This debate offers a rigorous and civil examination of the fundamental tension between institutional tradition and scriptural authority. It provides a rare, high-level intellectual exchange that clarifies the deep-seated theological divide defining Western Christianity.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Debate Sola Scriptura. Rigo Ardon vrs Néstor Díaz.Added:
The bread and the wine are your love.
Divine gift, light in my heart.
Lord, you stick to the altar.
Your presence comes to embrace us.
Oh, Eucharist.
Source of life, transform my being, heal my wounded soul.
Oh, oh. Eucharist, sacrifice of love.
Oh, Eucharist, renew my life.
Oh, plan of life, in you I find peace, communion with my brothers.
We surrender ourselves to you. Your love redeems us from your glory. We participated. We praise you.
Your Eucharist, people of life, transforms my being, heals my wounded soul.
Oh, oh.
Eucharist, sacrifice of love.
Eucharist renews my life.
Oh, with open hearts we approach.
Your love isn't felt, we're here. You are the way, the truth, and the life. I want to adore you. I want to live in you. Oh, Eucharist, stronghold of life, of life. Transform my being, heal my wounded soul. Oh, oh.
Eucharist, sacrifice of love, love. Eucharist, renew my life.
My life is new. Uh, uh.
Open hearts, we draw near.
Your love is felt where we are.
You are the way, the truth, and the life.
I want to adore you. I want to live in you, source of life.
Transform my being, heal my wounded soul.
Eucharist, sacrifice of love.
Eucharist renews my life through Eucharist.
of her life, of life transforms my being for my wounded soul.
Oh, Eucharist, sacrifice of love, Eucharist, renew my life.
Okay, Carlos. Hello. Welcome, each and every one of you. We are therefore inviting you to enjoy this interesting debate, or rather, a dialogue between friends who hold different positions, and we hope that it will be a blessing for each of you. Today we will be discussing the topic of sola escritura, and we feel very honored to have received the invitation to moderate this debate. Carlos Veloz from the Dominican Republic sharing simultaneously with the channel of apologist Rigo Ardón and Huella Católica and also from the platform of The theologian responds Néstor Díaz. So, as I said, we're going to be presenting the topic, the writing itself, and we're going to give each of the speakers a minute to present so they can elaborate more fully on their references. We begin with Mr. Nestor Diaz so that he can take his minute of formal presentation.
Well, it is a joy for me to be here with all of you sharing this interesting presentation of a topic that is often caricatured too much, especially among those who often do not know what it entails.
I think today we're going to have a very rich, very special dialogue and above all a very intense debate. So please excuse our language, but today will be a spectacular day, unforgettable for the entire audience.
Very good, Nestor Diaz. And now we give a minute of formal introduction to the apologist Rigo Ardón.
Hi Carlos, hi Nestor, how are you?
God bless all the people who are connected in the chat. As Nestor said, today we are going to discuss the topic of sola scriptura, hoping that it will be a high-level debate, a serious debate, and that it will be a great blessing for all the people who will be watching and listening to this debate. Thank you so much.
Okay, Mr. Rigo Ardón, the apologist, and they've already given the formal presentation of their people, right? We'll be right back, my phone just shut down. Let's now move on to the formal structure of the debate.
We're going to show you the rules of the debate.
The first thing is, and it's the most important thing, we seek respect, we seek to have mercy between us, right? minimizing or restricting their characteristics, that is, the way in which you present the arguments, but remembering that ad omniscience will not be allowed by me. And we have, as an introduction, 20 minutes of presentation for each of the exhibitors, if you'll pardon the redundancy. 15 minutes of rebuttal each, 5 minutes of counter-rebuttal each.
Each person will ask a question in one minute, develop their answer in two minutes, and then there will be a two-minute counter-answer or rebuttal. We will then conclude this debate with a one-minute farewell without needing to mention again anything that was covered in the thesis, the antithesis, the synthesis, and the questions and answers. So I imagine that the first one to start presenting his thesis is Mr. Nestor Diaz. Very good. So, when I say it's not necessary for aesthetic reasons, I do n't think it will be necessary to put the stopwatch on the screen, but I would ask, if you so decide, that each person can also bring their own stopwatch, their own time, so that there is greater transparency and clarity, although I like that you trust me because that's why you invited me as moderator. We already have the stopwatch ready over here, and when Mr. Nestor Diaz is prepared and begins to speak, we'll start the clock.
Oh, by the way, before anything else, when I have a minute, you tell me a minute.
Very good. Same to you, Rigo.
Excellent.
We will notify you one minute before the end.
Okay, I'm ready.
Forward. Welcome to this interesting debate in which you will prepare to see how the papists wear down their hammers by attacking a principle they neither know nor understand, that of Sol Escritura. Throughout this exchange, you will literally see a guy reading from a script, throwing around biblical texts without context, unverified patristic quotes, falsified quotes from Luther, and above all, don't forget, falling into the moving target fallacy by constantly changing the topic of debate, moving on to the question of the canon, the deuterocanonical books, and the question of whether the Magisterium and tradition have authority. He will crown all of this with an initial question. If Scripture is the only authoritative source, when he does that—and I'm telling you this now—he will try to confuse you by saying that Rome believes in the authority of the Bible, but not as the only one. This will shift the focus of the debate from the sole writing to the authority, without realizing that the principle has to do with infallibility, not with sole authority. By doing this, Rigo demonstrates his ignorance of the concept he is trying to discuss. I'm letting you know, my friend, so you can spare us the spectacle of not knowing what writing alone is. We Protestants acknowledge other sources of authority such as teaching and tradition, but we understand that these can be evaluated by scripture, since scripture is the only infallible source and the others are not.
Write it down clearly in that script you brought us.
So, what will we see in this debate?
Arriigo, giving us a crooked definition of writing that he must have gotten from who knows where, but certainly not from Protestant confessions of faith. For this reason, he will end up confusing only the scripture with biblical solipsism or prima scriptura and based on that straw man he will weave supposed contradictions of the principle, although he will really be attacking solipsism and not sola scriptura. And if the definition is crooked, the contradictions it will present are useless. Meanwhile, I can already hear him trying to connect the topic with the canon, the doctanonics, and the oral tradition. Nothing to do with it. Then he will try to prove that we Protestants do not agree on the definition, without first having consulted the confessions and compared them to see if this is really true. But what can we expect from someone who doesn't even know what writing is? He will also say that this principle was invented by Protestants and that it was never believed before. I'll go ahead and assure you that he'll throw a supposed quote from Luther into your head in which he ends up rejecting the principle and appealing to the councils. If you do, I ask you, Rigo, understanding that there is no correspondence between Luther and Swinglio, where did you get that quote from? From a Catholic website? From a secondary source? From Richbell's library or from Santi's cell phone? And if you did find a primary source, what does the original quote actually say? I hope you will answer me. After this, he will try to tell us that the Jews were unaware of the principle of sola scriptura and that his sources will be YouTube channels and not academic or historical sources. The New Testament texts brought up in the debate will be taken out of their context in order to deny the foundations of sola scriptura present therein. And so you can see that he's reading you a script, I can even mention some of the passages he brought up. Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15, Ephesians 4:10, 1 Thessalonians 2:7, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 John 12, John 13:34 and 35, and Matthew 5:38 and 39.
Write this down, it will surely come to mind. I can even tell you which parents he has listed in his notes. Papias, Sirenaeus, Athanasius, Chrysostum, and Augustine.
But of course, the quotes are not cross-checked. And Atanas's is equivocal and contradictory, besides which it is not relevant to this topic because he will use it to validate the deuterocanonical books, thus going off- topic again. I hope he doesn't do it because it's a moving target fallacy and I'll spot it immediately. And so as not to waste any more of my time telling you how I am directing you, which will only confuse you and make it easier for me to refute it in this debate, I will summarize by saying that here I will confuse the principle as a hermeneutical reality and tell you that writing alone denies the interpretation of the reader. In short, all their arguments will boil down to trying to prove the authority of the Magisterium and tradition, without realizing that they started from a fundamental error. By confusing writing alone with authority alone. He will become embroiled in an internal struggle with straw men, appealing to the guilt of the principle in the multiplicity of interpretations, without realizing that one, Rome, falls into the same without depending on this principle. And two, groups like the Unitarians are not just writing, nor are they part of our people. Gentlemen, be prepared to see a spectacle, the RO show, where the sources will be Jacob, Arrais, Berrios, Miami, Houston and Chajept. And note the most common fallacies. Franco mobile, anachronistic straw man and no séito. We're not going to let it slide.
So, having explained this, I will now instruct you, my dear Rigo, so that you may finally understand what writing alone is, and if no one has explained it to you, from today onwards you will not plead ignorance. Firstly, the definition of the principle is not Protestant doctrine in which scripture is the sole and supreme norm of faith. This definition that Rigo assumes and knows about God is not a correct definition and is part of an incorrect assumption that arises as a myth on the part of those who have the hammer ready to unsuccessfully destroy solaescritura. The correct definition established not by a website, but by confessions of faith, is that scripture alone is a principle of validation with which we answer the question of whether the Bible is the word of God. The answer lies precisely in the three bases that support it: authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity, understanding that by affirming these three, it does not deny that there are other sources of authority, but that only the authority of scripture is infallible. Starting from this very brief definition, let's address certain myths that exist regarding the mere repeated writing to the point of exhaustion by internet gurus. Writing alone is a principle, not a dogma. It is not a doctrine. I repeat, it is not a doctrine. It is a principle for creating doctrine.
While Rome relies on the first scripture for its doctrine, we Protestants rely on scripture alone. So if it's a principle for defining dogmas, how could she be a dogma? It's like thinking that the knife used to cut the meat should be cooked with it. Do you understand, Rico? Only writing is the instrument for making dogmas. And that's why we say it's a principle, not a doctrine.
