วีดีโอ

Regarding Ortlund, baptism and historical research. He is not a patristic scholar he is a baptist apologist and it shows. I watched his video on Baptism and the early Church and do yourself a favor, go to a REAL real patristic scholars and you will see how wrong is Ortlund's unfounded assertion that the church fathers had a zwinglian view of baptism that Ortlund has, no they were anti zwinglian. Read please the most in depth studies on Baptism: For the exegetical approach of the Scriptures read a George Beasley Murray´s classic "Baptism in the New Testament" he was a baptist scholar who rejected the zwinglian idea that God does not give salvific graces through Baptism, you can also read "'Into the name of the Lord Jesus' : "Baptism in the early church by another protestant NT Scholar Lars Hartman. For a couple of protestant patristic scholars who prove that Ortlund is simply an baptist apologist, not a real expert on early christian literature read "The Seal of the Spirit" by G. W. H. Lampe he was the editor of "A Greek Patristic Lexicon" and also "Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries" by Everett Fergusson. Yes all these 2 are real patristic scholars who will show you that Ortlund has not done a through research on Baptism in the Church of the first centuries and how wrong he is to say that the zwinglian view of baptism he has was already present in the church fathers. .

What it means to be Protestant ? Is finding the Protestant denomination that fits your ideology A lot of work since there are over 40 k different denominations

Accretions. Ortlund defends a clear accretion: That baptism does not save and that is not for the forgiveness of sins that it is clearly an accretion in christianity in general but Ortlund wants to defend that antibiblical teaching as real christianity. It is not. He was honest enough to inform that the Southern Baptist Convention could not do something so basic as to accept the Nicene Creed as an official creed of the Baptists in general because the Nicene Creed confesses that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins something that officially baptists reject. Yes the baptist view on baptism is an accretion in christianity but to be exact it is pure heresy for the Catholic Church if we use the Nicene Creed as an standard.

Dude you should do a review of The Return of Oral Hermeneutics. Absolutely changed my paradigms, and seems adjacent to this book

magnificently careful review profound insights

In your dreams.

Excellent review.

If you understood the Baha’i faith, you would know that it is perfectly valid to be optimistic about what humanity can achieve in the future. It is one of their tenets of faith.

Infallibility = Bible worship

The veneration of icons is the clearest issue for why I’m Protestant and he has some great videos on it that are probably better than how it is the book

It would serve everyone well to actually read a systematic treatment on sola scripura, as these comments reveal glaring misunderstandings which give route to self refuting arguments. Gerhard’s doctrines of scripture are must reads.

Or maybe that's just the ketamine talking. Smoke enough weed and it's all about the munchies. Drink enough alcohol and it's all about past regrets .

16:00 This is the primary contention I have with Dr Ortlund's work when it comes to Sola Scriptura v Tradition. He argues for a kind of hyper-perpiscuity of Scripture that simply doesn't hold up. There are so many interesting things in Scripture that require a knowledge of the languages, cultural/religious contexts, and the broad reception among Christian authorities to grasp intended meanings (and this is along with the necessity of the Holy Spirit for comprehension, which is indeed a Patristic belief). That doesn't mean the average Christian can't have good spiritual insight on their own, even apart from the Church. What it does mean is that that person wouldn't be a reliable interpretive authority for other people, much less the Church at large.

If only God left an infallible living tradition. Can’t believe He dropped the ball 😬

Joel, with regard to Sola Scriptura, when/where did the idea of scriptural infallibility begin? When asked this question, many Christians will say it began in 2 Tim 3:16 but I think most people realize that this verse is talking about the OT, not necessarily the NT. So, where did this notion of "The Bible (OT & NT) is the infallible word of God." come from?

Hi. So how do the ones who lost their soul are saved?

I'm glad that you covered this book. Also glad that i recently discovered your channel. Yeah, I enthusiastically follow Gavin Ourtland's channel, so I'm gonna get the book. But your review really whets my eagerness to get my hands on it. And FWIW, I'm a recovering Evangelical who landed on the good old via media of the Anglican Communion.

‘Infallibility’ seems to be an impossible assertion in either Sola Scriptura, traditions or councils. It’s all being determined through human interpretation. Even if the text could be shown somehow to be infallible (however that’s being defined), that infallibility is only as good as the infallibility of the agent engaging the text. It seems to be far better then to come to a consensus across a variety of Christian traditions and interpretations than an individual or denominational interpretation. Like the early creeds.

