Dude this is the best defense of Sola Scriptura I've ever seen. I love your use of Barth! I made the mistake of rushing into Protestant apologetics. You were patient and slow to speak. You took a lot of insults for a long time and never retaliated but now that you're slowly starting to respond you do so masterfully
I think it takes humility to realize that you are not qualified enough to mainstream protestant apologetics. It is a difficult thing to do, and not everyone can do it, the same way NASA doesn't send an amateur to the moon but someone that studied, and has lots of years of practice
Eucharist Sola Scriptura: a) "eat my flesh and drink my blood" = "eat my flesh and drink and blood" (Catholic and Orthodox). b) "eat my flesh and drink my blood" = "eat bread and drink wine" (Protestant except Lutheran). c) "eat my flesh and drink my blood" = "eat bread and drink wine and eat my flesh and drink my blood" (Lutheran).
@@danielmuntean9345 Now if only we had some sort of properly qualified authority structure to help us correctly divide the word of truth when it comes to holy scripture.
St. Jerome, "Father of the Bible," seemed to think denominations and sola scriptura were crazy all the way back in the fourth century: "I will tell you my opinion briefly and without reserve. We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. **And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning.** Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church." (Dialogue with the Luciferians 28) Prophetic, really.
@14:30 the mention of the Fathers is not an attempt to put them on equal ground with scripture. It is an attempt to put their interpretation of scripture and knowledge of doctrine above your interpretations and musing
@@anthonyburrell5761 True. However I believe it evidences historical teaching better, especially in the face of some anti-historical "first century church" evangelical churches. It's important to keep in mind that the reformers were Catholics before they were Protestant.
The difficulty I have with Sola Scriptura has less to do with Scripture and more to do with our understanding of the Church. If it’s true that the Church IS the body of Christ-that is, an extension of the Incarnation-I don’t see how the Scripture can be put over and above that. The Scripture certainly is divinely inspired, but it’s not made in God’s image in the same way that humans are. Humans inhabit the Word, letters on the page do not (at least in the same way). And especially if theosis is true, and we “become partakers of the Divine Nature,” the Body seems to have “authority” in the sense which is usually ascribed to Scripture in the Protestant model. That’s why we see it “appearing good to us and to the Holy Spirit” when the Apostles made pronouncements at the council of Jerusalem. While recognizing members of the church may err, if they’re unrepentant in that error they must be grafted out. The Body and Truth is preserved.
Exactly. The Catholic Church codified the Bible canon at the council of Rome at the end of the 4th century. And then in the 16th century a random guy eliminates 7 books for for agreeing to his new theology which is proof they don’t agree with sola scriptura to begin with.
Scripture is the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God. John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".
@@matthewkay1327 Scripture is the word of God, correct. But Scripture is not the Divine Logos, to which that passage refers. The Son is not equivalent to the Bible.
@@matthewkay1327 does Christ’s Body, the Church, not testify to Christ? Christ Himself identifies with it, as in: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
I didn't see the whole video. But I have some observations. Is this "Theological principle" the one by which the Church in the beginning defined doctrine? When did Christians start using it? Were the fundamental beliefs and doctrines, like Christological doctrines, established by this principle? Sola Scriptura definitions: A Muslim could also claim: "The Quran is our most reliable witness to the revelation of God in history and therefore should act as the rule against which we measure all other theological claims." By simply replacing "Scripture" with "Quran," we can see that the logical structure: -Is circular -Lacks external justification -Could be used to validate any sacred text This demonstrates that Austin's definition of Sola Scriptura: -Begs the question -Provides no criteria for establishing reliability -Could justify any religious text's supreme authority by using the same reasoning Ortlund's definition is worse. Using the same approach: "Scripture is the only authority standing over the church that is incapable of error" -"Only authority" - Says who? -"Standing over the church" - Who established this authority structure? -"Incapable of error" - How was this determined? The definition: -Assumes its own premises -Makes claims about exclusive authority without establishing why -Claims inerrancy without explaining how we know this A Muslim could similarly say: "The Quran is the only authority standing over the ummah that is incapable of error" This shows the same logical problems: -Circular reasoning -Unsubstantiated claims of authority -Assertion of inerrancy without justification The claim: -Not an "exegetically derived doctrine" (not found in Scripture itself) -Rather, it's claimed to be a "logical necessity" -The argument is: "our method of interpretation must come before interpretation itself" (We should not call it "Sola Scriptura then, but something else)" However, this creates several problems: If Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture, but is instead a philosophical principle: -Why should Christians accept it as authoritative? -How is it different from any other human philosophical construct? Bendiciones, en espera de una respuesta.
@@traviscrawford6516 you could take the time to answer just one of them in a non fallacious manner or maybe someone else, after 500 years of this modern man made doctrine, can finally do it.
All of these points were adressed in the video. I suggest you have a look. However, a point that bears repeating is that interpretation and personal judgement will always be a necessary step prior to submitting to any authority. One has to at some point decide to follow one set of teachings over another, e.g. I interpret and find the claims of authority of the Orthodox church to be correct and will live out my life as such.
Just drop the sola; it means nothing. You think it binds any corrupt mind? It actually gives license to perverted interpretation, a la Protestant reformers. Like Zwingli said, “I can only assume all the fathers back to the apostles were wrong”, when he invented regeneration-less baptism. Nominalism strikes, again.
Your failure is to think reformers follow Zwingli, I would guess less than 25%, and that's changing even in the Low Churches. You can argue Catholics miss the mark on the Eucharist and are heretical. They ignore Matthew 26:26-28
In my estimation, the biggest problem and thus the best argument against sola scriptura is that it makes no sense to call a written text infallible. The information contained therein and its right use is infallible, but using the term to describe scripture prior to any act of interpretation makes no sense. Infallibility belongs to an interpreter, and the Holy Spirit is its source. For sola scriptura to work as you’ve defined it here, one must either have an infallible method of interpretation (what I take you to be arguing for here in implying that individuals or groups have the ability to arrive at infallible interpretations of scripture themselves) or one must be protected by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. It’s the latter sense in which the Catholic Church understands itself as the guardian of the deposit of faith. You can object and say it puts a human authority above scripture, yet by not doing so, you put your own authority as an interpreter or the authority of some human method you put to use above it by the necessity of hermeneutics in coming to any understanding. Sola scriptura remains a great principle for fostering factions and divisions. Regardless of my opinion, this is a great video presenting a well-reasoned Protestant position. Thank you for it!
21:00 You directly deal with my argument here, yet I think your position again confuses the nature of infallibility. It is an understanding that is infallible and not speech or text. For a Catholic, the information within a proclamation of the Church is infallible just as the text of scripture itself is infallible, but we must come to a right understanding of it to possess the infallible truth therein. It is in virtue of being a member of the Body of Christ (Church) that we share in the right and infallible understanding. If we come to the same understanding ourselves or through some method, it is only coincidentally that we do so. The concept of the sensus fidelium is extremely apt here.
@@sophia-proskomen So your position is...both Protestants and Roman Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox, by implication) are wrong? Because you, I hope, recognize that literally all three of those groups consider Scripture, as in the Text of Scripture, to be infallible...right? Please think through your critiques.
@ please allow me the equivocal use of the term infallible. I’m saying it makes no sense to use the term to describe a text then say your understanding automatically carries the same property.
@@barelyprotestant5365no infallibility refers to people and inerrancy refers to the written word. Lastly all Protestants who hold to this conclusion differ from the historical definition meaning that the principle was to guide Christians in all essential matters of salvation. Clearly this doesn’t work as Protestants can’t claim what the essential doctrines are like the necessity of baptism or is not necessary? I can list other theological topics to prove my point. In practice this theological doctrine doesn’t work
Infallible is a useful distinction, in that something could be by nature correct, not just incidentally correct. Like, a phone book could be correct about all the numbers in it, and thus be correct, but not be infallible as it could in principle be wrong if someone changed their number. The word of God, on the other hand, could never incidentally be wrong, so it is more than just inerrant, but infallible.
@ 15:00, admitting that this doctrine came about late, in the Middle Ages, at a “flashpoint in history” because of abuses… is an admission it's a man made doctrine (meaning, not delivered to the church by the apostles, meaning different Gospel) and formulated in reaction to specifically Roman Catholic actions/abuses, which are irrelevant to the majority of Christendom. This does not eliminate the logical problem of finding out what faith and doctrine the apostles actually delivered so that you can follow it with authenticity.
7:35 "So moving on from the canon..." haha whoah there Nelly, I know this is a short video, but you've just breezed past one of the critical defeaters of Sola Scriptura.
@@matthewkay1327 The reason the canon is a problem for Sola Scriptura is because in order to have the Scriptures as the sole infallible authority you have to know what the Scriptures are. What books belong in the Bible is a Tradition, even Protestant apologists acknowledge that. If the canon is not infallible than you have opened up the possibility that you are holding as Scripture something that is not or that you have rejected something that is. If the canon is infallible than infallible Tradition is possible. Secondly There are no texts or words over Scripture rather the claim is that there are interpretations and understandings of Scripture that are over your own.
A good discussion about Sola Scriptura begins after the meaning of "Scriptura" is clarified. At 1:38 you describe Sola Scriptura as: "Scripture is our most reliable witness...". My humble question is: Which Scripture, please? Is it: 1. the 73 books "recognized" by the Catholic Church?, or 2. the 66 books "recognized" by many non-Catholics, minus parts of the Books of Esther and Daniel?, or 3. some other combination? Hoping you can make known the reason(s) for your answer. Happy new year 2025.
Does it matter how many books? It is what they each witness to that makes them reliable not the number of witnesses. The witness is to Jesus and certainly the 27 books of the NT that we all have are a reliable witness to Jesus.
The issue of private judgement obfuscates the real issue. It's true that everyone must use private judgement to interpret the Bible, priests, pastors, or bishops. This is not the issue. The issue is that there is no normative authority in Protestantism to bind someone to specific doctrines. In orthodoxy, you could misunderstand or misinterpret a doctrine, just like you can do the same for the Bible, but there is still a living authority that can correct you or bind you to a doctrine (even if you're not personally convinced!) because the church has actual Spiritual authority In Protestantism, YOU are the interpretive authority. A pastor can try to correct your false interpretation, but in the Protestant paradigm it's perfectly acceptable to either find a new pastor that agrees with you or begin your own church altogether due to the belief in the "invisible church". If you start your own church in the orthodox paradigm you are outside of the body of christ and do not have teaching authority or the sacraments. This is the same exact way that the church has acted throughout history by exercising the power to anathemantize or excommunicate people. This practice was accepted without controversy for centuries but just doesn't work or fit in the Protestant worldview
Austen, I don't think you addressed the strongest argument against Sola Scriptura based on the canon. The problem is not the books of the New Testament which have more or less always been held as cannonical, like the 4 Gospels, but the books the cannonicity of which was hotly debated for centuries e.g. 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation, as well as books which didn't make it in, like 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. The question for the Sola Scriptura defender is how do you know which of these disputed texts are divinely inspired Scripture and which are not. There's no scientific, historical, theological, or exegetical test you can perform to make that determination. Human reason unaided by revelation cannot discern which books are divinely inspired and which are not. Cameron Bertuzzi made this argument effectively in a recent video, and Dr. Ortlund's response missed the point by making the issue about infallibility, as Joe Heschmeyer showed. The problem is not just that sola scriptura prevents us from knowing infallibly which of the disputed books are in the New Testament. It prevents us from knowing at all. We only have good reason to believe we have the correct cannon if we also believe that the Church is the trustworthy custodian of unwritten traditions which constitute part of divine revelation. As I said, we cannot settle the question of which books are in the cannon by the ordinary methods of human reason, so revelation is necessary. But if you believe that extra-Scriptural Church tradition is part of revelation, you have to give up Sola Scriptura since revelation cannot contain any error (violating Dr. Ortlund's definition according to which only Scripture is without error). Even according to your own definition (which I think is less clear than Dr. Ortlund's), you'd have to give up Sola Scriptura, unless you want to say that some forms of revelation are more reliable than others, but that can't be right since all revelation is 100% reliable. In any case, I don't believe there's any meaningful or historically significant version of Sola Scriptura that can accomodate unwritten traditions guarded over by the Church as part of public revelation. In conclusion, I hope that you or another A-tier Prot-Tuber will respond to the steel manned version of this argument, either showing how it can be overcome or admitting it punctures a serious hole in Protestant theology. As long as you think the Apostolic churches have to cope with larger theological holes, you can admit the problem and still justify remaining Protestant.
Look at the creation of scripture itself. That which is fallible created that which is infallible with the guidance of the God. Why can't we presuppose the canon operates on the same basis?
I think we have different understandings of what Sola Scriptura means. Not sure how you understand that it's Sola Scriptura which determines which books are canonical or not? It does not. Sola Scriptura means that whichever books are determined to be canonical, then those are the books to which the faith must adhere. That scripture is the final authority in all matters pertaining to Christianity, and not tradition, a conference or a pope. Thus when scripture tells us that women are to remain silent in the church, then that is what we must adhere to. Anything else would be wilful disobedience to the will of God, as revealed in scripture.
@@biblicalchristianity1016 He didn't say that Sola Scriptura determines which books are canonical. What he said is that there can be no "sola" because the Scripture already presupposes someone who has the authority to proclaim a canon. Who is that authority? And how did they get their authority?
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty According to Catholic teaching, it would operate on a similar basis. The Church is made of fallible humans, but God guides it to ensure that its traditions do not become erroneous, though many individual members may err. The question for the Protestant is: if you are going to presuppose that God protected the Church from error in its canonization of Scripture, why don't you presuppose He protected it in other matters? What's the rationale behind this kind of picking and choosing? How would you know on which points God would want to protect the Church from error and on which points he would permit errors to creep in? In my judgment, Sola Scriptura entails that you can't know.
@@biblicalchristianity1016 Athmoneus is correct. All I would add is this: you say Sola Scriptura claims that, to whichever books are determined to be canonical, to those books faith adheres. But are you just going to presuppose that the list of books was correctly determined by the Church? If so, why don't you presuppose the Church got other things right as well? Either the Church is trustworthy and reliable or it isn't. Trusting that the Church got this one thing right while distrusting it on other matters seems like an ad hoc and unjustifiable assumption, and if your worldview contains such assumptions, that's a major weakness.
Sola Scriptura = Snake handlers, prosperity gospel, charismatic movement, oneness movement, constant doctrine changes, pastor worship, cross-less churches, etc... Brother you need to travel the world. What starts as a genuine Spirit led movement within 1-2 generations deteriorates rapidly.
Great video and great explanation but in my opinion the arguments you made against Sola Scriptura are stronger than the defense of it and shows me how much more coherent Traditon is.
EO listener here. Always enjoy your videos. This one is probably the best defense of SS I've heard, on YT anyway. I agree that SS is often dismissed flippantly with bad arguments but such is the standard of common polemics. Your definition seems very conservative. When phrased timidly in the sense of 'prima scriptura' I don't think any Christian group can really disagree with you. But taken in light of how SS has been historically applied, this seems a bit of a motte and bailey fallacy. Frankly, this type of argumentation is a consistent problem with Dr. Ortlund. For me, the most troubling problem with Protestantism is not SS, but that I don't think there is really such a thing as Protestantism at all. There's no single principle of unity that holds up to any kind of scrutiny. 'Protestantism' is nothing more than a loosely affiliated ideological group.
The fairly standard definition of Protestant is Christian whose heritage derives from the Reformation, who affirms the authority of Scripture, the fallible nature of Church authority, and maintains the doctrine of the Trinity. If you want to quibble about that definition, I am sure we can quibble about any definition of Eastern Orthodox that you want to offer.
The only thing that binds and defines the church is the sacraments. Only through the sacrament of Baptism does one become a Christian, only through the Eucharist do we have unity, and only through Holy Orders is earthly authority passed down.
@ The Catholic Church codified the Bible canon at the council of Rome at the end of the 4th century. And then in the 16th century a random guy eliminates 7 books for agreeing to his new theology which is proof they don’t agree with sola scriptura to begin with. Makes no sense.
@@taylorbarrett384 Well, friend, I can't agree. Every Christian group affirms the authority of Scripture and also says ecclesial decisions can be fallible. Every Christian group maintains a doctrine of the Trinity (which is being charitable to you - I could ask which doctrine do you actually mean? The SBC just rejected the Nicene Creed, after all.) The Reformation is a historical period. Which body? Which set of doctrines? Originally Protestant referred only to those who protested a specific law, which meant Lutherans and Reformed and specifically excluded anabaptists. The magisterial reformers made very strong statements excluding groups other than their own. The Reformed used to drown anabaptists, and Luther was scathingly clear he would have no fellowship with any memorialist. Most modern groups which call themselves Protestant bear almost no resemblance to the reformation movements they descend from. The EO and Catholic position is very clear by comparison. Each has a unity of sacramental communion and shared statements of belief.
Yep, you're right. As to "Protestantism" the only real unity in today's usage is that it is not with Rome, or Near Eastern Christians, or with the Old Catholics. Originally Protestants were all within the HRE and protesting the Emperor's repeal of a law. As to sola scriptura, the original usage by Lutherans is the conservative usage. Basically one can test tradition, both teaching and practice, against the rule of Scripture with reference to the witnesses of the Church (Fathers, councils, etc.); if the tradition is contrary to the Rule and witnesses, it's out; if not contrary it can stay; if affirmed it should stay. (Obviously there are gradations within all that, and depends on what witnesses are accessible; but that is why a doctor of the church could say, "unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, I will not recant").
I'm a simple guy, who probably draws simple conclusion, but the words of our Lord seem pertinent on this point, "Wisdom is proved right by her children". The 'children' of the Reformation have been unending schism, division and theological innovation and instability. I say that with all the love in my heart. As an Orthodox Christian, I realize we've got some hefty problems in need of serious attention, but on the whole, I'd take them every time over the wild west of Protestantism. Leaving aside fringe expressions, even the main line traditions wouldn't attend the churches of their founders.
Exactly. The Catholic Church codified the Bible canon at the council of Rome at the end of the 4th century. And then in the 16th century a random guy eliminates 7 books for for agreeing to his new theology which is proof they don’t agree with sola scriptura to begin with.
I always find this reasoning a bit strange. The reason why the Protestant church is so “divided” is because of the hard lines that Orthodox and Catholics draw in the sand. It’s kinda like defining a “house” as any dwelling larger than 4,000 sqft, then complaining about all the homeless people in your neighborhood. Of course all the families flourishing in sub 4,000 sqft homes don’t think they’re homeless, but because you’ve defined them as such, “homelessness“ becomes a grave problem. This seems similar to the “divisions” in the Protestant church. I didn’t think most Protestants believe the church is “divided” in the sense you Orthodox and Catholics do. I don’t think an Anglican looks at a Lutheran or a Baptist and thinks to himself “schismatic!” I think the issue is largely with how you guys have chosen to define the church.
@ we define the church as the apostles and church fathers defined it. That is, Catholic. The Protestant church made a new religion. They claim say Jesus saved you and that’s a wrap. After erasing 7 books from the holy bible. We find Protestantism honestly a bizarre new age religion that rejects the faith our apostles and church fathers left us. We see Protestantism much like Protestants see Mormons.
