth as quote unquote brothers, part of the church of Christ.

And we're able to do that without compromising our convictions and standing firm on really important differences.

And I don't mean that in kind of a generic sense, the differences are important but we can still come together and debate them and talk about them and hopefully build one another up and move closer to the truth towards the, you know, with respect to those sorts of questions that divide us.

All right. Well I guess my next question, I want to turn it back to Jeremiah. So we have you said you're a

Presbyterian, right? Yes, I am a Presbyterian with some, some Anglican appreciations and Anglican tendencies.

Okay. I'm sorry to hear that. No, I'm just kidding. I love it. I have a Presbyterian on my mug, so it's all, it's all good.

But I wanted to ask you as a Protestant Christian, you often interact with Roman Catholics.

Do you see any validity whatsoever when Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxy try to critique a

Protestant perspective in terms of all of the denominations? Look, look at how divided you guys are.

Is there any validity to that kind of thing or do you kind of just toss that over your shoulder and be like, you guys just don't understand the issue.

You know, we're divided on many things, but we're united where it counts. I mean, how do you interact with that kind of, you know, issue when it's brought up when speaking with Catholics or Eastern Orthodox people?

Yeah, my, my, my type of response really does depend on how the argument is presented.

So if it's, if it's represented in a way that says, you know, I get that you understand that these things can be, you know, united on the essentials, but in some things there are differences.

Why is that? Sure. We can, we can explain that. But if they use the old 3000 denominations argument, the thing that I immediately do is roll my eyes and turn them off because they aren't really being honest with their own sources.

Even Roman Catholic sources say, you know, there aren't 33 ,000 denominations. And now no matter how, how many you want to name, but the question is, where does our sense of unity come from?

Is it unity or is it uniformity where even in the Roman Catholic sense, there are different flavors of Roman Catholicism, but there are, but there is uniformity in the core values of what they believe.

And we confess the exact same thing in relation to Protestantism. Our flavors might look different, but our core doctrines should be if they are actually

Protestant should be the same. So you're saying we have vanilla ice cream, chocolate ice cream and strawberry ice cream, but they're all ice cream with respect to the sense.

Yes. And they have the core emphasis in what they proclaim, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ and justification by faith apart from works.

Okay. Thank you for that. Paul, how do you interact with that one? Do you kind of just say similar things as to, as the way

Jeremiah kind of expressed it there, or how do you engage someone who says, well, you know, look at, Protestants are so divided.

You need to come over to the Roman Catholic communion where unified, and it's been this way from the very beginning.

How would you interact with something like that? You're, you're, you're muted Paul. Sorry about that.

Thank you very much. I can read lips, but I'm not that good. Well, fair point. I'd start with a general agreement with what

Jeremiah said. Yes, that, uh, self -consciously at least between most of us, uh, Anglicans, uh, reformed classical, otherwise, and Lutherans that we'll often say that yes, we can consider each other brothers in Christ.

We have that level of core agreement on such things where we can legitimately consider us each other brothers in Christ and be in communion in a sense, notwithstanding issues of close communion and whatnot.

Um, and that's very important because very often the objection lobbed is lobbed towards us is actually it's attempt.

It's attempting an internal critique, but it actually begs the question very hard by assuming that, um, like looking at a certain issue where Protestants don't have an exact unity.

Let's say for example, our metaphysical theory of the Eucharist, for example, and they say, Oh, if you guys don't have unity on that issue, um, or where's your unity?

You have no true unity. It's really bad. There's chaos, absolutely debunked and destroyed. Um, but at least from my angle,

I don't know how seriously the other guests here take it, but I'd say that that actually begs the question on whether a unity on precise metaphysical theory of the

Eucharist is actually necessary for good Christian unity. And I'd say, I'd, I'd deny that premise entirely.

I'd ask them to demonstrate that, um, which would then actually go all the way back into the whole issue of, well, what was delivered by the apostles?

What did they consider essential and such? Um, so that's what I first say in response that the objection very often involves a lot of question begging.

Second of all, I would say that, um, taking a step back from the Protestant Catholic, uh, and Orthodox issues,

I would say that doctrinal diversity in, um, in many areas, whether it's on tier one essentials, or even on things that are kind of important, but not per se, it's going to damn you to hell if you get it, uh, if you get it wrong.

Um, I think that is, look, that's an, that's an unfortunate reality of our world. It's an unfortunate thing of the fall of the noetic effects of sin.

Um, if people's ignorance of various pieces of information, and it's a, it's a perennial problem across all the norms, and this is all movements, all

Christian movements. And this is where I would say that it's a valid concern. And yet it's one that applies to everybody because one can look, one need only look at mainstream

Roman Catholicism in any country, particularly the USA, look at the state of their lady, look at the state of their clergy, and you can find heresy left, right, and center, uh, whether with belief or with the actual practice with respect to the mass, for example, um, like a picture of a priest with a little blob alter in the middle of the beach and doing the

Eucharist there. And, uh, the tribes gone absolutely berserk, rightly so from that perspective. Um, and then they'll respond to that by saying,

Oh no, no, no, but we, it doesn't, it doesn't matter if there's people that heretics within our ranks because we actually do have official agreement via the, uh, via our sources.

So like scripture and the statements of the magisterium, no matter what people say, we actually have official agreement, but here's the issue.

We Protestants can then say the exact same thing because all three of us here, um, whether Dr. Orland, Dr.

Cooper, Jeremiah, Eli, we all actually affirm the same set of scriptures as our authority. And so in that same sense where a

Romanist or an Easterner can say that no matter the heretics within our ranks, we have at least official on paper unity.

Even if there's disagreement among us, we can say the exact same thing we have on paper unity by submitting to that same authority.

And so if they want to, um, if they want to, uh, play that game of there's official agreements.

So the on the ground situation doesn't matter. Then we can do exactly the same thing. And they, they can't say otherwise without just doing a blatant rules to the, but not for me.

