I agree that infallibility is not required to recognize infallibility any more than one must be a dog to recognize dogs. However, you can't have it both ways. Either we are certain of the canon, in which case there was some kind of infallible discernment of canon at some point, or else there is absolutely no instance of infallible discernment, in which case that exactly means there is a real possibility that we could have gotten the canon wrong.
@@GinaFisher-w3r The Bible pretty clearly states the word of God is the final authority, which the Bible is one medium the word of God comes to us. God is the final authority, and the Bible is direct revelation from God. It's not that difficult. Also, Protestants don't believe the Bible is the ONLY authority, just the highest authority because it is verifiably direct revelation from God and therefore infallible. The Canon is not fallible, the list of the canon is fallible. How ever many books God ordained to be written is the canon and it is not fallible. We, who are fallible, do not know for certain how many books there are and do the best we can by comparing books that are in dispute to books that are not. That list is fallible. Protestants do not include the apocrypha for the same reasons Jerome did not. Their authorship is murky, they were written after the time the Jews believed revelation had ceased, and they contain content that potentially contradicts clear revelation. Maccabees is historical, but not considered inspired. Largely because the Jews considered anything from that time period not inspired. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There are a lot of Protestants who don't apply Daniel 11 to the Maccabean time. In fact, most of the original reformers didn't, they applied it to Rome.
@@GeraldHunt-i5q Gavin loves his straw man arguments. The more I hear Gavin talk about EO, the more I know he has no clue about EO. I was protestant and became EO. From an EO we consider RC anathema and Protestants Heterodox. We know what the Church is and its up to God to decide who is in the Church outside of the Orthodox Catholic Church. As EO we also only recognise the Septugaint and not the corrupted Masoretic by Christ hating Jews.
Here’s a something for you to consider. Other than the book of Revelation, a warning for accuracy in writing and dissemination was never commanded in the gospels nor the epistles. As such that some of the gospels we have today contain verses that are maliciously and erroneously added to the original manuscripts. Some also have mistranslations deliberate or otherwise by numerous translators from the time of the masorites up to now. What you need to understand is that the word of God in these scriptures are the only infallible material. Not everything in the Bible, scriptures, gospels, epistles is the word of God hence to think they are infallible would be deceiving to one’s faith. Once you come into knowledge of the word of God in all of these written materials, you will easily be able discern the spirit in everything that is written whether they be within the scriptures, gospels, epistles or from out. It won’t matter whether they are in the Bible, OT nor NT nor apocrypha nor whatever translation. It won’t matter if it’s the didache, the letters of whomever church father. It won’t matter even if it is Paul’s epistles. The word of God in all these written materials will always be in congruity and for those who know it, the understanding of all truth is not limited by what’s included in any compilation of them. Bible or Not. If nothing else, take Christ’s words in the written gospels and worry about nothing else. You’d do well to only focus on them for they are the foundation from which the apostles and disciples built (see 1 Corinthians 3:10 to 11 for help in understanding this)
@@GeraldHunt-i5q most fundamentally, the RC/EO view is that Bible exists in the context of the Church instead of the Protestant view that churches exist in the context of the Bible. This means that interpretations of Scripture are done in light of Tradition, not according to individual interpretation. Therefore, this entire video is a whataboutism/ strawman of the RC/EO perspective for an issue that ONLY applies to the Protestant epistemology.
You express yourself so eloquently and convey your thoughts in such an inspiring and delightful manner. As a young Christian, I truly admire you, especially for being openly Christian on social media and enduring so much criticism. I understand the plight. Keep going, brother. God is working through you to bring more people to Him. We're all cheering you on. Thank you for continuing to put yourself out there despite the intense backlash.
@@raphaelfeneje486are you all there perchance? Churches lead and inspired by Martin Luther and Calvin are all Protestant, including the Baptist church.
It is my understanding that, even to this day, no mechanism of infallibility within Eastern Orthodoxy has ever defined the cannon of scripture. At least the Catholics can appeal to Trent. But when Orthodox borrow the Catholic argument of needing an infallible act of an infallible church, it falls flat when that church has never acted infallibly on this matter. Even more strange, I find, is when Catholics and Orthodox will team up on Protestants about the cannon even though the two of them have a different old testament cannon between them.
@@JohnQTaxpayer. no, that’s wrong. Carthage approved the Hippo list and Carthage named the books. Trullo approved Carthage without naming the books. The 7th ecumenical council approved Trullo without naming the books. So you don’t know what you’re talking about.
@@zalmoxis3707 The Orthodox Study Bible admits that they have never officially committed itself to a single text and list of Old Testament books, and not just that, but Russian Orthodox affirm and approve a Protestant notion of the canon (St. Philaret of Moscow). Hippo never included Maccabees 3 either.
I know this is one of the number one things Protestants struggle with and hear constantly whenever they interact with RC/EO online. Thank you Gavin and well done!
Gavin, your work is extremely worthwhile. What you present to us is extraordinarily well researched and well explained/argued--and so understandable. Your graciousness to those with whom you disagree is very winsome and adds to your authenticity. And your pastoral heart for your listeners makes it so much more live-giving. Thank you for all you do and for helping me to have greater confidence in the Protestant tradition.
Wonderfully put! I found the logical case combined with the historical case entirely convincing. As much as my fellow commenters might dislike the thought, I find the idea of a "Faillible list of infallible scriptures" entirely reasonable. Thank you!
I’m just now getting to watch this video and wanted to comment this before I get any further. I appreciate that you quoted our position as articulated by Vatican I. I see people far too often say that the Catholic Church believes she gave authority to the Bible - when really, that’s not what the Church teaches at all.
Thanks Gavin. As a Catholic, I do appreciate your videos and your charity. I think the main reason I was drawn to Catholicism after having been a protestant for so long is that when I read the church fathers I come away with an overwhelming sense that they truly believed in the real presence at the Eucharist and That they believed water baptism was necessary for salvation. This seemed to be the case all the way up to the reformation. Even reading the imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis in the 1420’s you come away with just how much the church cherished the Eucharist. The body of Christ in the Eucharist was for the unity in the body of Christ. Are participation in the body of Christ was our participation in the body of Christ. Our communion with the body of Christ was also our communion with the members of Christ. That all changed at the reformation. The second thing that troubles me is that Martin Luther was so ready to get rid of the book of James, Hebrews, Jude, and revelation, since he didn’t think they were as inspired as the rest of the books. He did include them as an 2nd Tier Cannon. Also adding the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 in his German translation to bolster his argument. That somewhat troubles me that the main protestant reformer is adding and subtracting from the established word of God. Again, thank you for constant charity, even in the midst of sometimes less than Christian comments.
I have a question for you: Can somebody be saved in their last moments on their death bed if they come to Jesus and accept him and repent? Even if they weren't baptized?
@@WrenPadget yea I agree. The OP said they chose Catholicism because they belive baptism being required for salvation but catholics don't actually belive that and it isn't required for salvation. For the record I think all Christians should be baptized I just recognize that someone can be saved even if they are not.
Taya, I'd just like to comment: I see a great majority of Catholics say that "after reading the church fathers"... Don't you find that a little curious? Reading the church fathers on the same level as the Bible?
The ultimate criteria for identifying books of divinely inspired Scripture is antiquity and general acceptance and liturgical use in all the churches. What Sproul maintained is that the unanimous judgement of the whole Church is never infallible, even if the all the churches rest and acquiesce in the judgement over a long period. In this he is contrary to Augustine's dictum "securus judicat orbis terrarum". If God was guiding the Church in recognising which books are of divine authorship, then the Church is by the gift of God infallible in that recognition.
“If God was guiding the Church in recognizing which books are of divine authorship, then the Church is by the gift of God infallible in that recognition.” I believe this statement makes a logical error. God’s guidance in this way can make the Church’s recognition inerrant, but that doesn’t necessarily make it infallible. To my mind, for something to truly be infallible, it must be revelation, and making that claim is very serious business indeed.
@@arkel_77The Holy Spirit is able to preserve the Church from error by guaranteeing that it will never unanimously agree in one. In this He does something preservative, something other than revelation.
I'm glad you made this video. The canon of scripture has been a difficult topic for me to handle as a protestant seeking historical roots of the Christian faith. I even hesitate to call myself a protestant considering I don't have anything against my Christian brethren in other traditions. But if I'm honest with myself I am kind of "protesting" because my conscience cant accept all the Marian dogmas, papal authority, purgatory, indulgences or venerating icons. I have been to a Catholic mass as well as Orthodox liturgy and while I do appreciate the reverence and beauty that is lacking in my local church if the priest or congregation told me to bow to/kiss an icon or pray towards a statue of Mary my conscience wouldn't allow it. Maybe my faith is weak or I'm just too stupid to understand the intricacies of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies despite listening to dozens of hours of debates and hours of reading theology books. Your final statement regarding a lack of an infallible authority outside of scripture doesn't mean we cant have confidence to live the Christian life is good enough for me for now.
You are absolutely not stupid sir. I too have spent the past couple months searching and studying church history. While I have decided to remain Protestant for now - for many of the valid reasons and concerns that you have stated- I am certainly becoming a more Classical Protestant. Which version however I cannot say. Nevertheless dear brother, let us fix our thoughts on Christ, the author and finisher of the faith delivered once and for all to the saints. God bless and much love!
I get what you mean there about not having anything against our RC and EO fellows but I think you well illustrate why we are in fact Protestant. Those other traditions bind the consciences of the faithful to bow to icons and to worship Mary. Apart form some, frankly, either highly disconnected or perhaps deceptive people today who try to act like these are not actually issues, any honest Catholic from the past, for example, would tell you that you will go to hell for failing to affirm the Marian dogmas. This is ample reason to "protest".
Thankful for your content Gavin 🤘 I would never be opposed to more content on the canon, I feel like it is a common area that people may consciously or subconsciously disregard a religion.
I'm sorry, but if you think that Gavin has solved all the problems with the Protestant epistemological approach to the canon, then you haven't looked very deeply into the issue. I invite you to listen carefully to what competent Catholics say about these issues, because you will find that Gavin misses the target here - no knowledgeable Catholic takes the view that we need an infallible declaration to know what the canonical boundaries of Scripture are.
Everything Ortlund does is special pleading. He rejects Catholicism because it's not "infallible" in a literalist and fundamentalist sense, yet he embraces Scripture as infallible, even though, as evidenced by his rejection of YEC, he doesn't consider Scripture to be infallible in the literalist and fundamentalist sense. So, what you basically have is a Protestant Apologist playing irrelevant word games with "infallibility" for the sake of maintaining division
My biggest problem with Protestant Christianity is I can’t find it in the church fathers. So then the Protestant will say well we are in the Bible our chruch is from the books of Acts at Pentecost. Ok great that logically follows that if your Church started in 33 ad that i can read its members in 100-1000 but if i do they all contradict you. So it seems like a vicious circle. I’m not overly sectarian I’m open to any logical explanation on how Protestant Christianity is NOT a man made invention that is not found in the early church. Real question. I have never had any Protestant actually answer my objection
Hi Gavin, when you say the Holy Spirit gives existential certainty about the canon, or any theological issue, how is that different than the Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture and that we can know because of a burning in our hearts?
Thank you so so much! I have been wrestling with this question for some time and you have cleared muddy waters generously and excellently! God Bless you🙏
Gosh, I miss R. C. Sproul. Thanks for expounding on his statement. We need the next generation of theologians that will carry the legacy of accessible teaching like Sproul.
Thanks for your content. As a Christian, I have faith that the Holy Spirit intervened and preserved the New Testament writings, in spite of our imperfections. I, personally, don't much care about the the controversy on Old Testament canon, for we are now responsible to be faithful to the New Covenant scripture, on which there has been little controversy since antiquity. ❤✝️♥️
Haha was literally reading about this argument in your new book this morning. Whether publicly or privately I'd love to discuss with you an Orthodox perspective to the protestant canon conundrum. Much love Dr.Gavin! ☦️
I think Gavin should talk about it if you discuss as well with him your conundrum with your canon or I would argue multiple canons. Your epistemic uncertainty is at a higher wave length than protestants because you need to then access not only the bible, but history books to derive a reasonable fallible private judgment to assert what you think is infallible. You have as much of a burden for proof for your epistemic claims than protestants.
Well reasoned thoughts accompanied by references into research. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and journey of understanding. God has used old clay pots throughout history, and indeed deserves more thanks and glory than we can even imagine. Thanks be to the Lord Jesus.