This deserves a whole essay to state a response. However, as an initial matter, recasting "sola scriptura" as "prima scriptura" is a transformation of the doctrine from anything recognizable by most denominations that hold it. Second, as a lawyer who reads Scripture (and other more inscrutable texts) on a regular basis, what I can say is that, under the Mosaic law, I would certainly have still a job getting criminals acquitted, finding evidentiary loopholes, etc. And I could still collect a good fee for it. Bringing in the new law only complicates the matter, because often the New Testament makes difficult (and creative) interpretive choices in reading Old Testament laws and prophecies. There is a reason that Jews, both of Jesus's time and today, disagree on the exact function of oral tradition in interpreting the Bible, because the original is so difficult to apply directly. Finally, Ortlund's definition of sola scriptura is one of the classic ways that Orthodox and Protestants speak past each other. Infallibility, if understood as perspicuity, fails on its face, because the application of reason to Scripture still leads to multiple plausible interpretations. If understood as unable to err, that is also meaningless, because the text is already (mostly) established: it either has erred or it hasn't. Only a person or body can be INCAPABLE of something, and insofar as the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is God, then infallibility rightly belongs, through Christ, to the Church, in a certain mystical manner. But, if we understand the claim as inerrancy, then restricting that to Scripture also makes no sense, as there are doubtless all sorts of documents that lack error. Your position, where Scripture should be the Primary witness to tradition, is certainly adequately defended, and the Orthodox church agrees (with the caveat that it is Scripture as divinely interpreted by the Holy Spirit through the Body of Christ), but that is not Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is backwards epistemology. Jesus taught orally. Many documents were written claiming to contain the authentic sayings of Jesus. We must first determine which documents those are, without assuming which documents are authentic. By what standard can we do that? Only by comparing them to the teachings of the successors of Jesus, his apostles, and their successors. If you think Jesus' successors failed in preserving the truth, then he isn't God, and it doesn't matter what he taught because it can never be known.
Yes, the text was assembled under divine inspiration, but when the text is assembled, why should believers today not set the text above the church today?
@@Joker22593 Agreed. The early Christians selected texts that agreed with their beliefs and practices. The accuracy of their judgement is tied to the accuracy of their beliefs. But by the fourth century, when the canon was developed, the orthodox Christian faith was incompatible with Protestant theology, namely with the nature of the sacraments and the sacrifice of the Mass.
Protestants believe that Jesus' successors succeeded in preserving the truth. After all, that's how it is that we have the Scriptures; the church preserved them. However, along the way, it's also true that the church sometimes made mistakes resulting in some truths failing to be delivered properly to the faithful, though they were never lost. And in some cases, the church added things which were not true, yet still the truth was preserved despite the many failings of the church. Thankfully, it's still possible to find where the errors were and where the truth is, even though the process can be messy and imperfect around the edges. Protestants have always affirmed that the Holy Spirit will always ensure that the most core truths will be preserved. The danger in Catholicism is that there's no standard by which they can determine where they may have erred, because all the magisterial teachings are believed to be infallible. Once an error is defined at a council or in a papal statement, Catholics are stuck with it.
Not exactly sure what you are getting at here. Apostolic Christianity operates on the principle of sola Scriptura. Scripture alone predicted and affirmed the coming of the messiah. Not the traditions of the elders.
Apostoles did not have church councils nor church fathers. They lived before them. So if they did not have sola scriptura thet did not have modern church tradition either
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty It is very silly to speak of Apostolic Christianity before the apostles. The apostles did not practice sola scriptura. They operated on direct revelation. This is why Catholicism looks nothing like the Mennonite Church.
After 4+years of tumbleweeding to & fro over, around & through Christidom... I agree. I will 'remain as I was called', I am a Protestant, I repent of my 'Popism' concerning the 3 traditions, I'm done. Love you bro, God bless & keep you, and your family.
The question that a lot of people don't really iron out is what the definition of error is. In Gavin's definition, incapable of what kind of error? Just theological? Beyond? Clearly not an argument, but important for Christian thought.
As a protestant I'm still left with a lot of questions. The TL;DR version is "Is the formation of doctrine from scripture, including our approach to scripture itself, only ever at best a product of human reason; and if so is the basis for orthodox belief itself only ever a product of human reason?" I've detailed more explicit questions below: - Is the principle of Sola Scriptura itself inspired? If it's just an extra-Biblical principle, is it fallible? - Is the definition of the Canon (something which by definition is outside the text) itself inspired? - Has scripture itself given us a method for interpretation of scripture and defining dogma or practices? (Acts 15, Matthew 18:20) - Is the doctrine of the trinity inspired? - Can the interpretation of a text itself ever be inspired, or is the text itself the only God-breathed thing, while the interpretation must always at best be a product of human reason? If this is the case, what basis do we have for trusting the New Testament (which is mostly interpretations of the Old Testament). Is the basis for trusting the New Testament purely founded in human reason alone? What do we do with textual differences (the "extended" end of Mark etc). - How are we to determine what translations of a text are inspired. Can the act of translation itself ever be considered inspired or should we always consider translations at best a product of human reason? (btw, I think Islam takes an interesting approach to this question by basically admitting that translations have to be a product of reason, and therefore only the original translation of the text can be considered inspired while other translations are merely "profitable"). - Finally, what weight should we give to people that come along and defy long standing interpretive frameworks alla zwingli in comparison to long standing interpretations? ("In this matter of baptism - if I may be pardoned for saying it - I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles" - Of Baptism, in Zwingli and Bullinger, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 24, p. 130) What is our method for discerning between interpretations in recognition of the limits of our individual reasoning capabilities? Note: When I say "limits of individual reasoning capabilities" I'm not so much talking about human error as I am just limits of being able to calculate and address a certain number of issues over a single lifetime. Some questions take decades of discussion to resolve. Think of it more like comparing a single CPU to a daisy chain of CPUs. Or a CPU that performs a certain set of calculations over it's lifetime then passes them on before dying so another CPU can continue the calculations.
I will say that this definition of Sola Scriptura seems more like an ecumenical move than a defense of Protestantism against ecclesial traditions. In a way it opens up the discussion for a Catholic/Orthodox to say "We do believe scripture is the inerrant deposit of faith, but we believe scripture itself points to the existence of interpretive authority as well." That also gives them the ability to say that the Apostles where given that interpretive authority. In other words, none of the Catholic or Orthodox fathers claimed to invent doctrine, instead they claimed their doctrine was from scripture itself. Reducing sola scriptura from doctrine to principle is a very interesting take...
Sola Scriptura doesn’t lead to truth. It only creates a conglomeration of opinions. What’s the point of relying on a principle that sacrifices the truth?
I fail to understand how Sola Scriptura leads to different opinions? Either the Bible supports or rejects your opinion, leading to a conformity in opinions.
The definition and understanding of this Protestant doctrine has shifted over time. So it depends on whose definition one is going to use. Dr. Gavin and Dr White or rather the historical definition? Neither work but modern theologians today try and nuance much more because it simply doesn’t work which is obvious because there is not a unanimous agreement between these Protestant churches on what one must believe for Salvation and pointing out these doctrines. If there was something even close to unanimous understanding within these groups then it would make more sense
@@biblicalchristianity1016all the Protestant churches say they follow the Bible and yet don’t even agree that baptism saves you and that infants should be baptized. Some agree some don’t. They can’t even agree that it’s essential for salvation. I can give you more but that’s a good start
I’m so glad you made this video Austin! I love your heart and posture towards other Christians, but I think sometimes your channel can (unintentionally) function as something of a streamlined conveyor belt out of Protestantism. I think voicing your stance on topics like this helps mitigate that reality some. This is an excellent presentation of Sola Scriptura.
Why Catholic? Podcast just released an excellent episode dismantling the heresy of Sola Scriptura highly recommend all non Catholic Christians listen to it!
It has born and revived ancient heresies that were already defeated: Christ is not God (unitarians), Eucharist is not the body of Christ but also symbolic, Baptism is symbolic, Eternal Security
@ so, it ultimately depends on personal interpretation of Scripture. The issue at hand is not if Scripture is an authority, it is. This issue is who possesses an authoritative interpretation that settles disagreements.
Not a good defence. Doesn’t deal with the practical reality at all. Ignores nearly all of history. For around 1,500 years Christians didn’t have the printing press. Copies of texts were very hard to come by. No regular person had a Bible in full. Impossible. So how can they on their own just sit at home and read and make all their own judgements? You would also be ignoring that most people couldn’t even read if you gave them a Bible. Literacy rates were terrible for most of history. Also if someone didn’t speak the biblical languages how can they read the texts? Even if there are translations then the person translating can make things mean whatever they want. You have to blindly trust them not being able to check their work. So you would need a church with credibility and authority to do this work faithfully and trust it. The only place most people could have heard the Bible was in a church from their church leaders. They necessarily had to rely on these leaders to teach them what Christianity is orally in catechism, through icons, through experiencing the sacraments in person at church, etc. These same church leaders had to enforce rules and doctrines to avoid Christianity getting lost by the congregations going their own direction and making endless changes to suit themselves. Because of how reliant people are on the priesthood to guide them the church appointed bishops to ensure the priests were teaching and practicing correct doctrine. These correct doctrines would be passed down via tradition and apostolic succession. There were also so many texts that are written in the name of someone who sounds authoritative. So how would a person know which text they can trust? Can they trust the book of Enoch? How about Tobit? What about the Didache or the protoevangelium of James? Gospel of Thomas? How do we really know who wrote the epistle of Hebrews and what makes us sure it can be trusted as apostolic? Nobody can really answer these questions outside the church. Scholars endlessly debate these things today and can’t definitely say. So outside of the church nobody would know what is or is not scripture. People would read random texts they don’t know or understand and end up in all sorts of heresy. Luther himself couldn’t figure out whether the book of revelation was scripture or even the epistle of James. He downgraded the apocrypha as not scripture. But who gave him the authority and wisdom to discern this? He made himself the editor of the Bible sitting in judgement of what counts or not. You pretend it is all so clear like any book. Then why do you all disagree with each other on countless important matters or doctrine? Proves clearly that people relying on their own interpretations go all over the place with those interpretations. The bias is overwhelming in this video. It’s not objective.
I completely agree. I just thought that I would add that Martin Luther actually DID remove 4 books from the New Testament as well in his first Bible and put them in the back of the Bible in the appendix with the other Deuterocanon. He removed James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. They were added back in later though. Also, that John Calvin at the time of the Reformation considered Baruch as inspired scripture and then later changed his mind. The same goes for Martin Luther, he quoted from the Deuterocanon in his original objections as scripture. Ultimately, if you read both of their writings they rejected the 7 books because they didn't agree with their opinions. For example, John Calvin didn't believe in free will and it was more clearly taught in those books.
Bias is everywhere, and true objectivity doesn't exist. At least on this side of the Jordan. Of course he's biased, but so are you. So, a more humble response would be to also investigate into your own bias(es). And then have a humble and open discussion, not only about the topic at hand, but also your own a priori understanding of things. And not to win an argument, but to learn more about the truth together.
@@AlmaTlust You misunderstood the tone of his comment. And there are different levels of bias, of course, which you conveniently failed to note. Lastly, not all opinions have the same objective strength.
Your ramblings are one of the most grotesque caricatures of Sola Scriptura that I've ever seen. Do you seriously think it entails everyone having a personal Bible and reading it in isolation with no other inputs? What it actually entails is something entirely different and boils down to a few basic points. 1. Scripture is the infallible, Divinely inspired word of God. 2. Anything that contradicts the Divinely inspired infallible word of God is incorrect. 3. There hasn't been ongoing public Divine revelation since the Apostolic age. Hence, scripture is the sole source of the word of God we have access to today. As far as I'm aware, all 3 of those points are affirmed by RC and EO.
Scripture being written is only accidental (and providential on the part of God). The words of scripture are equally authoritative whether they are said or written. Having a compiled Bible is great, but Sola Scriptura would work if you were stranded on a deserted island and only knew memorized passages. Of course it would depend on the reliability of your memory, but so would any extrascriptural source. TL,DR: Sola Scriptura is concerned with the contents of scripture, the written form is merely accidental.
This video was super well made. Great points all around. I found many of the points helpful, and will probably use them in my own defenses. You put words to things I've been thinking for a while.
The Catholic Church codified the Bible canon at the council of Rome at the end of the 4th century. And then in the 16th century a random guy eliminates 7 books for for agreeing to his new theology which is proof they don’t agree with sola scriptura to begin with.
if I may... CCC 2068 "…all men may attain salvation through faith, baptism and the observance of the commandments." Romans 3:28,31 "So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith." "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law ... Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." Canon 12 of Trent. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema. Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Ephesians 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.” Romans 5:1-2 "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.” Canon 24 of Trent. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema. Romans 4:4-5 "Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness." Canon 32 of Trent. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema. Romans 11:6 “And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.” CCC 2027 “…Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life…” Romans 3:24 “…and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”
As one still learning, and I don't have the documents in front of me currently... Doesn't Vatican II teach that a person who hasn't heard the name Jesus yet practices another religion with sincerity will ultimately be saved? That seems to contradict Jesus saying, "no one comes to the Father except through me." I don't desire to oversimplify a teaching, so forgive me if I come across as reductionist...
He just took it for granted and rolled it out of his mouth with a straight face that later teachings of the Church contradict the Scriptures. Wait! What? He just became the authoritative interpreter of the Scripture himself, privileged with the authority to proclaim what the Bible really says. Wow!
This isn't necessarily a takedown argument, but given that sola scriptura is a theological principal, that means it is fallible. You are correct to point out that the fathers have a high view of scripture, and the reformers were right to insist that everyone read them and be taught them. I think if we could hear what the fathers would say about some of the developments Protestantism brought in, though, they would say the reformers were ignorant of the scriptures. I think the bigger issue overall is perspicuity.
I agree with sola scriptura and I also agree it is a fallible belief. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong though. If you believe sola scriptura is wrong, that is also a fallible belief. You could still be right though. Something can be both fallible and still correct and true at the same time.
I’m all for philosophical discourse but between videos like this and our buddy Sola Script-Ortlund, the intellectual gymnastics are becoming exhausting. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the answer. Sola-Scriptura is unworkable nonsense that divides the body; this truth isn’t even remotely hidden.
Do you know why Sola Scriptura gets so much pushback? Because it's a term that means whatever suits the person claiming it to be. There is no single definition for it, because it's a self-refuting concept that gets knocked down so easily that the definition get redefined with more and more nuance until the only defensible position is Scriptural Primacy, and everyone believes in that and always has.
Thank you for making this video Austin. It’s encouraging to see you speak up a bit more, regarding Protestant thought. I’m saddened to see the way the comment section is responding, but unfortunately I’m not surprised. God bless you brother!
I appreciated this video, like I appreciated your video trying to give Doctrinal Development due justice. I think this was very helpful, at least for those who haven’t already developed an allergic aversion to the idea.
What is the result? Hard question to answer for us Protestants - think about it. Many have it as a tool, others a doctrine, while others who hold to it actually live “prima” scriptura. The subjectivity is endless - you have theologians later who come along and say we don’t want to use “slave” change it (150 times) then lose the word energia or energy…why? Because the orthodox use it. Listen these two basic examples literally have massive implications when you preach it or teach it - it impacts your understanding, the way you live even - it effects parenting, interpersonal relationships etc. the results haven’t been good and a lot Protestants are responding to this by creating ‘essentials of the faith’, or ‘theological triage’…” why? Because of the results…listen if we read Luther this is NOT what he had in mind.
It’s not Biblical but that is the beauty of it, you can translate and interpret the Bible in anyway way you want and you prefer. Even to support your own individual opinions. That’s why there isn’t one Protestant religion.
The inescapable relationship of Tradition (with capital "T") and Scripture is beautifully explained in the introduction of "The meaning of Icons" by Ouspensky-Lossky. "We can no longer oppose Scripture and Tradition, nor juxtapose them as two distinct realities... If Scripture and all that the Church can produce in words written or pronounced, in images or in symbols liturgical or otherwise, represent the different modes of expression of the Truth, Tradition is the unique mode of receiving it... Truth and Spirit, The Word and the Holy Spirit, two Persons, distinct but indissolubly united, Whose twofold economy, whilst founding the Church, conditions at the same time the indissoluble and distinct character of Scripture and Tradition."
The Tradition of private Masses for the indulgence of those in purgatory, either we can test this to see if it's a true Tradition in Concord with Scripture and the rest of the witness to Christ or we continue it?
@@j.g.4942 I'm Orthodox. I will answer anyway in the spirit of your question: that is a tradition with "t". Tradition (with "T") is the vertical axis, the Life of the Church, the context in which Revelation is received (from Scripture, traditions, prayers, images, etc). In this sense, you can't separate Scripture from Tradition, you can't extract a text that finds its meaning in the participation in the Body of Christ and use it elsewhere, from our perspective that is absurd.
@@issaavedra could you give an example of discerning a tradition from Tradition?; because the essence of Sola Scriptura for us Lutherans is the touchstone of discernment that we can be sure of in a church teeming with traditions which seem contrary to Scripture (and Sacrament), as well as the witnesses of councils and Fathers. Of added interest, we technically don't have a set canon, each region is free to support its own yet most European one's favoured Luther's translation (with readings from the deuterocanon in Divine Service) while the Anglophones adopted the Reformed canon.
@@j.g.4942 traditions are the particular expressions of the liturgical life of the Church: the prayers, the icons, the sign of the Cross, etc. Tradition is the way in which the Holy Spirit animates the Body of Christ through history. We can write down precise instructions of how to do the Liturgy and give it to a bunch of atheist to do it, and maybe they could do all the correct gesture, chanting, etc., but it wouldn't be a proper Liturgy. Most protestants have this concept: even if they believe in sola scriptura, they think they need the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret them. It is similar, just collectively, in history, in symphony with the traditions: for example, the reading of the Gospel have another layer of meaning participating in the ritual enacting of the life of Christ in the Feasts of the Church.
@@issaavedra that rhymes with our, "Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." Yet, we wouldn't question the validity of a baptism when it becomes known the pastor/priest had already rejected the Faith. I suppose we're more heavily anti-donatist. And I suppose you'd say one lets the church sift the traditions to see where the Tradition is expressed or hampered? Or to let the bishop discern which traditions are correct and to be adopted, taught and practiced? Yet that does bring me back to Luther's Scripture and plain reason, or the Formula's Rule of Scripture and the witnesses of the Fathers, of course with prayer and the Spirit, to discern which traditions to encourage or discourage as a pastor/bishop (we've long adopted that frontier model of presbyterial succession, mainly because the bishops (mainly princes) didn't listen to the doctor and the Evangelicals were rejected before the council).
The idea that the written form is "solidified" simply because it is written is wrong. If anything, given the changes in languages over time, translations, interpretations, cultural assumptions; the oral tradition handed down from Apostle to Apostle to Apostle over time is more "solidified" than your personal interpretation of your XYZ translation of the Bible.
My co workers are hard core sola scriptura and they believe. Jesus turned water into grape juice Jesus name only baptism Trinity is false Jesus is the father You have to speak in tongues which is not a known language to be saved They will quote bible verses for all these beliefs and say if you don’t agree with them you didn’t receive the Holy Spirit and can’t read the Bible correctly. If sola scripture is effective why did they come to these beliefs most Protestants would reject.
All the chosen people mindsets are in error to begin with. God isn't bringing home a worldly corporate entity, but those who seek him in humility. The Word, which is Jesus, is our Rock. And His revelation sets us free. Not some other man who tries to come between you and Him. Of ANY denomination.