Therefore, questions like "what did the apostles believe in?" based on a fundamental error, since they assume it as a doctrine from the beginning.
Scripture alone is not a doctrine to be believed, but a principle to be applied.
If you have that question prepared, Rico, I'll tell you in advance that I won't accept it because it stems from ignoring the basic definition of the concept we're discussing. Second, only Scripture includes other sources of authority. This implies that this principle does not deny the use of other authorities such as tradition and teaching. Moreover, in case you didn't know, Rigo, since it seems you have n't read the Protestant confessions, we take reason, intuition, and even experience as sources of authority.
If in your blah blah blah you are going to include a biblical demonstration of the authority of the church focusing on the decayed tank, Matthew 18:18, 1 Timothy 3:15, etc. Please spare us the time, because no Protestant confession, from the 39 Anglican Articles to the London Baptist Confession, denies that the Church is a source of authority. So that you understand for once in your life that when we say "alone," we are not talking about authority, but about infallibility. She is alone not because she is the only authority, but the only infallible one. You heard, Rigo, sola here has to do with infallibility, therefore, there is no contradiction in saying unique and supreme, because it is unique in its infallibility and supreme in its authority. So be careful. I need to counter this because it will be a scarecrow fallacy and I'll detect it immediately. Here I must instruct you so that you know how to make differences and not confuse categories. Scripture alone is not biblical solipsism because the latter rejects any source of authority and only relies on the Bible. No confessional Protestant does such a thing, so be careful not to confuse them and say they are the same. And as for prima scriptura, it affirms the sources of authority, but unlike sola scriptura, it believes that those sources are infallible. You, rigo, are first writing, but we are only writing. And the superiority of the sola over the prima is that you will find it impossible to prove that tradition, teaching and even experience are infallible.
The burden of proof truly lies here, and it's up to you to prove it. You understand? Your duty is not to demonstrate authority, but the infallibility of teaching and tradition. Good luck with that. And don't even think about hiding behind 2 Thessalonians 2:15, because that's where I'll ask you to read verses 5 through 8 and I'll bombard you with a question you won't be able to answer, which will end up handing the debate over to me. What is stopping the Antichrist? Paul transmitted it orally to the Thessalonians. The text says that they knew it. Do you know that? Or will you end up speculating because the information wasn't written down? Tradition, however, without the written material basis, cannot be preserved and is therefore no longer binding on any believer.
Go for it and see how you get out of this mess. Oh, and by the way, this is well stipulated in all our confessions of faith, whatever that crutch was about Protestants not agreeing on a single definition of scripture. Please cross it out for sure.
Three. Scripture alone includes the principle of progressive revelation. This is extremely important, as it shows us that this is not a matter of canon. Since I know this is a fact that goes beyond your script, I'll explain it to you in simple terms. Scripture alone is a principle that is used even if the canon is not complete, because the ancients used the received text as a rule of faith and conduct. In fact, the reason why the Hebrew canon is divided into three blocks is because it was completed in three stages, and in each one the previous writings already served as a hermeneutical and normative principle for the next one. That is why David could say, "The law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul." The Old Testament canon was complete when the poet wrote that, wasn't it? But the law was already perfect enough to convert the heart. That's just writing, pure and simple. This is because the principle includes progressive revelation. That is why when Paul speaks of all Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16, I can perfectly understand it in terms of sola scriptura because even though the New Testament canon is not complete, the fact that they appealed to the Old Testament already tells me that they saw it as an infallible standard of faith and conduct. And this was even acknowledged by your own Pope Benedict X when he was still Racing.
He acknowledged in the episcopate and primacy that the apostles used his writings as a canon to understand the Old Testament and therefore concludes on page 57 in this way. The subordination of the proclamation of the word through writing alone to the living word is genuinely New Testament. Boom. And so that you don't jump on me with the old reliable argument that I'm misinterpreting the Pope Emeritus, let me warn you that this is just the easy way out, because if you claim that, then you have a whole time to refute and explain what he meant. But you must do it with the book in hand. If you don't have it, spare us the embarrassment of adding another fallacy to the ones you've already accumulated. Therefore, Rigo, writing alone does not need the complete canon to be functional. Therefore, spare me all your quotes about cano muratorio, the canons, etc. Please don't confuse us because not even Urbina would believe you. Remember well that when he challenged me that time, he himself said that before debating the writing we have to deal with the canon first. Why do you think he separated the two topics? Simple, because they are two different topics. Therefore, mention an argument that leads this topic to the canon, I will detect the phrase " moving target" and let you know. I will also not answer questions that are not related to the topic. Oh, and also remember that he's going to tell her that the list of 66 books isn't in the writing. Please, when he says that, you can write in the comments, Rigo, you went off-topic. One last thing, scripture alone is not an invention of Luther or the Reformation. This principle is much older and can indeed be traced back to the Jews. It is found in the New Testament and in early patristic writings.
And I will prove this to you by appealing properly to academics and not to HGPT YouTube channels. Old school, old school. Rigo will tell you, look, I'm not wrong. And you will realize that he will argue that the Jews could not be only literate because many of them were illiterate. This is yet another example of how he ignores the principle he came to discuss. My dear, it's not about who applies it, but with what it is applied. Also, where did you get that information? I'm warning you that only those liberals who also believe that Paul invented Christianity say that.
Let me kill that argument for you before you read it in your script. Rabbi Mark Alan Dakmin acknowledges that, as a people built upon the Torah, it was a sacred obligation for a Jewish man to learn to read. And if we're going to ask that, I wonder, could Maria read? Because if we accept your thesis, then the Virgin Mary was illiterate, since women had zero chance of becoming literate.
However, who wrote the Magnificat? Does n't your tradition say that it was she herself? See? Your arguments even contradict the tradition you are trying to defend by denouncing writing alone.
Besides this, you ignore that Finkstan's findings at Telarad show that literacy was more widespread among Jews than you imagine. I hope you have a little shame and spare us this ingenious argument. Let's move on to the next point. Rigo will mention that a Jew named José Berrioo told him that Jews did not believe in Scripture, and then he will have Jacob, that uncle who said that Paul was a [ __ ], as sources. Now neither Jacob nor Verrio are academics and we cannot accept in this debate a source that is not verifiable out of respect for the audience because if we go down that road I can bring in Bincatel, a Jew whose statements show the complete opposite. Let me explain.
We agree that a principle doesn't need to have a name to already exist, okay? It's enough that it's implied, right? Well, the foundations of sola scriptura are authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity. If these three elements are found in the dogmatic work of the Jews, voila, we have the scripture alone, even if the name is not yet known. Well, did you know that the Jews based their rules of faith and conduct solely on the Torah?
This coincides with first-century Christian practice, in accordance with what I read to you from Rassinger. In fact, if you read Pirkea Bot 522, a treatise such as this, as Agustín del Agua Pérez points out, the foundations of what we call sola scriptura are present in the Jewish midrash practice since the days of Gilel in the first century BC. For example, when he says, "What is not in the Torah does not exist in the world, he is appealing to authority." By saying, "Turn the Torah over and over again because everything is in it, he points to sufficiency." And saying the Torah is explained by the Torah indicates perspicuity. My dear, I have the bases full and that implies that the writing alone is already present in its bases in the midrashic exercise of the Jews. And so you don't pull the classic "it's not true" because they also had oral tradition as an authority. I'll repeat for the umpteenth time that this has nothing to do with sole authority, because we Protestants accept other sources, but if you add Scripture alongside it, I'll bring up Catel's words when he says, "For Jewish logic, the only thing that is truly inspired, the only thing we can define as the strict word of God, is the Torah, the first five books of Moses. The Talmud is not the word dictated and inspired by God, but the word preserved by the sages. Period." This is already doing you a huge favor. And if you're going to bring up Jacob as the source that will refute me, well, good grief. Or please, please, don't give us the satisfaction of slapping you when you say that, please. Furthermore, following the same logic, I find those same foundations in the New Testament. And I can prove that the early Christians did appeal to Scripture alone as an epistemic principle because they already had precedents in Judaism, and the evidence for this is precisely the Council of Jerusalem.
Aside from experience, what do you think the council concluded with? Of course, with an appeal to Scripture. In fact, Paul developed the entire thesis of justification by faith by drawing midrash from the Old Testament with the example of Abraham, citing the Torah and the Psalms.
And what do you think that's called? Of course, it 's Scripture. Therefore, the principle is in the Bible, yes, in its foundations. Authority, 2 Timothy 3:16. Sufficiency, John 20:31.
Perspicuity, 2 Peter 3:15. Again, my dear friend, the foundations are there, and therefore the principle is implicit. And please spare me the patristic quote, because I also have plenty I could present to you, the same foundations. Besides, the quotes you use don't support you at all because if Papias said he valued the word of a surviving living voice more than the writings themselves, I ask you, do you have a surviving voice from the first century? Of course not. So your comparison game is pointless. Using Papias is anachronistic, and there I detect a fallacy that I won't accept in a debate like this. Now, if by chance you cite the new commandment of John 13:4-35 to argue that Christ wasn't just Scripture, avoid using the phrase "new," since your duty is to go to the Greek of the text. If you do, you'll discover that the word used there is " cainó," and this is understood in two senses: in terms of form and in terms of substance. Of these two, the Lexico Taller, which is not a quote from Jacob, maintains that this one should be understood in terms of substance, as is already done in 2 Corinthians 5:17. By saying "new creation," it doesn't mean that the form of the first creation changed, but only its substance. That is to say, so you understand, my friend, the form is the same; what changes is the substance. This, with regard to John 3, means that Christ continues to recognize the form of Scripture, but changes the substance, the meaning. Therefore, Jesus isn't innovating, but giving a different application of a This commandment was already present in the Old Testament, as Mery Cetini says. I'll repeat it, Rigo, so it sinks in. The commandment wasn't new because it had just been invented—in fact, it was already in Leviticus—but because it was presented in a fresh way. That is, it wasn't new in its presentation, but it was new in its scope. And do you know why I've gone into so much detail about this? Because Rigo is going to tell you that Jesus didn't go over the scriptures here because he invented a new commandment, but he'll do so by completely ignoring all the implications of the Greek, which he openly doesn't understand. You'll see him read it to you in the script. So mark my words. What he hasn't considered is that his argument presupposes that if Christ's hermeneutics changes the form but not the substance, then the Old Testament would no longer be the word, and we'd have no choice but to become Martians. Another text that will be thrown in his face is Matthew 5:38-39.