Disillusioned, Joshua Schooping - Chapter 9, pg. 180 In other words, if there are reasons which show that the Scriptures are intrinsically authoritative, then those same reasons ought to induce us to agree that they are intrinsically authoritative. The Church's authority is thus shown to be extraneous in settling the matter. But if those arguments themselves depend upon the authority of the Church, then the authority of the Scriptures, i.e. their canonical status, is consequently shown to be dependent upon the Church's logically prior authority. This means the Church has elevated itself above God's Word in order to render Scripture authoritative, and not in a way based on rational considerations but on ecclesiological authority. For if there were arguments that would induce the canon to be known to the Church, then those same arguments ought to enable anyone to concur on the strength of those arguments, not bare authority, thus showing that the Church lends no formal authority to the authenticity of the canon. But since the Word of God is by its very nature the self-attesting precondition of certain knowledge, as an inbreaking of the infinite mind and will of God, it does not depend upon any arguments from some other authority. Therefore, the Church itself must submit to the self-evidently authoritative nature of the Scriptures as the Word of God, otherwise they make god's Word dependent upon the testimony and word of the Church, which in doing the Church takes authority over God's Word and so makes the Creator's authority subservient to the creature's, which is absurd and blasphemous. Tragically, the Eastern Orthodox Presuppositionalist position, in asserting their hyper-ecclesiology, functionally denies the self-attesting and authoritative nature and status of God's Word.
@@Noah-1999 Pastor Schooping is a great resource on these things. I also recommend a gentleman whose channel is named “Faith of our Fathers” he has an interesting video on leaving Orthodoxy.
And you deny the Pentecost and the Word of God where it says the church is the ground and pillar of truth. This is evident by the hundreds of Protestant sects.
Hey Gavin, I asked you on Twitter a question that you said this video would answer, but I am not sure this video hit the target to my question, which is fine because you were focusing on different questions. I agree with much of this video as a Catholic and I think that, unfortunately, many Catholics have set themselves up for failure by using the arguments that you responded to. In other words, I don't think the question to ask is: How can we have a fallible list of infallible books? I totally agree: the Church had a fallible list until Trent anyway. I think two problems remain that were not addressed: 1) It is not about whether we have a fallible list of infallible books. The question is: Is the canon revealed by God? If so, it is certainly not revealed in Scripture itself. It is revealed in tradition, which is problematic for the Protestant position. And 2), the fact that the Church didn't try to define an infallible list, while many manuscripts through the ages were missing Hebrews and some included the fake letter to the Laodicaeans, weakens the Protestant position (although I admit it does not disprove it wholly)... because it shows the Church is able to operate indefectibly for a long time without even using a valid canon universally. Regardless, I will try to make a response video and I hope you can give it a look when you can.
thanks for the reply! to respond briefly: (1), no, not directly and as such; (2) I don't see how this weakens the Protestant position. I do look forward to your video -- God bless
An answer to #1 1. Historic Protestants don't have a problem trusting and relying on tradition. So I grant the Canon is revealed in tradition by God, just like God's infallible meaning of every belief and practice is revealed in every scripture text. With that said, you still have not solved the problem of infinite regress if infallibility is needed, because now you need infallible knowledge of discerning the competing traditions. We can trust God's providential guiding if His church without requiring infallible knowledge. As a matter of fact, it is the essence of Christianty to live by faith, not infallible certainty.
"Is the canon revealed by God?" - Jesus is confident the Jews were given Scripture and nobody (RCC, EO, Magisterial) disagrees with the NT canon. So job done. The only issue is whether you believe a person who could read Hebrew (Jerome) or someone who couldn't (Augustine) over the Apocrypha.
@rickydettmer2003 No, they don't. You, as a human, not under divine inspiration, can never get to the point of infallible certainty on anything. You will always have to use your private fallible judgment, even to decide who is infallible. It is no wonder it is called the Christian "Faith", and we are called to walk by faith, not infallible certainty.
I think part of the issue people have with Sproul's statement is the tendency to confuse the categories of "infallible" and "inerrant." Sproul's point was not that the canon of Scripture is in doubt, or that anyone thinks it is in error. He was simply pointing out that having confidence in the canon of Scripture does not require us to assign infallibility to the Church. One does not need to be incapable of error in order to be without error in their judgments. Fallibility does not imply necessary error. Someone might object however: "but fallibility means that we MIGHT be in error." Well, yes. But three points stand out: 1) This is the reality we live with day by day in every aspect of our lives, and we do not require infallibility of ourselves to operate and function in life with confidence. 2) There is a reason that the Bible commends multiple counselors in decision making. The wisdom of many is better than the wisdom of an individual who may have blind spots. In the example of the canon, there were debates over certain books, but we believe that the truth won out. 3) God's providential guidance of his people to recognize his truth does not require him to instill said people with the quality of infallibility. In other words, to say "it is within the realm of possibility that as fallible human beings we might be wrong about X," is not the same thing as saying "there is any good reason to believe that we actually are wrong about X."
I agree with you. But I do feel like some types will simply not make any allowance for the idea that "It is within the realm of possibility that we could be wrong." I feel as if people that take that stance are setting themselves up for a great fall into skeptical agnosticism.
How good was God’s guidance if we cannot be sure whether the books in our Bibles are actually God’s Word? I don’t see how Sola scriptura can make any sense if there is real doubt about the canon. Sola scriptura implies that the scriptures are a secure source. It implies that the canon selection process was guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. Technically, this does not necessitate a doctrinally infallible Church, so I can give protestants that, but it definitely does point towards it.
@@trismegistus2881 If by "sure," you mean absolute certainly, without possibility of error, then no individual person possesses such certainty, regardless of if they appeal to an infallible institution. Let me see if I can explain: An institution's claim to infallibility cannot offer me as an individual any additional certainty on this question. Here's why: There are multiple institutions claiming to be instilled with the blessing of infallibility by God. Their infallible pronouncements disagree with one another. If I, as an individual, want to gain confidence on certain questions by means of appealing to the infallibility of a specific institution, then I must decide which "infallible" institution is, in fact, infallible. I cannot gain confidence from an institution's claim to infallibility if there are contradictory claims of infallibility still on the table. So I must choose who to believe. How will I do this? Typically, the means proposed are study, prayer, and weighing the various arguments proposed by each institution. Once I've done this to a degree that I feel like all has been heard, I make my decision. Maybe I choose Catholicism. Maybe Orthodoxy. Maybe Mormonism. Or some other "infallible" institution. Now I have confidence, right? Well, not any more than I did before. Why? Because, from the very beginning, I was seeking confidence from these institutional claims to infallibility because I recognized that I, as an individual was not infallible. But how did I choose among these institutional claims to infallibility? Was it not my own fallible judgment? Maybe I'd be willing to say "but I believe God guided me to the correct choice." Fair enough, but then I have admitted into the realm of possibility the idea that God can guide fallible people to make correct decisions without instilling them with the quality of infallibility. And if God could do this for my fallible recognition of an infallible institution, why couldn't he have done this for a fallible church's recognition of an infallible Bible?
Fallibility implies capability of error, which means you cannot know for certain which books there are. Calling a category of books "infallible" without infallibly defining what those books are means that you could be ascribing to God words that are not his, or ascribing to man the words of God. In the case in which you rely on scripture alone as the only infallible source of your knowledge, a vaguely-defined potentially correct canon is simply not acceptable. It would imply that God is capable of speaking, but is unwilling or incapable of telling you what he spoke, leaving you to blindly attempt to assign things that agree with your preconceived notions of what God *would* say as the speech of God, leaving you extremely open to unintentional blasphemy. Such a thing goes against the idea that God is Good, which we know He is. Q.E.D, if the canon of Scripture cannot be infallibly defined, then God is not good. God is good. Therefore, there must be a method of infallibly defining the canon of Scripture. Since an effect cannot be greater than its cause, a fallible man cannot infallibly define anything. Therefore, it requires a Spirit-led, infallible act to define the canon of Scripture. This would disprove the notion that Scripture alone is the only infallible source of your knowledge.
@@gardyloogubbins this, very much. Ecclesial infallibility is an epistemic quagmire. You have to assume infallibility in order to assume infallibility 🤓
Gavin this has been an issue really heavy on my heart. I am a Protestant discerning Catholicism and orthodoxy and watch a lot of your videos. What I struggle with is that I think the Catholic and Orthodox paradigm are better suited to answer the cannon question because since they believe the church is also infallible they didn’t need to have a closed cannon because they can really on tradition. And just because you have an infallible means to decide something that does not mean that you should not think logically when making that decision. The fact that the Old Testament canon history is messy is what burdens me because the Old Testament canon was disputed all the way to the reformation and although there were some orthodox and Catholic theologians that held to the Protestant canon it was the minority view. That means when Protestants picked the canon it was the minority historical view, all the apostolic churches disagree, and we don’t have a magisterium or ability to gather together infallibly to decide the canon. And I think this matters more to Protestants because we rely on sola scriptura and for that to work we must also use tota scriptura to determine doctrine so if something like 2 Maccabees is scripture it changes everything. if we have a fallible list that goes against the majority view of believers, don’t have an infallible means to discern it with, and are more reliant on it then it seems like a less equipped paradigm. Please respond to this because I respect you a lot and this is really heavy on my heart
If Gavin is correct, then every tradition for the canon is fallible. This would include Catholicism and EO. And so Protestants also rely on fallible tradition, they just think their tradition has the evidence in its favor. So I dont see how either Rome of the EO have a better paradigm if they are no more infallible than Protestants are.
@@christianfontenot9435 I know I'm not Gavin, but I'll try to offer my thoughts on this conundrum. I personally can't see how an institution's claim to infallibility offers me as an individual any comfort on this question. Here's why: There are multiple institutions claiming to be instilled with the blessing of infallibility by God. Their infallible pronouncements disagree with one another. If I, as an individual, want to gain confidence on certain questions by means of appealing to the infallibility of a specific institution, then I must decide which "infallible" institution is, in fact, infallible. I cannot gain confidence from an institution's claim to infallibility if there are contradictory claims of infallibility still on the table. So I must choose who to believe. How will I do this? Typically, the means proposed are study, prayer, and weighing the various arguments proposed by each institution. Once I've done this to a degree that I feel like all has been heard, I make my decision. Maybe I choose Catholicism. Maybe Orthodoxy. Maybe Mormonism. Or some other "infallible" institution. Now I have confidence, right? Well, not any more than I did before. Why? Because, from the very beginning, I was seeking confidence from these institutional claims to infallibility because I recognized that I, as an individual was not infallible. But how did I choose among these institutional claims to infallibility? Was it not my own fallible judgment? Maybe I'd be willing to say "but I believe God guided me to the correct choice." Fair enough, but then I have admitted into the realm of possibility the idea that God can guide fallible people to make correct decisions without instilling them with the quality of infallibility. And if God could do this for my fallible recognition of an infallible institution, why couldn't he have done this for a fallible church's recognition of an infallible Bible?
@@gardyloogubbins everyone has to agree that you have to use fallible reasoning to discern things that are infallible. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that their paradigms are better suited to answer the question of the canon. My biggest hold up is if the Old Testament canon for Protestants wasn’t closed until the reformation that is troublesome because the 7 ecumenical councils already happened by then and things like the intercession of saints, icon veneration, episcopal church governance, baptismal regeneration, and etc were all dogmatic, practiced and accepted long before the Old Testament canon is closed. All the Catholic and orthodox scholars that we use to try to defend the Protestant canon all believed in these things so how can we use their tradition for the canon which is disputed and not for all these other traditions that were more widely accepted. That’s why I’m saying their paradigms are more equipped because they don’t even have to have a closed canon to determine doctrine where as we as Protestants do and the way they pick the canon is more historically consistent and defensible. This is the essence of my problem
@@christianfontenot9435 As one of those rare protestants that hold to a larger canon, here's my response: I think the idea that ecclesialists' paradigm (i.e. infallible church authority) is better suited to answer the question of canon is moot when one realizes that 1) Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics actually disagree on what is in the canon (in other words, how can a "better suited" mechanism still come up with different understandings of that canon?) and 2) Eastern Orthodox still actually do not have a defined canon (and neither did RC prior to Trent, as Gavin explains in the video). So despite the supposedly high concept of having a better mechanism, the actual reality has not born said fruit. As Protestants, we don't need to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". We don't need to see the acceptance of the marian dogmas as an a priori road to hell for all Catholics, simply BECAUSE we don't see those councils as infallible. Instead, we understand that mistakes could be made through history (or as Gavin puts it, accretions), but can also hold to the understanding that it is by grace we are saved through faith. Thus we can believe, of course, that Catholics and EO believers can still be in the church despite those mistakes, just as I believe that most protestants around me are still in the church despite holding to a smaller canon.
