Truth Unites - Sola Scriptura Debate Review (with Josh Schooping and Sean Luke)

Episode Date: March 9, 2023

In this video Josh, Sean, and Gavin reflect on Gavin's debate on sola Scriptura with Trent Horn hosted by Pints with Aquinas on March 2, 2023. Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

Hey, everybody. Welcome or welcome back to Truth Unites. Truth Unites is a place for theology and apologetics done in an ironic way. And this video is going to be a post-debate review of a debate that I did with Trent Horn on Solo Sculptura at Pines with Aquinas. Link to that in the video description. It was last week from the time we're recording this, so March 2nd, 2023. And I'm joined by Sean, Luke, and Josh Schuping. I'm really excited for us to talk. These are two fantastic brothers, very sharp, intelligent, well-stub. guys who will have a lot to share that will be helpful for everyone watching. So why don't we just start? Maybe you guys both introduce yourselves, maybe just a real quick, you know, what, what institution are you part of? And people might be curious about what tradition you're a part of, too. Yeah, sure. So, yeah, my name is Sean Luke.

I am a graduate student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, finishing up my MDIV and my master's in systematic theology. I also run a channel called Anglican aesthetics. Yeah, and part of my background and interest in this subject is that I actually dove into the study of Roman Catholicism during my second and third year of seminary. It was really wrestling with it. And I ended up a convinced high church Anglican or Anglo-Catholic adjacent Protestant. And so I've been interested in Protestant Catholic debates for a long time. and yeah, I hope that this is fruitful for you.

Is this how you introduce yourself with dental parties? I'm an Anglo-Catholic adjacent to Protestant. It's kind of intriguing. It's like, ooh, this is interesting. We've got to talk about that more sometime, but Josh, go ahead. Hi, Joshua Schuping from Arkansas here. The pastor in the Christian and missionary alliance came out of an Eastern Orthodox background. I served as a priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church for about five years through a deep dive study

of Protestant Reformational claims and sources as persuaded in the depth of my heart and conscience about the simplicity and purity of the gospel. And so I left that tradition. And so I stand on the gospel, kind of in the stream of Protestant Reformational confessional, magisterial stream. Awesome. And I'm going to put links to Anglican aesthetics, Sean's channel, and then Josh's most recent book and anything else I can find that I think will be helpful. So everybody, if people who watch my channel are interested in Protestantism and these kinds of things, I think you'll really find both of their work really useful. So I want everyone to check that out. So the purpose of this video is not to be

exhaustive, but we'll just in the time we have try to cover as many points we can just trying to be helpful for people who are thinking about Soliscriptura, maybe hitting some of the high points in the in the debate. And you're both welcome to disagree with me at any points disagree with each other disagree with yourself and something you may have previously said and you change your mind on or something so this is just a free flowing conversation i haven't talked with either of you before except when we just tried to start this video and had a technical issue a few minutes ago but i don't actually know fully your thoughts about things so i'll be actually curious to learn as well maybe we can start before we get into the weeds

with just general comments or topics you want to get into or general impressions i'll just share mind first that I really enjoyed it. There's something about being in person that is so refreshing as opposed to doing all these things online. And I didn't know if it would feel very intense and charged being in a very heavily Roman Catholic context there at a Catholic university and so forth. But the audience was very hospitable and warm. People were very gracious, both before and after. You know, I felt as though I was among friends. It was really cool. I mean, afterwards, we went to this cigar lounge in downtown Stubinville. and we're all, you know, it was just a fascinating kind of just a cool experience, just a positive

experience all around, getting to know people. And so that, it was just, and then it was a lot of fun in the actual, during the actual debate. It was just an enjoyable debate. And I felt good about how the debate went. I felt good about the arguments that I made. And then just the overall kind of cumulative net effect of how it all kind of shook out and what I would hope a discerning viewer would kind of walk away with at the end of it all. So we'll kind of get into those arguments. now. But I'll give you both a chance. Maybe Josh, you want to go first? Any just initial impressions or even any just topics you think we should cover here? Yeah, I really appreciated the candor between you two. You guys really interacted well. I felt like you were very direct with each other

in a way that allowed the points to be presented fairly. I didn't feel like people were using cheap debate tactics or, you know, I don't know. Are those those? those sorts of things, it seemed like you really wanted to unpack and address the issues that were involved. I definitely give you the victory, Gavin. I think you presented the stronger case, and I think you left the tools to build with further reflection to strengthen the Protestant case. I think in some areas, the Catholic or Horn's response, Trent's response was a little bit on the weaker side. and maybe those are some of the things that we can talk about. And I don't want to preempt you, Sean Luke, but just maybe to put into our to-do list here,

one of the things that I did kind of want to, I think, talk about is that Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. And I think the idea that it's the, that other infallible rules, which was one of Trent Horn's key things, where he says that there isn't in scripture, the statement that other things aren't also infallible rules, I think scripture does make fairly clear that all other non-scriptural rules would be fallible. And so maybe we could talk about

that as we go along too. That was one of the things I kind of took away from it. Cool. I'll make a note of that. We can make sure to come back to that before the end. Sean, any initial thoughts or topics? Yeah, well, first, I just want to commend both of you. I think you guys were very charitable to each other. There was a genuine attempt to understand each other's position at reproachment. There was a friendliness between both of you. And I think that's such a good contrast between your guys' debates and a lot of different debates that have gone on in the past between Roman Catholics and Protestants.

It's helpful to have a debate that's friendly, but without pulling punches, that's friendly and clear and direct that puts the issues out on the table so that people can think through them. So I really appreciated that. I think one thing we can touch on as well is sort of the conceptual foundations for Sola Scripterra and the canon is another issue. I would love us to cover us. We're reviewing the debates. Cool.

Okay. Yeah, definitely let's come by remind me if I forget. Maybe a first thing to dive in on with was this point about the nature of scripture. So I had given more of sort of an empirical argument, a different way of thinking about Soliscriptura than you might see in like debates in the 1990s where I'm basically trying to say, and this is just, you know, because a lot of people will just try to pull Soliscriptura straight out of 2 Timothy 317. I don't think that's a relevant text, but I can take a little different approach where I was basically saying, here's what scripture is, here's how scripture functions, and then consider the alternative models. And then I argued that it's a cumulative entailment of those three considerations. So the first of these is this idea that scripture is ontologically unique as the inspired word of God. And getting into that word inspired, some of the texts I brought up were 2. Peter 121, 2nd Timothy 316.

