Sola Scriptura: Jeremiah Nortier Post Debate Interview w/ Reformed Rookie

Scripture is the sole infallible rule in faith and practice in the life of a

Christian, okay? Now, that's important to understand because Roman Catholics will say, oh, only the

Bible is your authority? We're saying, no, it's the sole infallible authority, meaning it's up here and all other authorities bend the knee ultimately to Scripture.

Well, hello, friends, and welcome to the Reform Rookie video podcast. My name is Anthony Uvino, and I'm your

Reform Rookie host, looking to bring you all things Reformed this afternoon. The goal of this podcast is to take the rich truths of the

Reformed tradition and help you see the beauty and biblical nature of them. Understanding these truths will help you better know the

God of the Scriptures and better magnify His glory, which in turn will help us better cherish our salvation.

To that, we say Semper Reformanda. So today, I have a special guest, Jeremiah Nordier, with his debate partner,

Merrick Kaiser, who's not able to make it at this point in time, but they recently did a debate on Sola Scriptura about two weeks ago, and they went up against a man by the name of Peter Williams and Joseph Heschmeyer.

I think I got that right. And these are no two slouches when it comes to defending their positions. They're Roman Catholics, and they're very good at what they do.

But Jeremiah and Merrick did an excellent job, and we're gonna talk about that today. Jeremiah is also an apologist with a website,

The Apologetic Dog. So welcome to the show, Jeremiah. Anthony, what's going on, man?

All kinds of good things. Well, listen, besides the two little sentences I introduced you with, tell the audience a little bit about yourself and where they can find your stuff.

Yes, well, thank you for having me on. So my primary apologetics ministry comes from my

YouTube channel, The Apologetic Dog. And so we're talking a little bit about this before we hopped on here, but 2

Timothy 6 .20. I love what the Apostle Paul says to Timothy there, because this is my heart desire in apologetics to guard the deposit of the gospel.

And as we guard the gospel, we're avoiding pagan philosophies, and we're avoiding contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

So a big part of my ministry is learning epistemology, understanding how we know what we know and contending for truth.

And so that's my heart desire. And one way I'm able to do that is through those debate platforms. And so I want

The Apologetic Dog to be broad in its scope. I want it to be able to use for teaching, interviews, getting to know new people, challenging people of different world views, essentially.

And so I'd wanna encourage anybody to come check me out at The Apologetic Dog on my YouTube channel.

And I also serve at a new church plant that's almost two years old, and it's 12 -5

Church. And we're located in Jonesboro, Arkansas, that's Northeast Arkansas.

And I serve as an elder there, and it is so wonderful, Anthony. The Lord has really been working and moving and just providing tons of opportunity for all of these things.

So that's just a few places where you can find me out there. Amen, and you are a Reformed Baptist, correct? Yes, sir.

1689er? Mm -hmm. All right, we got a lot in common here. Yeah, I like your shirt.

Thank you, thank you. To God be the glory, amen. I was trying to represent a little bit of the soul. Oh, look at this, beautiful.

So we're representing the soulless today. Yes. Sola Scriptura. All right, well, listen, we are gonna talk about Sola Scriptura, but before I do, usually with first -time guests on the show,

I want you to explain how you came to the doctrines of grace. Were you born

Reformed? Did you just go to some church and hear a sermon that changed your mind?

What was it that brought you to the doctrines of grace? Excellent question. I grew up in the

Southern Baptist Church, and one thing that I knew like any good old

Baptist was once saved, always saved. That's what was drilled in me. And so I remember I was in youth group and I was kind of reading through Romans chapter eight, just throughout the book of Romans.

And I struggled with the concept that we have this free will, but once we're saved, we don't have that free will to walk away, right?

Because once saved, always saved. And so that never set well with me. And Anthony, it's like,

I remember it like it was yesterday. It all came to me in clarity in a moment. I thought, well, if we are predestined according to God, that is why we cannot lose our salvation.

You know what I mean? And so I just remember thinking that makes so much sense. My salvation is not dependent on my will or anything in me.

It's dependent on God. And I start reading verses like Philippians 1 .6, that's he who began a good work in you.

And he's the one that sees it to completion. And then you got the Romans eight and the golden chain of redemption.

I thought that was the beginning point for me was trying to understand how

I'm supposed to understand the security of my salvation. When I started studying who God is and his sovereignty, it was all over from there.

Well, let me ask you, were you cage stage when you first got there? Oh my goodness, I was the cage stage.

Unfortunately, I've severed relationships as a result of that and learn quickly that if I truly believe these doctrines of grace, these doctrines of love,

I better show it. Amen. And so the Lord has been so gracious to me, sanctifying me over time, loving on people.

And I think the verses in 2 Timothy 2, 25, 26, that as the Lord's servant, I need to show people love, be gentle, instructing them in the way of the truth that perhaps

God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. And I thought, Jeremiah, love on these people, show them from the scripture and then trust

God with the increase. And so over time, I gradually moved out of that cage stage mentality.

Yeah, I tell our guys, if you're gonna hold to the doctrines of grace and explain them to someone else, don't be outgraced by another worldview.

If we truly believe in the doctrines of grace and the fact that people won't understand those things, but for God opening their eyes and their ears, how can we possibly get argumentative or mad at someone that doesn't get it yet?

Our graciousness should be one of those things that helps lead them to repentance and coming to the knowledge of the truth.

So don't be outgraced by a competing worldview. That's so good, Anthony. Okay, have you ever considered going back to being something, now you're there?

No, and I'll tell you this, I hope this doesn't make you lose audience viewers, but I enjoy listening to Leighton Flowers because he is a critical thinker on the non -reform, non -Calvinist side.

And I consider him as a brother in the faith. And I listened to him recently on vocab alone, wonderful, cordial interaction.

But the more I listened to the non -reform side of things, mainly in who

God is and who man is, because really that's what all kind of boils down to is those categories.

The more and more I listened to the provisionist view of who God is, I'm unconvinced.

And it really comes back to the classical attributes of God. He's omniscient.