But you know, for him... He's going to try to prove that Christ wasn't solely based on Scripture, deliberately ignoring how the Jewish tradition of hermeneutics is practiced. Rigo thinks Christ is changing the law there, and he doesn't realize that our Lord is providing the correct hermeneutical understanding. But I have an answer for that so he can more or less understand how we're going to approach it next, because I have an answer for him. And look, I don't claim to be a prophet, nor am I anyone's son, but I dare say he'll ask me the following question: "When you interpret the Bible, are you enlightened or guided by the Holy Spirit?" Pay attention when he asks it, because it's definitely coming. With that, he intends to checkmate me, because if I say no, then I'm not infallible, and therefore my personal interpretation is wrong.
But if I say yes, then I'm throwing Scripture alone out the window because I recognize two infallible sources of authority: the Bible and my own particular interpretive ability. This is going to be his star argument. Mark my words. Now, how do I know? Simple.
Because his script is very predictable. And I already have an answer for you in the counter-refutation.
I'm finished. Now, prepare your ears for 20 minutes in which Rigo will be reading his predictable script, and grab your snacks while you watch a spectacle full of fallacious whitewashing, complete with straw men, and a dose of dubious quotes gathered from YouTube channels, pages of questionable papist apologetics, and GPT chats, all following a real, albeit referencing, circle.
I hope Rigo Caragas makes it a little more exciting. Go for it, we trust you.
Time, although he did it in 18 minutes, 32 seconds, and 36 hundredths. You leave your thesis there, eh, Licenciado Díaz.
Excellent. We'll reset the timer then. We greet the brothers who are connecting.
Share this video, support it with a like on the different platforms, and when the apologist Riguardón is ready, we'll start his 20-minute initial thesis.
Ready?
Go ahead.
Well, brothers, my esteemed Nestor's script is quite predictable. Brothers, look, before we begin, remember something very important. Once I manage to prove in this debate that there are other infallible sources of authority besides Scripture, the Protestant myth of sola scriptura will begin to crumble like a house of cards. And for this task, I want to start with the most basic thing: its definition. What is Scripture?
You see, even on something as fundamental as its own definition, Protestants don't agree, since there are as many different definitions of sola scriptura as there are Protestants, because in the Protestant world there is no universal and binding definition of sola scriptura for all of Protestantism in general. Now, I say this as a Roman Catholic, as Nestor says, right? This is affirmed by the Protestant scholar Kate Mattinson in her article "A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Sola Scriptura." She says, "Even among trained theologians there is confusion and ambiguity when the issue of sola scriptura is raised."
Contradictory and insufficient definitions of sola scriptura are common not only among evangelical authors, but also among reformed authors.
So, brothers and sisters, this is so true that some Protestants define sola scriptura as a principle, as did the Protestant Arcus Sprul, who in his work, * Reformed Theology: Learning the Basics*, chapter 2, says, "The doctrine— listen carefully—the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura, therefore, affirms that the Bible is the only written authority for the faith and life of God's people."
And Sprul was right. Why? Because I ask, what is a doctrine? Well, a doctrine is a teaching given to someone for their instruction. I ask, isn't sola scriptura a teaching given to Protestants in their churches for their instruction? Of course it is. Therefore, sola scriptura is also a doctrine. The interesting thing here is that since Protestantism lacks an infallible universal magisterium, no Protestant can impose their own definition of sola scriptura on others, unless, my dear Nestor, in this debate, they proclaim themselves pope. and the official teachings of Protestantism in general, and impose their infallible definition of Scripture alone, which I don't think is a good thing. I must also say that Scripture alone is not only a doctrine but also a dogma of faith, although they theoretically deny it. And I will now prove it. First, what is a dogma? Well, a dogma is a truth revealed by God that must be believed.
I ask, Scripture alone? No, to be a Protestant I must accept Scripture alone.
Therefore, in practice, Scripture alone is indeed a dogma. Now, if Nestor claims that Scripture alone is not a dogma, then he would be admitting that the Scripture alone he defends is not a truth revealed by God, because that is precisely what a dogma is.
Therefore, since it is not a truth revealed by God, this principle or doctrine is nothing more than a human invention and therefore fallible, and as fallible, prone to error. And in fact, it is, and I will now prove this through two very important questions. that will shape the course of this debate and that have much to do with infallible authority. First question: Is Scripture the infallible rule of authority in matters of doctrine and morality for a Christian?
Of course it is. We Catholics also believe that, because Scripture is the word of God, and God is infallible.
Second question: Is Scripture the only infallible rule of authority in matters of doctrine and morality for a Christian? No. There are also two other infallible sources of authority: the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.
And the most beautiful thing about this, brothers and sisters, is that both authorities can be demonstrated with and without the Bible. And I emphasize " without the Bible" so that my esteemed Nestor doesn't say that I'm basing my argument on a circular fallacy. Let's begin by proving the infallible authority of the Church with Scripture, and let's go to Matthew 16:18, where Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it, and you will be my disciples." “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Now, let’s analyze this text, brothers and sisters. Here, Jesus establishes his church and gives Peter, as its head, the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Remember that keys in the Bible symbolize authority. Second, Jesus gives Peter and the entire church in communion with Peter the authority to bind and loose anything, and this authority is backed up in heaven by Jesus Christ.
Therefore, it is an infallible authority. Why? Because, according to Jesus’ own words, can the Church, being fallible, bind and loose something wrong here on earth and have that error remain bound or loosed in heaven, where everything is perfect? Obviously not. That is why, brothers and sisters, this church of Christ is an infallible church.
Now, brothers and sisters, it must also be said that Jesus himself speaks of this infallibility when he bestows the Holy Spirit upon him.
The Church is holy. In John 14:26, Jesus says, "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you."
Now, these words of Jesus are made even clearer in the words of the Apostle Paul when he speaks of that infallible Church of Christ in 1 Timothy 3:15, so that if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
I ask, who does Paul say is the pillar and foundation of the truth? The Church. He doesn't say only Scripture is the pillar and foundation of the truth. No.
Now, what is this truth that the Church preaches and safeguards? The inerrant Word of God. And how has the Church historically communicated this truth, which is the Word of God? Through two infallible paths: Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Now, is this my own invention? No, this is taught by Scripture itself. In the words of Paul himself in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, when he tells us, "Brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught by us, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Notice that here Paul says, "You were taught by us," that is, by the teaching of the church. And then he speaks of two types of traditions: by word of mouth, oral tradition, or by letter, written tradition. He doesn't say only by letter. Well, having established this, let's now prove the infallible authority of the church without Scripture. Look, it must also be said that it was the church that made the Bible, not the Bible, the church. First there were the Hebrew people, and then they wrote down the different books of the Old Testament, not the other way around. First there was the Early Christian Church, and then they wrote down the different books and letters of the New Testament, not the other way around. The Bible didn't appear out of nowhere under a tree as if by magic, as some Protestants believe, but was the product of a long process that took the church a long time to form and establish its doctrines. Finally.
Now, is this church that produced the Bible infallible? Of course it is. And that's easily demonstrated. Look. Tell me, who wrote the different books and letters of the New Testament? Some apostles and evangelists. I ask, were those apostles and evangelists members of the church and authorities? Yes. Now, when those first members and authorities of the church wrote those books and letters of the New Testament, did they do so inspired by the Holy Spirit? Of course they did. Therefore, the church is infallible, because when writing and then shaping the Bible through councils, it did so assisted by the Holy Spirit. Now, have the church councils throughout history been infallible? When defining a dogma? Of course they have. And regarding the authority and infallibility of church councils to dictate doctrines, the Protestant historian Philip Chap already speaks to us in * History of the Christian Church*, volume 3, which says, "The authority of ecumenical councils to Deciding all points of controversy was supreme and final. His first doctrinal decisions were invested with infallibility."
At this point, I ask Nestor, although he won't like the question, what infallible authority outside the Bible told you that your scripture, since we are talking about scripture alone, should have 66 books and no more or less?
And what authority told you that it was those 66 and not others? Well, let's hope that this time the theologian does answer. Okay, let's now test the infallible authority of sacred tradition with scripture. Brothers, first it is important to clarify that when we speak of tradition we are not referring to just any kind of tradition, but rather to the major tradition, that is, the apostolic tradition. And one of those apostles who spoke in favor of this tradition was precisely the apostle Saint Paul in 2 Timothy 2:2, when he said, "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." I ask, how did the first Christians initially teach others through Preaching? That is, oral tradition beforehand. That's why Paul says here, "What you have heard from me." Because Paul first preached to them, and then they, too, orally taught others.
