This is a REALLY REALLY good explanation that helped me to understand how all this flows from Scripture. Very concise, careful, and precise with all your language. Fantastic job brother!
Prior to medieval Christian claims of authoritative oral traditions passing down alongside Scripture from the Apostles themselves, the Pharisees had already set an example of developing doctrine based on an authoritative oral tradition allegedly having been passed down alongside Scripture from Moses himself. Moreover, despite the fact that the Pharisees were responsible for essentially collecting the books that would constitute the Old Testament canon for Israel (included in Christian Bibles), much as later Catholics claim for themselves, their assertions of tradition's authority was roundly condemned by none other than Jesus Himself: "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!" In all of Biblical history, not one mention is made about authoritative oral tradition as a compliment to Scripture. During the Apostolic Age, both Christ and the Apostles always appealed to Scripture as the final authority for any claims or practices under consideration. This is logical since only the Apostles and Prophets were understood as authoring Scripture and therefore having such authority. Priests, though appointed by God, were always commanded to follow Scripture rather than extraneous customs. Prominent early Church Fathers recognized and honored these principles, asserting that the true Catholic Church must always act in harmony with Scripture whenever "small matters" of tradition, as St. Basil the Great (d. 379) identified such issues, aren't specifically addressed. Thus, anything truly alien to Scripture or its theological principles must be abandoned. For example, here is St. Basil describing such considerations as he experienced them in the 4th-century: "For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents" (The Holy Spirit, 27:66). Obviously, it makes good sense that such "small matters" of tradition can be legitimately supported since Scripture and its clear principles are not violated. However, St. Basil also has this to say about Scripture and Church doctrine: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Letter 283). St. Jerome (d. 420), writing in the 5th-century, likewise describes acceptable traditions as being very harmonious with Scripture: "Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? (Note that what he refers to here as a custom is actually described multiple times in the Book of Acts!). And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command (Obviously because of very clear consistency since he used a Scriptural example of what a legitimate Church custom looks like). For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, (A neutral practice implied by Jesus's "Great Commission" formula and later found in the Didache) and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy (Old Testament symbols); and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day (Standing is in the Book of Ezra), and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked" (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8). Keeping these principles of maintaining traditions that merely illuminate explicit Scriptural doctrines in view, we can now make sense of what other early Fathers write about Scripture's unique authority.... Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 216) said, “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the information from the Scriptures themselves” (Stromata 7:16). Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) said, “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 9). Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367): “Everything that we ought to say and do, all that we need, is taught us by the Holy Scriptures ” (On the Trinity, 7:16). St. Athanasius (d. 375) said, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) “The holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (To the Bishops of Egypt 1:4)." "The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Exhort. ad Monachas). “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6). St. Basil of the Great (d. 379) said, “Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on which side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (Letter 189:3). St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, "We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say" (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff). St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) said, "What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius). St. Ambrose (d. 396) said, “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23). St. Augustine (d. 430) said, "For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine (Letters, 148.15). “For in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Do not even listen to me if I tell you anything that is not supported by or found in the Scriptures” (Exposition on Psalm 119). John Cassian (d. 435): “We ought not to believe in and to admit anything whatsoever which is not in the canon of Scripture or which is found to be contrary to it” (Conferences, 14.8).
This channel has always had an excellent thumbnail game. So much so, that I'm beginning to think good thumbnails are directly proportional to underratedness.
@@haronsmith8974 I guess someone can be invincibly ignorant in Italy (even though they had their child baptized) so that they aren’t held to account for committing any mortal sins…. Makes sense….
The other thing is that everyone believes some unbaptized believers will be in heaven. No branch of Christianity teaches that there is no exceptions to being Baptised as they have to at least warrant the thief on the cross and anyone unable to be Baptised for whatever reason. The alternative would seem to impugn the very character of God and his Gospel. It's also weird to act as if Baptists are indifferent to baptism when it's usually seen as the predication for Church membership based on being Baptised into the body of Christ. In a congregational context this is seen as very important to the life and nature of the Church even though low Church Baptists are reticent to use instrumental terms in such matters.