Then he chose to speak of this world in particular into existence. And not only is that logical necessity of God having a purpose in whatsoever comes to be, not in the

Molinus sense of all possible worlds, and you got this middle knowledge kind of schema, but God has a purpose in everything.

And what that does for me is not question if God is somehow wrong for doing that.

I'm like, God is able, he is free to do with his creation what he desires. And I've experienced that grace.

I've experienced that mercy. And so Anthony, it's the opposite. The more and more I study these deep truths of who

God is, my heart is enriched. I actually just find myself each and every day grateful for what he has done for me.

And I realized that I can't twist someone's arm into these things. God has to press that upon their heart and their mind.

And so when I listen to Leighton Flowers, I love the man to death, but when he says things like God doesn't have an exhaustive determining purpose for everything, not only is that a logical entailment of God's attributes, but we have clear passages where maybe we can get into some of this, but Ephesians one,

I think can't be touched in its proper context. And then we look at amazing passages in the Old Testament, like Isaiah 46, that fits in a broader context of Isaiah 40 through 48.

I'm just captivated by God's sovereignty. And I don't think there's any way around it unless there's something else that you're trying to salvage in the process, like libertarian free will.

Right, right. Yeah, when I read that all my days have been ordained by the

Lord, it gives me great comfort because I know that I can't die one day sooner or later than he decreed.

When I hear that all the hairs on my head are numbered, I think that's kind of exhaustive. Even though I don't have much,

I know that they're numbered. What about the hairs on my chin? Yes, it's encircled, the whole thing he got, he got it.

So yeah, no, and I think that's a great point. We really should be listening to other people and stay, get outside of our bubble because you can start being in this echo chamber and hearing things over and over again and not being challenged.

And then when you are, then you fall apart. So it's really good to listen to other people's arguments.

And I love Leighton Flowers. I think he's a brother in Christ. I disagree with him, obviously, but that's not a reason to break fellowship or start bad mouthing people.

That would be the exact opposite of the doctrines of grace. Perfect. Yeah, and so Leighton Flowers, and I still love the

SBC world, 12 Five Church is not SBC, but that's not out of meanness. We just don't see a need to be tethered to that.

And there's a lot of things going on that I'm still praying that they get worked out. And so all that to say is

I love Leighton Flowers. I love my evangelical SBC brothers and sisters in the

Lord. And so I actually do a college ministry that I partner with other churches and we have such a good time and we get to go into deep theology together and grow in discipleship.

So yeah, we can disagree on so much. And what's preeminent in a first tier issue is the gospel, right?

These tertiary issues are like the theology that undergirds that gospel. And they're important and we can talk about them.

But I gained so much from listening to someone like a Leighton Flowers that has really thought through these issues and challenges me.

So absolutely, I think it's an important endeavor to do these things. Amen. All right, well, thank you for that, brother.

So the reason that precipitated this conversation obviously was the debate that you did with Peter Williams and Joe Heschmeyer and your buddy,

Merrick. So tell me, how long did you take to prepare for that debate?

So that's a good question. Last year around September, this kind of leads into something else but it quickly comes together.

I was called out by Church of Christ in my community to debate publicly.

And I said, yes, let's do it immediately. I know someone named Marlon Wilson that we might can fly out to come host the debate.

So long story short, we got that squared away. September into November range,

I'm preparing for this Church of Christ debate. And I'd met Merrick a while back.

It's so funny. My first debate on the gospel truth, which hopefully a lot of your audience is familiar with that channel.

I debated a Mormon first of all, and I went back and watched the debate and would look through the comment section and I found

Merrick actually critiquing my explanation of divine simplicity.

And I was like, I recognize that name. And so I reached out to Merrick. I was like, hey man, I know

I need to work on some things but help me out here. And he was like, I'm so sorry, man. I think I was having a bad day and I was just picking on you.

I was like, no, I'm open for being corrected. And so from there, we actually became really close realizing how much we have in common, both being reformed.

And he said, we should do a two -on -two debate together. What are the things that you're passionate about? And I'm like, well, the gospel, the doctrines of grace, the five souls of the reformation and the

Trinity. I just said, I'm open for all these things. And so he said, I'll message Marlon and get back to you.

So November rolls around and we get a message from Marlon, me and Merrick, and he says, hey,

I have two Roman Catholics that would wanna debate sola scriptura. Would you be interested? And Merrick's all like, yes, absolutely.

And I'm over here like, I'm debating for, or I'm preparing for a debate coming up in February, but yes,

I'm not gonna turn down an opportunity like that. So the reason why I set all that up is because I don't know if you saw the thumbnail.

I debated Church of Christ. I think it was February 11th. Yeah, I didn't get a chance to watch. I watched maybe 15 minutes of the debate.

I was not able to watch the whole thing, but yeah. You need to go check out the cross -examination. You know, that's where the good stuff goes.

Sure, sure. So I took about a week off. Just had to let the brain totally rest after that debate.

And so towards the end of February into March, I guess really the month of March is when

I started preparing about a month or so in advance because the debate was in early

April around there. So I prepared for about a month, but I actually, I remember around early

January, even preparing for the Church of Christ debate, I came across a book that I knew would be so important for the

Sola Scriptura debate. And so I would encourage your listeners to go look up Philip Kaiser. He wrote,

The Canon of Scripture, A Presuppositional Study. Now, Anthony, I read this book once, amazed by it.

And so then I read it again. Wow, all right. And so the reason why I had some friends out there on social media,

I told them that I wanna step into the Sola Scriptura debate thinking transcendentally. I know we'll get more into this.

And so I had a friend said, you need to read this book by Philip Kaiser thinking presuppositionally in terms of these things.

And I'm telling you, Anthony, it was just an awesome read and study. So a lot of the month of March, I was rereading that book, making sure

I understood Kaiser's arguments. And I found Joe Heschmeier's website.

I can't remember the name, Shameless Potpourri or something like that. And he had 20, 50 articles trying to dismantle

Sola Scriptura. So I just was like, Merrick, we gotta start studying these out, man. And that paid off in big time.

Wow, great, great. Well, you guys did a great job. So let's jump right into it. What exactly, give me a good definition of Sola Scriptura.

