For those saying "which Scripture?" You need to demonstrate how this is a problem for Protestants when it wasn't a problem for every church on earth until the end of the medieval era (the first time infallible canon lists show up) or for the Jewish people during their entire history of reception of Scripture. Infallible canon lists were never a thing in redemptive history until 600 years ago.
There was more than one Hebrew canon. All versions of the Old Testament in early Christianity were just taken from the local form of the Hebrew canon. That's why the Ethiopians have a massive canon for example.
The earliest lists of what was considered canonical scripture were even in disagreement with each other. That's why it was necessary for a magisterium to settle the matter. And no, the first time an infallible canon list showing up is not at the end of the medieval era. The Muratorian fragment, also known as the Muratorian Canon, is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. Even this list is missing books of the New Testament, and it contains the Wisdom of Solomon. The missing books are: Hebrews James 1 & 2 Peter So no, the Canon was not self-attesting, neither the OT nor the NT; they required the authority of the Church and Sacred Tradition to resolve this matter.
@@TruthUniteswhere are either of you getting an infallible canon from? Also, to be fair, your first comment seems to be another example of why scripture itself couldn’t have been the sole or the supreme authority. Both for the Jews and for the early Christians, they existed before there was a completed set of scripture.
This is the best explanation of Sola Scriptura! Please don't give up Dr. Ortlund! May God of the universe the Lord of Armies keep you and may he shine his face upon you!
@micahjakubowicz4172 what you must keep in mind is this. Let's say your parents verbally told you how you are to conduct yourself while they were away or you were away. But for safe guarding what they said to you they also wrote it down so that you could be reminded of what was said. Are you following? If you are, then God is acting no differently than this. God communicated to Moses all the pertinent aspects of the faith verbally at first but then Moses by God's inspiration wrote them down so that Israel would not forget the Lord nor his commands so that they had the law written. This remains true when the prophets were called by God. First it was verbally communicated and then written down so Isreal would know and be reminded AND be held accountable by it. Christ very clearly read from scripture and held the Sanadhren accountable for what was written. Therefore, of somebody came along and gave you something else to do that would draw you away from what was written, you had proof that it is not coming from God. Just as in the same way if a person came along and said your parents also said Y which is important; you could verify that assertion and say no actually they did not say that. Then that other person can say well it was verbally stated. You can say no they didn't because if this is important as you say; they would have written that down. Now that dosent mean as you could ask; not all aspects of how to live a good life as been duly written so are you telling me that it has to be written? Of course not, for in both scenarios except for the case of the Law we have flexibility to do good "works" that demonstrate you love your neighbor and God. For instance does the bible say to mow your neighbors lawn even if they are able? No, but if you do it out of love you are doing what is good and pleasing to God.
@@micahjakubowicz4172 if I told you Jesus floated over Jerusalem with his arms outstretched in the sky during your Earthly ministry and say you must believe this to be saved what would you say?
Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, indefensible and heretical and it explains the confusion of Protestantism. Can you see the benefit of the authority Matt 16 19 of the CC
@@micktoss proper use of the bible by a Catholic. It's you who have overinflated the use of the bible resulting in infinite churches of christianities.
Hey Gavin, I wanted to share with you that this channel has become one of my go to sources on theoloical teaching which i commonly share with friends and follow believers!
About 45 seconds in I had my questions answered. I had the wrong idea, thinking that everything non-scriptural was discounted, but that wasn't the case at all. While I think there is still some room for debate, I greatly appreciate men of God like Gavin for all that they do in bringing understanding and healthy debate. His defense of Sola Scriptura is compelling and difficult to disagree with.
Excellent work, Gavin. That how Protestant ideas should be defended: with Scripture itself. God gave us what we need and what is necessary to defend the truth. Your presentation was flawless. I would argue that a video explaining the protestant Canon (again, focused on the Scripture, when it says that the Old Canon would be given by the Jews, Jesus saying the components of the Hebrew Bible etc...) would be an excellent choice. God bless you. Hugs from Brazil.
This was a simple but beautiful animation and video. Covered all the important bases and gave a very good image of the position. Would love to see more of these short concise essays.
Gavin, thank you for this, now we will have to sit through an avalanche of Catholic apologetics videos responding to this over the next two weeks. You might even cause a new book to be written. Big Apologetics needs a video like this every few months to keep the bills paid.
Another beautiful infographic animation, bravo! I love these animations! Only infallible rule of faith for all Christians! Pls read Psalms 119 and be sanctified by the word of God. God bless you for continuing to defend our Protestant beliefs Dr. Ortlund!
@hexproofproject8199 "I ask...that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us" "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all"
@@marksmale827the division and confusion of Satan, thanks to the reformers. In addition, Protestantism has damaged society by relativism causing contraception, which was denied by all denominations until 1930, abortion, IVF, LGBT+, socialism, freemasonry etc
@@marksmale827the fruit of personal interpretation which led to the damage caused to society by the relativism of Protestantism contraception, denied by all denominations before 1930, abortion, SSM, IVF, LGBT+ socialism, freemasonry etc
God bless you. Amen. Praise God. He never fails us. This is a great short explanation and wow the animation is such an amazing addition to visualise your presentation.
@@geoffjs Heresy is a man made description, Apostasy, whoever, is the Biblical heresy, so no, protestant are not apostate, but in the eyes of man mades tradition, yes, we are a heresy. I prefer that this world considers me a heresy like you do, that's what christianity is about, to deny the world and seek only God's approval. And you should know that protestant don't denied scriptures, so in a matter of effect, we are Biblical, not because we appear in the Bible, but because we uphold the Word of God like any christian denomination - church should do. I rejoice that this world denies me, that proves what Jesus Christ said about following Him and being hated and rejected just for following Him alone.
@@juan_xd42 Sorry, but Gavin’s & your thinking are confused. Gavin says that Scripture is the only infallible rule which is an incorrect use of the word, which only applies to people making decisions. Scripture is inerrant, but not infallible. It’s telling that nowhere do you defend or support sola Scriptura which you can’t do as it is unbiblical & rebutted by 2 Peter 1:20-21 & 2 Peter 3:16. Where in the bible do we see an index or canon? It is one thing to be denied by the world for genuine Christian beliefs, but something completely different to be defending man made heresy such has optional baptism & symbolic Eucharist, both of which Jesus says are symbol8c for salvation, sola Scriptura, sola fide, AOSAS, personal interpretation etc. Quite frankly, Protestantism only has a portion of the Truth so consequently, can only be partially denied as compared to full persecution that the CC endures for holding the fullness of Truth! The five signs of the CC are One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), Apostolic & Persecuted
@@juan_xd42 Both Gavin & you have the basics wrong. The bible can’t be infallible, a term that applies to an individual making decisions, it is however, inerrant thanks to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Because the CC contains the fullness of Truth of her founder, she has been & continues to be persecuted. However, Protestantism, without the fullness of His Truth, will never be persecuted in the same way!
Great video! Really renews my confidence in this doctrine. Also.. a great, short summary of an argument defending Sola Scripture I heard during a debate one time in Steubenville, OH…
Wow this is an amazing video. In only six minutes the video makes a summary of centuries of doctrine. Sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gracia, solo Christus!