Another proof of this is given to us by the Apostle John in 2 John 1:12. "Although I have many things to write to you, I did not want to do so with paper and ink, for I hope to come to you and speak face to face, so that our joy may be complete." Brothers, here John is not only speaking of a written tradition, but also of an oral tradition, when he says "come to you and speak face to face." Now, brothers, the Apostolic Father St. Irenaeus of Leon already speaks to us about the importance of sacred tradition in the early Church in his work Against Heresies, Book 342. Many barbarian peoples give their assent to this order and believe in Christ without paper or ink. In their hearts they have written salvation through the Holy Spirit, and they carefully preserve the old tradition. Brothers, having reached this point, it is necessary to ask a question that will lead me to prove The infallible authority of sacred tradition without scripture. And the question is this: Did the apostles teach things orally that were not written in the Bible? Let this question be answered not by me, but by two witnesses of early Christianity, one Eastern and the other Western. The Eastern Father John Chrysostom, in his homily 61 on the Acts of the Apostles, says, "Their intention, the apostles' intention, was not to write." Indeed, they left many things to unwritten tradition. The Western Father, who so often quotes Nestor in his favor, St. Augustine Dipona, in his work on baptism against the Donatists, said, "The apostles, in fact, gave no instructions on this point, but the custom opposed by Cyprian may be supposed to have originated in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things observed by the whole church and therefore upheld as having been instituted by the apostles and which are not mentioned in their writings. Such as?
Several. For example, first, prayer for the dead, which according to the Protestant is not in the Bible.
However, John Chrysostom himself, in his Humilipense 39:10, says, 'Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that the memorial of the wondrous mysteries should be made for those who have departed.'
The veneration of images—the Protestants say that this is not in the Bible. However, St. Basil of Caesarea, in his Epistle 360 says, "And I also receive the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs. "I venerate and kiss their images with homage, because they are inherited from the holy apostles."
Infant baptism—some Protestants will say that it is not in the Bible.
However, Origen of Alexandria, in his commentary on Romans 5:9, says, "The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism, even to children." And finally, the apostolic succession of the Bishop of Rome, which according to Protestants is not in the Bible.
Moreover, the apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built this church of Rome, entrusted Linus with the episcopal office of its administration.
Conclusion. As we were able to prove, the apostles did teach things orally that were not written in the Bible, at least for Protestants, but which were recorded by the early Church in the tradition of the first centuries. And here I ask the theologian a question. Nestor, tell me something. If the Church Fathers applied sola scriptura, as you said, and one of the foundations on which sola scriptura rests is formal sufficiency, where the Bible is so clear that it interprets itself, as you said, then I ask you, why don't you believe the same thing that the Church Fathers believed? The Bible is very clear.
Now, let us remember that the Church Fathers did accept the material sufficiency of scripture, which we as good Catholics accept, but not the formal sufficiency attributed to it by Protestantism. Now, am I saying this as a Catholic? No, this is stated by the doctor of theology, Protestant academic, Reverend Timothy War in his work Word and Supplement, Speech Acts, Biblical Texts and the Sufficiency of Scripture. Page 25 says, "In general, the parents affirm the material sufficiency of the scriptures, but deny formal sufficiency." Brothers, since we've touched on the subject of the apostles, I ask, "Did the apostles apply sola scriptura?" As Nestor said, the answer is no. For the simple reason that if they had only applied the scriptures, they would not have held the Council of Jerusalem to determine whether or not Gentile men converted to Christianity had to be circumcised, since if they had applied the scriptures, even without the need for a council, they would have determined that they did, since we remember that according to the Torah, chapter 7 of Genesis, it teaches mandatory circumcision. However, in the end, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, they decreed the opposite: that they did not have to be circumcised. Now, the early Christian Church, successor of the apostles, was scripture alone. It couldn't have been that way either.
Protestants today should include in their scripture the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, which the Church of Corinth at the end of the first century and founded by the apostle Saint Paul had as part of its sacred scripture. I'm the one saying this, right? This is according to the English Protestant academic JB.
Lifood in his Romavista work through an apostolic paradigm. Lifood says that First Clement was known and appreciated in part of the Christian Church for several centuries and that, according to the Corinthians, it was read together with Paul's letter to them, quoted by many church fathers and eventually included in the books of the New Testament in several of our surviving manuscripts. Having established that the Church Fathers were never solely reliant on scripture, let us turn to Judaism. Did the Jews, or did the Jews apply sola scriptura? By no means.
Let us remember, Nestor, that the Jews have never been a monolithic religion where all the Hebrew people believe exactly the same thing. And an example of this were the different groups of antiquity, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, who had different beliefs among themselves, strange things, and the Bible is very clear about it, isn't it? Evidence that some Hebrews viewed their authorities as infallible is the commentary on Deuteronomy 17:11, where some Jewish commentators, such as Shabbetai Ben Jusf, in their commentary on the commentary of Rashid, a famous Jewish rabbi, practically declared the infallibility of their rabbis. The text says, even if it tells you that right is left, etc., it seems that Rashid means the following.
Even if he tells you that what you consider right is wrong and what you consider wrong is right, you should listen to him and blame yourself for the mistake, not him. Because God always places his spirit upon those who serve in his sanctuary. And pay attention to what it says here, my brothers. And He, God, protects them from any error so that only the truth comes out of their mouths.
I ask, isn't this infallibility? Of course. In conclusion, scripture alone is nothing more than the private and personal interpretation that each Protestant makes of scripture, creating chaos and anarchy in the interpretation of the Bible, where each Protestant becomes their own infallible authority. thus causing great divisions in his church. Brothers, with these very clear proofs that I have given in these first 20 minutes of my presentation, we put one more nail in the coffin of scripture alone.
Sola escritura, recuishka impase. Sola escritura, rest in peace.
Thank you so much.
Time: 19 minutes, 11 seconds, 15 hundredths of a second.
Both managed their time very well. Hey, a reminder to those in the chat on both platforms to share the video and like this broadcast on both platforms so you can support both the apologist Riguardón's channel and the theologian Néstor Díaz's channel. And also remembering that we are keeping track of time, they are managing time very well. When I look down it's because I have my cell phone and I also have the screen. I can't be looking at everything at the same time, and besides, I'm not debating, I'm moderating. So let's give Mr. Nestor Diaz time for his first rebuttal.
He will have 15 minutes to present his first antithesis to the thesis presented by the apologist Rigo Ardón. When ready you can turn on your microphone on the Streamyard. Turn on your microphone on the Streamyard. Now yes.
Now yes. Now yes.
Forward.
Excellent. As you know, everything I said came true. It seems I'm a prophet, or it seems my dad is a prophet, or I don't know what's going on, because I even told them the quotes I was going to use. In fact, he carefully avoided mentioning the others because it would only further prove my point. That means your script is totally unpredictable, sir. And I'm going to show you why. First, because you don't know the definition of writing, and it all started with the fact that you said they can't agree. Look, Rico, I wrote a book called The Theologian Responds on page 111-112.
I undertook the task of reviewing all the Protestant confessions of faith, from the 39 Articles of England to the Baptist Confession, including the Vega Confession, the Westminster Confession, and many others. In order for me to make a non- unfounded statement, I have to conduct a comparative study of the definitions, and you will realize that all the definitions in the scriptures in the confessions repeat the same pattern, that it is not the only authority, that it is a principle. And not only is it a principle, but it also has authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity, which in fact you confuse with perspicuity. It is a very common mistake made by people who are unaware of the concept of writing alone. Writing alone presupposes material sufficiency, and you have just assumed it in your debate. And not only that, but it also presupposes what you call formal sufficiency, which is the perspicuity of the writing. And you know, that perspicuity is the foundation of it. It is present in Protestant confessions of faith. Not only that, but confessions also say that it is Normans' norm. Do you know what that means? who recognize that it is not an authority, but rather evaluates other authorities. Therefore, your discussion is not whether it is the only authority, it is the only infallible authority. Now you tried to prove that tradition and teaching are infallible. Let's go point by point because this is excellent.
First you quote Kattison, then you quote Arci Sprul, but your duty is not to quote Protestant authors, it is to go to the Protestant confessions of faith in order to compare whether we really disagree.
Protestant confessions, sir.
Protestant denominations. You're not going to come here with that nonsense about no, that the confessions are directly, that the Protestant authors don't agree because this one here has already done his homework. I recommend that you do it yourself, review all the confessions and get to a specific point so that you discover that they all repeat the same thing.
The other thing is that this is not an imposition of my own definition, it is an imposition of the reviewed council and criterion of all confessions as such. Another thing, someone can be an evangelical, uh, someone can be evangelical without being about scripture. Of course.
There are many evangelicals who are not solely scriptural. Unitarians are not just about writing. They are biblical solipsists and therefore not sola scriptura.
See? You have a problem with the definition. You don't know the definition of Sola Scriptura, you don't understand it well.
You need to study that topic, and I'm sorry that you have to debate and say that you're putting the nail in the coffin of sola escritura without knowing what the topic or the term sola escritura is as such.
Therefore, sola scriptura can be confused with biblical solicism. Of course, I already made progress on that.
When you say or ask, look, the same thing I told you. He told them that he was going to crown his debate with questions about whether writing is the infallible rule.
Yes, but that's not the only infallible rule. I told you so. I told them that I was also going to quote the biblical passages he mentioned. He only mentioned two new ones that are completely useless to him. John 14:26 is not useful to him. Because? Because everything the Spirit revealed is contained in the scriptures. And not only that, you also have a problem with the concept of trying to prove whether oral tradition is truly infallible. I'm going to prove to you that it's not like that. Secondly, you brought up the topic of the canon. I knew you were going to confuse the issue of the canon because you don't understand that writing alone implies a principle of progressive revelation. Do you know what that means? No, I know you don't know, you don't know what it means. I'll explain it to you, dear. This means that scripture alone includes the principle of progressive revelation, so you do n't need the whole book to be complete for the principle to work. I'll show you. If scripture alone is the norm of faith and conduct, as all Protestant denominations agree, I ask you this question.
