Why Sola Scriptura Makes Sense
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- See full video here: • What is Sola Scriptura...
Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
gavinortlund.c...
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/trut...
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not that it might be pillar and foundation. Not that it is sometimes the pillar and foundation. Not that it is the pillar and foundation now but not later. Therefore the Church is the extra piece of authority that you are asking for, Gavin.
Well, the church doesn’t survive without scripture. Primarily the Tanakh. Not even the New Testament is sufficient for the validation of the church. Too many Catholics want to claim that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible yet. The majority of the Bible precedes the church by over 1000 years. Christ didn’t invent anything new or add to anything that didn’t already exist.
The truth is scripture and being the pillar in foundation does not mean they have the given liberty to add to anything or change anything like they readily do today
Deuteronomy 4:2 ESV
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.
And what did Paul say???
Galatians 1:8 ESV
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Man, I’m Protestant but I find Orthodox theology and exegesis of scripture to be air tight. In a way I’ve almost been surprised going to Orthodox Parishes and finding everything is so biblically oriented. Every action has profound meaning behind it that can be gleaned from the scriptures (almost exclusively). The Orthodox retain what is in the Bible so much so that it is uncomfortable to our modern senses simply because it is so foreign to our post-enlightenment American conceptions.
I think if we (protestants) understood that Orthodoxy is fundamentally different from Catholicism, we would be far more open to it. I don’t think Protestantism is equipped to engage with the level of depth that is present in Orthodoxy because much of Protestant theology has been formed from reacting to Catholic doctrine. Orthodox theology seems to undermine Protestant theology because every sound doctrine that we have is predicated on the apostolic faith and our attempt to return to it results in anachronistic interpretations of the scripture.
@@josiahalexander5697 they still venerate saints bud.
The original fathers never did such things.
@@HillbillyBlack
By “original fathers” who do you mean?
Because if it’s the apostolic fathers, what saints were there to be venerated?
I think the problem is largely contextual.
The thing about Protestant iconoclasm is that, while meaning to uplift Christ and put more emphasis on the sacred, we actually diminish the gospel narrative and don’t esteem him highly enough. We ignore the theotokos, we neglect the church fathers, we glance over the significance of the angels. Our iconoclasm does a disservice to the biblical story because we undermine the significance of each and every person within scripture and refuse to venerate what is holy, confusing that veneration for worship..
@@josiahalexander5697 origin-
"If indeed the saints who are outside the body and are with Christ do and work anything in our behalf after the manner of the angels, who perform services for our salvation, let this also be considered among the secret things of God, not to be committed to
paper. We offer humble prayers to God Himself, who is over all, through His only begotten Son, to whom we make supplication inasmuch as He is the Propitiation for our sins, in order that He, as our High Priest, may offer our prayers to God"
Polycarp-
"We worship Christ as the Son of God; the martyrs, however, we love as disciples and imitators of the Lord, as is right, on account of their unsurpassable benevolence toward their King and Teacher; and we wish to become their companions and disciples."
Peter-
John Chrysostom - "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'; that is, on the faith of his confession."
Isidore of Seville - "The other apostles also became equal sharers with Peter in honor and authority."
Cyprian - "The remaining apostles were necessarily also that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership both in honor and of power."
Basil of Seluecia - “Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.'
Ambrose - “When he heard, 'But who do you say I am, he immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation…Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'
Sola Scriptura-
- Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)
- Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3)
- Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3)
- Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3)
- Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)
- Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)
- Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16)
- John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians)
- Basil the Great (AD 329-379): Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189 to Eustathius the physician)
Do not be deceived, there is no other savior but one. Not even Mary gets that honor. She honors her savior as we all must, those who are called.
Before becoming ANYTHING, challenge the beliefs of that which entices interest. Always verify beliefs on solid biblical standing.
The problem is contextual blindness from those without the spirit of God within them. Catholics notoriously dogmatically inflate sections where as reformers read exegetically.
Calvin-
"Our agreement with antiquity is far greater than yours, but all that we have attempted has been to renew the ancient form of the church ... [that existed] in the age of Chrysostom, and Basil, among the Greeks, and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, among the Latins."
The reformers did not set out to create anew church but to undo the extra-biblical accretions of the original Church.
Remember, paul uses past tense with tradition and the gospel.
Galatians 1:8 ESV
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you WERE taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our LETTER.
Theres zero biblical leeway or openings for accretion traditions. The RCC is in grave error and God removed their standing as the one church with the Coptic, east orth and prot reformations. It couldnt be clearer. The church has ZERO authority. The authority lies with the Body, not the state.
I struggle with this because just knowing that councils CHOSE what went into the Bible or not. So therefore you have to say that the councils were guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit as to choosing the infallible word of God
Bingo!
You're almost worshipping the people who wrote and selected the Bible. ie, Your judgement means nothing; theirs is all that matters.
The Protestant response to your concern is that the councils did not "choose" what went into the bible. They recognized the authority that the particular books held intrinsically. Over time the councils recognized the authority of each book. Yes, the Holy Spirit guided them, but the process of getting to the bible you own was a bumpy ride.
@@mj6493 It does not matter if it was bumpy leading up to the council, the council defined the canon once and for all to unite Christians. What if they were wrong for example, how much would that shake the Faith that grew the last 1800 years?
@@mj6493 so are you saying the Holy Spirit protected the Church of the 4th century from making any mistake in recognizing which books belong to the Bible?
The speech of God is also the speech of God. If God spoke to a prophet and it wasn’t recorded in Scripture, that has the exact same authority as the speech that was recorded in Scripture.
I’m essence yea but if it was something essential to the faith then God would have made sure that the salvation guidelines would be written
It goes to show that there isn’t 70 requirements to be saved
@@duckymomo7935 No there are 3. 1. Repent of your sins with all your heart. 2. Be baptized in the name of the Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit for the cleaning of sins through the sacrifice of Christ. 3. Die in a state of grace (unity with God).
The Church that Christ established on earth is ontologically unique.
right, that's the right way one ought to argue against Sola Scriptura, as opposed to something like, "Sola Scriptura isn't in the Bible," or something like that
But the Church does not operate with unrivaled authority.
@@milton5417 upon whos interpretation does this unrivaled authority draw? Yours? Mine? A book can’t read itself, even an ontologically unique one.
@@milton5417 Nor is the Church infallible.
@@mac3441 The Church submits to Christ. Therefore, the Church’s authority yields to the authority of Christ.
Here’s my problem with Sola Scriptura…
It’s the single doctrine that empowers the Mormons, jehovahs witnesses, Hebrew Israelites…
I’ve been a Protestant my whole life and I’ve realized that what “Sola Scriptura” really means in practice is:
“I’ll believe whatever I want to believe as long as I can find a verse to support my belief.”
We have to be honest and say that humans are not very good at understanding the Bible or we wouldn’t have so many different versions of Christian belief…
Who interprets? Flesh or spirit?
Exactly and then it becomes “you disagree and have a problem with God because I understand what it really means and it’s holy so if you’re disagreeing with me then you’re disagreeing with the Holy God.
Also funny how they (I also am Protestant) say the “Word of God” making no distinction that the Word of God in John 1:1 is Jesus, not the copy of the esv kjv nasb or whatever you’re holding
@@majorcajun5524 I am protestant just FYI lol
I’d like to challenge Catholics intellectually and bring about logic from what they’re reading to poke holes in a lot of their theology. In the last 10 years alone they have been trying harder to read scripture which is a win regardless if They are reading it incorrectly. It’s the message that saves, not the messenger
I suspect within the next 200 years the Roman Catholic system will radically change
@@HillbillyBlack I was agreeing with Rickyplumbs haha. I think we’re all Protestants but I was just pointing out that sola scriptura can and does lead some sects of Protestantism to believe the others are wrong and heretical, even though they too would say that they are sola scriptura and both groups seem to be earnestly seeking the intended meaning of the text
@@majorcajun5524 the wild interpretation differentials is concerning but if you really look at the evidence you can discern the criteria behind the warped theologies. Generally it is the spirit that gives life and understanding of God’s word. When the unredeemed read scripture they read in such a way that much of it is blurred and veiled because they are perishing. As such you get people like Joyce Myers or Joel Osteen and it creates a fractured theology going all over the place.
Sola Scriptura in a Reformed sense is much more logical.
Paul writes that we should not “exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6)
John writes, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book”
Moses writes, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it” (Deut. 4:2; cf. 12:32). If another authority could either add or take away from Scripture, then this would invalidate these passages of Scripture.
Christ in his ministry quotes scripture over 90 times and infers scripture in every single word and parable of his ministry because he came to fulfill not to invent new. Christ ministry is found in explicit detail in over 300+ OT predictions all completed in his ministry but written 100s of years before him.
Do not confuse the New Testament with core scripture. The New Testament is simply writings commenting on the old saying “hey the old that proclaimed the messiah just came true“
Scripture is the litmus test for discerning truth. Every time Jesus needs to answer a doctrinal question, he cites Scripture.
the Bible does not allow for tradition to be equal or superior to Scripture. Jesus said, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” Christ NEVER once validated tradition. His ministry was pure word of God.
The Apostles did the same and any mention of tradition from their writing is the tradition of the gospel not new invention past Christ. Nor do they allow for continuation of tradition expansion. Luke calls the Bereans “noble-minded” for “examining the Scriptures daily” to see if the gospel was true (Acts 17:11).
Timothy was able to come to faith through the OT Scriptures as a child (2 Tim. 3:14-15).
Paul tells Timothy that Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Paul writes: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”
Men of God are not equipped in any other way not even tradition or sacraments. They are equipped by the word of God itself and this tradition of God predates Christ going all the way back to the profits and David. Even Moses.
tradition is not a reliable way to transmit truth. Catholic apologists often appeal to the Church Fathers to defend doctrines, but we see no reason to believe in the early Church Fathers. In fact early church fathers are wildly inconsistent in theological shifting throughout their ministries. Augustine held beliefs for a time and then shifted several times even up until the last moment of his life, amending previous perceived errors on his part.
In fact, false traditions were even appearing in the first century. Paul writes, “You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me” (2 Tim. 1:15). No doubt, some of these men were Paul’s personal disciples in Ephesus, whom he predicted would lose their faith (Acts 20:29-30). John had to correct false teaching in his gospel (Jn. 21:22-23), and Paul had to correct false teaching, too (2 Thess. 2:2). In fact, from one end of the NT to the other, we see contrary false teaching. If they had false traditions in the first century already, wouldn’t we expect more false traditions today? Even though the Church Fathers were closer to the apostolic age, this doesn’t make them more orthodox nor infallibly reliable.