Very brief and succinct. As a Catechuman I disagree entirely though. The fathers submitted to the authority of the church. Also we have pre council sources saying the apostles appointed successors
Yeah, sola scriptura is saying that the church ordained by god started to be in error at some point and only when the reformation happened 1500 years later it started to be true again, would god really let his church be in error for so long?
@@Madokaexethat’s not what sola scriptura is saying at all, in fact before sola scriptura was even coined there were catholic theologians who questioned the infallibility of the church, aka the proto protestants
@@thederpyunicorn306 I'm not a roman catholic Christian so I can't speak in their behalf, do you have a source for that claim? As an eastern orthodox Christian I'm curious to read, also, what's your definition of sola scriptura?
Thank you for the beautiful video Dr. Ortuland! Your work is indeed helping me to be more confident on my protestant position while keeping me humble when interacting with those who think differently. God bless you brother!
Amen! This is the best most succinct explanation of sola scriptura. I hope this aids in us finally coming out of this age of misunderstanding between Catholics and magisterial Protestants. And for the clarification of the difference between the magisterial protestants who hold to true sola scriptura and others who happen to fall under the umbrella term Protestant who hold to a solO scriptura and confuse the two.
It's certainly a more coherent and acceptable view of Sola Scriptura but who are the magisterial Protestants? I'm pretty ignorant of most groups but I have seen the Lutheran Church in America fragment like 3 times in the last 15 years and suddenly there's another magisterium. And just as a casual observation I just wonder how a magisterium that can be easily relocated and therefore easily have its authority ignored can be considered a magisterium in the first place
I agree with. the problem with a lot of Protestants is that we tend to go Solo Scriptura instead of Sola. I have been to churches who dont even know what the council of Nicaea is and generally the theology at the very least is a complete mess. Most protestant have a very shallow knowledge of Church history and this needs to change
@@dailyDorc the magisterial protestants were those of the conservative reformation- Lutherans, anglicans, and the reformed including later Arminian Methodists and Calvinist Presbyterians. Magisterial means the emphasis on the teaching authority of the church. They still hold to the authority of the creeds, confessions, councils of the church and church fathers. They truly did not want to split from the RCC. They rejected those of the radical reformation such as the anabaptists and quakers, who desired to throw everything out and actually wanted to spilt from the RCC. You can Google it for more information.
1) For the first 300 years of Christianity, NOBODY had a bible. I am not saying there were no God-breathed inspired texts; but they were not codified into a single source called a bible during that time. The idea of what was and was not an inspired text was also a little fluid during that time as well. The Early Church Fathers often drew on texts to develop doctrine and theology, which eventually did not make it into the bible as sacred scripture; yet were treated as much as so. Texts like the Didache, the Letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Book of Enoch, the writings of Ireneaus, Polycarp (who was taught directly by St. John the beloved disciple) and many more. But a recognized inerrant, infallible, universal God-inspired single book called a bible did not exist. 2) To muddy the waters even more during those 300 years; many more texts emerged as the thirst for new Christian 'scripture' became a lucrative market, or heretical groups like the gnostics produced their own material. Hundreds more texts claiming inspired origins also circulated among the various and distant communities. Texts like the gospels of Thomas, Mary, Peter, Judas, Barnabas, or the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. etc. 3) Since there was no recognized bible, it goes without saving that the principle of Sola Scriptura was unheard of, never a part of authenticate Christianity, and would not even be known until invented by a mentally disturbed catholic monk in the 1500's in the form of a new heresy. 4) The Chrisitan Church was formed and led by living men who received their offices from the Apostles. Just as the office of Judas was given to Mathais, each Apostle recognized they held a specific office that could be transferred or shared in Apostolic Succession. Each Christian community recognized the Apostles or their successors as having that leadership and teaching Authority as being from Jesus directly. 5) By 385AD-400AD the successors of those Apostles realized the written texts they used in Liturgy and to form doctrine and theology were being lost, degraded, and infiltrated by forgeries, bad copies, and crafted but not God-inspired texts. The problem was, over 300 years out from the First Apostles and witnesses; there was no one alive who could vouch for what texts were inspired and what wasn't. For example; to this day, NO ONE knows who the author of the Letter to the Hebrews was. You can make an educated guess; but no one knows for sure. We don't know who wrote Matthew or Mark; it is only by tradition that it is their testimony which someone recorded; but that is hearsay at best. Luke and Acts was written by Luke the Physician and NOT Luke the Apostle, and is a record of what he remembers from following Peter and Paul at certain points. At some point during the discussions, the Letters of Clement were considered as scripture; while the Apocalypse of John was not finding much support. So by 400AD, here is the situation. No first edition leather bound Bible signed and handed out by Jesus ever existed. None of the Apostles made a bible, nor did they leave behind any written clues or instructons for a bible or what should be in it. Even the current bible by itself can not give us a table of contents of itself. By 385AD, there were about 5000 different texts, scripts, parchments, fragments o writings put before them all claiming they should be considered scripture. So the Catholic Faith through the claimed Teaching Authority the Catholic Bishops held by their Succession to the original 11 Apostles plus Paul; assembled from the 5000 texts, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit the 73 books which would form the Inerrant Infallible Bible for all Christians henceforth. The truth and reliability of these 73 books were then sealed by the approval of the Chair of Peter held then by Pope Honorius. It was ONLY by this process did an infallible Bible form for Christians of the True Faith for the next 1100 years until a wolf in sheeps clothing decided upon his own authority that he alone could decipher the true bible from those 5000 pieces; and created his own 66 book version. He was then the inspiration for others who thought he mucked it up, so they then took a stab at it and made their own bibles on their own authority. Even the KJV was invented by this method. The question then is 'will the real bible please stand up'? Should it be the ecumenical bible compiled by the valid successors to the Apostles in 400AD and agreed upon by 99.999% of Christianity? Or is it the result of individuals, 1500 years separated from the Apostles, motivated by greed, fear, or self-agrandizing aspirations who invented a 66 book mimic? Which story do you think better fits the history and logic of Christianity? Who has the better claim to Authority and the working of God? For me, it is either the Catholic claim or nothing. The protestant claim is so ridiculous and late to the game that it just defeats itself. If the Catholic Church aint it; then there is no church, and the whole thing is a farce anyway. So that is why I am a Catholic and will always be.
I love these animated videos you do, Dr Ortlund. This was one of the better explanations I’ve heard for Solo Scriptura. When explained like this, I understand much better why Protestants believe in SS. Excellent video, God Bless!
As a Catholic I applaud this video for being both robust and pithy. While I don’t think I’ll ever again be convinced of SS, I think this is the best expression of such.
Protestants do not follow the original biblical canon, from AD 382, yet claim whichever version and translation of Scriptura they choose to follow is Sola.
My question is if Jesus Himself being God in flesh used scripture as the rule stick, what makes you differ with Him and if you differ with Him are you still in the Same body of believers He established ?