I would say the classical definition is scripture is the sole infallible rule and faith and practice in the life of a

Christian, okay? Now, that's important to understand because Roman Catholics will say, oh, only the

Bible is your authority? We're saying, no, it's the sole infallible authority, meaning it's up here and all other authorities bend the knee ultimately to scripture.

And you might remember in our cross -examination, I really was trying to explain to Joe, it's the nature of scriptures, the nature of scripture of why it makes it the sole infallible.

When you start invoking ecumenical councils and tradition, those are, you know,

I wanna be careful with the ecumenical council, but you can have other authorities, but you can't have three ultimate authorities, right?

By necessity, truth is itself, right? And that is ultimate.

And so that's why you heard me really saying it's the nature of scripture, which is theionistos, it's

God breathed. We understand, you know, back in history where God spoke audibly, that's still

God breathed, that still is solo scriptura in principle. And so I noticed there is a language barrier with Catholics and Protestants.

And so sometimes that's kind of hard getting past some of that. So have you heard the term solo scriptura?

Yes, and you'll be happy to know this. So there's been a couple of things in my mind that a lot of times you have a spectrum of things, right?

And we're always trying to get to the proper balance, right? And so there's two key terms, and this is kind of for free a little bit,

Anthony, but I wanna illustrate to people why solo scriptura is a balance, but what's the extreme, right?

And so over here, you would have solo scriptura. And I know a group of people to really illustrate this best, the church of Christ really do fit the bill of solo scriptura.

And so something you'll hear some of us reformers say, we're not of those that say it's my

Bible and me under a tree, no creed but Christ. Jesus has been building his church for 2000 years, right?

The Holy Spirit has gifted saints of old with knowledge and insight to the scripture.

So it's our benefit to learn from these men, always testing what they have to say with the scripture itself and holding fast to that which is good.

And so that's what I would encourage people to think about is those groups that say, we only have the scripture, we don't need anything else.

And it's really self -refuting because those people would still stand up on Sunday and then teach, right?

And we're saying, well, there's a reason why you can't be consistent with your own standard, right? That's not what it's intended to be in the first place.

Something else I wanna say is in the ongoing debate between continuationism and cessationism,

I fall in the cessationist camp but I always get labeled as an extreme. And I'm like, man, I feel like I'm in that balance, right?

And so it's the church of Christ. They are a hyper cessationist that thinks that the

Holy Spirit does not indwell believers or doesn't guide us in the truth. They think the Holy Spirit is devoid totally in the

Christian line. And I'm like, aha, there's your extreme, right? And I land,

I feel like in this middle balanced area. So anyway, back to your question of a solo scriptura versus solo scriptura.

Those are important distinctions to have. So what would you say to somebody who says, well, I hold to prima scriptura.

Okay, now this is super interesting because we didn't get in this very much into debate but this is important distinction.

Roman Catholics will say that scripture is primary, meaning that it's first in the order of the three -legged stool.

And to my surprise, Peter Williams said the three -legged stool wasn't a good representation. I was shocked myself.

I was like, all Roman Catholics say it's a three -legged stool except for him. But this is what he said.

Well, we believe revelation comes orally. So I'm gonna count orally and written and then the magisterium defines.

And I'm like, that seems like a three -legged stool. So anyway,

I love Peter and I have so much respect. I cannot believe I got to debate him, someone that was able to debate

James White a number of years ago on the same topic. So I had a blast and I had nothing but respect for those men.

So anyway, prima scriptura is different than solo scriptura. They say it's different.

Scripture just comes first. It's like the leader amongst equals. And so we're saying no, scripture is truth.

And so it entails an entire worldview. Right, there would also be some Protestant groups who would say that they're prima scriptura who are also charismatics.

Because they would say the scripture is infallible but God still speaks to us today such that we can utter

God's words in the form of prophecy. Right? Right, no, that's the point. Okay, so now in your defense of solo scriptura, you use something called the tag argument, right?

So would you just roll that out for my audience? Because remember, we're rookies here. We wanna understand what tag means.

And I don't think it's hide and seek and go play tag. So tell us what tag means. Yeah, so it's the transcendental argument.

Now, a lot of times the transcendental argument is for God, okay? And so I use the transcendental argument for solo scriptura, which entails a certain view of God.

And Roman Catholics, they believe scripture is primary, it's first, that it's materially sufficient, meaning that all truth is contained in God's word.

It's just not formally sufficient, able to teach us clearly. So that's kind of, that's what it all boils down to is we're saying no, the word of God is clear, making wise the simple.

It's a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. I mean, that's its own testimony to itself, right?

And so their whole thing is the scripture is not perspicuous in and of itself. It's not clear enough to give us what we need for faith and practice, okay?

And so the more I thought about this, I thought, well, we really do need

God to be able to speak to us clearly to know him, okay?

And so the more, because I'm a huge fan of Eli Ayala's revealed apologetics ministry.

I'm a huge fan of Greg Bonson and Cornelius Ventile, obviously Dr. James White. And so I am in favor of thinking presuppositionally, right?

Transcendental arguments argue for things that are necessary in order for other things to be true.

And so the transcendental argument for God, and then what I applied for solo scriptura is what must be the case in order for our human experience to be the way it is, like you and I are talking right now.

You and I are speaking to one another perspicuously, clearly with this grammatical historical method of words have meaning in their context.

It's a part of the human experience, right? And so if some of your listeners are familiar with Ventile and kind of how we relate to God, we know

God analogically, right? We are the Imago Dei. We reflect God in his attributes.

So God must speak clearly to us in order for us to know who we are in the context in which we all exist in always in reference to our creator.

And so there's two ways to prove a transcendental argument. One, it's positively, and I agree with Bonson, a revealed epistemology is king.

The one who knows all things must be the one to reveal to us truth because he sees the whole, you know what

I mean? Yes. And so this relates back to God's word being clear.

So we would prove this number one by saying we go to God's word himself, right?

And you notice I didn't go straight to 2 Peter 3, 16 and 17. They're ready for all scripture is

God breathed and equips the man of God for every good work fully furnishes us, right? So they're ready for that.