@@christianfontenot9435 We have a situation, looking at history, of disagreement within the body concerning whether the additional books should be accorded the same weight as all the others. Along comes Luther who has the same concern, and when he translated the books of the Bible into German language he did not bother to translate the additional books. Meanwhile in England, the same concern existed about the additional books (whether they should be accorded the same weight), but the English nonetheless included the additional books in the printed copies of the KJV, and they continued to be read, but the English clergy taught folks that the additional books were read "as Jerome hath said, for example of life and instruction of manners" and not to establish any additional doctrine. So in both mainland Europe and in the British isles, the teaching of the Protestant Christians was fully consistent with the long-standing view of many within the church: since there has always been some doubt and disagreement as to whether the additional books carry the same weight of divine inspiration as all the others, let's be cautious with them. Eventually (in the 1800s, I believe) the publisher of the KJV ceased inclusion of the additional books in their bindings. This fact has certainly affected the outlook of the "low-church" Protestant denominations the most. The Anglicans (and perhaps the Lutherans and Presbyterians as well, I'm not sure) still include some of the additional books in their lectionaries. But in recent years it has been stated that the additional books contain errors of historical fact and/or errors pertaining to Christian doctrine; if these statements are true (I have not studied the issue much), this evidence would tend to confirm the correctness in the cautious attitude that those Christians showed throughout the history of the church toward the additional books. Frankly, I view this difference of opinion as a 'tempest in a teapot' since the additional books really don't establish any extra doctrine. The closest one could come to 'finding an extra doctrine' would be the claim that 2 Maccabees 12 supports a belief in Purgatory. But all we have in that book is a record that a certain military commander and his fighters _held out hope_ that prayers for their fallen comrades might be effectual toward their denouement in the afterlife. We don't normally build a doctrine upon such flimsy evidence; the Bible often records (accurately and infallibly) what some person said or did, but the fact that the person said it or did it does not necessarily prove that the person spoke or acted correctly. We have no evidence that the commander was acting on the basis of any sound, established doctrine being taught at the time, nor do we have supportive documents showing that either the Israelites or the Apostolic church evinced a belief in Purgatory.
Because this isn’t the own you think it is. It’s just further delineates the arbitrary nature of the Protestant position broadly speaking. At least EO and RC can articulate 2,000 years of history more deeply and in a nuanced fashion. Hence the 3-4hr videos on the topics. You Protestants love your short, snappy answers. Makes you feel good to have the certainty and that pride of “knowing”. But that’s not how true knowledge works. Because true knowledge requires wisdom and discernment, which requires longer exposition and a thorough epistemology. Because Truth is a Person Who cannot be distilled into or contained within a book. His Body, the Church, is the LIVING organism of Christ in the world. To cut yourself off from the Church is to have “a form of godliness but deny its power”.
@@aaronwolf4211 What about anything discussed in the video would you consider an "own?" Gavin was giving a defense against a very common "own" thrown about by Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The entire video is an elaboration of the historical view of the canonicity scripture from a protestant perspective. No one was trying to "own" anyone. If you feel as though Gavin is trying to "own" you by giving a defense against a common argument, that seems like an issue that may require some self-reflection.
So grateful for the end explanation regarding the need for the Holy Spirit's testimony in our hearts. I have had conversations where others try to convince me to leave my protestant church because it is not part of "the one true church". But why should I leave the place where the Holy Spirit is moving? God changed my heart through the biblical preaching of my Pastor and elders. God did the same for my family and friends, and this was done in ways that cannot be explained apart from being miraculous. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is still at work as daily I am called to put off sin and give everything over to the Lordship of Christ. Thank you for the explanation Gavin.
The thing is, people of all different denominations will make this same claim about how the Spirit working within them led them into the church they are in. How do you explain that? Are you the only one who is right, and all others are wrong? I seriously would like to hear your answer on this.
@@jzak5723 I'll provide a summary answer, but really TH-cam comments are not the right place. I would recommend finding a good, bible-believing church who's members are serious about holy living and speak with the elders and members there for a more complete answer. Also, please note that no protestant church that I am aware of makes the claim that they are right and all others wrong, but I understand your question. As to your question, there are many factors at play so I can only do so much. First, there are false churches that do not seek to be bound by Holy Scripture. Protestantism is an umbrella term, not an institution. We live in a free country, so there is nothing stopping anyone from starting their own church and labeling it "Protestant". Second, there are differences that do not compromise the gospel itself, commonly called "adiaphora". Paul speaks to this in Ro 14:1-10. No one on earth has perfect understanding of God's revelation. In other words, everyone has some level of misunderstandings, so there will always be disagreements just as there are differences within the Catholic or Orthodox church. But the fundamental difference is authority. The biblical view of church authority is as a delegated authority and thereby fallible. Other examples are state and parents. Using the state as an example, there are differences in U.S. law from Canadian law. The Catholic-style might be "which is right"? where the biblical answer is to submit to the country you are a part of. (Ro 13:1-7). The same is true in the church. I am a member of my local church and so I submit to its leadership (Heb 13:17). As much as I appreciate Gavin, he's not my pastor but rather belongs to a different church.
God knows we are 2000 years away from his son's resurrection and does not expect his children to play the roulette wheel with their eternal soul because 10 bajillion denominations scream they are the one true church. check what they preach with scripture and trust in the finished work of Jesus. i simply cannot trust in the traditions on men on the basis of "because we said so!"
@@trashgobbler5000 But this is the issue, as I said before, if we just say to check what the Bible says, we get hundreds of different churches saying that they are right according to the Bible. The JW"s and the Mormons both claim they are right according to Scripture and can show you. Now, you may disagree with them, but they will also disagree with you too, even if you show them why you believe what you do. This is why there has to be a single church which teaches the truth, not everyone in every denomination checking the Bible on their own to see what what the truth is, because you can get hundreds, if not thousands of different interpretations. Jesus established one church and gave to it the Holy Spirit to guide and teach it, and this church is the Catholic Church, it can be no other if you are honest about it.
@@jzak5723 I can't trust them. Maccabees straight up contradicts scripture. It glorifies suicide when the soldier stabs himself (fails) and then throws himself off the fort walls (survives) and then he just starts ripping his own intestines out. They use flowery language and make it sound so noble. Meanwhile the Catholics teach suicide is the sin unto death... I really have a hard time believing the duetercanical books. They can't make up their minds.
The late Sproul explained what he meant with his statement "fallible collection of infallible books": We can perhaps illustrate the difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic positions by imagining that God gave us ten books, five of which were infallible and five of which were fallible, containing errors. Then He charged us to separate and identify the infallible books. If we were fallible, we might correctly select four of the five infallible books. However, we also might identify one of those fallible books as infallible. Our decisions, of course, would not change the nature of the books. The one infallible book we did not select would still be infallible, even though we failed to include it in our “canon”. Likewise, the fallible book we picked would not therefore be infallible. Our decisions would have no effect in this way because we are fallible. Sproul: Are We Together, page 22-23 Questions: 1. For sure "10" and "5" in what Sproul wrote are just illustration. But why would God give "ten" books of which five are infallible (inspired) and the rest are fallible and let us choose, without any guidance? 2. How do we know "ten" of which only "five" are infallible? Or how do we know there are X number of inspired books out of Y number of books given by God (Y > X)? 3. In the above explanation Sproul admitted that Protestant's "canon" could miss infallible book(s) and may contain "fallible" book(s). If the Holy Spirit is able to guide the writers of the books of the Bible, why can't He guide others to recognize infallibly which books are inspired? All criteria Dr. Ortlund proposed to "recognize" Scripture are not found in Scripture either. For example "orthodoxy": how do we define orthodoxy in the first place? Either (1) we pre-chose books as inspired and then define orthodoxy based on those pre-chosen books or (2) we pre-defined orthodoxy and then choose books that meet our pre-defined orthodoxy.
Thanks. Great job. We can also ask how the early fathers determined the authoritative books apart from any council telling them. How did Polycarp know what to quote in his letter to Philippians How did author of Didache know to quote the baptismal formula from Matthew, Clement is replete with quotes from Paul and gospels, Ignatius, Ireneaus,... et al. All lived before councils address the canon and represent the church's ear to discern the voice of the Shepherd. Respect.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Well, I dont think the other side would say scriptures had no influence on the early church I just dont believe they are taking note of the history that the fathers determined the authoritative books very early, without the aid of a council.
9:48 how can one appeal to orthodox doctrine as a criterion of canonicity when the scriptures are the locus where you're supposed to receive the orthodox doctrine from? in other words, the scriptures are claimed to be a source of doctrine, but then you have to appeal to some outside source of doctrine to vindicate the scriptures.
Starting with Mt 16 19 Mt 18:18 Lk 10:16 Lk 22:32 & the early fathers, Peter & the apostles were given the power to bind & loose implying infallibility. Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
@@geoffjsWith respect, it's a massive leap to get from "shall not prevail against it" to shall never teach an error. The word prevail has conotations of perseverance and long suffering, like winning the ultimate victory in a war rather than winning every skirmish along the way. One can be close to defeat and yet rally the troops to win the final victory.
The faith didn’t start with books. Jesus is the truth and the teaching of the apostles witness to that. Any books that aligned with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles would be orthodox teaching. And the Holy Spirit was and is still the Spirit of Truth guiding the church into all truth.
Certainly, there are many cases throughout history that exemplify this. The Joanine comma, the account of the adulterous woman, the endings of Mark's gospel, the Church of Rome has already rejected the book of Hebrews as non-canonical, etc.
The 73-book Gutenberg Bible followed the guidance of the Council of Ferrara-Florence. If it happens to be my family bible, should I be ripping bits out of it?
Being a former protestant myself, I would embrace you as a friend also Gavin despite the many disagreements we might have. God grant you many years ☦️🙏🏻
From an Orthodox perspective, the process Gavin describes is infallible, because infallibility belongs to the Church as a whole. The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth. This doesn't merely take the form of Ecumenical Councils, but also the writings of the Church Fathers, the liturgy, the lives of the Saints, etc. All of these are mechanisms of the the Holy Spirit's witness to the Church. Gavin seems to assume that infallibility works the same in Orthodoxy as it does in Catholicism.
Love this video. Thank you! “ My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me” John 10:27 God’s people have always been able to recognize His voice and can tell the difference between which books have His voice in them and which ones don’t. God made it so the creation of His people and the writing of His word are inextricably bound together, and I am so thankful for that.
Maybe I can weigh in. For the reasons given, I don't think the "fallible list of infallible books" is a problem for Protestants. Gavin made it clear in the video, though, that he has a high level of certainty that the Church did indeed correctly identify the canon. Where does this certainty come from? And if it comes from later Church tradition, how can a Protestants be so sure the Church got the canon right but got the perpetual virginity of Mary, the sacrifice of the mass, threefold episcopal polity, baptismal regeneration, etc wrong? (I know some Protestant accept some of those teachings. Just examples to show that I think one should be similarly certain that the Church did not err on those doctrines). God bless
I believe that the answer to your question goes back to the scriptures themselves, and the way they are interpreted. For instance, the Catholic Church sees some or most of its traditions as biblically defendable, and the Protestant church sees those traditions differently, based on its interpretation of the scriptures as well. I think it’s a matter of studying things from both a rational and ecclesial point of view, rather than a fully ecclesiastical perspective.
@@davidarreola1985 But you can't get a canon list from interpreting Scripture, as Dr. Ortlund mentioned in the video. That's why he argues that the canon list is fallible. That's all well and good, but if the canon list is known with a high level of certainty even though the source for it is an appeal to the Church's tradition without Scriptural support, it seems Protestants shouldn't balk when Catholics make similar appeals for controversial doctrines that Protestants reject.
thank you for this good and thoughtful comment! If it helps, I address this somewhat starting at 35:24 of my video "Why Mary’s Assumption Is Indefensible"
@@TruthUnites I appreciate your reply, Dr. Ortlund, and I'm glad to hear you thought my response was thoughtful. I can find the video. I'll take a look and consider your thoughts.
Excellent as always, Gavin. If I may add something, it's this: it is through Divine Providence that the fallible Church received the infallible Scriptures. Why would God inspire the books, and then not make sure through Providence that they be received by His Church? That wouldn't make sense, it seems. The Inspired Scriptures were always going to be received.
How did God give the church the infallible Scriptures in a way that didn't come down to them using their fallibility to decide on which books were inspired and which were not, which books were meant to be in the canon of the Bible? I agree with you, it was Divine Providence that gave us the correct canon of Scripture, but just admitting it doesn't solve the issue of HOW it came to be, which is really what is at stake. Do you believe that the Catholic church was the instrument that God used to do this, or did it happen in another way, and if so, how was it done?
RC Sproul's statement involves the fallacy of special pleading when he said 👇🏼 👉🏻“Each book that is found is the Bible is an infallible book. But the historical process undone by the church, was a historical process that was done by a church that is not infallible.”👈🏻 The special pleading fallacy occurs when someone applies principles or standards to others while exempting themselves or their own case without adequate justification. What’s the problem with RC Sprouls assertion: Sproul’s special pleading arises because it is inconsistent to claim that an infallible collection of texts was recognized by a fallible authority, without explaining how a fallible Church could have reliably determined an infallible canon.