When the Torah was completed, did the prophets use it as a standard of faith and conduct to evaluate their kings? The answer is yes, because the New Testament, the Old Testament is full of quotes from the Torah to evaluate the ancients as a standard of faith and conduct. For example, when David says, and I told you in my opening speech so you wouldn't have to bring up the canon issue, I told you.
I said that the law of Yahweh is perfect, that it converts the soul. Was the Old Testament complete when David wrote that? No, it wasn't complete. And yet, it was already a principle of application that the law of Yah was perfect, perfect enough to convert the heart. So of course, dear, you don't need the canon to be complete. Even Dan Turbina acknowledges it. Why do you think Dan Turbina didn't discuss writing if he didn't start with the topic of Can? Because he knows they are two different issues. So I'm not going to accept you because you committed a moving target error.
I'm not going to accept any of the references you mentioned regarding canon, etc. That's just blah blah blah, it's no good for you. Furthermore, you mention Augustine and you don't realize that Augustine Dipona also recognizes the principles of perspicuity, authority, and also sufficiency. In his treatise on baptism, my dear, in the treatise on baptism, indeed, he goes so far as to say, "All the letters of the bishops that have been written, are being written since the closing of the canon, can be refuted if there is anything contained in them that deviates from the truth." Do you know what it says in book 2, 3, and 4 about baptism? The closure of the canon makes the scriptures the only irrefutable authority, because the others can be refuted, and irrefutability is a guarantee of infallibility because scripture alone is infallible, since it cannot be refuted. Or you can refute the writings of the scriptures that have been considered in the canon. And remember that this has nothing to do with the church having determined or defined the canon as such, because that is not the discussion, because what progressive revelation implies is that the principle can be sustained even though it is not complete. If you don't understand that, you obviously need a lesson on what writing is urgently, dear. Another thing, he says that the apostles did not only apply scripture, mentioning Jerusalem, etc. You end up talking about Clemente's first book, that obviously has nothing to do with the topic because it's a canonical topic. In other words, you have a difference between a text that is canonical and a text that is not canonical. The question would be, the principle of the sun in the scripture applies to which ones?
Can you apply the principle without needing the complete canon?
Please understand what gets into your head. The Council of Jerusalem ultimately had to quote scripture because they had to rely on scripture to reach that point. And one more thing, I'm going to explain it to you because this is very important and I want to make sure my presentation covers this point because it seems like you're forgetting it.
Look, when you didn't mention Matthew 5:38 and 39, thank God, but you did mention it indirectly when talking about the Jerusalem council.
Generally, when they use Matthew 5:38 and 39, they say that Christ was not sola scriptura, but they ignore that the Jews practiced sola scriptura by appealing to those three principles that define sola scriptura. For example, Rigo thinks that when Christ says "no, it was said, but I tell you," he was changing the law, and he doesn't know that our Lord was giving the correct hermeneutical meaning, correcting rabbinic excesses and removing the added layers of tradition. And this is truly a shock to the papists, who trust so much in tradition, even though it obscures or contradicts the biblical texts. Furthermore, if Christ is the living Torah, he can build a tradition. And where did that tradition he built crystallize? In the New Testament. Because what is Rigo to him is found in the New Testament.
The midrash exercise of Christ is the same as that of the Jews in those days. I recommend you read this book, my dear. In this book, Agustín del Agua Pérez, who is a Roman Catholic, acknowledges that the Jews were only scripture, because, you know what, Rashid came after Pirkeabot 522. And so you understand, the Talmud is built over time, and there are ideas in the Talmud that contradict other, more recent ideas, but which end up being established. And that's why the Jews understand that in Jewish logic, only the Torah is the scripture from which all other dogmas are defined, because when they performed a midrash exercise, they resorted to the scripture, my dear. In fact, the rabbinic exercise is to look at the biblical text and then, based on the biblical text, begin to develop rules for prosaic examples that follow. And that's something anyone can recognize. That is why the Jews cannot deny that they are in a way the scripture because according to themselves in the Piccabo, which is much older, the later Jews, forget about that, the oldest Jews of the first century BC said that everything was in the Torah and that if it was not in the Torah it did not exist in the world. And that is a principle of scripture alone, beloved brother. And not only that, my dear, because that's something else entirely.
You were mentioning the Council of Jerusalem, and so on, but you forget, according to what Rassinger himself mentions, that they worked under a principle of sola scriptura as genuinely New Testament. This is a quote that I recommend you read on page 56 of your own Roman bishop, uh, Joseph Rassinger, who states directly that they were genuinely sola scriptura because they understood while the canon was being formed that they could use it as the lens to interpret the Old Testament. I ask you again, I mean, on what basis did Paul develop the doctrine of justification? Wasn't it based on the Old Testament? The Old Testament was not the scripture. Paul appealed to another book to develop the doctrine of justification. Paul appealed to something other than the Old Testament for this purpose, and appealing only to the Old Testament as the standard of faith and conduct is not the definition of sola scriptura. I await your reply. Other.
You mention the infallible traditions.
Okay. Tradition, why do you mention 2 John 2:2? But what did Juan say to those people verbally?
Can you tell me?
And not only that, Rigo. Lete Second Thessalonians 2 to 8.
In Second Thessalonians 2 to 8, Paul says that the Thessalonians knew what was holding back the antichrist. My question for you is, what is stopping the Antichrist? You do n't know, do you? You'll have to speculate because it wasn't written down. Without the material base, the element of tradition cannot survive. It's all going to be pure speculation. And finally, this business of private and personal interpretation alone, I expected it. It is part of the argument he wants to advance.
But I'm going to tell you this, and with this I'll close. Don't waste our time, dear, because that kind of assertion isn't a trap, because you're framing it wrong. This is because you believe that scripture alone is equal to private and personal interpretation in which each Protestant becomes his own magisterium and pope. Appealing, by the way, to a quote from Luther that I don't know where they get it from because that quote doesn't exist. So, to save you from embarrassment, let me clarify two things again. First, illumination is an act that occurs when the spirit makes you understand the biblical text while you do your hermeneutical exercise. But that does not violate the principle about scripture, because the spirit is not illuminating you with the Book of Mormon or the Quran or the Talmud or the catechisms, but with the sacred scripture, scripture alone.
You understand? So I can confidently answer yes. The spirit illuminates the scripture, infallible interpreter of people, but infallible, the scripture illuminated by God with that. However, there is another huge error in Tubano's attempt at syllogisms. I mean, we Protestants don't interpret the Bible privately, that's what biblical scholars do, and you didn't come here to debate with one. The issue is very clear, and you yourself brought it up.
It was just writing. So please stay on the topic you proposed.
So that you, our audience, understand, we Protestants owe our allegiance to our confessions, to the criterion of orthodoxy in the creed, and to other sources of authority such as reason, intuition, and experience.
Only, understanding that they are fallible, we evaluate them with the Bible, not the other way around. Far be it from me to say what Monsignor Isidrochoa said, that the catechism is above the Bible.
No Protestant considers himself infallible. You guys do that. And yet, they are not consistent because you say we have different interpretations of the same text, but you fall into the same error, it is not just writing. For example, you trust that the Magisterium has the only infallible interpretation of the texts, but it has not declared itself regarding everything in the Bible. I'll prove it to you. Are the days in Genesis 1 literal or symbolic?
Was the flood local or universal? Your position on predestination, Thomistic or Molinist, you must interpret those texts, but your teacher has not done so. What did he do? I'll leave it to your discretion, to your private interpretation.
That doesn't take away your superiority in your moral judgment to judge the Protestant for doing the same. I await your response now in the rebuttal, and bear with this one because I am talking about what the teachers did not address, but let's see what they did address. Rigo, Matthew 16:18.
Is that Pedro? Is it his confession, or is it both?
Revelation 12:1 and 2. Is Mary the woman? Is it the church or is it both? If Rigo wants to be honest, he should say both, because his teaching tells him to. However, if this is the case, you yourself confess to having at least two different interpretations of the same passage. Again, doesn't that undermine your moral authority to judge the Protestant for having different ideas about the same passage? I hope you answer me because I'm going to pressure you to do so because those trick questions aren't going to work here.
Here you hit an insurmountable wall by handling a subject that is unfortunately beyond your capabilities.
Yes, Rigo, please don't be offended by my words because, as Batman told the mutant leader, this is not a battlefield but an operating table and I am the surgeon.
Well, I think you're leaving it at that. It's 13 minutes 52 seconds with 1 hundredth. He had about 1 minute and 10 seconds left.
This is the first antithesis of lawyer Néstor Díaz to the thesis of the apologist Riguardón. Let's reset the timer to zero and help Rigo, who has to work soon.
Okay. Well, we're doing it pretty fast, aren't we? In other words, I think we're doing very well on schedule, so when the apologist Riguardón is ready, we'll start the clock.
Okay, that's it. Well, it seems the surgeon's head isn't working properly; he's going to have to have brain surgery because he said a lot of things that were completely irrelevant.
Nestor mentions that I am reading a script. Didn't Nestor read from a script during his first presentation? Yes. Look, if you read a script that said things that I didn't say in my presentation about the issue of whether or not Jesus was scripture alone. You saw that I didn't say it. Now, he tells me about the Protestant confessions of faith and how they derive the definition of sola scriptura from them. But look how curious, brothers, because Nestor Diaz himself tells me that there are Protestants who reject scripture alone. Now, that proves my point, because how can there be Protestants who reject Scripture alone and haven't they read those Protestant confessions of faith, which I imagine are not infallible either, right?
So, look, look how strange, right? This now, the typical single writing has nothing to do with the canon.