I just want to confirm that the vast majority of low church Baptists will insist on Baptism even if they don't preach it as efficacious in the traditional sense(they usually say it's done for obedience or proclamation of faith and saves in a kind of associative sense). As a Baptist who has a more historic and higher sacramentalism(as does Ps Ortlund for interest sake) this is something I disagree with other Baptists on but I've never heard any of them argue that Baptism is unimportant or merely optional; saying this is going to come across as strawmanning for a large majority of Baptists. There's also a fair number who will have some sense of mystery, believing it does *something* but we don't fully understand what.
Good post. I’d more or less trace the Apostolic deposit to the creeds in basically the same way. Btw-who are are the four guys in the lower left corner at the end of the video? I’m guessing Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, and Andrewes?
Disagreement among protestants no more refutes protestantism than disagreement among religions disproves Christianity. Whatever answer you give the latter can be used to defend the former.
@@Theosis_and_prayer At least we agree Jesus is the only way a man can be saved 💀💀💀💀💀💀 idk how Francis forgot the most essential doctrine of Christianity 😳😳😳😳😳
There's also the fact that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have a lot of disagreement on majorly important topics. Existence of God (believe it or not) is a disagreement in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and even an absolute standard of morality are HUGE areas of major disagreement in Catholicism and Orthodox (there are Pew Research polls on all this). While this applies to Protestants, as well, that doesn't matter. What is pertinent to this conversation is that there is a large amount of DEMONSTRABLE disagreement on MAJOR issues in all denominations, including Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
The question isn’t whether scripture is sufficient for a Christian to come to a correct belief - the question is, is Sola Scriptura a suffient rubric to come to a CONSENSUS of dogma/doctrine? Thats not to say a Catholic or Orthodox ecclesiology creates consensus - on the contrary; it’s because they understand that disagreements are inevitable that a magisterial ecclesiology seems to be, not only the biblical model, but the only workable model for Christian unity
No rubric delivers on this but for the work of the Holy Spirit. There will always be some who are young in the faith and we will ever be faced with false teachers and various antichrists even until the end of the age. Assuming none of the false teachers will ever infiltrate a magisterial system is folly. The only way to have true consensus is for the Church to abandon the Great Commission and become so insular as to be in active rebellion against God. Even then it's no guarantee. The Gospel saves people from their sin, not their fallibility in perfectly understanding every proposition that could be made about theology. The problem with the view you seem to present is that dogmatic agreement and doctrinal purity to the utmost degree aren't primarily what Christ is looking for in his Bride. To be fair he does desire unity, but first and foremost Her duty is to love Him.
Does Sola Scriptura work as a rubric? You gonna define what you mean by working first. If working means you don’t have splits in a church body then no. But then that criticism applies even to other church bodies that don’t follow Sola Scriptura like the RCC or EO both of which have had plenty of splits without Sola Scriptura. Is it having people agree on the essentials? Well, Protestants as an umbrella don’t, but again neither do ecclesialists. Even in individual church bodies every Lutheran you find disagreeing with the Large Catechism you’ll also have a Romanist disagreeing with the RC Catechism. That’s the issue at hand. When you compare churches to churches instead of churches to broad categories you find that neither church is more or less disfunctional because they do or don’t believe in Sola Scriptura.