So born of the Holy Spirit, God breathed. And then also Romans 3-2, the oracles of God, and Matthew 19, 5, Jesus referring to Scripture as God speaking. basic way of, and again, this is one piece of a cumulative case. So I'm not saying this gets that to the target, but I think it starts moving the train down the tracks. One way to put it is, as scripture is unique in its nature, this raises the question, is it correspondingly unique in its authority? And so it's one way to start kind of getting things moving. But we can talk about this. We might want to talk about Theanistas in 2nd Timothy 316. What does that mean? Maybe the analogy that Trent gave for the Father and the Spirit for Scripture and Tradition.

That might be another thing we can talk about here. But let me just open it up and see. What do you think about this point? Is this a relevant point for us to think about for Soliscriptura, the nature of Scripture? Yeah. Yeah, I think certainly. First, I think the empirical framing, at least to my mind, is a lot stronger than other sort of attempts to argue Soliscriptura directly from Scripture. The empirical framing is more modest.

It's a lot easier to say to look out, for example, in the other planets in the solar system and to say, I don't see life there, but I do see life here. And so it's a more modest form of the argument that says, I do see invalability here. I don't see it there. Now that said, so I think that was a really good framing. I think it could be strengthened by an appeal to the foundations of scriptural authority. So Johann Gerhard, he's a Lutheran scholastic theologian. I've been deeply helped by him. He talks about the word of God as consisting in its matter in the teaching of the prophets and the apostles. And I'm just going to abbreviate that the apostolic teaching not to denigrate the Old Testament or disregard it, but just to show that the teaching of the prophets has a telos that's fulfilled in the teaching of the apostles. So that apostolic teaching word I'm just going to use as a word. to describe the unity of the teaching of the prophets and the apostles. That teaching, then, is sort of the matter by which God speaks himself.

And Gerhardt talks about scripture as the external accident of the Word of God. So then when we have that sort of framework, well, it becomes easier to sort of identify the target of what is the Word of God, and empirically then to go back and say what books inscriptions inscriptions the Word of God? Where is the Word of God written down and in Scripture? And to that, we can say Holy Scripture. Awesome, Josh. Yeah, I really like that use of Gearhart there, Sean Luke. And I think it helps us to get to that kind of ontological point that you're making, Gavin,

the metaphysical nature of Scripture, the isness of Scripture, because it is God's word. And so being God's word, it must therefore have an authority commensurate with who God is and His nature and character and attributes. So God has stepped down his mind and will into a revealed form in the words of Scripture. So therefore, it is a living voice of God inbreaking asymmetrically from his eternal my, his eternal platform, so to speak, into our realm so that we always have access to his immediate authority inward, in the word. Does Second Timothy 316 mean God briefed? or Trent mentioned life-giving. I mean, my concern with this is you have to define that term in its context in Second Timothy 316.

And some of these other uses of that term come later or they're in a very different context. I regard that as the idea of life-giving as kind of an eccentric view of that. But, you know, I try to be open-minded about it. How did that strike you guys? Yeah, I think it's important to note that the Anastas, it seems to be an eologism coined by Paul. He's after in the patristic writings, so you will see Church Fathers calling the Church Fathers' writings God breathed. But the word, the first usage, as far as we can tell, is actually in Paul. We have to actually figure out how is Paul using this term?

We don't have the data that talks about non-infallible writings as God breath comes later. And I think with Paul, it's very clear that he's thinking in a Jewish mode. And there in the Second Timothy 316 is nested in a context where he's encouraging Timothy to hold fast to the scriptures that he knew from his youth. And the Jews of that time thought of scripture as nothing other than the word that could not be broken. So I think that the Anastas has to be defined with respect to that Jewish framing of the infallibility and inerrancy of the word. Yeah. It seemed strained to me also in that the very root of the word is Theos is God. So to remove that concept as if it were excisable from the concept of Theonistas, you know, God breathed, God spirated language to me seems strained.

Yeah. Well, what did you think about Trent had this analogy? And in fairness to Trent, I think he intended this as illustrative, not as demonstrative. this, you know, the Father and the Spirit and the Scripture and Tradition, if I'm getting it right, I think that's right. And my concern with this, though, is that the Father and the Spirit are ontologically one, and the Scripture and sacred tradition are not ontologically one. I mean, even according to Vatican, too, that only the

scriptures, the inspired Word of God. There is an ontological distinction there that we wouldn't make for the Father and the Spirit. So that's where I found that to be a bit puzzling. thoughts? Yeah, I might, so I might push back slightly on that framing of, even at Vatican II of the Word of God. I think at Vatican II, what they want to say is that the oral teaching of the apostles, together with the written teaching, both constitute Dave, Arboha, both constitutes the word of God. And then the magisterial role is then to as an infallible expositor, or at least in authoritative expositor. So there are different categories in magisterial authority as well,

where they can act with infallibility, but they can also, in their universal and ordinary teaching capacity, be authoritative binding, but not necessarily infallible. The role of the magisterium and the sense in which the word of God at Vatican 2 is in a derivative expository sense of expositing that which was given to the apostles. So I think that's interesting, because that at least provides a sort of theological point of contact. But I'm curious what your thoughts are there, Josh. Yeah, to me, I think I would agree with the distinction that you made, that it's illustrative rather than demonstrative.

I think it's an analogy that sort of functions to sort of presuppose or that functions as a pre, out of the presupposition, that the Catholic position is true and accurate. it. But I think that's, you know, precisely the problem with it is, is it serves as a useful illustration if you're, if you're accepting the Roman Catholic position. But if the very question is whether tradition has that kind of authority or nature is almost the very question that, that's, you know, at the heart of Trent's critique or rebuttal to you was the idea that, you know, there are multiple infallible rules outside of the Bible. But he has an estate.