And so I'm thinking, I was talking with Merrick kind of strategy. I was like, that's not gonna be our go -to text. We're gonna argue presuppositionally, transcendentally.

And in light of reading Kaiser's book, I noticed, I said, the verse that needs to be the go -to is

John 17, 17. And so I might can pull this up here in a moment just for the audience sake.

But the reason why I wanted to go to this is because our Lord himself, he is speaking to an entire worldview paradigm.

And so Jesus says, father, sanctify them in the truth.

Your word is truth. Now, this was very important, Anthony, for my whole argument.

When Jesus says your word is truth, he's not saying it's merely true, right?

That we judge as truthfulness based on these outside standards. No, the word of God is truth. It's the precipium, the ultimate standard of truth itself.

And truth entails an entire worldview, right? And so my point is, transcendental arguments are proven positively from God's word.

And it's also proved negatively by the impossibility of the contrary. We're saying, okay, hypothetically, let's grant whatever anti -clear

God speaking worldview you want and let's see where it leads, right? So when it's applied to Roman Catholicism, think three -legged stool, and then think about human autonomy, right?

Just like that. I'm gonna treat a Roman Catholic in this scenario almost identically as I would an atheist, right?

I'm gonna challenge the three -legged stool. How do you know? How do you know? How do you know? By what standard?

What criteria would you know to be true? And what you see is their three -legged stool is just a house of cards built on another house of cards, which is human autonomy.

And that can't give you truth either. Now I feel bad because the debate, the cross -examination with four people, it's really hard to get a succinct line of reasoning.

So my point is, if God's word wasn't clear, then we can't know anything for certain.

We can't justify epistemology. And so that was kind of the direction I was wanting to go down. So would you say one of the natural conclusions of their argument would be that the church itself is clearer than God could be?

They wouldn't say it like that. I'm sure they wouldn't. I know, but this was something

Merrick and I really wanted to get at more. You need the Pope and the magisterium to interpret scripture.

Now the Pope speaks from the chair, right? Basically prophetically, now they may disagree.

And it's like, okay, you're assuming we can understand the Pope clearly from the chair.

We can understand the decisions of the ecumenical councils clearly, but we can't understand the creator of the universe clearly in his word.

So to me, there's a double standard there. Really, we're saying, oh, we need your entity in order to understand scripture.

Mormonism claims that you need their living prophet. You need Joseph Smith and all the rest. You need

Jehovah's Witnesses to say you need the watchtower. And it's like, wait a second.

For one, God's word claims to be clear in this fashion. And secondly, it's very suspect that they sound like all these other entities.

I'm trying to be nice here, but I would say all these other cults that say you need us in order to understand

God's word. No, God's word is clear. The word of God is sharper than any two -edged sword dividing soul and spirit.

And I don't know if you remember this about the debate, but Joe Hischmeier tried to tell me, he said this and I wanted to go there because I was prepared for this, but he wanted to talk about Hebrews 4 .12

as really referring to Jesus and not the written word. And I don't think that works contextually. Right, yeah,

I remember that. In fact, I was reviewing it the other day. And when you came to that,

I was like, I wanted to check to see if all the early church fathers interpreted that way. And I immediately found out that, no, they don't all interpret.

Augustine, who is a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, did not interpret it that way.

So what gets me is there's only seven doctors and named doctors in the

Roman Catholic Church. Augustine is one of them and he disagrees with their position. So when a Roman Catholic doctor disagrees with another

Roman Catholic doctor, where do we go now? Right, yeah, no, that's a great point.

And this is the thing that I would encourage Roman Catholics to understand about the Protestant position.

And Protestants, hear me clearly too, we should be okay with going to the early church fathers. Anyone in church history, they're not the precipient of truth, meaning they're not the final say so.

I think it's strange though, Roman Catholics, when you appeal to the church fathers only in quoting them without going into their explanation and arguments for why they come to a certain conclusion, give us their argument from scripture.

Don't just tell me 50 people in the early church had this conclusion. No, tell me their argumentation from the scripture.

Why? Contextually, that's what's more meaningful so I can go test that with scripture. If you just tell me what they believe,

I'm over here saying that's not helpful for someone who does believe in the soul of scripture as the final arbiter of truth.

And so, and I think Roman Catholics, I've heard this a number of times, Anthony, that they will appeal to the early church fathers in uniformity every time.

And really it's like, all we need is to show one in order for it to be a defeater.

You know what I mean? Just like you point out with Augustine, that he didn't hold that view. So when he brought that up,

I thought, I don't know of any, but that still doesn't bother my side, right?

Because I could see a large number of the early church being wrong on a number of given things.

And that to me, it's like, they could be wrong, right? And it could have the right understanding, you know, years later.

So anyway, yeah, maybe we should talk a little, I would like to show you why

I don't think Hebrews 4 .12 only is talking about Jesus.

I think he's in the mix, if you will, just with the whole argument of the book of Hebrews.

Let me throw this up on the screen here. And so Hebrews 4 .12 says, for the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit of joints and marrow and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Now, I get how Jesus is a better Moses, right? He's a better foundation in which everything else is built upon.

But as we look earlier in the context, we understand that the writer is quoting from the

Psalms. And he actually, in the Hebrews chapter three, in the Hebrews chapter four, he is quoting the

Psalms multiple times. And so the word of God here, I would actually say is consistent with who

Jesus is as the Logos made flesh and dwelt among us, right? But Sola Scriptura is also broader.

It says it's the whole word of God, all of that, which is Theanostas, right? Tota Scriptura.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, we got Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura. And that's a big, actually a good point.

I'm glad you brought that up, Anthony. Those two right there, Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura.

Now, we'll get more into this in a second because they're related, but they're also distinct, right?

So anyway, I just wanted to point out in the context of Hebrews 4 that the writer of Hebrews has in mind the written word as well.

So contextually, you can't just limit it to Jesus only. Right, and when Jesus is portrayed in Revelation, he's portrayed with a double -edged sword coming out of his mouth.

So whatever's coming out of his mouth is God's word. We have the God -breathed Scriptures here.

It really doesn't matter if they think it's him, it's still

God's word. It's his word that's gonna pierce our hearts.