I could go on and on and on. Here’s the baseline truth. Like the sovereignty of god and the Trinity, sola Scriptura is defined by definition not explicit title listed in scripture.
Jesus said- John 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they KNOW you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
How do we know God AND Christ???
John 17:17
Sanctify them in the truth; YOUR WORD IS TRUTH.
Not even scripture supports the idea it is the sole infalliable rule of faith. The oral law is repeatedly referenced in the Bible.
Here’s the good reason for something else to have the same value: Martin Luther took out the “Book of Sirach” from your Bible only because he believed - erroneously - that it was originally a text in Greek and not in Hebrew. When the original Hebrew version was discovered (19th century), according to Luther’s approach your Bible should have included the Book of Sirach. But it never did.
FOR Bible Based Teachings Visit The Old Path hosted by Bro Eli Soriano and you will learn alot about Bible iam sure
Judaism. Despite containing the oldest known list of Jewish canonical texts, the Book of Sirach itself is not part of the Jewish canon.
@@Sc3tchy Correct. How does this add or subtract from my original point about Luther’s choice?
@@CatholicWisdomBecause it is NOT Scripture.
@@stevenlindsey2056 Luther WOULD have included it, if only he had known that it had originally been written in Hebrew. That's the point.
“Unrivaled Authority.” Amen.
where is that in the scripture itself?
Where does the Catholic Church Rival the Bible tho?
I agree with Gavin’s premises, but disagree with “Sola Scriptura” for one simple reason: Lack of authoritative interpretation. It doesn’t matter how authoritative Scripture is on its own, without an authoritative interpreter, Scripture means whatever the reader wants it to mean.
Only if you ignore reality. Hence as there is sin and evil and the gospel is the single largest contributer to our lives and societies we need merely open our eyes and ears to see this reality.
It's amazing that one can hear something from another that has not been said. Gavin is not talking about interpretation of the Scriptures at all. Do you notice that you are disagreeing with him on something he has not said?
@@Nolongeraslave please reread what I wrote. I did not state that Gavin was talking about interpretation. I stated that I agree with his premise. Then I went on to state that despite that agreement, I still disagree with the concept of “Sola Scriptura” because of the interpretation issue. That is, agreement with Gavin’s premise does not necessitate agreement with the concept of “Sola Scriptura.” I’m afraid you read something that I simply didn’t say.
@@kiwisaram9373 I would like to continue this conversation, but I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say with this response. Please clarify.
@@wjtruax O.k. then, what are the "interpretation issue" you were talking about?
All speech, written or spoken, requires an interpreter. The speech can be infallible, but if the interpreter is fallible, you get heresy (something we all agree on). Thus, infallible speech requires an infallible interpreter. This does not mean the interpreter is now greater than the speaker, it only means that they share a trait. In this case, the Catholic believes God has conferred infallibility upon the Church so as to avoid the all too common misstep of heresy.
It’s amazing how many Christians will reject this clear truth and shrug as Christ’s body divides endlessly over personal Bible interpretations.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 Couldn't agree more. Gavin's attempts to describe the inherent division of Protestantism as unity by comparing it to a tree falls incredibly short. And then he tries to claim Protestantism is more catholic than Catholicism...its an absurd argument.
@@colejoseph8072how do you think the ancient Israelites interpreted scripture? How could Paul do it without asking "pope Peter"? How come the same church that supposedly has authority over the Bible teaches a ton of stuff that was never even in the Bible let alone is supported by "tradition"? Where do they keep those traditions? Locked away in the Vatican archives?
It's a ridiculous claim to need an infallible authority to interpret scripture. What do you think scripture is? Have you ever read the gospels and the letters of the new testament? Don't you see how the Bible, in this case the OT, is constantly interpreted in the new testament itself? How do you think they did that? And why do you think we need an interpretation of the interpretation already in there? And what things do you think you need to believe besides the things that are clearly taught in scripture even without any interpretation or with the interpretation of the writers themselves? You think you need to pray rosaries? Do pilgrimages to tombs of saints?
@@MrSeedi76 A lot of your points are tertiary and distract from the main issue. I'll try to stick to your core counterpoints (as far as I can tell what they are) and then reiterate my central point.
1. "how do you think the ancient Israelites interpreted scripture?"
I've heard this critique before, I think by Gavin actually. Its really a nonstarter though. By the time Christ was on the scene there were three disputed canons of the "Old Testament" (not a Jewish term). The Sadducees only followed the Torah (first five books). The Pharisees followed the Hebrew TNKH (modern Protestant OT). And finally, the Hellenistic Jews held to a larger LXX canon (basis for the Catholic OT barring a couple of exceptions). So not only is your claim not true, the data actually supports the thesis I believe, which is the Catholic one.
2. "How could Paul do it without asking "pope Peter"?"
So this posits a false assumption of what Catholics believe about Papal authority and the Magisterium in general. We don't believe Peter set the Canon individually, nor do we believe any other Pope did like some kind of Rambo Pope (as Michael Lofton I think refers to it). So this objection is a nonstarter because it does not reflect any of the claims of the Catholic Church.
3. "How come the same church that supposedly has authority over the Bible teaches a ton of stuff that was never even in the Bible let alone is supported by "tradition"?"
I hear this one from Protestants a lot and I must say I find it odd. There's a lot here regarding how the Magisterium and Tradition work that you seem to be misunderstanding. Beyond that, you're attempting a critique that I can easily throw back at you. If you're a "once saved always saved" Protestant or a "Sola Scriptura" Protestant, you are following theological concepts that are not only not found in the Bible, but are fundamentally opposed to the Gospel.
I'll conclude with these two questions:
1. If an infallible interpreter is unnecessary, then which branch of Protestantism is right? And you can't say "it doesn't matter" like many do. Some say that Baptism is essential for salvation and others disagree. This is a critical point of disagreement because it calls into question how salvation is actually attained. Moreover, the myriad interpretations of the Gospel (represented by the thousands of Protestant denominations) shows that a lack of infallible interpreter leads to countless interpretations of the Scriptures. So if these branches are disagreeing on certain issues of what the Bible says, how do you know which one is right? Is it the Baptists? The Pentecostals? The Anglicans? The Presbyterians? The Evangelicals? etc etc etc.
2. How do you know what the accurate canon of Scripture is? I can just cite councils and Apostolic Succession as the basis for knowing what's supposed to be in the Bible and what isn't. The Protestant canon originates with Luther and company, so how do you know what it's supposed to be?
You said: "All speech, written or spoken, requires an interpreter. The speech can be infallible, but if the interpreter is fallible you get heresy" That's right, so every interpretation done by the roman magisterium, written or spoken, requires also to be interpreted by everyone else, if everyone else is not infallible, how can we be sure what everyone else is listening and interpreting from the roman magisterium is right? If you're not infallible, is it possible that you've not understand correctly what the magisterium is saiyng? I can go beyong that: if you're not infallible, how can I be sure that your comment is true and right?
Actually the Catholic church doesn't deny that Scripture has unique authority, nor does it claim that the Church is equal. Scripture is both inspired (positively) and infallible (negatively), whereas the Church merely possesses the negative charism (ie, "not technically wrong) but lacks the positive (inspiration).
right for the Roman Catholic view they are equal with respect to (a) infallibility and (b) to be "received with equal reverence"
@@TruthUnitesred Tradition is to be treated with equal reverence as it’s truly inseparable from Scripture. (I believe you referred to Dei Verbum for your quotes, which is in the context of Sacred Tradition specifically). To make such a “clear cut” sola scriptura claim as you have stated here requires ripping Scripture from the historical context in which it was written, as well as from the context of the liturgy that helped shape it. It is clear from Paul’s writings that there was indeed an established liturgy being referenced. The infallibility claim is given to the teaching authority of the Church. It’s a bit simplistic to use “sacred tradition” (equal reverence) and “teaching authority” (infallibility) interchangeably with “Church” in your comment above, as teaching authority and sacred tradition have separate functions and different supportive arguments and different relationships with Scripture. In merging the two you end up saying things like “the pope can speak ex cathedra and it’s on par with Scripture” which is just not true
@@asgrey22you can't make a claim as tradition ought to be reverenced the same with out reason. Your argument as it stands now has the same reasoning as "because I said so" that's not reasonable.
@@souzajustin19d right, the underlying reasoning for that claim is a longer conversation, but that wasn’t the aim of my comment, which was to clarify what the Catholic position actually is, as Dr.Ortlund uses the concept of Church interchangeably with Sacred Tradition and with Papal Infallibility, which are linked closely but all have distinct meanings and relationships with each other. I’m just pointing out what the Church actually claims as opposed to Dr. Ortlund’s articulations
@@asgrey22 sounds good.
If God is real and He is who He says He is, then He is all powerful. Within that power is confined the power to preserve His Word throughout the generations.
Which is manifestly FALSE. You are making assumptions but it is infact true that over half of Christians are Catholics who hold to a 73 Book Canon, while proponents of Sola Scriptura hold to a 66 Book Canon.
You are already in the minority, one of the 2 has to be false, meaning they either added or took away from the word or God.
One of the 2 has a false Bible, proving that your assumption about divinely inspired canon without a church to define it, is false.
God infact maintains his word in the world through the Church, his living visible Body on Eartj
Indeed. He has preserved His word and the correct interpretation in His Church, the Catholic Church.
@@johnwaterman8449 IS that the church that says Mary was immaculate, remained a virgin, was assumed, and the queen of heaven which millions worship? I think not.
Yet, the Church is not infallible nor is it the final authority and arbiter of all truth. Christ and His Word are infallible and above the church!
Christ is the Head of the Church & individual believers are the Church. The earliest believers were called Christians, not Catholics, not Orthodox nor Protestant.
Christ & His Word is where we submit, period! All other Church councils and teachings are only guides and should be subject to Him & His Word. The scriptures instruct us to go directly to God!
The Church Submits to Christ & His Word
Ephesians 5:22-25
[22]Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
[23]For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
[24]Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
[25]Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
Colossians 1:17-20
[17]He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
[18]And he is the head of the body, the Church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
[19]For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
[20]and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross
Deuteronomy 8:1-3
[1]Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land the Lord promised on oath to your ancestors.