that that's the case by trying to establish that the Roman Catholics have that. So he hasn't actually proven an instance of an infallible word of God outside of Scripture. I think the Eastern Orthodox would agree that the Pope and Roman Catholic tradition is fallible. I think the Coptics and the Oriental Orthodox in general would agree that sacred tradition as held by the Roman Catholics, by their popes and by their councils are fallible. I think the Assyrian Church of the East would agree that sacred tradition, as claimed by the Roman Catholics, whether in popes or councils, is fallible. And Protestants just happen to agree that with these other churches,

that the Roman Catholic conception of sacred tradition is fallible. So I don't think Trent has really gone the distance to actually prove the case that there is something infallible apart from sacred scripture. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I want to keep thinking about that metaphor to try to be fair-minded to it, but it still seems to me that even at, even though you're right, Sean, and that the Word of God, actually for all of our traditions, is more than Scripture. But there still is an ontological distinction between the inspired Scripture and the inspired Word of God in the sense of God breathed revelation as we get in Holy Scripture and other expressions of. the word of God, and I don't see an ontological distinction between God, the Father, and God the Spirit. So even in its illustrative role, I still find the analogy a bit perplexing. But I'll keep thinking about it, but that was just one. Well, I can, oh yeah, go for it, Josh. I was just going to say,

also, I think there's another kind of equivocation at work, too, with the nature of being inspired, because being a Christian means to be regenerated and indwelt by the spirit. So there is a relative sense, which every Christian is God inspired. Is the Anastas in a more trivial sense, maybe, or in a common sense? And so if we're going to, you know, just kind of like bring scripture when it says it's the Anastas down a peg, then we actually have almost blended it in together with all Christians and the statements of all Christians. Well, this is a good segue, and I'll let you go first on this point, Sean, into the second consideration, that's the role of Scripture. And this is where Matthew 7 and Matthew, or Mark 7 and Matthew 15, where it was a key text for this point,

because here you're getting, you're kind of getting out of the theory into the on the ground reality, where it seems to me, and this is a point I belabored in both the rebuttals and throughout, is that Jesus isn't pitting one form of tradition versus another. He is making a between what he calls the Word of God, which he's quoting Scripture when he uses that designation against the Pharisees' teachings. And I can't help but walk away from that passage, feeling that Jesus has set the Scripture over this set of oral traditions that the Pharisees claimed. And it is sort of a daunting question to think, you know, in that historical circumstance, the Pharisees could have made this same appeal. Jesus, where does the Old Testament ever explicitly say that it's the only

word of God or the only that yeah the only word of God such that it would be greater than our oral tradition so it's it so I find that again it's not a deal breaker just from that text alone but in the context of the cumulative case I find it a

I find it a significant text but I want to be open minded about all of this again you guys never need to just agree with me I appreciate it actually when you push back so so what are your thoughts about this point the role of scripture and a passage like that yeah I might weigh it just a little bit differently, though I think we probably agree fundamentally.

Namely, in Matthew 15, I think what's going on is that there is a primacy of the word that judges everything else. So the word alone sort of stands in that place of the arbiter judge over these other claims of traditions. Now, I think a Roman Catholic could plausibly say that the problem with those traditions is that it lacks any connection with Scripture. It lacks, there's no sort of like link to the Old Testament. There's no way in which, you know, the hand-washing ceremonies are fitting to the Old Testament revelation. I think that's a plausible response, but nevertheless, that text does give at least a picture of the word judging claimants to tradition. And that's an important piece.

Now, if a Roman Catholic could agree with that, that we should at least judge claimants to tradition by the, the text, that I think is also progress. And I do think that picture is present in Matthew 15. But wouldn't the Pharisees say it is in the Old Testament? Because they claimed a successive oral tradition that goes back to Moses. So to me, that's the exact same thing is something like the bodily assumption where it doesn't give any appearance of actually going back. But the claim is that it goes back to oral tradition. Sure. I don't know. It seems. Go ahead. Yeah. So let's sort of think about like the conceptual theoretical foundations, because on one level, right, if it was true that it did go back to Moses, right? If it was true that God really gave Moses these sets of instructions, which were passed down, those would be binding if that was true. So the problem isn't necessarily just the claim to it being tradition. The problem is that it shows marks in its claim of not being at all from God. It shows these arbitrary impositiones. on the text that is surely from God on the word that prevents people from them living into the Word of God.

Yeah, that's a great point. Josh, anything you want to say on this point? To me, I think it hinges around this notion of fallibility versus infallibility. I actually don't see scripture saying anywhere that any individual, even a prophet, is infallible. and everything is ultimately to be tested by the Word of God. And I think the Word of God is so radically unique, you know, that even we have the apostles being tested, like the noble Bereans, what Paul says is being tested by Scripture.

We have Paul and Barnabas disputing, so we find that there's inconsistency there. We find Paul rebuking Peter. You know, so we have even instances of apostles having a kind of personal fallibility in terms of what they do and say at times. And so was Barnabas right or was Paul right? Was Paul acting on the right principle or was Barnabas acting on the right principle? We go back to Moses. We see that he's fallible.

We see that David's fallible. And so if we go through and we look at God's word and what it claims for itself, for itself, I think it seems to me that only God's word is infallible. And so it's only when something that God spirates through a person, the Holy Spirit speaking through them, do we have that, that like, it's almost like an infusion of that metaphysical status of infallibility that only properly inheres in God alone?

It's a rhetorically powerful point to talk about it at a metaphysical level like that. I actually emailed Keith Matheson, who's a good Protestant scholar on all this stuff. And he says, he said to me something similar to what you just said, Josh, if he likes to put it at the most metaphysical way of just say, God is unique, therefore his speech is unique. And it's like, wow, okay, just break it down like that. I mean, obviously you got to unpack what that means and where you locate the speech of God.

But it's just an interesting angle of approach to the whole thing. Let me ask you guys about this, that one of the things that came up is we can't agree on the essentials of the faith as Protestants. Trent spent a lot of time in the cross-exam, kind of with questions to this effect, And I kind of feel like they don't really hit the target to me. Because I would just, you know, as I said in the debate, well, neither can Roman Catholics. Honestly, just ask a bunch of different Roman Catholics. What are the essentials of the faith?