Even if it was Jesus, he's speaking to us and it's going to be his word, which is God -breathed, that's gonna do the work in our hearts.

One thing before we move on to the next, I just wanted to comment with regards to the magisterium being the interpretive element in bringing us the word of God.

Isn't it odd that the Jews for thousands of years before Jesus came had the word of God, knew it was the word of God, knew that it was

God -breathed and yet didn't have a Pope. How's that possible, Jeremiah? Well, I think you make a great point.

They didn't have a Pope and they didn't, the Sanhedrin never made an infallible decision for what is canon.

God was able to speak clearly through a prophet and the moment the prophet penned

God's word, it was authoritative immediately and God held his people accountable according to that standard.

And so that's so important because that's what we see in the Old Testament. And I would argue that's the same standard we see into the

New Testament. And so when we make those distinction of sola scriptura and totis scriptura, we're really talking about the ontological canon, canon one, and we're also talking about the epistemological list of the canon, canon two.

And so I just wanna make sure that's a thing that you don't mind talking about a little bit because those are important, but sola scriptura does not necessitate us knowing infallibly what the extent of the canon is.

It doesn't mean we don't have a good understanding of how God has given the church his word, but we don't have to know that infallibly.

God infallibly knows his own word. Right, so since you brought that up, one of their contentions is if sola scriptura is true, where is the list of canon in, where is the list of the books within the scriptures?

So why don't you flesh that out and explain why the canon of scripture, the list of the books that we see as God's word are not in the scriptures.

Right, we don't have a golden index. I've heard a lot of Roman Catholics say, where's the golden index? Don't appeal to tradition.

You have to stick within the parameters of scripture. And I'm already like, time out. That's not what sola scriptura means.

It means God's word. This is a theological reality. God's word is the ultimate standard. That's what that means.

And that's an entire worldview, baby. So you gotta treat it as so. But we don't wanna say that tradition's not important.

We don't wanna say that looking to secondary authorities is not important. The scripture even gives us those grounds.

I tried to, in my opening, give a short list of secondary authorities. Think in the book of Numbers, it makes a quotation to the book of Wars.

This would have been an orderly account of war songs, of victories that Israel would have had.

Okay, we don't have that book, but that seems to be a good secondary source of keeping an orderly account.

Another good example would be like how parents have authority over their children. Not an infallible authority, but a

God -ordained authority to raise children. And so we love, and this is the thing,

I wanna encourage Protestants to not be scared of the word tradition. And maybe we can get into 2

Thessalonians 2 .15, 1 Corinthians 11 .2, talking about the context of understanding that tradition, biblically, is the tradition of the gospel.

And this is where Rome wants to hijack that term and talk about this oral tradition that you gotta listen to them infallibly to understand what's being talked about.

But if you just look at the scripture, it's talking about the gospel. So, sola scriptura is a theological reality.

That's number one. That's when we say the ontological issue, we're talking about what

God's scripture is. It's God breathed and God's necessary precondition for human intelligibility.

So kind of appealing back to a transcendental framework. And then we would say the canon of scripture is a separate issue.

It's related, but we're talking about different things. And so that's where the debate hashes out because they,

I think, misrepresent us saying only stick in the parameters of the Bible to give us what the

Bible is, the parameter. And Anthony, I don't know if you remember this, but I actually tried to meet them pretty fully with that.

And all thanks to Kaiser's book, but they did not take the bait. They would not go with me to the

Old Testament that predicted 400 years of silence, the intertestamental period. And then

I studied this view and I'm still critiquing it. I'm not passionate in my eschatology.

I was a hyper, not hyper, but a dispensationalist pre -Millennius for a long time, the

MacArthur flavor. And I'll just be honest, I can't live there anymore. Maybe you're happy with that, but -

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not happy with that. I'm not, no. I'm very optimistic.

I think every Sunday from the pulpit, I get up and I tell everybody, Long Island is Christ Island because it is.

And I'm very optimistic. If we remain faithful and we preach the gospel,

God is so much bigger than us. And you can't walk by faith. You can't walk by sight.

You have to walk by faith. So don't look at the things that are going on around you and use that as a barometer for what

God's gonna do. Yes. No. You'll be happy with me. After reading,

I've been studying post -Mill and all millennialism and just, and when I teach at church, you'll really like this.

I teach the three Orthodox views in a positive way and just let other people go.

And I encourage them to study eschatology, not run away from it. But Kaiser, and I've never been satisfied with the pre -millennial view of Daniel 9 with Matthew 24 in the end times.

And so Kaiser did a great job of pointing out in Daniel 9, what you have, you have to look at the destruction of that temple as the second temple in 70

AD, right, the second temple. And what's going to happen is the sealing up of vision and prophet.

Yes. Okay, now I also tethered that with Isaiah chapter eight, and we can get into some of that if you wanted to.

But all that to say is there's gonna be no more revelation after the destruction of the temple.

It's a judgment on Israel and God is sealing up vision and prophet, which would entail the prophetic word.

It's gonna be all contained there. And Isaiah 8 20 says, hold fast to these things, the teachings, the testimony.

If anybody doesn't speak to you according to that, they have no dawn or they have no light. And Isaiah 8 seems to be in the context of Jesus's first coming, and then a great destruction, a time of turmoil for the people of Israel.

So you kind of, I was like, I love this because this is a stronger case for cessationism, right?

And it hits Rome doubly because it's saying in the old Testament, it predicted two things.

It predicted the intertestamental period, the 400 years of silence, which first and second

Maccabees, the second book of Baruch said that there was no prophets living during that time. Well, that's a telltale sign that God was not giving them a word.

Amen. So their apocryphal texts are not inspired. Now we can keep going the distance.

Jesus quoted the whole Tanakh, which spanned from Genesis to second Chronicles, totally leaving out the apocryphal text, right?

But I'm saying fundamentally in scripture, not that that's what soul scripture is, but even in scripture, it's even telling us the times where God is not going to be giving a prophetic word.

And then the Messiah would come back on the scene. Deuteronomy 18 says, and listen to him, assuming that he's going to give us revelation.

And then that's going to stop at the destruction of 70 AD. So I did not get to go into any of that, but I really wanted to be like, all right, y 'all want a golden index?