So that's how I'd respond to that objection. Oh, excellent. Thank you for that. Uh, Gavin, what about you? You guys are divided.

This is, this is a, this is a problem. We hear it all the time. How would you interact with that? Um, and does it matter when

I can ask, add a little, uh, spiciness here. And does it matter how the person asks the question?

I mean, do you, how do you navigate a genuine question versus kind of a, like a, an attempt to kind of get you a gotcha type of question, but this is often, you know, people use this kind of thing when they're, you know, in these kinds of discussions.

Yeah, I do think it matters how people ask the question. And I think Jeremiah had good points about that of, you know, when someone, if they're doing the gotcha thing because of 30 ,000 or 33 or 40 or whatever the number is, that does make you treat it differently because you're realizing, okay, this person either has not been informed yet, and then we can just inform them or they're continuing to persist in a misrepresentative statistic.

And then you have to engage that differently. But if someone's giving a sincere and, and on target criticism,

I do think we can acknowledge, you know, most of the thoughtful Protestant theologians have acknowledged there is a tendency to fractionate that comes in and various Protestant contexts.

We need to repent for that. Uh, you know, Herman Bobbink has a passage where he talks about this dark phenomenon of fractionating and, uh, we need to repent for that.

That, that sin of division is against John 17 and it occurs in all churches.

It occurs in the non -Protestant world. So we can just acknowledge that. Um, I don't think the solution to that is to leave

Protestantism. I think Protestantism offers us the best pathway to capitalicity. One distinction that's sometimes helpful to throw out is institutional unity versus organic unity.

I am not of the same communion with the other seven small evangelical churches here in Ojai, but we cooperate for the gospel and it's an organic unity.

That's not nothing that is seen by the people in our community. They're like, wow, they speak respectfully about each other.

They partner together. They, they believe in something that's bigger than themselves. So that's good.

So it's not to say we pursue that instead of institutional unity, but it's small steps we can take in the meantime.

That's good. You know? Um, and the last thing I'll say is, uh, Paul mentioned this, but the idea of theological triage, being able to distinguish different ranks of doctrine.

I wrote a book called finding the right hills to die on that argues for four different rankings. Oh, he's got it right there.

That's cool. Yeah. This is such an important. So meta he's got the book and the authors on the other side of the screen.

This is pretty cool. All my different books and Paul better be ready to hold them all up as I go. And I'm just kidding. Um, triage is so important in this, right?

Uh, because what we value as Protestants is liberty of conscience. You know, I understand that that private judgment can be abused and taken too far, but there's an error in the other direction of tyranny, doctrinal tyranny, that we are concerned about.

And historically Protestants have valued the ability to follow your conscience. And so when it comes to second rank or third rank doctrines, it's a wonderful thing to give people a mechanism to follow their conscience.

Even while they recognize that other person over there is following their conscience and they're still a Christian. The differences are so important, but there's still a

Christian and there's still a church. And so what that's what having second and third rank categories enables us to do.

I think that's incredibly helpful at a practical level. Thank you for that. Uh, Jordan.

So, uh, how would you interact with that? I mean, um, I I'm, I'm a reformed Baptist of sorts.

Uh, I don't hold to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and someone could bring that to me.

It's like, well, look at you Protestants. Some of you guys hold to baptismal regeneration. Some of you guys hold to infant baptism.

Some of you guys hold to believers baptism. Look at all the division. How would you interact with that in terms of kind of highlighting the core, even while not compromising on some of your particular convictions?

Yeah. Yeah, sure. A couple of things to say that, uh, and I have a number of thoughts, you know, with, with everybody else has the answers here and everybody, you know, brings up some, some important points.

Um, one thing I want to say that when Roman Catholics use this, you know, 33 ,000 number and you know,

I I've heard it, the number increased, uh, at different points. I, I, I don't know. It seems like it's always getting higher every time

I hear it, but, um, whatever the current number is of the amount of denominations, you know, one of the things that I often hear is, well, it's proof that, you know, sola scriptura doesn't work because Protestants disagree with each other on all of these issues.

And then often those individuals are going to point to say, well, my Episcopal church down the street has a rainbow flag outside.

And this is proof that, you know, in Rome, we can hold our own against these things. And you guys who believe in sola scriptura clearly just fall off the bandwagon.

And, and to those kinds of points, I say, well, the churches that are that have gone so off the rails are not churches that are still holding to the

Protestant principle of sola scriptura, which is the primary Protestant principle, right? So if we're actually talking about the, the issues of what is our authority,

I really think we have to narrow down those churches that actually believe in sola scriptura, like the churches that believe that scripture is actually infallible.

It is the word of God, doesn't just contain the word of God. We can all come to agreement on the authority of what scripture actually is and teaches.

So, first of all, I think we really have to narrow it down to that because it's not fair to deal with issues of authority when we're looking at church bodies who use the name

Protestant, but have rejected any view of an infallible scripture. They've abandoned the fundamental principle of Protestantism.

So, so I think that's just important to bring up as, as we begin begin these discussions, but, but I always try to say, well, what, what kind of unity are we talking about?

Because, and this is, you've all kind of already brought this up, but Rome has institutional unity. And Rome likes to pull out the fact that it has institutional unity to say, well, we have this kind of unity that you don't have.

Now you only had to read some of the discussions on social media from Roman Catholics after the death of Pope Benedict to see the complete doctrinal division that Rome has on nearly every single issue.

So, so I think that there is, there's such a divergence within Rome, but they happen to be in the same structure.

So, so the question I have is, is it really that much more important to have a structural or institutional unity rather than doctrinal unity, or are there other kinds of unity that we should seek?

I think everyone agrees that John 17, you know, in the high priestly prayer, Jesus tells us that we are to have unity.

And yes, there are sectarians there. And I say this in Rome too, you know, you got your Taylor Marshall types that are ready to anathematize everybody too.