You get a bunch of different answers. And so to me, it's kind of neither here nor there. It does strike me as one of those misframing points where it's like, Soliscriptura is not the doctrine that the scripture is the only infallible rule, plus everybody will agree on the essentials. Yeah. So you can adhere to Soliscriptura and just totally grant. Yeah, we don't all.

agree on the essentials, you know. But we can, we can, that doesn't mean we're dead in the water and can't make any progress on making judgments about that. It just means we're not guaranteed universal agreement. To me, it seems like the Catholic positions themselves in a fantasy and then where they have to live in denial on this point, because there is radical diversity amongst priests, bishops, and congregants, you know, in all of these churches, you know, to the point. where someone who's teaching the catechism at a local Catholic church is going to tell the little kid, well, the little kid says, how do I get to heaven? And the, and the, and the, and the, and the, and the, and the, and the, and the, and the, and the, just be, just be, just be, just be good, be a good person and you'll get to heaven. You know, and they'll

teach that. And, are they supposed to teach that? Well, no, they're not supposed to teach that. So I think the question kind of backs up to, you know, to the critique, well, which Protestant says what? And what are the essentials of the faith? Please give me an authority, me an authoritative list, since you're challenging me on challenging us on this point, what are the absolutely bare essentials of the faith and show me how you agree on them? So now I can go back and resource my tradition to see if we do in fact agree or disagree on what those are. Because according to Vatican One, apparently one of the essentials of the faith is to be under the Pope. So is that an essential of the faith or not? Yeah. Well, I think I want to, so there's sort of two things that come to my mind. One is that when we think about literary epistemology,

so the epistemology of knowledge when we approach texts, it seems to me that Roman Catholics have a similar epistemological problem, because if the argument is that, well, we have a text in scripture and without an interpretation, like we can't have any sort of clarity on what it means, as you pointed out, Gavin, and I thought this was a fantastic point, this leads to this sort of epistemological regress. Well, I'm interpreting that infallible statement, right? And people have different interpretations of what counts as magisterially infallible, what doesn't, what belongs to which category of the magistrarium. These are live disagreements in Roman Catholic circles. It's why, for example, a Taylor Marshall thinks that someone like me is going to hell. And a gentleman like Trent Horn doesn't.

That's a very significant disagreement. If you can't find agreement over who's in. It's fundamental. Yeah, that is a fundamental. And the problem is Taylor Marshall, I would argue, does have good arguments from the tradition, from the broader Roman Catholic tradition to at least think that the Roman Catholic perspective is what he says it is prior to Vatican 2. I think the second thing that comes to mind is that magisterial Protestantism does have. a mechanism to define the essentials of the faith because the Magistrial Reformers didn't want to

throw out the creeds, right? They kept the Nicene, the Apostolic, or the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Cousadonian Creed. Within the first five centuries of the church generally, and this is sort of from within an Anglican tradition, we look at the first five centuries, because those are sort of very proximate to the apostolic period, and we wanted to affirm all of that. Now, different Anglicans will differ on questions of iconoclasm, and I do hold to the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Well, not all of it as the Salvation issue as you funded up, Kevin. But at least the general acceptability of icons. But, you know, I think magisterial Protestantism had a mechanism to say, it's not that we're just throwing out tradition,

but tradition is actually guiding our interpretation, but scripture has. final say. So we're taking into account the broader tradition of the church fathers as we do biblical interpretation. Yeah. And this is an important distinction. By the way, you mentioned that makes me think it's always the case. One conversation starts and we realize, oh, we got to talk about this too some time and that. So we'll talk again, Lord willing. But the distinction in my mind is between whether it's possible to know the fundamentals of the faith versus whether there will be total agreement about the fundamentals of the faith because I'm just going down the second one saying of course there won't be total agreements there's always going to be people who will dispute things but whether it's

possible absolutely you know and that's that's what my book is trying to address so but because I think what a time a lot of people will do is say we'll look at where Protestants will disagree about this it's like well yeah but the disagreement doesn't disprove that it is possible to know what are the fundamentals of the faith but I wouldn't even land hard against the Coptics I mean what's a I mean, they didn't accept chalcedon. You know, today there's, you know, trying to, they're trying to find ways to, you know, kind of square that circle, which is fine and noble and good.

But it just shows how profound a disagreement there can be, you know, back in 429 and 431 or, excuse me, whenever calcedon was my brain and dates sometimes I get together. But was it 451 and 449? Was that what it was? Yeah. Thank you, Brain. So, yeah, so I think that we, you know, have to be even careful there because it's like even though we receive this tradition flowing through from Nicaea, through Constantinople, through Calcedon, you know, through maybe even through Nicaea, depending on how we want a nuance, what that means, whether we land in the anti-iconism, you know, kind of permission side of things to whether, you know, if you don't bow down to them, you're going to perdition, you know, we honestly I think we just have to be realistic and I think there's a real politic in this where it's just

like we stand in this stream and we believe it and we stand together with other people shoulder to shoulder and this is our faith um and coptics do the same but they don't flow through calcedon and yet they stand shoulder to shoulder with other Christians of like confession and that's their faith. Now, if someone wants to say, I believe that I will go there or I believe that I will go there, they will all suffer the consequences of that faith. So I think there's just a kind of a Darwinian sense where it's just like, if you're surviving together with these people who claim this faith, there's just a fact that that's your faith. You've stood on that. So if people who are Catholic say, well, we just stand in the stream that went through Trent to today, well, that's just your faith.

and they're trying to move that from faith to some sort of epistemologically certain demonstration, which I think kind of undermines the very nature of the fact that this is a belief. We trust that it's the case is all that they can say. We trust that it's the case that the Pope is infallible when he does X under Y conditions. And I think Gavin and Sean Luke and myself, I think we would all say, well, we trust that we are right within the confines. of our faith. But it never ceases being a faith and a hope. What would you guys say about this? Because this point that we're bringing up raises the question about, I was kind of surprised

toward the end of my Q&A that he conceded that this idea of there's a fallible list of infallible teachings. And to me, that at least undermines some of the rhetoric against us. In my opinion, it goes further than that, but it at least goes that far because there's always this appeal. I mean, constantly it's like, well, yeah, what? about the canon. I mean, that comes up repeatedly. What do you think about that? Does that is, does the acknowledgement that every single Christian communion alive today ultimately has fallible parameters of infallibility? Does that acknowledgement undercut some of the condescension towards Protestantism on the issue of scripture and the canon? John, why don't you go first on this one, Sean? I think severely it does. And, you know,