Very clear and concise. Nice presentation. It clear up what many THINK sola Scriptura is and is displays what is ACTAULLY is. So many Catholics/Orthodox do not define it properly.
That's probably because Protestants don't agree on what "Sola scriptura" means. This video is the definition Gavin uses. There are at least two other common definitons.
@@nealkriestererI'm not sure about the Lutherans, but the Reformed view on Sola Scriptura is very clearly laid out in the Westminster standards, and it is consistent with Gavin's definition.
To be fair some Protestants hold to this view of Sola Scriptura and some Protestants adhere to even the most caricatured view of it. So some Catholic/Orthodox will caricature it to set up a straw man but in most cases they have only encountered the caricature in actuality.
Thanks Gavin. Don't let people get to you about the local flood video, while you gave me things to think about within that video, I do not think you harmed the church by explaining the position for the local flood.
That is one possible support for Sola Scriptura. But that is a slender branch to hang a huge doctrine on. You place so much weight on that passing mention because you presume that Peter's writing is authoritative scripture. What about Peter's own writing? Any scriptural basis for regarding HIS writing as authoritative scripture?
@@alyu1129 I don’t hang the whole doctrine on this. Like you said it is one possible support. This is simply a supplementary support of on top of everything that Gavin shared in his video
@@macesune Authoritative "Scriptural" support. Gavin's list are from human reason. They're good and plausible but not authoritative scriptural support unlike what you referred to.
I think all you need is a video on how Protestants account for the canon and a video on “who gets to interpret” from a Protestant perspective and you pretty much answer all the main Roman/EO objections! Theres really nothing else beyond those three.
Lol. The Church is infallible because it is the Church which is entrusted with the charge to make disciples of all nations. It cannot do so if it can be wrong. It cannot be corruptible because the body of Christ is not corruptible. I am Orthodox.
Every time I see non-protestants mischaracterizing Sola Scriptura, I will post this link. And likewise, every time I see Protestants misusing and misquoting sola Scriptura, I will also post this link. Thank you Dr. Ortlund.
1) For the first 300 years of Christianity, NOBODY had a bible. I am not saying there were no God-breathed inspired texts; but they were not codified into a single source called a bible during that time. The idea of what was and was not an inspired text was also a little fluid during that time as well. The Early Church Fathers often drew on texts to develop doctrine and theology, which eventually did not make it into the bible as sacred scripture; yet were treated as much as so. Texts like the Didache, the Letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Book of Enoch, the writings of Ireneaus, Polycarp (who was taught directly by St. John the beloved disciple) and many more. But a recognized inerrant, infallible, universal God-inspired single book called a bible did not exist. 2) To muddy the waters even more during those 300 years; many more texts emerged as the thirst for new Christian 'scripture' became a lucrative market, or heretical groups like the gnostics produced their own material. Hundreds more texts claiming inspired origins also circulated among the various and distant communities. Texts like the gospels of Thomas, Mary, Peter, Judas, Barnabas, or the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. etc. 3) Since there was no recognized bible, it goes without saving that the principle of Sola Scriptura was unheard of, never a part of authenticate Christianity, and would not even be known until invented by a mentally disturbed catholic monk in the 1500's in the form of a new heresy. 4) The Chrisitan Church was formed and led by living men who received their offices from the Apostles. Just as the office of Judas was given to Mathais, each Apostle recognized they held a specific office that could be transferred or shared in Apostolic Succession. Each Christian community recognized the Apostles or their successors as having that leadership and teaching Authority as being from Jesus directly. 5) By 385AD-400AD the successors of those Apostles realized the written texts they used in Liturgy and to form doctrine and theology were being lost, degraded, and infiltrated by forgeries, bad copies, and crafted but not God-inspired texts. The problem was, over 300 years out from the First Apostles and witnesses; there was no one alive who could vouch for what texts were inspired and what wasn't. For example; to this day, NO ONE knows who the author of the Letter to the Hebrews was. You can make an educated guess; but no one knows for sure. We don't know who wrote Matthew or Mark; it is only by tradition that it is their testimony which someone recorded; but that is hearsay at best. Luke and Acts was written by Luke the Physician and NOT Luke the Apostle, and is a record of what he remembers from following Peter and Paul at certain points. At some point during the discussions, the Letters of Clement were considered as scripture; while the Apocalypse of John was not finding much support. So by 400AD, here is the situation. No first edition leather bound Bible signed and handed out by Jesus ever existed. None of the Apostles made a bible, nor did they leave behind any written clues or instructons for a bible or what should be in it. Even the current bible by itself can not give us a table of contents of itself. By 385AD, there were about 5000 different texts, scripts, parchments, fragments o writings put before them all claiming they should be considered scripture. So the Catholic Faith through the claimed Teaching Authority the Catholic Bishops held by their Succession to the original 11 Apostles plus Paul; assembled from the 5000 texts, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit the 73 books which would form the Inerrant Infallible Bible for all Christians henceforth. The truth and reliability of these 73 books were then sealed by the approval of the Chair of Peter held then by Pope Honorius. It was ONLY by this process did an infallible Bible form for Christians of the True Faith for the next 1100 years until a wolf in sheeps clothing decided upon his own authority that he alone could decipher the true bible from those 5000 pieces; and created his own 66 book version. He was then the inspiration for others who thought he mucked it up, so they then took a stab at it and made their own bibles on their own authority. Even the KJV was invented by this method. The question then is 'will the real bible please stand up'? Should it be the ecumenical bible compiled by the valid successors to the Apostles in 400AD and agreed upon by 99.999% of Christianity? Or is it the result of individuals, 1500 years separated from the Apostles, motivated by greed, fear, or self-agrandizing aspirations who invented a 66 book mimic? Which story do you think better fits the history and logic of Christianity? Who has the better claim to Authority and the working of God? For me, it is either the Catholic claim or nothing. The protestant claim is so ridiculous and late to the game that it just defeats itself. If the Catholic Church aint it; then there is no church, and the whole thing is a farce anyway. So that is why I am a Catholic and will always be.
@@otineyskciderf Given that Gavin showed the CC has contradicted itself in the last 500 years, much of your own logic points right back at you, only worse.
This is a great summary of Sola Scriptura! One of the best parts is that which distinguishes the oral teaching of the apostles from the latter transmission of this teaching.
The issue with sola scriptura isn't that we need to use scripture to measure against the councils and confessions, it is that new people will use their own "interpretation" of scripture and claim it as God's word, and then measure that against the former councils and confessions. What instead needs to be done is understand how the historic church understood scripture. If I were to compare a "pastor billy bob" vs St. Ignatius/Clement/Polycarp, I would go with the latters' "interpretation". If scripture was really that clear, then should there be a clear denomination within Protestantism which conveys the gospel truth and clearly understands Christology, Soteriology, role of ordinances/sacraments, etc etc. Heck, protestant churches can't even decide if they want women pastors or not, let alone fundamental, mere Christianity
there's not even a clear denomination within Orthodoxy. It's a human problem. Even in the early church, different churches were believing different things.
Protestants do not follow the original biblical canon, from AD 382, yet claim whichever version and translation of Scriptura they choose to follow is Sola.