Scripture might be "infallible," but it's plainly true throughout history that there's no infallibly obvious interpretation of Scripture. So saying "Scripture is infallible" lacks definitive application.

I look forward to reading this book sooner than later

Great video, clear summary. Made me more interested in reading the book..

I genuinely love Dr Ortlund, so I don't intend for this to sound mean-spirited: I converted to Catholicism in part because of his dialogues with Catholics.

Didnt know your ecclesial journey but it makes a lot of sense why you’d be interested in this book. Curious what made you stay Protestant? Vs conversion to Orthodoxy? I feel most drawn there, Anglo Catholic and Lutheran are close 2nds.

5:20 He claims, "Protestantism contains the ability to reform over time..." I've come to disagree with that. The Protestantism I know does not bother to read scriptural arguments that differ with their Popes (Luther, Calvin's) infallible interpretations. i.e. Originally Protestantism was new, discovered, flexible, biblical. Over time its become old, traditional, inflexible, doctrinal. Authority has moved from scripture to traditional interpretation. 16:00 Exactly. It looks like this as quoted by Schriener, "“Extraordinary presuppositions. Now I come to the fundamental and most serious problem with Wilkin’s essay: he forces every text to fit his paradigm. All of us, of course, bring our theology to the text. None of us, if we’re honest, are free from presuppositions. There is no neutral reading of the text. Nevertheless, there would be no point in doing exegesis if our preconceptions could not be altered. We must be willing to listen to the text and ask ourselves if we have adopted a system that is alien to the scriptural text.” ... "there comes a point where a doctrine needs to be revised because other texts speak so clearly against the doctrinal formulation." or this from Josh Harris, "I, you know, as I grew older, I should’ve gone back and reevaluated the content of the book sooner than I did. I should’ve been open to that, but what it teaches me is how people can get locked into beliefs and ideas and ideologies and it has nothing to do with scripture, it has nothing to do with what they actually believe if they were forced to really, honestly, you know, critique and think about it, it’s shaped by, you know, the fact that it’s their job. It’s shaped by this is their community, it’s shaped by, well, I can’t question that or this would fall apart, I’d lose my role, you know, all those types of things. And so, that fear is behind so much of it, but what we dress it up as is, well, this is sound doctrine." The way one tells if someone truly holds to Sola Scriptura is if in the light of scripture they *change* their beliefs. Or in their own words - 'reform'. Otherwise it can be pure lip service.

I haven’t read this book, but I watch Gavin’s videos on these topics. I appreciate the work he does in this area.

thank you so much for this video! i think it's so important for Christians to educate themselves on various perspectives of this doctrine, especially since spreading the Gospel is a task where so much emphasis is placed, and telling people about atonement is a large part of that. like Tim Keller, i think we need to adapt the Gospel to reach hearts in the culture we're interacting with, and it seems super clear to me that penal substitution is not an effective schema at this point. like you were saying, the role of violence and wrath and that sort of pagan influence perpetuates a fear-based mindset, which i don't think holistically communicates the heart of Christ in his saving act. i just discovered your channel, and your videos have been super edifying! thank you for sharing your perspective, it gives me more confidence in hopefully learning more and sharing mine too at some point :)

Sidenote: Why'd you leave Eastern Orthodoxy?

This book impressed me beyond his channel. It's much needed as the other churches seem to be on attack. It's a good introduction.

Great review! I also like Ortlund's work. Regarding your question about Sola Scriptura, I think Thomas Oden's paleo-orthodoxy view would fit well with it (basically, those interpretations that are deemed orthodox by most churches are the most authoritative ones, the rest should not be pressed upon people's consciences. I enjoy your videos! Keep up the good work!

Is Hart Christian biased?

Sounds interesting, have you read Roberto Calasso?

She does a good job summarizing. Be aware that she has Calvinistic leanings.

I suggest that Hart waves away the Western tradition for slavishly following Augustine for the same reason one must 'kill your darlings' as a writer/thinker. Not even the most beautiful logic, tightly argued, can make sound an unsound premise. Hart subscribes to the soundness of Eastern Orthodox theology; he's under no obligation to look for the Good, the True and the Beautiful scattered amidst what he considers a metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological wasteland. PS. You clearly love Christ...consider having a gander at Orthodoxy. It's more than just funny hats and catholicism without a Pope. Merry Christmas! Love your channel.