I suppose the answer he would give to your question is that the opinions of your co-workers are just an unfortunate side-effect of the application of sola scriptura. Unfortunately, not all can just agree with Gavin Ortlund. It would be real nice if they did, but unfortunately, they just came up with their own interpretation... But, notwithstanding the bad side effects, the medicine is good, because we now have the correct interpretation of Gavin Ortlund. I am Gavin Ortlund and I find this argument logical and super convincing.
@ nope. I’ve asked them about every belief and they quote scripture only. One time the guy told me the doctrine of the Trinity he believed in is Jesus is the father and son at the same time and also the Holy Spirit and he only quoted scripture. How can you say because he didn’t come to the identical beliefs as you from only reading the Bible that it’s extra Biblical? Have you considered some people just dont interpret the Bible the same as you?
Sola Scriptura, but if everyone misinterprets scripture and creates their own church based on their own pride, we all fail. -- Christ won’t fail. Christ would give us a way to interpret correctly.
Absolutely *adoring* the ecumenical vibe I'm getting from these comments. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times, there's nothing more likely to sway me to your particular argument than calling my view stupid or saying it's damnable heresy held by stupid people, all without providing so much as a single argument for your viewpoint. You clearly care about the state of my soul in regards to following Christ, not about being factually correct. To both the ecumenical and those who argue their points because they genuinely care about their opponents, that's not how you get those juicy 👍🏼's. May God abundantly bless you for your love and grace according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus, because y'all *for* *sure* aren't earning clout down here, smh my head
As long as Christians point to books like Philemon or Hebrews (author unknown) and claim they are God’s word without being able to explain why they qualify for such a distinction or based on a lesser authority than scripture, I will always reject Sola Scriptura. Once the authority of the Church is rejected, Sola Scriptura is the only refuge.
@ We don’t even have the autographs of any book of the Bible. You and I know those are the words of Christ through tradition. In fact, you wouldn’t have the Bible you hold in your hands if not for the Catholic Church, and only that church, copying, preserving & protecting the scriptures for over 1,000 years.
“The scripture being at odds with” the teaching of the Fathers and the Orthodox Church is nonsensical. The Orthodox Church has always been faithful to Scripture. Any claim of her being “at odds” with the scripture is based on a faulty interpretation of the latter. The scripture can’t be appealed to absent an interpretive lens.
I really felt the need to respond to this podcast. First, I have listened to several of Dr. Ortlund’s podcasts and find him to be, to be polite, deceitful. The arguments presented here, I find similar in nature. It was arguments presented here that pushed me far away from Protestantism. I very rarely post on others podcast but felt the need to do so here. First in foremost, the reliability of Scripture. The argument made is that it is the most reliable because it is written down. That is simply untrue. Simply take a look at today’s newspapers. The written word doesn’t make anything reliable. Scripture is reliable only because it was inspired by God, not because it was written. Therefore, anything that is inspired by God is reliable. St. Paul, inspired by God, teaching the Ephesians, in person and orally, for a couple of years was as authoritative as his writing to them. For one second just put yourself in Ephesus when St. Paul was teaching you. You were getting instruction from him day in and day out. Worshiping God with him often. All this instruction for two years. He leaves and later sends a letter to you. Do you now say this written letter is now the most authoritative teaching of St. Paul? Of course not. One would see the letter and his two years of personal instruction as equal to each other. This is just common sense. Often the trust worthiness of oral tradition comes into play. Answer this one question…is God all powerful? Yes. There is no reason why God is unable to keep oral teaching as reliable as written Scripture. St. Paul dictates the letter to the Romans. Someone else wrote the physical words. It then got delivered to Rome. Do we have any proof the letter that St. Paul dictated was the same letter the was received in Rome. Absolutely not, there are a million things that could have happed. If we are to go down the distrust of oral tradition, then written tradition must be distrusted as well. The written tradition is not “flawless”. We could start with the longer and shorter versions of Mark. Earliest evidence it the shorter is the original, but the longer is in the canon. There are many, many other issues like this in Scripture. This is not to draw doubt on Scripture, but simply we trust in it because we believe it was inspired by God, and that doesn’t include the just the first time it was written, but the the entire process that gave us the Scripture that we have today. If the shorter version was the original, that doesn’t matter. The process canonized the long version hence that is what God wants us to have. Point is that if you distrust oral or written word that are inspired by God, you damage both, essentially claiming God is not powerful to do such, relegating Him to a lower god. The canon issue is brought up. It is stated that the Scriptures were canon not because of any particular process or council, but rather they were immediately canon the minute they were written and read in churches immediately. First, the word canon in the early church simply meant what was to be read in Church. I know canon now has taken up other meanings today but we need to use the word as the Church Fathers would have used it. Secondly, there were other books that were read in churches, NT books, that eventually were removed form the canon. Some like Jude, were in and out several times. Just because a book was read in the church, did not give it canonical status forever. It took centuries for all the books across Christendom to get to where we are today. There is absolutely zero evidence that a book, like Matthew, was canonical the moment it was written. St. Athanasius in the 300s AD, in his 39th letter, wrote,”But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.” This books were to be read at home, not in church, for “godliness”. Today we would only say reading Scripture was for that purpose, but here we see there were other books the church fathers wanted people to read for “godliness”. I simply offer this because the modern view of canon is very distorted from the ancient view of canon, therefore the modern view provides a very distorted view of Sola Scriptura. He uses a circular argument about people using the Scripture to defend tradition or oral teaching. The fact is Scripture is clearly saying that the written word and oral teaching are on par with each other. St. Paul makes that abundantly clear. Others also make it clear to follow the teachings of the apostles, and those teaching are not written anywhere, at least at that time. Scripture truly denies the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for the above reasons alone. We also see so much more in Scripture it self. Christ taught everything orally. Christ did not write a single page of the NT nor did He command anything to be written while He was teaching. Unlike what we see in the show the Chosen, the books of the NT were written well after the Resurrection. There is zero evidence Matthew was “taking notes”. If Christ trusted that His oral teaching could be maintained, commanded no one to write them down immediately, should we not trust oral teaching as well? The earliest teaching we have from Christ or the apostles is their oral teaching. Fact. What does Christ give us next? At Pentecost, we have the birth of the Church. The oral teaching was first, then we received the Church from God. The first letters/books were not written for about a decade later and were not complete by until the end of the century. No one for more than a century would have said, “what does the NT Scripture say about”…as it didn’t exist. They would have gone to the Church for such instruction. “What does the Church say about”….Then bishops, like St. Athanasius in his 39 letter, tell his churches they only read certain books inside the church and said what is in the OT and NT. His OT is not what the Protestant OT is, close, but a little different. While his letter was the first to list the books of the NT as we have them today, other lists from other bishops use different book in their churches, and as I said before, some books used some churches were eventual rejected. The entirely of the process was inspired by God to give us what he wanted us to have today. Oral tradition is no different. Finally, I could go on and on, but hopefully I have scratched the surface enough to show that these sort of arguments are extremely faulty and that Sola Scriptura is actually denied by Scripture itself. Just put your self in Ephesus, would you put St. Paul personally teaching you in some sort of secondary status after he taught you personally for two years, just because he wrote you a letter? Makes no sense. Please just research his arguments and find the truth for yourself. Sola Scriptura is the heresy of heresies for many.
You said there’s no reason God couldn’t have preserved oral tradition. Yes when Paul preached it was also inspired . Where is the record of what Paul said orally ? Where’s the proof ? It’s not about God’s ability. The church is a human institution and quite frankly nothing is happening in a vacuum. Notably there’s political and cultural motivations that could influence the traditions of the church. Often the history can get rewritten in favor of the traditions that won popularity. There have been so many forgeries found in the Catholic Church just as an example. The Old Testament shows us that God can let his people err for a long time. They usually start straying when they stop reading the holy books. It doesn’t mean that the church is not to be trusted or God has forsaken the church. But to act like there are no political, social or cultural motivations that could have influenced tradition is not realistic.
@@allikirman2183 Uh... In all charity, the Church is a divine institution. It wasn't concocted by men. It was organized and empowered by God made Man, with a promise of protection and continuity. To assert it was merely manmade is minimally impious, maximally blasphemous.
Anyone interested in a contra opinion should check out Jay Dyer's clips on this subject. Eviscerates the Ortlund word-salad justification for this position.
Welcome to the fray haha :) That said, I've argued for Sola Apostolica both in print and in video, and Prima Scriptura as the better model. Looking forward to listening!
I have a hard time finding a difference between Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura, since Sola Scripture doesn't mean only authority and Prima Scriptura still has Sacred Scripture as the only infallible authority. I don't know much about Sola Apostolica, so I won't comment on that. Perhaps you could let me know something about it. I watch your content all the time, but I haven't watched anything on that topic. I'm a former Pentecostal, then former Methodist, and now Anglican. I only say this to point out that I held to Sola Scriptura before, then Prima Scriptura (as many Methodists do), and now I see no real difference between them.
@@Real_LiamOBryanyou are absolutely correct. Prima scriptura is just s reformulation of sola scriptura. “Sola apostolica” is just his own invention: only the writings that convey the apostolic teachings are Scripture. I hope you immediately see the circular reasoning involved in such a definition (who gets to decide which books convey the apostolic teachings?). The truth is the Protestant position (sola scriptura, prima scriptura, sola apostolica, whatever other fancy slogan you want to invent) is just logically indefensible.
One question: is sola scriptura a doctrine from God or from man? The dilemma is this: If sola scriptura is from God but not explicitly in the Bible, then it relies on an unwritten divine tradition, making Tradition an authority alongside Scripture. If sola scriptura is a doctrine of man, then followers are elevating a human idea to divine status, effectively following a doctrine of man as if it were from God. Pick your poison. There’s no way to escape the tension.
Another thought-provoking video - thank you for daring to make videos like this, even though they might challenge a large part of the audience. Here are some ramblings that have no greater point: I myself have very conflicting ideas about sola scriptura and the doctrines related to it (the sufficiency of the Bible, its clarity, etc.). And although sola scriptura is often the first target of attack by non-Protestants, it is of course worth remembering that even if SS is false, it does not automatically mean that the RC, EO or OO model is right. I agree that SS is not a dogma that can be derived from the Bible - it is more of a matter belonging to the area of prolegomena. It is interesting that non-Christians believe in "sola scriptura" when studying Christianity. It is natural that if you want to try to understand Jesus and the apostles, you start reading the texts that are as close as possible to them. A non-Christian is unlikely to care much about the views of later church councils or theologians, because he does not believe in their infallibility, etc. But in the case of non-Christians, the Bible has value because of its historical proximity to Jesus and the apostles. This is why different works of the Bible have different values: the Gospel of Mark is more important than the Gospel of John. And on the other hand, the Gospel of Mark is also a theological account of Jesus that was written only decades later, and is not completely objective or, from a non-Christian's perspective, even completely historically reliable. Of course, a traditional Protestant trusts the Bible because it is inspired. A Protestant would hardly be willing to say that the Gospel of Mark is somehow more reliable than the Gospel of John - the reliability of both ultimately depends on their inspiration. It would seem pretty hopeless if a pastor preached from the pulpit that some scholars believe that Jesus could have actually said these words X. I think the canon question is also interesting and difficult. Unfortunately, some RC and EO have the view that the church made some books of the Bible inspired and canonical - even their churches do not teach this. It is easy to get the impression that at some church council there were dozens and dozens of books and then the church decided that okay guys, let's declare these inspired. The "ontological canon" was ready when the last book of the Bible was inspired. Some of the books were identified practically immediately, some were struggled with. The process was organic and bottom-up, although it included local councils. My background is in Lutheranism and interestingly, Lutheranism holds that not all books of the NT are equally authoritative. Lutherans give greater weight to those books that were unanimously recognized in the early church - the homologoumena. The books that were disputed (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation) have a secondary status in the NT canon. For example, Martin Chemnitz believed the antilegomena should not be used to establish doctrine (only if you can prove the doctrine correct through the homologoumena, you can also take support from the antilegomena). Luther himself famously struggled with the canonicity of some NT books, but a few months ago I came across a "scandal" in the United States in the 19th century when a Lutheran pastor (a confessional one) taught his congregation that Revelation is not a book inspired by God. Interestingly, C. F. W Walther defended him, saying that not everyone in the early church believed in the canonical status of the book, so the pastor is not doing anything weird. I remember listening to a program called Issues etc. (conservative Lutherans), where a guest once questioned the inspiration and status of Hebrews in the canon. This is a rather difficult question for me. Ortlund correctly pointed out in one of his videos that the lists of the canonical books of the Bible made by ecumenical church councils are quite a new thing, the topic was only raised by Catholics at the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. That is, more than a thousand years after the NT was written. But even if this is the case, what could I, as a Protestant, rely on? If I relied on the evidence of the early church, the Lutheran model would seem better than the Evangelical model, in which we can be equally sure of the inspiration of all NT books. If I were to end up believing in God's providence in this matter, it would seem somewhat arbitrary to think that I would believe the early church's testimony about the canon, but not about, for example, bishops, apostolic succession, etc. If the church got them wrong, then why couldn't the church have gotten the canon wrong too? If I were to apply the same skeptical attitude to the books of the Bible as to the alleged "apostolic tradition", what would happen to the Bible and the canon? I would read in the books that Paul did not actually write the pastoral epistles. Paul did not necessarily even write Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians. Peter did not write the epistles of Peter, etc. We can only guess who wrote the letter to the Hebrews. I find the "self-attesting" model presented by Michael Kruger etc. to be a complete circular (which they themselves admit) and some of their arguments also resemble Muslims defending the Quran (the beauty of the Bible, its coherence, etc.) I find some of the RC and EO points regarding the "canon problem" to be bad, but I haven't yet found a Protestant model that really satisfies me. I don't know if this is a problem, but one challenge for sola scriptura on the level of an individual Christian is that he has not been able to practice it. I'm not even referring to the canon, but to the fact that before the printing press and the spread of literacy, an individual Christian has not even owned a Bible or been able to read it. His only option has been to trust the church - in my own country, specifically the Catholic Church, which evangelized Finland at one time. But for some evangelicals, this may be a bit awkward - because from their perspective, did the Catholic Church of the early 11th century even believe in the gospel? :P But I don't know if this is a big problem, this point just came to mind. An ordinary Christian has not been able to test anything with the Bible, because he has not owned one, and would not have been able to read one until fairly late. This is what you talked about in the video, but I find some of the doctrines related to Sola scriptura a bit difficult - especially about the sufficiency and clarity of the scriptures. Here too, some RC and EO go so far as to give the impression that the Bible is the most unclear and difficult book in the world. It's a bit funny to think about inspired books like this. But the truth is that even Protestants who believe in inerrancy, infallibility and the same canon cannot reach a consensus even on 101-level questions. Take baptism for example: - Who can be baptized? Only those who profess their faith? Also babies of Christians? Or in principle, can any baby be baptized? - Who can baptize? Anyone? Any Christian? Only a pastor? (I recently learned that some conservative Presbyterians would not recognize my baptism because I was baptized as a baby by a female pastor!) - How should I be baptized? Is immersion required for a valid baptism? - Why even get baptized? The Bible commands it, but will my sins be forgiven? Or is baptism just a symbol? - Is baptism necessary for salvation? My own Lutheran tradition would say yes, some evangelicals would say that if you believe this, you don't believe the gospel. I understand if there is no consensus on some "esoteric" doctrines (predestination etc), but baptism doesn't seem like that. Does the Bible clearly teach about baptism and these questions? I don't even know if this point is directly against sola scriptura, maybe I'm arguing against the clarity or sufficiency of the Bible. I believe that RC and EO have sometimes attacked the idea of private interpretation too much - after all, what religion you believe in and what church you belong to is also based on the individual's own interpretation of the evidence. On the other hand, private interpretation is a whole way of life for a Protestant - you have to "test everything with the Bible" to some extent. Yes, the church, the creeds also have authority, but they can be wrong. So at least I have had to almost rebuild the whole system, I have to read Arians, Unitarians, so that I could really assess whether Christians got this right in the 4th century and repeat the same for all other questions. I can never really rely on the idea that the church actually decided on X and that's it. Ok, maybe I'll stop these thoughts here. :D
Really appreciate your channel and view on theses topics. Keep it up! I am sola scripture and love all solid Christian writing from ancient to modern times. God still speaks
I mean, I guess it is a good thing you aren't trying to convince anyone because this will not do so, but I do appreciate it because it provides an excellent foundation to understand people who hold to sola scriptura and it's logical problems. It's honestly a better attempt at making a logically consistent framework than Ortlund.
@traviscrawford6516 What exactly would persuade you that the veneration of icons is valid, given the multiple examples of them from the early church and their support from church fathers are not enough?
The fruit of Sola Scriptura is division from the very beginning, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli disagreed within a few years. It is indefensible. “The Church! The Pillar and Foundation of Truth!” - 1 Timothy 3:15.
It might seem grazy to you but it has good fruit. It has changed millions of people lives all around a world to better and still does. It also encourages people to go to countries where there is no church at all and risk their lives for evangelism.
You have a group of fallible men from the same organization come together and develop a infallible list of NT Canon guided by the Holy Spirit in the fourth and fifth centuries. Previously men from the same organization infallibly defined the relationship of the Three Persons within the Godhead at various Ecumenical Councils in the fourth century also guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if this organization called the Catholic Church could make these authoritative declarations that all Christians agree upon, why wouldn't this organization be guided by the same Holy Spirit in all other natters of faith and morals?
It was the Orthodox Catholic Church, not Roman, and all those who gathered to sign had beliefs that we know from undisputed historical record. No Donation of Constantine stuff here. They held to Orthodox theology and rejected Roman Catholic theology. Anyone can go read them and see for themselves!
The Bible cannot be the sole infallible rule of faith. An infallible Bible requires an infallible canon. Since the canon is not listed in Scripture, we're left with two options. Option 1: A fallible church determined a fallible canon. Therefore the Bible is not an infallible rule of faith. Option 2: A church capable of infallibility determined an infallible canon. Therefore, the Bible is not the sole infallible rule of faith.
You go wrong with the statement that an infallible Bible requires an infallible canon. That's incorrect. An infallible Bible requires a correct canon, and that's it.
Look at the creation of scripture itself. That which is fallible created that which is infallible with the guidance of the God. Why can't the creation of the canon operate the same way?
You misunderstand the meaning of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not determine which books are to be included in the canon. Sola Scriptura does not determine if the books included are infallible or not. That is not the task of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura determines that whichever books are included, that they are followed by the letter of the law that they teach. That the written word of the books of the canon, are the final authority in all matters. That is the meaning of Sola Scriptura, by scripture alone is truth determined. Thus any tradition, papal decree, or council decision that clashes with any verse in scripture, it is rendered by scripture as a falsehood and to be rejected.
Unfortunately if solo scripture was effective, there wouldn’t be so many denominations in just five hundred years. Think about it. The Protestant reformation didn’t come out from the Holy Orthodox Church. And for two thousand years the majority of Orthodox Churches are on one accord with minor differences.