Part of the reasons is because if you have different Catholic communities defining the bounds of infallibility differently, well, then you don't actually have agreement, as we pointed out earlier, over the essentials, right? So let's apply this to an issue like Protestants outside of the church. A Taylor Marshall will take, you know, invincible ignorance, which was in the medieval era, but invincible ignorance to mean, I think what it meant in the medieval. era, namely there might be some distant tribe, you know, who's never heard the gospel, and maybe there's some chance for them. But insofar as the gospel's been proliferated, Protestants don't have that excuse, right? Immediately in Unum-Sunctum, it's about the Greeks, which are the East. The East doesn't have that excuse, is the claim there. But if you can't agree over that, because, you know, what's considered infallible,

what's considered an authoritative interpretation of Unum-Sungdom differs from generation to generation in age to age, well, then they have a similar sort of interpretive plurality problem, which we all have to reckon with them. That at least opens the door then for sort of camaraderie and the difficulty of seeking truth rather than this attitude of condescension. Yeah, yeah. And another one of those points that came up in that point in the cross-exam was a concession that there's no explicit ground for infallibility in the post-apostolic

church. And that was very significant to me. In other words, whenever we see any reference to infallibility in the New Testament, it seems to be talking about apostles. If you get beyond the apostles, there, you have to sort of infer it, you know, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, therefore infallible mechanisms for the, but I could think about 10 other interpretations of that verse that wouldn't necessarily require infallibility. There's an inference being drawn. It's, it's it's implicit, not explicit at best. So I found that a I found that noteworthy. What do you think about that? Does it does it weaken the case that, especially in the in the cumulative way we're working empirically, does it weaken the case for the alternative side to say

there's no explicit mention of infallibility in the post apostolic church? If I could maybe address that from a historical perspective looking at I, you know, I think there was a little bit of conflation, perhaps in the debate on Horn's side about what the rule of faith is and sacred tradition or the canon of truth and sacred tradition. Because if we look at Ironaeus, like his notion of the rule of faith is objective and delimited. And it is identical in content with the apostolic deposit in the New Testament. I ranean scholar, you know, went to great lengths to show how scripture and the apostolic deposit in the New Testament, that is the canon of truth. There isn't some independent unknown content that had to be revealed at some later point or held, you know, from from lips to ear

in a parallel traditioning of content. All of it was put into the New Testament. content into the New Testament books. And so that really is what we have. When we have the rule of faith, that's been handed down to us. So to say that we have this other thing to confuse that with sacred tradition would be a problem, or to say that we have this other thing called sacred tradition where it becomes like, I don't know, it's like Hermione's bag in Harry Potter. Doesn't she like pull out this and she pulls out that and she pulls out that?

And it's just like it seems like, you know, if you're in the Orthodox Church or if you're in the Catholic Church or if you're in some other church, it's just like they use this word sacred tradition and they just start pulling stuff out of it. They just start pulling stuff out of it. But I think that departs from what Irhenius argues against the Gnostics when they're pulling out tradition in the same method. Oh, well, we have this. It's a parallel oral tradition. and it's like, no, all of the oral tradition has been explicitly or objectively recorded as the New Testament documents, and that's pretty much settles it. And so even the notion of like, you know, going from bishop to bishop to bishop was meant just to be like a public consistency, a public consistency. Look, we've been teaching what the New Testament says since the apostles, and we have proof of that, not that there's like a mysticism of authority with a sort of a secret,

sacred tradition that has somehow been believed in all places at all times, even though the coronation of Mary or her sinlessness or the assumption of Mary or all of that wasn't necessarily believed at all times in all places, certainly the icons, which I think you've proven very well in other places, Gavin. Sean, anything, yeah. Yeah, so I come at this from a slightly different perspective. So I'm open to pushback. I do think that scripture teaches a kind of apostolic infallibility. the infallibility of the apostles in a given office, namely when they're intending to instruct the church, when they're intending the church to believe something, then they're infallible. And part of the biblical basis for that is Paul in 1st Corinthians 14, I believe, when he says,

when he's talking about prophets, he says, let them acknowledge that what I have to say is the command of the Lord if they're a true prophet. or, you know, the Second Thessalonians often gets quoted in these things word or letter. So I do think there is good evidence to think that the apostles in an office were infallible. That's not to say they were always infallible and whatever they did. Peter very clearly was not, gets called out by Paul, but in that particular teaching on this. Now, what that does then is it allows, and this is sort of also, I would argue, following Gerhardt. What that allows us to do then is to say that scripture embodies, it sort of reduces to writing that apostolic teaching.

And in the wake of the death of the apostles, then, there's obviously no more apostolic teaching because the apostles were appointed to teach infallibly. And we can show that on scriptural and historical grounds. We actually don't need an infallible magisterium to be able to believe that. And then what the apostolic succession does, well, you know, I do agree that there's a succession teaching, but the focus of apostolic succession. I'm actually not going to get into the full question of apostolic succession, but at least the focus of apostolic succession, I would agree, is this link to the apostles, this conveying of what the apostles taught. So in that sense, then. The word of God is infallible as a reduction of the epistle teaching to writing. And because

everything else, even on Roman Catholic readings, even on Orthodox readings, is an interpretation and an exposition, I think that should lead them to concede with us Protestants that the teaching and the sources that actually embody those teachings should have primacy over everything else that comes after. What that allows us to do then is then to say any tradition that comes after, if the claim is that these are just expositions of the apostolic teaching, it should have the marks of something that looks like an exposition. So if I'm like Gavin said this about icons, and I just add something, right? I'm no longer explaining what you said. I'm adding what's something that you said. And I think similarly, the advantage of grounding the authority of the church

in the apostolic is done to say anything that comes after, if it's claimed to be apostolic, actually has to look like an exposition of that which we know to be apostolic. So the assumption of Mary, it's absent, as you've pointed out, Gavin, really well in the first five centuries, to the point that in Jerusalem, people in the third, fourth century are saying that they don't have any idea what happened to Mary. So it's very unlikely, then, at that point, to go back to the apostolic teaching. And so that it gives us a target. So that would be a, be a slightly different approach that I'd take, but to get to roughly the same place. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's really helpful. And this has been a fantastic discussion already.

I think people will really benefit from just hearing each of our different thoughts about this as we're just kind of processing this. So this is just awesome. I've got like three or four more questions to go. Is that okay if we push a little forward? And what we'll try to do is be succinct and just keep it popping back and forth as much as we can so that we can get through as much as possible because I really want to get your guys thoughts on some of these points too. Here's another topic. One of the concerns Trent raised a couple of times is, am I being inconsistent for accepting the tradition of the canon, but not for accepting other traditions? Now, I don't feel the force of this argument because I just think there are criteria

by which we can distinguish one tradition from another. And I would say that's true based upon the nature of the belief in question, because canon is kind of different than a positive dogma like the assumption, the Catholicity behind the development of the tradition, but most powerfully, whether it's anchored in the New Testament, whether it goes back to the apostles plausibly, you know? So to me, it's like, well, I don't accept the assumption of Mary for this reason. Well, the canon is totally different because it starts in the New Testament. You've got Paul calling the gospel of Luke scripture. You've got Peter calling Paul's writing scripture. So the process, the tradition has an anchor back at the beginning. it doesn't start 300 years later. So of course, you're not going to treat different traditions the same.