I've really enjoyed watching your book review vids since stumbling across your channel about a week ago -- even though I don't necessarily agree with the theological content espoused by them. Keep up the good content! Blessings 🙌

We know that christianity adapted to local customs where ever it went. Also there is progressive chistians and stuff. Actually plenty of christian worldview is common sense. Like strict morality with there now being a revolt against christianity by pushing loose sexual morality and loose gender morality for instance. So it not really ends unless everything spins out of control like we see now.

I'm hearing you say that the 11 other tribes had become largely gentilized so in order to restore Israel, Paul was appealing to Gentiles. Ok, but how do we move from appealing to gentiles to make up numbers corresponding roughly to the total number of people from among the 12 tribes of Israel, to a universalist religion intended to convert everyone, from all over the world, to the God of Israel? Also, you say this book solves the problem of supersessionism. Does it remain the case that unconverted Gentiles go to Hell for eternity, whereas unconverted Jews who remain reliant on their original Covenant are safe?

Joel, please check out my Atavist Bible church site . . .I have a growing body of literature on different aspects of Open Theism that I think you would enjoy.

It was a well written account of the most horrifying content. We must remember that the mold on the surface is also thoroughly throughout. Let us pray for sure.

People who dismiss the hard problem as nonsense or as a non-issue don’t understand the problem. It’s sad to see so much of that here in the comment section. Try and understand the problem before dismissing it. There is a reason every serious philosopher takes it seriously, even if they come to silly conclusions, like Daniel Dennett.

How does this compare with James K.A. Smith’s “Desiring the Kingdom”? I wonder if this book discusses Smith’s view of Christian formation.

My problem with 'Christian Worldview' is that it often means western european worldview. But I do think we all have our worldview/s and that they need to be brought into our relation to Christ.

As I argued in my book Divided Knowledge, and to an extent in Theosophy, Van Til, and Bahnsen, worldview is an imprecise idea and therefore does not work as an explanatory principle in epistemology. Additionally, worldview, as it has been incorporated into presuppositional theories, is a sort of foundationalism, and teaches people to look for the presuppositional foundations of other belief frameworks that they seek to critique. As such, it ignores other, anti-foundationalist, approaches such as the "world-picture" of D. Z. Phillips, or tacit systems of belief such as those described by Michael Polanyi. According to Polanyi, it is the lack of foundations which is the strength of belief systems, because they lack points of vulnerability such as foundations would constitute. This leaves open the question of whether worldview is still useful for cultural theory or for certain areas of belief, such as that defined by a body of religious doctrine, even if it is not suitable for basic philosophical epistemology.

So the book is saying that dropping a fully formed worldview into a forming mind is not the best way to educate. Agreed. In reality each person's worldview will be developed and owned by that person. the advantage of worldview discussions is that it helps self awareness (and understanding where someone else is coming from). All teachers teach from their own worldview, so worldview issues are unavoidable. Perhaps the best way to understand worldview structures in education is that they are scaffolding to assist the ongoing understanding of the world. Worldview must be genuinely owned just as the gospel must be genuine owned.

I think Trobisch is very close to right here. But I do have doubts...the gospel discrepancies are too great for them all to be one author. Just the genealogies and the ages of Jesus given are massively at odds (in Luke he's 30, and in John he's pushing 50). The failed predictions of the Second Coming in a generation and the tendency of Matthew and Luke to make Jesus more divine than Mark is also a problem. I think the answer is midway between Papias and Marcion.

To think worldviews can be "evaluated" to determine which is "correct", shows a lack of epistemological self-consciousness as CVT would say. I struggled with CVT and Bahnsen for years, DK Naugle's "Worldview - history of a concept" was the lightbulb moment for me in terms of understanding this "no neutrality" principle. If your teacher is not actively *_for_* Christ and his Bible, he's actively *_against_* Christ, unfortunately. Neutrality is the feeble disguise of the wolf. And it turns out the Bible bashers are (often unwittingly) the smartest epistemologists in the room.

You wish..:)

Thanks Joel What if the PSA is true? It doesn’t much matter the tension you feel. I wonder how you prices the teaching in hell and the final judgement? All very uncomfortable but God in Christ has provided an answer.

Does he discuss Dallas Willard? I don’t find Mr Willard combative. I am curious.

All-encompassing world views/systems can become idols. We are called to walk with the Lord and trust, with the simple faith of Abraham, not to know. In knowing rises pride.

This former Jehovah Witness is a false teacher and heretic. He is leading you from the only way your sin can be paid for and you can be forgiven by God and declared righteous. That way is Jesus Christ alone. Without the shedding blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.