But who is the most reliable or authoritative interpreter of Scripture? Those taught, discipled, approved, and ordained by the Apostles, or Luther, Calvin, and modern Protestants?... If your principle by its very nature requires all your doctrines to be exegetically derived from a certain text (at least for the sake of certainty), then you are required to find that principle in that text for self-referential coherence, not just merely assert it is not a doctrine or not exegetically derived. Seems pretty straightforward and Catholicism does not suffer from this problem since Scripture witnesses to Church authority rather than grounding/establishing Church authority.... Jesus wrote nothing, so how is the comparison to the writings of Plato/Jack&Jill even relevant? We are dealing with mediation from the beginning with the Apostles... *You're the one who said there must be a way to "arbitrate disagreements" and yet Scripture is unable to do that; it is not an agent and has no voice in that sense.... Even Jesus rejects the epistemology of self-attestation (Jn 5:31).... The Apostolic Traditions found in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers were clearly NOT unwritten (!), and some are even 1st century or early 2nd century...* Some sort of canon is necessary to apply sola Scriptura rigorously. If the evidence is incomplete or skewed by apocryphal evidence, then what you consider Scripture can lead you astray, defeating the purpose. The fact that no canon existed (and the Church felt little need to identify one for so long) demonstrates that the early Church did not rely on Scripture alone but on authoritative Church leaders' interpretations of Scripture & Tradition, indirectly disproving sola Scriptura in itself. (Ancient illiteracy in and of itself disproves sola Scriptura.) The canon problem clarifies the epistemological issues and need for authority. LOL, you think indulgences were the first flashpoint/boiling-over-point in history where supposedly "solidified doctrines deeply at odds with Scripture" arose?? Is that not the implication of your historical argument/rationale?? There is no explicit patristic support for regarding Scripture being above APOSTOLIC TRADITION. None of the quotes you provide do that. In fact, those same authors can be brought to bear for the equal authority of Apostolic Tradition.... There is a huge difference between exercising private judgment to find the one true Church Jesus founded (and submitting to its authority, interpretations, and doctrines) and exercising private judgment with every single doctrine. One certainly cannot escape private judgement to some extent, but that doesn't mean the latter Protestant exercise of it isn't more unbiblical, divisive, and egocentric.
The idea that an earlier source is more reliable as a general principle has two major issues when applied to Scripture: a) It gives way to historical inference (e.g. the so called "quest for the Historical Jesus") as even more reliable than scripture. This is not an abstract concern; the entire emergence of liberal Protestantism is basically an application of this principle, ad absurdum. b) it undermines the passages which seem to be "later interpolations" but are canonically recognized as scripture and are found in the church's Bibles. Again, this is not an abstract concern, it is a commonly held view today among Protestants that anything except the original manuscripts (which we don't have) is not inherently inspired and that, e.g. the longer ending to Mark should not be included in the Bible. - Against this principle, we have the principle that God actively inspires the scriptures. He doesn't necessarily do this in some sort of chronological ripple effect from the crucifixion onwards but in a transcendent manner across the centuries. It follows though, that to suppose that God only did this for earlier revelation and not for other later sources is begging the question.
"it is a commonly held view today among Protestants that anything except the original manuscripts (which we don't have) is not inherently inspired" Not sure if this statement is necessarily true. Maybe on a scholarly level it is, but day-to-day most Protestants I interact with would say they think translations are inspired. Anyways mostly commenting to say that, if that is true about Protestant scholars, it's interesting to note that the view that only the original manuscripts are inspired is very similar to how Islam approaches the Quran. Hence translations of the Quran, while profitable, are not to be taken as inspired Muslim scripture.
@@etheretherether I should clarify - I didn't mean to suggest that Protestants didn't view translations as inspired. It's more that they think only those parts are inspired which are part of the original manuscripts - i.e. the translations in common use aren't inherently inspired since they contain supposedly spurious passages.
The problem with the Plato analogy is that in deciding whether to believe sola scriptura, we're not just seeking knowledge of what someone (God, Jesus, Apostles) thought in the past....we're seeking an actual institutional authority structure (what Church to place ourselves under) which operates in the present reality. The deeper (unspoken by Austin) underlying assumption of protestantism is that the way Christianity in general operates, is that there is information from the past which if known can allow people today to create brand new institutions which can truly and effectively exercise the same authority as the "Church" that existed immediately post Christ's ascension. But, ironically, the Bible doesn't teach this, and the vast majority of Christians throughout history have not believed this.
Martin Luther argued that Sola Scriptura rests on the perspicuity of scripture. Perspicuity means that all men of good faith honestly seeking to understand the text will be able to understand it. Why then do virtually all protestant congregations believe differently than other Christians? The answer is that the assumption of perspicuity is wrong. From Peter, "[the letters of St. Paul] contain in them things hard to understand which wicked and unstable men twist to their own destruction." From the Ethiopian court eunuch in Acts, "how can I understand [the writings of Isaiah] unless someone teaches me?" One of the things we see in the writings of Paul is a treatment of scriptural interpretation as a charismatic gift. Some men are gifted with genuinely God-ordained interpretive ability and others are not. If your church makes no effort to identify such men and confer interpretive authority upon them, then your church is probably being led by unstable men and will be dashed to pieces by the churning waves of doctrine.
So many things wrong with this video. I was really hoping for a good defense of sola scriptura to make it seem reasonable to me, yet it doesn’t. Short-list of issues: 1. Sola Scriptura is not an interpretive principle. It is a doctrine whose object is the church. Both Protestants and apostolic Christians believe in the authority of scripture. The difference sola Scriptura makes is then about the nature and authority of the church. It is like if you said god the father is the only divine person. Sure worded that way it seems like you are talking about God the father. But the point of contention is not about Him, but about the other two members. 2. You do not discuss the nature of scripture. What exactly are we talking about when we say it is authoritative. Surely it is not the English text itself, nor the original language text which would render the authority of scripture moot for most every Christian. No, we mean the meanings the words express. Meaning is only accessible via interpretation. You just cannot get past the fact-without an extreme claim of perspicuity that puts you at odds with everyone that disagrees with you-that sola scriptura in practice is a prioritization of personal interpretation over that of the church. 3. You gloss over the canon question without really reckoning with it. 4. Saying the church fathers didn’t hold to sola scriptura doesn’t assume the opposite of sola scriptura. You already admitted in the video that scripture doesn’t teach sola scriptura. So what teaching are you subordinating the fathers to? This made no sense. 5. You didn’t address the historical argument at all. Which is that during the time of the apostles sola scriptura was not a doctrine. Likewise, in the generations that followed the apostles sola scriptura was not a doctrine or principle. And as time goes on no one makes the claim that the church’s view of itself became more Protestant. Thus sola scriptura is only a doctrine or principle that comes into play during the reformation when you have people that want to radically break from many church traditions and prioritize their own interpretations over the long settled and agreed upon interpretations of the church. 6. The judgement of deciding which religion/church to submit to is a difference in kind to being unto yourself the ultimate authority in interpreting scripture. This argument I hear Protestants make is essentially, well everyone has to make decisions about somethings, so why shouldn’t I get to interpret the Bible for myself in contradiction with church teaching. Yes, the issue is not in the fact that you have to make judgements in your life with eternal consequences. The question is whether or not it is right to declare your interpretation correct over the judgement of the church (as is the case with every heretic) and to adhere to a tradition with that as its founding principle.
@@Darth_Leche there's so much to say that I left out as well. Like the appeal to 2 Timothy. First, everyone agrees Scripture is unique. It doesn't necessarily follow that the church doesn't have authority to declare definitively matters of faith and morals. Second, the verse is in the context of a letter to the leader, Timothy, that Paul said had authority to settle matters of doctrinal differences in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3) And then in 2 Timothy 3 right after saying all scripture is God-breathed he lists out what Scripture is profitable for (note, not sufficient for). And they are all actions taken from someone in a position of authority to those under their watch. Teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. The natural reading in context doesn't say anything about someone sitting down with Scriptures and figuring it out for themselves above and beyond the church. In fact, it plainly says the opposite. Unless you invert the authority structure and say the scripture is profitable to the lay people to correct Timothy.
Again, the argument fails when coming up with the “Scriptura” of Sola Scriptura. Saying that it was the generally accepted books and the generally accepted books of today is false.
Evangelicals: We're Right! Protestants: We're Right Catholics: No, We're Right Orthodox: You're ALL Wrong! Catholics add to the faith Protestants subtract Evangelicals throw Everything out!
Especially considering this being their full-time job, whether being in ministry or TH-cam $1000 is worth the investment little harder for us who are not in this vocation to justify purchasing it
The Seeker Friendly non-denom movement has almost destroyed Protestantism. Because the caricatures that many Catholics hold are at not caricatures but real beliefs held by most mega church goers (and a significant number of mega church pastors). The only way Protestants can get out of the conundrum is to admit that Tradition and the historic Church also have real authority and act like they mean it. So, the sola vs solo scriptura nuance. I believe that the Confessional Protestants, especially Anglican, Lutheran and to a lesser extent Reformed churches can make this claim. Confessional Protestants must agree that the Three Creeds have at least a quasi or a functional infallibility (The Other Paul said this). OTOH, most church going protestants are from Baptist and Pentecostal Churches (and their Non-denom mega church copy cats) really DO teach _solo_ scriptura
We can absolutely agree that the creeds have “functional infallibility” and still not be forced into some type of “authority conundrum” I personally take the view of Athanasius on the early councils: “…but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (Athanasius, De Synodis 6) He does not adhere to Nicea because of the authority of the church, but rather because of its perfect agreement with Scripture.
Living in a post-printing press era where literacy rates are high may influence how compelling we find Sola Scriptura. Since for most of church history scripture was mediated by the church.
So you trust the Catholic Church to give the right Bible canon but then never trust them again? Seems silly. Also why did the new age Christians decide to eliminate 7 books for disagreeing with their new theology in the 16th century.
Yes, until the bible was mass printed in the 16th century, most people didn’t have access to a bible & even then, most people were illiterate until recent centuries. So for 90% of church history, people didn’t read the Bible, so much for sola Scriptura! You guys are joking, right!
@ not to mention they eliminated 7 books that THEY didn’t agree with that every church father did and quoted from. Kinda blows up the theory that they believe in scripture alone. Lol
@@orangemanbad every Church Father? now that's a stretch. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome all explicitly questioned their Canonicity. The question of the canon was widely debated throughout church history.
@@inkman102 Incorrect. Athanasius always quoted from them as scripture, such as in: But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, "The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life." (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, #11) Cyril quoted often from them as scripture: In his Catechetical lecture 11.15, he quotes Baruch 3:36-38. In his Catechetical lecture 9.2 and 9:16, he quotes Wisdom 13:5. In Catechetical lecture 6.4, he quotes Sirach 3:21-22 right along side Psalm 147:4. And St Jerome's position on the books was to say his Jewish post temple sources didn't consider it canonical, but that he deferred to the authority of the church and spend the rest of his life defending them, like in Against Rufinus 2:33.
Austin, thank you for your thoughtful discussion. I think, however, you’ve built a defeater into your argument. You say that the reason for your high view of this collection of books is because you receive them from a “trustworthy” source. Great! However, then you take these books and do with them something unforeseen because this same source is untrustworthy. See the problem? You can’t have it both ways. Either the source from which you receive these books is trustworthy, enough to convince you that these books are in their entirety, God-breathed and without error or the source isn’t trustworthy and why would you then do anything with books from an untrustworthy source? Or, put another way, if this source that convinces you, due to its trustworthiness, that these books are God-breathed and without error, why wouldn’t you trust it in other matters as well?
I truly am grateful I gave up on Sola Scriptura. I love Holy Writ, but it just evidently (like, beyond evidently) is not the way to know God and the fullness of the faith. God bless you!
Re the observation that Sola Scripture arose late in the history of the Church to address the errors of Rome: This assumes that Rome (from which the Reformers departed) were still IN the Church at that time. However, if we assert (from Orthodox POV) that Rome had already fallen away from the Church due to its errors (papacy, filioque, Purgatory/Indulgences, etc), we can say that the idea of SS arose OUTSIDE the Church, not in Her. General observation: This discussion assumes that Scriptural interpretation, like interpreting any other book such as "Jill's diary," is primarily or even solely a cognitive exercise. This assumption stems from centuries of rationalism, a mode of thought unknown to the early Church and alien to Orthodoxy today. Put another way, functionally Scriptura can never be "Sola." Approaching it rationally as an individual outside the Church is not the same as one in the Church with the phronema of the Church.
Thank you for sharing Austin If I could weigh in with two points, please do not take them offensively. I mean these to be constructive. 1. I would like to add another argument against Sola Scriptura which I am not sure has been elaborated on before. I am calling it Christian Quranism. Since Islam views the Quran to be the verbatim Word of God and having existed since before time and being infallible, I find that Sola Scriptura leads Protestants to treat the Bible in a way that Muslims treat the Quran. (if you are Muslim and reading this, please weigh in). My problem with Christian Quranism is that it leads to at least a type of pseudo-idolatry directed towards the Bible. For example, when I was growing up as a Southern Baptist, it felt like the emphasis placed on the Bible was nearly equivalent to God Himself at times. I see the logic of the Christian Quranist as follows. Note that I believe this to occur largely unconsciously Scripture is incapable of error -> God is incapable of error -> Scripture shares ontological characteristics with God This was ultimately one of the reasons I left Protestantism. 2. Regarding the definitions you gave from yourself and Dr. Ortlund, I think this should perhaps be more aptly called Prima (first) Scriptura as opposed to Sola (only) Scripture). If this is the case, I would question why it appears that while your definitions would not contradict Tradition, in practice, this doctrine leads to the elimination of Tradition. One of the threads through this video appears to be that Scripture and Tradition are not at odds, which they are not. However, if this is the case, why do Protestants not celebrate time honored traditions, for example, the Dormition, the Presentation of the Theotokos, Intercession of the Saints, etc? Some of these traditions are highly complementary to Scripture, such as the Dormition of the Theotokos, an example of partaking of the Divine Nature. While perhaps Protestants can argue against a few, as appears to be the case with RC and EO, it seems implausible that this doctrine should lead to the elimination of the myriad of traditions it has. The terms we use matter and if what Protestants mean to say is Prima instead of Sola, why has the term not changed? Once again, thank you for sharing your perspective
I actually met a "Christian Quaranist" online the other day! He claimed that the Bible was Jesus (or a part of Jesus) and pre-existed creation. Very strange.
I am not a Protestant and I am not a fan of Sola Scriptura, but the early church before the canonisation of the New Testament did have scripture, they had the "Old Testament" texts that early Christianity inherited from Second Temple Judaism. In fact, the scripture Paul is talking about in his letter to Timothy is the "Old Testament", because the "New Testament" was still being written, by Paul at that time. But as far as he knew he was just writing some letters to churches and colleagues.
@10:12 you taking for granted that it is possible for the church (the bride of Christ) to ever be at odds with scripture. This is a bold oversight. “Whoever hears you hears me.”
If we're talking about the ultimate/invisible Church, yes she's always in union with Christ by definition; but the people and leaders contained in the visible church often do live and speak in rejection of Scripture, we're not sinless and heresies begin within the church (eg. Nestorius the Patriarch of Constantinople).
I find value in the "principle" of Sola Scripture whether I practice it diligently or otherwise, to help separate between those who've read The Bible and those who haven't read The Bible. This "principle" stops and re-navigates those who use The Word of God against people in hopes to sway them in wrong direction. My personal measuring stick over the years has become the question? Who is Jesus Christ? This question really tells all about who you're speaking with, but this question is also back up by the "principle" of Sola Scriptura. Excellent topic, Thx for video.
Dude this is the best defense of Sola Scriptura I've ever seen. I love your use of Barth! I made the mistake of rushing into Protestant apologetics. You were patient and slow to speak. You took a lot of insults for a long time and never retaliated but now that you're slowly starting to respond you do so masterfully
I think it takes humility to realize that you are not qualified enough to mainstream protestant apologetics. It is a difficult thing to do, and not everyone can do it, the same way NASA doesn't send an amateur to the moon but someone that studied, and has lots of years of practice
Eucharist Sola Scriptura: a) "eat my flesh and drink my blood" = "eat my flesh and drink and blood" (Catholic and Orthodox). b) "eat my flesh and drink my blood" = "eat bread and drink wine" (Protestant except Lutheran). c) "eat my flesh and drink my blood" = "eat bread and drink wine and eat my flesh and drink my blood" (Lutheran).
You should make a video reviewing this defense. I’d watch it. And it would put more eyes on this
Thanks, man! It was actually your IG message about whether it's time to push back a bit that finally convinced me to make this video.
@@danielmuntean9345 Now if only we had some sort of properly qualified authority structure to help us correctly divide the word of truth when it comes to holy scripture.
St. Jerome, "Father of the Bible," seemed to think denominations and sola scriptura were crazy all the way back in the fourth century:
"I will tell you my opinion briefly and without reserve. We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist.
For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. **And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning.** Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."
(Dialogue with the Luciferians 28)
Prophetic, really.
@14:30 the mention of the Fathers is not an attempt to put them on equal ground with scripture. It is an attempt to put their interpretation of scripture and knowledge of doctrine above your interpretations and musing
Truth
Correct
But you have to interpret them as well
@@anthonyburrell5761that's why we have a hierarchy in our Church, bud.
@@anthonyburrell5761 True. However I believe it evidences historical teaching better, especially in the face of some anti-historical "first century church" evangelical churches. It's important to keep in mind that the reformers were Catholics before they were Protestant.
The difficulty I have with Sola Scriptura has less to do with Scripture and more to do with our understanding of the Church.
If it’s true that the Church IS the body of Christ-that is, an extension of the Incarnation-I don’t see how the Scripture can be put over and above that. The Scripture certainly is divinely inspired, but it’s not made in God’s image in the same way that humans are. Humans inhabit the Word, letters on the page do not (at least in the same way). And especially if theosis is true, and we “become partakers of the Divine Nature,” the Body seems to have “authority” in the sense which is usually ascribed to Scripture in the Protestant model. That’s why we see it “appearing good to us and to the Holy Spirit” when the Apostles made pronouncements at the council of Jerusalem.
While recognizing members of the church may err, if they’re unrepentant in that error they must be grafted out. The Body and Truth is preserved.
Exactly. The Catholic Church codified the Bible canon at the council of Rome at the end of the 4th century. And then in the 16th century a random guy eliminates 7 books for for agreeing to his new theology which is proof they don’t agree with sola scriptura to begin with.
Scripture is the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God. John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".
@@matthewkay1327 Scripture is the word of God, correct. But Scripture is not the Divine Logos, to which that passage refers. The Son is not equivalent to the Bible.
@@Charlie-gk1uq I think scripture can go over the body pretty easily because it testifies to Christ and the Spirit testifies to Christ.
@@matthewkay1327 does Christ’s Body, the Church, not testify to Christ? Christ Himself identifies with it, as in: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
I didn't see the whole video. But I have some observations.
Is this "Theological principle" the one by which the Church in the beginning defined doctrine? When did Christians start using it? Were the fundamental beliefs and doctrines, like Christological doctrines, established by this principle?
Sola Scriptura definitions:
A Muslim could also claim: "The Quran is our most reliable witness to the revelation of God in history and therefore should act as the rule against which we measure all other theological claims."