That's how I think about that. Am I missing anything? What do you think about this point? Go for it. Yeah. I think it comes back to that question of like the metaphysics of Scripture, the metaphysics of God's Word. It's intrinsically authoritative as Luke is writing it. It's intrinsically authoritative as Paul is writing it. And the second that Paul hands it over to, you know, the circular letter or whatever to the Romans or to Ephesians or to the Colossians, it's already intrinsically authoritative. And so the handing on in that teaching office, like you mentioned, Shammu, it already has that kind of binding authority implicitly and intrinsically in it, in hearing to it because of its nature as God's voice speaking through Paul. Paul is like a pen with Paul colored ink. and Peter is like a pen with Peter colored ink, and God is writing his word through their personalities,

using their thoughts, using their experiences and their emotions, and their, you know, et cetera, in order to convey a divine word to the church. And so I think it's one thing, like we accept God's word as God's word from God through the apostles. And so I think that that sets it on a completely different side of a chasm with from other. kinds of traditions like the assumption of Mary or bowing down and kissing icons, you know, and things

like that. It's it's so it's not inconsistent to receive the canon because the canon actually comes from God in in the sense that what the canon, what the word of God is is intrinsically what it is because of who authored it fundamentally. But man, the tradition authored the assumption of Mary. tradition authored the idea of going against the Second Commandment and now making icons, you know, obligato obligatory. So I'll try to be brief. Sorry. Yeah. Well, yeah. I think I wanted to focus on sort of an argument trend made that I think was worth pointing out sort of how this doesn't work. So he pointed out that if someone were to say science is the only sure method of knowledge, that depends on a non-scientific basis to make that claim, that precedes that claim,

and therefore it's self-futing in the same way. In order to talk about the canon as the infallible the sole norm, you need something outside the canon to determine that, therefore, the canon isn't the infallible sole norm. The problem was with that word, like infallibility, right? So the problem with Transpargument is that what we might, as Protestants, very well concede, that we need other things to know what the canon is. Because the claim of Sola Scripura is that it's the sole infallible norm, not the only norm. And so if you have other data points to tell us what the canon is, that's well within the bounds of Sola Scripterra. To resource, for example, history. You actually don't need to be a Christian to know that the New Testament was written at the close

of the first century, that all of the books were there, that you can use criteria of historical investigation and canonicity. And I think there are markers of canonicity in the early church to show that to actually expose the church's reading. And conversely, I think the problem with Trent's view is that in the process of canonization, if it was just the authoritative declaration of the church that made things canonical, the church would not have appealed to these criteria. So in other words, the church's declaration of which books were canonical was accountable to something else, was accountable to reasons. It wasn't just in any church father. The church says so, therefore, it's that, well, the church has used this because it goes back to

it reflects apostolicity. So the use of the church, the corporate use of the church is connected in the church's mind to the connection of these books back to the apostolicity. It's never a sure fiat of the magistrium that constitutes the canon. Yeah, it's a great point, Sean. And go ahead, you first, Josh. Yeah, just to throw in there. And I think that that connects to some of the reformed affirmations of reliable and trustworthy testimony of the church, that they've just borne witness to the fact that Paul did hand this to us. You know, Peter did give this to us. James did give this to us. And so it was a matter of honest and trustworthy reception. Yeah, fantastic points. Let me come back to you, Sean, on the canon, because you brought that

at the beginning. I want to make sure you had all the chance to say what you wanted to on this. And I sent you my, I carefully, actually I sent it to both of you before the debate. I chiseled it down, tried to find it, make it more like a sound bite than a paper, but just basically tried to say that I don't, I'm not convinced that the church needs to be, needs to be infallible to recognize that which is infallible. And that was a point that I made. I wanted to see, Sean, if on the canon, you had any further things you needed to add or if you feel like you've already got your piece in on that point. Yeah, no, I think that's actually an excellent point because it, it points us back to the fact that the decision of canon was one of judgment. It's one of discerning.

It's not one of constitution. It doesn't give the books canonical status. And it should it technically, if you think about consistent Roman Catholic theology, either these books were apostolic prior to the church recognizing them or they weren't. Either they wrote down, they had scriptured, the apostolic teaching, or they didn't. That as an objective fact is true independently, true or false, independently of whether anyone recognizes that. And so the decision of canon is always one of judgment and discernment, not constitution. I think you brought that out really well. Josh, I saw you had your hand up earlier. Anything else on canon before the last topic here? Yeah, just real briefly is I think the kind of question, but is it infallible, is kind of,

it's just kind of like a radical doubt process that a person doesn't have any content in and of itself and it constantly exposes itself to that infinite regress that you mentioned earlier, Gavin. But I just thought it would be relevant to kind of bring up again because at any point, someone could say to anything that we're saying, yeah, but is it infallible? Yeah, but is that testimony of the early church infallible? But then, as you kind of, I think, indicated Gavin, and also you too, Sean Luke, it's like, I think someone could say the same about, okay, well, is my interpretation of the infallible claim of the Pope infallible? Is my interpretation of the infallible counsel infallible? Is this, so it's like now we have to have like a constant stream where ultimately, you know,

I myself have to be infallible in order to make that claim. But anyway, just to point that out. Can I pick up on that through? Because I think that's a really important point. Yeah, I think when we think about how life works, right, I don't have infallible, John Piper actually once brought up this point. I just thought it was great. He's talking about existential doubt and God. He was like, you know, I don't have infallible certainty that my wife isn't, you know, cheating on me. But I know she's not, you know, because I know her. Now that's not an infallible knowledge, but the evidence that compels me to that is so solid that I don't lose sleep over it at all. I think that was a really good analogy to think about when we're thinking about matters of history,

yeah, sure, the judgment of the church didn't have the same charism or inspiration that the that the apostles did in the writing of the New Testament. Fair enough. But that's not to say that their consensus doesn't function as this very strong evidence for which books count as canonical. And just because it falls short of infallibility does not mean it can't give this kind of evidence such that you don't have to lose sleep over it. Yeah, we can have confidence. Yeah, yeah. That becomes confessio, it becomes faith.