It's a way of getting away from the topic, my dear Nestor, because it's not in his best interest.
When we talk about sola scriptura, we are talking about the set of sacred books that are canonical and that are inspired by God and important for a person's salvation. So we cannot separate the issue of sola scriptura from the biblical canon, because we are referring to the canonical scriptures, which were defined by an infallible church. Otherwise, the canon would remain open, wouldn't it? Well, some Protestants say that the canon is open for you to see. Now, Nestor claims that since we Catholics are ignorant of what sola scriptura is, we confuse sola scriptura with biblical soloism. Note that if Protestants are not so clear on the definition of sola scriptura, there are some Protestants who disguise sola scriptura as biblical solitude. But look, brothers, it's that easy.
Both the biblical "sola scrip" and the "prima scrip" disguised as "sola scrip" are the same monkey in a different dress. In other words, at the end of the day, they are exactly the same. Because? Because in the end they both say the same thing, right? That scripture alone is the only infallible rule of authority in matters of faith and morals for a Christian. Now, Nestor says that we Catholics make and attack straw men because we are ignorant of what scripture alone is. The classic one. It's not that Catholics make straw men, it's simply the truth that there are as many different definitions of sola scriptura as there are Protestants. Have you seen Santiago Alarcón's dialogues with each Protestant about sola scriptura? Each Protestant defines it differently.
Even this isn't my opinion, it's Kate Mattinson's. Even among trained Protestant theologians, there is confusion and ambiguity when the subject of scripture is raised. The definitions, which are contradictory and insufficient based solely on scripture, are common not only among evangelical authors, but also among reformed authors. And this is coming from a Protestant academic. Now, I don't think Nestor is saying that this academic hasn't also read the confessions of faith, because if he had, then what kind of academics do Protestants have?
Now, Nestor affirms that the principle of sola scriptura does not invalidate other sources of authority such as the magisterium, tradition, etc. Except that he does n't consider these to be infallible.
Therefore, what these teachings must be filtered through the only infallible authority, which is scripture. And honestly, I did read what writing is.
Now, that's false. Here we should ask ourselves, should what the Magisterium and tradition teach be filtered through Scripture or through the private interpretation that each Protestant makes of Scripture? That is very different, very nice Protestant theory that says that what the Magisterium and tradition teach should be filtered through scripture.
However, the reality is different.
Let us remember, brothers, that every book requires an interpreter, and even more so when it is a religious book. Therefore, what Protestants call sola scriptura is nothing more than their own personal and subjective interpretation of the scriptures, where in practice each Protestant becomes their own infallible personal authority when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Do you want to check it out? Easy.
Try correcting a Protestant's misinterpretation of the Bible and you'll see that they never back down, because deep down they believe they always have the truth, that they are never wrong. In short, they believe they are infallible, even though they say otherwise. Do you want further proof of this? The father of the Protestant Reformation himself, Martin Luther, who was also a believer in Scripture alone, would fly into a rage when someone else contradicted his personal interpretation of the Bible. Look at what Luther said.
I am the one who affirms it. I, Dr. Martin Luther, speaking in the name of the Holy Spirit, do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, not even the angels; whoever does not listen to my doctrine cannot be saved. Didn't they believe they were infallible? Well, their own father seems to be the one who is. Now, Nestor affirms that writing alone is a principle of validation and not a doctrine of a dogma of faith. Well, that 's his opinion within the vast sea of Protestant opinions, because here Nestor clearly doesn't know what a doctrine is. So, what is a doctrine? We're going to teach Nestor. It is a teaching given for the instruction of someone. I ask, isn't scripture alone a teaching given to Protestants in their churches for their instruction? Of course. Therefore, scripture alone is also a doctrine, and that remains more than refuted. Now, Nestor affirms that writing alone is not a dogma either.
Well, that's what they say in theory, but in practice it is true. What is a dogma? A dogma is a truth revealed by God that must be believed without exception. I ask, Nestor, can I belong to your evangelical church while rejecting sola scriptura? Right? Obviously not.
Therefore, yes, it is a dogma because it is something that I must believe in order to belong to the Evangelical Church of Nestor. Now, notice, brothers, that in the video on Nestor's channel, the theologian responds, titled " Scripture Alone Under Attack," to the Ark, he does so again at minute 1 hour, 26 minutes, 25 seconds. Mr. Nestor affirms that the principle of sola scriptura is infallible. He just said it, and immediately afterwards he proceeds to prove it with the Bible. Therefore, according to Nestor, sola scriptura is infallible because it is in the Bible, so sola scriptura would be a truth revealed by God in scripture. And if we add to that the fact that one must believe in order to be Protestant, then we come to the conclusion that Scripture alone is indeed a dogma of faith in Protestant practice, even though in theory they say otherwise. The problem is that Protestants are afraid of the word dogma, so they try to disguise it there with euphemisms. Now, Nestor affirms that writing alone rests on three bases: authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity. And to prove it, the authority quotes 2 Timothy 3:16 and tells us about that progressive character of scripture. Well, if we know that the complete scriptures as we have them today are inspired by God, it is precisely because the Magisterium of the Church has taught it so. Well, as Saint Augustine would say, something Nestor did not say, I would not believe in the gospel if I were not moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church. Now, Nestor claims that writing is progressive, but I ask Nestor, Nestor, tell me one thing, how far is that writing progressive? What infallible authority outside of scripture told you how far that progression of divine revelation goes? I ask this because in the scriptures we do not find any list of sacred books that should be canonical for us Christians, since Jesus and the apostles did not leave us such a list.
Therefore, the progressive nature of writing that Nestor claims is nothing more than a vain excuse based on an anachronism to interpret the text out of context and thus justify the non-existent knowledge about writing. Now, it is completely absurd to use Second Timothy 3:16 to validate scripture alone for several reasons. First, the oldest Greek text we have of 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "Every scripture is inspired by God." It does not say that all scripture is inspired by God. And to that we Catholics say amen. The problem for Nestor is that the text does not imply that only writing is inspired by God, which is very different, since that text tells us about the usefulness of writing, but not about its exclusivity. Second, which scripture is Paul referring to there? The entire Bible, as we know it today, is based on this principle of progression. No, no, no. It refers only to the Old Testament. And for that, it is enough to read the previous verse where Paul tells Timothy that he has known the Holy Scriptures since childhood.
I ask, had the New Testament already been written during Timothy's childhood? No, he was referring only to the Old Testament. Now, this is very important, brothers. Which Old Testament scripture did Timothy use? The Greek translation of the Septuagint, which Protestants themselves reject as inspired. And this is very important, because how do we know? Because Paul speaks to Timothy, who was a Hellenized Jew of the Diaspora, and in the Diaspora Greek was spoken, that is why the Greek translation of the Septuagint was used. This is stated by No Rigo, the Doctor of Theology and Reverend of the Evangelical Church of Armenia, Mr. Manuel Kimbachian, in his essay "The Septuagint Between the Synagogue and the Church, Part One," he says, "We must not forget that the Septuagint was truly the book that paved the way for the spread of the gospel. When Paul preached in the synagogues of Asia Minor, that is, in the Diaspora, along with the Greek-speaking Jews who came to worship in those synagogues, he, Paul, found proselytes who had converted from Judaism thanks to reading the Septuagint.
Therefore, and this is the most important point of all, if Nestor wants to apply 2 Timothy 3:16 to justify the infallible authority of Scripture, he would be forced to use in his writing the translation that they deny as inspired, the Septuagint. So, brothers, now you see why Nestor didn't want to talk about the canon of Scripture.
Because he didn't It's appropriate. Now, early Christianity saw in 2 Timothy 3:16 only the Scriptures as the authority inspired by God, as Nestor said, right? And the Protestant scholar Lee Marty McDonald makes this clear in his work *The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority* when he says—pay attention to what he says, brothers and sisters—"There are many examples of non-canonical authors who claimed, or were recognized by others, to have been filled or inspired by the Holy Spirit when speaking or writing." The point is that the Scriptures were not the only ancient writings believed to have been inspired by God.
Generally speaking, in the early church, the common word for inspiration cited in 2 Timothy 3:16 was used not only in reference to the Scriptures, but also to people who spoke or wrote the truth of God. So, Nestor is refuted there. Now, Nestor turns to the Talmud to validate sola scriptura. A grave error on Nestor's part.
Why? Because the Talmud is part of Jewish rabbinic tradition, since the Jews are not Scripture alone, as he says. Now, I say this as a Roman Catholic, since they call me this, right?
This is stated by the evangelical pastor and theologian Raúl Saldívar in his work, *The Sources that Gave Rise to the New Testament*. Pay attention to what Saldívar says. For the Jews, both the written tradition, the Torah, and the oral tradition, the Talmud, are considered a single revelation.
No, it wasn't, sorry, only the written part. Now, look how curious this is, brothers, because Néstor is very predictable. I knew he was going to cite this text, because when Protestants attack tradition to validate Scripture alone, they generally mention the famous text of Mark 7:13, where Jesus speaks against the traditions of the Pharisees.
However, Néstor here has no qualms in this debate about resorting precisely to a rabbinic source of the Pharisees, that is, to a tradition of the Pharisees, such as the The Talmud, then, to validate its mere writing.
Incredible contradiction. Now, the Talmudic text that Nestor speaks of regarding the Torah, that is, only the first five books of the Old Testament, nothing more.
So, Nestor, here I want to ask you a question. Did the writing to which the Talmud refers include the 27 books of the New Testament according to the context in which that Pharisaic rabbi said it? The answer is no. Because the Pharisaic rabbis of the Talmud were not Christians; rather, they were anti-Christian. And the Talmud is not part of the Christian tradition either.
