Sola Scriptura Defended
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 12. 2020
- One of the biggest disputes between Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians concerns sola Scriptura. Is the Bible alone our final, infallible authority for faith and life? Here I answer 5 common objections, trying to advance the conversation!
Check out the full videos of the excerpts I engage throughout this video:
1) An Orthodox Perspective on Sola Scriptura (w/ Fr. Josiah Trenham) • An Orthodox Perspectiv...
2) 10 Reasons Why Sola Scriptura Is Wrong! (From a Protestant lol jk former protestant) • 10 Reasons Why Sola Sc...
3) The One Sentence That Convinced Me Sola Scriptura is False | Cold Brews & Catholic Truths 24 • The One Sentence That ...
4) Is "Sola Scriptura" reasonable? • Is "Sola Scriptura" re...
5) Catholic Expert Debunks Sola Scriptura w/ Gary Michuta • Catholic Expert Debunk...
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
Website: gavinortlund.com/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Become a patron: / truthunites
My books:
--Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy: www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
--Anselm’s Pursuit of Joy: A Commentary on the Proslogion: www.amazon.com/Anselms-Pursui...
--Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage: www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
--Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future: www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
Great and thoughtful video
Thanks Matt! Keep up the great work, I enjoy your channel!
Agreed. I appreciate the approach and thoughtfulness!
@@SeanHussey Thanks Sean, so glad it came across in that way. Keep up the great work!
Matt and Gavin, do you two have plans for a discussion in the future? I think that would be great! Maybe with Gary or Trent involved. As a Catholic, I very much enjoyed this video!
Matt may God have mercy on your soul
Hey Dr. Ortlund,
As someone who gets easily swept up in the vitriol of Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant debates, you're slogan 'Truth Unites' is a breath of fresh air to my soul. It's very edifying and convicting. Thank you for what you do!
glad to hear it, thanks!
there is no truth on sola scriptura heresy. It is a false deception. Authority was given to the church, not your own personal opinion of the bible. Sola scriptura, "king james", protestantism are all false doctrines by heretics introduced 500 years ago.
@@TruthUnites Luke writes in the original language text ch 1:2 παρέδοσαν that actually shows the gospel is a say from tradition... Do you agree
WHOSE TRUTH? the Baptists? the Presbyterians (split P's?), the Methodists (should we call them the split m"s now?)...Protestantism began splitting immediately after 1520, sola scriptura does not ignite..
@@user-pj7sq7ce1f no, we don't agree. Obviously 😂
Catholic deacon here giving you a like and your channel a recommendation. You are a needed voice for both Catholic and Protestants.
He leads people away from the church. You shouldn't encourage it
Recently as a Protestant, I’ve been digging deeper down the rabbit hole of the reformation and hearing the arguments against what we believe concerning scriptures authority, this video has really reassured me of my original conviction of the final authority of scripture.
The Bible says that promoting or condoning sin is wrong and displeasing to God. Sin is anything that goes against God’s will and His holy character (1 John 3:4). God hates sin and wants His people to hate it too (Proverbs 6:16-19). He calls us to repent of our sins and turn to Him for forgiveness and salvation (Acts 3:19). He also commands us to love one another and help each other overcome sin, not to encourage or approve of it (Galatians 6:1-2).
Promoting or condoning sin can have serious consequences for ourselves and others. It can separate us from God and His blessings (Isaiah 59:2). It can harden our hearts and make us insensitive to the Holy Spirit’s conviction (Hebrews 3:13). It can lead us to more sin and eventually to eternal death (Romans 6:23). It can also cause others to stumble and fall into sin (Matthew 18:6-7).
Therefore, as Christians, we should not promote or condone sin in any way. Instead, we should follow the example of Jesus, who came to save sinners and call them to repentance (Luke 5:31-32). We should speak the truth in love and confront sin with grace and compassion (Ephesians 4:15). We should pray for those who are trapped in sin and seek to restore them to God (James 5:19-20). We should also examine ourselves and confess our own sins to God and to one another (1 John 1:9; James 5:16). By doing these things, we can honor God and show His love to the world.
This doctrine is mischaracterized so often by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. It's really unfortunate how often it's misunderstood because it's kind of an obvious and simple point.
@@whosweptmymines3956 amen to that.
@whosweptmymines3956 I was a former Roman Catholic, and after I read the Bible, I understood how disconnected they had become from the word of God!
All you need to do is look at the Fiducia Suplican to see and understand how far the Church has fallen from the grace of God. They are Blessing Sin by blessing practicing Trans People. This is a sacrilege.
Here are some examples of what Jesus said about the authority and sufficiency of Scripture:
In Matthew 4:1-11, Jesus resisted the temptations of the devil by quoting Scripture three times, saying “It is written” (v. 4, 7, 10). He did not appeal to any other authority, but relied on the written word of God as his weapon and defense.
In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus affirmed that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them. He said that not the smallest letter or stroke of the pen would disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. He also warned that anyone who breaks or teaches others to break the least of the commandments would be called least in the kingdom of heaven. He showed his high regard for the authority and permanence of Scripture.
In Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and the teachers of the law for nullifying the word of God by their human traditions. He quoted Isaiah 29:13, saying “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.” He exposed their hypocrisy and their violation of the first commandment by elevating their traditions above Scripture.
In Matthew 22:23-33, Jesus corrected the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the dead, by appealing to Scripture. He said, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (v. 29). He then quoted Exodus 3:6, where God said to Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” He argued that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, and that the Scripture implies the resurrection of the patriarchs. He demonstrated his knowledge and interpretation of Scripture, and its relevance to the doctrine of the resurrection.
In John 5:39-40, Jesus challenged the Jews who searched the Scriptures, thinking that in them they had eternal life, but failed to recognize that the Scriptures testify about him. He said, “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” He revealed that the ultimate purpose and goal of Scripture is to point to him, the source of eternal life.
In John 10:34-36, Jesus defended himself against the charge of blasphemy by the Jews, who accused him of claiming to be God. He quoted Psalm 82:6, where God called the unjust judges of Israel “gods”. He argued that if those who received the word of God were called “gods”, how much more could he, whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, be called the Son of God. He said, “If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be set aside-what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?” He affirmed the truth and authority of Scripture, and its witness to his divine identity.
These are some of the things that Jesus said about Scripture. He showed his respect and submission to Scripture, his understanding and application of Scripture, and his fulfillment and confirmation of Scripture. He also taught his followers to do the same, saying, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32).
So glad to see this video! Videos like these really keep these important conversations going at a high level in a charitable way. Keep up the good work!
Thanks Austin!
I’m not sure I followed Gavin’s argument. What earthly instrument was used by God to make His infallible and authoritative canon infallibly and authoritatively known to His church? If we can’t defend our canon how can we know what to use for exegesis?
I’m a Protestant converting to Catholicism and this is the one question I can’t find an answer for. It seems the Protestant view is more about historical consensus or extremely reliable opinion/advice? How do you get an infallible and authoritative canon without an earthly infallible and authoritative canon giver?
Hey man. Catholic converting to Protestant here. I'm not an expert but I'll give you my thoughts.
Firstly, the texts of scripture existed long before they were canonized. If you believe scripture is infallible, God breathed, then it was so before the Church canonized it. The Church did not grant scripture authority, it already had that authority. Any other view is logically backwards.
Second, the focus on infallibility is a Catholic idea. As a Protestant, I think scripture is inspired in the sense that it conveys the truth of God to his people. It does not require the blessing of the Catholic Church to do so. People in the early church, who might only have scraps of the Bible or single lines spoken by Jesus, were still able to see the truth of God through what they had. An obsession with infallibility, in my experience, actually indicates a lack of faith - it's the desire that everything be perfect and spelled out, that you have no doubts. That's a big part of what drove me away from Catholicism. Instead, I recommend that you trust God, and love Him with all your heart.
Hope that helps!
@@TheBlinkyImp just curious, do you deny scriptural infallibility? In other words, do you think scripture can err on things like homosexuality?
@@imjustheretogrill4794 I think it can err on details that aren't essential to the truth of God. For instance, the Gospels sometimes have different details about things like who was present at an event - to me that indicates they were written by men, and that those details weren't necessary to inspire - in fact quite the opposite, because those kinds of details give the Gospels more credence as eyewitness accounts.