So it's not just Protestants that do this. You've got your sectarians all over the place. You get those types, but the majority of us recognize that unity is good.

It's just a matter of how do you seek for unity? What kind of unity are you looking for? So the example that I often give is, you know, from my own

Lutheran tradition, I am in a small church body called the AALC and we are in altar and pulpit fellowship with the

Lutheran church, Missouri Synod, which means we have an official working relationship. You know, I could preach at their churches.

They could preach at mine. I could take a call at one of their churches. You know, I filled an interim position at a Missouri Synod church last year.

And people often ask me the question, why don't you guys just merge? If you believe all the same things, why are you not the same church body?

And the response is, I don't think we need to. Do we all have to be under the same authority?

Do we have to have the same bishop or the same, you know, do we have to have the same structural unity to really have unity?

And I just don't think that's the case. But then getting to, if I could quickly answer,

I don't want to talk too long here, then the question of, okay, well, all of us here, we all believe some different things.

So what I'm promoting is doctrinal unity and we don't necessarily all have doctrinal unity on various issues.

There is a, there's a, first of all, we do have unity on a lot of important issues, but we'll say like very significant issues.

So it's not insignificant, but Lutherans have this, this doctrine of what we call the felicitous inconsistency.

And that is that we can recognize that those that we think are wrong doctrinally, just as you think I'm wrong, doctrinally on certain issues, those who are wrong doctrinally can be inconsistent in their theology in that true faith has right theology, whether your head always lines up with that true theology or not, because true faith is a gift of the spirit.

And that's a way for us to say, well, I may think you're inconsistent on this or that doctrine, but I still think you're a brother or sister in Christ.

And it's not going to, you know, it's not going to break our Christian fellowship or something. And I am thankful for that because I'm sure that I have plenty of felicitous inconsistency in my own head and my own theology too.

And that's the, the graciousness of God is that he forgives even our bad theology. And I think we always have to keep that before us.

Well, thank you for that. Yeah. And, and I just want to, I want to reiterate this because I know a lot of people just kind of say this they want to sound ecumenical, but at the same time they want to give the appearance that they stand on their convictions.

I want to reiterate the fact that even though we agree, those areas of differences

I think should be respectfully debated. I don't have anything against like having public debates on these issues.

So this is not an issue of like watering over those things. I mean, we, obviously we all hold to some distinctive areas that we would disagree with each other.

Those warrant debate discussion, books being written, which obviously have been the case, but I, I want to kind of reinforce that idea, you know, acknowledging the unity is not ignoring the differences.

I want to get that across. I know a lot of people, especially online, you know, look at these guys coming together. They're just trying to, you know, hold hands and like sing

Goombaya and like, you know, whatever. No, the differences are important. We should debate them. We should discuss them, but we shouldn't ignore the beautiful thing that there is a genuine unity in matters where it counts ultimately with respect to essential doctrine.

So I want to kind of reiterate that. We are going to end this by all singing Goombaya together though. We do have to now.

Yes. Gavin's going to sing a solo first and then Jordan, you can hit the harmony. And Paul, I want you to do the bass.

You, you look like you have a good kind of like, you know, I'll try the tenor. I do like singing

Misty Mountains as vocal practice. All right. So here's another thing that I think will be helpful for people.

One thing that we often hear as Protestants is that the, the core convictions of Protestantism really is a historical

Novum, right? You know, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, these ideas that define, so the scripture that defined

Protestantism really comes along, you know, late in the game we often hear. So what

I'd like you guys to do, and I want to kind of pick you guys randomly. Why don't you take a few minutes, maybe like three to four minutes give your rendition of defending one of the core

Protestant doctrines. So for example, Gavin, if you can take a few minutes to respond to the idea that sola fide was never taught in the, or in the

Bible or in the early church, and Protestants just made it up. If you were in a conversation with someone, how would you interact with that?

Before you do that though, Jeremiah, I'd like you to engage the question of sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura is new. I know Paul came on the show and went deep into that, but I'd want to hear, how would you present the issues?

Sola scriptura is a made up doctrine. No one believed it before the Reformation, these sorts of things. And if Jordan can do by grace alone and, and why don't you wrap things up for us,

Paul? Did I miss one? I have sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, sola scriptura, and soli deo gloria.

Why don't you do soli deo gloria? Why don't you wrap it up afterwards and show how all of these things abound to the glory of God?

How do these things kind of place the emphasis on God who is really the core worker behind the process of salvation and the focus on scripture and Christ and things like that.

Does that make sense? Yeah, that makes really good sense. I actually like that idea. I'm Cain. Yeah. Okay.

So, Jeremiah, why don't you start us off? I'm sorry, Gavin, why don't you start us off first on the principle of sola fide, new doctrine invented.

Luther made it up. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've heard this one. Yeah, that sola fide just fell from the sky in the 16th century.

By the way, before I give my quick answer, Dr. Cooper has a great video on this that I haven't watched in a while, but my memory is it was very good.

Sola fide in the church fathers. People could look that up on YouTube, watch that, get a lengthier, probably better case.

But I'll say a few things. Number one is the first thing we want to do before we even get into church history is just, we have to tackle the

James versus Paul thing, because how many times are people pulling James two at us and just as though it's settled, but they oftentimes will not quote

Paul. So just to say briefly, James says, even the demons believe. Okay.

So the faith he is talking about is not a true justifying faith. It's intellectual ascent.

So also James is using the word justification in a different sense. When we understand that we can put

Paul and James together. That's just a quick, I know we're not in a church history, but I just, that comes up too much not to address that.

Because if you just understand how James is using the word faith and how he's using the word works, then that the discrepancy or seeming discrepancy between James and Paul dissipates.

But yeah, to, to basically say here, I think there are clear testimonies of Sola Fide among the fathers and honestly into Bernard of Clairvaux and even certain passages in Thomas Aquinas.

