Lizzie Reezay has a new video critiquing Sola Scriptura, a topic I have discussed a great deal:
She makes a few mistakes and errant claims. For instance, she claims that the canon was fixed in the 4th century, notwithstanding the infallible (from the Roman Catholic perspective) once-for-all, binding definition was proclaimed in April 1546 during the 4th session of the Council of Trent, and even then, that canon differed from those of Carthage, Hippo, and Trent (see Answering Trent Horn on the Canonicity of the Apocrypha). Furthermore, when she discusses things such as “Tradition,” note that the dogmas, proclaimed on the basis of “Tradition” (e.g., Bodily Assumption; Immaculate Conception) are utterly absent in early Christianity (see my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology [2017]; on the Immaculate Conception and Early Christianity, see my response to Tim Staples and Patristic Mariology on this issue). It should also be noted that Rome has never infallibly defined any of the texts she appeals to, except for Matt 16:18-19 which was defined at Vatican I (which contradicts the early Christian interpretation thereof . . . .) Notwithstanding, it is a decent-ish video, so I will plug it here. Reezay, however, is pretty sloppy when it comes to research, so such errors were expected, alas. For previous articles refuting her recent pro-Catholic work, see:
Answering a Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images
As mentioned above, I have written much on the topic of Sola Scriptura. For a lengthy paper, the most thorough treatment of the doctrine from a Latter-day Saint perspective, see:
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