By simply replacing "Scripture" with "Quran," we can see that the logical structure:
-Is circular
-Lacks external justification
-Could be used to validate any sacred text
This demonstrates that Austin's definition of Sola Scriptura:
-Begs the question
-Provides no criteria for establishing reliability
-Could justify any religious text's supreme authority by using the same reasoning
Ortlund's definition is worse. Using the same approach:
"Scripture is the only authority standing over the church that is incapable of error"
-"Only authority" - Says who?
-"Standing over the church" - Who established this authority structure?
-"Incapable of error" - How was this determined?
The definition:
-Assumes its own premises
-Makes claims about exclusive authority without establishing why
-Claims inerrancy without explaining how we know this
A Muslim could similarly say: "The Quran is the only authority standing over the ummah that is incapable of error"
This shows the same logical problems:
-Circular reasoning
-Unsubstantiated claims of authority
-Assertion of inerrancy without justification
The claim:
-Not an "exegetically derived doctrine" (not found in Scripture itself)
-Rather, it's claimed to be a "logical necessity"
-The argument is: "our method of interpretation must come before interpretation itself" (We should not call it "Sola Scriptura then, but something else)"
However, this creates several problems:
If Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture, but is instead a philosophical principle:
-Why should Christians accept it as authoritative?
-How is it different from any other human philosophical construct?
Bendiciones, en espera de una respuesta.
Awesome post
Bro you regurgitated a book of tired arguments against SS after admitting to not even watching his video… it’s only 20 minutes 🥲
@@traviscrawford6516
Then why in the 20 minutes was this not properly addressed?
@@traviscrawford6516 you could take the time to answer just one of them in a non fallacious manner or maybe someone else, after 500 years of this modern man made doctrine, can finally do it.
All of these points were adressed in the video. I suggest you have a look.
However, a point that bears repeating is that interpretation and personal judgement will always be a necessary step prior to submitting to any authority. One has to at some point decide to follow one set of teachings over another, e.g. I interpret and find the claims of authority of the Orthodox church to be correct and will live out my life as such.
Jesus is lord
Yes
Amen
Just drop the sola; it means nothing. You think it binds any corrupt mind? It actually gives license to perverted interpretation, a la Protestant reformers. Like Zwingli said, “I can only assume all the fathers back to the apostles were wrong”, when he invented regeneration-less baptism.
Nominalism strikes, again.
Your failure is to think reformers follow Zwingli, I would guess less than 25%, and that's changing even in the Low Churches. You can argue Catholics miss the mark on the Eucharist and are heretical. They ignore Matthew 26:26-28
In my estimation, the biggest problem and thus the best argument against sola scriptura is that it makes no sense to call a written text infallible. The information contained therein and its right use is infallible, but using the term to describe scripture prior to any act of interpretation makes no sense. Infallibility belongs to an interpreter, and the Holy Spirit is its source. For sola scriptura to work as you’ve defined it here, one must either have an infallible method of interpretation (what I take you to be arguing for here in implying that individuals or groups have the ability to arrive at infallible interpretations of scripture themselves) or one must be protected by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of scripture. It’s the latter sense in which the Catholic Church understands itself as the guardian of the deposit of faith. You can object and say it puts a human authority above scripture, yet by not doing so, you put your own authority as an interpreter or the authority of some human method you put to use above it by the necessity of hermeneutics in coming to any understanding. Sola scriptura remains a great principle for fostering factions and divisions.
Regardless of my opinion, this is a great video presenting a well-reasoned Protestant position. Thank you for it!
21:00 You directly deal with my argument here, yet I think your position again confuses the nature of infallibility. It is an understanding that is infallible and not speech or text. For a Catholic, the information within a proclamation of the Church is infallible just as the text of scripture itself is infallible, but we must come to a right understanding of it to possess the infallible truth therein. It is in virtue of being a member of the Body of Christ (Church) that we share in the right and infallible understanding. If we come to the same understanding ourselves or through some method, it is only coincidentally that we do so. The concept of the sensus fidelium is extremely apt here.
@@sophia-proskomen So your position is...both Protestants and Roman Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox, by implication) are wrong?
Because you, I hope, recognize that literally all three of those groups consider Scripture, as in the Text of Scripture, to be infallible...right?
Please think through your critiques.
@ please allow me the equivocal use of the term infallible. I’m saying it makes no sense to use the term to describe a text then say your understanding automatically carries the same property.
@@barelyprotestant5365no infallibility refers to people and inerrancy refers to the written word.
Lastly all Protestants who hold to this conclusion differ from the historical definition meaning that the principle was to guide Christians in all essential matters of salvation.
Clearly this doesn’t work as Protestants can’t claim what the essential doctrines are like the necessity of baptism or is not necessary? I can list other theological topics to prove my point. In practice this theological doctrine doesn’t work
Infallible is a useful distinction, in that something could be by nature correct, not just incidentally correct. Like, a phone book could be correct about all the numbers in it, and thus be correct, but not be infallible as it could in principle be wrong if someone changed their number. The word of God, on the other hand, could never incidentally be wrong, so it is more than just inerrant, but infallible.
@ 15:00, admitting that this doctrine came about late, in the Middle Ages, at a “flashpoint in history” because of abuses… is an admission it's a man made doctrine (meaning, not delivered to the church by the apostles, meaning different Gospel) and formulated in reaction to specifically Roman Catholic actions/abuses, which are irrelevant to the majority of Christendom. This does not eliminate the logical problem of finding out what faith and doctrine the apostles actually delivered so that you can follow it with authenticity.
7:35 "So moving on from the canon..." haha whoah there Nelly, I know this is a short video, but you've just breezed past one of the critical defeaters of Sola Scriptura.
I've never seen anyone (validly) preference any text or words over scripture?
@@matthewkay1327
The reason the canon is a problem for Sola Scriptura is because in order to have the Scriptures as the sole infallible authority you have to know what the Scriptures are. What books belong in the Bible is a Tradition, even Protestant apologists acknowledge that. If the canon is not infallible than you have opened up the possibility that you are holding as Scripture something that is not or that you have rejected something that is. If the canon is infallible than infallible Tradition is possible.
Secondly There are no texts or words over Scripture rather the claim is that there are interpretations and understandings of Scripture that are over your own.
People still think canon is an issue for SS?
@@traviscrawford6516apparently… lol
I think I laid out my case. Is the Canon an infallible Tradition or could you be wrong about what you hold to be Scripture?
A good discussion about Sola Scriptura begins after the meaning of "Scriptura" is clarified.
At 1:38 you describe Sola Scriptura as:
"Scripture is our most reliable witness...".
My humble question is:
Which Scripture, please?
Is it:
1. the 73 books "recognized" by the Catholic Church?, or
2. the 66 books "recognized" by many non-Catholics, minus parts of the Books of Esther and Daniel?, or
3. some other combination?
Hoping you can make known the reason(s) for your answer.
Happy new year 2025.
Does it matter how many books? It is what they each witness to that makes them reliable not the number of witnesses. The witness is to Jesus and certainly the 27 books of the NT that we all have are a reliable witness to Jesus.
The issue of private judgement obfuscates the real issue. It's true that everyone must use private judgement to interpret the Bible, priests, pastors, or bishops. This is not the issue.
The issue is that there is no normative authority in Protestantism to bind someone to specific doctrines. In orthodoxy, you could misunderstand or misinterpret a doctrine, just like you can do the same for the Bible, but there is still a living authority that can correct you or bind you to a doctrine (even if you're not personally convinced!) because the church has actual Spiritual authority
In Protestantism, YOU are the interpretive authority. A pastor can try to correct your false interpretation, but in the Protestant paradigm it's perfectly acceptable to either find a new pastor that agrees with you or begin your own church altogether due to the belief in the "invisible church". If you start your own church in the orthodox paradigm you are outside of the body of christ and do not have teaching authority or the sacraments.
This is the same exact way that the church has acted throughout history by exercising the power to anathemantize or excommunicate people. This practice was accepted without controversy for centuries but just doesn't work or fit in the Protestant worldview
Austen, I don't think you addressed the strongest argument against Sola Scriptura based on the canon. The problem is not the books of the New Testament which have more or less always been held as cannonical, like the 4 Gospels, but the books the cannonicity of which was hotly debated for centuries e.g. 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation, as well as books which didn't make it in, like 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. The question for the Sola Scriptura defender is how do you know which of these disputed texts are divinely inspired Scripture and which are not. There's no scientific, historical, theological, or exegetical test you can perform to make that determination. Human reason unaided by revelation cannot discern which books are divinely inspired and which are not.
Cameron Bertuzzi made this argument effectively in a recent video, and Dr. Ortlund's response missed the point by making the issue about infallibility, as Joe Heschmeyer showed. The problem is not just that sola scriptura prevents us from knowing infallibly which of the disputed books are in the New Testament. It prevents us from knowing at all.
We only have good reason to believe we have the correct cannon if we also believe that the Church is the trustworthy custodian of unwritten traditions which constitute part of divine revelation. As I said, we cannot settle the question of which books are in the cannon by the ordinary methods of human reason, so revelation is necessary. But if you believe that extra-Scriptural Church tradition is part of revelation, you have to give up Sola Scriptura since revelation cannot contain any error (violating Dr. Ortlund's definition according to which only Scripture is without error). Even according to your own definition (which I think is less clear than Dr. Ortlund's), you'd have to give up Sola Scriptura, unless you want to say that some forms of revelation are more reliable than others, but that can't be right since all revelation is 100% reliable. In any case, I don't believe there's any meaningful or historically significant version of Sola Scriptura that can accomodate unwritten traditions guarded over by the Church as part of public revelation.
In conclusion, I hope that you or another A-tier Prot-Tuber will respond to the steel manned version of this argument, either showing how it can be overcome or admitting it punctures a serious hole in Protestant theology. As long as you think the Apostolic churches have to cope with larger theological holes, you can admit the problem and still justify remaining Protestant.
Look at the creation of scripture itself. That which is fallible created that which is infallible with the guidance of the God. Why can't we presuppose the canon operates on the same basis?
I think we have different understandings of what Sola Scriptura means. Not sure how you understand that it's Sola Scriptura which determines which books are canonical or not? It does not.
Sola Scriptura means that whichever books are determined to be canonical, then those are the books to which the faith must adhere.
That scripture is the final authority in all matters pertaining to Christianity, and not tradition, a conference or a pope.
Thus when scripture tells us that women are to remain silent in the church, then that is what we must adhere to. Anything else would be wilful disobedience to the will of God, as revealed in scripture.
@@biblicalchristianity1016 He didn't say that Sola Scriptura determines which books are canonical. What he said is that there can be no "sola" because the Scripture already presupposes someone who has the authority to proclaim a canon. Who is that authority? And how did they get their authority?
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty According to Catholic teaching, it would operate on a similar basis. The Church is made of fallible humans, but God guides it to ensure that its traditions do not become erroneous, though many individual members may err. The question for the Protestant is: if you are going to presuppose that God protected the Church from error in its canonization of Scripture, why don't you presuppose He protected it in other matters? What's the rationale behind this kind of picking and choosing? How would you know on which points God would want to protect the Church from error and on which points he would permit errors to creep in? In my judgment, Sola Scriptura entails that you can't know.
@@biblicalchristianity1016 Athmoneus is correct. All I would add is this: you say Sola Scriptura claims that, to whichever books are determined to be canonical, to those books faith adheres. But are you just going to presuppose that the list of books was correctly determined by the Church? If so, why don't you presuppose the Church got other things right as well? Either the Church is trustworthy and reliable or it isn't. Trusting that the Church got this one thing right while distrusting it on other matters seems like an ad hoc and unjustifiable assumption, and if your worldview contains such assumptions, that's a major weakness.
Sola Scriptura = Snake handlers, prosperity gospel, charismatic movement, oneness movement, constant doctrine changes, pastor worship, cross-less churches, etc... Brother you need to travel the world. What starts as a genuine Spirit led movement within 1-2 generations deteriorates rapidly.
Great video and great explanation but in my opinion the arguments you made against Sola Scriptura are stronger than the defense of it and shows me how much more coherent Traditon is.
EO listener here. Always enjoy your videos. This one is probably the best defense of SS I've heard, on YT anyway. I agree that SS is often dismissed flippantly with bad arguments but such is the standard of common polemics.
Your definition seems very conservative. When phrased timidly in the sense of 'prima scriptura' I don't think any Christian group can really disagree with you. But taken in light of how SS has been historically applied, this seems a bit of a motte and bailey fallacy. Frankly, this type of argumentation is a consistent problem with Dr. Ortlund.
For me, the most troubling problem with Protestantism is not SS, but that I don't think there is really such a thing as Protestantism at all. There's no single principle of unity that holds up to any kind of scrutiny. 'Protestantism' is nothing more than a loosely affiliated ideological group.
The fairly standard definition of Protestant is Christian whose heritage derives from the Reformation, who affirms the authority of Scripture, the fallible nature of Church authority, and maintains the doctrine of the Trinity. If you want to quibble about that definition, I am sure we can quibble about any definition of Eastern Orthodox that you want to offer.
The only thing that binds and defines the church is the sacraments. Only through the sacrament of Baptism does one become a Christian, only through the Eucharist do we have unity, and only through Holy Orders is earthly authority passed down.
@ The Catholic Church codified the Bible canon at the council of Rome at the end of the 4th century. And then in the 16th century a random guy eliminates 7 books for agreeing to his new theology which is proof they don’t agree with sola scriptura to begin with. Makes no sense.
@@taylorbarrett384 Well, friend, I can't agree. Every Christian group affirms the authority of Scripture and also says ecclesial decisions can be fallible. Every Christian group maintains a doctrine of the Trinity (which is being charitable to you - I could ask which doctrine do you actually mean? The SBC just rejected the Nicene Creed, after all.)
The Reformation is a historical period. Which body? Which set of doctrines? Originally Protestant referred only to those who protested a specific law, which meant Lutherans and Reformed and specifically excluded anabaptists. The magisterial reformers made very strong statements excluding groups other than their own. The Reformed used to drown anabaptists, and Luther was scathingly clear he would have no fellowship with any memorialist. Most modern groups which call themselves Protestant bear almost no resemblance to the reformation movements they descend from.
The EO and Catholic position is very clear by comparison. Each has a unity of sacramental communion and shared statements of belief.
Yep, you're right.
As to "Protestantism" the only real unity in today's usage is that it is not with Rome, or Near Eastern Christians, or with the Old Catholics.
Originally Protestants were all within the HRE and protesting the Emperor's repeal of a law.
As to sola scriptura, the original usage by Lutherans is the conservative usage. Basically one can test tradition, both teaching and practice, against the rule of Scripture with reference to the witnesses of the Church (Fathers, councils, etc.); if the tradition is contrary to the Rule and witnesses, it's out; if not contrary it can stay; if affirmed it should stay. (Obviously there are gradations within all that, and depends on what witnesses are accessible; but that is why a doctor of the church could say, "unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, I will not recant").
I'm a simple guy, who probably draws simple conclusion, but the words of our Lord seem pertinent on this point, "Wisdom is proved right by her children". The 'children' of the Reformation have been unending schism, division and theological innovation and instability. I say that with all the love in my heart. As an Orthodox Christian, I realize we've got some hefty problems in need of serious attention, but on the whole, I'd take them every time over the wild west of Protestantism. Leaving aside fringe expressions, even the main line traditions wouldn't attend the churches of their founders.
Exactly. The Catholic Church codified the Bible canon at the council of Rome at the end of the 4th century. And then in the 16th century a random guy eliminates 7 books for for agreeing to his new theology which is proof they don’t agree with sola scriptura to begin with.
@@orangemanbad That's just bad eyesight.
@ facts are historical and very easy to study.
I always find this reasoning a bit strange. The reason why the Protestant church is so “divided” is because of the hard lines that Orthodox and Catholics draw in the sand. It’s kinda like defining a “house” as any dwelling larger than 4,000 sqft, then complaining about all the homeless people in your neighborhood. Of course all the families flourishing in sub 4,000 sqft homes don’t think they’re homeless, but because you’ve defined them as such, “homelessness“ becomes a grave problem.
This seems similar to the “divisions” in the Protestant church. I didn’t think most Protestants believe the church is “divided” in the sense you Orthodox and Catholics do. I don’t think an Anglican looks at a Lutheran or a Baptist and thinks to himself “schismatic!” I think the issue is largely with how you guys have chosen to define the church.
@ we define the church as the apostles and church fathers defined it. That is, Catholic. The Protestant church made a new religion. They claim say Jesus saved you and that’s a wrap. After erasing 7 books from the holy bible. We find Protestantism honestly a bizarre new age religion that rejects the faith our apostles and church fathers left us. We see Protestantism much like Protestants see Mormons.
This deserves a whole essay to state a response. However, as an initial matter, recasting "sola scriptura" as "prima scriptura" is a transformation of the doctrine from anything recognizable by most denominations that hold it. Second, as a lawyer who reads Scripture (and other more inscrutable texts) on a regular basis, what I can say is that, under the Mosaic law, I would certainly have still a job getting criminals acquitted, finding evidentiary loopholes, etc. And I could still collect a good fee for it. Bringing in the new law only complicates the matter, because often the New Testament makes difficult (and creative) interpretive choices in reading Old Testament laws and prophecies. There is a reason that Jews, both of Jesus's time and today, disagree on the exact function of oral tradition in interpreting the Bible, because the original is so difficult to apply directly.
Finally, Ortlund's definition of sola scriptura is one of the classic ways that Orthodox and Protestants speak past each other. Infallibility, if understood as perspicuity, fails on its face, because the application of reason to Scripture still leads to multiple plausible interpretations. If understood as unable to err, that is also meaningless, because the text is already (mostly) established: it either has erred or it hasn't. Only a person or body can be INCAPABLE of something, and insofar as the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is God, then infallibility rightly belongs, through Christ, to the Church, in a certain mystical manner. But, if we understand the claim as inerrancy, then restricting that to Scripture also makes no sense, as there are doubtless all sorts of documents that lack error.
Your position, where Scripture should be the Primary witness to tradition, is certainly adequately defended, and the Orthodox church agrees (with the caveat that it is Scripture as divinely interpreted by the Holy Spirit through the Body of Christ), but that is not Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is backwards epistemology. Jesus taught orally. Many documents were written claiming to contain the authentic sayings of Jesus. We must first determine which documents those are, without assuming which documents are authentic. By what standard can we do that? Only by comparing them to the teachings of the successors of Jesus, his apostles, and their successors. If you think Jesus' successors failed in preserving the truth, then he isn't God, and it doesn't matter what he taught because it can never be known.
This is the most backwards logic
Yes, the text was assembled under divine inspiration, but when the text is assembled, why should believers today not set the text above the church today?
@@Joker22593 Agreed. The early Christians selected texts that agreed with their beliefs and practices. The accuracy of their judgement is tied to the accuracy of their beliefs. But by the fourth century, when the canon was developed, the orthodox Christian faith was incompatible with Protestant theology, namely with the nature of the sacraments and the sacrifice of the Mass.
Protestants believe that Jesus' successors succeeded in preserving the truth. After all, that's how it is that we have the Scriptures; the church preserved them. However, along the way, it's also true that the church sometimes made mistakes resulting in some truths failing to be delivered properly to the faithful, though they were never lost. And in some cases, the church added things which were not true, yet still the truth was preserved despite the many failings of the church. Thankfully, it's still possible to find where the errors were and where the truth is, even though the process can be messy and imperfect around the edges. Protestants have always affirmed that the Holy Spirit will always ensure that the most core truths will be preserved. The danger in Catholicism is that there's no standard by which they can determine where they may have erred, because all the magisterial teachings are believed to be infallible. Once an error is defined at a council or in a papal statement, Catholics are stuck with it.