It's amazing throughout the medieval era, especially Bernard. So when you get into this, what you're realizing is it's really complicated.

And the fact is the church simply didn't sort of resolve this in one unanimous way in working through the precise understanding and precise mechanics of this.

So we shouldn't be expecting some crystal clear answer early on. A lot of times the church fathers are fighting other battles.

Okay. And so they'll make statements for rhetorical effect in one particular context. And they can sound really strong on Sola Fide or not.

So, so the expectation shouldn't be perfect clarity because some, as the church goes forward, doctrines come into sharper focus when they come into a point of controversy.

But, but having said that you find a lot, I would say for me, I mean, so two examples would be early on.

I think Clement gives a very resounding articulation of Sola Fide. That's significant because people think of him as an early

Pope and he's a very early testimony. But the one that has been so forceful in my own thinking is

John Chrysostom and his homilies on Romans. It's almost as though if you don't believe in Sola Fide and you're reading through John's homilies in Romans, he is just backing you into a corner, giving you no possible room for escape.

And I just believe that if people will read through his homilies on Romans three, and then going through Romans eight, that section of Paul's life, because it's so clear in Paul where Paul, like in Romans four, there's verses where Paul is saying things like, you know, to the one who does not work, but trusts in God who justifies the ungodly.

It is credited as righteousness and so forth. So you've got these clear and John just, you know, waxes eloquent on these texts in pounding

Sola Fide into his listeners saying it's nothing you did. You are contaminated and filthy in the sight of God.

And by sheer faith, apart from works, you are cleansed and so forth. So that's one example that we could point to.

There's a few others. There's one who's commentary on Matthew and I'm blanking on his name.

It'll come to me later. I'll come back to it. But so, yeah, so I would, I would give John as one example. Clement does another.

We could go through others there, you know, it's not hard to find kind of, but I, but I think what people often will do is get a proof text mode where you're just pulling out quotes, you know, you'll put them into almost like a modern day floral regime, which means a battery of citations.

It's awesome. It's more helpful to take one father and just work through the kind of diachronically in their writings and see their thought about it.

And that's why I find it helpful to study John on this, because again, he's very clear on it. So that's so, so the idea is not that everybody believed in sola fide.

That's not the Protestant claim. It is not that it was perfectly clear, not so. But the idea is you can find lots of testimonies for that.

And then, and ultimately what is so important is, has that biblical foundation in the inspired word of God that we believe was then brought to a sort of glorious recovery and shining the flashlight on it more clearly because of the work of the 16th century.

So I'll cut it off there so I don't go on too long. Yeah. I like what you said there. It's not always clear, but the, the claim that, you know, sola fide is made up in the reformation is really based on ignorance and you really don't, there's really no way to truly defend that idea.

I think something that I once heard from, from James White, and I'm sure many of you guys would agree with this, that when we're reading the church fathers, we need to let the church fathers be the church fathers and not put them in kind of this category where we're trying to make them a

Lutheran, a Calvinist or whatever, you know? And I think that's really important.

Drawing some of those comments that you mentioned there that seem to suggest that, Hey, this sola fide thing is not, doesn't seem to be made up in the reformation.

There seems to be some historic president there without making it say more than it actually does. I think that's very, that's very useful.

All right. So that's sola fide, sola gratia. If Jordan, I think I gave that one to Jordan, right?

Yeah, sure. Oh man, I had all these quotes ready for sola fide, but gave that one to someone else.

So yeah, sola gratia. So, you know, one of the main principles of the reformation being that salvation is by grace alone.

What we generally refer to as a monergistic approach to salvation, that there is a sole worker of salvation that is, that is

God. So when we're talking about sola gratia, we're really, and you see this with Luther and in Calvin, so both

Lutheran reform traditions are very much going to ground themselves in St. Augustine's theology of grace.

So when we're using the sola gratia principle, we're very much connecting ourselves to the Augustinian tradition.

Now I know there's a whole line of criticism that says that Augustine kind of created this whole salvation by grace alone thing.

And, you know, especially from, you know, Eastern Orthodox critics that the church before that didn't deal with these issues.

But I think with what's with, what Dr. Ortlin said already is it's not really until these issues come to a point of debate that they get defined.

That's just the way theology works in history. That's the way that it always is. So, you know, if you look at Justin Martyr's Trinitarian theology, it wouldn't be considered

Orthodox if you're looking, you know, post -Nicaea, not because Justin wasn't Orthodox, but because they didn't hash out some of the particulars yet.

And he wasn't thinking about those things. So when you're looking at the pre -Augustinian church, sometimes they are dealing with the kind of fatalism that you find in certain strains of Gnosticism.

So they do talk a bit about free will, but it's not really until Pelagius that you have the conversations now beginning about exactly how free will and grace relate to one another.

So it's in light of the work of Pelagius that Augustine then makes his response that you then have the development of the

Augustinian tradition. But I would say, you know, read any of Augustine's anti -Pelagian writings, very, very clear testimony,

I think, to grace alone. And on those points, there are still Roman Catholic apologists.

I encounter every once in a while who try to make Augustine synergistic on conversion. And I just, I just think you can't do it in Augustine, not in his later writings.

But the thing is, it's not just Augustine. He's not just this isolated figure. You get an entire tradition of Augustinian theology that extends from Augustine.

So you've got a guy named Fulgentius of Rus, who is sometimes called the second Augustine. And in Fulgentius, also in North Africa, writes a number of treatises dealing with the issues of grace and is continuing to explain the same theology that Augustine has.

Then you get St. Prosper of Aquitaine, who was another figure. He's a secretary to Pope Leo. And in Prosper of Aquitaine, he's not clergy as far as we know.

He's a lay person, but he writes a number of treatises that are collected in a couple of different volumes in English.

One is called In Defense of Augustine, which is a series of his treatises. And the other is called

The Call of All Nations. But he writes against what later becomes known as semi -Pelagianism.