@@fantasia55 You're confused, right?? Can you tell me what has that got to do with sola scriptura?? Does Roman Catholic follow the same Bible from the onset?? What about Eastern orthodox??
@raphaelfeneje486 Catholics follow the original biblical canon, but do not claim it to be the sole authority. How can anyone believe in Bible Alone with so much variation in canons and translation? Which is the Bible version that is Alone?
This serves the body of Christ well. This is something the everyday church-goer who is looking to grow in their faith can make sense of, process and respond to. Thanks Gavin.
This is an excellent summary and defense of Sola Scriptura. I think it effectively and peaceably illustrates the key difference between those who hold to Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and those who hold to Sola Ecclesia (the church alone).
@@Essex626 "could it be" is the wrong question - all things are within the realm of possibility. It is possible that no church has the correct cannon and that no church has saving doctrine. This however is not probable in the least. Similarly, Protestants feel that the biblical and historical evidence make the shorter cannon which we hold to far more probably the correct one than any of the alternatives.
@@tategarrett3042 Something probable is not infallible though. If it could be that your church is wrong, then your list is not infallible. If your list of contents is not infallible, then the contents themselves cannot be declared infallible, both because it might be missing important things and because it might contain extraneous things.
@@Essex626 I don't think that necessarily follows. We have confidence that the word of God is infallible and we have confidence that what we have is the word of God. Again we don't need to eat in extreme probabilities to reach a sound conclusion
Thank you Matthew! This was a very encouraging as someone who has struggled with this on and off for the last few years. As someone who wants to please the Lord it can be overwhelming when I see so many different views on things I believe us brothers/sisters in Christ should believe in. In my mind, the way to reconcile that is to spend more time with people who have spent time expositing scripture because they are more “trustworthy” than what I could gain by reading the Bible. This cycle inevitably takes me farther from God since I’m putting my faith in human works rather than the divine. I will be taking this message to heart and would love to be free from this worry.
Fantastic video. For other commentors who are looking for resources, I am writing a paper for my Systematic Theology class on Sola Scriptura and Roger Olson's "The Mosaic of Christian Belief," namely chapters 1-4, has been supremely helpful in wrapping my mind around the necessity of unity, catholicity, and the consensus of The Great Tradition., Olson even uses the analogy of the Supreme Court as well.
I'm an orthodox christian and i don't belive in SS but i really like your channel Dr. Gavin, thank you for your good work, may the Lord bless you and your family
@@upsxace Sure I did. I even reminded a couple times when I thought he said something incorrect to see if I'd misheard. Maybe you're not convinced that John 21 is strong enough evidence? John 16 might help with that.
Great video thank you. I’m trying to understand the various denominations to either correct or reinforce my beliefs. Seeing how fallible man is, I believe Sola Scriptura gives the best chance to identify and correct fallibilities that occur.
Sola Scriptura is unbiblical because the bible can’t interpret itself. 2 Peter 1 20-21 Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal by Ignatius in 107, codified your bible in 382. His Church is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed, in spite of sinful men, for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin. The fruits of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21. Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective
For those saying "which Scripture?" You need to demonstrate how this is a problem for Protestants when it wasn't a problem for every church on earth until the end of the medieval era (the first time infallible canon lists show up) or for the Jewish people during their entire history of reception of Scripture. Infallible canon lists were never a thing in redemptive history until 600 years ago.
There was more than one Hebrew canon. All versions of the Old Testament in early Christianity were just taken from the local form of the Hebrew canon. That's why the Ethiopians have a massive canon for example.
The earliest lists of what was considered canonical scripture were even in disagreement with each other.
That's why it was necessary for a magisterium to settle the matter.
And no, the first time an infallible canon list showing up is not at the end of the medieval era.
The Muratorian fragment, also known as the Muratorian Canon, is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. Even this list is missing books of the New Testament, and it contains the Wisdom of Solomon.
The missing books are:
Hebrews
James
1 & 2 Peter
So no, the Canon was not self-attesting, neither the OT nor the NT; they required the authority of the Church and Sacred Tradition to resolve this matter.
It wasn't a problem for the early church because it didn't believe in sola scriptura whereas Protestants do... Is the issue not obvious?
@@jep6752 You claim that infallible canon lists come earlier than the late medieval era, what do you have in mind?
@@TruthUniteswhere are either of you getting an infallible canon from?
Also, to be fair, your first comment seems to be another example of why scripture itself couldn’t have been the sole or the supreme authority. Both for the Jews and for the early Christians, they existed before there was a completed set of scripture.
Love this concise and precise summary! Great job. Will definitely share and react to this!
Let’s go! Can’t wait for the video
Oh dope…I’ve been waiting for you to react some of Gavin’s stuff. He’s next level!
Cool seeing you here. Gavin is great
thanks!
Oh dang Ruslan dropping in??
This was a blast to work on! Excited to see this go live 😊
Fantastic job!
This one is fantastic! Thanks for making this.
Thank you Ryan for your professionalism. Awesome job!
@@ClauGutierrezY thanks Clau! Same to you 😃
Great animation… But I’m still confused. Where is there a verse in the bible that states the bible ALONE is the sole infallible source of authority?
Amen! Here's a very educational video that could be shown to even our teen children as an introduction to the topic. Thank you brother Gavin.
Brainwashing the young ones, unfortunate
Don't show this to teens. They're too smart to fall for this ridiculous argument.
@@micahjakubowicz4172elaborate?
This is the best explanation of Sola Scriptura! Please don't give up Dr. Ortlund! May God of the universe the Lord of Armies keep you and may he shine his face upon you!
I still haven't heard where Sola Scriptura is taught in scritpure
@micahjakubowicz4172 what you must keep in mind is this. Let's say your parents verbally told you how you are to conduct yourself while they were away or you were away.
But for safe guarding what they said to you they also wrote it down so that you could be reminded of what was said. Are you following?
If you are, then God is acting no differently than this. God communicated to Moses all the pertinent aspects of the faith verbally at first but then Moses by God's inspiration wrote them down so that Israel would not forget the Lord nor his commands so that they had the law written.
This remains true when the prophets were called by God. First it was verbally communicated and then written down so Isreal would know and be reminded AND be held accountable by it.
Christ very clearly read from scripture and held the Sanadhren accountable for what was written.
Therefore, of somebody came along and gave you something else to do that would draw you away from what was written, you had proof that it is not coming from God.
Just as in the same way if a person came along and said your parents also said Y which is important; you could verify that assertion and say no actually they did not say that. Then that other person can say well it was verbally stated. You can say no they didn't because if this is important as you say; they would have written that down.
Now that dosent mean as you could ask; not all aspects of how to live a good life as been duly written so are you telling me that it has to be written? Of course not, for in both scenarios except for the case of the Law we have flexibility to do good "works" that demonstrate you love your neighbor and God.
For instance does the bible say to mow your neighbors lawn even if they are able? No, but if you do it out of love you are doing what is good and pleasing to God.
@@Ben94729 Intercessions with Mary and saints aren't part of Reformed theology.
