Joshua Pearsall

Did you know #RomanCatholics & #EasternOrthodox are not only losing more people then they gain (despite the constant narrative they run online), and are on average less pious then many other Christian groups? See below

I'm dead.

He wasn't the first, and won't be the last.

I bet Joshua Pearsall is going to run from the debate.

The superscriptions (or titles) of the Psalms found in the manuscripts have many odd features that indicate something beyond them is happening. And contrary to popular thought they are part of the manuscripts, there is no evidence they were ever lacking. substack.com/profile/1613112…

I have so many 😂. One major one is original sin. I used to deny it and hold to something more alon to modern EO ideas of ancestral sin, thankfully I've been corrected on that one!

So you can assert this but it's clear Scripture does at times interpret scriptures and the fathers taught this almost to a man. I talk about this at length here youtu.be/v1ac6shkA-0?is=zi2_… So the standard you might appeal to has historically affirmed this teaching.

According to the Church fathers they also weren't authorized to do that.

1 - every system at some points hits a fundamental, 2 - we can argue for it's fundamental nature and have been for some time, 3 - if you want to reject what the Church fathers taught on it you are welcome to do so just be sure to say loudly and proudly you're rejecting them.

For a plehtora of quotations: youtube.com/watch?v=tMjZIaQf…

He did, he had a whole OT, but the authority of Scripture comes from God. He was also the source of any co-authors authority. The fathers whose traditions we all claim to follow were also in full agreement there which is why they said Scripture was self attesting.

Chemnitz answered this exact argument in volume 1 of his examination of Trent 500 years ago, it's time to retire this argument. Let alone the bigger issues at hand: youtu.be/881Sypkpcv4?is=nHR_…

To cut off this argument. youtu.be/WqGc_nW4L-0?is=cJa0…

I think Paul told us pretty clearly there where the authority is coming from.

I'll be talking about that with someone... Whenever I remember to reach back out to them (rushes to DMs)

I think Paul said something about if even he cam preaching something apart from what God had already delivered. And Peter said something about the prophets writings being a more sure testimony then his words. Maybe I'm just crazy.

Real. And then Trent Horn realized they couldn't win with it and said, "Solo is just the natural consequence." Like come on, we can do better than the same arguments that were thrown out and defeated 500 years ago.

Read Martin Chemnits examination of Trent volume 1, Whitaker's disputation on holt Scripture, Jon Jewels apology for the Church of England, and you will find our argument.

I just want him to answer my questions so I know what word concept fallacy we committed 😭

What was it Paul said... "This was written for your benefit."