Yeah. Yeah, it's a great point. I mean, we don't infallibly know that we're not in the matrix. Yeah. But you can kind of live your life in the meantime. Yep. And you have enough good reason to, and that reason is so compelling. You know, I think in Protestant circles, there's a space for the evidential

role of the consensus of the church. So from an Anglican perspective, we would take that very seriously. We take the consensus of the church as having a very high evidential role in our interpretations. That doesn't mean it can't be overturned. So, for example, the church fathers often taught women were ontologically inferior to men. I think that's a problem. And so we push back on that. But it is to say that consensus really matters, and consensus does have this evidential force. And when it comes to matters in it, we not only have consensus, but we have consensus that yields historical data about these books that put them in the lifetime of the apostles. Yeah. It's fascinating to see slightly different approaches that we each represent, but then also where they overlap, or even where they start from a different starting point, but terminate in a similar or exact same.

or at least similar ending point. So like I said at the beginning, I really had no idea what you guys were going to say in this, but it's just fun to talk. Here's another thought. The distinction between authority and infallibility. This is another one of those points that I tried to belabor in the debate because I really think it is sometimes those two things get mushed together. And so, you know, the way of thinking is like, well, Protestants, their authoritative mechanisms are pretty second rate. This is not a real authority, you know. So I was trying to give examples. like, you know, no, excommunication, it's kind of a big deal, you know, getting kicked out of a church. Now, no, so they might say, well, yeah, but you get kicked out of one Protestant church, you could just go to another church.

But I would say it's the exact same thing for infallible authority. Yes. If they're infallibly excommunicated, you can just go to another church too. So, you know, I don't really see why we shouldn't allow for a pretty robust distinction between infallibility and authority. Yeah, I think that's, it's an excellent point because the, uh, assuming the German bishops do end up getting communicated, they'll probably just form their own profits. Or SSPX. Yeah, or the SSPX. Yeah, that's a great, yeah. And so, you know, now the objection trend

might raise is, well, they don't exercise spiritual authority in the lack of infallibility. But if you think about that, that's actually not true either. Because if a church excommunicates someone in good conscience on the grounds of the word of God, and they're actually doing it in accordance with the word, then they're speaking Christ when they're doing that. And that does have spiritual, objective spiritual import for someone, whether they recognize that or not, that problem holds true again in Roman Catholic circles. But nevertheless, the church, as it speaks the word, as she speaks the word of her Lord, when she excommunicates someone in any instantiation, that has objective spiritual weight to it, whether that's recognized or not. Yeah, I think it's also true that

people just leave churches all the time. I mean, that's just Western religious pluralism. I know people who started off in a Catholic church and then they went to an Orthodox church and then they went to a Coptic church and then they went back to a Catholic church and then like I'm not even sure necessarily which way they're going. But people leave and go to churches all the time. So I think the question comes down to what scriptural principle would be right by which to leave a church, you know. And then we each have to answer that question. within the integrity of our own tradition yeah that's a great point well this has been a great discussion i feel like we should talk again i got two final questions that are a little bit off a little bit

more just general looking ahead questions one is what do you think about debates do you see value and debates i i feel like um you know people were saying that the uh the live chat during debate was particularly bad this time i never i certainly don't read those during the debate but even afterwards i just I completely tune out live chats because I find there have been people who have been very unkind, who I know will always try to make sniping remarks. Then there's lots of triumphalism, you know, and that kind of thing. So debates can really bring out some of the negative things. But I also have to say that I really, as I mentioned earlier, that this whole experience I felt like was a positive one. I felt like it was productive.

I felt like I really felt like we made progress just in clarity, just conceptual clarity on the issues. And it was also a pleasant experience. So I think debates can have real value. What do you guys think? Do you see value in debates? I guess my first question is, were the good parts of the debate, a virtue of the format of debate in and of itself? And maybe I'm like to, I don't know, puritanical or something like that,

apply the regulatory principle here. But, you know, like, do we see debates in scripture? Do we see debates or when do we see debates in the early church? We see dispute. We see, you know, we see apologetic treatises, but we might ask who the audience is for. We're, you know, like when origin is obviously not writing to Kelsus, I believe he had been dead already, but I don't think I Renaeus was writing to Valentinus at the time. You know, I think we see discussion. We see Paul at the synagogues, you know, discussing and showing from scripture. So that's an open question for me, you know, is the format of debate in and of itself drawn out of scriptural principles?

Yeah, that's a good question to wrestle with. Sean, what are your thoughts on this? I think it can be. I don't think so the format, it's sort of like any other tool, right? It can It depends on sort of the virtues you take and using that tool. A hammer can be used for good or for ill, depending on the virtue of the one wielding it. So, you know, with one of the benefits of long-form debates is this idea of prepping thoughts beforehand. I think those opening statements, for example, were very well written on both sides. Those were the closing statements were also well written. So I think part of the virtue of it is this idea, this, this, the,

there's more preparation, long preparation that's involved in preparing an opening statement that's coherent. And I think there's something about, honestly, and we can measure the virtue of this, but there is something about the spectacle of a debate, you know, that, and not spectacle necessarily in a negative sense, but the spectacle of a debate in the same way like a spectacle of a football game, right, that draws people in. So in terms of getting people, engaged in the issue. I think there's a usefulness to it. Now that said, I think it should also be accompanied by dialogue. Both modes should go hand in together as we continue as communities to have these conversations. But that said, I think there's there there are virtues to it that can be

used well. I like the idea of public dialogue. You know, I think Paul did that when he was, you know, going to the synagogues and, you know, and preaching Christ from Scripture and showing Christ from Scripture. And I guess my concern or worry about a debate, and this is maybe why I don't typically debate, you know, or why I shy away from it just because of how I kind of land on this question, is who gets the glory, you know? You know, like, Gavin, if you would have gone up there and just stuck your foot in your mouth and just blundered the whole thing and sounded silly, that mean that Trent's right? Does that mean the Roman Catholic Church is right? Now I've looked at the man and it's the man's presentation that gets the glory in some sense. And I think it's very hard. I would,

I would like to see how someone can transition from their unique exercise of the gift of intellect, you know, how they use that in order to actually point the value of their argument to God's glory. if I'm going to try to apply Solideo Gloria here, you know, it's like, it's like I might sound really smart, but that doesn't make me right. One of my dad's dying lessons to me before he passed away was we were debating with each other over some topic, you know, and I thought I was right and he thought he was right, you know, and I went and looked on the internet, and I saw that he was right, and I said, oh, you were right. And then he still said, that's just my opinion. Now, I'm not saying that that's true in all theological things or all scientific inquiries or whatever. But, you know,

the point was impressed upon my heart. You know, it's like people argue from what they know, but that doesn't necessarily make them right. And so the better argument isn't necessarily the more true. It might just mean the more skilled at the use of words. Yeah. Now, that's a good reminder. Okay, final question. Soloscriptura, summing up from everything. Do you believe it? Why? and why is it important? Yeah. In two words or less. No, I'm just kidding.