As far as moral teaching, the Bible and the law doesn't err, but it can be misinterpreted, and part of that interpretation is contextual. So a lot of the old law has passed away because it no longer applies in our society (things like eating shellfish). Homosexuality is not in that category, clearly a sin, especially when it comes to 'gay culture' which is just sexual hedonism. But there's lots of so-called Christians who take it as a chance to judge rather than to extend God's love. We're all sinners after all.
I had the gift of learning under Dr. Ortlund's teaching for several years and I just happened to run into this video after I spoke with an Eastern Orthodox Christian about our differences over Sola Scriptura. I really appreciate his call to engage these discussion respectfully and without straw manning other peoples points of view. I also appreciate his call on Protestants like myself to dig into more church history and to understand our own professions of faith more deeply through these discussions.
how cool you found this video bro! Miss you!
Thank you so much for this video! I have a brother who recently converted to Catholicism from Protestantism. That has stirred me up a bit and it has challenged me to really try and think through theology that I have taken for granted as a Protestant. I am SO happy I stumbled into your channel!! The arguments you review in this video are ones I keep hearing as well and I know are things that drew my brother into the Catholic Church. I want to understand and grow and try to see things from his perspective, while still standing firm in my convictions. My eyes have be opened to the issues and problems in Protestantism, however I have no plans to leave my tradition. If anything, looking into all of this has confirmed what I believe and helped to expand my view to appreciate early church tradition and history. You have a wonderful way of explaining these things and you do it in a calm and peaceful manner. I admire your desire for discussion and your humility.
I would love to see a video on the authority of the church. That seems to be another area that draws Protestants over to Catholicism.
P.s. I agree with the guy who commented that you should turn this into a podcast! 😊
Thank you Jenny! I really resonate with your comments. I am planning on addressing issues of authority in the church in the future, and currently working to convert to a podcast. :)
@@TruthUnites I can only rarely watch but love to listen in a ton of contexts so please do convert it to a podcast when you can and thanks!
I wouldn't discount the Orthodox view either. There are 3.5(ish) branches of Christianity that should all be reckoned with 😔
Jenny,
I can already see you becoming catholic in the future. Once you start asking questions there is no going back. There simply are some fundamental questions that protestantism does not satisfactorily answer.
I also felt more convinced of my beliefs when I first started, but as time went on I felt drawn more and more to the Catholic faith. Wish you the best.
@@rhamsesmartinez5007Rome's false Gospel is stirring people away from it here in central America 😅😅
I'm a Confessional Lutheran looking closely at this entire issue. There are plusses and minuses on both sides, at least from what I've seen so far. Your winsomeness is definitely rare and appreciated! Particularly appreciate your 2-parter with Jimmy Akin.
Hi Dr. Ortlund - I'm a Catholic who has recently stumbled onto a lot of Austin's (Gospel Simplicity) videos as well as Matt Fradd and Trent Horn. I really appreciate your addition to the conversation here.
While I don't agree with your conclusions, I think you're being intellectually honest and having these conversations in a really admirable and exemplary way. I think you are furthering these discussions and doing it in a way that invites discussion over disagreement.
Keep up the great work and thanks for putting the time into articulating your view.
Thanks R.C.! Glad to be connected.
protestants believe 'only in the bible', then why isn't sola scriptura in the bible?
Why does the bible say "faith without works is dead?" If faith alone sola scriptura makes sense?
If douay rheims bible came out before KJV, then why did the KJV protestant bible take out 7 deuterocanonical books?
Narron Andreas -actually the original KJV had the DC books (along w/3 other books not in Roman Catholic bibles-1&2 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh) but in a middle section btw the OT and NT. It wasn’t really until the 1800s that the general trend began to leave them out entirely due to the influence of international Bible societies and printing costs. As an Anglican, we still retain these in their traditional middle section conventionally labeled ‘Apocrypha’.
@@catholicfemininity2126
He literally just objected to that in the video.
Dr. Ortlund. Catholic here. I agree with most all your points.
(1) Scripture is abundantly clear, even to uneducated unbelievers, when it comes to the basics.
(2) Our Lord's condemnation of the Corban rule, is definitely underappreciated by Catholic apologists, and it is an even stronger argument for Sola Scriptura than you seem to realize. This is because Corban was not just a tradition, but it was a tradition that the Pharisees thought was infallible. The Pharisees even made the erroneous argument, like some of my fellow Catholics do today, that without their infallible oral tradition no one could know the Old Testament, so therefore you had to accept them both. Another passage that works in favor of Sola Scriptura is actually the one about "hold fast to the traditions" often cited as evidence against it. But perhaps that's another discussion.
(3) Trent Horn is right when he says, ultimately, we are all our own final authority. The Catholic is no different than the Protestant in being stuck with merely their own interpretation. Although, this sort of Kantian-esque epistemology of doubt and distance really isn't even Catholic to begin with.
(4) Michuta, likewise, perpetrated an erroneous epistemology that merely backfires on the Church. One could always ask us Catholics, "where is your infallible list of infallible decrees, and how do you know that list is infallible to begin with?" This sort of epistemology that Michuta et al propogate necessitates an infinite regress in which no one can ever be certain of anything. Plus, we already know from the OT that God can transmit the Canon without necessarily doing so through an infallible Magisterium (as God transmitted the OT Canon through Israel without them having such).
Now, all this being said, as a Catholic I don't actually believe in Sola Scriptura. I am just agreeing with you against these bad arguments.
And as a Catholic, I can also agree that Scripture is an unparalleled authority. We Catholics only attribute the negative charism of infallibility to the Church, whereas Scripture possesses the positive attribute of inspiration. Pretty big difference there.
As for evidence against Sola Scriptura and for the Church. Well, Jesus says that whatever the apostles - and seemingly the Church by extension - bind on earth will be bound in Heaven. And that seems to imply a limited charism of infallibility. Also, while the early Church may not be strictly unanimous about apostolic succession, etc, I do think the overwhelming evidence leans in that direction.
Taylor,
As a fellow devotee of Dr. Ortlund, I also spotted his use of the term "unparalleled authority" to set the Protestant view against the Catholic position. The Catholic tradition has always believed that Scripture holds unparalleled authority. The real point at issue is whether Holy Writ shares this authority with what Catholics term Sacred Tradition, together forming "one sacred deposit of the word of God" (Dei Verbum 10).
Of course, if Sacred Tradition contained merely human tradition, then Scripture's authority would absolutely outweigh those traditions, and in fact Scripture always supersedes doctrines stemming from purely human origins. If we establish that Sacred Tradition is indeed sacred, however, that changes the conversation. It would be interesting for Dr. Ortlund to make a video outlining Protestant views of ecclesiastical tradition and their critiques of the Catholic/Orthodox models, if he hasn't already (I'm new to his channel).
@@gregmarra9457 I didnt understand what you said here. If something is unparalleled, it means it is above everything else. It can't also be "paralleled" with Tradition. That's Dr. Ortlund's point I think.
Side note: that Sean guy has some great lighting.
Hey Austin! I totally agree 😂😂
Hi Austin! ☺️
Thanks Austin! I love your channel and all the work you are doing.
The key is that Catholic and Orthodox don’t view their tradition as human tradition but as divinely inspired at Pentecost. It’s holy tradition not human tradition.
The thing is they don’t have evidence of this, and how does this align with Judaism which also claims holy traditions? So are Jews valid in rejecting Jesus bc of divinely inspired oral tradition? God ultimately had things written for a reason my guy.
@@justchilling704 I mean how is there evidence worse than the evidence that the books of the Bible that we have are holy and inspired? No. In fact scripture is identified and produced by that tradition.
@wish i knew which faith was right. To be fair the issue isn’t if you have paintings in your church after all art can indeed glorify God, the issue is if you’re praying to the art or worshipping it in some way.
@wish i knew which faith was right. DIdn't God himself order the creation of carved statues of seraphim to be incorporated into the ark of the covenant?
@Billy the kid So images are ok for decor but not as aids to prayer?
I am very blessed by this and all your content on CZcams, Dr. Gavin. Thank you!