I think I can give it to y 'all pretty close. That would have been a kick out of that. Yeah. That would have been a really nice argument to see how they would respond to that.

And maybe we can set something up in the future where we can do a little end times talk. I did a couple of videos on it, the pre -mill, post -mill view on my website,

Reform Rookie on the YouTube channel. I'll put them up in the link for people to watch. Have you heard

Michael Kruger's explanation as to how we know the Canon? Yes, I've listened to interviews.

I know Dr. Weitz recommended one of his books a lot. But I'm curious to hear your understanding of Kruger, because the big takeaway was this is a theological issue.

This is a theological ontological reality. So once again, it's presuppositional. It entails a certain view of God and a certain view of man.

And so from my memory, that's how he approached this. Yeah, I love, you know, he uses illustrations and I'm big on illustrations.

So he says it's like the difference between a thermometer and a thermostat. A thermometer will tell you what the temperature is outside.

Whereas a thermostat, you set it and you determine what temperature is inside.

So the church acts as a thermometer for the Word of God.

We hear it, we recognize it. God imparts that wisdom to us and the

Holy Spirit testifies within our hearts that yes, this is the Word of God. Versus the church using a thermostat and saying, okay, we're gonna set this to 72 degrees and this is what it's going to be.

So we act as the thermometer of God. God is certainly capable of revealing

Himself to us through the scriptures and conveying it to us epistemologically such that we can know that this is

God's Word better than any man could, right? So -

Anthony, why didn't we talk beforehand so you could help me with that analogy and I could have used it for the debate.

That would have been awesome. I'm sorry. I did send you that list of things about tradition in scripture.

Yeah, that'd be cool. Yeah, so, but anyway. So let me ask you this. What do you think was their best argument for their position?

So - You can say none of them. No, no, no, no. I think it's always a good question because in debate, you wanna steel man their position, right?

You don't wanna create straw men and misrepresentation and deal with that. Anybody can set a scarecrow on fire.

And so steel manning them and thinking about truly their position, I think a good approach.

To me, this is maybe persuasive, but I don't think it pays the bills at the end of the day.

But I think appealing to church tradition and just saying nobody held the view of solo scripture up until the reformers and things like that.

I think that's persuasive of people that just don't know church history. They're not really equipped with the scripture.

These are people that already are unsure about many things. And so I think one of their persuasive tactics, and so we'll get into,

I think their best argument was canon one, canon two, which we've already been talking about the ontology versus epistemology.

I think that's deep. And so a lot of people don't follow it. So they just kind of waved the flag early. But I think the fact that they say, look, you need us to be able to understand tradition and understand what the word of God is.

I think a lot of people just say, yeah, you're right. I do need somebody else to guide me. What's interesting is because you and I both would go to Acts eight with the

Ethiopian eunuch and Philip to say, yes, we all need guidance. We all need teaching, but Catholics go to that same.

So you need a church to infallibly teach you. And I'm over here saying, no, no, Philip went to Isaiah 53, the perspicuous word of God that's been clearly revealed.

So it's a different worldview as we approach these things. Amen, amen. So if there was something that you would add to the debate, a question,

I know you just, you talked about that book and going through Daniel, I think that's an excellent route.

And I would love to unpack that more at a later point in time, because I know we're running out of time. But if there was a question, is there something that you would have liked to have added into your argument or something that you would want them to hear or even just the audience now to say, look,

I wish I would have said this. I know you sent me a list of things we talked about.

And I remember earlier today thinking, you know, what could I, I wish I would have done a better job in the cross -examination of getting to their human autonomy because Peter at one point was just like, oh, we can make a transcendental argument with Roman Catholicism.

And I'm like, no, you can't because you don't have a sovereign God, an absolutely sovereign

God to do it. And that is huge for a transcendental argument for God. You don't have a

God that speaks perspicuously and infallibly. And so my point is really you wanna get to,

So how, why would a Roman Catholic not have a sovereign God? Right now they would say that, but we're saying sovereign in terms of, we're saying the only one who has this free will, right?

This libertarian free will, God is free to do with his creation as he pleases. And so he is, he has purpose in everything in his universe.

So they agree with the term sovereign, but it's not an absolutely sovereign God. And it's not, and I would argue not consistent with what the scripture teaches about God.

And so I'm saying they have a different view of God and they have a different view of man. And so I wish in the cross -examination time,

I could have gotten more to what's upholding their three -legged stool and it's human reasoning.

Now human reasoning, if anybody's listened to Greg Monson, human reasoning is highly inductive, right?

It uses the principle of uniformity of nature, which is always question begging, right?

The past is like the future and the future is like the past because it's always been like that. And you can never know with certainty, you need an absolute solid foundation in order to really predicate and be able to do inductive reasoning.

And so that's a folly of an unbelieving worldview, right? That just says, well, things just appear to be this way.

This is how it has been in the past. I don't need your God to know that. And it's like, wait a second, you have to give a justification for why you believe something to be the case.

And I'm saying in Roman Catholicism, when you press them enough, we're gonna have the same objections towards them as we would to even atheists.

So I wish I could have done a better job at that. Right, so in just hearing you say that, what I'm seeing in my head, we know philosophically

God is a necessary being, right? If the Catholic church is what it says it is, it turns

God into a contingent being because he cannot convey his word to the people he wants to outside of conveying it to the

Catholic church first, such that they now can bring the word of God to whoever it is they're bringing it to.

But you said it perfectly. And I would also just say, as they say that you have to listen to the church to understand

God, essentially the Pope as the living voice of God, I'm saying that's a double standard because we also have the scripture, which is a living voice of God.

Now you remember, Joe got kind of frustrated with like, it's a document.

And I'm like, this is a book that's categorically different than all of the books. This is a

God breathed word that's living and active. And so when I started quoting Hebrews 4 .12, that's where it devolved into something else.

And so it always goes back to the nature of scripture. And that's what divides Protestants and Catholics, but it's like what you said, it is clear.

It is clear enough to convert the soul, to illumine the heart and the mind. Right, and I think that argument that we need the teaching magisterium of the church, the

Pope, it just kicks the can down the street a little because now we have to decide, all right, who is the infallible authority?