[2]Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands.
[3]He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.
Matthew 4:4
[4]Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”
Matthew 24:35
[35]Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
He is our Priest who makes Intercession for Us
Romans 8:34
[34]Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes INTERCESSION for us.
Hebrews 4:14-16
[14]Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
[15]For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
[16]Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Hebrews 7:23-27
[23]Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.
[24]But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.
[25]Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
[26]For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens;
[27]who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
Christ is Mediator
1 Timothy 2:5
[5]For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
Acts 4:12
[12]Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Jeremiah 29:12-13 Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 33:3 Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.
Philippians 4:6-7
[6]Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God;
[7]and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:26-27
[26]Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
[27]Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Matthew 6:6,9-15
[6]But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.
[9]In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
[10]Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.
[11]Give us this day our daily bread.
[12]And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.
[13]And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
[14]“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
[15]But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
1 John 5:14-15
[14]Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
[15]And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him.
2 Chronicles 7:14
[14]if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
Psalms 17:6
[6]I have called upon You, for You will hear me, O God; Incline Your ear to me, and hear my speech.
Psalms 102:17
[17]He shall regard the prayer of the destitute, And shall not despise their prayer.
Psalms 145:18-19
[18]The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth.
[19]He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He also will hear their cry and save them.
Proverbs 15:29
[29]The Lord is far from the wicked, But He hears the prayer of the righteous.
Romans 10:13
[13]For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Romans 10:9-13
[9]If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
[10]For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
[11]As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
[12]For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
[13]for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
@@johnwaterman8449In the same Church where semi-Pelagianism is required to be accepted?
I love this argument, I’m not sure how you can argue that Church has authority over the Scriptures by saying that the Scriptures give the Church authority. God gives authority to Scripture by its being His Word, the Church merely recognizes this authority.
The Scriptures don't give the Church authority. They just attest to the fact that Christ did. Christ gave the Church authority whether or not it ever was written down
How can the Church infallibly recognize authoratative scripture?
@@bobdinkytown that kind of thinking is bound for an infinite regression. I’m content knowing that my Lord will lead me into His truth through His Word
@@AshtonSWilson ok, how does He use His Word to lead you into His Truth? And how do you know that He will?
Who says the Church has power over the scriptures? This is a false choice. You need the Church and Tradition along with the Scriptures.
Apostolic teaching, Sacred Tradition is ontologically unique and is the infallible rule of faith and the infallible means of interpreting the scripture, and is above any personal interpretation of scripture. St Augustine.
Not only that but it’s not exactly clear how we come to know that Roman dogmas are infallible in the first place. Even Rome says that not everything they teach has this feature. So sometimes God protects them but other times He doesn’t? Discerning this is near impossible.
The speech of God isn’t like this.
Agree pastor gavin!! Sola scriptura makes sense. God bless!!!😊
Hey Gavin, love your content/ministry. What is a rebuttal to the argument that the church came before the scriptures? Specifically the new testament
thanks! I would say temporal chronology simply does not map on to authority or infallibility. hope that helps
@@TruthUnites Could you expound on why you think this?
Christianity is unique in that it's a historic religion, rather than a myth. It's centered around the historic figure of Jesus Christ, so it seems that God's providence for the salvation of humanity incorporates time since he chose a specific point in human history to become Incarnate and exercise his earthly ministry, part of which was establishing a Church.
The Bible didn't descend from heaven from God; Jesus, the Word of God, did in the flesh. Nor is it one man's private revelation (like Joseph Smith or Muhammad) but a whole collection of writings expressing the lived history of God's people (the Church), stretching from the Old Testament to the New.
How do you arrive at your position that temporal chronology does not influence authority?
Even then the OT exists before church did…
Your question: how do we dispute hard, inconvenient facts that discredit Protestantism??
@@duckymomo7935that’s actually false. There was no canon before Christ. There were scrolls of scripture, and Jewish tradition dictated what scriptures were read in temple. When the temple fell after the resurrection, it was the Jewish followers of “the way” (aka the first Christians) who preserved all the texts that would eventually comprise of the OT. The rabbinic Jews that rejected Christ compiled the Torah, intentionally leaving out scriptures that pointed to Christ.
It's the speech of man ,about God.
Was put together by catholic church 400 years after Christ, with the letters from the Apostles.
And is being interpreted in thousands of different ways.
Jesus himself who said “The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it” after giving the keys to loose and bind. If his apostles are given that power, it makes sense that God will also guide them in times when that kind of uniting action needs to be invoked, and surely enough we see the fruit of unity now in the Catholic Church. The “differences” being mentioned are NOT in the official teaching. The body of Christ are united in the official teachings.
The apostles were given that authority, but they are all dead. There are no more apostles. All we have left are their inspired writings
@@TomPlantagenet That just goes against history when the apostles are recorded laying their hands on their successors. That also goes against rationality where Christ's body will be disunited and stick to their own interpretations, which we see in the constant division happening in Protestantism, where others devolve into teaching transgenderism and polyamory are not sinful; mormonism, jehovah's witnesses are born, we see the fruits of the framework of Protestantism.
@@dreistheman7797 first of all, JWs and Mormonism are not Protestant or even Christian for that matter.however, like Catholics , they reject sola scriptura. I don’t know who you’re referring to devolving into transgenderism, but if so, then they are in violation of God’s word, you can’t lay that at the feet of Protestantism. That’s why the reformation is always happening- when an organization loses the gospel, Gods people must come out of that institution. The Catholic Church was just the first that had to be abandoned after they refused to reform.
Aren’t there German bishops doing the same thing now in Catholicism? Isn’t there going to be another schism because of these pro-gays leaders?Perhaps you should study what Protestants actually believe and why they are believed.
Second, where were the apostles recorded laying their hands on their successors?
Third, all true believers who have been born again are United regardless of denomination. We are all one. The question is, have you been born again?
@@TomPlantagenet Any priest/bishop can advocate unofficial or even opposite teachings and they will be considered schismatic if they continue. Those are NOT the official teachings of the Catholic Church. As to where laying of hands is recorded, Acts 6:2-7 for one, and I believe it’s also corroborated in the early writings of the Church fathers like Clement and Ignatius of Antioch. Teaching transgenderism, arianism, monothelitism, polyamory, and other heresies cannot happen in the Catholic Church, they’ve already been defined as heresies many centuries/a millennia ago, where these under the framework of Protestantism. Is it more reasonable to believe in that kind of Body or the one in Catholic Church? Not to mention it’s not disputed historically.
@@dreistheman7797 acts 6:2-7
“So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. 6 And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. “
Where in this passage are these men successors to the apostles?!f anything, we’re looking at deacons here.
If any church or person goes against scripture egregiously (as in the case of transgenderism), they are heretics. I don’t see the difference. I believe Catholics see Protestants as they see themselves-as predominantly institutions. That’s not how it is with us for the most part. We first and foremost see the church as an organism (the body of Christ). Regardless of what organization you belong to, if you believe the gospel and are regenerated, you are part of God’s church. So baptists, reformed, Pentecostal, evangelical free, non denominational are all brothers and sisters in Christ no matter what the sign says out front. I hope that clears things up a bit.you forgot to answer my question as to whether you are born again?
Gavin Ortlund's ontological arguement for Sola Scriptura made into Catholic arguement.
P1 The [Catholic] Church and apostolic succession is ontologically unique. (They were started and formed by God, whom Jesus is the head of and whom the Holy spirit carries into truth)
P2 The [Catholic] Church and Apostolic Succession functions with unrivaled authority. (Nothing else we posses does this)
P3 Both, in what it is and what it does is unique, and in consequence is incapable of teaching error on matters of faith and morals, when making a dogmatic declaration. (infallibility)
P4. If you want to posit something that is above that, you need a good reason.
C. Scripture is not the sole rule of faith
A few reasons why scripture can NOT be the sole infallible rule
- can't conclude the canon from scripture
- most people in ancient times we're illeterate and relied on teachers to learn about God
- being able to read doesn't entail we can fully grasp the truth of the text
- books were EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE and would be cruel and unusual to make SS binding for the early church if they couldn't reasonably produce the texts
- there is no good biblical evdience for SS
- there were many established churches before there was any NT writings
- no evdience that the office of the apostles ended
- no canon of Jews to conclude what the OT is in the 1 century
- ignores scripture saying the HS will guide the church in all truth
Seeing the bible doesn't support apostolic succession and Christ found the Christian church not the Catholic makes everything else moot.
It is not about a rival authority. The Catholic Church has a different authority which is related to teaching and that teaching serves the Scriptures for their proper teaching.
then you are commiting circular reasoning
how do you know the church is infallible? because the church infallibly declares the scriptural interpretation to say as such.
@@kylecityyCorrect
What happens when that “different authority” clashes with the singular authority we know to come from God himself? A typical response would be to submit to God’s, but for Catholics, it’s the other way around. Man’s tradition trumps God’s authority. Ask any Catholic. I used to be one.
@@kylecityy the same could be said about the infallibility of scripture. How do you know the scriptures to be infallible? The scriptures infallibly claim to be god-breathed. Of course, that doesn’t answer the question of what books are considered scripture. That’s where the Church comes in, and we must rely on Holy Tradition, whether you think it’s infallible or not.
@paulllhunterrio2169 The problem is that as Protestants, we dont mind admitting we have fallible authority, whereas roman catholicism infallible magisterium relies upon a fallacy.
genuinely, from my understanding, theres only two views you can take, either use a logical fallacy or use a fallible authority.
That’s not how the argument actually goes, though. Let’s start with the basics, what came first, the New Testament canon or the church ?
God breathed on the apostles when He gave them the authority to forgive sins.
precisely why apostolic writings have superior authority to non-apostolic writings
@@TruthUnites were writings the sole way the apostles taught?
@@bobdinkytown no but it is all we have today
@@TruthUnites that seems like an argument from silence. A little presumptuous to say that oral teachings couldn't have been reliably passed through the ages.
@@TruthUnites that seems like an argument from silence. A little presumptuous to say that oral teachings couldn't have been reliably passed through the ages.
I appreciate his take because it is as practical as it possibly could be. The problem I have found is there are still too many holes for Sola Scriptura to hold water.
Conservatively, there are 200 Protestant denominations in America. Many are radically different in their beliefs. What do we do about that?