Sola Scriptura allows cults like JWs to exist. Their founder claimed the bible was self interpreting and that he put the scriptures "to the test" lmao
@4:43 you’re forgetting the church was founded by god and will be lead by god until the end of time.
As we’ve seen from abuse and violence in history, that clearly doesn’t mean that the church can’t stray into error
The Orthodox or Catholic Church? Maybe Church of the East?
@@TennisFreakHDThe Church built on Peter
Apostolic christianity was not a product of sola scriptura.
The anabaptists are a product of sola scriotura.
Not exactly sure what you are getting at here. Apostolic Christianity operates on the principle of sola Scriptura. Scripture alone predicted and affirmed the coming of the messiah. Not the traditions of the elders.
Apostoles did not have church councils nor church fathers. They lived before them. So if they did not have sola scriptura thet did not have modern church tradition either
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty It is very silly to speak of Apostolic Christianity before the apostles.
The apostles did not practice sola scriptura. They operated on direct revelation.
This is why Catholicism looks nothing like the Mennonite Church.
@@gabrielgabriel5177- haven't you read Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15? The Council of Jerusalem is clearly real.
@gabrielgabriel The Apostles held council amongst themselves. Council of Jerusalem in Acts.
And they themselves functioned as the fathers
After 4+years of tumbleweeding to & fro over, around & through Christidom... I agree.
I will 'remain as I was called', I am a Protestant, I repent of my 'Popism' concerning the 3 traditions, I'm done.
Love you bro, God bless & keep you, and your family.
I'm in the same boat. Commenting because you never hear from people who've been tormented by these questions then decided to stay where they were.
Best defense of Sola Scriptura I have ever heard
Glad to hear that!
The question that a lot of people don't really iron out is what the definition of error is. In Gavin's definition, incapable of what kind of error? Just theological? Beyond?
Clearly not an argument, but important for Christian thought.
Each of us coming to our own conclusion is the problem.
As a protestant I'm still left with a lot of questions. The TL;DR version is "Is the formation of doctrine from scripture, including our approach to scripture itself, only ever at best a product of human reason; and if so is the basis for orthodox belief itself only ever a product of human reason?" I've detailed more explicit questions below:
- Is the principle of Sola Scriptura itself inspired? If it's just an extra-Biblical principle, is it fallible?
- Is the definition of the Canon (something which by definition is outside the text) itself inspired?
- Has scripture itself given us a method for interpretation of scripture and defining dogma or practices? (Acts 15, Matthew 18:20)
- Is the doctrine of the trinity inspired?
- Can the interpretation of a text itself ever be inspired, or is the text itself the only God-breathed thing, while the interpretation must always at best be a product of human reason? If this is the case, what basis do we have for trusting the New Testament (which is mostly interpretations of the Old Testament). Is the basis for trusting the New Testament purely founded in human reason alone? What do we do with textual differences (the "extended" end of Mark etc).
- How are we to determine what translations of a text are inspired. Can the act of translation itself ever be considered inspired or should we always consider translations at best a product of human reason? (btw, I think Islam takes an interesting approach to this question by basically admitting that translations have to be a product of reason, and therefore only the original translation of the text can be considered inspired while other translations are merely "profitable").
- Finally, what weight should we give to people that come along and defy long standing interpretive frameworks alla zwingli in comparison to long standing interpretations? ("In this matter of baptism - if I may be pardoned for saying it - I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles" - Of Baptism, in Zwingli and Bullinger, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 24, p. 130) What is our method for discerning between interpretations in recognition of the limits of our individual reasoning capabilities?
Note: When I say "limits of individual reasoning capabilities" I'm not so much talking about human error as I am just limits of being able to calculate and address a certain number of issues over a single lifetime. Some questions take decades of discussion to resolve. Think of it more like comparing a single CPU to a daisy chain of CPUs. Or a CPU that performs a certain set of calculations over it's lifetime then passes them on before dying so another CPU can continue the calculations.
I will say that this definition of Sola Scriptura seems more like an ecumenical move than a defense of Protestantism against ecclesial traditions. In a way it opens up the discussion for a Catholic/Orthodox to say "We do believe scripture is the inerrant deposit of faith, but we believe scripture itself points to the existence of interpretive authority as well." That also gives them the ability to say that the Apostles where given that interpretive authority. In other words, none of the Catholic or Orthodox fathers claimed to invent doctrine, instead they claimed their doctrine was from scripture itself.
Reducing sola scriptura from doctrine to principle is a very interesting take...
Sola Scriptura doesn’t lead to truth. It only creates a conglomeration of opinions. What’s the point of relying on a principle that sacrifices the truth?
That’s a nice opinion you got there
I fail to understand how Sola Scriptura leads to different opinions? Either the Bible supports or rejects your opinion, leading to a conformity in opinions.
The definition and understanding of this Protestant doctrine has shifted over time. So it depends on whose definition one is going to use. Dr. Gavin and Dr White or rather the historical definition? Neither work but modern theologians today try and nuance much more because it simply doesn’t work which is obvious because there is not a unanimous agreement between these Protestant churches on what one must believe for Salvation and pointing out these doctrines. If there was something even close to unanimous understanding within these groups then it would make more sense
@@biblicalchristianity1016all the Protestant churches say they follow the Bible and yet don’t even agree that baptism saves you and that infants should be baptized. Some agree some don’t. They can’t even agree that it’s essential for salvation. I can give you more but that’s a good start
@@FireSquad101amazing comment
Sola Scriputa is nonsense when you understand the Catholic Church codified the Bible in 387 at the council of Rome & Protestants erased 7 books.
I’m so glad you made this video Austin! I love your heart and posture towards other Christians, but I think sometimes your channel can (unintentionally) function as something of a streamlined conveyor belt out of Protestantism. I think voicing your stance on topics like this helps mitigate that reality some. This is an excellent presentation of Sola Scriptura.
Why Catholic? Podcast just released an excellent episode dismantling the heresy of Sola Scriptura highly recommend all non Catholic Christians listen to it!
Heresy?!? That’s hilarious, you now claim that if we trust the words of the living God higher than man we are going to hell???
Roman Catholics try not to be irrationally uncharitable: impossible
The truth is not uncharitable.
@@T.Truthtella-n3i calling us heretics for the principle of Gods words are greater than man’s words is not truth but simply slander
It has born and revived ancient heresies that were already defeated: Christ is not God (unitarians), Eucharist is not the body of Christ but also symbolic, Baptism is symbolic, Eternal Security
How does SS speak when settling doctrinal differences?
it doesn't. Doctrinal differences are settled by the correct exegesis of the Scriptures.
@@Justas399how is correct exegesis determined?
@mwhabs the pillar and grounds of truth. So if you believe in a invisible ecumenism church your shit out of luck
@ so, it ultimately depends on personal interpretation of Scripture. The issue at hand is not if Scripture is an authority, it is. This issue is who possesses an authoritative interpretation that settles disagreements.
@ no you don’t. Your church has never infallibly nor officially interpreted the Scriptures. No such work exists in the Roman Catholic Church.
Not a good defence. Doesn’t deal with the practical reality at all. Ignores nearly all of history.
For around 1,500 years Christians didn’t have the printing press. Copies of texts were very hard to come by. No regular person had a Bible in full. Impossible. So how can they on their own just sit at home and read and make all their own judgements? You would also be ignoring that most people couldn’t even read if you gave them a Bible. Literacy rates were terrible for most of history. Also if someone didn’t speak the biblical languages how can they read the texts? Even if there are translations then the person translating can make things mean whatever they want. You have to blindly trust them not being able to check their work. So you would need a church with credibility and authority to do this work faithfully and trust it.
The only place most people could have heard the Bible was in a church from their church leaders. They necessarily had to rely on these leaders to teach them what Christianity is orally in catechism, through icons, through experiencing the sacraments in person at church, etc. These same church leaders had to enforce rules and doctrines to avoid Christianity getting lost by the congregations going their own direction and making endless changes to suit themselves. Because of how reliant people are on the priesthood to guide them the church appointed bishops to ensure the priests were teaching and practicing correct doctrine. These correct doctrines would be passed down via tradition and apostolic succession.
There were also so many texts that are written in the name of someone who sounds authoritative. So how would a person know which text they can trust? Can they trust the book of Enoch? How about Tobit? What about the Didache or the protoevangelium of James? Gospel of Thomas? How do we really know who wrote the epistle of Hebrews and what makes us sure it can be trusted as apostolic? Nobody can really answer these questions outside the church. Scholars endlessly debate these things today and can’t definitely say. So outside of the church nobody would know what is or is not scripture. People would read random texts they don’t know or understand and end up in all sorts of heresy. Luther himself couldn’t figure out whether the book of revelation was scripture or even the epistle of James. He downgraded the apocrypha as not scripture. But who gave him the authority and wisdom to discern this? He made himself the editor of the Bible sitting in judgement of what counts or not.
You pretend it is all so clear like any book. Then why do you all disagree with each other on countless important matters or doctrine? Proves clearly that people relying on their own interpretations go all over the place with those interpretations.
The bias is overwhelming in this video. It’s not objective.
I completely agree. I just thought that I would add that Martin Luther actually DID remove 4 books from the New Testament as well in his first Bible and put them in the back of the Bible in the appendix with the other Deuterocanon. He removed James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. They were added back in later though.
Also, that John Calvin at the time of the Reformation considered Baruch as inspired scripture and then later changed his mind. The same goes for Martin Luther, he quoted from the Deuterocanon in his original objections as scripture. Ultimately, if you read both of their writings they rejected the 7 books because they didn't agree with their opinions. For example, John Calvin didn't believe in free will and it was more clearly taught in those books.
Bias is everywhere, and true objectivity doesn't exist. At least on this side of the Jordan. Of course he's biased, but so are you. So, a more humble response would be to also investigate into your own bias(es). And then have a humble and open discussion, not only about the topic at hand, but also your own a priori understanding of things. And not to win an argument, but to learn more about the truth together.
@@AlmaTlust You misunderstood the tone of his comment. And there are different levels of bias, of course, which you conveniently failed to note. Lastly, not all opinions have the same objective strength.
Your ramblings are one of the most grotesque caricatures of Sola Scriptura that I've ever seen. Do you seriously think it entails everyone having a personal Bible and reading it in isolation with no other inputs?
What it actually entails is something entirely different and boils down to a few basic points.
1. Scripture is the infallible, Divinely inspired word of God.
2. Anything that contradicts the Divinely inspired infallible word of God is incorrect.
3. There hasn't been ongoing public Divine revelation since the Apostolic age. Hence, scripture is the sole source of the word of God we have access to today.
As far as I'm aware, all 3 of those points are affirmed by RC and EO.
Scripture being written is only accidental (and providential on the part of God).
The words of scripture are equally authoritative whether they are said or written.
Having a compiled Bible is great, but Sola Scriptura would work if you were stranded on a deserted island and only knew memorized passages. Of course it would depend on the reliability of your memory, but so would any extrascriptural source.
TL,DR: Sola Scriptura is concerned with the contents of scripture, the written form is merely accidental.
This video was super well made. Great points all around. I found many of the points helpful, and will probably use them in my own defenses. You put words to things I've been thinking for a while.
Those are my thoughts on the video as well.
The Catholic Church codified the Bible canon at the council of Rome at the end of the 4th century. And then in the 16th century a random guy eliminates 7 books for for agreeing to his new theology which is proof they don’t agree with sola scriptura to begin with.
@orangemanbad You think it was codified at a non-infallible, local council?
@ no. It was codified at the council of Rome under our Pope through our Lord Jesus Christ. History is just facts brother.
Glad it was helpful!
I just can't take this seriously. Name one instance where the Catholic Church teaches something that is against Scripture.
if I may...
CCC 2068 "…all men may attain salvation
through faith, baptism and the observance of the commandments."
Romans 3:28,31
"So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith."
"For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law ... Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."
Canon 12 of Trent. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."
Ephesians 2:8-9
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.”
Romans 5:1-2
"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.”
Canon 24 of Trent. If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.
Romans 4:4-5
"Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness."
Canon 32 of Trent. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema.
Romans 11:6
“And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.”
CCC 2027 “…Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life…”
Romans 3:24
“…and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”
As one still learning, and I don't have the documents in front of me currently...
Doesn't Vatican II teach that a person who hasn't heard the name Jesus yet practices another religion with sincerity will ultimately be saved? That seems to contradict Jesus saying, "no one comes to the Father except through me."
I don't desire to oversimplify a teaching, so forgive me if I come across as reductionist...
The Novus Whordo Sect teaches that wicked garbage, not the Holy Catholic Church.
He just took it for granted and rolled it out of his mouth with a straight face that later teachings of the Church contradict the Scriptures. Wait! What? He just became the authoritative interpreter of the Scripture himself, privileged with the authority to proclaim what the Bible really says. Wow!
The Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, indulgences...
I've watched this twice. Its very good. Thoroughly thought through yet conscise. Im glad you decided to post it.
Because of Sola Scriptura we have so many denominations & non denominational wich are denominations within themselves.
This isn't necessarily a takedown argument, but given that sola scriptura is a theological principal, that means it is fallible. You are correct to point out that the fathers have a high view of scripture, and the reformers were right to insist that everyone read them and be taught them. I think if we could hear what the fathers would say about some of the developments Protestantism brought in, though, they would say the reformers were ignorant of the scriptures. I think the bigger issue overall is perspicuity.
Agreed. The Reformers corrected very little, at the cost of throwing away so much
@@elKarlo Nah - they would be thankful for the reforms and cuddle the protestants.
I agree with sola scriptura and I also agree it is a fallible belief. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong though. If you believe sola scriptura is wrong, that is also a fallible belief. You could still be right though. Something can be both fallible and still correct and true at the same time.
@AVVS0meness At best, we are left saying we can't know. With that in mind, I'd rather ask the church which has been guided by he Holy Spirit
I’m all for philosophical discourse but between videos like this and our buddy Sola Script-Ortlund, the intellectual gymnastics are becoming exhausting. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the answer. Sola-Scriptura is unworkable nonsense that divides the body; this truth isn’t even remotely hidden.
Do you know why Sola Scriptura gets so much pushback? Because it's a term that means whatever suits the person claiming it to be. There is no single definition for it, because it's a self-refuting concept that gets knocked down so easily that the definition get redefined with more and more nuance until the only defensible position is Scriptural Primacy, and everyone believes in that and always has.
Thank you for making this video Austin. It’s encouraging to see you speak up a bit more, regarding Protestant thought. I’m saddened to see the way the comment section is responding, but unfortunately I’m not surprised. God bless you brother!
Yeah, it is sad. I see a lot of monoperspectivism in the comments. I'm glad he spoke up though.
I appreciated this video, like I appreciated your video trying to give Doctrinal Development due justice. I think this was very helpful, at least for those who haven’t already developed an allergic aversion to the idea.
What is the result? Hard question to answer for us Protestants - think about it. Many have it as a tool, others a doctrine, while others who hold to it actually live “prima” scriptura. The subjectivity is endless - you have theologians later who come along and say we don’t want to use “slave” change it (150 times) then lose the word energia or energy…why? Because the orthodox use it. Listen these two basic examples literally have massive implications when you preach it or teach it - it impacts your understanding, the way you live even - it effects parenting, interpersonal relationships etc. the results haven’t been good and a lot Protestants are responding to this by creating ‘essentials of the faith’, or ‘theological triage’…” why? Because of the results…listen if we read Luther this is NOT what he had in mind.
It’s not Biblical but that is the beauty of it, you can translate and interpret the Bible in anyway way you want and you prefer. Even to support your own individual opinions. That’s why there isn’t one Protestant religion.
The inescapable relationship of Tradition (with capital "T") and Scripture is beautifully explained in the introduction of "The meaning of Icons" by Ouspensky-Lossky.
"We can no longer oppose Scripture and Tradition, nor juxtapose them as two distinct realities... If Scripture and all that the Church can produce in words written or pronounced, in images or in symbols liturgical or otherwise, represent the different modes of expression of the Truth, Tradition is the unique mode of receiving it...
Truth and Spirit, The Word and the Holy Spirit, two Persons, distinct but indissolubly united, Whose twofold economy, whilst founding the Church, conditions at the same time the indissoluble and distinct character of Scripture and Tradition."
The Tradition of private Masses for the indulgence of those in purgatory,
either we can test this to see if it's a true Tradition in Concord with Scripture and the rest of the witness to Christ or we continue it?
@@j.g.4942 I'm Orthodox. I will answer anyway in the spirit of your question: that is a tradition with "t". Tradition (with "T") is the vertical axis, the Life of the Church, the context in which Revelation is received (from Scripture, traditions, prayers, images, etc).
In this sense, you can't separate Scripture from Tradition, you can't extract a text that finds its meaning in the participation in the Body of Christ and use it elsewhere, from our perspective that is absurd.
@@issaavedra could you give an example of discerning a tradition from Tradition?; because the essence of Sola Scriptura for us Lutherans is the touchstone of discernment that we can be sure of in a church teeming with traditions which seem contrary to Scripture (and Sacrament), as well as the witnesses of councils and Fathers.
Of added interest, we technically don't have a set canon, each region is free to support its own yet most European one's favoured Luther's translation (with readings from the deuterocanon in Divine Service) while the Anglophones adopted the Reformed canon.
@@j.g.4942 traditions are the particular expressions of the liturgical life of the Church: the prayers, the icons, the sign of the Cross, etc. Tradition is the way in which the Holy Spirit animates the Body of Christ through history.
We can write down precise instructions of how to do the Liturgy and give it to a bunch of atheist to do it, and maybe they could do all the correct gesture, chanting, etc., but it wouldn't be a proper Liturgy.
Most protestants have this concept: even if they believe in sola scriptura, they think they need the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret them. It is similar, just collectively, in history, in symphony with the traditions: for example, the reading of the Gospel have another layer of meaning participating in the ritual enacting of the life of Christ in the Feasts of the Church.
@@issaavedra that rhymes with our, "Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."
Yet, we wouldn't question the validity of a baptism when it becomes known the pastor/priest had already rejected the Faith. I suppose we're more heavily anti-donatist.
And I suppose you'd say one lets the church sift the traditions to see where the Tradition is expressed or hampered? Or to let the bishop discern which traditions are correct and to be adopted, taught and practiced?
Yet that does bring me back to Luther's Scripture and plain reason, or the Formula's Rule of Scripture and the witnesses of the Fathers, of course with prayer and the Spirit, to discern which traditions to encourage or discourage as a pastor/bishop (we've long adopted that frontier model of presbyterial succession, mainly because the bishops (mainly princes) didn't listen to the doctor and the Evangelicals were rejected before the council).
The idea that the written form is "solidified" simply because it is written is wrong. If anything, given the changes in languages over time, translations, interpretations, cultural assumptions; the oral tradition handed down from Apostle to Apostle to Apostle over time is more "solidified" than your personal interpretation of your XYZ translation of the Bible.
My co workers are hard core sola scriptura and they believe.
Jesus turned water into grape juice
Jesus name only baptism
Trinity is false
Jesus is the father
You have to speak in tongues which is not a known language to be saved
They will quote bible verses for all these beliefs and say if you don’t agree with them you didn’t receive the Holy Spirit and can’t read the Bible correctly.