Like you said before, is it the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints? Is it the Watchtower? Is it the

Roman Catholic Church? Is it the Eastern Orthodox Church? Is it the Egyptian Coptic Church? Which one of these churches is the one true church that has all the truth that can explain it to me?

So I heard Dr. White a while ago, asking, defending

Sola Scriptura and asking his opponent, did you make an infallible choice to choose an infallible authority?

Or was that a fallible choice? Because if it's a fallible choice, maybe you just made the wrong choice and picked the wrong authority.

Which that's exactly what we believe. Right, right, exactly, exactly.

But that's a great point. And what he did there was he exposed the most basic presupposition in their worldview, right?

We're saying on our worldview, it must be the case, not only does God's word teach it, and we can talk through those things and go through all the passages, but we can go even farther.

We're saying, okay, deny that starting point. And let's see where this other worldview leads to, and it will lead to absurdity, right?

Absurdity, exactly, exactly. So, okay, I know you're pressed for time here, so -

Hi, we got about 10 more minutes or 15, so I feel bad because we started a little late, and that's all on me not being a techie person.

That's okay, I'm Italian, so I'm gonna hold you to the fact that you owe me something now, and we're gonna have another talk, all right?

Don't have me come down to Alabama. That is awesome. You're Italian, Italiano.

Yeah, listen, I also started an organization called New York Apologetics, and we've been blessed.

We've had several debates up here, and I always tell people, listen, I can make you confess Jesus as Lord, I just can't make you mean it.

Oh, I like that. It's the Holy Spirit that does that. It's easy,

I proclaim the gospel. I'm in the obedience business,

God's in the results business. That's where it goes. I did tell you before that I wanted to talk to you about John 21, verse 22, and I think this would precipitate a good discussion, because I've never heard anybody use this verse before to defend sola scriptura, but as I was reading it, the light bulb just went on in my head, and I'm like, wow, if John didn't happen to write this down for us, the brethren at that point in time may have believed something different.

So I'm just gonna read from like verse 22 to 24. It says -

Okay, give me one second. I wanna - Sure. Oh, great, yeah. You can put it up on the screen, terrific.

We're gonna start in, which verse did you wanna do? John chapter 21, verses 20.

Okay, you start reading, and if it comes up, then great, if not, we'll look past that.

No problem. So it says, Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said,

Lord, who is it that is going to betray you? When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, Lord, what about this man?

Jesus said to him, if it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?

And he was talking about the apostle John. So the same spread abroad among the brothers, who in the beginning of the chapter is the disciples, that this disciple was not to die.

Yet Jesus said to him, did not say to him that he was not to die, but if it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?

Now, if this verse was not penned down and given to us in the scriptures, is it not true that the saying that spread among the brothers that this disciple was not to die would have been a falsehood?

It seems that the apostle John is correcting that because that could have been a rumor, a church tradition that now would have spread and would have not been what

Jesus actually meant. That's good. Cause I remember when you messaged me, I was trying to think through it and I was like,

I think I understand where you're coming from. And I'm gonna read verse 24, cause I think it could kind of strengthen your argument too.

This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things and who has written these things.

And we know that his testimony is true. And so it's interesting when he says, we have written these things because that's really what the apostle

John has been consistently conveying. Chapter 20, verse 31, but these things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the

Christ, the son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. And so soul of scriptural, we're saying, we go back to that which is

God breathed, right? It contains truth, right? And truth is the ultimate standard.

It's not scripture is merely true, right? And we can judge it by these outside standards. We're saying, no, it is the ultimate test for everything else.

And so I think you're onto something there. I think I would have to think through it more and more, but I think it works along with the broader context that John has been arguing for in John.

And I always try to shoehorn the argument back to John 17, 17. Right. Well, yeah,

John says these things are written so that you may believe and in believing have life in his name. My contention is if all we had was the book of John, we would have enough to believe in Jesus and who he is.

Amen. That would be sufficient. I mean, he says so in his letter. Yep. So I think that's against something that mitigates against tradition, that mitigates against a mediator that needs to reveal these things to us.

John never wants in his gospel says, well, this needs to be translated for you, bounce this off of an apostle before you actually believe these things.

Right. Yeah, because this gets into so many deeper things because we do agree that that mediator is the

Holy Spirit. And so what I try to tell people is we can make a objective case for solo scripture and we do a few different things.

And I think transcendentally is the way to go because it's actually that important for our human experience, but that doesn't convince a person of its validity and objectiveness.

The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit and persuades us to embrace that from the heart.

So tell me what you think about this, because I think this got mentioned in the debate just very slightly, because remember, I'm wanting to go back to John 17, 17.

And so when we're talking about the word of God is the sole infallible rule and faith for the practice of the

Christian, I'm saying thy word is truth, but Jesus said, father sanctified them in the truth.

So the word of God is clear enough to sanctify us. And so Dr. Wyatt has mentioned this a number of times on his program.

Yeah, God is sovereign in all things. He's even sovereign in our sanctification. So we are growing in the grace and knowledge of our

Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And so God's word is clear enough to give us a foundation and then to be able to grow upon that foundation in sanctification.

And so I'm like, that's what the word teaches clearly. And if people keep squabbling over Jesus's paradigm of saying your word is truth, it's like, okay, let's hypothetically grant your worldview and we'll show you where it goes.

So we can kind of go positively or negatively in that respect. Excellent, excellent.

All right, brother, give us the last word on Sola Scriptura and then tell us, do you have any upcoming debates or things on the schedule?

Well, I would encourage people to go listen to the debate. Very, hey, and it's over three hours.

So you got to keep that in mind too. It's pretty lengthy, but a lot of Marlon's audience,

I think are people that love learning and everyone goes into a debate with a bias.

Like I understand that, but at least see how both sides interact with one another. And so I just,

I love Marlon and his ministry and we've gotten really close over the past couple of years. And so that's just been a huge blessing in my life.

The last word has to be the word. Amen. Here, and this is kind of how

I summed up the closing statement was reading from Psalm 119, right?