Best case scenario, we say “as long as I know I’m right, everyone else will just have to deal with God when they get to heaven”. The best argument is an abdication of responsibility on the matter. In the US the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That doesn’t mean every state gets to make up its own rules in perpetuity. Why? Because we value truth. Because God values truth. That’s why we have a Supreme Court, 50 state supreme courts, and hundreds of smaller courts across the country.
That’s a wordy explanation. Even if we take it at face value, there are many verses supporting scripture AND tradition in the Bible, and not one supporting sola Scriptura.
How do you know there are no other infallible rules of faith outside of the Bible? Where in the Bible does it state that it’s unique in regard to other outside authorities? The Bible may speak in high language about itself but it makes no claims about other authorities.
“Scripture is unique. It is the speech of God. No other rules we possess are like that”
How do you know this? Where in the Bible does it say this?
@@micahjakubowicz4172where in the Bible does it say pray to the dead or “spiritually alive”
@@Psychosis1179 This is a horrible argument, please stop making this. Where is sola scriptura in the Bible?
Both of these, are concepts that are interpreted. The Trinity is a concept not explicit in the Bible, yet you would probably say that a true Christian is one that believes in this concept.
@@regandonohue3899 can you answer it or not. Stop complaining
I think the whole point of the video is that that scriptures are ontologically unique by the fact that they are the words of God. Do we have anything else that are the words of God?
This argument presupposes the canon of Scripture. The Sola Scriptura view of authority can’t give you the 27 Books of the New Testament - no more, no less.
RC Sproul “we (Protestants) have a fallible list of infallible books”
the argument you make is like saying
"you have a fallible list of infallible teachings in roman catholicism"
i dont see the issue of using a fallible authority... fallible doesn't mean it is wrong. it just means it could be wrong. still believe the Holy Spirit can protect and give us the canon through fallible sources within church history.
@@kylecityy if the authority could be wrong then the canon (list of Books) could be wrong.
We only know what the Scriptures are because of Tradition.
@daniellennox8804 the canon could be wrong, in which case wrong can blame the Roman Catholics by your logic
@daniellennox8804 again the argument you are making is the same as a protestant who says "you have a fallible list of infallible teachings" how do you know which teachings are infallible without an outside fallible authority to determine them? theres many controversies within the roman Catholic church on which teachings have been spoken in ex cathedra
why are we assuming the tradition used to understand what the canon is, is from the "roman catholic tradition"?
@HearGodsWord no because I believe in an infallible authority (Sacred Tradition) that can define the canon.
1 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
If all we have is scripture, then we are complete and fully equipped.
The issue for you is that in scripture it commands you to listen to the church (Matthew 18:17), expresses that the church is the pillar of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and exhorts one to listen to the tradition passed down by the apostles (2 Thes 2:15).
If scripture, which is infallible and cannot be incorrect, claims that the church is the pillar of the truth, then who are you to reject the Catholic Church?
@@christsavesreadromans1096 the Roman Catholic Church declared the concept of heliocentrism a heresy….. and bty, the church in scripture doesn’t mean the Roman Catholic Church. It means the church universal-the whole body of believers as the bride of Christ. Not a bunch of bishops in Roman with funny hats.
@@JaneDoe-nh2qb Yet the church was built on Peter specifically, as it says in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter was given the keys to bind and loose, whereas the other apostles weren’t given the keys.
The early church fathers, like Irenaeus, noted the superiority of the Church of Rome because of who established it, Peter and Paul.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 firstly the church was not built on Peter as a religious authority but rather on him as a confessing believer. There’s a play on words in Matthew 16. Peter comes from the word petros referring to a small rock but when Christ said “and in this rock I will build my church” he’s referring to a larger bedrock. That is to say, Peter, as a confessing believer is one small rock among many built upon the bedrock/foundation/cornerstone that is Christ. This interpretation is most plausible as Christ is often called the rock (psalms 118:22, Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, 1 Peter 2:4, 7, Acts 4:11, Isaiah 28:16). If Christ is the rock then the church would be built upon him not Peter. Peter is only a small rock among many, a confessing believer among many confessing believers making up the body of the church. The church was not built upon Peter as a bedrock but Christ.
Secondly, even if Peter was meant to have some degree of authority over the other apostles (for which there is little to no scriptural proof) there is absolutely nothing in scripture about anything when it comes to the infallibly, supreme authority, succession, or exclusivity in the interpretation the scriptures. All of which are things the papacy claims for itself. And even if Peter was this bedrock upon which the Christ was built, it still doesn’t backup these claims of infallibility or succession. Peter is rebuked by Paul on matters of doctrine after he receives these keys of heaven which goes directly against this idea of infallibility. Additionally, James is the one making the final decision during the first council, not Peter so you’d be hard pressed to convince me Peter had all the authority.
Thirdly, all the apostles wielded the keys of heaven and the ability to bind and loosen. Not just Peter. I won’t pretend like I know exactly what these keys are or exactly what binding and loosing entails, but to think that Peter alone possessed the keys and the ability to bind and loose is contrary to scripture.
Lastly, the reason why Peter is often singled out among the apostles is likely because he was the one with the least resolve. He denied Christ three times and he often spoke and acted out against Jesus’s teachings. This is why Jesus puts a particular emphasis on him when tells him feed my lambs, feed my sheep etc. This is the duty of all the apostles as witnesses of Christ and his teachings. They were to spread the gospel among the people. Not wield some supreme monarchical infallible authority over all Christians everywhere. But because Peter was the weakest among his peers, Christ makes his role especially clear to him.
@christsavesreadromans1096
Yet, the Church is not infallible nor is it the final authority and arbiter of all truth. Christ and His Word are infallible and above the church!
Christ is the Head of the Church & individual believers are the Church. The earliest believers were called Christians, not Catholics, not Orthodox nor Protestant.
Christ & His Word is where we submit, period! All other Church councils and teachings are only guides and should be subject to Him & His Word. The scriptures instruct us to go directly to God!
The Church Submits to Christ & His Word
Ephesians 5:22-25
[22]Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
[23]For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
[24]Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
[25]Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
Colossians 1:17-20
[17]He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
[18]And he is the head of the body, the Church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
[19]For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
[20]and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross
Deuteronomy 8:1-3
[1]Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land the Lord promised on oath to your ancestors.
[2]Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands.
[3]He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.
Matthew 4:4
[4]Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”
Matthew 24:35
[35]Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
He is our Priest who makes Intercession for Us
Romans 8:34
[34]Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes INTERCESSION for us.
Hebrews 4:14-16
[14]Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
[15]For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
[16]Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Hebrews 7:23-27
[23]Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.
[24]But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.
[25]Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
[26]For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens;
[27]who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
Christ is Mediator
1 Timothy 2:5
[5]For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
Acts 4:12
[12]Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Jeremiah 29:12-13 Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 33:3 Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.
Philippians 4:6-7
[6]Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God;
[7]and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:26-27
[26]Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
[27]Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Matthew 6:6,9-15
[6]But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.
[9]In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
[10]Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.
[11]Give us this day our daily bread.
[12]And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.
[13]And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
[14]“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
[15]But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
1 John 5:14-15
[14]Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.
[15]And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him.
2 Chronicles 7:14
[14]if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
Psalms 17:6
[6]I have called upon You, for You will hear me, O God; Incline Your ear to me, and hear my speech.
Psalms 102:17
[17]He shall regard the prayer of the destitute, And shall not despise their prayer.
Psalms 145:18-19
[18]The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth.
[19]He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He also will hear their cry and save them.
Proverbs 15:29
[29]The Lord is far from the wicked, But He hears the prayer of the righteous.
Romans 10:13
[13]For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Romans 10:9-13
[9]If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
[10]For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
[11]As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
[12]For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
[13]for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
R.C. Sproul just said on Refnet that the bible says Revelation comes by nature also.
Amen
The councils did not choose what was in the Bible. I believe it was Clement, Paul’s student, that first wrote about collecting and preserving what everyone accepted as the God breathed scriptures,
The Bible reveals that the Church operates with unrivaled authority:
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."
"The Church is the pillar of the Truth."
"If he still will not listen to you, take it to the Church."
"Listen to those who admonish you."
That would be the Christian church made up of born-again Christians that follow the teachings of Christ, the word of God, all of whom have the keys to heaven.
@@sammygomes7381 There's two issues here.
1. The Bible never defines or clarifies the Church in the way you just did.
2. This leads to chaos and total subjectivism. The Bible tells that we are to be of one mind and heart. This is only possible under one interpretation of Scripture.
@@lukegetz9785
1. IF the church is not made up of born-again individuals that follow the teachings of Christ the word of God that means they are following Satan
2. We can't be of one mind if one is following Christ and the other the teaching of the Catholic church.
@@sammygomes7381
1. The Church is made up of born again Christians, but there are many who believe in Jesus who also hold heretical views. The emphasis I am trying to make is on the unified Church authority that Christ instituted.
2. Every Christian, Catholic or protestant, seeks for follow Christ. But Christ gave us the Church, who gave us the Bible. Catholics follow Christ via the Bible and the Church. The two do not contradict. Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, which Christ never taught or even implied.
@@lukegetz9785
1. I believe I said the church is made up of individuals that are born-again and follow the teachings of Christ, the word of God. So if one follows the word of God they are not following the teachings of the Catholic church and some protestant teachings.
2. To answer this one really need to know one's definition or a protestant as there are so many.
Every Christian, Catholic.....wait a minute. How can one be a Christian and a Catholic? The word of God tells us we are with Him or against Him. Following Catholic teaching puts one in conflict with what Christ taught.
Reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. We are not saved by sacraments; we are saved by faith. As one can see the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.
Some people will say well what did the apostles have for scripture at the time they didn't have the entirety of the New Testament yet. This is true, and yes there was oral tradition and they had that and the OT. However we DO have the entirety of Scripture now, so obviously the letters and oral tradition was made into Scripture that we now possess. These books are the books we are to live by. These books are the Word of God.
Doesn't St Paul say that Tradition has equal authority in 2 Thess 2:15?
Say it louder for the people in the back!
I've dealt with this passage in various places -- it has nothing to do with sola scriptura because sola scriptura has to do with the post-apostolic age, once public revelation has ceased.
@@TruthUnites I'm not sure what you mean. If the unwritten traditions were binding on Christians in the Apostolic Age, wouldn't they still be binding today?