@@clivejungle6999 1.) It is true that St. Peter made mistakes, as seen in Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul confronts Peter for acting inconsistently in how he related to Gentile Christians. However, Peter’s mistake was one of personal conduct, not a doctrinal error. a.) The Catholic Church acknowledges that popes and Church leaders are human and can sin or act imprudently in their personal lives. b.) Papal infallibility, as defined by Pastor Aeternus, does not mean that the pope is sinless or perfect in all his actions. c.) Infallibility applies specifically to official teachings on faith and morals when proclaimed ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter), not to personal behavior or opinions. d.) Peter’s error in Antioch did not constitute a doctrinal teaching, and his leadership as the first pope remained intact. 2.) Subordinationism, the belief that the Son is subordinate to the Father in the Trinity was never established as orthodox doctrine by the Church. a.) While certain early theologians struggled to articulate the relationship within the Trinity, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, ultimately rejected subordinationism as heretical at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. b.) This process reflects the Church’s growth in understanding and clarifying doctrines over time. c.) Doctrinal development does not mean that the Church held errors as official dogma but that the Church, through ecumenical councils and theological reflection, comes to a clearer expression of the truth. 3.) The Church teaches that it is protected from error when it defines doctrines of faith and morals under specific conditions (e.g., in an ecumenical council or through a papal ex cathedra statement). a.) This does not mean the Church never encounters challenges or controversies in the process of defining and clarifying teachings. b.) Throughout history, the Church has faced theological disputes and heresies, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit has preserved the core truths of the faith. c.) The Church’s infallibility in teaching does not eliminate the possibility of debate, struggle, or even errors in theological opinions prior to official definitions. It ensures that, in the end, the truth will be proclaimed. 4.) The fact that Church leaders, including popes, have made personal mistakes does not undermine the Church’s divine mission. a.) Christ promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against His Church (Matthew 16:18), indicating that despite human weakness, the Church will be protected from falling into doctrinal error. b.) The Church’s authority is not based on the perfection of its leaders but on Christ’s assurance that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13).
This was very helpful thank you Gavin, I’ve struggled as a member of a restoration church . It’s so difficult to discuss this among other members of my church it seems like a forbidden subject almost like your questioning the doctrine of your church . Thank you 🙏. Can you recommend any good reading resources on the canon .
All these problems of illogic can be done away with if the claim of infallibility is dropped and the reality of fallibility in all human endeavors, even those claimed to be divinely inspired, is recognized. You also wouldn't have to misrepresent the history and origin of the texts to support an unsupportable claim.
Catholic authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the inerrant books which the CC codified as the bible in 382AD which was infallibly proclaimed in 1546 at Trent.
Thinking that the Scriptures are inerrant in the first place is an irrational dead end. It is much more reasonable to say, along the lines of Dei Verbum, that in our listening to the Scriptures through the Spirit, we may discern the truth that God has placed in them and in us for the sake of our salvation- that is, Jesus Christ.
It baffles me how many Catholics think Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were ecumenical councils. As you said, it is just a matter of fact canonization did not happen in the way internet polemics argue it did.
That's not the argument though, the canon wasn't authoritative until the council of Florence which also explains why the EO have an extended one, but even that is 100 years before the reformation.
The argument is that the church needs the magisterium to tell them with confidence what books are in and which are out. The response is that this was not the attitude of the early church and that the DC books being placed in a secondary status with varying liturgical uses was normal and accepted. You're right that Florence was the first time it showed up in an ecumenical council, tough still not as authoritative in the same way it was at Trent (according to Catholic theologians, not my opinion) The argument isn't being misrepresented by Gavin. This is the debate actual scholars and theologians are discussing. And I have encountered many people who think Rome, Hippo, and Carthage are authoritative, or mistake them for ecumenical councils. That’s what my comment was about, the misunderstanding of the argument at the popular level. PS: I'm sorry if this comes off as rude. Typing is hard, I don't mean any disrespect
@@AB-dw2op Florence is obviously authoritative (as the previous councils were even if not ecumenical), the fact it wasn't declared dogmatically until Trent doesn't mean you can freely desagree with it as a catholic. You have no idea how the magisterium works, so don't try to pretend you can debate this. And I, as catholic, never knew or saw a catholic claiming these (Rome, Hippo and Carthage) were ecumenical councils. Either way they're more authoritative than random guy (who wasn't even a bishop) by himself saying what books we should accept as cannonical or not.
@@ghostapostle7225 You're arguing with a point I never made. I am very aware of how the magisterium works because I actually read scholarship, I don't need to pretend because I am formally trained. I am glad you weren't as misinformed as some others!
@@AB-dw2op But this goes back to the anachronism of demanding dogmas to be defined within the first 4 centuries. We could have lived to this day with a similar form of innocuous ambiguity about the boundaries of the deuterocanon, but we can't do that anymore because sola scriptura came about in the 16th century, so _now_ you need a definition of what actually pertains to the canon or not. About Hippo and Carthage, I see people going back and forth over calling them councils or synods but that's about it, it's plausible to say they may not understand what constitutes an ecumenical council but that would be mind reading. Not that it matters, since both of them were ratified by the pope so to argue their authority is a non starter.
Bruce Metzger on the Canon: Neither individuals nor councils created the canon; instead they came to recognize and acknowledge the self-authenticating quality of these writings, which imposed themselves as canonical upon the church. The New Testament, Its Background, Growth and Content, Abington Press, 2003, p. 318.
@@justfromcatholic did you watch the video? If I were you, I’d watch the video again or read the source from Bruce Metzger, I dropped in the comments. But just as a quick teaser, there’s several rules and one of them would be no internal contradictions, and a consistent intertextuality, especially as a refers to old testament prophecy and New Testament/historical fulfillment.
@@ryanparris1021 I did watch and Dr. Ortlund did not mention the name Bruce Metzger. I am fully aware that Dr. Metzger was well-known scholar. I have two of his books: "The Canon of the New Testament" and "The Text of the New Testament". You wrote "there are several rules and one of them would be no internal contradiction". Where and how did you get those rules? "No internal contradiction": Well, who bought the tomb from the sons of Hamor in Shechem? It is Abraham (Acts 7:16) or Jacob (Jos. 24:32)?
Brilliant! The concept of Catholic infallibility is indistinguishable from fallibility. I once heard Akin explaining the criteria for distinguishing infallible teachings from fallible ones within the Magisterium. It was revealing, he said things like "if the document says 'define' then it is *LIKELY* to be infallible"... so they have a fallible method to identify infallible teachings
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Tú me persigues. Ya te he refutado mil veces y siempre vienea por otra paliza más. Incluso, en nuestra última interacción tuviste qué mentir para salvar tu punto.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj No es error de categoría pues nunca dije que la ICAR es falible porque no tenemos método infalible. Otra más de tus m33ntiras. Lo que dije, es que para nosotros es indistinguible su infalibilidad de la falibilidad porque aunque fuesen infalibles, nunca podríamos estar seguros si lo que derivamos del método es verdaderamente infalible o no
Añade el aggiornamento a las variables y entonces las declaraciones infalibles se vuelven un mal chiste porque aquéllo que se dijo de X en Florencia, sucede que podía significar prácticamente lo opuesto en Vaticano II.
So the answer is tradition? By the time a common canon was recorded in history we also have prayers to Mary and the saints as well as the Eucharist (among other things) Catholics still do all these practices and so feel comfortable standing on both tradition and infallibility. Orthobros stand on tradition and also don't have the same understanding of canon. The problem with protestants is that they rejected tradition and using it for ONLY this issue is very inconsistent.
How does receiving the infallible not require infallibility? If we are fallible then we could be mistaken in discerning something as infallible when it is actually not. For example, the goldsmith analogy makes no sense. He says the goldsmith can distinguish gold from other metals while not making it. The church can distinguish infallibility without coming up with the infallible scriptures themselves. This doesn’t mean the goldsmith isn’t infallible in distinguishing gold from other metals. If he were fallible, we couldn’t trust fully that he could distinguish properly. The same way with the church, if it weren’t infallible we couldn’t trust it to discern what is canon and what is not.
@@andyontheinternet5777 The religious tradition of His day isn’t the religious Tradition of today…Jesus Himself renewed Israel and we now remain within Apostolicity…
@@amieroberg5252 Which "apostolic" tradition are you arguing for? Roman Catholic, Easter Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Scandinavian Lutheran, Anglican, Hussite, Moravian, Old Catholic, or the Assyrian Church of the East? They all claim apostolic succession.
From day one Scripture was above all members of the church it just happened to be OT. There is a reason the early Epistles keep pointing back to OT as authority.
This brings up an interesting question... Does the perspicuity of Scripture hold if part of the inspired collection is missing? Or even larger problem, if part of the collection is not inspired and therefore in error?
You have a gift for articulating complex ideas simply yet comprehensively.
I agree that infallibility is not required to recognize infallibility any more than one must be a dog to recognize dogs. However, you can't have it both ways. Either we are certain of the canon, in which case there was some kind of infallible discernment of canon at some point, or else there is absolutely no instance of infallible discernment, in which case that exactly means there is a real possibility that we could have gotten the canon wrong.
@@LuciusClevelandensis were the authors of Scripture able to recognize the voice of God?
@@thadofalltrades Is anyone able? If so, in what way?
@@GinaFisher-w3r The Bible pretty clearly states the word of God is the final authority, which the Bible is one medium the word of God comes to us. God is the final authority, and the Bible is direct revelation from God. It's not that difficult. Also, Protestants don't believe the Bible is the ONLY authority, just the highest authority because it is verifiably direct revelation from God and therefore infallible. The Canon is not fallible, the list of the canon is fallible. How ever many books God ordained to be written is the canon and it is not fallible. We, who are fallible, do not know for certain how many books there are and do the best we can by comparing books that are in dispute to books that are not. That list is fallible. Protestants do not include the apocrypha for the same reasons Jerome did not. Their authorship is murky, they were written after the time the Jews believed revelation had ceased, and they contain content that potentially contradicts clear revelation.
Maccabees is historical, but not considered inspired. Largely because the Jews considered anything from that time period not inspired. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There are a lot of Protestants who don't apply Daniel 11 to the Maccabean time. In fact, most of the original reformers didn't, they applied it to Rome.
Why do you not have a million followers? Seriously. Just found you during the whole best-seller book debacle and so glad I did!!!
Most people are not looking for deep dive into history content
Same here, thank you Meghan hhhhh very happy!
It's good to see the attempt to slander him only made him more known, I'm glad others are finding this channel.
Agree he should have a million subscribers!!!
@@lifewasgiventous1614 yeah Mindshift is awesome! Loads of new subscribers thanks to his sensible and caring approach!
You're absolutely correct Dr. Ortlund, in my humble view! This video is really timely and appropo to the online RC, Orthodox, Protestant discussion.
@@JW_______ it's a straw man. Catholicism doesn't say we need an infallible list of infallible books.
@@GeraldHunt-i5q Gavin loves his straw man arguments. The more I hear Gavin talk about EO, the more I know he has no clue about EO. I was protestant and became EO. From an EO we consider RC anathema and Protestants Heterodox. We know what the Church is and its up to God to decide who is in the Church outside of the Orthodox Catholic Church. As EO we also only recognise the Septugaint and not the corrupted Masoretic by Christ hating Jews.
Here’s a something for you to consider. Other than the book of Revelation, a warning for accuracy in writing and dissemination was never commanded in the gospels nor the epistles. As such that some of the gospels we have today contain verses that are maliciously and erroneously added to the original manuscripts. Some also have mistranslations deliberate or otherwise by numerous translators from the time of the masorites up to now. What you need to understand is that the word of God in these scriptures are the only infallible material. Not everything in the Bible, scriptures, gospels, epistles is the word of God hence to think they are infallible would be deceiving to one’s faith. Once you come into knowledge of the word of God in all of these written materials, you will easily be able discern the spirit in everything that is written whether they be within the scriptures, gospels, epistles or from out. It won’t matter whether they are in the Bible, OT nor NT nor apocrypha nor whatever translation. It won’t matter if it’s the didache, the letters of whomever church father. It won’t matter even if it is Paul’s epistles. The word of God in all these written materials will always be in congruity and for those who know it, the understanding of all truth is not limited by what’s included in any compilation of them. Bible or Not. If nothing else, take Christ’s words in the written gospels and worry about nothing else. You’d do well to only focus on them for they are the foundation from which the apostles and disciples built (see 1 Corinthians 3:10 to 11 for help in understanding this)
@@GeraldHunt-i5q most fundamentally, the RC/EO view is that Bible exists in the context of the Church instead of the Protestant view that churches exist in the context of the Bible. This means that interpretations of Scripture are done in light of Tradition, not according to individual interpretation. Therefore, this entire video is a whataboutism/ strawman of the RC/EO perspective for an issue that ONLY applies to the Protestant epistemology.