@micahjakubowicz4172 Would you pull doctrine from Harry Potter?
@@micahjakubowicz4172 if I told you Jesus floated over Jerusalem with his arms outstretched in the sky during your Earthly ministry and say you must believe this to be saved what would you say?
What a brilliant explanation. I will be coming back to this video time and again. Thank you for all that you do!
That was an incredibly well put, and clear defense of Sola Scriptura. God bless you Gavin for your work.
Which scripture?
Does it include the Epistle of Straw?
@@koppite9600 nice one
Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, indefensible and heretical and it explains the confusion of Protestantism.
Can you see the benefit of the authority Matt 16 19 of the CC
@@geoffjs nice statement. Referring to the Bible to make a claim from authority? Mark 7?
@@micktoss proper use of the bible by a Catholic. It's you who have overinflated the use of the bible resulting in infinite churches of christianities.
Hey Gavin, I wanted to share with you that this channel has become one of my go to sources on theoloical teaching which i commonly share with friends and follow believers!
yahoo, so glad to hear its useful to you!
Amen. I thank God for Gavin and this channel.
About 45 seconds in I had my questions answered. I had the wrong idea, thinking that everything non-scriptural was discounted, but that wasn't the case at all. While I think there is still some room for debate, I greatly appreciate men of God like Gavin for all that they do in bringing understanding and healthy debate. His defense of Sola Scriptura is compelling and difficult to disagree with.
Excellent work, Gavin. That how Protestant ideas should be defended: with Scripture itself. God gave us what we need and what is necessary to defend the truth. Your presentation was flawless.
I would argue that a video explaining the protestant Canon (again, focused on the Scripture, when it says that the Old Canon would be given by the Jews, Jesus saying the components of the Hebrew Bible etc...) would be an excellent choice.
God bless you. Hugs from Brazil.
This was a simple but beautiful animation and video. Covered all the important bases and gave a very good image of the position. Would love to see more of these short concise essays.
Awesome - please do 6 minute videos on the other 4 Solas
God bless you Gavin for this wonderful work.
Gavin, thank you for this, now we will have to sit through an avalanche of Catholic apologetics videos responding to this over the next two weeks. You might even cause a new book to be written. Big Apologetics needs a video like this every few months to keep the bills paid.
You don’t have to
Came for the quality animation, stayed and learned something interesting! Great job, Ryan :)
Fantastic! Thankyou Dr Ortlund and I am sure some will still misrepresent this simple explanation.
Unbiblical and heretical
Beautifully put, Dr Ortlund!
Always doing great work Gavin! Very concise and just generally helpful.
Another beautiful infographic animation, bravo!
I love these animations!
Only infallible rule of faith for all Christians! Pls read Psalms 119 and be sanctified by the word of God.
God bless you for continuing to defend our Protestant beliefs Dr. Ortlund!
Amen!
It's just a shame that Christians disagree on so many things, given the importance of Scripture across all traditions.
@hexproofproject8199 "I ask...that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us"
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all"
@@marksmale827the division and confusion of Satan, thanks to the reformers. In addition, Protestantism has damaged society by relativism causing contraception, which was denied by all denominations until 1930, abortion, IVF, LGBT+, socialism, freemasonry etc
@@marksmale827the fruit of personal interpretation which led to the damage caused to society by the relativism of Protestantism contraception, denied by all denominations before 1930, abortion, SSM, IVF, LGBT+ socialism, freemasonry etc
Praise God for your ministry and excellent teaching
Absolutely excellent video, and easy to understand.
Wow, this was wonderful! Super concise, easy to understand, and very based on it’s main points. Thank you, brother!
God bless you. Amen. Praise God. He never fails us. This is a great short explanation and wow the animation is such an amazing addition to visualise your presentation.
Unbiblical and heretical
@@geoffjs Heresy is a man made description, Apostasy, whoever, is the Biblical heresy, so no, protestant are not apostate, but in the eyes of man mades tradition, yes, we are a heresy. I prefer that this world considers me a heresy like you do, that's what christianity is about, to deny the world and seek only God's approval.
And you should know that protestant don't denied scriptures, so in a matter of effect, we are Biblical, not because we appear in the Bible, but because we uphold the Word of God like any christian denomination - church should do.
I rejoice that this world denies me, that proves what Jesus Christ said about following Him and being hated and rejected just for following Him alone.
@@juan_xd42 Sorry, but Gavin’s & your thinking are confused. Gavin says that Scripture is the only infallible rule which is an incorrect use of the word, which only applies to people making decisions. Scripture is inerrant, but not infallible.
It’s telling that nowhere do you defend or support sola Scriptura which you can’t do as it is unbiblical & rebutted by 2 Peter 1:20-21 & 2 Peter 3:16. Where in the bible do we see an index or canon?
It is one thing to be denied by the world for genuine Christian beliefs, but something completely different to be defending man made heresy such has optional baptism & symbolic Eucharist, both of which Jesus says are symbol8c for salvation, sola Scriptura, sola fide, AOSAS, personal interpretation etc. Quite frankly, Protestantism only has a portion of the Truth so consequently, can only be partially denied as compared to full persecution that the CC endures for holding the fullness of Truth!
The five signs of the CC are One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), Apostolic & Persecuted
@@juan_xd42 Both Gavin & you have the basics wrong. The bible can’t be infallible, a term that applies to an individual making decisions, it is however, inerrant thanks to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Because the CC contains the fullness of Truth of her founder, she has been & continues to be persecuted. However, Protestantism, without the fullness of His Truth, will never be persecuted in the same way!
Excellent, thank you Gavin. The best explanation of Sola Scriptura I have heard. God bless you
Doesn’t change its unbiblical and heretical nature
Fantastic video. Thank you for your ministry Dr. Ortlund. God has used you in my life to keep His word as my highest authority
Great video! Really renews my confidence in this doctrine.
Also.. a great, short summary of an argument defending Sola Scripture I heard during a debate one time in Steubenville, OH…
Killed it again, Gavin!
Great work!!
This is fantastic. I hope you make many more videos like this!!
Thank you for what you do Gavin! You have no idea how much you're helping people during these denominationally confusing times
Wow this is an amazing video. In only six minutes the video makes a summary of centuries of doctrine. Sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gracia, solo Christus!
Always love your work Gavin! God bless your family
This is beautifully animated and very well explained! Thanks again Dr. Ortlund for the amazing work you are doing!
Very brief and succinct. As a Catechuman I disagree entirely though. The fathers submitted to the authority of the church. Also we have pre council sources saying the apostles appointed successors
RCA or EO?
Yeah, sola scriptura is saying that the church ordained by god started to be in error at some point and only when the reformation happened 1500 years later it started to be true again, would god really let his church be in error for so long?
@@Madokaexethat’s not what sola scriptura is saying at all, in fact before sola scriptura was even coined there were catholic theologians who questioned the infallibility of the church, aka the proto protestants
@@thederpyunicorn306 I'm not a roman catholic Christian so I can't speak in their behalf, do you have a source for that claim? As an eastern orthodox Christian I'm curious to read, also, what's your definition of sola scriptura?