@@tylercurtis764 what unwritten traditions are you referring to?
@@TruthUnites The mode of baptism (immersion, pouring), apostolic succession, certain liturgical practices, etc. I think the particular traditions are less important to this discussion than the question of whether non-biblical traditions in general can be considered as equally authoritative as Scripture. And St Paul appears to have taught that, in principle, oral traditions were just as authoritative as his letters.
When two Protestant pastors disagree on a NT passage, such as John chapter six, to which authority do they go to?
Shame you didn't get an answer
They go to the See and Vicar of Christ in their tradition (themselves) by which they excommunicate the other Vicar to another strip mall or shipping container church. The excommunication is usually mutual.
You provide the following claims: scripture is ontologically unique, it's the speech of God, nothing else we posses as a rule is like that, scripture functions with unrivaled authority, nothing we possess as a rule does that, both in what it is and what it does the scripture is unique, and it is infallible as a consequence of its nature. You then say that if you want to posit something else that is equal to that you need a good reason. You just blasted a bunch of claims about scripture, but what reasons are there to back up your claims you stated regarding scripture? Why can't one just swap out the word "scripture" with "magisterium" and say the exact same things?
its not the claim of any church I have ever heard of that the magisterium speaks the very speech or words of God. So no, we cannot simply swap out the word "scripture" and put in "magisterium." Also why are you expecting a short to contain all the supportive reasons? You could watch the original video to see the full case.
@@TruthUnites I wasn't saying that any church claimed the magisterium spoke the very speech or words of God. That was not the basis for my question of whether you could swap the word "scripture" with "magisterium". I assume you didn't mean it to come across as such, but "why are you expecting a short to contain all the supportive reasons?" came across very short and rude. I was just asking a question.
@@Jonathan_214 then I don't follow your original question. Sorry if it came across as rude, I just don't know why people expect shorts to contain the body of the argument. There is a link in the video description to the entire video, hope it is useful or at least interesting.
Scripture *cannot* be “the only infallible rule of faith”, *because* nothing in scripture, tells us which ancient books count as scripture, and thus you are relying on tradition to know which books belong in the collection of infallible books (the bible) and you must believe that this tradition is infallible *OR* you are admitting that you don’t actually know which books are or aren’t inspired and do or do not belong in your bible.
For example, if you claim that you don’t know with absolute certainty, that the books in your bible are all inspired, you are admitting that it is possible some or even all aren’t inspired.
So you must believe with absolute certainty that every book in your bible is indeed an inspired book, (theopneustos or as commonly translated “God breathed”) but you don’t know this from scripture itself, since there isn’t an inspired table of contents.
What you consider as the correct collection comes to you as a tradition.
(BTW, not every denomination agrees on what that collection is, there are several different traditions.)
Unrivaled authority/being infalible doesn’t make it impervious to falible interpretation. The pope is problematic because it’s wrong to say he’s infalible. Defining scripture on your own makes you your own pope. God’s church is the answer; Orthodoxy ☦️
Love how a simple video like this can trigger so many.
Yes it's so shocking how people get frustrated by flawed reasoning lol.
@blamtasticful it's not flawed. The Catholic argument is worse from trent horn.
He says the church above the authority of the scripture because everything is based on the church but we are not the church of the 1st century otherwise that would make sense we are the church that knows God's will through scripture and the Holy spirit. Not what the pastor says but when he teaches from the Bible
@blamtasticful I'm not surprised you're frustrated when you claim flawed reason without proving it. It's almost as if your comment is itself flawed. Still it's easy to make a claim without evidence, and unbiblical too.
@@Jonathan-tw4xm I love how you say it's not flawed and then immediately jump to Trent Horn as if him having a bad argument magically make's Gavin's good. News flash, that's called fallacious reasoning.
You also aren't telling the truth. Trent doesn't say that. Trent gives the church authority to interpret which is not putting the church above God's words. That's like saying that the courts having the authority to interpret the Constitution puts the court's authority above the Constitution. Of course not.
Why can't the church be guided by the Holy Spirit? You just trust random people as more reliably being led by the Holy Spirit than the Church?
Also, it makes no sense to say that it would be ok to put the church over God in the first century if it isn't ok now.
In conclusion, you have actually said nothing that supports the reasons Gavin gave for why Sola Scriptura is true.
@@HearGodsWord You just acted like people got triggered for no good reason without any evidence lol. Stop embarrassing yourself.
That being said I actually explained Gavin's flaws in my comment which is more than I can say for your comment. I copied it for you so you can correct yourself.
Hmmm, it's almost like the same traditions that gave us REASONS TO KNOW what books are scripture gave us REASONS TO KNOW that we can trust other sources for doctrine as well.
Scripture being ontologically unique as the words of God does not debunk Catholic interpretation of scripture using tradition.
In fact, ignoring that tradition at times without good reason is actually doing a disservice to the words of God by not using our best resources to understand it.
I would say both propositions aren’t exactly true. The Bible was created over a time frame of 1500 years, it was decided what to keep and what to leave in a concile and by tradition itself. The Bible is a product of a living tradition and agreement among Christians, certainly by the holy spirit, but the creation story of the Bible points for me to tradition as equally important. I believe that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and that theology shouldn’t be at odds with the Bible but for me it’s too long of a stretch to say it’s sola scriptura.
My argument is;
We know that Scripture is perfect. Ok so what we agree on is settled.
But what happens when NOBODY agrees on it? How do you fix disagreement with the very thing being argued about? How do you fix the issues of Baptism, Eucharist, Church Authority, life, works, faith, etc if every single church uses the same COMPLETELY TRUE Bible to come to their conclusions?
These are all very important to some, and almost meaningless to others. (Again, depends on whose reading the book).
God knew this. He knows our short comings. This is why Christ didnt give us a book, but a Church. And we obey the Church so we may be one in Christ.
This is why I left Protestantism for Orthodoxy. There are things I dont understand. Heck, there are things I disagree with. But I'm just a sinful man. I will fall on what thousands of Christians have wrestled with before me. And if I'm wrong, thats OK! Because I believe In Christ Jesus above all things. I wont go start a new Church on what 'makes sense' to me.
Yes!!! This is so true!!!
It isn't something thay nobody agrees on though
@@HearGodsWord with all the different churches claiming 'Sola Scriptura', it obviously is. Did you read my whole comment? 😝
@@MajorMustang1117 you don't seem to have read mine but thanks for being childish about it
@HearGodsWord ....I'm childish because your one sentence response wasn't clear? Its how it appeared. Come on man. On a video about the Holy Scriptures, let's not do insults.
Your response didn't make sense. "It isn't something nobody agrees on, though,".
Well, what do you mean?
Sola scriptura is clearly anti biblical and antichristian.
If sola scriptura we’re true wouldn’t it drive unity vs 2k Protestant denominations
Yet they agree on sola scriptura...just one of .any examples of unity. What doesn't help is lumping everyone together as Proestant
Can you name the 2K denominations (if they even exist)? I'm curious.
a wise man on the internet once said, "link or it didn't exist." And so I say, "Names of they don't exist"
How many Protestant denominations exist then? I’ll use your number …
How is it that there is a 1st Baptist, 2nd Baptist and 3rd Baptist church?
How do you derive the canon of scripture? From whatever you derive it, and however you derive it (tradition, history, popularity, reason, etc.) it cannot be of lesser authority (because deriving a greater authority from a lesser one is absurd). However, then, scripture isn't the sole greatest authority.
Derive? How can you derive the speech of God? We don't derive it. We simply recognize His speech.
@@JoeThePresbapterian ok, how do you recognize it?
@@bobdinkytown by the Holy Spirit. I trust him over man-made traditions
@@bobdinkytown How did the Jews recognise the Old Testament canon?
@bobdinkytown The church recognizes the Scriptures. Note that Sola Scriptura does not negate our need for other authorities. The fallible can recognize the infallible. We do not need to possess an absolute epistemic certainty to discern the ontologically unique authority of the Scripture.
The fact that there are 30,00+ unique separate churches (not denominations) proves that sola scriptura is false. The Bible must have an authoritative interpreter, and that entity is the Church that decided the books that comprise the New Testament, the Catholic Church.
Good thing Gavin did a video about the debunked 30,000 figure, which interestingly included 100's of Catholic ones.
There may not be 30,000 “denominations”, but there are 30,000 unique churches that are not related to each other. There are 15 different churches between my house and my work, a 10 minute drive. Most are non-denominational and independent.
Sola scriptura is also anti-biblical, as it rejects scripture that discusses oral tradition. It is also not found in the Bible, making it non-scriptural. And the canon of the New Testament didn’t get finalized until the 380’s, a good 60 years after the Nicene Creed. Why do most Protestants reject the Nicene Creed?
It's pretty simple: scripture is not the only way Jesus speaks to His people. Sola Scriptura denies the full revelation of Christ
Yes, God speaks to us through the Holy Spirit and that is how we get the full revelation. Sola Scriptura just means scripture takes ultimate authority and cannot be contradicted by church practices.
@@cherokeepurple4480 to say "scripture takes ultimate authority" over the holy spirit is very much an unorthodox Christian view to say the least.
The Reformed view is that the Holy Spirit speaks through the scriptures alone and therefore scripture is the only infallible authority of the church.
@@ManofSteel007 I’m not Reformed but Pentecostal in practice. I’m not sure what you’re saying since I agree the Bible is the sole authority.
@@cherokeepurple4480 if you're saying the Bible is the sole authority, and the holy spirit doesn't speak authoritatively in any other way than scripture, then you have the Reformed view.
... And disagree with pentecostals I might add.
@@ManofSteel007 I believe the Holy Spirit also speaks through believers because they are the recipients of the spiritual gifts but only the Bible is inerrant. That’s nice you don’t agree with Pentecostals. Not looking to debate.
This is the best reason I've found thus far
Romans 1:20
ESV
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse
This appeals to Gods authority outside of the Bible
Sola Scriptura is the gateway to the infallibility of every individual and their personal interpretation leading to the hot mess of division Christ prayed against.
Protestants don't claim to be infallible authoritative interpreters. The Scriptures are infallible. We are not.
Horrible argumentation..
Nobody has laid claim to human infallibility.. except for Rome and their claim to papal infallibility..yet we know everyone who's been a Pope in Rome has taught heresy..