You are well on your way young man to filling a huge void in the Christian community. Dialogue that increases our understanding of differences which in turn only broadens our understanding of God. So needed.
As a Catholic I used to scoff at Sola Scriptura. But after reading the bible myself I valued the Bible as a stable enduring truth. I left the church after 57 years. I was really invested in the Catholic church and niss some aspects of it but cringe at returning. They push so much on ppl that wasn't even in the Christian church at the beginning not even in the Catholic church until hundreds of years later after Constantine.
What in the Bible specifically made you leave? And what do they push on people that wasn’t around until hundreds of years after Constantine?
@@IG88AAA to me was Hebrews 10. Amongst many other
What's Constantine got to do with Catholic theology?
And btw, the church can introduce new form and method. If you knew your scripture you ought know that.
No practicing Catholic of 57 years leaves the faith. I wonder about your authenticity.
@@wolfthequarrelsome504Constantine and his mother set the whole Roman Catholic scam up, all the sites in the Middle East were picked by Helen, his mum, even though they aren’t the real historical locations.
You’re welcome.
@wolfthequarrelsome504 Wow, talk about self-righteousness. The church has no mandate to invent anything that contradicts scripture.
Gavin !
I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian Priest. I am captured by your wisdom and love. The description you gave is basically “PRIMA SCRIPTURA” but why the term is “ SOLA SCRIPTURA”. We all agree on “PRIMA SCRIPTURA” if I am correct. Now Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants could be one step closer. Our Unity in Christ is my prayer”
God bless
As a Catholic, I agree with Isaac: PRIMA SCRIPTURA was and is the way to go. Archbishop Robert Barron gave a great presentation on YOU TUBE explicitly saying that, had Luther used that term, the Reformation would have taken a (possibly)
very positive route. I've been a fan of yours for years and appreciate the VERY THOUGHTFUL insights and history of them that you provide.
@@johnnyg.5499 thank you Johnny G. 🙏
Christian unity is an inspiration to the whole world. I personally, being Oriental Orthodox, read about and love many Catholic saints. My favorite is St. Therese the little flower of Jesus 🌹
I understand your view and yearn for the unity of the church, the other Eastern Orthodox disagree with your side on other issues, like communion, and one of the councils, I think it is the Chalcedon one, but remember that Jesus said that He came with sword because He know men would argue over little matters.
hello Abouna, i agree with you that we hold an agreed upon position and that it’s one step closer to unity! may we be unified again by God’s grace one day
In another video he was talking about it like, what we protestants are saying is that councils can err, that councils and popes have no claim to infallibility. I dont know much about the Orthodox church but the Catholic church disagrees with that. If this statement fits the prima view then great, catchphrases like the 5solas can be limited in nuance.
Dr. Ortland, thank you so much for your contribution to these important conversations! It’s so encouraging, refreshing, and helpful to hear such a deeply thoughtful and genuinely charitable Protestant voice! Thank you for helping us Protestants better understand our own theology and doctrine, and modeling ways to respectfully and meaningfully interface with Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Please keep up the great work! God bless you.
Thank you for this video. Makes me want to talk with you a lot about these topics in a respectful and serious manner. I like the way you express yourself and how you want to take the conversation further. Makes all of us think a lot more about these issues, hopefully in a more reflexive way.
"Respectful disagreement" is so very important. Thanks for making this point.
I just discovered your page.. I myself am a Wesleyan Arminian emphasis believer, who's credo baptist and lean towards cessationist emphasis..
I know.. strange..
I have enjoyed this video as I've also leaned more towards sola scriptura over prima scriptura..and at times I have been finding myself getting into discussions with Catholics..some are charitable..some are full of caricatures..
Particularly one from a young who is an alleged ex Baptist and now Roman Catholic..
I'm sharing this video.
God bless.
Thank you for setting such a great exemple of what a generous and honoring tone towards those you disagree with actually sounds like. The triumphalist tone is so easy to adopt and so agreable to listen to...but this is much more fruitful and rewarding!
Thanks Ruben. It seems like the triumphalist tone is getting more and more common, so I feel its extra important to aim for something different. I appreciate the feedback!
First of all, kudos to you, Dr. Ortlund. This is the best exposition of Sola Scriptura I have ever heard. As a born Catholic with strong Orthodox sympathies, I think I'm fairly representative of my coreligionists when I say that before listening to your talk, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has always seemed absurd and unhistorical. Your presentation here has completely changed that view for me. I can say that your interpretation is very reasonable and Prima Scriptura is certainly a nice way to express it that we could all agree upon. Most of all, I'm impressed that you gathered some of the strongest arguments against Sola Scriptura and confronted them head on.
It seems to me that most apologetics are based on straw man arguments (I unfortunately include William Webster in this). My primary comment is this: Tradition (with a capital T) in the understanding of all Apostolic Churches (Catholic, Eastern, and Oriental Orthodox) will never contradict Sacred Scripture. Arguments against Tradition presuming that we hold it as an authority over and above Scripture are straw man arguments. No Apostolic Church holds that position. Quoting Church Fathers who explain that Tradition will never contradict Scripture is not a valid way to argue that they only viewed Tradition as another term for Scripture, as William Webster claims.
Tradition is the way we can be sure that our interpretation of the Bible matches what Jesus and the Apostles originally meant by the words they spoke. For example, Jesus said (Jn 6:55) "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." The use of the term transubstantiation is not Tradition (again, a common straw man argument).The Catholic Church invented the term "transubstantiation" to help describe how best to interpret a difficult passage in Scripture (by a teaching authority called Magisterium).
In fact, it was a difficult teaching that caused many of Jesus's followers to leave Him even back then. What Tradition (with a capital T) shows us is that when we look back in time and across the vast geography of Christianity, there has been a common interpretation about what Jesus meant. We see a consistent line among not only the Roman Catholic Church, but also the Greek Orthodox Church, and the thirty or so other Churches who trace their roots to the apostles but were never under the authority of either of those two big Churches - such as the Coptic Church, the Etrurian Church, the Tewahedo Church, the Syro-Malabar Church, etc - and also among the writings of the Church Fathers - such as Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 202 AD), Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165) and the Didache (late 1st or early 2nd century), etc. All interpret this passage in fundamentally the same manner.
Since this is the case, we can have confidence that the traditions (with a little t) we have all retained, whereby the Church perpetuates the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross in bread and wine becoming his Body and Blood, belong to the Tradition (with a capital T) of the Universal Church - not just the Roman Catholic Church - in fulfillment of Christ's command in Scripture "Do this in remembrance of Me."
In regard to Matthew 15, the Catholic Church is very aware that some traditions (with a little t) do not accord with Tradition (with a big T) or Sacred Scripture. Hard-core conservative Catholics - the kind who like apologetics - shy away from this, but the Catholic Church acknowledges it is wrong about certain practices, most notably priestly celibacy. Scripture and Tradition (with a big T) say there is nothing wrong with married priests. St. Paul specifies that a priest can only be married once. The Fathers tell us that all the apostles were married except John. Both Jesus and St. Paul say that Christians who renounce marriage to dedicate themselves entirely to the Kingdom of God are blessed and do a praiseworthy deed, but it is not required. The Catholic Church's requirement for priests to renounce marriage is tradition (with a little t) not Tradition (with a big T). The Catholic Church recognizes it is wrong in doing so but it probably won't fix it any time soon.
In a similar way, the Catholic Church does not recognize marriages that it does not witness. This is tradition with a little t. The Church teaches and acknowledges that Tradition with a big T recognizes the intent of any baptized man and woman who seek to do what Jesus explained about marriage (Matthew 19:6) as sufficient for a Christian marriage. Likewise, annulments are tradition with a little t. Again, since marriage and divorce are both civil and spiritual realities, the Church tries to navigate the two, even if it must deviate from Tradition with a big T.
Vatican I and its formulation of papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and many other bones of contention between Churches, are not Tradition. They are formulations of the Magisterium.
In sum, the Church of Rome is a profoundly messed up organization, with tons of corrupt bureaucrats filling its ranks. It is scarred by thousands of years of evil people manipulating spiritual power for personal gain. Yes, indeed. But Jesus wanted us to worship Him as a Church, messed up though we are, not as individuals. Therefore, to a learned Catholic the idea of any individual person just picking up the Bible and correctly interpreting it is absurd because from the outside all we see is that practitioners of Sola Scripture interpret the Bible in such different and contradictory ways that they cannot worship together as a Church but only as thousands of small groups of individuals whose only common doctrine is their hostility towards the Catholic Church.