@@Madokaexe he has no sourse, the idea that there were protestants in the early church is laughable.
Loved this video and the animation!
Thank you for the beautiful video Dr. Ortuland! Your work is indeed helping me to be more confident on my protestant position while keeping me humble when interacting with those who think differently. God bless you brother!
Love the animations! Perfect for a short break in my day.
This is such a great video. Well done Ryan :)
This is fire. Thank you Gavin for helping to teach people about Protestantism. It makes sense. God bless you!
Yes, it is fire. Hell fire.
@@toddupchurch1028No it's purgatory. Maybe we shd pay to the RC to release his soul from purgatory wen he dies so that the RC cld make more money.
Makes no sense at all
This was really good! Thank you!
Excellent as always Dr. Ortlund! This video will be a go-to for recommended watching whenever I see common RC and EO caricatures online.
Another great video Ortlund, concise and clear.
Incredible videooo. Well done
Yet another PHENOMENAL concise presentation on an important topic, Gavin. Well done 👏
Beautiful explanation. Thank you.
Amazing video! Thank you for your work!
I love the conciseness of this video. Very helpful in explaining what this Doctrine is.
Amen! This is the best most succinct explanation of sola scriptura. I hope this aids in us finally coming out of this age of misunderstanding between Catholics and magisterial Protestants. And for the clarification of the difference between the magisterial protestants who hold to true sola scriptura and others who happen to fall under the umbrella term Protestant who hold to a solO scriptura and confuse the two.
It's certainly a more coherent and acceptable view of Sola Scriptura but who are the magisterial Protestants? I'm pretty ignorant of most groups but I have seen the Lutheran Church in America fragment like 3 times in the last 15 years and suddenly there's another magisterium. And just as a casual observation I just wonder how a magisterium that can be easily relocated and therefore easily have its authority ignored can be considered a magisterium in the first place
I agree with. the problem with a lot of Protestants is that we tend to go Solo Scriptura instead of Sola. I have been to churches who dont even know what the council of Nicaea is and generally the theology at the very least is a complete mess. Most protestant have a very shallow knowledge of Church history and this needs to change
@@dailyDorc the magisterial protestants were those of the conservative reformation- Lutherans, anglicans, and the reformed including later Arminian Methodists and Calvinist Presbyterians. Magisterial means the emphasis on the teaching authority of the church. They still hold to the authority of the creeds, confessions, councils of the church and church fathers. They truly did not want to split from the RCC. They rejected those of the radical reformation such as the anabaptists and quakers, who desired to throw everything out and actually wanted to spilt from the RCC. You can Google it for more information.
The Catholic Church will never accept sola Scriptura which is unbiblical and heretical
1) For the first 300 years of Christianity, NOBODY had a bible. I am not saying there were no God-breathed inspired texts; but they were not codified into a single source called a bible during that time. The idea of what was and was not an inspired text was also a little fluid during that time as well. The Early Church Fathers often drew on texts to develop doctrine and theology, which eventually did not make it into the bible as sacred scripture; yet were treated as much as so. Texts like the Didache, the Letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Book of Enoch, the writings of Ireneaus, Polycarp (who was taught directly by St. John the beloved disciple) and many more. But a recognized inerrant, infallible, universal God-inspired single book called a bible did not exist.
2) To muddy the waters even more during those 300 years; many more texts emerged as the thirst for new Christian 'scripture' became a lucrative market, or heretical groups like the gnostics produced their own material. Hundreds more texts claiming inspired origins also circulated among the various and distant communities. Texts like the gospels of Thomas, Mary, Peter, Judas, Barnabas, or the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. etc.
3) Since there was no recognized bible, it goes without saving that the principle of Sola Scriptura was unheard of, never a part of authenticate Christianity, and would not even be known until invented by a mentally disturbed catholic monk in the 1500's in the form of a new heresy.
4) The Chrisitan Church was formed and led by living men who received their offices from the Apostles. Just as the office of Judas was given to Mathais, each Apostle recognized they held a specific office that could be transferred or shared in Apostolic Succession. Each Christian community recognized the Apostles or their successors as having that leadership and teaching Authority as being from Jesus directly.
5) By 385AD-400AD the successors of those Apostles realized the written texts they used in Liturgy and to form doctrine and theology were being lost, degraded, and infiltrated by forgeries, bad copies, and crafted but not God-inspired texts. The problem was, over 300 years out from the First Apostles and witnesses; there was no one alive who could vouch for what texts were inspired and what wasn't. For example; to this day, NO ONE knows who the author of the Letter to the Hebrews was. You can make an educated guess; but no one knows for sure. We don't know who wrote Matthew or Mark; it is only by tradition that it is their testimony which someone recorded; but that is hearsay at best. Luke and Acts was written by Luke the Physician and NOT Luke the Apostle, and is a record of what he remembers from following Peter and Paul at certain points. At some point during the discussions, the Letters of Clement were considered as scripture; while the Apocalypse of John was not finding much support.
So by 400AD, here is the situation. No first edition leather bound Bible signed and handed out by Jesus ever existed. None of the Apostles made a bible, nor did they leave behind any written clues or instructons for a bible or what should be in it. Even the current bible by itself can not give us a table of contents of itself. By 385AD, there were about 5000 different texts, scripts, parchments, fragments o writings put before them all claiming they should be considered scripture. So the Catholic Faith through the claimed Teaching Authority the Catholic Bishops held by their Succession to the original 11 Apostles plus Paul; assembled from the 5000 texts, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit the 73 books which would form the Inerrant Infallible Bible for all Christians henceforth. The truth and reliability of these 73 books were then sealed by the approval of the Chair of Peter held then by Pope Honorius.
It was ONLY by this process did an infallible Bible form for Christians of the True Faith for the next 1100 years until a wolf in sheeps clothing decided upon his own authority that he alone could decipher the true bible from those 5000 pieces; and created his own 66 book version. He was then the inspiration for others who thought he mucked it up, so they then took a stab at it and made their own bibles on their own authority. Even the KJV was invented by this method.
The question then is 'will the real bible please stand up'? Should it be the ecumenical bible compiled by the valid successors to the Apostles in 400AD and agreed upon by 99.999% of Christianity? Or is it the result of individuals, 1500 years separated from the Apostles, motivated by greed, fear, or self-agrandizing aspirations who invented a 66 book mimic?
Which story do you think better fits the history and logic of Christianity? Who has the better claim to Authority and the working of God? For me, it is either the Catholic claim or nothing. The protestant claim is so ridiculous and late to the game that it just defeats itself. If the Catholic Church aint it; then there is no church, and the whole thing is a farce anyway. So that is why I am a Catholic and will always be.
I love the animation!
Amen! I needed this video! Glory to to our Lord Jesus alone!🙏✝️
Simple, but very compelling!!! Much appreciated!
What a great quick explanation on Sola Scriptura, Gavin you really are one of the best theological sources for Protestants on TH-cam!
Sola Scriptura is self defeating as it is unbiblical and heretical. Ironic for Protestants to claim anything else
Amazing video! Love the animation as well! Excellent and so clear!