So, now you see how important it is, brothers, to interpret a text with the proper context. Now we are going to refute Nestor's assertion based on the Talmud with the blessed and infallible word of God. And for that, I ask, did the first Judeo-Christian authorities of the church practice what Nestor quoted from the Mishnah, returning to the Torah again and again because everything is in it? The answer is no. And this This is demonstrated by quoting a former Pharisee Jew, as was the Apostle Paul in Romans 6:14: “For sin will not be taught among you, because you are not under the Torah, that is, under the law, but under grace.”
This was so true, brothers and sisters, that during the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles, who were also Jewish and knew the Torah, decreed something completely different from what the Torah taught in Genesis: that Gentile converts to Christianity did not have to be circumcised. So, while Nestor is going around in circles with the Pharisee rabbis, we, the Catholic Christians, rest in the grace of Christ. And regarding material sufficiency and formal sufficiency, I will refute it in my next segment.
Thank you very much.
Time: 14 minutes, 34 seconds, 10 hundredths.
I repeat, both of us have very good time management, and so far we have covered a good portion of the debate; we are halfway through. of the debate. Now we're going to move on to the counter-refutation, the second part of the rebuttals. You'll both have 5 minutes, and then comes the interesting part, right? One question each, where you'll formulate your answer and also your counter-refutation. This is aside from the participants who are having an excellent debate so far. Very good arguments from both of you, but I have to say this as the moderator. I've never been in a channel before—of course, I'm not blaming the channel for receiving so many hostile attacks. I say this because I'm even getting messages on WhatsApp, and it's unbelievable, is n't it? I mean, but oh well, all for the glory of God. I've never seen so much hostility.
Carlos, go on, go quickly, go quickly because I have to go to work.
Oh, don't worry, I also have to vent as the moderator because I've never received so much hostility in a channel, but oh well, all for the glory of God. So, let's go quickly because work can wait. 5 minutes to Néstor Díaz. When you 're ready, we'll give you your time.
I already knew where this debate was going.
When I say Rigo León Guón, it's because everything is predictable. He was going to apply the moving target fallacy because he thinks the Cano issue is relevant here. Look, my friend, I've already debated the Cano issue and I 've also written about it. I'm going to explain why it doesn't fit. Because progressive revelation—unless you deny progressive revelation, and if you do deny it, then explain to me why David did n't believe the dead rise, and then it became a formal doctrine revealed in the New Testament—is not relevant. Because revelation is progressive. So, since revelation is progressive and Scripture was applied as the standard of authority in the Old Testament, it's logical that it includes progressive revelation as such. Now, I mentioned that confessions of faith appeal to Scripture, and you can extract it from confessions of faith because I've already done it, it's been done, and other authors do it. You can't.
You have to base your argument on an academic, on an author, on their own confessions. Because I can tell you that Rassinger says that Scripture alone is New Testament, it is genuinely New Testament. I have the book here, " Episcopate and Primacy." So, you're going to tell me no, but that's an author. So why are you citing authors? I could use Roman Catholic authors that you wouldn't accept. So, don't come at me with author quotes. That's not relevant here.
Regarding the Talmud, you're ignoring the logic of the Talmud because you don't know that subject, my dear. Look, the Talmud crystallized from the year Baraitot onward, which are the traditions of the [unclear].
Therefore, the first phase of the Talmud includes traditions from the first century, but it also includes traditions from the second, third, and fourth centuries.
Pirkkabot is a first-century tradition; it's the patristic literature of the Talmudists, and it's there that it's recognized that they applied [unclear] in their midrashim, in Its midrashic queacer, the perspicuity, authority, and sufficiency that are the foundations of sola scriptura according to the Protestant confessions, dear ones. Therefore, if the foundations are there, it's implicit.
That's what I'm telling you. And you don't understand it because you have a script and you can't get past it. And unfortunately, having a script deceives your audience, dear one. Now you say that oral tradition is infallible because the Thessalonians received it orally, they knew it, but to this day no one knows what it is because it wasn't written down. If it is n't written down, it can't be trusted.
Furthermore, you have another case of an oral tradition that was passed down and was incorrect, that had to be corrected, as is the case that the beloved disciple wasn't going to die. That was received as oral tradition, but it was incorrect and had to be corrected. And barely 40 years later, that is, only 40 years later, a tradition like that had already been corrupted; the true meaning wasn't understood. Another thing, you have the fathers, But the Greek Fathers and the Greeks have traditions that are different from yours. The Greeks don't accept papal infallibility.
They also have oral tradition, custodians like you, and they don't believe in papal infallibility.
Besides, we know that many of these traditions that you supposedly have ultimately don't have a clear endpoint to define where the tradition ends, because the tradition is still open to this day. Another thing, you start talking about private interpretation again; you're attacking a straw man because you don't know the confessions. And it's true that there are sects within sects that identify as evangelical that are n't just scriptural; they're biblical solipsists. And you ask, well, but then they have confessions too, right? They reject the confessions, but we've had a huge mess with the Oneness Pentecostal groups who attack us because we say that's not in the confessions, and they reject them.
Confessions. They are not part of the evangelical people. You don't know the evangelical world you want to attack. If you include the Oneness Pentecostals and the Chemainians within the evangelical group, it's because you don't know. Now, David Barre says—in a huge book that you carelessly use to directly claim that we have 60,000 Protestant sects, etc.—that the churches that fall under the Sola Scriptura in terms of categories (we understand the word denomination) in terms of characteristics are not divided; they are a single group. So, it's not that divided. And finally, what I mentioned to you— and the question will ask you this because you won't escape me—according to Rome, the Magisterium determines all things, but there are biblical texts that are not defined, that are left to your private interpretation, like the literal or symbolic days of Genesis 6:1. And not only that, also Revelation. 12 1 and 2. They said it means both things, Mary or the Church, two interpretations of the same passage. So, what are you talking about, each person's private interpretation? You also do the same thing when the Magisterium doesn't declare on a particular topic, so tell that to someone else.
Time: 5 minutes, exactly, 45 hundredths of a second. We'll reset the timer. We'll give the floor to Mr. Ruardón immediately.
Good. Well, Néstor doesn't want me to mention Protestant academics, even though you heard at the beginning of this debate, in his presentation, he asked me to mention academics. So, I imagine that the Protestant academics I cited don't know the Protestant confessions of faith. And that's the way it is, what kind of academics do Protestants have? Well, it's to be expected, is n't it? Now, he says that translation, oral tradition, isn't infallible.
Well, that's why it's important to pay attention. When the Catholic is speaking, something the Protestant doesn't do. I clearly stated that when Catholics speak of tradition, it's not just any kind of tradition, but the apostolic tradition, what the apostles taught. With John Chrysostom and St. Augustine Dipona, a Church Father whom Nestor loves to quote, I demonstrated that the apostles did teach things that weren't written in the Bible, but that were preserved in the tradition of the early Church. And I cited several things, but they don't pay attention. Now, Nestor says that the material sufficiency of the Bible is in John 20:30-31.
First, it must be said that the Catholic Church doesn't deny the material sufficiency of Scripture, but what it denies is the formal sufficiency that Protestantism attributes to it through sola scriptura. Second, again we see how Nestor takes the text out of context to validate the pretext of sola scriptura. When John says, " Which are not written in this book, which I do not..." Nestor read, I ask, was the author referring here to the entire Bible as we know it now? No, he was referring only to the Gospel of John, so if Nestor wants to validate the sufficiency of the Bible with this text, he would have to have only the Gospel of John in his Bible and that would be enough for salvation. That is why the topic of the biblical canon becomes very uncomfortable for them when this issue of sola scriptura is debated here. Now, brothers, although we Catholics believe in the material sufficiency of scripture, this is not a doctrine. Therefore, I could say that almost everything a Christian needs for salvation is found in the scriptures except for one thing: the list of sacred books that are important for a Christian's salvation. That's not in the Bible, and we all know who made that canonical list: it was the Catholic Church through councils inspired by the Holy Spirit. Now, here is something very important, brothers, another thing that Nestor says, which is the clarity of the Bible, where the obscure passages are better interpreted in the light of the clear ones. And it quotes 2 Peter 3:151 and tells us that the Bible interprets itself because it is very clear. Well, let us allow the doctor of the church who so loves to quote Nestor, Saint Augustine Dipona, in his work against Cresconius, the Donatist, to refute Nestor, saying, "Just as Holy Scripture cannot deceive, anyone who fears being deceived by the obscurity of this matter should consult Scripture itself." I owe no age according to Holy Scripture. Now, if the Bible is so clear and interprets itself, why do Protestants have such different and major contradictions among themselves on primary issues such as the topic of salvation? Let's look at an example, shall we? With the Unitarians, right? With the same members of the evangelical alliance to which Nestor belongs. Nestor, being a Calvinist and relying solely on scripture, affirms that salvation is not lost. Meanwhile, his colleague, Dr. Carlos Mur, being an Arminian and also relying on scripture alone, affirms that salvation can indeed be lost. Which of the two deviated from the principle of scripture alone? And it's not like the Bible is very clear. Well, it seems that in practice this is not the case for Protestantism. Now, if we go to 2 Peter 3:16, the author says that there are things difficult to understand that the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction. Well, indeed, this biblical text teaches that there are biblical texts that are difficult to understand, they are obscure.
So, if there are difficult texts in the Bible to understand, who is going to clarify them? Just one, right? The church. And this is stated in chapter 8 of the Acts of the Apostles, where the apostle Philip finds a eunuch who was reading the texts of the prophet Isaiah. And guess what, the eunuch didn't understand them. Philip asked, "How can you understand this unless someone teaches me?" Leunuch said. It's not that the Bible is so clear that it interprets itself. Here Philip, the voice of the Church of Christ and of Christian tradition, at that moment explained to the eunuch the prophecies of Isaiah that spoke of Jesus. So, here we see that the writing itself was not clear. An interpreter is always required, and that interpreter, which is the church, must be infallible because the Church cannot teach error, at least not the Church of Christ.