As you define it, however, I would agree. I do believe that God's grace is such that a person who goes to the Bible and sincerely seeks to understand it will be brought to salvation.
Blessed are you for being a peace maker! You are doing a great service to the Christian people by seriously considering these bitterly divisive issues and finding channels that we can navigate in common.
Thanks for the thoughtful engagement!
If they know they are in error, are they not even more in error by opting to remain in error?
This was a really interesting read, and I'm hearing some of these things for the first time. Your distinction between Tradition and tradition is eye-opening, and I've never heard a Catholic openly admit that the Catholic Church is wrong about certain things. Thanks for bringing this stuff out, I wish more Catholics approached the discussion like this.
I want to talk about the end of your message though, where I think you contradict yourself a little- or else you haven't considered the implications of what you said.
You believe that God wants us to come to Him corporately, as a church, (I could not agree more, and I recognize this is something most Protestants do not understand) but you also advocate that God accepts any genuine believer (which I also agree with!). If you put these two together though, I think it cases to function in favor of Catholicism alone, because if God accepts all genuine believers- Catholic, Protestant, or other- then would it not stand to reason that He also accepts congregations outside the Catholic church?
My view is that God sees the church as one- it's just in our minds that we are divided. Schisms cause rifts in fellowship, which lead to problems, sure, but from God's perspective we're all just believers.
So for my perspective, I believe we ideally *should* all come together in fellowship as one. But the Catholic church has shown itself to be corrupt in the past, and willing to accept error for various reasons. So while I would gladly share in fellowship with my Catholic brothers and sisters, I will not do so while accepting the authority of an organization that is not representing Christ.
Im Catholic, I just want to clarify that
"Vatican I and its formulation of papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and many other bones of contention between Churches, are not Tradition. They are formulations of the Magisterium."
Councils are usually just clarifying agaisn't heresy at the time. Council of Nicea was convened because Arianism was rampant at the time which contradicted Jesus's divinity. The Church always taught Jesus was divine and didnt start till 325 AD, just codified it among all the heresy at the time. Vatican 1 was a response to nationalism and anti catholicism in protestant Europe at the time, codifying the authority in the Pope came from Christ, and not secular kings or other government authorities.
Papal authority didnt begin in Vatican 1, and had clearly existed before hand.
@@Draezeth There is one true church and its members are known only to God. It consists of all believers in Christ alone for salvation and is not any one particular denomination.
Dr. Ortlund, I'm so glad to see the kind of engagement and listening shown in your videos, along with Matt at 10 Min. Bible videos--both of you meeting with good spokesmen for other streams of Christianity, and being a good example in doing so. You're tackling heav issues, and I'm looking forward to hearing more.
I'm passionately and firmly Catholic, but I very much enjoy your lectures and debates, so I don't mind giving you a like. :-) Whether or not I agree with the perspective, the content is quite thought provoking and tasteful. Great video brother in Christ!
Thanks very much, glad you enjoyed!
protestants believe 'only in the bible', then why isn't sola scriptura in the bible?
Why does the bible say "faith without works is dead?" If faith alone sola scriptura makes sense?
If douay rheims bible came out before KJV, then why did the KJV protestant bible take out 7 deuterocanonical books?
@@catholicfemininity2126 Athanasius and Jerome did not see the apocrypha as scripture
@@catholicfemininity2126 You need to read your extra books with considerable care before you say such things: only one example out of many book of wisdom 7:28 contradicts flat out John 3:16 and others.
God rest
@fireflames3639 so Athanasius and Jerome are infallible sources of authority for you?
You did a great job defending Sola Scriptura and explaining the doctrine. Many people of the Christian faith don’t really understand this concept. I was surprised by Lizzie’s response, but I wonder where she studied theology? Many others do so, but I would ask professors, like Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Michael Rydelnik, etc for there perspective views. I always pray before reading scripture and after and then mediate on the word of God. The Lord will reveal the meaning. I love your videos, thank you again.
The lord has already revealed the meaning to His church.
Great video. It’s nice to have a thoughtful explanation of what I believe as a confessional Protestant. We Lutherans have a very high view of tradition (this is one of the reasons we quote the fathers so much in our confessions) but Holy Scripture is alone the infallible norm of all other authorities in the Church.
Thanks will! That is one of the things I admire about the Lutheran tradition.
Wil, as a traditional Anglican I wholeheartedly agree with you 👍🏻
I could be Lutheran if it had *any* diversity. It's such a white church. But I do think the Lutherans have a lot right
@@EricBryant Eric, you are spot on! Racial diversity is one of the things the Lutheran Church needs to work on, especially in the United States. In America, Lutheranism has largely been a church of white immigrants and their descendants (Germans, Norwegians, Slovaks, Swedes, Finns, etc.). However, not all Lutherans around the world are white. The Ethiopian Lutheran Church (Mekane Yesus) has 9 million members. The Lutheran Church in Tanzania has 6 million. The Lutheran Church in Madagascar has 3 million. In addition, there have been several important African American Lutherans, chief among them being the great Rosa J. Young of Rosebud, Alabama and Pastor Marmaduke Carter. I would also recommend to you the work of The Wittenberg Project, who are my fellow Lutherans and have a lot of great things to say about diversity and the Lutheran Church. I am Lutheran because I believe the Book of Concord (a great place to start is Luther's Small Catechism) accurately presents the teachings of the Bible and because the certain assurance of salvation which I have found in this great Christian tradition. I wish you well brother in your Christian life. -Wil
So glad I discovered you. All of the videos I've watched by you have been so helpful. You are so charitable, rational, and helpful. I am of the same persuasion as you and I have not found many in Baptist circles to be as helpful as you are in this way. Thanks for what you do!
What a well-done, thoughtful, and charitable video! I’m so glad you make this kind of content because I’ve wanted this kind of content on CZcams for a long time! I think you did a fantastic job.
This deserves multiple thumbs up. So thoughtful. Thank you for making this.
Thank you Jess!
This is one of the best conversations I have ever heard, even though it was a monologue. Very informative as well. Thank you for your work!
Love your shows!
Thank you so much for a clear and charitable explanation to why Sola Scrptura.
I've been on a personal question (albeit probably a lazy one cuz mainly thru CZcams apologists😳, so far) to understand the reasons behind my Protestant upbringing. Really hoping to see more comradery among Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox
I've enjoyed Josiah, Trent, Matt, and adding you.
Subscribed, and look forward to more 👍
Thanks, glad to be connected!
How are you on your journey? I relate a lot to this comment
I am a Catholic and I found your video thoughtful and thought provoking, though I mentally responded to certain points. That being said, your attitude of discussion over finger-pointing is exactly what I and my team are trying to foster in our interdenominational magazine. Thank you.
-Sarah, Editor in Chief, LogoSophia Magazine
Thank you Sarah! I am so glad the video provoked some thoughts, and really appreciate you commenting. I will check out your magazine!
Praise God for your excellent teaching
I was sort of flirting with the idea of Catholicism, but man am I glad I found your Channel. You seem genuine and historically knowledgeable, can’t wait to get some time so I can go through more of your content.
Thanks a lot, hope it’s helpful!
protestants believe 'only in the bible', then why isn't sola scriptura in the bible?
Why does the bible say "faith without works is dead?" If faith alone sola scriptura makes sense?
If douay rheims bible came out before KJV, then why did the KJV protestant bible take out 7 deuterocanonical books?
@@catholicfemininity2126 if this is your assumptions, it is a clearly a caricature of Sola Scriptura and this does not mean Solo Scripture which is unreasonable.
How’s your journey going? You might also find it helpful to watch videos by ex-Catholics. I can pull up some names if you’d like, or, you might be able to find their playlists under my channel.
@@PeaceIsYeshua Recommend me! :D
Love your videos Gavin, they are greatly helpful to progress thoughtful conversation.
Just scratching the surface, I find the more I learn, the more I know what I don't know.