@@GeraldHunt-i5q It's not remotely a strawman. It's a go-to argument for Roman Catholic apologists seeking to debunk sola scriptura.
You express yourself so eloquently and convey your thoughts in such an inspiring and delightful manner. As a young Christian, I truly admire you, especially for being openly Christian on social media and enduring so much criticism. I understand the plight. Keep going, brother. God is working through you to bring more people to Him. We're all cheering you on. Thank you for continuing to put yourself out there despite the intense backlash.
God bless you immensely, Gavin Ortlund. Thanks for being a blessing to the Protestant side❤️✝️
His babtist
@@MrMonchis04 Your point being??
@@raphaelfeneje486 He follows Calvinism, which is 5 points of accretion.
@@fantasia55 Is he a Protestant??
@@raphaelfeneje486are you all there perchance? Churches lead and inspired by Martin Luther and Calvin are all Protestant, including the Baptist church.
Thank you for all the work you have done on subjects like these. They have helped me find more secure footing in my beliefs.
Yay, Gavin! Can't wait to tune in!
“You don’t need to be infallible to discern that which is infallible.”
That's the critical flaw in his argument -- you *do* need to be infallible to discern what's infallible.
@@joeoleary9010 Then answer how fallible people of the past were able to identify the infallible voice of God and the infallible word of God.
@@joeoleary9010nope
@@joeoleary9010then every Christian is infallible lol
@@joeoleary9010No it’s not. Dr Ortlund literally covered why it isn’t in the video.
It is my understanding that, even to this day, no mechanism of infallibility within Eastern Orthodoxy has ever defined the cannon of scripture.
At least the Catholics can appeal to Trent. But when Orthodox borrow the Catholic argument of needing an infallible act of an infallible church, it falls flat when that church has never acted infallibly on this matter.
Even more strange, I find, is when Catholics and Orthodox will team up on Protestants about the cannon even though the two of them have a different old testament cannon between them.
The seventh ecumenical council ratified the council of Trullo which ratified the Carthage councils which approved the canon list.
@@zalmoxis3707 You still have an open canon list. There were multiple canon lists in these councils.
@@JohnQTaxpayer. no, that’s wrong. Carthage approved the Hippo list and Carthage named the books. Trullo approved Carthage without naming the books. The 7th ecumenical council approved Trullo without naming the books. So you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“The Orthodox don’t have a canon”
“The Orthodox have a different canon than the Catholics”
???
@@zalmoxis3707 The Orthodox Study Bible admits that they have never officially committed itself to a single text and list of Old Testament books, and not just that, but Russian Orthodox affirm and approve a Protestant notion of the canon (St. Philaret of Moscow). Hippo never included Maccabees 3 either.
Gavin this helps so much!
I have been feeling so much angst and frustration about this exact topic!
Thank you so much!
I know this is one of the number one things Protestants struggle with and hear constantly whenever they interact with RC/EO online. Thank you Gavin and well done!
Gavin, your work is extremely worthwhile. What you present to us is extraordinarily well researched and well explained/argued--and so understandable. Your graciousness to those with whom you disagree is very winsome and adds to your authenticity. And your pastoral heart for your listeners makes it so much more live-giving. Thank you for all you do and for helping me to have greater confidence in the Protestant tradition.
A wonderful and much needed video! Thank you for addressing this and hopefully moving the discussion forward.
Wonderfully put! I found the logical case combined with the historical case entirely convincing. As much as my fellow commenters might dislike the thought, I find the idea of a "Faillible list of infallible scriptures" entirely reasonable. Thank you!
So you deny the Pentecost. You deny Scripture saying that the Church is the ground and pillar of Truth.
Gavin’s “whew” in the beginning was hilarious 😂😂😂😂😂
And ends with a whistle 😂
Gave me a laugh too! 😂
God bless you Gavin! Thanks for the upcoming videos and your continued work in the Kingdom of God!
I’m just now getting to watch this video and wanted to comment this before I get any further. I appreciate that you quoted our position as articulated by Vatican I. I see people far too often say that the Catholic Church believes she gave authority to the Bible - when really, that’s not what the Church teaches at all.
Excellent work Dr Ortlund. Very grateful for your ministry.
Well said brother! Putting this in my playlist right alongside my own video on it, keep doing the good work!
Thanks Gavin. As a Catholic, I do appreciate your videos and your charity. I think the main reason I was drawn to Catholicism after having been a protestant for so long is that when I read the church fathers I come away with an overwhelming sense that they truly believed in the real presence at the Eucharist and That they believed water baptism was necessary for salvation. This seemed to be the case all the way up to the reformation. Even reading the imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis in the 1420’s you come away with just how much the church cherished the Eucharist. The body of Christ in the Eucharist was for the unity in the body of Christ. Are participation in the body of Christ was our participation in the body of Christ. Our communion with the body of Christ was also our communion with the members of Christ. That all changed at the reformation.
The second thing that troubles me is that Martin Luther was so ready to get rid of the book of James, Hebrews, Jude, and revelation, since he didn’t think they were as inspired as the rest of the books. He did include them as an 2nd Tier Cannon. Also adding the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 in his German translation to bolster his argument. That somewhat troubles me that the main protestant reformer is adding and subtracting from the established word of God.
Again, thank you for constant charity, even in the midst of sometimes less than Christian comments.
I have a question for you: Can somebody be saved in their last moments on their death bed if they come to Jesus and accept him and repent? Even if they weren't baptized?
Yes all Catholics believe this. Look at the thief on the cross. God has the power to do anything🙏@@nickNcar
@@WrenPadget yea I agree. The OP said they chose Catholicism because they belive baptism being required for salvation but catholics don't actually belive that and it isn't required for salvation.
For the record I think all Christians should be baptized I just recognize that someone can be saved even if they are not.
@@nickNcar there’s baptism by spirit
Taya, I'd just like to comment: I see a great majority of Catholics say that "after reading the church fathers"...
Don't you find that a little curious? Reading the church fathers on the same level as the Bible?
Keep doing what you're doing Gavin.. God bless you!
The ultimate criteria for identifying books of divinely inspired Scripture is antiquity and general acceptance and liturgical use in all the churches. What Sproul maintained is that the unanimous judgement of the whole Church is never infallible, even if the all the churches rest and acquiesce in the judgement over a long period. In this he is contrary to Augustine's dictum "securus judicat orbis terrarum".
If God was guiding the Church in recognising which books are of divine authorship, then the Church is by the gift of God infallible in that recognition.
“If God was guiding the Church in recognizing which books are of divine authorship, then the Church is by the gift of God infallible in that recognition.”
I believe this statement makes a logical error. God’s guidance in this way can make the Church’s recognition inerrant, but that doesn’t necessarily make it infallible.
To my mind, for something to truly be infallible, it must be revelation, and making that claim is very serious business indeed.
@@arkel_77The Holy Spirit is able to preserve the Church from error by guaranteeing that it will never unanimously agree in one. In this He does something preservative, something other than revelation.
I'm glad you made this video. The canon of scripture has been a difficult topic for me to handle as a protestant seeking historical roots of the Christian faith. I even hesitate to call myself a protestant considering I don't have anything against my Christian brethren in other traditions. But if I'm honest with myself I am kind of "protesting" because my conscience cant accept all the Marian dogmas, papal authority, purgatory, indulgences or venerating icons. I have been to a Catholic mass as well as Orthodox liturgy and while I do appreciate the reverence and beauty that is lacking in my local church if the priest or congregation told me to bow to/kiss an icon or pray towards a statue of Mary my conscience wouldn't allow it. Maybe my faith is weak or I'm just too stupid to understand the intricacies of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies despite listening to dozens of hours of debates and hours of reading theology books. Your final statement regarding a lack of an infallible authority outside of scripture doesn't mean we cant have confidence to live the Christian life is good enough for me for now.
You are absolutely not stupid sir. I too have spent the past couple months searching and studying church history. While I have decided to remain Protestant for now - for many of the valid reasons and concerns that you have stated- I am certainly becoming a more Classical Protestant. Which version however I cannot say. Nevertheless dear brother, let us fix our thoughts on Christ, the author and finisher of the faith delivered once and for all to the saints.
God bless and much love!
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyclassical protestant. I like that. Exactly where I stand. Same story, but from a Pentecostal/charismatic background.
I hear you. For a lot of the same reasons you listed I ultimately couldn’t become Eastern Orthodox but became Anglican instead.
Much love to you brother. I feel completely the same.
I get what you mean there about not having anything against our RC and EO fellows but I think you well illustrate why we are in fact Protestant. Those other traditions bind the consciences of the faithful to bow to icons and to worship Mary. Apart form some, frankly, either highly disconnected or perhaps deceptive people today who try to act like these are not actually issues, any honest Catholic from the past, for example, would tell you that you will go to hell for failing to affirm the Marian dogmas. This is ample reason to "protest".
Thankful for your content Gavin 🤘 I would never be opposed to more content on the canon, I feel like it is a common area that people may consciously or subconsciously disregard a religion.
Excellent, this video is the end of the canon conundrum.
I'm sorry, but if you think that Gavin has solved all the problems with the Protestant epistemological approach to the canon, then you haven't looked very deeply into the issue.
I invite you to listen carefully to what competent Catholics say about these issues, because you will find that Gavin misses the target here - no knowledgeable Catholic takes the view that we need an infallible declaration to know what the canonical boundaries of Scripture are.
@chairofpeter832
Do you know who those knowledgeable Roman Catholics are? We may also need the list for that.
Yes!
@@Presbapterian 😆
Everything Ortlund does is special pleading. He rejects Catholicism because it's not "infallible" in a literalist and fundamentalist sense, yet he embraces Scripture as infallible, even though, as evidenced by his rejection of YEC, he doesn't consider Scripture to be infallible in the literalist and fundamentalist sense. So, what you basically have is a Protestant Apologist playing irrelevant word games with "infallibility" for the sake of maintaining division
My biggest problem with Protestant Christianity is I can’t find it in the church fathers. So then the Protestant will say well we are in the Bible our chruch is from the books of Acts at Pentecost. Ok great that logically follows that if your Church started in 33 ad that i can read its members in 100-1000 but if i do they all contradict you. So it seems like a vicious circle. I’m not overly sectarian I’m open to any logical explanation on how Protestant Christianity is NOT a man made invention that is not found in the early church. Real question. I have never had any Protestant actually answer my objection
Perhaps a video dedicated to the modern desire for epistemic certainty that has no possibility of being wrong.
Hi Gavin, when you say the Holy Spirit gives existential certainty about the canon, or any theological issue, how is that different than the Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture and that we can know because of a burning in our hearts?
God bless Gavin Ortlund
Thank you so so much! I have been wrestling with this question for some time and you have cleared muddy waters generously and excellently! God Bless you🙏
Gosh, I miss R. C. Sproul. Thanks for expounding on his statement. We need the next generation of theologians that will carry the legacy of accessible teaching like Sproul.
The whole video was helpful, but I needed your pastoral encouragement on why we know Christianity is true this evening. Thank you brother!
I was waiting eagerly for this! ❤
Thanks for your content.
As a Christian, I have faith that the Holy Spirit intervened and preserved the New Testament writings, in spite of our imperfections. I, personally, don't much care about the the controversy on Old Testament canon, for we are now responsible to be faithful to the New Covenant scripture, on which there has been little controversy since antiquity. ❤✝️♥️
Haha was literally reading about this argument in your new book this morning. Whether publicly or privately I'd love to discuss with you an Orthodox perspective to the protestant canon conundrum.
Much love Dr.Gavin! ☦️
I think Gavin should talk about it if you discuss as well with him your conundrum with your canon or I would argue multiple canons. Your epistemic uncertainty is at a higher wave length than protestants because you need to then access not only the bible, but history books to derive a reasonable fallible private judgment to assert what you think is infallible. You have as much of a burden for proof for your epistemic claims than protestants.
Do it!!!
Thanks for being genuine dudes. I enjoy your dialogues!!
@@JohnQTaxpayer.We don't have a canon of books, we have a canon of Faith. This is not a problem to traditional Christianity.
@@issaavedra can you explain the difference for us?
Well reasoned thoughts accompanied by references into research. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and journey of understanding. God has used old clay pots throughout history, and indeed deserves more thanks and glory than we can even imagine. Thanks be to the Lord Jesus.