@@O2N_ OR, we can just go with the design Jesus provided and the Biblical model to how it was handed down. Otherwise, we have Joe Blow who created his whole theology based upon 50 hours of scripture study and ignoring the 50,000,000+ hours of scripture study done by others far more learned.
@@kylecityy I know what you guys are saying and meaning, but an infallible book without an infallible source of interpretation is worthless to properly understand it. It results in every individual being their own pope. I understand how that sounds, but when everything gets boiled down, that is the end product. Why would Jesus leave us as sheep without a shepherd? Why did Jesus have disciples? Was it merely to share facts about Jesus and proclaim his perspective on morality? Or were they charged for and equipped with far more?
And this comment shows how blind Catholics are to what sola scripture actually teaches. It comes off as you having your ears plugged.
I have never heard a good argument against sola Scriptura. God's word being the only infallible authority should not be a controversial take.
It doesn't make sense no matter how many times you say it. We need an interpreter; a final interpreter. Sola-scriptura is unbiblical, unhistorical, and totally unworkable. The fact that Luther and Calvin launched two completely different "biblical" faiths that teach completely opposite "truths" tells you everything you need to know about this make believe teaching. This is true no matter how cool Dr. Ortlund is.
Yes, that interpreter is the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth. Met him?
@@cherokeepurple4480 yes of course I’ve met him, but he’s not guiding all the different churches into all truth doctrinally. Haven’t you ever wondered why honest Christians read the Bible and disagree over baptism, communion, morality, whether salvation can be lost, what faith means, ordination, and more? That’s not being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit; that’s following your own interpretation then blaming the Holy Spirit for your misunderstandings. The Holy Spirit began leading Christians into all truth in 33 ad and never stopped so if your beliefs force you to ignore 1500 years of Christian history to uphold them then Christian history isn’t the problem. Your beliefs are.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 Churches are made up of people…flawed people like you and I whether they’re attending or leading the church. We are prisoners to our own flesh and no church will give you complete accuracy on the Truth of God-not even the Catholic or Orthodox Church. This is why we have the Bible to guide us and help us discern whether or not a teaching is from God.
What are people in remote areas of the world or in places where Christianity is rare who have no access to a church supposed to do…wait for a Catholic Church to plant itself near them so a priest can explain the Bible to them and give them the Eucharist? This is why God gave us the scriptures. The church Jesus started isn’t an organization or denomination and a church can’t save you. Jesus’ church is the body of believers worshipping Jesus, praying, and reading and meditating on his Word through the help of the Holy Spirit. Religion makes up man made rules. Relationship with God only has one rule book from our most holy Creator-the Bible.
Your reasoning is sound.
yest faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God. The only word of God we have is the bible.
If one is born-again they have the Holy Spirit and thus an interpreter.
So why can’t I just say that the Catholic Church is ontologically unique in that it’s the church that God founded, and that God gave this church the authority to bind and loose people’s consciences?
Well, the church doesn’t survive without scripture. Primarily the Tanakh. Not even the New Testament is sufficient for the validation of the church. Too many Catholics want to claim that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible yet. The majority of the Bible precedes the church by over 1000 years. Christ didn’t invent anything new or add to anything that didn’t already exist.
The truth is scripture and being the pillar in foundation does not mean they have the given liberty to add to anything or change anything like they readily do today
Deuteronomy 4:2 ESV
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.
And what did Paul say???
Galatians 1:8 ESV
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
EXACTLY!
Not everything is explicitly written or stated in the Canon about God. God gave his Church authority.
506 years and still correct.
#Luther
Doesn’t Luther recognize a different canon than modern Protestants given his stance on Revelation and Baruch?
@@bigfootapologetics Yes, modern Protestants have changed doctrine to accommodate secular trends.
I personally subscribe to WELS, which maintains Luther’s original teachings and God’s Holy Scripture.
Luther was an afwul human being and I'm a protestant.
@@rkitsune3549 ???
Bold statement, that seems to be lacking a single example, context, or explanation.
@@33TimberWolf Well that's my personal opinion. If you want more context, you can ask
Matthew 16:16-20, Luke 22:32, shows both the power of authority being passed down to Peter, and Jesus also praying that Peter’s faith stays and he does not fail. Biblically accurate infallible magisterium. A Bible alone can not compose it self, it was composed by an infallible magisterium.
I think Gavin and Trent Horns debate goes in depth into all this. The debate points out issues with this short.
People should watch the full video
Sola Scriptura doctrine leads to endless schisms within Protestantism.
Fallacy: begging the question.
"Since it is unrivaled authority, it is infallible"
It's the same as saying:
"Since I have unrivaled beauty, I therefore claim I am the most handsome man on Earth"
False equivalence, authority and beauty are not the same. Your premise is wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong. Nothing is a higher authority than God, as St Aquinas argued in his five ways authority maximus would be God.
@@souzajustin19d well said
@@souzajustin19d Ok, then who gave Scripture the status of being an authprity of faith? The first few councils of the Apostolic Church. God Himself never said what the canon is. That is something Christians decided. Through a lot of work, research, studying and debate.
And a very interesting thing is that none of them said it was the only authority, neither that it was the only infallible one.
In fact, we all know that from Church to Church this might change as well. Apostolic Churches keep the deuterocanonical books, whereas the Protestant ones do not. And Mormons have a newer book.
The thing is Sola Scriptura is still begging the question. If the only infallible source is compound of texts that was fallibly compilated, we are in deep trouble.
@@quickrat3348 "texts that was fallibly compilated" Take your assumption away and you already answered your question. Have a good day.
@@souzajustin19d I mean, if you believe the Church is not an infallible authority, then why do you claim the canonical compilation we call Bible is infallible?
And if you claim there was authority in the Church to fix that canon, why rejecting such authority?
This is why Sola Scriptura is wrong for Apostolic Christians. It leads you to an intelectual corner.
I simply put. Refuse to participate in any tradition that goes against the bible and the teachings of Christ. That's why Im not religious. Religion isn't gonna save anyone. It's the relationship gained through the recognition of yeshuas sacrifice.
The true Protestant heart cry is “I will reform everyone else because I am more biblical than everyone else; the Bible tells me so.”
My heart cry as a protestant is:
I don't want your manmade traditions, I want what Jesus and the apostles taught.
I will place the Scripture, the Word of God, above the words of any man
Good reason to become a Christian and leave Catholicism and Protestantism behind.
@@thomasfryxelius5526 That’s ironic because sola-scriptura is a man made doctrine. The prophets did not teach it, Jesus didn’t, the apostles didn’t, early Christians didn’t. We all agree that the scriptures are the word of God; the problem is that everyone interprets them differently. Regardless of your aim, what you are really doing is putting your personal interpretation of God’s word above all else. You will find many sincere Bible-believing Christians who agree with your views and many sincere Bible-loving Christians who do not. It is beyond debatable; what I am telling you is an unavoidable reality.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787
Sola Scriptura is not a manmade doctrine.
The prophets taught and practiced it by putting the revelation of God above all other authorities, both kings and priests.
Jesus taught it when He condemned those who ignored the Word of God for their manmade traditions. And make no mistake, the doctrines of the RCC are manmade doctrines.
The apostle´s taught Sola Scriptura, since Paul said that those that came with another message, be they apostles´s or angels, they are anathema. So the message given, the Word of God, has higher authority than even the apostles themselves.
The unavoidable reality here is that Sola Scriptura says that God´s Word means more to me than the words of any church leader. He is the Lord.
Sola Scriptura teaches obedience to Christ,
those who do not hold to Sola Scriptura places the authority of the Church above God. They are not the Lord, they are servants.
@@thomasfryxelius5526 The word of God is the authority but this was never scripture alone. The prophets spoke it and taught it before it was written. Jesus said that the Pharisees sit in the “chair of Moses” so do what they tell you (the chair of Moses is not in the OT; it is a living tradition). In the early church, the living word of God was taught and lived out and some was eventually written down (most of the apostles did not write anything down). Paul wrote “hold fast to the traditions you received from us, both written and oral.” The scriptures were not assembled until the 4th century and were not widely available until the 1500s. Most Christians were illiterate and most could not afford Bibles because they were made on animal skins before the printing press. That’s when sola-scriptura was invented and exploded and it has led to chaos. I know you love your little man made fantasy, just don’t be surprised that most believers worldwide reject it. We love Christ too, we just don’t become emotionally attached to ideas that Martin Luther and his buddies invented.
"Scripture is ontologically unique"
This is a claim.
"Scripture functions with unrivaled authority"
Only for lapsed christians like Baptists, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc., who broke off from the church Jesus and Paul founded.
So, "Sola Scriptura" is just a claim made by heretics.
Yet, Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH!
Why listen to fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? "It is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED ". Did Christians in the early Church reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know it was not Holy Scripture? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Jesus spoke these words to all of the twelve as is evident from the context “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven. Again, I tell you the truth, if two of you on earth agree about whatever you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you. For where two or three are assembled in my name, I am there among them.”
Peter is not the sole key holder, that is a clear error of the RCC to claim such a thing.
Peter did not override the Old Testament, making it void. Everything ceremonial from Judaism was fulfilled in Christ. Crazy to think you’d argue against Peter just arbitrarily overrides the Law of Moses.
James gave the final ruling over the Jerusalem council. Then the whole church leadership “the apostles and elders” decided and acted on the ruling. Peter was a witness, not the judge. The text is below for reference.
“”Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood. For Moses has had those who proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.” Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to send men chosen from among them, Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leaders among the brothers, to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.”
Acts 15:19-22
@elijahrogers7719 Most inaccurate, as Jesus Christ promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom. The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically The keys of the Kingdom are never mentioned in Matthew 18 for the other Apostles. Only for Peter in Matthew 16 if you are being true to Holy Scripture!
Plus, it was Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. James then affirms Peter's declaration and then simply gives food and sexual restrictions! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 I just encourage you read the text. The order of events go as: (Acts 15:6-7) apostles, elders, and the whole church met and debated; after much debate, (15:7) Peter gives his reasoning that grace alone saves (by faith Eph 2:8-9) and that includes gentiles; (15:12) whole church. Listened to Paul and Barnabas; (15:13) after them, James gives the final word.
The if the ruling was given by Peter, what purpose was Paul and Barnabas’ witness to God saving the gentiles? James speaks last, giving the final word. He was the judge of the council, not Peter.