Simplistic arguments don't really help.
Nuances and "tiny" words make big differences, and sometimes things can really look like X, but then turn out to be an Y.
Like those examples where you see a shadow of what is seemingly a square, but when you zoom out it's light hitting a cylinder at just the right angle.
I'd like to express rapt admiration and appreciation for the words Gavin spoke in the first part of this video, in which he describes his "irenic" (or what I often describe as "ecumenical") approach, methodology, and viewpoint. It's extremely refreshing to hear in this age which is so hyper-polarized. The theological world (to our shame) has, of course, been divided and polarized for many centuries. There is an increasing need for Christians to talk to each other -- really talk and communicate -- and to exercise charity and do our best to understand our Christian brothers and sisters and not to misrepresent what they believe. If we can't do that, we have no hope of getting our message out to the unbelieving, suffering, dying, despairing world.
I find Gavin to be an exemplary role model of this approach, and it is worlds apart from the anti-Catholic-type Protestants I have mostly dealt with these past 26 years I have been very active online. Personally, as an apologist since 1981 (and a Catholic since 1991), Gavin's words were a great exhortation to humility and to offset the pride that -- sadly -- too often cripples apologetics efforts. I am humbled and challenged by them, to do better in this regard. Apologetics can very quickly become "oppositional" and shot-through with hostility or passive aggression. It need not be so. So, again, I am deeply grateful for these words from Gavin and he has already gained my respect as a Christian role model in terms of how we must conduct ourselves during discussions, where we disagree with each other.
Inter-Christian dialogue ought to be from the perspective of "brother to brother" within the Body of Christ, in order to better understand and to learn from each other, as well as providing challenges when we think a brother or sister in the faith is wrong on a particular issue (along with a willingness to be challenged). We all learn and we all "win" when good, constructive dialogue takes place.
thanks for the kind words! So glad my approach resonated, and I love your vision of a way we can all win, and all learn.
@@TruthUnites I am equally impressed with your quick reply! I just put up my reply to this video. Hopefully I abided behaviorally in accordance with the high ethical ideals we both agree upon! I concede some things, too, and perhaps bring up a point or two showing that Catholics and Protestants agree on more than they think. I hope we can continue dialoguing. God bless.
Thanks for this great video! I found this really helpful for clarifying the questions involved
Hey man Orthodox Christian here. I can appreciate what you’re doing and I pray God gives you guidance in your journey! I’ve seen and met wonderful Christian’s from all denominations and were all ultimately just trying to do our best. I appreciate your approach and honesty here and wish nothing but the best for you and your channel!
God bless you Tyler, that was very thoughtful. :)
Thank you so much for your hard work and dedication and solidifying me in my faith :)
Thanks Malcolm, God bless you!
Though I am a Catholic, I gotta say; I loved this video. You are very warm and loving, thus genuinely a Christian. "They will know we are Christians by our love."
I definitely think all sides of the isle could use more of what you are sharing.
Hi Gavin, I just found your channel. You are very thoughtful and thorough. This video really helped me sort this issue out myself.
Thank you for the video. Its always helpful to really here a well represented argument for my beliefs when I am feeling anxious about them for whatever reason.
Really appreciate these videos both in tone and content. Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@TruthUnites Really did, pastor an English speaking church in Switzerland and am always looking for good concise material that explains why we believe what we believe as protestants so thanks for providing that
I so needed some teaching where the arguments and counterarguments are given in search of truth. Up til now, Mike Winger was the only teacher I had found who does this
Mike Winger is great. I'm not Catholic, but my Catholic spouse enjoys Winger as well, and never feels attacked. We're also enjoying this channel. We've been on a deep dive into church history, taking it from all Christian perspectives, as best as we can find. I would say Ortlund is the most fair in his perspective, as well as his expertise is the most impressive I've seen.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 what a lovely comment :-) We should all take a loving deep dive to find the truth with each other
"As conciliatory as possible" is triumphant generosity and love.
I appreciate the spirit of humility you adopted when approaching this topic.
Dr. Ortlund, I'm very glad that I found your channel. I enjoy your irenic manner of speaking and how you try to be fair. Keep up the good work.
Love this content, will always smash that like button. Please continue with this content
Thanks Matthew!
Looking forward to watching you on reason and theology.
Thanks Lucas! It's coming up on Thursday.
God bless you brother. Thank you for your charity towards those with differing views. Your words have brought me peace as I continue to wrestle with this matter.
Thanks! This is the post I’ve been looking for😊
After watching this thoughtful and informative video: I realised I didn't understand Sola Scriptural at all myself; I was conflicted with Catholic views and appeals; I have also learned to open minded and humble in every discussion!
Thank you, Pastor Gavin! More grace brother!
I think I finally got it. It took me a few years, but I understand sola scriptura now. I read your recent tweet about it, and that unlocked it for me. You pointed out that there is an infinite regress problem to infallibility, and this usually indicates we are looking at a deep paradigm issue.
If I were to pretend that I'm not Catholic, and just consider the magisterium and sola scriptura to see which one(s) are workable I'd have to reason it out. Firstly, we have to accept that we are capable of grasping theological truth, otherwise there's no point in worrying about this problem in the first place. But we also have to accept that the endpoint of knowledge about theology will be fallible no matter what because it terminates in the human mind. If God introduces some infallible truth into creation, it immediately is subject to fallible ways of attaining the truth and fallible ways of understanding that truth, so it is unavoidable for everyone. But we can't fall into relativism or intellectual nihilism because this would call all possibility of knowledge into question.
If we accept that we can know theological truths, because it is incoherent to say that we can't, then we have to figure out which paradigm, if any, can justify this assumption. We can consider them side by side. The church was founded when God's Word came into the world and created a deposit of faith, which is things needed to be known/done to be saved. I think both paradigms have to accept this, or we have to abandon Christianity which leads us back to the coherence problem. But maybe Catholics have the upper hand because they have "the church"? I don't think so, because protestants have the church too, just in a more spiritual sense. We have no way to determine yet which kind of church was established.
Maybe we can say that Catholics have an infallible interpreter, so they win. Well not quite because, as we see, you can disagree about what the infallible interpretation means. Hence the infinite regress. We have to go earlier: the deposit of faith includes, at first, tradition and word of mouth and, eventually, scripture. These foundational facts and assumptions don't really get us anywhere though.
We have to get to the core question: how can I know what valid doctrines are, and what scripture and tradition are trying to teach me? At some point, I think both paradigms must accept the intervention of the Holy Spirit. And this is where I suspect we will find a weakness. If our paradigm allows for the Holy Spirit to guide the physical church, then maybe we found a way to have better access to truth? But we could say the same for your paradigm, there's no reason the Holy Spirit can't also guide your version of the church similar to the sensus fidelium concept in Catholicism.
The difference has to be in the object that is being guided by the Holy Spirit. In the Catholic church it is the entire church from top to bottom, but united particularly in the top of the hierarchy. Basically, the bishops together with the pope have the final say on what is true. In Protestantism it's not quite so clear. We can't say scriptures are being continually guided into truth because scripture is a deposit of writings. Is it the general faithful? Maybe but there is no uniting feature to this form of the church, so when this spiritual church disagrees it becomes difficult, based on these assumptions, to know who actually got the truth in the first place. Let alone worrying about whether or not we can understand that truth as it is communicated through a messy physical creation subject to fallible means.
It's not quite an open-and-shut case because if there were a reliable means of figuring out where the truth entered creation in your paradigm, then that could be good enough. For instance, protestants generally agree on the canon, which is a pretty compelling example that uniting around truth is at least possible. The difficulty isn't necessarily that it is impossible, but that it may be practically impossible in some cases. Do we take a poll of all Christians on every issue? Is it a majority or is a plurality okay? Do we include Mormons, Catholics, Orthodox, LDS, Calvinists (jk) etc? The disunity makes it difficult, perhaps unreasonably difficult, to know what the source of truth is even if it exists. It would be like if the US was founded on a constitution, but then wasn't given a supreme court to make decisions about what the document means. There would be immediate splintering, and from an outside perspective it would be difficult, if not practically impossible, to determine which group was following the intent of the document.