And he's essentially arguing against those who would argue that conversion is this process of human free will working together with God's grace.

Oftentimes human free will kind of taking the first step and then grace takes the second step and kind of takes over.

So Prosper identifies this as a kind of modified Pelagianism. And what's so interesting about reading

St. Prosper is when you read his early writings, you hear the phrase like cage stage

Calvinist. I mean, he fits that to a T. Like he is ready to tear everybody apart who does not agree with him exactly on all of these issues.

It's kind of funny. And then you see when he writes his later writings like The Call of All Nations, he's actually calmed down a little bit in his rhetoric.

And he actually comes to a probably a more moderate form of Augustinianism. But then from there, you have someone like Caesareus of Aurels who becomes the chief theologian at the

Council of Orange in 529, which makes some actual official decisions, at least for the

Western part of the church. It's not a ecumenical council, but you do have bishops of Rome.

So you have popes promoting the Council of Orange. So the Council of Orange actually comes to the conclusion that semi -Pelagianism is wrong, not just the strict

Pelagian position of projected emphasis in other councils. So from that point forward, you have actually throughout the middle ages, a number of debates about predestination, the extent of grace, how grace works together with free will.

In the ninth century, a guy named Godshalk of Vorbise, Thomas Godshalk, who defends a double predestination and a limited atonement.

He ends up getting imprisoned for his views. It's a really wild story. But in the midst of that, the emperor who's

Charles the Bold at the time calls a number of theologians to like comment on this and what's going on. So you have a number of different perspectives that then show up.

So once you get to the Reformation and you're looking at the monergistic perspectives, on the one hand, you have the

Calvinistic one, which is a double predestinarian limited atonement perspective, but then you have the more moderate

Augustinian perspective, which is still monergistic, but a universal atonement. That's what you find in the Lutheran Reformation. Both of those traditions really do extend back as interpretations of the

Augustinian tradition. I mean, going all the way back, say Prospero of Aquitaine's own writings, his earlier writings, he's double predestinarian, his later writings, he's not.

So I'd say there are these kind of streams of thought that have really been there since these issues were discussed.

So I think there's no question that sola gratia is certainly no kind of theological novum, but, you know, this is a doctrine that's been debated and discussed as long as people have been talking about theology.

All right. Thank you for that. All right. So we have sola fide, sola gratia, and no, I did not forget sola

Christus. I was going to kind of have Paul to the glory of God alone. I want you to throw in Christ alone as well and kind of wrap it up to the glory of God alone.

I didn't forget that. But Jeremiah, sola scriptura, ready? Yes. Sola scriptura is the number one ingredient for anarchy.

We've heard this a million times, right? Sola scriptura is the main reason why we have, and I have to correct

Jordan here. It's not around 3000 denominations. It's a quadrabillion denominations.

I just made that number up because you're right. It keeps going up and up and up and up. And sola scriptura is to blame.

How would you interact with that? Is sola scriptura something new and invented by the reformers, or does this have some precedent in scripture and in early church history?

No, I believe that it has precedent in scripture and also in the fathers because we need to define what sola scriptura is.

Sola scriptura is not primarily a doctrine, but as my friend Edgar has proposed, it's an epistemology.

It is a part of prolegomena that we use in order to interpret scripture. It's about the authority that scripture has based upon its ontological nature because scripture is

God breathed. It has authority over us because it is God breathed and it has authority over councils and all other authorities, even though those authorities are given to us by scripture and the proclamation of the apostolic fathers.

And it is not primarily in contrast to tradition, but it supersedes tradition.

And we need to actually look at what the doctrine of scripture is primarily in relation to, to tradition.

And for that, I would look at church fathers like Irenaeus. Irenaeus talks, especially in his against heresies about the doctrine of scripture and about how we receive scripture from the apostolic fathers.

He says in book three chapter one, we've learned from none others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, but at a later period by the will of God handed down to us in the scriptures to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

So here he says that the scriptures who give us the doctrine of our salvation are the ground and pillar of our faith.

He goes on to describe what they teach, which as we see later on in book three and book four is the regula fide, the rule of faith that really, when we actually look at when we look at church history is the apostolic tradition that is passed down through apostolic succession.

If we look at the, the, the rule of faith, which is defined in Irenaeus and his demonstration of apostolic preaching or in Tertullian in his against Praxeas or in his prescription against the heretics, it's the core of the gospel.

And when we look at, at passages in the Bible, where it says that the church is the ground is, is the pillar and foundation of the truth, or that we are to adhere to our traditions, whether oral or written, the core of that is the gospel.

And, and we also primarily need to look at the point of contention between Roman Catholics and, and Eastern Orthodox and Protestants in relation to sola scriptura.

What is our defining factor in controversies of faith? And for that, I could turn to what have actually one of my favorite church fathers

Athanasius, when he speaks about the council of Nicaea, our biggest controversy in relation to the early church and what he says about this.

He says primarily in reflecting on the council of Nicaea, he says this vainly do the

Aryans run without the pretext that they have demanded councils for the faith sake for divine scripture is sufficient above all things.

But if a council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the fathers for the

Nicene bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly that person's reading their words cannot honestly, honestly cannot be, but be reminded of them of the religion towards Christ announced in the divine scriptures.

He says earlier as to the Nicene council, it was not a common meeting, but conveyed upon a pressing necessity and for a reasonable object.

They wrote concerning Easter. It seems good as follows. And, and he says this, they wrote concerning Easter.

It seemed good as follows for it did then seem some good that there should be a general compliance, but about the faith that is the

Nicene faith, they wrote not. It seemed good, but thus believes the Catholic church.

And thereupon, they confessed how they believed in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but apostolical.

And they wrote down what was no discovery of theirs, but it's the same that is taught by the apostles.

So here, when, when Athanasius is actually writing against the Aryans after the

Nicene, after the Nicene council has happened, he gives the authority of deciding this issue, not to the

Nicene council, but to the foundation that fueled the Nicene council with the scripture, the vinely inspired word of God that is categorically different from all other authorities.