I love these animated videos you do, Dr Ortlund. This was one of the better explanations I’ve heard for Solo Scriptura. When explained like this, I understand much better why Protestants believe in SS. Excellent video, God Bless!
As a Catholic I applaud this video for being both robust and pithy. While I don’t think I’ll ever again be convinced of SS, I think this is the best expression of such.
thanks for saying so!
Protestants do not follow the original biblical canon, from AD 382, yet claim whichever version and translation of Scriptura they choose to follow is Sola.
My question is if Jesus Himself being God in flesh used scripture as the rule stick, what makes you differ with Him and if you differ with Him are you still in the Same body of believers He established ?
Do we?
@@jonathanpenduka7420Where did Jesus use Scripture as the rule stick in scripture?
I already know some rubuttals are already being recorded
But are they being animated??
3 hour rebuttals. 😅
Incoming response videos. Good luck Gavin
Very clear and concise. Nice presentation. It clear up what many THINK sola Scriptura is and is displays what is ACTAULLY is. So many Catholics/Orthodox do not define it properly.
That's probably because Protestants don't agree on what "Sola scriptura" means.
This video is the definition Gavin uses. There are at least two other common definitons.
@@nealkriestererI'm not sure about the Lutherans, but the Reformed view on Sola Scriptura is very clearly laid out in the Westminster standards, and it is consistent with Gavin's definition.
I still haven't heard an explanation of where Sola Scriptura is taught in the Bible
To be fair some Protestants hold to this view of Sola Scriptura and some Protestants adhere to even the most caricatured view of it. So some Catholic/Orthodox will caricature it to set up a straw man but in most cases they have only encountered the caricature in actuality.
@@nealkriesterer as a Protestant unfortunately this is true
Thanks Gavin. Don't let people get to you about the local flood video, while you gave me things to think about within that video, I do not think you harmed the church by explaining the position for the local flood.
Masterful work.
What part of this is masterful?
@@micahjakubowicz4172 Animation, Clear concise argument. You can tell Gavin is a master at his craft: Apologetics
@@tigertian1251doesn’t justify what is unbiblical and heretical
@@geoffjs Could you be more specific?
Wow! This is the best explanation of Sola Scriptura I've heard.
I think it is awesome how Peter calls Paul’s writings Scripture as well as reminds that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
That is one possible support for Sola Scriptura.
But that is a slender branch to hang a huge doctrine on.
You place so much weight on that passing mention because you presume that Peter's writing is authoritative scripture.
What about Peter's own writing?
Any scriptural basis for regarding HIS writing as authoritative scripture?
@@alyu1129 I don’t hang the whole doctrine on this. Like you said it is one possible support.
This is simply a supplementary support of on top of everything that Gavin shared in his video
@@macesune Authoritative "Scriptural" support. Gavin's list are from human reason. They're good and plausible but not authoritative scriptural support unlike what you referred to.
@@alyu1129 when did I require authoritative scriptural support?
I just pointed out one potential supplement to what Gavin said
Beautifully done.
I think all you need is a video on how Protestants account for the canon and a video on “who gets to interpret” from a Protestant perspective and you pretty much answer all the main Roman/EO objections! Theres really nothing else beyond those three.
Absolutely this!!
Lol. The Church is infallible because it is the Church which is entrusted with the charge to make disciples of all nations. It cannot do so if it can be wrong. It cannot be corruptible because the body of Christ is not corruptible. I am Orthodox.
@@EricAlHarb Which verses state this?
@@turkeybobjr Go make disciples of all nations!
@@EricAlHarb What does that have to do with ecclesial infallibility?
Every time I see non-protestants mischaracterizing Sola Scriptura, I will post this link. And likewise, every time I see Protestants misusing and misquoting sola Scriptura, I will also post this link. Thank you Dr. Ortlund.
1) For the first 300 years of Christianity, NOBODY had a bible. I am not saying there were no God-breathed inspired texts; but they were not codified into a single source called a bible during that time. The idea of what was and was not an inspired text was also a little fluid during that time as well. The Early Church Fathers often drew on texts to develop doctrine and theology, which eventually did not make it into the bible as sacred scripture; yet were treated as much as so. Texts like the Didache, the Letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Book of Enoch, the writings of Ireneaus, Polycarp (who was taught directly by St. John the beloved disciple) and many more. But a recognized inerrant, infallible, universal God-inspired single book called a bible did not exist.
2) To muddy the waters even more during those 300 years; many more texts emerged as the thirst for new Christian 'scripture' became a lucrative market, or heretical groups like the gnostics produced their own material. Hundreds more texts claiming inspired origins also circulated among the various and distant communities. Texts like the gospels of Thomas, Mary, Peter, Judas, Barnabas, or the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. etc.
3) Since there was no recognized bible, it goes without saving that the principle of Sola Scriptura was unheard of, never a part of authenticate Christianity, and would not even be known until invented by a mentally disturbed catholic monk in the 1500's in the form of a new heresy.
4) The Chrisitan Church was formed and led by living men who received their offices from the Apostles. Just as the office of Judas was given to Mathais, each Apostle recognized they held a specific office that could be transferred or shared in Apostolic Succession. Each Christian community recognized the Apostles or their successors as having that leadership and teaching Authority as being from Jesus directly.
5) By 385AD-400AD the successors of those Apostles realized the written texts they used in Liturgy and to form doctrine and theology were being lost, degraded, and infiltrated by forgeries, bad copies, and crafted but not God-inspired texts. The problem was, over 300 years out from the First Apostles and witnesses; there was no one alive who could vouch for what texts were inspired and what wasn't. For example; to this day, NO ONE knows who the author of the Letter to the Hebrews was. You can make an educated guess; but no one knows for sure. We don't know who wrote Matthew or Mark; it is only by tradition that it is their testimony which someone recorded; but that is hearsay at best. Luke and Acts was written by Luke the Physician and NOT Luke the Apostle, and is a record of what he remembers from following Peter and Paul at certain points. At some point during the discussions, the Letters of Clement were considered as scripture; while the Apocalypse of John was not finding much support.
So by 400AD, here is the situation. No first edition leather bound Bible signed and handed out by Jesus ever existed. None of the Apostles made a bible, nor did they leave behind any written clues or instructons for a bible or what should be in it. Even the current bible by itself can not give us a table of contents of itself. By 385AD, there were about 5000 different texts, scripts, parchments, fragments o writings put before them all claiming they should be considered scripture. So the Catholic Faith through the claimed Teaching Authority the Catholic Bishops held by their Succession to the original 11 Apostles plus Paul; assembled from the 5000 texts, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit the 73 books which would form the Inerrant Infallible Bible for all Christians henceforth. The truth and reliability of these 73 books were then sealed by the approval of the Chair of Peter held then by Pope Honorius.
It was ONLY by this process did an infallible Bible form for Christians of the True Faith for the next 1100 years until a wolf in sheeps clothing decided upon his own authority that he alone could decipher the true bible from those 5000 pieces; and created his own 66 book version. He was then the inspiration for others who thought he mucked it up, so they then took a stab at it and made their own bibles on their own authority. Even the KJV was invented by this method.