Maybe this could be argued to be the point of superiority, where the paradigms diverge and one just becomes practically superior to the other? But by the best of my reasoning, both paradigms can justify the assumption I set out to justify above at least in principle. The argument will probably have to be a much weaker one about the practical realities of the church in whatever form it takes. Regardless of what's true, what has become clear to me is there is no pithy and concise refutation of sola scripture anymore. The argument from anarchy, the argument from fallibility, etc. don't work. You have convinced me that sola scriptura is a powerful paradigm that must be contended with seriously by all believers regardless of tradition, and there will be no easy way to dismiss it. If it should even be dismissed at all.
You probably aren't reading this but just wanted to say: I noticed your tone in these older videos was much more optimistic. Contrast your open and vulnerable demeanor in this video with somewhat more defensive ones in current videos, it was a little sad to see ngl. I hope social media isn't getting to you, I appreciate your even keeled takes on this stuff.
Great video Dr. Ortlund! Let me start by saying, as a Catholic, not annoyed at all! I should hope no one gets annoyed hearing a passionate, charitable and nuanced take by a fellow brother in Christ!
I have been searching for a while for a good, Protestant defense of sola scriptura. I especially appreciate your point that ultimately, we do just fall down on all of our own consciences, Catholics included. I think that framework is the most formidable response to the issue. However, I still ultimately think sola scriptura lacks the solid internal consistency, but I very much appreciate your take on things!
Would love to see more dialogue between you and other prominent Catholic apologists, particularly would love to see you on Trent Horn's or Matt Fradd's channel!
Dr. Ortlund has done a friendly interview (possibly cordial debate) w/ Trent Horn. It may have been since your comment, and I haven't yet seen it. There have been back and forth response videos as well. I just found this channel and love it as well. I'm trying to get a well rounded perspective of church history and love the echumenical spirit here, which often lacks from protestants, and esp. baptists towards Catholics. I'm a sola scriptura Christian, whose been going to Mass for some time.
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund! This was a very helpful video and I will be sharing it with some friends. I really appreciate your irenic approach to these challenges. So often my Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox friends are quick to dismiss videos like these because of the attitude or reputation of the Protestant speaker/apologist but I think you hit the perfect balance of being respectful to their viewpoint while also being convinced of your own. Well done!
Thank you Dr. Ortlund for making these videos. I have been stimulated by your content, especially your recent book on Finding the Right Hills to Die On (or should it have been titled Finding the Right Hills Upon Which to Die?-but that is a grammatical hill I won’t die upon 😉).
I just wanted to say as a point of interest, I’ve found the points raised in this video helpful. I’ve skimmed through a handful of Dr. James White debates on Catholicism and it seems not only are the videos posted by Catholics generally but they’re lauded by them in the comments section in particular, namely “this is why I converted to Catholicism...or Dr. White can’t argue ____.” I’m looking forward to this series on Catholicism as you point out in your recent blog post. Thank you brother for your graciousness and investment in defending the faith and stimulating others to avoid parroting others without sufficient grounds.
You nailed! Coming from a lapsed Orthodox believer.
Hopefully crossing the Tiber in the future. Definitely not annoyed. Very reasoned and gracious responses to some objections that are either not exceedingly strong or possibly not articulated well. Hitting the like button to support!
God Bless.
Thanks Gavin for the thoughtful discussion. Your channel is a real blessing to the greater body of Christ.
Thanks, Gavin. As a Catholic I respect your desire for clarity and your pursuit of Truth.
Thanks Brian!
I honestly think Mr Ortlund isn’t that far from converting to Catholicism. He seems very humble and in a bit of a position as Cameron bertuzzi was
@@thekid6244Where do you get that impression? He’s as strong of a Protestant as you could possibly get. I don’t get the impression at all that he would ever convert to Rome. He’s very happy on his walk with Christ as a Baptist pastor.
Thank you for your thoughtful explanations, this is the first video of yours I've watched.
Thanks! Glad to be connected!
You are always thoughtful and fair. Thanks for your diligence of research. I always learn something important from your posts.
A wonderful presentation- Thanks! And great to see Lizzy, one of my first internet loves! :-)
Thank you for such a great discussion! The reminder that smart people can disagree is SO GOOD for where we’re at in 2021. Love it!
Justin it is only good and wise that smart people disagree on opinions, very unwise when it pertains to Divine Revelation.
You should be a guest on the remnant radio. That would be a fascinating conversation.
Brilliant video, thanks for taking the time to provide a balanced argument. Subscribed sir.
Nice job, Gavin. Good tip on Webster, who you may know has a three volume set on this topic.
Thanks for the understanding! After taking a look into protestant perspective, being Catholic Ive realised how most denominated Catholics avoid readimg scripture, abd that includes myself. Now I know the importante of Scripture, which is as or even more important than dogmas/tradition, and ill do my best on keeping up with reading. Fantastic video, I expected some kind of attack to Catholics but there wasnt any, I think all christians should agree that Scripture is essential in our faith🙌 even the Catholic tradition is based on it!
Indeed, I’ve started developing in apologetics and reading the Bible is very important to level up in intellect and knowledge. If your trying to increase your apologetics but don’t read the Bible, your missing out on a huge part/information that is very useful in defending your faith. I feel that all Catholics need to have at least a basic understanding of Apologetics to strengthen their faith. I also agree with the fact that Catholic tradition is based on scripture. The liturgy is built on scripture.
God bless
@@thekid6244 Not all Catholic tradition is based on scripture, sorry!
@@raphaelfeneje486
Eucharist- John 6:53-56. Matthew 26: 26-28, Mark 14:22-24
Purgatory- Revelations 21:27 nothing unclean shall enter heaven, 2 Maccabees 12:44-46 atoned for the dead to free them from their sins, 1 Peter 3:19 Jesus preached to the spirits in prison
Confession- John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18 ministry of reconciliation,
This is just a few of the basic catholic traditions, if you have any questions I would be happy to discuss them.
@@thekid6244Could you explain Mary's role from the creation of the first Christian Church in Acts thru the book of Revelation? Also, the Catholic Church claims apostolic succession. I am unable to find apostolic succession taught in the New Testament. Thank you
@@glennherron9499 Regarding apostolic succesion: In the NT, if we refer to Acts 1:12, Since Judas died, the apostles chose Matthias to replace him
They could have chosen not to In Titus 1:5-7, St Paul tells Titus to appoint successors
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
- 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
Similiarly we see in Acts 14:23, St Paul and Barnabas "appointed elders for them in every church" in Antioch and neigbouring regions
St Paul even told Timothy in 1 Tim 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man's sins; keep yourself pure.
The imposition of laying of hands means the conferring of leadership.
2 Tim 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
St Paul indicates that there is a continuity entrust to faithful men
This probably the best defense of the doctrine I have seen so far, keep it up!
Thanks Noah, glad it was helpful!
Yo what my name is Noah Whitted. I wish I wasn't three years late Noah White!
Just recently came across your channel from a video someone posted in Christian Forums. As someone who does research myself; you are extremely well informed. I'm impressed. And God has blessed you with a good memory!
This subject "Sola Scriptura" was of interest to me because I think the Scripture certainly does teach that it is it's own complete, internal and self interpretive document. There is a passage in Isaiah "Whom shall we teach doctrine?... line upon line upon line, precept upon precept upon precept" (Isaiah 28:10) What is written by "holy men of old spake as moved by the Holy Ghost" is "line upon line". The fact that what is inspired by God given in written format is an important principle. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is pretty clear that one can be "throughly furnished unto good works" by Scripture only.
Which related to "church history" does have it's reflection in what we see of communication and propaganda today. The winners write the history books; so though tradition certainly exists and tradition in and of itself isn't by nature of being tradition; definitively wrong. But where traditions come to trump Scripture is where Scripture itself draws the line. And that line is a very real "line in the sand" so to speak.
All that being said; I really enjoy your videos. I'm learning a lot about history from them!
Love this Gavin! Keep it up!
Interesting video. As an Orthodox convert from evangelical protestantism, I think our view is that Scripture is at the core of Holy Tradition, interwoven with it. Our point is not that contradicting Scripture would be acceptable, our point is humility and respect for the Holy Spirit, who teaches the community through appointed and sacramentally empowered bishops. Scripture speaks to me for myself and my family, but it does not say things that contradict the Holy Spirit. For example, an ordinary member of the church at Corinth would be mistaken to interpret scriptures contrary to Paul's teaching. This is not less true for us and the Holy Tradition today, because the Holy Spirit will never abandon the Church.