Sorry guys... I thought we were had it but... 19 year old college student Maurice Bentley of Philadelphia read the Bible and diagreed on one point of salvation... Guess we cooked now 🤤🤪
You cherry picked verses that meet your predefined belief. Scripture says the soul that sins shall die (Eze. 18:4) and death is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23). Here death refers to hell, not physical death. What delivers us from death? According to Scripture it is righteousness that delivers from death (Pro. 10:2, 11:4). “Whoever is steadfast in righteousness will live” (Pro. 11:19). “In the path of righteousness is life, and in its pathway there is no death” (Pro. 12:28). Jesus said in Mat. 25:46 that the righteous shall go to eternal life. In Rom. 4:3 faith is counted as righteousness that cites from Gen. 15:6. In Gen. 15:6 what was counted (Hebrew חָשַׁב, khaw-shav’, Strong H2803) to Abraham for righteousness is faith. But what was counted (the same חָשַׁב) for righteousness to Phinehas in Psalms 106:31 was not faith but what he did as described in verse 30 (in more detail in Num. 25:7-8). According to Scripture faith is not the only source of our righteousness. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous (1 Jo. 3:7). Scripture says in Eze. 33:13 that we lose righteousness through committing iniquities: “Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die. "
You misunderstood the relationship between faith and what you do. In all things, from what you eat to how you conduct yourself are dependent on what you believe. For example, you believe exercise is good for your health, therefore you practice the discipline of daily exercise to be healthy. Likewise, truly believing Jesus is Lord and confessing him as Lord subsequently leads to one seeking to live as Jesus knowing that, "it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith on the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Gal 2:20 We are made righteousness by Jesus's righteousness, and subsequently, as promised to all who confess sincere faith in him, receive the Holy Spirit to help us. Because of his righteousness, all those who truly repent are covered by his blood and are credited as righteous by his merits. Likewise, by true belief in Jesus as Lord will come out as one trying to live as Jesus lives.
@@drewp1989 I must say you are wrong! It is grace from God through Christ that enables us to have faith and to do what is right - through both we are made righteous as Scripture says in Rom. 5:19 through Him we are made righteous. You ignore one verse I cited that says in Ezekiel. 33:13: "Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die. " If you sin, as stated in the above verse, you lose righteousness.
@@justfromcatholic I did not ignore Ezekiel 33:13, nor was I stating that grace was not the impetuous for faith. I was stating that righteousness is dependent on faith. In relation to Ezekiel 33:13, it points to one considering themselves righteous and yet living unrepentantly. Jesus pointed this out with the Pharisees and teachers of the law, who would have considered themselves righteous but yet devoured widows homes and placed burdens too great to carry without lifting a finger. In the whole passage of Ezekiel 33:10-19 can be summed up in the words of Psalm 51:17 "the sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." All those broken of their sin and turn to Jesus, his righteousness is imparted on them and God remembers their sin no more. To your point, there are many warnings to falling away and continuing in sin. However, to say ,"if you sin, you lose your righteousnes" implies trusting in one's own ability to do what's right, but then you have to wrestle with "my ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts, my righteousness is but rags before your eyes." Isaiah 55:8-9 You also have to wrestle with King David when he committed grave sin and that despite this, he was considered a man after God's own heart. In the case of David, he repented, but his repentance came from believing God and subsequently turning to obey God, which points to the necessity of faith to drive the acts of righteousness which were bestowed upon him by Christ's work on the cross.
@@drewp1989 Can you show me one verse that says righteousness depends on faith? Eze. 33:13 says that any righteous person who commits iniquity will die (= hell). You wrote "However, to say ,"if you sin, you lose your righteousnes" implies trusting in one's own ability to do what's right". We do NOT rely on our own ability to do what is right - it is only by grace we are able to do what is right that makes us righteous as it is written in 1 John 3:7. Eze. 33:13 has nothing to do with Psa. 51:17. Ezekiel. 18:20 denies double imputation taught by the Reformers when it says “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” Eze. 33:14-16 says (emphasis in capital is mine): Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet IF HE TURNS FROM HIS SIN AND DOES WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, HE SHALL SURELY LIVE; HE SHALL NOT DIE. NONE OF THE SINS THAT HE HAS COMMITTED SHALL BE REMEMBERED AGAINST HIM. HE HAS DONE WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT; HE SHALL SURELY LIVE." From the above verses we know when a wicked person turns from sin (repents) AND does what is just and right he would be back to life and all his past wickedness will be forgotten. Doing what is just and right AFTER repentance is known as temporal punishment in Catholic teaching - it is scriptural support of penance. King David sinned and he repented and his punishment was the death of baby from his adultery.
An absolute BANGER video. The perspecuity of Scripture in matters concerning salvation WILL BE UPHELD! ✊️😤
YES!!!
This is a REALLY REALLY good explanation that helped me to understand how all this flows from Scripture. Very concise, careful, and precise with all your language. Fantastic job brother!