Take as much time. So, so depending on how we define the term, Soliscriptura, yes, but I prefer the term prima scriptura. So if I can take sort of two minutes to unpack this. Sure. Prima scriptura as the idea that scripture has primacy over the tradition. It has primacy over all claimants to the tradition, and all claimants must come before the bar of scripture as the judge of all of it, as the judge of anything that claims

to be the word of God. Now, the reason I believe this is because God, when he called Abraham, he spoke himself in their midst. He made a covenant, and he solidified that covenant in writing. So when he spoke in the prophets and in the apostles, that the covenantal nature of his relationship with Israel, which became his relationship with the church, because the church, I believe, is the renewed Israel, is expressed and reified in writing. He gave his word to the prophets and the apostles who spoke his word, and that word, that teaching was reduced to writing for the church to have so that she can remember the covenant that she's in until Christ, terms. Awesome. And why is it important? Or what are the practical values that you see with it? Yeah, it's important because it allows you to bring all of the bars, all of the claims, oh, sorry, all of the claims to tradition to the bar of scripture. So for example, Gavin, you've done work on Jan Hus. Jan Hus, I believe rightly saw that Jesus gave the bread and the wine for the people of God.

These are the gifts of God for the people of God. And the Magisterium at the time authoritatively, in I believe the Council of Constance, if I remember right, authoritatively barred communion of both kinds, an excommunicated priests who gave communion in both kinds. Prima Scriptura, soul scripture, whatever term you want to use for it, allows us to bring these bars of even authoritative figure, bring these claims of authoritative figures to the bar of Scripture

to say, what did our Lord actually give to us? And so it focuses us to the actual source of the Word of God and pushes us back to the sources. That's why it's important. Awesome. Josh, do you believe in it? Why is it important? Yeah, I definitely absolutely believe in Sola Scriptura,

just because of the nature of it being God's word. I accept that. I stand on that faith confession. I think it's important because I think it makes knowledge possible. I think otherwise we are kind of capitulated to agnosticism. I feel like we're kind of trapped in the realm of the temporal realm of time and space. And so we're always constantly vying with each other over opinions. And I think the inbreaking of God's word allows us to get past or get over that impasse,

even if it doesn't answer all questions, even if it doesn't bring us a kind of mythological agreement, that we're all kind of a romanticized agreement, that we're all supposedly chasing, I do feel like it helps us to kind of connect with something beyond time and space, which is God, in a real and objective way. So I think it has practical knowledge by helping us to not be enslaved to creation. It actually helps us to be able to connect meaningfully

with the person who stands eternally beyond time and space. That's great. And just to give my own final thought here on that is intersecting with what both of you said in different ways, I feel as though Sola Scriptura tethers me to that which is divine rather than that which is human and fallible. And that is, you know, it's like in my closing speech, I said it really gets to the question of what is Christianity. And by saying that, I'm not saying that if you don't believe in Sola Scripura, you're not a Christian. That's not what I mean.

Rather, what I mean is it is a way of setting the boundaries so that you don't, you're not in a situation like the first century Jews getting yoked to what the Pharisees were teaching with all these traditions. You know, it's a way of protecting us from having, well, I always use the word accretions, and I think it annoys people sometimes, but so sorry, everybody, but accretions, it protects us from the accretions coming in and being a part of what we're now yoked to. And it doesn't guarantee correctness, but it at least gives you the possibility to make the corrections that need to be made. So that's why I think it's important. But this has been a fantastic discussion. I want to say thanks to both of you for taking the time to watch the debate and have this discussion. And again, people can check out in the video description links to see more of their work.

Now, I'll put your YouTube channel in there, Sean. I'll put your book in there, Josh. Is there anything else you guys want to say that you want people to know about you and any of the work that you're doing? Yeah. Well, if it comes to mind, please pray for me. I'm going to be in Rome this next week and giving a paper on special divine action. So I feel way out of my competency zone, but the research has been a blast. So as you think of it, please pray for me.

What days are you there? So the conference is the 10th to 11th, but I'm actually there tomorrow through next Tuesday. Okay, so everybody, this video will come up before the 10th and 11th. So pray for Sean on the 10th and 11th for the paper and for safe travels as well. Oh, too bad you got to go to Rome. What a bummer. I know. One of my favorite places in the world. It's such a fascinating city. So I hope you haven't. Have you been there before? Nope. No, it's my first time. Oh, man. Enjoy it. I studied abroad one semester in college and we took a flight down to Rome and we spent about three full days there. And it's just one of those amazing places where there's so much history. So I hope you have an awesome time. Josh, anything we need to know about you, work your things you're working on right now. You had the second edition of your book come out. Yeah, that's that was a lot of fun. I was able to almost double the last.

length of it with, you know, more researched material. I felt like I was kind of able to clarify, you know, what I call the canonical argument to try to move the assessment of Eastern Orthodoxy beyond impressions, beyond what this priest or that theologian or that father said, but kind of rooted into the actual objective formal claims of the Orthodox Church. I feel like that hasn't been done enough. And I do appreciate the Protestant, almost I would say in a good sense, not in a bad sense, kind of like an admiration towards the East in a lot of ways. There's been a real deep appreciation as we've been exposed to Eastern thought, patristic thought in the 20th and 21st century. And I think it's time to kind of like move on to kind of seeing how the Orthodox

Eastern Orthodox Church kind of really distorted some of those early patristic positions and kind of changed what that, the nature of what that is. So I'm hoping that the book can really help move that conversation forward. Working on a couple of other writing projects, kind of unrelated, something like a little bit more positive, you know, not necessarily addressing Eastern Orthodoxy, but, you know, some of the riches that I think are in the Protestant theological traditions. So, you know, any prayers, you know, in that direction would be very helpful. You know, I'd like to put out some more material that helps to kind of strengthen us. If I can, God wills. So I've got some great viewers who I know will pray. I'm really thankful for

the people who watch my channel. So pray for Josh and all the work. that he's doing for his pastoring and pray for Sean in his studies as well and uh so the second edition of your book is the red one yes first is blue so people can make distinguished in their minds in that way and it sounds like if it's almost twice as long even someone who read the first edition might even want to get the second one as well so get get the red one as well as the blue one and uh i i think that book will really help people so okay um thank you both again thanks everybody for watching let us know what you think about the video in the comments we'll see you Thank you.