Sacramentally ordained bishops is key.
Sacramentally ordained bishops is key.
Sacramentally ordained bishops is key.
Sacramentally ordained bishops is key.
Thankful for your work, and for this video. What a gift to the Body! Thank you.
I have to be honest, I get so sick of Roman Catholics trying to tell me what Sola Scriptura is and every single time they get it wrong. I usually respond by explaining to them their Papal Primacy doctrine means their Pope is infallible in everything they say and do and wait for their head to explode to see if they get the irony….
im protestant. thats not what papal primacy is at all... deconstructionists are sola scriptura. what makes them wrong? you also unknowingly rely on church authority to tell you what the scriptures are.
Former protestant here. I agree with everything on your first point. I just have a few things to say.
1. Yes, we IDEALLY shouldn't generalize a denomination by anecdotal evidence, but it simply isn't realistic to expect anything else. Also on that note, if so many people have separately come to the same conclusion based on anecdotal evidence, then isn't that pointing to the problem being with modern protestantism, not with the way people are perceiving it?
If your view of a thoughtful protestant who believes "prima scriptura" is so rare, (which by all counts of evidence, is) then how can you defend the institution as a whole? If nobody in the protestant church REALLY believes prima scriptura, then it is by all means, a dead belief. It's like the tree falling in the woods. If no one actually hears it, then why does it matter?
No protestant I have ever come across, both in person or online, believes "prima scriptura", but rather believes ONLY BIBLE, end of discussion. And many other people have had the same experience. So I don't believe we are wrong by addressing what is actually out there, without considering the imaginary ideal of protestantism that really doesn't exist outside of a few people like yourself.
I haven't watched the whole video at this point, but I really don't see how that is defending Sola scriptura either? It was the church that defined what was in the bible and what wasn't. You trust them on that matter, arguably the most important one, what constitutes divinely inspired. But you then reject the less important teachings like the sacraments? It just doesn't make sense to me how you can reject the original church that still stands today, but trust in man made institutions that are created on a whim? How you can reject one part of their teachings while accepting the most pivotal? 33,000 different denominations of protestantism, and one of them is supposed to be "right", while the only church that still stands from the beginning is "wrong"?
I have yet to have anyone respond to me by doing anything other than quoting scripture out of context and rebuking me. Maybe you will be different.
Killer, I’m on the same journey. This guy is nice but I just can’t see the logic.
33000? It is totally misleading. Using the same reference, you will have so many denominations as well in Catholicism and Eastern/Oriental Orthodoxy. This has been clarified by so many channels and I wonder why people still bring up that non-sense number.
He addressed that point.
The Catholic church didn’t “give us” the Bible. They didn’t “determine” which books were inspired. They simply RECOGNIZED which books were inspired, but the scripture was given by God, not by the church.
Put a Pentacostal and a Presbyterian together and ask them to defend any aspect of "their institution" and please record the responses you get on that one! Sorry but I can't help but laugh at reading that anyone would suggest Protestantism is some sort of monolith. Unlike the CC, it doesn't even claim to be. Strangely, you yourself make it a monolith one moment only to emphasize it as a "33,000"-headed hydra later on. Which is it? It can't be both.
@@josephbrooks2862 Christians can disagree on some things and thus call themselves different names. But the Church is still all of us who believe and obey the word of God.
Acts 8:30-31
30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
🇻🇦
Keep on doing Educational and enlightening videos.I am more convinced with what I believe as a Christian through ur videos.
I’d love to see you debate with Josiah - I’d imagine it would be mind blowingly awesome!
I actually responded to that canon argument from Fradd & Michuta. There's a continual confusion of determining revelation with attributes of revelation itself.
I liked this video a lot. I thought the first two points were strong and very reasonable. I think the case got a bit weaker in the latter half.
Im a Protestant considering Orthodoxy, but I've found content like yours to be very clarifying and challenging. Thanks brother!
glad you found some use in it!
Orthodox yet? just wondering
@@Hoodinator17 nope
Excellent video!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and Scriptures related to Sola Scriptura. You made so many good points that I'm going to have to watch this video again and write them down. So many will take a topic and talk to great lengths instead of boiling down their best points and presenting them in a concise presentation like you did, and I appreciate you for that.
One area that Protestants will run to for Church history, creeds, confessions, etc. is eschatology (the study of last things). In debates between Partial Preterists and Full Preterists the creeds and Church history are constantly brought up by Partial Preterists to argue against Full Preterists. Full Preterists claim if all of Church history is taken into account we find different teachers saying Bible passages have been fulfilled and if we put all those fulfilled passages together it would cover the entire Scriptures.
side notes:
Full Preterists hold that the second coming of Christ took place in 70 AD to end the age of the Mosaic covenant and bring the kingdom of God to Earth in full.
Partial Preterists hold that Christ came in 70 AD to end the age of the Mosaic covenant, but the second coming and the fullness of God's kingdom is still in our future .
I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of the video. However, I don't think saying that God gave us the canon or that the church merely recognized the canon answers the objection to sola scriptura based on the necessity of an infallible canon. If God gave us the canon, He must have communicated what is to be in and out of the canon in some way. That communication must have taken place somewhere in history. So somewhere there must be an additional revelation outside of scripture. Whether that revelation or authority takes the form of tablets or scrolls descended from heaven or infallible decree from a church council or even the general acceptance of the canon by all of Christendom, there still must be that extra-scriptural authority. So either the scriptura is not sola or we cannot be sure that what we have is actually scriptura.
understanding these theologies in their best light, benefit of the doubt in thinking the best of our brethren. Keep at it, friend.
Thanks for the encouragement!
great vid bro! salutations from a confessional Lutheran brother.
Another good video, Dr Ortland.
As one raised Southern Baptist and who almost converted to Eastern Orthodoxy 15 years ago, I can relate to all these points brought up against ‘sola Scriptura’ by our RCC and EOC brethren. Suffice it to say, it was my study of Christian history and the early church fathers that led me to affirm (at the very least) the MATERIAL SUFFICIENCY of Holy Scripture. I affirm with Article 6 of the Thirty Nine Articles that “holy scripture contains all thins necessary for salvation…”, and that the historic context of Christ’s Gospel in the Apostolic churches provides the FORMAL principle of interpreting those Scriptures.
Great video. Really thoughtful and balanced. Good point about the difference between the early Church and current deviations and additions. I'm really interested in becoming Orthodox but struggling with Mary and the Saints
As someone currently in RCIA, I have to say that your recent content is tipping the scales the other way. I have a lot of angst and appreciate your work.
I'm glad to be of some use! I pray that God leads you into both truth and peace. God bless you and thanks for commenting.
Maybe you should check out Reason and Theology's CZcams channel, if you haven't already, if you have (you probably have), then maybe email them? In all things pray and ask God for His wisdom. If you like praying to the saints, then you can do that.
People are telling you to read, read, read. But I suggest prayer. The true theologian is the man who prays. Seek the face of God and to do his will, not what you reason to be right in your own mind. This is a spiritual battle, beyond paper and flesh and blood, but of powers and principalities. Pray pray pray earnestly and constantly..
But while your reading things, check out some Eastern Orthodox resources as well ;) :P
You should check into Orthodoxy. It makes more sense to me as a former Protestant.
Chris, I just saw your comment and was curious where you are at today in your journey. I will give you two issues that I really struggle with and see what you think. I do not say this as an attack toward other Catholics but rather a struggle I have had personally. The official teaching of ex cathedra was not official until 1870. I know that many probably held that view prior, but if it was such an essential doctrine, why was it not decreed until 1870? Further, the assumption of Mary did not become official until 1950 when it was declared from ex cathedra. This doctrine was never essential to being a Catholic for 1,950 years until Pope Pius XII declared it. You now have to believe this as essential doctrine if you become Catholic, even though this was never an essential doctrine officially until 1950? That is a tough one for me personally. These two official doctrines came VERY late. It is something to think about. Again, I do not mean this as an attack but rather as a real intellectual struggle for me.