Prior to medieval Christian claims of authoritative oral traditions passing down alongside Scripture from the Apostles themselves, the Pharisees had already set an example of developing doctrine based on an authoritative oral tradition allegedly having been passed down alongside Scripture from Moses himself.
Moreover, despite the fact that the Pharisees were responsible for essentially collecting the books that would constitute the Old Testament canon for Israel (included in Christian Bibles), much as later Catholics claim for themselves, their assertions of tradition's authority was roundly condemned by none other than Jesus Himself: "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!"
In all of Biblical history, not one mention is made about authoritative oral tradition as a compliment to Scripture. During the Apostolic Age, both Christ and the Apostles always appealed to Scripture as the final authority for any claims or practices under consideration. This is logical since only the Apostles and Prophets were understood as authoring Scripture and therefore having such authority. Priests, though appointed by God, were always commanded to follow Scripture rather than extraneous customs.
Prominent early Church Fathers recognized and honored these principles, asserting that the true Catholic Church must always act in harmony with Scripture whenever "small matters" of tradition, as St. Basil the Great (d. 379) identified such issues, aren't specifically addressed. Thus, anything truly alien to Scripture or its theological principles must be abandoned.
For example, here is St. Basil describing such considerations as he experienced them in the 4th-century: "For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents" (The Holy Spirit, 27:66).
Obviously, it makes good sense that such "small matters" of tradition can be legitimately supported since Scripture and its clear principles are not violated. However, St. Basil also has this to say about Scripture and Church doctrine: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Letter 283).
St. Jerome (d. 420), writing in the 5th-century, likewise describes acceptable traditions as being very harmonious with Scripture: "Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? (Note that what he refers to here as a custom is actually described multiple times in the Book of Acts!). And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command (Obviously because of very clear consistency since he used a Scriptural example of what a legitimate Church custom looks like). For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, (A neutral practice implied by Jesus's "Great Commission" formula and later found in the Didache) and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy (Old Testament symbols); and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day (Standing is in the Book of Ezra), and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked" (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8).
Keeping these principles of maintaining traditions that merely illuminate explicit Scriptural doctrines in view, we can now make sense of what other early Fathers write about Scripture's unique authority....
Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 216) said, “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the information from the Scriptures themselves” (Stromata 7:16).
Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) said, “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 9).
Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367): “Everything that we ought to say and do, all that we need, is taught us by the Holy Scriptures ” (On the Trinity, 7:16).
St. Athanasius (d. 375) said, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) “The holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (To the Bishops of Egypt 1:4)." "The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Exhort. ad Monachas). “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6).
St. Basil of the Great (d. 379) said, “Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on which side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (Letter 189:3).
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, "We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say" (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff).
St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) said, "What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius).
St. Ambrose (d. 396) said, “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23).
St. Augustine (d. 430) said, "For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine (Letters, 148.15). “For in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Do not even listen to me if I tell you anything that is not supported by or found in the Scriptures” (Exposition on Psalm 119).
John Cassian (d. 435): “We ought not to believe in and to admit anything whatsoever which is not in the canon of Scripture or which is found to be contrary to it” (Conferences, 14.8).
Greatest thumbnail ever.
This channel has always had an excellent thumbnail game. So much so, that I'm beginning to think good thumbnails are directly proportional to underratedness.
If the Pope believes that unbelievers can be in heaven, then Baptists believing that unbaptized believers can be in heaven is really not a big deal.
Its because the Pope believes in purgatory.
@@haronsmith8974 I guess someone can be invincibly ignorant in Italy (even though they had their child baptized) so that they aren’t held to account for committing any mortal sins…. Makes sense….
In 1 Tim. 4:10 Paul wrote that God is the Saviour of all men, especially those who believe. Salvation is NOT limited only to those who believe.
The other thing is that everyone believes some unbaptized believers will be in heaven. No branch of Christianity teaches that there is no exceptions to being Baptised as they have to at least warrant the thief on the cross and anyone unable to be Baptised for whatever reason. The alternative would seem to impugn the very character of God and his Gospel.
It's also weird to act as if Baptists are indifferent to baptism when it's usually seen as the predication for Church membership based on being Baptised into the body of Christ. In a congregational context this is seen as very important to the life and nature of the Church even though low Church Baptists are reticent to use instrumental terms in such matters.