Disillusioned, Joshua Schooping - Chapter 9, pg. 180
In other words, if there are reasons which show that the Scriptures are intrinsically authoritative, then those same reasons ought to induce us to agree that they are intrinsically authoritative. The Church's authority is thus shown to be extraneous in settling the matter. But if those arguments themselves depend upon the authority of the Church, then the authority of the Scriptures, i.e. their canonical status, is consequently shown to be dependent upon the Church's logically prior authority. This means the Church has elevated itself above God's Word in order to render Scripture authoritative, and not in a way based on rational considerations but on ecclesiological authority. For if there were arguments that would induce the canon to be known to the Church, then those same arguments ought to enable anyone to concur on the strength of those arguments, not bare authority, thus showing that the Church lends no formal authority to the authenticity of the canon.
But since the Word of God is by its very nature the self-attesting precondition of certain knowledge, as an inbreaking of the infinite mind and will of God, it does not depend upon any arguments from some other authority. Therefore, the Church itself must submit to the self-evidently authoritative nature of the Scriptures as the Word of God, otherwise they make god's Word dependent upon the testimony and word of the Church, which in doing the Church takes authority over God's Word and so makes the Creator's authority subservient to the creature's, which is absurd and blasphemous. Tragically, the Eastern Orthodox Presuppositionalist position, in asserting their hyper-ecclesiology, functionally denies the self-attesting and authoritative nature and status of God's Word.
The pastoral epistles are clear forgeries of a man pretending to be Paul… that is self attesting?
@@Noah-1999 Pastor Schooping is a great resource on these things. I also recommend a gentleman whose channel is named “Faith of our Fathers” he has an interesting video on leaving Orthodoxy.
And you deny the Pentecost and the Word of God where it says the church is the ground and pillar of truth. This is evident by the hundreds of Protestant sects.
Got your book in the mail just before a 24hr flight! ✈️ never read a book in one sitting but I will now!
Just phenomenal, thank you so much!
Amen. Thank you Dr Gavin for all the work you do. God bless
Hey Gavin, I asked you on Twitter a question that you said this video would answer, but I am not sure this video hit the target to my question, which is fine because you were focusing on different questions.
I agree with much of this video as a Catholic and I think that, unfortunately, many Catholics have set themselves up for failure by using the arguments that you responded to. In other words, I don't think the question to ask is: How can we have a fallible list of infallible books? I totally agree: the Church had a fallible list until Trent anyway.
I think two problems remain that were not addressed: 1) It is not about whether we have a fallible list of infallible books. The question is: Is the canon revealed by God? If so, it is certainly not revealed in Scripture itself. It is revealed in tradition, which is problematic for the Protestant position. And 2), the fact that the Church didn't try to define an infallible list, while many manuscripts through the ages were missing Hebrews and some included the fake letter to the Laodicaeans, weakens the Protestant position (although I admit it does not disprove it wholly)... because it shows the Church is able to operate indefectibly for a long time without even using a valid canon universally. Regardless, I will try to make a response video and I hope you can give it a look when you can.
thanks for the reply! to respond briefly: (1), no, not directly and as such; (2) I don't see how this weakens the Protestant position. I do look forward to your video -- God bless
An answer to #1
1. Historic Protestants don't have a problem trusting and relying on tradition. So I grant the Canon is revealed in tradition by God, just like God's infallible meaning of every belief and practice is revealed in every scripture text. With that said, you still have not solved the problem of infinite regress if infallibility is needed, because now you need infallible knowledge of discerning the competing traditions. We can trust God's providential guiding if His church without requiring infallible knowledge. As a matter of fact, it is the essence of Christianty to live by faith, not infallible certainty.
"Is the canon revealed by God?" - Jesus is confident the Jews were given Scripture and nobody (RCC, EO, Magisterial) disagrees with the NT canon. So job done. The only issue is whether you believe a person who could read Hebrew (Jerome) or someone who couldn't (Augustine) over the Apocrypha.
These two questions are fantastic. It shows the limitations of sola scriptura
@rickydettmer2003 No, they don't. You, as a human, not under divine inspiration, can never get to the point of infallible certainty on anything. You will always have to use your private fallible judgment, even to decide who is infallible. It is no wonder it is called the Christian "Faith", and we are called to walk by faith, not infallible certainty.
I think part of the issue people have with Sproul's statement is the tendency to confuse the categories of "infallible" and "inerrant." Sproul's point was not that the canon of Scripture is in doubt, or that anyone thinks it is in error. He was simply pointing out that having confidence in the canon of Scripture does not require us to assign infallibility to the Church. One does not need to be incapable of error in order to be without error in their judgments. Fallibility does not imply necessary error.
Someone might object however: "but fallibility means that we MIGHT be in error."
Well, yes. But three points stand out: 1) This is the reality we live with day by day in every aspect of our lives, and we do not require infallibility of ourselves to operate and function in life with confidence. 2) There is a reason that the Bible commends multiple counselors in decision making. The wisdom of many is better than the wisdom of an individual who may have blind spots. In the example of the canon, there were debates over certain books, but we believe that the truth won out. 3) God's providential guidance of his people to recognize his truth does not require him to instill said people with the quality of infallibility.
In other words, to say "it is within the realm of possibility that as fallible human beings we might be wrong about X," is not the same thing as saying "there is any good reason to believe that we actually are wrong about X."
I agree with you. But I do feel like some types will simply not make any allowance for the idea that "It is within the realm of possibility that we could be wrong." I feel as if people that take that stance are setting themselves up for a great fall into skeptical agnosticism.
How good was God’s guidance if we cannot be sure whether the books in our Bibles are actually God’s Word? I don’t see how Sola scriptura can make any sense if there is real doubt about the canon. Sola scriptura implies that the scriptures are a secure source. It implies that the canon selection process was guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. Technically, this does not necessitate a doctrinally infallible Church, so I can give protestants that, but it definitely does point towards it.
@@trismegistus2881 If by "sure," you mean absolute certainly, without possibility of error, then no individual person possesses such certainty, regardless of if they appeal to an infallible institution. Let me see if I can explain:
An institution's claim to infallibility cannot offer me as an individual any additional certainty on this question. Here's why:
There are multiple institutions claiming to be instilled with the blessing of infallibility by God. Their infallible pronouncements disagree with one another. If I, as an individual, want to gain confidence on certain questions by means of appealing to the infallibility of a specific institution, then I must decide which "infallible" institution is, in fact, infallible. I cannot gain confidence from an institution's claim to infallibility if there are contradictory claims of infallibility still on the table. So I must choose who to believe.
How will I do this? Typically, the means proposed are study, prayer, and weighing the various arguments proposed by each institution. Once I've done this to a degree that I feel like all has been heard, I make my decision. Maybe I choose Catholicism. Maybe Orthodoxy. Maybe Mormonism. Or some other "infallible" institution. Now I have confidence, right?
Well, not any more than I did before. Why? Because, from the very beginning, I was seeking confidence from these institutional claims to infallibility because I recognized that I, as an individual was not infallible. But how did I choose among these institutional claims to infallibility? Was it not my own fallible judgment?
Maybe I'd be willing to say "but I believe God guided me to the correct choice." Fair enough, but then I have admitted into the realm of possibility the idea that God can guide fallible people to make correct decisions without instilling them with the quality of infallibility. And if God could do this for my fallible recognition of an infallible institution, why couldn't he have done this for a fallible church's recognition of an infallible Bible?
Fallibility implies capability of error, which means you cannot know for certain which books there are. Calling a category of books "infallible" without infallibly defining what those books are means that you could be ascribing to God words that are not his, or ascribing to man the words of God. In the case in which you rely on scripture alone as the only infallible source of your knowledge, a vaguely-defined potentially correct canon is simply not acceptable. It would imply that God is capable of speaking, but is unwilling or incapable of telling you what he spoke, leaving you to blindly attempt to assign things that agree with your preconceived notions of what God *would* say as the speech of God, leaving you extremely open to unintentional blasphemy. Such a thing goes against the idea that God is Good, which we know He is. Q.E.D, if the canon of Scripture cannot be infallibly defined, then God is not good. God is good. Therefore, there must be a method of infallibly defining the canon of Scripture. Since an effect cannot be greater than its cause, a fallible man cannot infallibly define anything. Therefore, it requires a Spirit-led, infallible act to define the canon of Scripture. This would disprove the notion that Scripture alone is the only infallible source of your knowledge.
@@gardyloogubbins this, very much. Ecclesial infallibility is an epistemic quagmire. You have to assume infallibility in order to assume infallibility 🤓
keep it up gavin. dont always agree but appreciate your takes and honesty
Well said. Thank you for the scholarly-level work you do. The Church needs that work desperately
Thank you, and well done.
I really like the Canon video you made with John Meade! You do good work Gavin
Gavin this has been an issue really heavy on my heart. I am a Protestant discerning Catholicism and orthodoxy and watch a lot of your videos. What I struggle with is that I think the Catholic and Orthodox paradigm are better suited to answer the cannon question because since they believe the church is also infallible they didn’t need to have a closed cannon because they can really on tradition. And just because you have an infallible means to decide something that does not mean that you should not think logically when making that decision. The fact that the Old Testament canon history is messy is what burdens me because the Old Testament canon was disputed all the way to the reformation and although there were some orthodox and Catholic theologians that held to the Protestant canon it was the minority view. That means when Protestants picked the canon it was the minority historical view, all the apostolic churches disagree, and we don’t have a magisterium or ability to gather together infallibly to decide the canon. And I think this matters more to Protestants because we rely on sola scriptura and for that to work we must also use tota scriptura to determine doctrine so if something like 2 Maccabees is scripture it changes everything. if we have a fallible list that goes against the majority view of believers, don’t have an infallible means to discern it with, and are more reliant on it then it seems like a less equipped paradigm. Please respond to this because I respect you a lot and this is really heavy on my heart
If Gavin is correct, then every tradition for the canon is fallible. This would include Catholicism and EO. And so Protestants also rely on fallible tradition, they just think their tradition has the evidence in its favor. So I dont see how either Rome of the EO have a better paradigm if they are no more infallible than Protestants are.
@@christianfontenot9435 I know I'm not Gavin, but I'll try to offer my thoughts on this conundrum.
I personally can't see how an institution's claim to infallibility offers me as an individual any comfort on this question. Here's why:
There are multiple institutions claiming to be instilled with the blessing of infallibility by God. Their infallible pronouncements disagree with one another. If I, as an individual, want to gain confidence on certain questions by means of appealing to the infallibility of a specific institution, then I must decide which "infallible" institution is, in fact, infallible. I cannot gain confidence from an institution's claim to infallibility if there are contradictory claims of infallibility still on the table. So I must choose who to believe.
How will I do this? Typically, the means proposed are study, prayer, and weighing the various arguments proposed by each institution. Once I've done this to a degree that I feel like all has been heard, I make my decision. Maybe I choose Catholicism. Maybe Orthodoxy. Maybe Mormonism. Or some other "infallible" institution. Now I have confidence, right?
Well, not any more than I did before. Why? Because, from the very beginning, I was seeking confidence from these institutional claims to infallibility because I recognized that I, as an individual was not infallible. But how did I choose among these institutional claims to infallibility? Was it not my own fallible judgment?
Maybe I'd be willing to say "but I believe God guided me to the correct choice." Fair enough, but then I have admitted into the realm of possibility the idea that God can guide fallible people to make correct decisions without instilling them with the quality of infallibility. And if God could do this for my fallible recognition of an infallible institution, why couldn't he have done this for a fallible church's recognition of an infallible Bible?
@@gardyloogubbins everyone has to agree that you have to use fallible reasoning to discern things that are infallible. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that their paradigms are better suited to answer the question of the canon. My biggest hold up is if the Old Testament canon for Protestants wasn’t closed until the reformation that is troublesome because the 7 ecumenical councils already happened by then and things like the intercession of saints, icon veneration, episcopal church governance, baptismal regeneration, and etc were all dogmatic, practiced and accepted long before the Old Testament canon is closed. All the Catholic and orthodox scholars that we use to try to defend the Protestant canon all believed in these things so how can we use their tradition for the canon which is disputed and not for all these other traditions that were more widely accepted. That’s why I’m saying their paradigms are more equipped because they don’t even have to have a closed canon to determine doctrine where as we as Protestants do and the way they pick the canon is more historically consistent and defensible. This is the essence of my problem
@@christianfontenot9435 As one of those rare protestants that hold to a larger canon, here's my response:
I think the idea that ecclesialists' paradigm (i.e. infallible church authority) is better suited to answer the question of canon is moot when one realizes that 1) Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics actually disagree on what is in the canon (in other words, how can a "better suited" mechanism still come up with different understandings of that canon?) and 2) Eastern Orthodox still actually do not have a defined canon (and neither did RC prior to Trent, as Gavin explains in the video). So despite the supposedly high concept of having a better mechanism, the actual reality has not born said fruit.