It's the longest chapter in the Bible. I think it's 176 verses, but this whole chapter is devoted to loving the law, the law of God, the word of God.

And this is what Sola Scriptura is in essence, what King David says here.

Let your steadfast love come to me, O Lord, your salvation according to your promise, right?

According to what you've revealed, then I shall have an answer for him who taunts me for I trust in your word.

Isn't that what we do, right? We have unbelieving worldviews come at us and we stand on the word.

Proverbs 1 .7 says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Proverbs reveals in wisdom, right?

But fools despise wisdom and knowledge and so forth. And once again, I can kind of just hold the apologetic dog here, right?

We avoid pagan philosophy, right? We contend against it and we stand on God's truth that he's revealed to us.

And so all this is consistent. King David goes on to say, and take not the word of truth, right?

Your word is truth, utterly out of my mouth for my hope is in your rules. I will keep your law continually forever and ever and I shall walk in a wide place where I have sought your precepts.

I will also speak of your testimonies before kings and shall not be put to shame. And I just wanna pause and say before kings, people of really high stature, right?

How can somebody like me that serves at a small church go against two big name

Roman Catholic apologists? Because God's word is powerful. His word does not return empty and void and God has to bless this mess, right?

I'm a sinner saved by grace, so he's gotta bless it. I will get on there and probably look real dumb at times and I'm like, that's me, everyone, right?

Don't look to me, look to the word that I am proclaiming because that's what the power and authority is at.

So he winds down. I will also speak of your testimonies before kings and shall not be put to shame for I find my delight in your commandments, which

I love. I will lift up my hands toward your commandments, which I love and I will meditate on your statues.

Amen. That's solo scriptura right there. And I listened to Anthony Rogers a lot too.

Oh, he's great, he's great. And believe it or not, he was back when he was partnering, doing more work with Sam Shimon.

I don't recommend people follow his content and trusting it. But I listened to Anthony Rogers talking with Sam Shimon a number of years ago about solo scriptura.

And I just remember Anthony going to this passage and I just remember thinking, oh man, praise God for this man's ministry and just in the clarity of how he's teaching, right?

Just really equipping us with the word of God. So I think that can encourage a lay

Christian to build their worldview on the word of God. That's how Jesus essentially concluded the

Sermon on the Mount. Whoever builds his life on the words of Christ, right?

When the floods come and the storms come in, that house will stand. But if you build your worldview on anything else, it'll be on sinking sand and it's gonna come crashing down one day.

Jeremiah, how can a young man keep his way pure? By hiding the word of God in his heart, amen.

I mean, that's right there. I mean, I love how you brought that up too. Keeping it according to your word. It's all about God's word, man.

If there's one thing that you get from listening to this podcast or watching this video is the fact that God's word is divine, sharper than any double -edged sword, able to pierce the spirit and soul.

I mean, we build our house upon the rock, upon God's word. If you are a

Roman Catholic, please read your Bible, recognize that God doesn't need a mediator to speak to you through his word.

Now, Jeremiah and I are both cessationists. We don't believe that the audible voice of God is apparent today through prophets.

But if you did wanna hear the audible voice of God, open your Bible and read it out loud. And God will move on your heart to bring you closer to truth, closer to him.

So Jeremiah, if you wouldn't mind, just hang out for a second. I'm gonna close the show and then we'll just chat for a second afterwards.

Oh, go ahead, brother. So I don't have any scheduled debates so far, but it's funny because actually today, a really good pastor friend of mine,

Trey Fisher, out of Louisiana, the parish reform church, he is debating a church of Christ on Marlin's channel.

And so I look forward to some more debate debriefing about that. And I can almost guarantee you, me and Trey are going to join forces in either live debates or get on in -person debates or on Marlin's channel.

And so we both have a heart for reaching to the community of the church of Christ.

We believe they're a cult by definition. They preach a wrong gospel. And so we wanna lovingly share with them the truth and help draw people out of that movement.

And by God's grace, we've already had number of people talking about how encouraged they've been and church of Christ coming out of the

Campbellite movement. So if you go to the Apologetic Dog, that's gonna be a lot of my up and coming content is really focusing on kind of just showing the inconsistencies of how the

Campbellite movement is actually a cult and deviated from orthodoxy. You know what

I'll do? I'll put a link to your website in the comments box and I'll put a link to both of the debates.

I know of two, maybe if there's more, you let me know, I'll put those down there. As well as a couple of videos that I've done on Roman Catholicism, the canon and scripture where people can listen to.

I've actually done five debates. Five debates. That's right, you did one against Matthew Broderick.

Yes. Yes. On Mary being sinless. And so that was interesting because Protestants, we just take it for granted that, you know,

Mary is, you know, we are so appreciative for how God used her, but she was a sinner saved by grace, just like the rest of us.

And so I debated a Mormon, a Greek orthodox, Matthew Broderick on Mary, church of Christ, and then two

Roman Catholics. So those have all been interesting, every one of them. Yes. The reason

I don't know the one about Matthew Broderick was because I did send you some information on him because I moderated a bunch of debates that he did against a

Protestant pastor friend of mine. So, you know, I've moderated a bunch of those debates and listened to Matthew.

He's a genuinely nice guy. Obviously I disagree with his position. And, you know, I touch base with him from time to time.

Maybe I'll drop him a line and let him know that I had you on the show. Well, brother, listen, thank you so much for taking the time out to go through this stuff with us.

All I can say is God bless you. Continue the good work. You are a blessing to me and so many other people that I know, and I know that you recognize that it's

God working in you to bring forth his gospel. So praise God and to God be the glory.

Thanks so much, Anthony. You're welcome. Well, friends, thanks again for joining us in learning about Sola Scriptura and the importance of this doctrine.

If you like this, please hit like and subscribe. Check out the website, www .reformedrookie

.com. You'll find a lot more articles and videos. And again, this podcast, be sure to subscribe to the

YouTube channel. And I also have a weekly podcast on Anchor FM or iTunes. Thanks again for listening.

And remember, a life reformed is a life conformed to the Jesus of the scriptures and to God be the glory.

So semper reformanda and always be reforming. Thanks and God bless. ♪