If sola scripture is effective why did they come to these beliefs most Protestants would reject.
lol
All the chosen people mindsets are in error to begin with.
God isn't bringing home a worldly corporate entity, but those who seek him in humility.
The Word, which is Jesus, is our Rock. And His revelation sets us free. Not some other man who tries to come between you and Him. Of ANY denomination.
They came to these beliefs not via sola scriptura, but by elevating their extrabiblical teachings over the scriptures.
I suppose the answer he would give to your question is that the opinions of your co-workers are just an unfortunate side-effect of the application of sola scriptura. Unfortunately, not all can just agree with Gavin Ortlund. It would be real nice if they did, but unfortunately, they just came up with their own interpretation... But, notwithstanding the bad side effects, the medicine is good, because we now have the correct interpretation of Gavin Ortlund. I am Gavin Ortlund and I find this argument logical and super convincing.
@ nope. I’ve asked them about every belief and they quote scripture only. One time the guy told me the doctrine of the Trinity he believed in is Jesus is the father and son at the same time and also the Holy Spirit and he only quoted scripture. How can you say because he didn’t come to the identical beliefs as you from only reading the Bible that it’s extra Biblical? Have you considered some people just dont interpret the Bible the same as you?
Sola Scriptura, but if everyone misinterprets scripture and creates their own church based on their own pride, we all fail. -- Christ won’t fail. Christ would give us a way to interpret correctly.
Yes, and it's "the Church"
Absolutely *adoring* the ecumenical vibe I'm getting from these comments. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times, there's nothing more likely to sway me to your particular argument than calling my view stupid or saying it's damnable heresy held by stupid people, all without providing so much as a single argument for your viewpoint. You clearly care about the state of my soul in regards to following Christ, not about being factually correct.
To both the ecumenical and those who argue their points because they genuinely care about their opponents, that's not how you get those juicy 👍🏼's. May God abundantly bless you for your love and grace according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus, because y'all *for* *sure* aren't earning clout down here, smh my head
Ecumenism is of the devil.
Absolutely well said 👏
May Christ be true and every man a liar.
@@Yugi601 Every man’s not a liar - they all just interpret Scripture the way they think best…
@tbojai I'm just alluding to Romans 3:4. Ofc not all men are inherently liars when they read scripture. I appreciate the correction though 🙂
As long as Christians point to books like Philemon or Hebrews (author unknown) and claim they are God’s word without being able to explain why they qualify for such a distinction or based on a lesser authority than scripture, I will always reject Sola Scriptura.
Once the authority of the Church is rejected, Sola Scriptura is the only refuge.
The scriptures also include the words of Christ. How can the words of Christ not be trustworthy ?
@ We don’t even have the autographs of any book of the Bible. You and I know those are the words of Christ through tradition. In fact, you wouldn’t have the Bible you hold in your hands if not for the Catholic Church, and only that church, copying, preserving & protecting the scriptures for over 1,000 years.
The reason we need tradition and the Magisterium is because all people are not like you, Austin. Great presentation of your point of view.
“The scripture being at odds with” the teaching of the Fathers and the Orthodox Church is nonsensical. The Orthodox Church has always been faithful to Scripture. Any claim of her being “at odds” with the scripture is based on a faulty interpretation of the latter. The scripture can’t be appealed to absent an interpretive lens.
I really felt the need to respond to this podcast. First, I have listened to several of Dr. Ortlund’s podcasts and find him to be, to be polite, deceitful. The arguments presented here, I find similar in nature. It was arguments presented here that pushed me far away from Protestantism. I very rarely post on others podcast but felt the need to do so here.
First in foremost, the reliability of Scripture. The argument made is that it is the most reliable because it is written down. That is simply untrue. Simply take a look at today’s newspapers. The written word doesn’t make anything reliable. Scripture is reliable only because it was inspired by God, not because it was written. Therefore, anything that is inspired by God is reliable. St. Paul, inspired by God, teaching the Ephesians, in person and orally, for a couple of years was as authoritative as his writing to them. For one second just put yourself in Ephesus when St. Paul was teaching you. You were getting instruction from him day in and day out. Worshiping God with him often. All this instruction for two years. He leaves and later sends a letter to you. Do you now say this written letter is now the most authoritative teaching of St. Paul? Of course not. One would see the letter and his two years of personal instruction as equal to each other. This is just common sense.
Often the trust worthiness of oral tradition comes into play. Answer this one question…is God all powerful? Yes. There is no reason why God is unable to keep oral teaching as reliable as written Scripture. St. Paul dictates the letter to the Romans. Someone else wrote the physical words. It then got delivered to Rome. Do we have any proof the letter that St. Paul dictated was the same letter the was received in Rome. Absolutely not, there are a million things that could have happed. If we are to go down the distrust of oral tradition, then written tradition must be distrusted as well. The written tradition is not “flawless”. We could start with the longer and shorter versions of Mark. Earliest evidence it the shorter is the original, but the longer is in the canon. There are many, many other issues like this in Scripture. This is not to draw doubt on Scripture, but simply we trust in it because we believe it was inspired by God, and that doesn’t include the just the first time it was written, but the the entire process that gave us the Scripture that we have today. If the shorter version was the original, that doesn’t matter. The process canonized the long version hence that is what God wants us to have. Point is that if you distrust oral or written word that are inspired by God, you damage both, essentially claiming God is not powerful to do such, relegating Him to a lower god.
The canon issue is brought up. It is stated that the Scriptures were canon not because of any particular process or council, but rather they were immediately canon the minute they were written and read in churches immediately. First, the word canon in the early church simply meant what was to be read in Church. I know canon now has taken up other meanings today but we need to use the word as the Church Fathers would have used it. Secondly, there were other books that were read in churches, NT books, that eventually were removed form the canon. Some like Jude, were in and out several times. Just because a book was read in the church, did not give it canonical status forever. It took centuries for all the books across Christendom to get to where we are today. There is absolutely zero evidence that a book, like Matthew, was canonical the moment it was written.
St. Athanasius in the 300s AD, in his 39th letter, wrote,”But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.” This books were to be read at home, not in church, for “godliness”. Today we would only say reading Scripture was for that purpose, but here we see there were other books the church fathers wanted people to read for “godliness”. I simply offer this because the modern view of canon is very distorted from the ancient view of canon, therefore the modern view provides a very distorted view of Sola Scriptura.
He uses a circular argument about people using the Scripture to defend tradition or oral teaching. The fact is Scripture is clearly saying that the written word and oral teaching are on par with each other. St. Paul makes that abundantly clear. Others also make it clear to follow the teachings of the apostles, and those teaching are not written anywhere, at least at that time. Scripture truly denies the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for the above reasons alone. We also see so much more in Scripture it self. Christ taught everything orally. Christ did not write a single page of the NT nor did He command anything to be written while He was teaching. Unlike what we see in the show the Chosen, the books of the NT were written well after the Resurrection. There is zero evidence Matthew was “taking notes”. If Christ trusted that His oral teaching could be maintained, commanded no one to write them down immediately, should we not trust oral teaching as well? The earliest teaching we have from Christ or the apostles is their oral teaching. Fact. What does Christ give us next? At Pentecost, we have the birth of the Church. The oral teaching was first, then we received the Church from God. The first letters/books were not written for about a decade later and were not complete by until the end of the century. No one for more than a century would have said, “what does the NT Scripture say about”…as it didn’t exist. They would have gone to the Church for such instruction. “What does the Church say about”….Then bishops, like St. Athanasius in his 39 letter, tell his churches they only read certain books inside the church and said what is in the OT and NT. His OT is not what the Protestant OT is, close, but a little different. While his letter was the first to list the books of the NT as we have them today, other lists from other bishops use different book in their churches, and as I said before, some books used some churches were eventual rejected. The entirely of the process was inspired by God to give us what he wanted us to have today. Oral tradition is no different.
Finally, I could go on and on, but hopefully I have scratched the surface enough to show that these sort of arguments are extremely faulty and that Sola Scriptura is actually denied by Scripture itself. Just put your self in Ephesus, would you put St. Paul personally teaching you in some sort of secondary status after he taught you personally for two years, just because he wrote you a letter? Makes no sense. Please just research his arguments and find the truth for yourself. Sola Scriptura is the heresy of heresies for many.
You said there’s no reason God couldn’t have preserved oral tradition. Yes when Paul preached it was also inspired . Where is the record of what Paul said orally ? Where’s the proof ? It’s not about God’s ability. The church is a human institution and quite frankly nothing is happening in a vacuum. Notably there’s political and cultural motivations that could influence the traditions of the church. Often the history can get rewritten in favor of the traditions that won popularity. There have been so many forgeries found in the Catholic Church just as an example. The Old Testament shows us that God can let his people err for a long time. They usually start straying when they stop reading the holy books. It doesn’t mean that the church is not to be trusted or God has forsaken the church. But to act like there are no political, social or cultural motivations that could have influenced tradition is not realistic.
@@allikirman2183 Uh... In all charity, the Church is a divine institution. It wasn't concocted by men. It was organized and empowered by God made Man, with a promise of protection and continuity. To assert it was merely manmade is minimally impious, maximally blasphemous.
Anyone interested in a contra opinion should check out Jay Dyer's clips on this subject. Eviscerates the Ortlund word-salad justification for this position.
Christian B Wagner (Scholastic Answers) has a top explanation of why it's false
Dyer and Ortlund are both heretics.
Ive been so hyped for all your solo videos lately!
Welcome to the fray haha :)
That said, I've argued for Sola Apostolica both in print and in video, and Prima Scriptura as the better model.
Looking forward to listening!
I have a hard time finding a difference between Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura, since Sola Scripture doesn't mean only authority and Prima Scriptura still has Sacred Scripture as the only infallible authority. I don't know much about Sola Apostolica, so I won't comment on that. Perhaps you could let me know something about it. I watch your content all the time, but I haven't watched anything on that topic. I'm a former Pentecostal, then former Methodist, and now Anglican. I only say this to point out that I held to Sola Scriptura before, then Prima Scriptura (as many Methodists do), and now I see no real difference between them.
The method the Ethiopian eunuch used to interpret Scripture (Acts 8:26-40) was through Philip. Analogically, Philip represents the type of the Church.
Join the Anglican Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter brother. Come back to the true faith
@@Real_LiamOBryanyou are absolutely correct. Prima scriptura is just s reformulation of sola scriptura. “Sola apostolica” is just his own invention: only the writings that convey the apostolic teachings are Scripture. I hope you immediately see the circular reasoning involved in such a definition (who gets to decide which books convey the apostolic teachings?).
The truth is the Protestant position (sola scriptura, prima scriptura, sola apostolica, whatever other fancy slogan you want to invent) is just logically indefensible.
One question: is sola scriptura a doctrine from God or from man? The dilemma is this:
If sola scriptura is from God but not explicitly in the Bible, then it relies on an unwritten divine tradition, making Tradition an authority alongside Scripture.
If sola scriptura is a doctrine of man, then followers are elevating a human idea to divine status, effectively following a doctrine of man as if it were from God.
Pick your poison.
There’s no way to escape the tension.
Sola scpitura is the new levitical law
Its Rabbinical Christianity
Cant believe Bridgefin hasnt shown up yet in the comments. Great video, God bless!
Another thought-provoking video - thank you for daring to make videos like this, even though they might challenge a large part of the audience. Here are some ramblings that have no greater point:
I myself have very conflicting ideas about sola scriptura and the doctrines related to it (the sufficiency of the Bible, its clarity, etc.). And although sola scriptura is often the first target of attack by non-Protestants, it is of course worth remembering that even if SS is false, it does not automatically mean that the RC, EO or OO model is right.
I agree that SS is not a dogma that can be derived from the Bible - it is more of a matter belonging to the area of prolegomena.
It is interesting that non-Christians believe in "sola scriptura" when studying Christianity. It is natural that if you want to try to understand Jesus and the apostles, you start reading the texts that are as close as possible to them. A non-Christian is unlikely to care much about the views of later church councils or theologians, because he does not believe in their infallibility, etc.
But in the case of non-Christians, the Bible has value because of its historical proximity to Jesus and the apostles. This is why different works of the Bible have different values: the Gospel of Mark is more important than the Gospel of John. And on the other hand, the Gospel of Mark is also a theological account of Jesus that was written only decades later, and is not completely objective or, from a non-Christian's perspective, even completely historically reliable.
Of course, a traditional Protestant trusts the Bible because it is inspired. A Protestant would hardly be willing to say that the Gospel of Mark is somehow more reliable than the Gospel of John - the reliability of both ultimately depends on their inspiration. It would seem pretty hopeless if a pastor preached from the pulpit that some scholars believe that Jesus could have actually said these words X.
I think the canon question is also interesting and difficult. Unfortunately, some RC and EO have the view that the church made some books of the Bible inspired and canonical - even their churches do not teach this. It is easy to get the impression that at some church council there were dozens and dozens of books and then the church decided that okay guys, let's declare these inspired.
The "ontological canon" was ready when the last book of the Bible was inspired. Some of the books were identified practically immediately, some were struggled with. The process was organic and bottom-up, although it included local councils.
My background is in Lutheranism and interestingly, Lutheranism holds that not all books of the NT are equally authoritative.
Lutherans give greater weight to those books that were unanimously recognized in the early church - the homologoumena. The books that were disputed (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation) have a secondary status in the NT canon. For example, Martin Chemnitz believed the antilegomena should not be used to establish doctrine (only if you can prove the doctrine correct through the homologoumena, you can also take support from the antilegomena).
Luther himself famously struggled with the canonicity of some NT books, but a few months ago I came across a "scandal" in the United States in the 19th century when a Lutheran pastor (a confessional one) taught his congregation that Revelation is not a book inspired by God. Interestingly, C. F. W Walther defended him, saying that not everyone in the early church believed in the canonical status of the book, so the pastor is not doing anything weird. I remember listening to a program called Issues etc. (conservative Lutherans), where a guest once questioned the inspiration and status of Hebrews in the canon.
This is a rather difficult question for me. Ortlund correctly pointed out in one of his videos that the lists of the canonical books of the Bible made by ecumenical church councils are quite a new thing, the topic was only raised by Catholics at the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. That is, more than a thousand years after the NT was written.
But even if this is the case, what could I, as a Protestant, rely on? If I relied on the evidence of the early church, the Lutheran model would seem better than the Evangelical model, in which we can be equally sure of the inspiration of all NT books. If I were to end up believing in God's providence in this matter, it would seem somewhat arbitrary to think that I would believe the early church's testimony about the canon, but not about, for example, bishops, apostolic succession, etc. If the church got them wrong, then why couldn't the church have gotten the canon wrong too?
If I were to apply the same skeptical attitude to the books of the Bible as to the alleged "apostolic tradition", what would happen to the Bible and the canon? I would read in the books that Paul did not actually write the pastoral epistles. Paul did not necessarily even write Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians. Peter did not write the epistles of Peter, etc. We can only guess who wrote the letter to the Hebrews.
I find the "self-attesting" model presented by Michael Kruger etc. to be a complete circular (which they themselves admit) and some of their arguments also resemble Muslims defending the Quran (the beauty of the Bible, its coherence, etc.)
I find some of the RC and EO points regarding the "canon problem" to be bad, but I haven't yet found a Protestant model that really satisfies me.
I don't know if this is a problem, but one challenge for sola scriptura on the level of an individual Christian is that he has not been able to practice it. I'm not even referring to the canon, but to the fact that before the printing press and the spread of literacy, an individual Christian has not even owned a Bible or been able to read it. His only option has been to trust the church - in my own country, specifically the Catholic Church, which evangelized Finland at one time. But for some evangelicals, this may be a bit awkward - because from their perspective, did the Catholic Church of the early 11th century even believe in the gospel? :P But I don't know if this is a big problem, this point just came to mind. An ordinary Christian has not been able to test anything with the Bible, because he has not owned one, and would not have been able to read one until fairly late.
This is what you talked about in the video, but I find some of the doctrines related to Sola scriptura a bit difficult - especially about the sufficiency and clarity of the scriptures. Here too, some RC and EO go so far as to give the impression that the Bible is the most unclear and difficult book in the world. It's a bit funny to think about inspired books like this.
But the truth is that even Protestants who believe in inerrancy, infallibility and the same canon cannot reach a consensus even on 101-level questions. Take baptism for example:
- Who can be baptized? Only those who profess their faith? Also babies of Christians? Or in principle, can any baby be baptized?
- Who can baptize? Anyone? Any Christian? Only a pastor? (I recently learned that some conservative Presbyterians would not recognize my baptism because I was baptized as a baby by a female pastor!)
- How should I be baptized? Is immersion required for a valid baptism?
- Why even get baptized? The Bible commands it, but will my sins be forgiven? Or is baptism just a symbol?
- Is baptism necessary for salvation? My own Lutheran tradition would say yes, some evangelicals would say that if you believe this, you don't believe the gospel.
I understand if there is no consensus on some "esoteric" doctrines (predestination etc), but baptism doesn't seem like that. Does the Bible clearly teach about baptism and these questions? I don't even know if this point is directly against sola scriptura, maybe I'm arguing against the clarity or sufficiency of the Bible.
I believe that RC and EO have sometimes attacked the idea of private interpretation too much - after all, what religion you believe in and what church you belong to is also based on the individual's own interpretation of the evidence. On the other hand, private interpretation is a whole way of life for a Protestant - you have to "test everything with the Bible" to some extent. Yes, the church, the creeds also have authority, but they can be wrong. So at least I have had to almost rebuild the whole system, I have to read Arians, Unitarians, so that I could really assess whether Christians got this right in the 4th century and repeat the same for all other questions. I can never really rely on the idea that the church actually decided on X and that's it.
Ok, maybe I'll stop these thoughts here. :D
This is incredible! Such a precise and nuanced defense of SS, showing a real understanding of the contrary opinions. Well done!
Thank you Austin! This is such an excellent video - both in the substance of the argument and in the ecumenical concern.
How do you Matthew, an eyewitness, was written by Matthew? Not sola scripturA
Really appreciate your channel and view on theses topics. Keep it up!
I am sola scripture and love all solid Christian writing from ancient to modern times. God still speaks
Sola scriptura as a doctrine isn't crazy.....it's just false.
I mean, I guess it is a good thing you aren't trying to convince anyone because this will not do so, but I do appreciate it because it provides an excellent foundation to understand people who hold to sola scriptura and it's logical problems. It's honestly a better attempt at making a logically consistent framework than Ortlund.
This is just pretentious. If logical problems mattered to you you wouldn’t claim that veneration of icons is apostolic 😅
@traviscrawford6516
What exactly would persuade you that the veneration of icons is valid, given the multiple examples of them from the early church and their support from church fathers are not enough?
Sola Scriptura is an absurd concept and doctrine.
The fruit of Sola Scriptura is division from the very beginning, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli disagreed within a few years. It is indefensible. “The Church! The Pillar and Foundation of Truth!” - 1 Timothy 3:15.
Very well done my dude
Austin thank you for addressing this. Sola Scriptura is the crux of the division. I listened to the end 👍
Sola Scriptura is crazy.
It might seem grazy to you but it has good fruit. It has changed millions of people lives all around a world to better and still does. It also encourages people to go to countries where there is no church at all and risk their lives for evangelism.
nice man, interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing 🤷🏻♂️
Didn’t watch to the video eh? 😉
So many words that can only lead to nowhere...........