@@matthewbroderick6287 Christ holds the keys to the Kingdom. Peter is not the sole holder. He was given authority, as an apostle, to preach the word of God and to write it as the Spirit guided. He is the first among equals to all of the apostles. The same authority to bind and loose was given to the apostles in Matthew 18.
““To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write the following: “This is the solemn pronouncement of the Holy One, the True One, who holds the key of David, who opens doors no one can shut, and shuts doors no one can open:”
Revelation 3:7
@@ElijahBRogers your answers are excellent but unfortunately you’re wasting your time with Matthew. He does this with every Gavin Ortlund video. He just says the same thing over and over and over and when you point to him in the Scriptures where he is wrong he just doubles down and says the same thing again or he will change the subject. He does not have the humility to see where he is wrong. However I do suggest you pray for him
So I want to say that whatever someone may see written about scripture+tradition, actually the Orthodox and Roman Catholics are pretty different on this. The Orthodox are really Sola Scriptura. They believe that every dogma that they hold can be founded in scripture, even such as iconography and they always attempt to push their dogma back to the bible. Roman Catholics say that there are emergent traditional dogmas that the Pope has instituted that are revealed to the church independent of the bible. For example, they accept icons but say that they were an appropriate doctrinal innovation. If you take an early protestant group like the Moravians, they believe in Sola Scriptura, but that scripture can be validly interpreted in some cases and by some people a) literally, b) allegorically and c) apocalyptically. I would have to say as Orthodox that while you get Orthodox bishops today speak about scripture plus tradition, that this is from a misinterpretation of the meaning of sila scriptura to mean "plain reading", or those who claim the bible only has literal meaning. Orthodox Scripture+tradition means Scripture plus interpretation. Now many can disagree about whether Orthodox doctrines are really the result of an appropriate interpretation of scripture, but there is never a doctrinal case where the church did not hold that there was scriptural support for a dogma.
It's easier to pilot a submarine to see the Titanic than it is to defend sola scriptura. 🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦
Defending sola scriptura is pretty easy and straightforward. The problems in this comments section is that most people arguing against it don't understand it
@justicebjorke2790 please don't be a clown yourself. If you're here for playground name calling then don't waste my time kid.
@@justicebjorke2790Brother, you just proved his point.
Human institutions are prone to errors and corruption over time. Including our beloved church.
The multitude of child rapes perpetrated by catholic priests in the house of the Lord is proof beyond question that even the church can make errors, and the leaders of the church are NOT infallible but are in fact flawed sinners.
Holy Scripture stands alone in its perfection and infallibility. Human institutions are prone to corruption and errors over time, but the Word of God is unique in its eternal perfection, ultimate authority, and infallibility.
@@Theguy1244 exactly!!
bless you for all you are doing
It can go a bit too far with sola scripture just as Marian dogmas can go a bit too far. There is a middle ground that we can all communicate and appreciate.
There is no "middle ground" for someone that holds to Prima scriptura. It's a limiting and foolish doctrine that was proven wrong by the apostles before the good news was even written.
@@ianmarkhammes2071 the Catholic Church doesn’t believe in a Prima Scriptura - they actually carry the opinion that sacred tradition came before the scriptures were written. And Protestants wouldn’t believe in Prima Scriptura because they think the scriptures is the only infallible rule of faith, excluding anything else like oral tradition.
@@jackross5698 Well, the Catechism doesn't specifically say "Prima Scriptura" so you have me dead to rights. But I went to church last week and they read from the old and new testaments and they seem to do it every week. I'm going to have to think about this since in fact I give a lot more weight to the gospel than I do to Pope Francis preaching on global warming.
@@ianmarkhammes2071 well, the Pope shouldn’t have any weight on political or social or scientific matters - he can only speak infallibly if teaching on faith and morals. Everything else he says can be disregarded or appreciated - it doesn’t matter. People forget that the Pope isn’t like a president like the President of the United States, nor is he like a king by any regards. As Jesus said, the “greatest among you will serve.”
@@jackross5698 I agree with everything you said about the Pope.
Why sola Scriptura makes sense - ⭕️ “because Scripture” this is not a compelling argument to anyone unless you already hold the position.
With the world losing its mind and society crumbling around us because there is no truth anymore - you still want to stick with a system that holds up “my truth” instead of His Truth??
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." John 10:27
You had better listen to the voice of your master. That's Jesus. He WILL hold you accountable to his Word. You better know what he said. "But so-and-so said such-and-such." Will not excuse you on the day of Judgement. It is to God we will give an account.
Scripture is not infallible. The word infallible pertains to interpretation. Scripture is the word of God and it is inerrant. The church gives us scripture and the interpretation of scripture
An Infallible/inerrant Scripture requires an Infallible interpreter. If the interpreter is fallible it leads to a lack of confidence in Scripture, division, and individual interpretation. In fact, Scripture is inerrant but not infallible. For something to be infallible, by definition, it needs to be able to make decisions and rulings. No book or document can do this. The Scriptures give sufficient evidence that the Church is infallible, that the apostles were infallible when they preached the Scriptures, and the writers of the Scripture were infallible when they wrote their letters. Whether that Church infallibility should be in the pope, the bishops in apostolic succession or the global Christian community is neither here nor there. The Protestant should be able to concede that a theoretical Church should be infallible.
So just to be clear: if we assume the very thing in question, then we can know that the thing we are assuming is probably true?
Sola Scriptura is a presupposition forced onto the Bible. No where in the Bible does it teach SOLA. Yes it’s the word of God. But it’s a part of Tradition. Always has been.
Well, the church doesn’t survive without scripture. Primarily the Tanakh. Not even the New Testament is sufficient for the validation of the church. Too many Catholics want to claim that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible yet. The majority of the Bible precedes the church by over 1000 years. Christ didn’t invent anything new or add to anything that didn’t already exist.
The truth is scripture and being the pillar in foundation does not mean they have the given liberty to add to anything or change anything like they readily do today
Deuteronomy 4:2 ESV
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.
And what did Paul say???
Galatians 1:8 ESV
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
How did Sola Scriptura work out for Arius, Nestorius, Palagian, Sabellian? Martin Luther and you are no different. Scripture is part of the Church, and must be read and understood with the mind of the Church, anything contradictory is heresy.
Then how do you account for 2 Thessalonians 2:15?
Scripture is NOT an authority.
How does it judge a good interpretation from bad? That’s what an authority does.
Anyone who proclaims this or that is the proper interpretation is being an authority.
Sola scriptura doesn’t solve the problem that we all need a church to be that authority and Protestants agree or else there would be no denominations.
Who interprets scripture? Many different people have many different views on what the infallible word of God is actually communicating.
This is so different from the way the Church, throughout the centuries, looked at Holy Scriptures as a text to be interpreted only within it's natural context, which is the living community of Christ's faithful.
This is against an individualistic or schorlarly idea of interpretation, which Protestants advocates, and which is the source of endless divisions among them.
The Scripture and the Living Tradition in which it is read, is always intertwined. We must also recognise levels of authority within the Body of Christ's faithful based on their respective Offices, the Pope, for example, exercising universal jurisdiction over all faithful Christians, otherwise we shall have chaos in our hands, as in Protestantism.
This does not necessarily discourage the benefits that come from individual reading or scholarly studies on the Sacred Scriptures, but it subordinates them to where the Scriptures truly belong; the Church, which is the Body of Christ.
Premise 1 is incorrect on its face, because there are instances of God speaking that are not recorded word-for-word in Scripture. For example, Jesus was alive on earth for at least 30 years, and ministered openly for 3. We only have a short selection of what he said while ministering, let alone the rest of his life. Therefore, we have instances of God speaking that are not enscripturated. Premise 1 contradicts this fact, and since truth equals truth, something contradicting it must be false. Therefore, Premise 1 is false.
Easy. Jesus Christ founded and leave us a Church, not a compilation of books. Therefore, the Church is the authority because the Church is the mystical body of Christ and Jesus is the Head of the Church. The Church is the foundation and pillar of Truth. Sacred Scripture + Sacred Tradition + Magisterium of the Church.
Ave Christus Rex!
Hail Christ the King!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Looks like he has his conclusion...... Now, looking for a way to support it.
While I believe the Scripture is the inspired word of God, “useful for rebuking, encouraging and training in righteousness” I cannot ignore the fact that the Scripture does not in any shape or form claim anything like infallibility. Rather the Scripture’s claims about itself include wordage which points to a manageable level of imperfection - I.e. that it is “sufficient unto salvation” - sufficient seems a deliberate choice, implying “good enough for.” Jesus’ statement that the Scripture “will not be broken” also leaves an enormous amount of room for imperfection and a certain amount of fallibility.
Why is this important to me? Creating doctrines about the Scripture that exceed the claims made within Scripture about itself is a dangerous thing. But worse than this, it causes great damage to the faith of those who trust in the “inerrant” doctrine and then enter seminary - and start dealing with a scripture that in its transmission - and even back to what the likely source documents were - has errors.
At my church in Princeton NJ, we routinely take on 4 to 6 seminarians from Princeton Theological Seminary each year as interns. When you talk to them, particularly people engaged MOST DEEPLY in Bible translation and textual criticism- there ALWAYS develops a crisis of faith among a large number of seminarians who are forced to face the reality about how we get the Bibles in our actual hands from the KJV to all the other accepted translations.
The doctrine of inerrancy - a doctrine not asserted within the Bible itself - is a huge stumbling block for many honest, well intentioned Christians who engage in Bible study at its deepest level. Bart Erhman is the poster child for the abuse the doctrine inerrancy levies needlessly on people who had once been faithful.
The greatest Biblical scholar of the past 100 years, by general consensus was Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary. Bruce had his talented, inspired hand involved in leading and contributing several of the best accepted translations of the Bible that are most accepted by Protestant Christians.
That man, the greatest Biblical scholar and textual critic of the past several generations was Bart Erhman’s mentor and direct advisor at PTS. From all accounts, Erhman was an outstanding student - graduating Magna Cum Laude at Moody’s Bible College, Wheaton, and from both his Masters and PHD program. He was born-again within a church that is not noted for born-again experiences - the Episcopal Church - and this happened when he was a teen.
But as an adult he eventually lost his faith, and that was fueled or at a minimum initiated by the house of cards of the doctrine of inerrancy. Why? It does not hold up in any shape or form when you get involved in the deepest Biblical scholarship.