You got a little preachy there. I was about to tell Jordan, you can get the offering baskets to having church up in here. I love the passion too, because the scriptures, the authority of the script.

So sola scriptura is so vital and important. And it's so practical because it just, it really teaches us to in throughout the everyday course of our life to always just go to the word of God, not ignoring tradition and other things like that, but the word of God is primary.

Thank you so much for that, Jeremiah. Now I want you to take it home for us, Paul. I know we have we're shooting for an hour and 15 minutes.

So I have one more question I want to ask, and then we'll open it up to the live chat if that's okay.

And we'll take a few questions. That'd be good to do at the top of the hour to make sure that the audience can kind of get some of their questions answered.

So I do appreciate you guys are giving us golden nuggets here that I think people are going to find really useful. So I do appreciate it, but Paul, don't mess it up, man.

Okay. Gavin did a great job. Jordan did a great job. Jeremiah, he's got the passion and here's the

Anglican guy. Oh boy. You know, why don't you wrap it up?

So solus Christus. Okay. Yep. And then use that to Soli Deo Gloria.

Go ahead. Yeah. A hundred percent. So a good way to think of it, putting into one principle, I'd probably call it a Soli Deo Gloria per Christum Solum.

So to the glory of God alone through Christ alone. So the beautiful thing about these other three,

Sole to use the proper Latin, not Solas. Sorry. I'm a bit picky about that is that each of them is in response to a wide held belief at the time of the reformation or even prior and even stuff that still happens today.

That is fundamentally more man centered. And each of these Sola is attempting to actually bring things back to the focus and central and, and centrality of Christ and through Christ to the father.

So with solar gratia it is, it affirms that we can only come to faith and live in a holy and pleasing life to God by his own supernatural grace.

Our natural state is simply incapable of achieving that. And this starkly contrasts with various outright

Pelagian provisionist or semi Pelagian theories out there, which give either a partial or very totalizing role to the natural will of man of being able to choose

God out of other options in such a way as to gain saving faith. That is the beauty of the doctrine of solar gratia is that it actually retrieves the proper doctrine of Holy scripture all throughout the new

Testament that it is solely by God's good pleasure and by his grace that we are capable of coming to faith in him and walking in his ways.

Likewise with solar feed day, the instrument by which solar gratia works in our practical world. And this is something that is given to us by the grace of God alone.

But in this specific respect of faith, it acknowledges that none of our works can merit favor with God in any sense because anything less than the perfect keeping of the law means a violation of the whole law.

As James himself says, anyone who fails to hold to one precept of the law violates the whole thing.

And thus, since it is impossible to please God in this respect, especially in contrast to heretical doctrines like super irrigation, um, that we therefore require a perfect righteousness of Christ.

Uh, that was, uh, that he possessed, that he achieved for us, um, by his sacrifice, by his blood, which is then received by us, uh, through faith, through something which simply holds it, holds out its empty hand and says,

I am worthless. I need your help, God. And by his pure mercy, by his pure grace, he is willing to give us that righteousness by faith alone.

And, uh, as, as a result or rather through his election, but temporally as a result, we become sons of the promise no matter our state at that time.

Now, likewise, doctrine of solar scriptura that also acknowledges that God himself and his

Holy inspired word is the only unerring foundation upon which we can rest our faith.

Um, and it's naturally follows for it to be solar scriptura because as all the traditions agree, the only inspired revelation we even have in our possession today is that which is codified in Holy scripture.

Any other verbatim teachings, verbatim quotes from Christ and the apostles that may have existed in purely oral form, we simply don't have today.

Um, now all that this does, all that we do is take the extra basic step in affirming what

Holy scripture makes very clear that God, his divinely revealed word is unerring is without any error.

And this quality is never given to any other source of teaching, any other source of truth, any other teacher, any other person, but God alone, which is why once a revelation comes about, uh, it is mentioned in events of Holy scripture or by various other people interacting with strict scripture.

That is when they say, this is the truth. We accept it because simply because God says so he cannot, uh, no other words of men, no other teachers have this power.

Only God in his revealed word has the power of never being without error.

Not that there's no other authority out there or that the Holy spirit can't guide us one way or another. But the concept of a totally infallible office that cannot, uh, which we must functionally submit to on the level of scripture yet, which is not itself revelatory is not divine, is not a divine authority that was not established by Christ or his apostles or God.

I just want to, okay, so that's excellent. I, there's so much there. I mean, there are entire books written on just each of them, but I think you guys did an excellent job.

So just, um, because of time, I'm going to skip my last question and maybe we can spend the last, um, um, part of the, the segment of the show here to engage with some questions.

Um, now, um, to kind of get everyone, uh, an opportunity to kind of jump in, I'm going to ask a question and anyone could feel free to kind of just jump in.

Okay. I won't, I won't say, you know, this, that, this, that, or this person over here, if you feel like you want to, you have something to say about it, you could jump right into it.

Okay. So thank you so much guys. This has been excellent. I, we can talk for hours. Um, unfortunately we're restrained by time and, uh, that's totally cool, but, uh,

I do appreciate everything that you guys have, uh, shared with, uh, everyone here tonight. Um, so here's our first question from the chat.

There's a super chat by Theosophical Wanderings. Thank you so much for your $4 .99 super, uh, dollar super chat.

On Protestantism, who has the authority to decide how scripture is interpreted? Scholars only? Anyone can jump in.

I can start. Okay. Well, there's, there's really 12 ,000 different ways you can answer that question.

Um, fundamentally the authority to interpret is practically, practically belongs to everybody.

We all don't merely have, well, we don't just have the authority to interpret. We have to interpret things in order to actually use our rationality in order to comprehend these things.

Even if you're an Orthodox or a Romanist who, uh, a sense to the magisterium's interpretation of Holy Scripture, you still first come to, you still first interact with the scripture, come to comprehend it and comprehend it.