You have a group of fallible men from the same organization come together and develop a infallible list of NT Canon guided by the Holy Spirit in the fourth and fifth centuries. Previously men from the same organization infallibly defined the relationship of the Three Persons within the Godhead at various Ecumenical Councils in the fourth century also guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if this organization called the Catholic Church could make these authoritative declarations that all Christians agree upon, why wouldn't this organization be guided by the same Holy Spirit in all other natters of faith and morals?
It was the Orthodox Catholic Church, not Roman, and all those who gathered to sign had beliefs that we know from undisputed historical record. No Donation of Constantine stuff here. They held to Orthodox theology and rejected Roman Catholic theology. Anyone can go read them and see for themselves!
The Bible cannot be the sole infallible rule of faith. An infallible Bible requires an infallible canon. Since the canon is not listed in Scripture, we're left with two options.
Option 1: A fallible church determined a fallible canon. Therefore the Bible is not an infallible rule of faith.
Option 2: A church capable of infallibility determined an infallible canon. Therefore, the Bible is not the sole infallible rule of faith.
You go wrong with the statement that an infallible Bible requires an infallible canon. That's incorrect. An infallible Bible requires a correct canon, and that's it.
Look at the creation of scripture itself. That which is fallible created that which is infallible with the guidance of the God. Why can't the creation of the canon operate the same way?
You misunderstand the meaning of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not determine which books are to be included in the canon. Sola Scriptura does not determine if the books included are infallible or not. That is not the task of Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura determines that whichever books are included, that they are followed by the letter of the law that they teach. That the written word of the books of the canon, are the final authority in all matters.
That is the meaning of Sola Scriptura, by scripture alone is truth determined.
Thus any tradition, papal decree, or council decision that clashes with any verse in scripture, it is rendered by scripture as a falsehood and to be rejected.
How do you know the letter to the Hebrews is inspired scripture?
@@T.Truthtella-n3i It comports with the testimony of the rest of scripture.
When the experts agree on the meaning(s) of the Book of Job, I'll believe Sola Scriptura is possible.
Love your channel. God bless you!
Unfortunately if solo scripture was effective, there wouldn’t be so many denominations in just five hundred years. Think about it. The Protestant reformation didn’t come out from the Holy Orthodox Church. And for two thousand years the majority of Orthodox Churches are on one accord with minor differences.
Yeah the Orthodox excommunicate each other regularly, but at least they have the same doctrines
But who is the most reliable or authoritative interpreter of Scripture? Those taught, discipled, approved, and ordained by the Apostles, or Luther, Calvin, and modern Protestants?... If your principle by its very nature requires all your doctrines to be exegetically derived from a certain text (at least for the sake of certainty), then you are required to find that principle in that text for self-referential coherence, not just merely assert it is not a doctrine or not exegetically derived. Seems pretty straightforward and Catholicism does not suffer from this problem since Scripture witnesses to Church authority rather than grounding/establishing Church authority....
Jesus wrote nothing, so how is the comparison to the writings of Plato/Jack&Jill even relevant? We are dealing with mediation from the beginning with the Apostles... *You're the one who said there must be a way to "arbitrate disagreements" and yet Scripture is unable to do that; it is not an agent and has no voice in that sense.... Even Jesus rejects the epistemology of self-attestation (Jn 5:31).... The Apostolic Traditions found in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers were clearly NOT unwritten (!), and some are even 1st century or early 2nd century...*
Some sort of canon is necessary to apply sola Scriptura rigorously. If the evidence is incomplete or skewed by apocryphal evidence, then what you consider Scripture can lead you astray, defeating the purpose. The fact that no canon existed (and the Church felt little need to identify one for so long) demonstrates that the early Church did not rely on Scripture alone but on authoritative Church leaders' interpretations of Scripture & Tradition, indirectly disproving sola Scriptura in itself. (Ancient illiteracy in and of itself disproves sola Scriptura.) The canon problem clarifies the epistemological issues and need for authority.
LOL, you think indulgences were the first flashpoint/boiling-over-point in history where supposedly "solidified doctrines deeply at odds with Scripture" arose?? Is that not the implication of your historical argument/rationale??
There is no explicit patristic support for regarding Scripture being above APOSTOLIC TRADITION. None of the quotes you provide do that. In fact, those same authors can be brought to bear for the equal authority of Apostolic Tradition....
There is a huge difference between exercising private judgment to find the one true Church Jesus founded (and submitting to its authority, interpretations, and doctrines) and exercising private judgment with every single doctrine. One certainly cannot escape private judgement to some extent, but that doesn't mean the latter Protestant exercise of it isn't more unbiblical, divisive, and egocentric.
The idea that an earlier source is more reliable as a general principle has two major issues when applied to Scripture:
a) It gives way to historical inference (e.g. the so called "quest for the Historical Jesus") as even more reliable than scripture. This is not an abstract concern; the entire emergence of liberal Protestantism is basically an application of this principle, ad absurdum.
b) it undermines the passages which seem to be "later interpolations" but are canonically recognized as scripture and are found in the church's Bibles. Again, this is not an abstract concern, it is a commonly held view today among Protestants that anything except the original manuscripts (which we don't have) is not inherently inspired and that, e.g. the longer ending to Mark should not be included in the Bible.
- Against this principle, we have the principle that God actively inspires the scriptures. He doesn't necessarily do this in some sort of chronological ripple effect from the crucifixion onwards but in a transcendent manner across the centuries. It follows though, that to suppose that God only did this for earlier revelation and not for other later sources is begging the question.
"it is a commonly held view today among Protestants that anything except the original manuscripts (which we don't have) is not inherently inspired" Not sure if this statement is necessarily true. Maybe on a scholarly level it is, but day-to-day most Protestants I interact with would say they think translations are inspired.
Anyways mostly commenting to say that, if that is true about Protestant scholars, it's interesting to note that the view that only the original manuscripts are inspired is very similar to how Islam approaches the Quran. Hence translations of the Quran, while profitable, are not to be taken as inspired Muslim scripture.
@@etheretherether I should clarify - I didn't mean to suggest that Protestants didn't view translations as inspired. It's more that they think only those parts are inspired which are part of the original manuscripts - i.e. the translations in common use aren't inherently inspired since they contain supposedly spurious passages.
The problem with the Plato analogy is that in deciding whether to believe sola scriptura, we're not just seeking knowledge of what someone (God, Jesus, Apostles) thought in the past....we're seeking an actual institutional authority structure (what Church to place ourselves under) which operates in the present reality. The deeper (unspoken by Austin) underlying assumption of protestantism is that the way Christianity in general operates, is that there is information from the past which if known can allow people today to create brand new institutions which can truly and effectively exercise the same authority as the "Church" that existed immediately post Christ's ascension. But, ironically, the Bible doesn't teach this, and the vast majority of Christians throughout history have not believed this.
I definitely couldn’t have spoken it as well myself but this is the summarization I’ve come to as well.
Martin Luther argued that Sola Scriptura rests on the perspicuity of scripture. Perspicuity means that all men of good faith honestly seeking to understand the text will be able to understand it.
Why then do virtually all protestant congregations believe differently than other Christians?
The answer is that the assumption of perspicuity is wrong.
From Peter, "[the letters of St. Paul] contain in them things hard to understand which wicked and unstable men twist to their own destruction."
From the Ethiopian court eunuch in Acts, "how can I understand [the writings of Isaiah] unless someone teaches me?"
One of the things we see in the writings of Paul is a treatment of scriptural interpretation as a charismatic gift. Some men are gifted with genuinely God-ordained interpretive ability and others are not. If your church makes no effort to identify such men and confer interpretive authority upon them, then your church is probably being led by unstable men and will be dashed to pieces by the churning waves of doctrine.
Great video as usual!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Epistemology "how we know." Ontology - "it's essence." Matthew was Authoritative before the church formally believed it & declared it. Brilliant line!
So many things wrong with this video. I was really hoping for a good defense of sola scriptura to make it seem reasonable to me, yet it doesn’t. Short-list of issues:
1. Sola Scriptura is not an interpretive principle. It is a doctrine whose object is the church. Both Protestants and apostolic Christians believe in the authority of scripture. The difference sola Scriptura makes is then about the nature and authority of the church. It is like if you said god the father is the only divine person. Sure worded that way it seems like you are talking about God the father. But the point of contention is not about Him, but about the other two members.
2. You do not discuss the nature of scripture. What exactly are we talking about when we say it is authoritative. Surely it is not the English text itself, nor the original language text which would render the authority of scripture moot for most every Christian. No, we mean the meanings the words express. Meaning is only accessible via interpretation. You just cannot get past the fact-without an extreme claim of perspicuity that puts you at odds with everyone that disagrees with you-that sola scriptura in practice is a prioritization of personal interpretation over that of the church.
3. You gloss over the canon question without really reckoning with it.
4. Saying the church fathers didn’t hold to sola scriptura doesn’t assume the opposite of sola scriptura. You already admitted in the video that scripture doesn’t teach sola scriptura. So what teaching are you subordinating the fathers to? This made no sense.
5. You didn’t address the historical argument at all. Which is that during the time of the apostles sola scriptura was not a doctrine. Likewise, in the generations that followed the apostles sola scriptura was not a doctrine or principle. And as time goes on no one makes the claim that the church’s view of itself became more Protestant. Thus sola scriptura is only a doctrine or principle that comes into play during the reformation when you have people that want to radically break from many church traditions and prioritize their own interpretations over the long settled and agreed upon interpretations of the church.
6. The judgement of deciding which religion/church to submit to is a difference in kind to being unto yourself the ultimate authority in interpreting scripture. This argument I hear Protestants make is essentially, well everyone has to make decisions about somethings, so why shouldn’t I get to interpret the Bible for myself in contradiction with church teaching. Yes, the issue is not in the fact that you have to make judgements in your life with eternal consequences. The question is whether or not it is right to declare your interpretation correct over the judgement of the church (as is the case with every heretic) and to adhere to a tradition with that as its founding principle.
Wow this was beautifully written and explains alot of the problems i had with the video. I felt this video STRENGTHENED my view of tradition.
@@Darth_Leche there's so much to say that I left out as well. Like the appeal to 2 Timothy. First, everyone agrees Scripture is unique. It doesn't necessarily follow that the church doesn't have authority to declare definitively matters of faith and morals. Second, the verse is in the context of a letter to the leader, Timothy, that Paul said had authority to settle matters of doctrinal differences in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3) And then in 2 Timothy 3 right after saying all scripture is God-breathed he lists out what Scripture is profitable for (note, not sufficient for). And they are all actions taken from someone in a position of authority to those under their watch. Teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. The natural reading in context doesn't say anything about someone sitting down with Scriptures and figuring it out for themselves above and beyond the church. In fact, it plainly says the opposite. Unless you invert the authority structure and say the scripture is profitable to the lay people to correct Timothy.
Again, the argument fails when coming up with the “Scriptura” of Sola Scriptura. Saying that it was the generally accepted books and the generally accepted books of today is false.
Evangelicals: We're Right!
Protestants: We're Right
Catholics: No, We're Right
Orthodox: You're ALL Wrong!
Catholics add to the faith
Protestants subtract
Evangelicals throw Everything out!
How are all you TH-camrs buying the Philip Schaff church father set? I only see it for $1000 and up. Where are you guys getting it?
They probably pay $1,000 and up for it.
Especially considering this being their full-time job, whether being in ministry or TH-cam $1000 is worth the investment little harder for us who are not in this vocation to justify purchasing it
The Seeker Friendly non-denom movement has almost destroyed Protestantism. Because the caricatures that many Catholics hold are at not caricatures but real beliefs held by most mega church goers (and a significant number of mega church pastors). The only way Protestants can get out of the conundrum is to admit that Tradition and the historic Church also have real authority and act like they mean it. So, the sola vs solo scriptura nuance. I believe that the Confessional Protestants, especially Anglican, Lutheran and to a lesser extent Reformed churches can make this claim. Confessional Protestants must agree that the Three Creeds have at least a quasi or a functional infallibility (The Other Paul said this). OTOH, most church going protestants are from Baptist and Pentecostal Churches (and their Non-denom mega church copy cats) really DO teach _solo_ scriptura
People are still leaving the Catholic Church for Evangelical churches lol
We can absolutely agree that the creeds have “functional infallibility” and still not be forced into some type of “authority conundrum” I personally take the view of Athanasius on the early councils:
“…but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.”
(Athanasius, De Synodis 6)
He does not adhere to Nicea because of the authority of the church, but rather because of its perfect agreement with Scripture.
Can we or should we blame Sola Scriptura for JW ,SDA, LDS,BHI,...?
Living in a post-printing press era where literacy rates are high may influence how compelling we find Sola Scriptura. Since for most of church history scripture was mediated by the church.
So you trust the Catholic Church to give the right Bible canon but then never trust them again? Seems silly. Also why did the new age Christians decide to eliminate 7 books for disagreeing with their new theology in the 16th century.
Yes, until the bible was mass printed in the 16th century, most people didn’t have access to a bible & even then, most people were illiterate until recent centuries. So for 90% of church history, people didn’t read the Bible, so much for sola Scriptura! You guys are joking, right!
@ not to mention they eliminated 7 books that THEY didn’t agree with that every church father did and quoted from. Kinda blows up the theory that they believe in scripture alone. Lol
@@orangemanbad every Church Father? now that's a stretch. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome all explicitly questioned their Canonicity. The question of the canon was widely debated throughout church history.
@@inkman102
Incorrect.
Athanasius always quoted from them as scripture, such as in:
But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said, "The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them, the corruption of life." (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, #11)
Cyril quoted often from them as scripture:
In his Catechetical lecture 11.15, he quotes Baruch 3:36-38.
In his Catechetical lecture 9.2 and 9:16, he quotes Wisdom 13:5.
In Catechetical lecture 6.4, he quotes Sirach 3:21-22 right along side Psalm 147:4.
And St Jerome's position on the books was to say his Jewish post temple sources didn't consider it canonical, but that he deferred to the authority of the church and spend the rest of his life defending them, like in Against Rufinus 2:33.
Austin, thank you for your thoughtful discussion. I think, however, you’ve built a defeater into your argument. You say that the reason for your high view of this collection of books is because you receive them from a “trustworthy” source. Great! However, then you take these books and do with them something unforeseen because this same source is untrustworthy.
See the problem? You can’t have it both ways. Either the source from which you receive these books is trustworthy, enough to convince you that these books are in their entirety, God-breathed and without error or the source isn’t trustworthy and why would you then do anything with books from an untrustworthy source? Or, put another way, if this source that convinces you, due to its trustworthiness, that these books are God-breathed and without error, why wouldn’t you trust it in other matters as well?
I truly am grateful I gave up on Sola Scriptura. I love Holy Writ, but it just evidently (like, beyond evidently) is not the way to know God and the fullness of the faith.
God bless you!
You’re so right, the institution with a history of abuse, violence and manipulation MUST be our perfect guide!
Re the observation that Sola Scripture arose late in the history of the Church to address the errors of Rome: This assumes that Rome (from which the Reformers departed) were still IN the Church at that time. However, if we assert (from Orthodox POV) that Rome had already fallen away from the Church due to its errors (papacy, filioque, Purgatory/Indulgences, etc), we can say that the idea of SS arose OUTSIDE the Church, not in Her.
General observation: This discussion assumes that Scriptural interpretation, like interpreting any other book such as "Jill's diary," is primarily or even solely a cognitive exercise. This assumption stems from centuries of rationalism, a mode of thought unknown to the early Church and alien to Orthodoxy today. Put another way, functionally Scriptura can never be "Sola." Approaching it rationally as an individual outside the Church is not the same as one in the Church with the phronema of the Church.
1:45 Based on what? How do you come to that conclusion?
Thank you for sharing Austin
If I could weigh in with two points, please do not take them offensively. I mean these to be constructive.
1. I would like to add another argument against Sola Scriptura which I am not sure has been elaborated on before. I am calling it Christian Quranism. Since Islam views the Quran to be the verbatim Word of God and having existed since before time and being infallible, I find that Sola Scriptura leads Protestants to treat the Bible in a way that Muslims treat the Quran. (if you are Muslim and reading this, please weigh in). My problem with Christian Quranism is that it leads to at least a type of pseudo-idolatry directed towards the Bible. For example, when I was growing up as a Southern Baptist, it felt like the emphasis placed on the Bible was nearly equivalent to God Himself at times.
I see the logic of the Christian Quranist as follows. Note that I believe this to occur largely unconsciously
Scripture is incapable of error -> God is incapable of error -> Scripture shares ontological characteristics with God
This was ultimately one of the reasons I left Protestantism.
2. Regarding the definitions you gave from yourself and Dr. Ortlund, I think this should perhaps be more aptly called Prima (first) Scriptura as opposed to Sola (only) Scripture). If this is the case, I would question why it appears that while your definitions would not contradict Tradition, in practice, this doctrine leads to the elimination of Tradition. One of the threads through this video appears to be that Scripture and Tradition are not at odds, which they are not. However, if this is the case, why do Protestants not celebrate time honored traditions, for example, the Dormition, the Presentation of the Theotokos, Intercession of the Saints, etc? Some of these traditions are highly complementary to Scripture, such as the Dormition of the Theotokos, an example of partaking of the Divine Nature. While perhaps Protestants can argue against a few, as appears to be the case with RC and EO, it seems implausible that this doctrine should lead to the elimination of the myriad of traditions it has.
The terms we use matter and if what Protestants mean to say is Prima instead of Sola, why has the term not changed?
Once again, thank you for sharing your perspective
I actually met a "Christian Quaranist" online the other day! He claimed that the Bible was Jesus (or a part of Jesus) and pre-existed creation. Very strange.
@@Joker22593 Ok so I am not crazy for having perceived this
Good point. Mohammed gave us a book, Christ never wrote a word, He gave us a Church.
One of the best videos I’ve heard. You’re doing the Lord’s work!
I am not a Protestant and I am not a fan of Sola Scriptura, but the early church before the canonisation of the New Testament did have scripture, they had the "Old Testament" texts that early Christianity inherited from Second Temple Judaism. In fact, the scripture Paul is talking about in his letter to Timothy is the "Old Testament", because the "New Testament" was still being written, by Paul at that time. But as far as he knew he was just writing some letters to churches and colleagues.
He definetly new He was writing the new testament. He himself Said many times about the Diference of the two(old and new) in Romans and galatians.
@10:12 you taking for granted that it is possible for the church (the bride of Christ) to ever be at odds with scripture. This is a bold oversight. “Whoever hears you hears me.”
If we're talking about the ultimate/invisible Church, yes she's always in union with Christ by definition; but the people and leaders contained in the visible church often do live and speak in rejection of Scripture, we're not sinless and heresies begin within the church (eg. Nestorius the Patriarch of Constantinople).
I find value in the "principle" of Sola Scripture whether I practice it
diligently or otherwise, to help separate between those who've read
The Bible and those who haven't read The Bible. This "principle" stops
and re-navigates those who use The Word of God against people in
hopes to sway them in wrong direction. My personal measuring stick
over the years has become the question? Who is Jesus Christ? This
question really tells all about who you're speaking with, but this question
is also back up by the "principle" of Sola Scriptura. Excellent topic, Thx
for video.