Thank you so much.
Time: 4 minutes.
Brother, forgive me, it's just that they're calling me preco, they also call you preco.
Oh, God, what a thing.
Catholics are calling me precocious, a damned soul.
I control it, I mean, you don't have a moderator here. I'm not debating, I'm keeping time.
What thing? I say, Carlos Vel should get out of there early.
What a drag.
Oh my God. Excuse me. It's just that one, excuse me, gentlemen. Come on, let's move on to the rich man has to go to work. Already.
Let's get to the question.
The preschool. Do you have a minute to go before your first question?
My God. Néor Díaz. Ah, Catholicism.
Go ahead, Néor.
It's just one question. Well, I mean, I want to ask you this question again so you understand the meaning of what we're talking about, because scripture alone is not the only authority. When you say church, I accept that the church has authority, it's a straw man. So, I'm going to ask you the question based on infallible tradition. Okay.
If tradition is infallible, it has been inherited from the apostles, and you take scriptural quotes that say, "No, the oral tradition received by word and by writing, right?
Before the closing of the canon."
I ask you, 2 Thessalonians 2:5-8 says that the Thessalonians knew something that Paul transmitted to them orally and that it is doctrine because it is eschatological, so that later you don't say no, that it has nothing to do with eschatology. The question is, what stopped or what is stopping the antichrist according to Paul? That the Thessalonians knew and you didn't.
Time 54 seconds for the question. Go ahead with your answer, Riguardón.
Of course, obviously in this part it remains in tradition, but tradition does not say it because the text has not reached us, but that does not mean that it did not exist.
I showed you, Mr. Nestor, things that the apostles did teach orally, which were not written in the Bible, at least not for Protestants, but which were written and referred to by the Church Fathers in sacred tradition. In fact, it is said that there is a letter from Paul to the Corinthians that is also missing.
That doesn't mean it didn't exist.
So, that's my answer, brother.
Okay. 31 seconds. He'll leave it at that, eh, dear Rigo. I'll leave it at that.
Okay. Excellent. Okay, so we'll give Mr. Néor Díaz his time for " How much time do I have?" How much time do I have?
You 2 minutes. You have 2 minutes for the counter. You'll be calm for your work. When you're there, but stay calm.
Okay. When it's ready, we'll give it time. Forward.
Look, you just saw that Rigo has already handed the debate over to me because he just acknowledged that there are elements of tradition that are not, did not reach him, that are not preserved, and therefore, why are they not preserved? Because they were not recorded in writing. Now he's going to say, you can say, "No, but the problem is that these are aspects of tradition." Oh, and what aspects can we be sure of if you have groups like the Orthodox who say they have received a tradition that contradicts, for example, what the Roman Catholic believes regarding the issue of papal infallibility? So, that 's an impressive point. Or also with regard to the celebration of Easter, that is tradition. Those in the East celebrate Easter in a different way and received it from the apostles, unlike those in the West. So that's the general idea.
Oral tradition cannot be trusted if it is not preserved in written form. And when I ask him, "Where is the oral tradition?" He will have to resort to written texts.
Therefore, oral tradition does not hold up because you have a biblical text that teaches you that you can have a tradition of the apostles that did not come in written form. So I ask, dear Rigo, why do you quote 2 John 2:12? He says, "I had other things to tell you, but I'm not going to tell you in writing, I'm going to tell you in a moral way." If you don't even know what was stopping the antichrist, then again, you have no way of proving biblically that tradition is infallible. The only thing you can prove is that the apostles transmitted things orally and not in writing, but you don't have those things. So goodbye I say, thanks fatality.
1 minute 28 seconds, 83 hundredths. That's what he said in his response, Mr. Nestor Diaz. We reset the timer and hand the question over to the apologist Rigo Ardón. My dear Nestor, tell me one thing. Is the principle of sola scriptura, the principle or doctrine, as you call it, infallible? Yes or no?
Of course, it's infallible.
Oh, please, just a moment, just a moment. We're back again.
Remember, even though I'm precocious here, remember that I'm the moderator.
Repeat the question, dear R.
No, I understood the question. I answered her. Well then, then both of them are, give him the rebuttal.
Wait.
Don't be premature. Wait. Let me give it time.
Okay. He understood the question. We'll give you time to refute, Mr. Néor, go ahead.
No, it's my turn, it's my turn. Néor already answered yes.
Ah, of course. Okay, okay. I'm going to give you a more complete answer so that your refutation is more concrete.
The time is coming. Forward. Already.
It is infallible because it is a principle of application, of course, of infallible writing. In other words, to make it clear, writing alone is a principle of application of enlightened writing, which is infallible.
There's the answer. If you want to focus on it better, writing is infallible. The principle of sola scriptura works with the infallible text. It's over.
19 seconds. Okay. Go ahead, Rigo Ardón, with your counter-response.
Well, here the esteemed Nestor would be throwing away the Formosa single deed. Because? Because Protestants no longer have just one infallible authority other than Scripture, but two: Scripture and the Protestant principle of sola scriptura, which, as I demonstrated throughout this debate, is not biblical in its formal sufficiency, as Nestor attributed to it, and I refuted this with Church Fathers and also with the chapter from the Book of Acts, Fatality. Thank you so much.
Okay. Time 36 seconds, 32 hundredths.
Well, you guys have been very quick in your response. They have been concise.
The debate was very good, I must say.
So now each of you only has one minute left to say absolutely nothing about the debate, no arguments, no refutations, nothing related to the questions, but a formal farewell to this interesting dialogue. So we give the floor to Mr. Nestor Diaz.
to the magister quido. Uh, well, yes, uh, I'm pleased with this meeting. It was unexpected, obviously, it was unpredictable, it wasn't very predictable. In fact, we knew it was going to happen, but I'm practically pleased that we developed such an interesting theme. I think we need to continue developing topics like this because it often helps to break free from the caricature that is sometimes given to topics like this, but without a doubt, for anything else, know that we support Rigardón.
Rardón, you know we love you very much and we hope you do well at work. Now you're going to work, so God bless you. You ca n't hear yourself.
34 seconds. Go ahead with your farewell to the Apollo Riguardo.
Well, brothers, thank you very much first of all to all the people who have been following this debate. It was a debate that was supposed to take place at the beginning of December, but well, due to issues that prevented me from making it, we moved it to this date. So, thanks to all the people, both Catholic and Evangelical, who have been witnessing the debate, to Carlos Veloz, who at the last minute agreed to come here to this channel so that they could call him premature, I mean, no, as Carlos said, no, no, no, seriously, that's it.
Thank you so much, Carlitos, for helping us here.
Uh, thanks to my friend Nestor, a person who is quite intelligent, he is a polite person, right? And sometimes he spices up the debates, because that's what it's all about, isn't it? For dipping, for dipping to add sauce, right? And in the end, remember, Catholic and Evangelical brothers and sisters, this is simply a debate and nothing more.
And above all, brothers and sisters, thank God for allowing us to be gathered here together for another day, even if it is at a distance. God bless you all, both Catholics and Evangelicals.
First of all, excuse me just to promote that there's a debate on the same topic coming up right now with Lisboa and Osman, uh, for people who want to delve deeper, but it's not for me, but don't invite me to moderate because I can't be precocious on two channels.
But you know, God bless you all, Rigo, you know. And thank you very much. Or thanks to both of them. Thank you both for your trust. Rigo is my friend, Nestor is my brother. Well, we have to add a little bit of humor so that it's clear we don't take anything seriously. We enjoyed the debates, we studied the arguments.
I think you are both excellent debaters and count on me, Rigo, count on me, Nestor, for anything else in any other area of debate, panels, uh, as you have always done with stature and with great strength in what you believe. To our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, all glory, all honor, and to our God in His fullness, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Uh, we're also very grateful for the opportunity. See you next time. See you later.
Wine is your love.
That divine thing.
Light in my heart.
Lord, you stick to the altar.
Your presence comes to embrace us.
Today, Eucharist, source of life, transforms my being, heals my wounded soul.
Oh, oh.
Eucharists, sacrifice of love.
Oh, Eucharist, renew my life.
Oh, plan of life, in you I find peace, communion with my brothers.
We surrender ourselves to you. Your love redeems us from your glory. We participated. We praise you.
Eucharist, strong source of life, my being, heal my wounded soul.
Oh, oh.
Eucharist, sacrifice of love.
Eucharist renews my life.
Oh, with open hearts. We're getting closer, you feel it, we're here. You are the way, the truth, and the life. I want to worship you, I want to live in you. Oh, Eucharist, fountain of life, fountain of life.
Transform my being, heal my wounded soul.
Oh, oh.
Eucharist.
sacrifice of love, of love, Eucharist.
Renew my life, renew my life. Uh.
Open hearts, we draw near.
Your love is felt here we are.
You are the way, the truth, and the life.
I want to worship you, I want to live in you.
Eistía, source of life.
Transform my being, heal my wounded soul.
Eucharist, sacrifice of love.
Eucharist renews my life.
Eucharist, source of life, source of life transform my being for my wounded soul.
Oh, Eucharist, sacrifice of love, do not Eucharist renew my life.
Related Videos
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
Letter to An Ex-Muslim
FarhanAhmedZia
5K views•2026-05-29
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
Everyone is sprinting towards nothing.
ElinJen
2K views•2026-05-29
The fourth great humiliation. #jimmycarr #crowdwork #hecklers #standup
jimmycarr
576K views•2026-05-28