The question then is 'will the real bible please stand up'? Should it be the ecumenical bible compiled by the valid successors to the Apostles in 400AD and agreed upon by 99.999% of Christianity? Or is it the result of individuals, 1500 years separated from the Apostles, motivated by greed, fear, or self-agrandizing aspirations who invented a 66 book mimic?
Which story do you think better fits the history and logic of Christianity? Who has the better claim to Authority and the working of God? For me, it is either the Catholic claim or nothing. The protestant claim is so ridiculous and late to the game that it just defeats itself. If the Catholic Church aint it; then there is no church, and the whole thing is a farce anyway. So that is why I am a Catholic and will always be.
@@otineyskciderf Given that Gavin showed the CC has contradicted itself in the last 500 years, much of your own logic points right back at you, only worse.
It's a cool new type of info on your channel!
This is a great summary of Sola Scriptura! One of the best parts is that which distinguishes the oral teaching of the apostles from the latter transmission of this teaching.
Unbiblical and heretical, look at the fruits of Protestantism
@@geoffjs Like more people getting to here the general call? Like that fruit?
Great video. Many thanks.
I'm very thankful for the Scriptures. Even when I find them difficult.
Great video!!
The issue with sola scriptura isn't that we need to use scripture to measure against the councils and confessions, it is that new people will use their own "interpretation" of scripture and claim it as God's word, and then measure that against the former councils and confessions. What instead needs to be done is understand how the historic church understood scripture. If I were to compare a "pastor billy bob" vs St. Ignatius/Clement/Polycarp, I would go with the latters' "interpretation".
If scripture was really that clear, then should there be a clear denomination within Protestantism which conveys the gospel truth and clearly understands Christology, Soteriology, role of ordinances/sacraments, etc etc. Heck, protestant churches can't even decide if they want women pastors or not, let alone fundamental, mere Christianity
there's not even a clear denomination within Orthodoxy. It's a human problem. Even in the early church, different churches were believing different things.
God bless you immensely for this. The caricature on sola scriptura is really terrible. God bless your ministry and family 🙏❤️✝️
Protestants do not follow the original biblical canon, from AD 382, yet claim whichever version and translation of Scriptura they choose to follow is Sola.
@@fantasia55 You're confused, right?? Can you tell me what has that got to do with sola scriptura?? Does Roman Catholic follow the same Bible from the onset?? What about Eastern orthodox??
@@raphaelfeneje486 Yes, the Catholic Church follows the original biblical canon.
@@fantasia55 Still waiting
@raphaelfeneje486 Catholics follow the original biblical canon, but do not claim it to be the sole authority. How can anyone believe in Bible Alone with so much variation in canons and translation? Which is the Bible version that is Alone?
This serves the body of Christ well. This is something the everyday church-goer who is looking to grow in their faith can make sense of, process and respond to. Thanks Gavin.
This is an excellent summary and defense of Sola Scriptura. I think it effectively and peaceably illustrates the key difference between those who hold to Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and those who hold to Sola Ecclesia (the church alone).
Could your church be wrong about which books should be in the Bible?
@@Essex626 "could it be" is the wrong question - all things are within the realm of possibility. It is possible that no church has the correct cannon and that no church has saving doctrine. This however is not probable in the least. Similarly, Protestants feel that the biblical and historical evidence make the shorter cannon which we hold to far more probably the correct one than any of the alternatives.
@@tategarrett3042 Something probable is not infallible though.
If it could be that your church is wrong, then your list is not infallible. If your list of contents is not infallible, then the contents themselves cannot be declared infallible, both because it might be missing important things and because it might contain extraneous things.
@@Essex626Suggest a way out, sir/ma
@@Essex626 I don't think that necessarily follows. We have confidence that the word of God is infallible and we have confidence that what we have is the word of God. Again we don't need to eat in extreme probabilities to reach a sound conclusion
Can you continue these? The information was so easy to digest
Amazing, May God bless you
Fantastic video!
Awesome video! Super helpful!
Doing a project on this topic, Thanks for the video
God bless u brother this video is a great reflection of the true word of God❤🙏🏻
Good video. I disagree with it but appreciate you giving a quick talk on what your views are on this doctrine you believe in.
Good video. I applaud those who made it for packing in so much in 6 minutes.
Concise, well-done. Thank you.
To God be the glory.
Very helpful and brief summary. Thank you Gavin.
This was RIGHT ON! Thank you Gavin, and God bless you.
❤❤❤❤❤❤ great work
Thank you for the video. Scripture + Holy Spirit = Truth and discernment
This reminded be of crash course!!! Great job!
I am proud to be a reformed Protestant.
Thank you Matthew! This was a very encouraging as someone who has struggled with this on and off for the last few years. As someone who wants to please the Lord it can be overwhelming when I see so many different views on things I believe us brothers/sisters in Christ should believe in. In my mind, the way to reconcile that is to spend more time with people who have spent time expositing scripture because they are more “trustworthy” than what I could gain by reading the Bible. This cycle inevitably takes me farther from God since I’m putting my faith in human works rather than the divine. I will be taking this message to heart and would love to be free from this worry.
This is fantastic!
Fantastic video. For other commentors who are looking for resources, I am writing a paper for my Systematic Theology class on Sola Scriptura and Roger Olson's "The Mosaic of Christian Belief," namely chapters 1-4, has been supremely helpful in wrapping my mind around the necessity of unity, catholicity, and the consensus of The Great Tradition., Olson even uses the analogy of the Supreme Court as well.
I'm an orthodox christian and i don't belive in SS but i really like your channel Dr. Gavin, thank you for your good work, may the Lord bless you and your family
Excellent. Thank you so very much.
I've never heard this explanation before. I guess I am 'Sola Scriptura' after all.
You may want to reconsider. Read John 21 and you'll see that Jesus Christ himself asked somebody to be responsible for His followers.
@@461weavile you didnt fucking watch the video did you XD
@@upsxace Sure I did. I even reminded a couple times when I thought he said something incorrect to see if I'd misheard. Maybe you're not convinced that John 21 is strong enough evidence? John 16 might help with that.
Sola Scriptura is unbiblical and heretical
Great video thank you. I’m trying to understand the various denominations to either correct or reinforce my beliefs. Seeing how fallible man is, I believe Sola Scriptura gives the best chance to identify and correct fallibilities that occur.
Sola Scriptura is unbiblical because the bible can’t interpret itself. 2 Peter 1 20-21
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal by Ignatius in 107, codified your bible in 382. His Church is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed, in spite of sinful men, for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin.
The fruits of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21.
Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective
I thought I was watching Crash Course history for a second 😂 This was excellent
That’s so kind! Thank you so much 😃
Another really good compact Christian topic. Also been watching your many rebuts with Trent Horn on Sola Scriptura
Well done Dr. Thank you
Love this explanation!
Beautifully done. Simple yet clear and comprehensive. I love how it tries to head off all the typical caricatures of the doctrine up front.
Excellent explanation!!