And then, uh, and then interweave it with the interpretation of the magisterium. So, um, and then even beyond that, there's countless things, uh, which one's authorities simply have not defined in an infallible sense.

And so on those things, yes, we have to interpret things. So fundamentally we all have the authority to interpret in that, in the sense that, uh, we are all capable with the right prerequisite understanding, like actually knowing a language, for example, in which something is written, um, and having basic senses of, of interpretive tools.

We are all capable of reading it and drawing out true and normative meaning from it and acting upon it, uh, validly.

So that's a, that's a key important point. Now we can also talk about it with respect to, uh, one's jurisdiction.

And so if you want to speak in a jurisdictional sense, we can say, and, uh, this is the great thing about having a classical

Protestant, largely classical Protestants here, um, is that it is the, or it is the validly ordained pastors of one's local church who have the authority to interpret scripture for that church.

That's a very easy answer. We can give, that's not a Romanist answer. That's not an Easternist answer. That's just door.

That's just, that's just there. That's just, it's very clear in scripture itself as well, that the pastors have this role of shepherding.

Um, that doesn't mean infallibility authority does not mean infallibility. Otherwise the vast majority of our human authorities simply don't have any authority to begin with.

Um, so that's how I would answer that. Excellent. Anyone else have any thoughts on that one before we go to the next lightning, quick comment, just underscoring what

Paul just said, because I think that's helpful in the discussion for people to understand. Uh, you get used to hearing, you know, we're all trying to understand each other's traditions.

Many times you get used to seeing how people are looking at Protestantism through another lens and they're trying to understand it.

So when someone asks a question like this, they might have with the idea of authority in mind, this idea that there needs to be an infallible magisterium.

And I would just encourage them to consider that we have a totally different paradigm. We reject the idea that there needs to be an infallible magisterium.

And what Paul just said is so key that authority and infallibility are not the same. Authority is a practical category, meaning it is binding upon people in real life.

Uh, infallibility means it cannot air. It's completely different thing. You know, when you say an umpire has authority to call it a ball or a strike, you don't like it too bad.

He's the umpire. He's got the authority. He's not infallible. He could be wrong. There's all kinds of fallible authorities.

So that's just that, that sometimes that distinction is lost in people's minds. So I just want to underscore that because the key part of how this question might be coming from a paradigm where that gets obscured.

So that's just a quick contribution. That's really the question. He's a great Protestant dude, so don't worry. All right.

Awesome. Um, skyscraper philosopher. Thank you for, I don't know if that's a kind of money is, is, is knock part of his name or is that the 20

Nokia's? I don't even know what that means, but thanks. Appreciate it. So around, uh, with book suggestions now that this is actually,

I love questions like this. Um, there are obviously lots of resources, but this is, this is the kind of question that's like,

Hey, where, how can I take this discussion and move beyond this discussion and really kind of go deeper into these issues?

And I, I love questions like that because it's the, I'm not just going to consume YouTube stuff. I actually want to dive deep into this.

So, um, why don't we go around, uh, Jeremiah, why don't you share maybe a few resources on some elements of Protestant theology that might be useful for people.

And then the rest of you guys can kind of share some resources yourselves. Yeah. Um, you know, as, as, as usual, um,

I, as when, when I'm being recommended these particular books, I love to recommend just basic books on church history, but I also highly recommend that you just read the original sources, especially when we're looking at Protestant sources.

Um, the first one I would recommend is Calvin's antidote to the council of Trent, which is a good comparison between, um, uh, reform theology versus, uh,

Tridentine theology. Um, and then there's also one that I recommend because I'm, I'm highly looking towards the

English Reformation, uh, looking at John Jules, the apology for the church of England. And, uh,

I ended up just, uh, just getting this one a few days ago, Richard Hooker's alerted discourse on justification.

This one is very, very good. Uh, and looking at the differences between Roman Catholicism and, uh,

Protestantism on the issue of justification, getting to the hard issues and looking at why these things matter.

Um, and then just diving into the fathers, looking at the primary sources, um, and, and saying what you want there.

Um, if you want just a simple overview, I would highly recommend 2000 years of Christ's power, which is a, a series, uh, on church history.

Very easy to read, very helpful. It's done by a reformed Baptist, but you can, you can forgive him for that.

I think that his series is on audible as well. So if you don't have the time to sit and read a book, uh, you can listen to it.

That I find that to be helpful. Um, what about Jordan? What are some resources you can suggest for people?

Yeah. Um, I always recommend the same thing, uh, when it comes to Roman Catholic issues. And that's Martin Chemnitz, uh, multi -volume examination of the council of Trent.

So it's four volumes, not cheap. Unfortunately, I wish it was like there was a public domain translation and people ask me all the time if there's a public domain translation or if my publishing house can put it out for cheaper.

I'm sorry. Uh, it is expensive, but it's very much worth it. So those volumes, uh, do a great job at exploring both the, both the, the exegetical issues involved with the decisions of Trent, but also the historical issues.

And I mean, Chemnitz historical work still holds up so powerfully, so strongly today. so that, that really becomes the basis, honestly, for like the rest of, in many ways, all

Protestant polemics against Rome until today. I mean, Chemnitz is so foundational and not just for the

Lutheran, um, church either. Uh, the other book, if I'm going to recommend one other one, um, is just a general overview of, of, of the reformation ideas of the reformation of Protestantism is a book called the conservative reformation and its theology by Charles Porterfield Krauth, K -R -A -U -T -H.

Uh, he is a 19th century American Lutheran author. Uh, and I just think that's a really masterful history of the reformation and some of the primary issues.

Um, obviously it's Lutheran. I'm recommending Lutheran sources. He was a friend of Charles Hodge, if that helps.

