The Counsel of Trent
#1015 - Michael Horton's Response to Me on Sola Scriptura (REBUTTED)
May 2, 2025
In this discussion, Michael Horton, a Reformed theologian from Westminster Seminary California, critiques the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. They dive into historical perspectives, highlighting challenges to its claims rooted in early Church teachings. Horton examines Clement of Rome’s emphasis on oral traditions over written texts and Irenaeus’ defense of scripture against Gnosticism. The conversation grapples with the complexity of scripture and tradition, arguing for the necessity of communal interpretation in preserving theological integrity.
29:52
Episode guests
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
- The absence of early Church Fathers' support for Sola Scriptura prior to Nicaea raises doubts about its historical validity.
- The podcast emphasizes the essential role of tradition and the Church in preserving doctrinal authority, challenging the exclusivity of scripture as the sole rule of faith.
Deep dives
The Dilemma of Sola Scriptura
A significant challenge for Protestant beliefs arises from the claim that early Church Fathers endorsed Sola Scriptura, especially in the pre-Nicaean period. The argument highlights the absence of citations from early Fathers regarding this doctrine, noting that many Protestant apologists tend to reference the fourth to fifth centuries instead. This lack of witnesses before the Council of Nicaea raises the question of whether the doctrine can truly be traced back to the origins of the Church. Moreover, if early Christians upheld Sola Scriptura, they simultaneously adhered to Catholic teachings including the priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, and the necessity of bishops, further complicating the Protestant stance.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