I just want to confirm that the vast majority of low church Baptists will insist on Baptism even if they don't preach it as efficacious in the traditional sense(they usually say it's done for obedience or proclamation of faith and saves in a kind of associative sense). As a Baptist who has a more historic and higher sacramentalism(as does Ps Ortlund for interest sake) this is something I disagree with other Baptists on but I've never heard any of them argue that Baptism is unimportant or merely optional; saying this is going to come across as strawmanning for a large majority of Baptists. There's also a fair number who will have some sense of mystery, believing it does *something* but we don't fully understand what.
@zacdredge3859 Agreed--I caught myself as I was saying it haha
Good post. I’d more or less trace the Apostolic deposit to the creeds in basically the same way.
Btw-who are are the four guys in the lower left corner at the end of the video? I’m guessing Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, and Andrewes?
Disagreement among protestants no more refutes protestantism than disagreement among religions disproves Christianity. Whatever answer you give the latter can be used to defend the former.
When Catholics literally argue like atheists.
@@Theosis_and_prayer At least we agree Jesus is the only way a man can be saved 💀💀💀💀💀💀 idk how Francis forgot the most essential doctrine of Christianity 😳😳😳😳😳
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyW
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyso true
There's also the fact that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have a lot of disagreement on majorly important topics. Existence of God (believe it or not) is a disagreement in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and even an absolute standard of morality are HUGE areas of major disagreement in Catholicism and Orthodox (there are Pew Research polls on all this). While this applies to Protestants, as well, that doesn't matter. What is pertinent to this conversation is that there is a large amount of DEMONSTRABLE disagreement on MAJOR issues in all denominations, including Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
nice one🙏🏽
The question isn’t whether scripture is sufficient for a Christian to come to a correct belief - the question is, is Sola Scriptura a suffient rubric to come to a CONSENSUS of dogma/doctrine?
Thats not to say a Catholic or Orthodox ecclesiology creates consensus - on the contrary; it’s because they understand that disagreements are inevitable that a magisterial ecclesiology seems to be, not only the biblical model, but the only workable model for Christian unity
No rubric delivers on this but for the work of the Holy Spirit. There will always be some who are young in the faith and we will ever be faced with false teachers and various antichrists even until the end of the age. Assuming none of the false teachers will ever infiltrate a magisterial system is folly. The only way to have true consensus is for the Church to abandon the Great Commission and become so insular as to be in active rebellion against God. Even then it's no guarantee.
The Gospel saves people from their sin, not their fallibility in perfectly understanding every proposition that could be made about theology. The problem with the view you seem to present is that dogmatic agreement and doctrinal purity to the utmost degree aren't primarily what Christ is looking for in his Bride. To be fair he does desire unity, but first and foremost Her duty is to love Him.
Does Sola Scriptura work as a rubric? You gonna define what you mean by working first. If working means you don’t have splits in a church body then no. But then that criticism applies even to other church bodies that don’t follow Sola Scriptura like the RCC or EO both of which have had plenty of splits without Sola Scriptura.
Is it having people agree on the essentials? Well, Protestants as an umbrella don’t, but again neither do ecclesialists. Even in individual church bodies every Lutheran you find disagreeing with the Large Catechism you’ll also have a Romanist disagreeing with the RC Catechism.
That’s the issue at hand. When you compare churches to churches instead of churches to broad categories you find that neither church is more or less disfunctional because they do or don’t believe in Sola Scriptura.
Sorry guys... I thought we were had it but... 19 year old college student Maurice Bentley of Philadelphia read the Bible and diagreed on one point of salvation... Guess we cooked now 🤤🤪
Yep. This has been my experience of Catholic reasoning in a nutshell.