As Protestants, we don't need to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". We don't need to see the acceptance of the marian dogmas as an a priori road to hell for all Catholics, simply BECAUSE we don't see those councils as infallible. Instead, we understand that mistakes could be made through history (or as Gavin puts it, accretions), but can also hold to the understanding that it is by grace we are saved through faith. Thus we can believe, of course, that Catholics and EO believers can still be in the church despite those mistakes, just as I believe that most protestants around me are still in the church despite holding to a smaller canon.
@@christianfontenot9435 We have a situation, looking at history, of disagreement within the body concerning whether the additional books should be accorded the same weight as all the others. Along comes Luther who has the same concern, and when he translated the books of the Bible into German language he did not bother to translate the additional books. Meanwhile in England, the same concern existed about the additional books (whether they should be accorded the same weight), but the English nonetheless included the additional books in the printed copies of the KJV, and they continued to be read, but the English clergy taught folks that the additional books were read "as Jerome hath said, for example of life and instruction of manners" and not to establish any additional doctrine.
So in both mainland Europe and in the British isles, the teaching of the Protestant Christians was fully consistent with the long-standing view of many within the church: since there has always been some doubt and disagreement as to whether the additional books carry the same weight of divine inspiration as all the others, let's be cautious with them.
Eventually (in the 1800s, I believe) the publisher of the KJV ceased inclusion of the additional books in their bindings. This fact has certainly affected the outlook of the "low-church" Protestant denominations the most. The Anglicans (and perhaps the Lutherans and Presbyterians as well, I'm not sure) still include some of the additional books in their lectionaries. But in recent years it has been stated that the additional books contain errors of historical fact and/or errors pertaining to Christian doctrine; if these statements are true (I have not studied the issue much), this evidence would tend to confirm the correctness in the cautious attitude that those Christians showed throughout the history of the church toward the additional books.
Frankly, I view this difference of opinion as a 'tempest in a teapot' since the additional books really don't establish any extra doctrine.
The closest one could come to 'finding an extra doctrine' would be the claim that 2 Maccabees 12 supports a belief in Purgatory. But all we have in that book is a record that a certain military commander and his fighters _held out hope_ that prayers for their fallen comrades might be effectual toward their denouement in the afterlife. We don't normally build a doctrine upon such flimsy evidence; the Bible often records (accurately and infallibly) what some person said or did, but the fact that the person said it or did it does not necessarily prove that the person spoke or acted correctly. We have no evidence that the commander was acting on the basis of any sound, established doctrine being taught at the time, nor do we have supportive documents showing that either the Israelites or the Apostolic church evinced a belief in Purgatory.
Can't wait to see you on Ruslan. Great explanation on this topic.
Perfectly said. Now queue up the hundred, 4hr response videos from the EOs and RCs. 😂
You beat me to it 😂
LOL
Because this isn’t the own you think it is. It’s just further delineates the arbitrary nature of the Protestant position broadly speaking. At least EO and RC can articulate 2,000 years of history more deeply and in a nuanced fashion. Hence the 3-4hr videos on the topics.
You Protestants love your short, snappy answers. Makes you feel good to have the certainty and that pride of “knowing”. But that’s not how true knowledge works. Because true knowledge requires wisdom and discernment, which requires longer exposition and a thorough epistemology. Because Truth is a Person Who cannot be distilled into or contained within a book. His Body, the Church, is the LIVING organism of Christ in the world. To cut yourself off from the Church is to have “a form of godliness but deny its power”.
@@aaronwolf4211 What about anything discussed in the video would you consider an "own?" Gavin was giving a defense against a very common "own" thrown about by Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The entire video is an elaboration of the historical view of the canonicity scripture from a protestant perspective. No one was trying to "own" anyone. If you feel as though Gavin is trying to "own" you by giving a defense against a common argument, that seems like an issue that may require some self-reflection.
@@aaronwolf4211 Notice how you have no argument. If Gavin is wrong, show how.
To your ending point speaking as a pastor. I'm in full agreement, it is the Holy Spirit that gives you that certainty and confidence. John 14:27
So grateful for the end explanation regarding the need for the Holy Spirit's testimony in our hearts. I have had conversations where others try to convince me to leave my protestant church because it is not part of "the one true church".
But why should I leave the place where the Holy Spirit is moving? God changed my heart through the biblical preaching of my Pastor and elders. God did the same for my family and friends, and this was done in ways that cannot be explained apart from being miraculous. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is still at work as daily I am called to put off sin and give everything over to the Lordship of Christ.
Thank you for the explanation Gavin.
The thing is, people of all different denominations will make this same claim about how the Spirit working within them led them into the church they are in. How do you explain that? Are you the only one who is right, and all others are wrong? I seriously would like to hear your answer on this.
@@jzak5723 I'll provide a summary answer, but really TH-cam comments are not the right place. I would recommend finding a good, bible-believing church who's members are serious about holy living and speak with the elders and members there for a more complete answer.
Also, please note that no protestant church that I am aware of makes the claim that they are right and all others wrong, but I understand your question.
As to your question, there are many factors at play so I can only do so much. First, there are false churches that do not seek to be bound by Holy Scripture. Protestantism is an umbrella term, not an institution. We live in a free country, so there is nothing stopping anyone from starting their own church and labeling it "Protestant".
Second, there are differences that do not compromise the gospel itself, commonly called "adiaphora". Paul speaks to this in Ro 14:1-10. No one on earth has perfect understanding of God's revelation. In other words, everyone has some level of misunderstandings, so there will always be disagreements just as there are differences within the Catholic or Orthodox church.
But the fundamental difference is authority. The biblical view of church authority is as a delegated authority and thereby fallible. Other examples are state and parents. Using the state as an example, there are differences in U.S. law from Canadian law. The Catholic-style might be "which is right"? where the biblical answer is to submit to the country you are a part of. (Ro 13:1-7). The same is true in the church. I am a member of my local church and so I submit to its leadership (Heb 13:17). As much as I appreciate Gavin, he's not my pastor but rather belongs to a different church.
God knows we are 2000 years away from his son's resurrection and does not expect his children to play the roulette wheel with their eternal soul because 10 bajillion denominations scream they are the one true church. check what they preach with scripture and trust in the finished work of Jesus. i simply cannot trust in the traditions on men on the basis of "because we said so!"
@@trashgobbler5000
But this is the issue, as I said before, if we just say to check what the Bible says, we get hundreds of different churches saying that they are right according to the Bible. The JW"s and the Mormons both claim they are right according to Scripture and can show you. Now, you may disagree with them, but they will also disagree with you too, even if you show them why you believe what you do. This is why there has to be a single church which teaches the truth, not everyone in every denomination checking the Bible on their own to see what what the truth is, because you can get hundreds, if not thousands of different interpretations. Jesus established one church and gave to it the Holy Spirit to guide and teach it, and this church is the Catholic Church, it can be no other if you are honest about it.
@@jzak5723 I can't trust them. Maccabees straight up contradicts scripture. It glorifies suicide when the soldier stabs himself (fails) and then throws himself off the fort walls (survives) and then he just starts ripping his own intestines out. They use flowery language and make it sound so noble. Meanwhile the Catholics teach suicide is the sin unto death... I really have a hard time believing the duetercanical books. They can't make up their minds.
Thank you for this thoughtful video. I learned a lot!
Great video!
Thanks a lot, Gavin. God bless u & r family
The late Sproul explained what he meant with his statement "fallible collection of infallible books":
We can perhaps illustrate the difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic positions by imagining that God gave us ten books, five of which were infallible and five of which were fallible, containing errors. Then He charged us to separate and identify the infallible books. If we were fallible, we might correctly select four of the five infallible books. However, we also might identify one of those fallible books as infallible. Our decisions, of course, would not change the nature of the books. The one infallible book we did not select would still be infallible, even though we failed to include it in our “canon”. Likewise, the fallible book we picked would not therefore be infallible. Our decisions would have no effect in this way because we are fallible.
Sproul: Are We Together, page 22-23
Questions:
1. For sure "10" and "5" in what Sproul wrote are just illustration. But why would God give "ten" books of which five are infallible (inspired) and the rest are fallible and let us choose, without any guidance?
2. How do we know "ten" of which only "five" are infallible? Or how do we know there are X number of inspired books out of Y number of books given by God (Y > X)?
3. In the above explanation Sproul admitted that Protestant's "canon" could miss infallible book(s) and may contain "fallible" book(s).
If the Holy Spirit is able to guide the writers of the books of the Bible, why can't He guide others to recognize infallibly which books are inspired? All criteria Dr. Ortlund proposed to "recognize" Scripture are not found in Scripture either. For example "orthodoxy": how do we define orthodoxy in the first place? Either (1) we pre-chose books as inspired and then define orthodoxy based on those pre-chosen books or (2) we pre-defined orthodoxy and then choose books that meet our pre-defined orthodoxy.
Thanks. Great job. We can also ask how the early fathers determined the authoritative books apart from any council telling them.
How did Polycarp know what to quote in his letter to Philippians
How did author of Didache know to quote the baptismal formula from Matthew,
Clement is replete with quotes from Paul and gospels,
Ignatius, Ireneaus,... et al.
All lived before councils address the canon and represent the church's ear to discern the voice of the Shepherd. Respect.
@@darewan8233 Yes! To say the scriptures had no influence on the early church is historical revisionism.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Well, I dont think the other side would say scriptures had no influence on the early church I just dont believe they are taking note of the history that the fathers determined the authoritative books very early, without the aid of a council.
9:48 how can one appeal to orthodox doctrine as a criterion of canonicity when the scriptures are the locus where you're supposed to receive the orthodox doctrine from?
in other words, the scriptures are claimed to be a source of doctrine, but then you have to appeal to some outside source of doctrine to vindicate the scriptures.
Starting with Mt 16 19 Mt 18:18 Lk 10:16 Lk 22:32 & the early fathers, Peter & the apostles were given the power to bind & loose implying infallibility.
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
@@geoffjsWith respect, it's a massive leap to get from "shall not prevail against it" to shall never teach an error. The word prevail has conotations of perseverance and long suffering, like winning the ultimate victory in a war rather than winning every skirmish along the way. One can be close to defeat and yet rally the troops to win the final victory.
The faith didn’t start with books. Jesus is the truth and the teaching of the apostles witness to that. Any books that aligned with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles would be orthodox teaching. And the Holy Spirit was and is still the Spirit of Truth guiding the church into all truth.
Is it possible for a fallible church to get the canon wrong (so that the canon includes either uninspired books or excludes inspired books)?
Depends on whether you trust the Holy Spirit to preserve the Testimony of Christ or not.
Certainly, there are many cases throughout history that exemplify this. The Joanine comma, the account of the adulterous woman, the endings of Mark's gospel, the Church of Rome has already rejected the book of Hebrews as non-canonical, etc.
I love the pastoral encouragement at the end.
As Dean of NT textual criticism Bruce Metzger said, "the cannon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books.”
What work was this from? I want to read some of his work!
well, that's to concede the point, no?
Gavin, as always, is a true gift to us in the Church today - even when some twisted social media commentators might prefer he not post at all.
Sproul and you are 100% correct. Great video, sir.
The 73-book Gutenberg Bible followed the guidance of the Council of Ferrara-Florence. If it happens to be my family bible, should I be ripping bits out of it?
As St. Jerome said, they are profitable for reading, but not for doctrine. Hope this helped
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Florence would insist they are doctrine, by an authority which can be found within the pages.
great conclusion, gavin
amen and thanks for the background
Being a former protestant myself, I would embrace you as a friend also Gavin despite the many disagreements we might have. God grant you many years ☦️🙏🏻
You hit the nail on the head man, im subscribing to your channel now! God bless you🙏🏾
From an Orthodox perspective, the process Gavin describes is infallible, because infallibility belongs to the Church as a whole. The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth. This doesn't merely take the form of Ecumenical Councils, but also the writings of the Church Fathers, the liturgy, the lives of the Saints, etc. All of these are mechanisms of the the Holy Spirit's witness to the Church. Gavin seems to assume that infallibility works the same in Orthodoxy as it does in Catholicism.
R.C. Sproul was spot on. Very simple to understand.
Can you link your video on the deuterocanonical books and the case for the Protestant OT? Thanks for the video.
You are the man Gavin
Love this video. Thank you! “ My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me” John 10:27 God’s people have always been able to recognize His voice and can tell the difference between which books have His voice in them and which ones don’t. God made it so the creation of His people and the writing of His word are inextricably bound together, and I am so thankful for that.
I can’t make this make sense. Either we know the cannon and the church is authoritative in its decrees or God left is without real guidance.
Excellent vid!