Why - because on close examination it simply falls apart like a house of cards - taking with it many people who started out with genuine hearts to serve the Lord. It is a destructive doctrine that causes needless harm.
Instead we should believe what the Bible says about itself. Remember, from beginning to end - God uses fallible, errant, imperfect people to achieve His ends. The Bible though, as it says, is inspired, I’ve never met an inspired person who became infallible. The scripture - yes under God’s inspiration - is the product of the hands and minds of still fallible people.
The doctrine of inerrancy, in addition to simply being errant and even counter to the principles of Sola Scriptura, unnecessarily creates false hopes that run counter to God’s clear ability to use the imperfect to achieve his desires for us.
This is not something where we should be sticking our fingers in our ears and shutting our eyes. God overcomes all things. But he also wants from us our trust, our faith, and faith, while it is based on evidence, it is also based on hope and trust in promises made and not yet fulfilled.
The Bible is useful for the training of the righteous. It is sufficient for salvation. These are the claims Scripture makes about itself. These are what we should teach. By the evidence of those lost within seminaries, we should stop arming the Enemy with a false, easily disproven doctrine that relies on some kind of earthly perfection that we don’t even witness in the saints. This doctrine, which is above all things, dishonest and flies in the face of actual experience with the Biblical manuscripts, should be thrown away in favor of a more direct faith in God and his ability to do the things shown in the Bible. God works miraculously through the imperfect and even errant. Always has and always will.
But what is scripture? Do we include the Catholic extra stuff? Do we include those books that didn’t make the original canon for political reasons? What about gods final revelation: the Quran?
Well, the church doesn’t survive without scripture. Primarily the Tanakh. Not even the New Testament is sufficient for the validation of the church. Too many Catholics want to claim that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible yet. The majority of the Bible precedes the church by over 1000 years. Christ didn’t invent anything new or add to anything that didn’t already exist.
My Argument for the Infallible Authority of the Catholic Church:
1.) The Church had been given authority by Jesus Christ to bind and to lose; Whatever the Church shall bind and lose here on earth, it shall also bind and lose in heaven (Matthew 16:19)
2.) If the authority for binding and losing here on earth is also binding and losing in heaven, this authority doesn't err. Because it will not be binding in heaven if it has the possibility of error here on earth.
3.) Therefore, this authority of binding and losing cannot be erroneous, and it must be infallible.
4.) Therefore, the authority of the Church is infallible.
My Argument For the Uniqueness of Nature of the Catholic Church among other authorities:
1.) The Church is the foundation and pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
2.) No other authority is the foundation and pillar of truth.
3.) Therefore, the Church is the only foundation and pillar of truth.
With respect to Church authority:
1. Authority over binding and losing (excommunication) doesn't mean authority over all things (teaching, etc)
2. Pretty sure Peter himself wouldn't want to be associated with Catholics (let alone made their pope) if he's alive now, considering how you end up commiting Mariolatry, something Peter NEVER EVEE taught.
On the so-called uniqueness of RCC:
1. 1 Tim. 3:5 doesn't say that. Nice eisegesis
2. Even if we grant that, I'm sure that whatever church Paul was talking about, it wasn't a corrupt church that has commited Mariolatry
@xuniepyro7399 you can't even disprove my argument regarding why the authority of the Church is infallible and why the Church is unique among other authorities. What you did here is nothing but straw-manning.
The Catholic Church has proved itself to be fallible all throught its history.
Christ was speaking of the Christian Church which is made up of born-again believers and each one of them have the keys to heaven.
Does this work if you don’t hold to inerrancy?
The problem is that this argument begs the question. Saying it is unique, the speech of God with nothing else that we possess (as a rule) being like that begs the question, because it presupposes for the onset that there cannot be anything else that is infallibly authoritative... which is what SS claims. These arguments for SS presuppose SS.
If the Church were infallible then we can just toss out all the epistles and first chapters of Revelation. 😂
All clear corrections to the earliest churches.
People tend to slap any interpretation they disagree with as a doctrine of demons or call everyone with a contrary point a false teacher.
I think real Christians can see where the grapes are gathered and the thornbushes grow.
God is ontologically unique, infallible, and not equal to Scripture
"Something else that is equal with that." Do you hear the strawman? The Orthodox (who he keeps arguing with) are not putting tradition on the same level of Scripture. Tradition is a subordinate set of texts which serve as witness to what faithful interpretation of the Scriptures should look like.
it is equal in the relevant sense under discussion, namely, infallibility; hope that clarifies
I assume you don't mean that the Orthodox, etc. would claim any particular church father is 'infallible'? But the councils perhaps? I apologize I haven't watched the broader conversation this was taken from.
If that' the case, then as you have at least in Nicea 2, you would have demonstrate where the council erred.
And after that, to demonstrate how you personally obtained the authority to overturn their interpretation of the Scriptures with your own.
And then why I don't possess the authority to overturn yours.@@TruthUnites
Scripture is a liturgical text.
Also, Catholics only disagree in conversation, argument. In practice, from the beginning of the Catholic Church, they have behaved like sola scriptura is their position: preserving and "providing" the scripture through the councils, the magisterium ensures papal dictates ex-cathedra conform to scripture, and they recognize that any church authority (which they call equal) conforms to scripture or it's invalid.
Man, this is such a stupid argument if one can even call it an argument. This is like saying since a carpenter ensures that all three legs of a stool are the same length, he really only believes one leg is necessary since the other two match up to the first one's length. OBVIOUSLY teachings of the magisterium and tradition cannot contradict scripture even if the teachings do not originate from it.
@@johnwaterman8449 Absolutely. It's obvious. That's my point. So, I've never been able to figure out what it is about sola scriptura that causes so much Catholic ire, unless it offends the pride of the church (neeeeeding to fight any protestant position and distinguish themselves)... pride, which would be an invalid reason and likely a thing not befitting the church.
Well I can't speak for Catholics responding to the argument from a point of personal offence, but one of the main problems with the sola scripture teaching is that it disregards the authority given the Church by Jesus to teach and interpret scriptures - the same authority that compiled the bible. It places some kind of fantasy authority on the words of scripture alone so that whatever interpretation you want to come up with as a protestant is considered valid since your source material was "the word". The fragmentation and disunity this approach causes is abundantly clear, and is what the reformation was born out of. Only the Catholic Church has been given authority to declare what constitutes sacred scripture, and to interpret the truths God means to reveal to us through it. Sola Scriptura is a masked aim to separate the written word from the author.@@AndrewKendall71
@@johnwaterman8449 There's no "fantasy author" to a Catholic. He's the Holy Spirit, according to Catholics. And the authority of the word is understood via proper interpretive processes and perspectives... by the church... in history... given authority by God, as St. Paul said to Timothy. The fragmentation cannot logically come from a body of faith, trusting in and deeply studying-together-the word. I can't imagine a single person in all of my theological career wanting in the least to separate God from his word.
@@AndrewKendall71 I think you misunderstood me, because I agree with everything you've said here up until your last sentence which I'm very confused by. Many persons want to separate God's authority from His word when they encounter something they do not agree with. For Luther, amidst his arguments with the clergy, he could not respect that the authority to teach comes through the Catholic Church from God, and so he took it upon himself to form his own church in protest and change scripture to suit him ie fantasy authority.
Also, anytime I refer to "Church" with a capital C, I mean the Catholic Church. The authority of the Catholic Church comes from God. What you misunderstand is that sola scripture is a false doctrine that tries to replace that authority with "scripture only", which inevitably degenerates to the authority of whoever wants to interpret it. However, the sacred scriptures are not God, nor is the Church God or any other created thing. That is why the Catholic Church opposes this doctrine by its very existence. I will end my contribution to this discussion here and I pray the Holy Spirit bring understanding to us both.
Hmmm, it's almost like the same traditions that gave us REASONS TO KNOW what books are scripture gave us REASONS TO KNOW that we can trust other sources for doctrine as well.
Scripture being ontologically unique as the words of God does not debunk Catholic interpretation of scripture using tradition.
In fact, ignoring that tradition at times without good reason is actually doing a disservice to the words of God by not using our best resources to understand it.
Ortlund believes in Bible And Gavin Alone.
Don’t think so
Keep studying in humility to Jesus Christ, Ortlund. You will become Catholic.
Then why you butcher scripture? (Removing Deuterocanonicals) and also, when Jesus left, were the apostles preaching with texts and Bibles?
However, fallibility can come from its interpretation. Otherwise, how does one explain the proliferation of distinct Protestant sects?
Ok, an argument for Bible Alone from outside of scripture. But does the Bible, alone, teach Bible Alone? No.
It doesn’t even imply that the Bible is the rule for faith, but it says the Church, the house of God, is.
What disturbs me greatly is listening to various podcasters who are within Christendom, basically undermining Scripture in order to elevate tradition. It gives me the creeps when I listen to these types argue against Biblical authority from multiple angles. It doesn't seem to even trouble their conscience.
Tradition gave you the canon of scripture. What’s troubling is that there is such an air of dialectic tension in modernity, as if something has to be this or that and cannot be both. Holy tradition, oral tradition, ecumenical councils, saints, the Theotokos, the Holy Gospels, Divine Liturgy, the Eucharist, baptism, marriage, monasticism, prayer, icons; these are all things to cherish and love. They compliment one another and point one Godward.
@groyper1177 I respect what you are saying but the Church is born out of the Word and remains in the Word. Which traditions are all men to obey? The ancient traditions do not all agree on doctrine and praxis. Not even among those who claim the name Orthodox. Now throw in centuries of theological development... and yet God's Word remains. Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum
“We need an interpreter.”
And how do you know “the interpreter” isn’t deceiving you? Scripture.
IF that interpreter is the Catholic church, I know it is deceiving me.
Well, the church doesn’t survive without scripture. Primarily the Tanakh. Not even the New Testament is sufficient for the validation of the church. Too many Catholics want to claim that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible yet. The majority of the Bible precedes the church by over 1000 years. Christ didn’t invent anything new or add to anything that didn’t already exist.
The truth is scripture and being the pillar in foundation does not mean they have the given liberty to add to anything or change anything like they readily do today
Deuteronomy 4:2 ESV
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.
And what did Paul say???
Galatians 1:8 ESV
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Why use "Speech of God" instead of "Word of God" ??
Both initial statements are ambiguous and unqualified. Such views are adopted as random presuppositions.