You cherry picked verses that meet your predefined belief. Scripture says the soul that sins shall die (Eze. 18:4) and death is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23). Here death refers to hell, not physical death. What delivers us from death? According to Scripture it is righteousness that delivers from death (Pro. 10:2, 11:4). “Whoever is steadfast in righteousness will live” (Pro. 11:19). “In the path of righteousness is life, and in its pathway there is no death” (Pro. 12:28). Jesus said in Mat. 25:46 that the righteous shall go to eternal life. In Rom. 4:3 faith is counted as righteousness that cites from Gen. 15:6. In Gen. 15:6 what was counted (Hebrew חָשַׁב, khaw-shav’, Strong H2803) to Abraham for righteousness is faith. But what was counted (the same חָשַׁב) for righteousness to Phinehas in Psalms 106:31 was not faith but what he did as described in verse 30 (in more detail in Num. 25:7-8). According to Scripture faith is not the only source of our righteousness. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous (1 Jo. 3:7). Scripture says in Eze. 33:13 that we lose righteousness through committing iniquities: “Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die. "
You misunderstood the relationship between faith and what you do. In all things, from what you eat to how you conduct yourself are dependent on what you believe. For example, you believe exercise is good for your health, therefore you practice the discipline of daily exercise to be healthy. Likewise, truly believing Jesus is Lord and confessing him as Lord subsequently leads to one seeking to live as Jesus knowing that, "it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith on the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Gal 2:20 We are made righteousness by Jesus's righteousness, and subsequently, as promised to all who confess sincere faith in him, receive the Holy Spirit to help us. Because of his righteousness, all those who truly repent are covered by his blood and are credited as righteous by his merits.
Likewise, by true belief in Jesus as Lord will come out as one trying to live as Jesus lives.
@@drewp1989 I must say you are wrong! It is grace from God through Christ that enables us to have faith and to do what is right - through both we are made righteous as Scripture says in Rom. 5:19 through Him we are made righteous. You ignore one verse I cited that says in Ezekiel. 33:13: "Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die. " If you sin, as stated in the above verse, you lose righteousness.
@@justfromcatholic I did not ignore Ezekiel 33:13, nor was I stating that grace was not the impetuous for faith. I was stating that righteousness is dependent on faith. In relation to Ezekiel 33:13, it points to one considering themselves righteous and yet living unrepentantly. Jesus pointed this out with the Pharisees and teachers of the law, who would have considered themselves righteous but yet devoured widows homes and placed burdens too great to carry without lifting a finger. In the whole passage of Ezekiel 33:10-19 can be summed up in the words of Psalm 51:17 "the sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." All those broken of their sin and turn to Jesus, his righteousness is imparted on them and God remembers their sin no more.
To your point, there are many warnings to falling away and continuing in sin. However, to say ,"if you sin, you lose your righteousnes" implies trusting in one's own ability to do what's right, but then you have to wrestle with "my ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts, my righteousness is but rags before your eyes." Isaiah 55:8-9 You also have to wrestle with King David when he committed grave sin and that despite this, he was considered a man after God's own heart. In the case of David, he repented, but his repentance came from believing God and subsequently turning to obey God, which points to the necessity of faith to drive the acts of righteousness which were bestowed upon him by Christ's work on the cross.
@@drewp1989 Can you show me one verse that says righteousness depends on faith? Eze. 33:13 says that any righteous person who commits iniquity will die (= hell). You wrote "However, to say ,"if you sin, you lose your righteousnes" implies trusting in one's own ability to do what's right". We do NOT rely on our own ability to do what is right - it is only by grace we are able to do what is right that makes us righteous as it is written in 1 John 3:7. Eze. 33:13 has nothing to do with Psa. 51:17. Ezekiel. 18:20 denies double imputation taught by the Reformers when it says “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
Eze. 33:14-16 says (emphasis in capital is mine): Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet IF HE TURNS FROM HIS SIN AND DOES WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, HE SHALL SURELY LIVE; HE SHALL NOT DIE. NONE OF THE SINS THAT HE HAS COMMITTED SHALL BE REMEMBERED AGAINST HIM. HE HAS DONE WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT; HE SHALL SURELY LIVE." From the above verses we know when a wicked person turns from sin (repents) AND does what is just and right he would be back to life and all his past wickedness will be forgotten. Doing what is just and right AFTER repentance is known as temporal punishment in Catholic teaching - it is scriptural support of penance. King David sinned and he repented and his punishment was the death of baby from his adultery.