Maybe I can weigh in. For the reasons given, I don't think the "fallible list of infallible books" is a problem for Protestants. Gavin made it clear in the video, though, that he has a high level of certainty that the Church did indeed correctly identify the canon. Where does this certainty come from? And if it comes from later Church tradition, how can a Protestants be so sure the Church got the canon right but got the perpetual virginity of Mary, the sacrifice of the mass, threefold episcopal polity, baptismal regeneration, etc wrong? (I know some Protestant accept some of those teachings. Just examples to show that I think one should be similarly certain that the Church did not err on those doctrines). God bless
I believe that the answer to your question goes back to the scriptures themselves, and the way they are interpreted. For instance, the Catholic Church sees some or most of its traditions as biblically defendable, and the Protestant church sees those traditions differently, based on its interpretation of the scriptures as well. I think it’s a matter of studying things from both a rational and ecclesial point of view, rather than a fully ecclesiastical perspective.
@@davidarreola1985 But you can't get a canon list from interpreting Scripture, as Dr. Ortlund mentioned in the video. That's why he argues that the canon list is fallible. That's all well and good, but if the canon list is known with a high level of certainty even though the source for it is an appeal to the Church's tradition without Scriptural support, it seems Protestants shouldn't balk when Catholics make similar appeals for controversial doctrines that Protestants reject.
thank you for this good and thoughtful comment! If it helps, I address this somewhat starting at 35:24 of my video "Why Mary’s Assumption Is Indefensible"
(I won't put the link because often youtube deletes comments with links)
@@TruthUnites I appreciate your reply, Dr. Ortlund, and I'm glad to hear you thought my response was thoughtful. I can find the video. I'll take a look and consider your thoughts.
Excellent as always, Gavin. If I may add something, it's this: it is through Divine Providence that the fallible Church received the infallible Scriptures. Why would God inspire the books, and then not make sure through Providence that they be received by His Church? That wouldn't make sense, it seems. The Inspired Scriptures were always going to be received.
How did God give the church the infallible Scriptures in a way that didn't come down to them using their fallibility to decide on which books were inspired and which were not, which books were meant to be in the canon of the Bible? I agree with you, it was Divine Providence that gave us the correct canon of Scripture, but just admitting it doesn't solve the issue of HOW it came to be, which is really what is at stake. Do you believe that the Catholic church was the instrument that God used to do this, or did it happen in another way, and if so, how was it done?
The example of John the Baptist clinched it for me, the rest was a great reinforcement.
RC Sproul's statement involves the fallacy of special pleading when he said 👇🏼
👉🏻“Each book that is found is the Bible is an infallible book. But the historical process undone by the church, was a historical process that was done by a church that is not infallible.”👈🏻
The special pleading fallacy occurs when someone applies principles or standards to others while exempting themselves or their own case without adequate justification.
What’s the problem with RC Sprouls assertion:
Sproul’s special pleading arises because it is inconsistent to claim that an infallible collection of texts was recognized by a fallible authority, without explaining how a fallible Church could have reliably determined an infallible canon.
The Church makes mistakes. Peter made a mistake and had to be called out by Paul. Subordinationism was also orthodoxy for a time.
@@clivejungle6999 1.) It is true that St. Peter made mistakes, as seen in Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul confronts Peter for acting inconsistently in how he related to Gentile Christians. However, Peter’s mistake was one of personal conduct, not a doctrinal error.
a.) The Catholic Church acknowledges that popes and Church leaders are human and can sin or act imprudently in their personal lives.
b.) Papal infallibility, as defined by Pastor Aeternus, does not mean that the pope is sinless or perfect in all his actions.
c.) Infallibility applies specifically to official teachings on faith and morals when proclaimed ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter), not to personal behavior or opinions.
d.) Peter’s error in Antioch did not constitute a doctrinal teaching, and his leadership as the first pope remained intact.
2.) Subordinationism, the belief that the Son is subordinate to the Father in the Trinity was never established as orthodox doctrine by the Church.
a.) While certain early theologians struggled to articulate the relationship within the Trinity, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, ultimately rejected subordinationism as heretical at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
b.) This process reflects the Church’s growth in understanding and clarifying doctrines over time.
c.) Doctrinal development does not mean that the Church held errors as official dogma but that the Church, through ecumenical councils and theological reflection, comes to a clearer expression of the truth.
3.) The Church teaches that it is protected from error when it defines doctrines of faith and morals under specific conditions (e.g., in an ecumenical council or through a papal ex cathedra statement).
a.) This does not mean the Church never encounters challenges or controversies in the process of defining and clarifying teachings.
b.) Throughout history, the Church has faced theological disputes and heresies, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit has preserved the core truths of the faith.
c.) The Church’s infallibility in teaching does not eliminate the possibility of debate, struggle, or even errors in theological opinions prior to official definitions. It ensures that, in the end, the truth will be proclaimed.
4.) The fact that Church leaders, including popes, have made personal mistakes does not undermine the Church’s divine mission.
a.) Christ promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against His Church (Matthew 16:18), indicating that despite human weakness, the Church will be protected from falling into doctrinal error.
b.) The Church’s authority is not based on the perfection of its leaders but on Christ’s assurance that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13).
@@johnmendez3028 So how can you infallibly know which part of the magisterium to follow if even St Peter can make mistakes?
Good arguments!
Yes, indeed, it is ALL ABOUT FAITH! A person will NEVER KNOW if they have salvation UNTIL JUDGEMENT BY GOD
Great presentation
This was very helpful thank you Gavin, I’ve struggled as a member of a restoration church . It’s so difficult to discuss this among other members of my church it seems like a forbidden subject almost like your questioning the doctrine of your church . Thank you 🙏. Can you recommend any good reading resources on the canon .
All these problems of illogic can be done away with if the claim of infallibility is dropped and the reality of fallibility in all human endeavors, even those claimed to be divinely inspired, is recognized. You also wouldn't have to misrepresent the history and origin of the texts to support an unsupportable claim.
This was great!❤
Wow!! So every twitter post saying "Catholics MaDe the Bible!!" is not even what catholicism teaches!!
Catholic authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the inerrant books which the CC codified as the bible in 382AD which was infallibly proclaimed in 1546 at Trent.
What books do you have on the shelf behind you? Examination of the Council of Trent? Turretin? Creeds and Confessions?
We can trust God. Thanks for the video, very informative and helpful.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Thinking that the Scriptures are inerrant in the first place is an irrational dead end. It is much more reasonable to say, along the lines of Dei Verbum, that in our listening to the Scriptures through the Spirit, we may discern the truth that God has placed in them and in us for the sake of our salvation- that is, Jesus Christ.
It baffles me how many Catholics think Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were ecumenical councils.
As you said, it is just a matter of fact canonization did not happen in the way internet polemics argue it did.
That's not the argument though, the canon wasn't authoritative until the council of Florence which also explains why the EO have an extended one, but even that is 100 years before the reformation.
The argument is that the church needs the magisterium to tell them with confidence what books are in and which are out.
The response is that this was not the attitude of the early church and that the DC books being placed in a secondary status with varying liturgical uses was normal and accepted.
You're right that Florence was the first time it showed up in an ecumenical council, tough still not as authoritative in the same way it was at Trent (according to Catholic theologians, not my opinion)
The argument isn't being misrepresented by Gavin. This is the debate actual scholars and theologians are discussing.
And I have encountered many people who think Rome, Hippo, and Carthage are authoritative, or mistake them for ecumenical councils. That’s what my comment was about, the misunderstanding of the argument at the popular level.
PS: I'm sorry if this comes off as rude. Typing is hard, I don't mean any disrespect
@@AB-dw2op Florence is obviously authoritative (as the previous councils were even if not ecumenical), the fact it wasn't declared dogmatically until Trent doesn't mean you can freely desagree with it as a catholic. You have no idea how the magisterium works, so don't try to pretend you can debate this.
And I, as catholic, never knew or saw a catholic claiming these (Rome, Hippo and Carthage) were ecumenical councils. Either way they're more authoritative than random guy (who wasn't even a bishop) by himself saying what books we should accept as cannonical or not.
@@ghostapostle7225 You're arguing with a point I never made.
I am very aware of how the magisterium works because I actually read scholarship, I don't need to pretend because I am formally trained.
I am glad you weren't as misinformed as some others!
@@AB-dw2op
But this goes back to the anachronism of demanding dogmas to be defined within the first 4 centuries. We could have lived to this day with a similar form of innocuous ambiguity about the boundaries of the deuterocanon, but we can't do that anymore because sola scriptura came about in the 16th century, so _now_ you need a definition of what actually pertains to the canon or not.
About Hippo and Carthage, I see people going back and forth over calling them councils or synods but that's about it, it's plausible to say they may not understand what constitutes an ecumenical council but that would be mind reading. Not that it matters, since both of them were ratified by the pope so to argue their authority is a non starter.
So you choose the jew canon over the early Christian canon?
Bruce Metzger on the Canon: Neither individuals nor councils created the canon; instead they came to recognize and acknowledge the self-authenticating quality of these writings, which imposed themselves as canonical upon the church. The New Testament, Its Background, Growth and Content, Abington Press, 2003, p. 318.
Yes!
How do you define "self authenticating"? Even Scripture does not define it. It is circular argument.
@@justfromcatholic did you watch the video? If I were you, I’d watch the video again or read the source from Bruce Metzger, I dropped in the comments. But just as a quick teaser, there’s several rules and one of them would be no internal contradictions, and a consistent intertextuality, especially as a refers to old testament prophecy and New Testament/historical fulfillment.
@@ryanparris1021 I did watch and Dr. Ortlund did not mention the name Bruce Metzger. I am fully aware that Dr. Metzger was well-known scholar. I have two of his books: "The Canon of the New Testament" and "The Text of the New Testament".
You wrote "there are several rules and one of them would be no internal contradiction". Where and how did you get those rules? "No internal contradiction": Well, who bought the tomb from the sons of Hamor in Shechem? It is Abraham (Acts 7:16) or Jacob (Jos. 24:32)?
Self-Authentication is an Islamic doctrine brought into Protestantism. Muslims view the Quran as self-authenticating.
Brilliant! The concept of Catholic infallibility is indistinguishable from fallibility. I once heard Akin explaining the criteria for distinguishing infallible teachings from fallible ones within the Magisterium. It was revealing, he said things like "if the document says 'define' then it is *LIKELY* to be infallible"... so they have a fallible method to identify infallible teachings
But the claim is that what's infallible is the teacher, not the student. This is a category error.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Tú me persigues. Ya te he refutado mil veces y siempre vienea por otra paliza más. Incluso, en nuestra última interacción tuviste qué mentir para salvar tu punto.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj No es error de categoría pues nunca dije que la ICAR es falible porque no tenemos método infalible. Otra más de tus m33ntiras. Lo que dije, es que para nosotros es indistinguible su infalibilidad de la falibilidad porque aunque fuesen infalibles, nunca podríamos estar seguros si lo que derivamos del método es verdaderamente infalible o no
Añade el aggiornamento a las variables y entonces las declaraciones infalibles se vuelven un mal chiste porque aquéllo que se dijo de X en Florencia, sucede que podía significar prácticamente lo opuesto en Vaticano II.
Interesting.
So the answer is tradition? By the time a common canon was recorded in history we also have prayers to Mary and the saints as well as the Eucharist (among other things) Catholics still do all these practices and so feel comfortable standing on both tradition and infallibility. Orthobros stand on tradition and also don't have the same understanding of canon. The problem with protestants is that they rejected tradition and using it for ONLY this issue is very inconsistent.
How does receiving the infallible not require infallibility? If we are fallible then we could be mistaken in discerning something as infallible when it is actually not.
For example, the goldsmith analogy makes no sense. He says the goldsmith can distinguish gold from other metals while not making it. The church can distinguish infallibility without coming up with the infallible scriptures themselves. This doesn’t mean the goldsmith isn’t infallible in distinguishing gold from other metals. If he were fallible, we couldn’t trust fully that he could distinguish properly. The same way with the church, if it weren’t infallible we couldn’t trust it to discern what is canon and what is not.
13:14 this is true. We didn’t have a Canon for the beginning of Christendom. This is actually a case against Sola Scriptura…
Jesus himself quoted the OT as authoritative over the traditions of the religious establishment of his day.
@@andyontheinternet5777 The religious tradition of His day isn’t the religious Tradition of today…Jesus Himself renewed Israel and we now remain within Apostolicity…
@@amieroberg5252 Which "apostolic" tradition are you arguing for? Roman Catholic, Easter Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Scandinavian Lutheran, Anglican, Hussite, Moravian, Old Catholic, or the Assyrian Church of the East? They all claim apostolic succession.
From day one Scripture was above all members of the church it just happened to be OT. There is a reason the early Epistles keep pointing back to OT as authority.
@@Phlebas9202 day one?
Its a great summary of dr Krugers’ book about the canon
good conclusion bro
The historical, and chronologically catholic (making sense of the whole of church history), argument that you make is fantastic.
old truths very well presented
This brings up an interesting question...
Does the perspicuity of Scripture hold if part of the inspired collection is missing? Or even larger problem, if part of the collection is not inspired and therefore in error?