Great video thank you so very much for sharing!!
glad you found it useful!
I am a Catholic and I am becoming a fan of your channel. I wish you made a video talking on the hypothetical reunion of Christians under one church. Catholics many times talk about this, but Protestants and Orthodox usually don't want to talk about it.
I honestly believe that these three branches are somehow converging. Slowly, true, but I do think so.
Thanks for the feedback! Glad to be connected to you, and great idea for a video.
@@TruthUnites Thanks!
Thanks to Protestants like you, my impression is many Catholics now do know their Bibles and distinguish very clearly between intercession of Saints and pure idolatry. This is something that in common folklore is mixed up, for good or for evil.
In a similar way, now I find more Protestants that are way more interested in history and are eager to consider believing in things like real presence in the Eucharist or the Théotokos dogma.
I think 100 years ago this was not possible (at least not for mainstream religious practices). So my perception is that we are having some convergence.
Praying for your channel, I wish you reach more people! God bless you!
The problem with convergence is this- under what authority? To Catholics, convergence means submitting to Rome. To Orthodox it means becoming Orthodox. And to Protestants it means believing in the Solas and interpreting the Bible for yourself. So theoretically we could all converge but what would that look like realistically? All three I just listed (Roman, Orthodox, Protestant) have extremely different doctrines and faith traditions.
Thank u Gavin for this video.Your ministry is edifying and enlightening especially in this times of competing viewpoints where the sufficiency and authority of the Word of God is being challenged.God bless u more.
I do not see why people would be annoyed with a well made video and opinions voiced in a mild manner. As far as I am concerned, as a Greek Orthodox, I will tell you all something that *might* help you understand some of the Eastern Orthodox:
- *Before* the invention of typography at around 1450 my ancestors didn't really have the ability to study the Bible because owning a handwritten book of that size was something only very rich people could afford. *14 centuries, no Bible*
- After the invention of typography and during 1453-1827, my ancestors didn't really have the ability to study the Bible because the Ottomans occupied Greece and having a Bible was a very bad idea, obviously. And even if you had one, who knew how to read, anyway? *4 more centuries, no Bible*
- So, since not knowing how to read was also a very *real* problem, my ancestors didn't really have the ability to study the Bible until 1970 where my father was likely the first person in all my family tree all these centuries who was educated enough to read the Bible and could afford to own a copy, yet by that time, he didn't have to. For almost 2000 years, people far wiser, more educated, smarter and, above all, holier than my father have debated and dwelved on those matters and fought to uphold and keep the church and Jesus' teachings through so many centuries of danger and strife. You think that somehow *anyone* here has the *conceit* to pick up the Bible and say "hey, I am gonna read the scriptures and see what's up on my own and figure everything out. 2000 years of saints and scholars? Hey I know best!"
It is as *simple* as that. We never had the time and the luxury, as ground-level believers, to read and study and argue dogma about the Bible. That was the saints' and the bishop's job and after almost 2000 years you cannot really pop up and say "yeah, now I'll show them what was what. God was waiting for me to come along and shed light to all this" :P ... maybe now you can see why the whole "read and study on your own" and "perspicuous" thing is not taken seriously over here.
Now, on the video itself, I watched it with care and with all due respect, I think that in issue 4, you really dodged it by talking a lot *around* the issue. The fact of the matter - what is *actually* happening in real life - is that a lot of people in protestantism have - and still do - interpret the scriptures on their own and they go on and find their own "niche church" and pretend they are even above any authority the Pope could even dream of (some of them, even claim that God sends punishments to whole countries, because they have other versions of christianity than them). This is a *real* problem and talking around it, will not solve it.
The Newton argument was a bit funny, considering that the church indeed left out quite a lot of material out of the Bible and, if I remember correctly, there are some slight differences on what books various Bibles even back then contained, during the centuries of its compilation.
P.S. Did I hear correctly? You mentioned that the eastern church does not believe in the immaculate conception? Since when?
EO does not believe in the immaculate conception. correct. nuance between the western catholic definition.
@@Hoodinator17 > EO does not believe in the immaculate conception.
Yeah, I looked it up and it was a linguistic misunderstanding. I thought that by "immaculate conception" they meant that the Orthodox church does not believe that Mary was a virgin, where in truth it is a totally different Roman Catholic doctrine added later. My mistake.
By your argument, now we are educated and we do have access to the Bible, then we should. That doesn't preclude us from learning from those who have gone before us. We may be more or less intelligent than they are, or more or less able to hear the Holy Spirit. They were human too. We should pay more heed to those who knew the apostles, I reckon. But from what I understand, they are not all in agreement. So I gave to do some interpretation.
@@ProfYaffle > So I gave to do some interpretation.
*First* of all, you should understand that you are reading a *translation* (unless you know ancient Greek for the New Testament and ancient Hebrew for the Old Testament, which is highly unlikely), so someone already did a lot of groundwork so you could be even able to read a version of the Bible.
*Second* and very important is that most people can barely read modern texts that are not in any way allegorical or philosophical. You just did a whole sentence structure wrong, for example. With what linguistic skills are you reading and understanding and interpretting the Bible?
*Last* but not least, almost none of us has the theologic/religious skills to interpret the Bible. If I were to take such a venture up will be like I am saying "all those old fogeys and saints during 2000 years of Orthodox Church history must have missed something. It is high time *I* read this book and cleared some thing up for everyone"
The *sheer arrogance* of such an idea is staggering, considering that Jesus very clearly preached about being *humble* ...
@@sejuanisupportonly7385 How is it arrogant to seek out as much information as possible and use logic? We also shouldn't hold on to ideas because they are x amount of years old. That would be like arguing that the earth is the centre of the universe, since that was the view of the church for so much of its history.
Thank you for this incredibly insightful video!
Really good! Would be awesome to get this as a Podcast. I will do some woodworking now and would love to keep listening!
I’m not understanding. I listen to most CZcams videos rather than watch, so they’re like a podcast to me. Are you not able to do the same? I use the CZcams app. 💛
@@PeaceIsYeshua I can not... Since I need to be connected to the internet and when I am at the workshop I don't have signal.
@@BibelFAQ
Oh, I see, so you need to be able to download the message and then listen-gotcha! I was genuinely curious, so thanks for explaining. I know there are ways to download YT vids, but if may be too much trouble. I wonder if there are apps for downloading only the audio. 🧐
Your approach is noble and needed in the modern church.
Catholic here. I appreciate your tone and nuance. Just subbed
Great video and as a Catholic , very thought/ provoking. I will say though, on the issue of the canon, the view you articulated is also the Catholic view . The view is not “The Church makes something true” it’s that “The Church recognizes what is true”. The Catholic would simply go one step further and say : “If this can apply to a canon then why can it not apply to a sacrament or practice.”
I'm glad there are still a few Papal partisans like you. Most Papal apologists *do* teach that there wasn't an accepted set of books until some councils decided it. One reason that it's hard for me to be convinced of Papalism is that so many people *need* to listen to the liars, or they can't believe it. They can't believe in Papalism with only true claims to support that belief.
@@MygoalwogelI think you’re making a distinction without a difference. It’s true there wasn’t a set of approved books (there were hundreds of competing documents at least) and some communities had accepted books we no longer have today while others rejected ones we do. You could say the books were already approved by God, but people did not have access to that full approved revelation. The point is, the Catholic view is that all truth is revealed and authored by God. When the Church declares something true (like a canon or doctrine) it is simply recognizing what God has already decreed. If we don’t have that authority in our lives , everyone will disagree about matters of faith and morals. We see that all over competing Christian groups today.
Awesome video! Thanks so much for your work!
Glad it was helpful!
Thought you did an excellent job on your debate with Suan on the papacy. Are you planning a review? I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
thanks a lot! I'm not planning on doing a review at this point, as I was happy with how things went and happy to leave it as is, but maybe I'll do a live Q+A at some point soon so people can ask anything they want!
@@TruthUnites I’m reading a book on church history and the papacy is nothing like Peter. Lots of awful things were done that have nothing to do with Christ. I think this is another reason to reject the papacy.
@@Justas399 What book are you reading ?
Excellent video: thank you!!!