Um, but it's a very Lutheran book. It's Charles Hodge's neighbor, if that counts there.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, they, they, they wrote back court back and forth cordially to each other. Now I'm going to move ahead to, to another question only because, uh, we are at one hour and 10 minutes.

I want to respect that one hour and 15 minute mark. So here's the last question, uh, by Marlon Wilson of the gospel truth.

He says, there was mentioned that doctrinal things are ways in which Protestants are, I think it means united.

Um, don't worry when we, when we're typing really fast, that's okay. Uh, would the panel agree that doctrines such as original sin and even total depravity are things that unite us?

anyone could feel free to jump in and, uh, you know, interact a little bit and then we'll wrap things up.

I think in terms of, if we're talking about historical Protestantism, um, there really is agreement in that Protestants classically do come from the

Augustinian tradition in one way or another. And even if you're talking about classical Armenians, um, not talking about semi

Pelagians or provisionists or whatever I'm talking about, like classical, you know, Armenians, um, even they are really part of the

Augustinian tradition. Uh, and if you look at somebody like, like a Pope Gregory, his position, which, which often has been considered a kind of more moderate

Augustinian position is, is relatively parallel to the Armenian position. So if you're looking at the classical

Protestant traditions, if what you mean by total depravity, we don't use that term usually, but what if, if you mean by that, that the human will is so bound to sin, that conversion is an impossibility apart from the

Holy Spirit, uh, the Holy Spirit's initiation, then yeah, I think I would say that is in terms of at least classical

Protestantism. That is a point of agreement. There really wasn't divergence from that among the classical Protestants.

All right. Thank you for that. Anyone else want to jump on that one? Okay. All right.

Uh, well, thank you so much for that. Uh, thank you for the super chat there. Edgar, Edgar says not a question, but a shout out to my mates.

Thank you so much. Make sure I get those super chats in. I appreciate it.

Barely Protestant says who's celebrating epiphany tonight. Uh, it's another sneaked in last question. We won't, you don't have to answer that one.

Uh, and I think that's it with the super chats. Um, there's one more, there's one more one at the end. It's actually pretty, pretty good for Gavin.

Oh, okay. Let me see here. Uh, by Athanasius. You're thinking about that one. Okay. So one hour and 12 minutes.

Let's see if we can get, we can get down to the hour. We'll kind of milk him while he's here at the nation's. Thank you so much for your $9 and 99 cents.

Super chat. Uh, Athanasius asks, just want to say thank you, Dr. Gavin, on behalf of the other apostles for your icon.

Oh, Julia video. Classic. Do you have sources, a sources list for what you used?

You could share. Hmm. Thanks for the kind comment. One quick parenthetical thing earlier.

I couldn't think of somebody's name. It was Hillary Hillary's comment. Commentary on Matthew. That's not

Clinton. Let's clarify. We don't want to mix things up. Yes. Clarify.

Boys, the church father, Hillary, his commentary on Matthew. Great place for Sola Fide and the fathers.

Anyway, I had forgotten that earlier. Um, thanks for the great comment. And yeah, the icon veneration issue is just to me, as I've sifted over these things over the last year and a half, especially it just emerges as one of those mountain peaks.

That's just so important in the, in the landscape here that just has to be addressed because it's so important. A list of sources.

I'd be happy to share that. Uh, I just, you know, whenever you get into something, you, you know, it's like you just start diving in.

So I started with Richard Price. Am I getting his name? Father Richard Price. Am I thinking of the right name?

I see. You can tell I have five kids, so my brain is scattered. Richard Price. And then that just leads you to a bunch of other things.

So, um, there's a fantastic book by, uh, they came up by Brill in 2021.

Multi author volume. The introductory essay by Mike Humphries is just really gives you a clear historical over.

It's like a hundred pages essay, but it gives you a historical overview and then a state of the scholarship on that question. Those would be two great starting points in terms of other resources.

Then I just love to go back into the church fathers and just work through these passages because there's just, again,

I use, I try not to overstate things, but I use the words resounding and unanimous to describe the objection to the veneration of icons in the anti -Nicene era.

And I think it is resounding and unanimous. So the, I just encourage people to read the fathers as well. Excellent.

Well, we were up on one hour and 14 minutes and like 10 seconds until we reach our, our kind of stopping point.

I think that's pretty impressive. I thought we might've gone over just a little bit, but, um, gentlemen, I would like to thank you so much for being willing to come on and have this conversation with me.

And I'm sure folks at some point, I think we had over a hundred people, uh, watching. And so, um, hopefully this video gets some exposure and people can kind of, uh, have a growing, a more growing interest in Protestant theology and kind of dig deeper.

Um, so hopefully these videos will encourage people to go beyond and, uh, dig deeper to learn, um, more about the, the great

Protestant tradition, um, and doing that while not compromising on your specific convictions. I'll repeat that again.

So, um, I'd like to think that, uh, Jeremiah, Paul, Gavin, and Jordan. Um, and I hope you guys, um, really have a blessed evening.

I've really, really much enjoyed this. Um, well, uh, just real quick, if I can just, uh, remind folks again,

January 21st, we have the Epic Online Calvinism Conference. You can sign up for that at revealedapologetics .com.

The precept you drop down menu. You could RSVP, uh, by going on the website, January 21st, and you can check out each of these guys content.

I believe Jeremiah is, um, on Tik TOK, uh, the wonderful world of Tik TOK, um, doing apologetics there.

And so, um, a lot of people say interesting things about Tik TOK, but I, I'm good to know that there are people doing good things on Tik TOK as well.

Um, you can check out Paul and his, um, uh, YouTube channel, the other Paul, uh, Jordan, what was the name of your

YouTube channel again? Yeah, the name of my YouTube channel is, uh, it's just Dr. Jordan B.

Cooper, Jordan B. Cooper. All right. And then Gavin, you have truth unite, right? Truth Unites.

All right. Well, you guys can check out their content, everyone in the chat. Thank you so much for listening in. I hope you guys have a blessed day.