Roman Catholics very often claim "context" when they actually mean "interpretation through the controlling lens of the Council of Trent." They don't actually mean the real context.
I am deeply concerned that all the unfair antagonism is going to deter you from making the sort of content that pushes back against accepted norms in Roman Catholicism. At the moment the market of ideas, surrounding Church History and the Fathers, is flooded with Roman Catholic advocates who rely on aggressive rhetoric to make their case. It cannot be easy to be the sole voice in the middle of all the "crashing waves". But an irenic voice that present the protestant position fair and in an articulated manner is sorely needed for those of us who need to know why our traditions formed the way that they did and yet do not have time and opportunity to pursue these matters. I am not in a position to financially back your channel. All I can do is subscribe, like and comment. Please just know that this channel has had a very powerful impact on my life.
The histrionics in this paragraph though 😂😂😂. I am Catholic who is subscribed to all 3 channels and the other 2 channels were not aggressive at all so please just stop the nonsense.
I was coming to say the same thing! I am also Catholic and appreciate the charitable way he presents his view. I think we can dialogue and be charitable.
@@JHH1027 Did you see Gavin's first video on Augustine affirming a similar view of holding scripture infallible and above other writings, bishops and church councils? I'm wondering what your view of this is. As he's reiterated, the claim was never that Augustine was protestant in any way, just that our view is not completely novel, for scripture first.
Your final statements were a true blessing. As someone who has struggled with these topics, i was somewhat fearful of my position being challenged. I think with matters of the faith, because these matters have eternal significance it takes courage to examine other views. When I used to argue more aggressively it was mostly because I was afraid that the other view could be correct. it was freeing to eventually say "yunno what? This is complicated so I'm gonna just hold on to Christ", as a result i became much more open to Catholicism and other traditions. I also am a settled protestant but it is freeing to appreciate the richness of other traditions without them being a threat.
Just wanted to pop in and say, I have learned so much about charity and kindness from you Dr. Ortlund. This channel has greatly encouraged me as a believer and Protestant. I appreciate so much how you respond to critics, and deal gently with them! Please keep up the great work! Also just thought I’d let you know that I’m using your videos as educational materials for a ministry training program that I lead at my Church! Thank you for the excellent resources!
I’ve learned so much from you Gavin. You’ve brought scholarly study down to the public marketplace for discussion. Many have & will smear you because you don’t affirm their bias, but your continued irenicism is such a great witness for Christ. Keep it up!
Another great kind-hearted response. It's so easy for us to get "dug in" to a belief that no matter what evidence comes along we will not change positions. Gentle approaches like this are more likely to convince than more harsh responses. Thanks.
Dr Gavin Ortlund I just wanted to say how much I love your videos and your calmness. Please do not hesitate to make more videos even when you disagree with many of the Catholic claims and I understand that in apologetics it can be quite difficult to deal with the "heat" but I think your videos have impacted us Catholics to keep learning about our faith and how we can approach topics with our protestant friends. I just want to wish you and your family all the best and may God bless you!
What a gracious comment and encouragement. Would that all Catholics thought in this way, to keep peaceful dialogue going, rather than just trying to win over each other. God bless.
Hi Gavin, your gracious manner is very rare these days. As a former Catholic, I know that Catholics aren't allowed to follow the truth wherever it leads. They are required to uphold Catholic teaching no matter what.
The most striking thing about this video is your gracious correction. While you could have "nuked" your opponents, you used their responses as a teaching point and expressed your concerns. It would be a privilege to be a layman in your church! Keep up the good fight! I am very encouraged by your content!
Great response Gavin. As always, after your videos I feel encouraged to show greater humility and to desire to seek Christ above all else. Hope you had a good holiday! Blessings.
Until more recently, by seeing comments, I didn't know that sola scriptura was even a question. I thought it was obvious to everyone who believes God. I lived a long time thinking that everyone, of course, believed sola scriptura. To not believe it is to deny God.
@Goblin Demon Caricatures galore, I’m Protestant and believe in the Real Bodily Presence. Btw, which orthodox tradition are you referring to? Moscow, Constantinople, Coptic, Ethiopia, etc…? Because those are not in communion with each other. Which orthodox tradition has it right? I guess I’ll need your opinion as the Orthodox Church is divided.
@Bb Dl Not sure what you mean by worship. Eucharistic theology is not discussed in that way, at least in my tradition. The Holy Meal is more about receiving Christ and has little to do with me. I approach as a beggar needing to receive Christ and His continual promise of the gospel. The bread and wine are some of the means He instituted to do this. It’s His work and His action.The faith in receiving the Eucharist (the body and blood of Christ) is directed at Christ. It’s His body and blood.
This was a great video Pastor Gavin. Thank you for the time and effort you put into researching this material and formulating your response videos. Your videos are full of light and provide me with a sense of peace that comes from being able to place my trust in Christ.
Great video as always! With as much sincerity as I can give through a RUclips comment, you have taught me, besides the actual explicit teaching on church tradition, how to give a reason for my hope with meekness and fear. God Bless Dr. Ortlund.
This is so important and I appreciate you continuing the discussion. If I may, I know it's difficult to communicate the part about Augustine in context. Let me take a crack. As you've been sharing about Augustine, context does NOT always limit the full application of what one is talking about. For instance: "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword" Heb. 4:12. This verse is situated in the context of New Testament Sabbath rest. But does this mean that the Word of God is living and active only insofar as we talk about Sabbath rest? Certainly not. The confusion, I think becomes clear when the argument of Hebrews is laid out in a syllogism... Major Premise: the word of God is living and active (Heb. 4:12) Minor Premise: According to the word of God, the people of God formerly did not enter the Sabbath rest (Heb. 4:8-10) Conclusion: Therefore, let's strive to enter that rest (Heb. 4:11) The context will determine what truth we can draw from the minor premise of an argument and the conclusion. But the major premise of an argument, by definition, is not bound to the context in which it is situated. It's a truism, an axiom of faith, which is applied into the context but not itself governed by the context. It seems that Augustine is doing a similar thing - taking a truism of his faith and applying it to the context at hand. This truism is his view on Scripture.
I so appreciate the way you engage in these conversations and I admire the sort of "blunt gentleness" that you display. It's quite Christlike and despite everything I learn about church history, I trust know that I, and I trust others are too, learning first from your example. Thank you brother. I know that you have a particular aim in exploring church history (please continue!!!), but I wonder if it has ever been in your mind to engage other doctrines like divine providence, election, depravity, etc? I've been part of a class that surveys various models of God's providence (Open Theism, Arminianism, classical Calvinism) and I find that gentle but thoroughly thoughtful voices, similar to yours, are quite rare. I realize that you are a local pastor as well and that staying in a vein is probably a much healthier way to manage your own bandwidth. I'm really just curious. I'm a church planter and wish I could spend more time learning from you in other areas like I have been through church history. Keep on keeping on!
Good response. Consistent, helpful, and important analysis. We must learn to be content letting the church fathers be exactly that: the church fathers. They can be helpful and hurtful in polemics for every Theological side!
One of the reasons that this video has so struck such a chord is that Catholic (and, to a lesser extent, Orthodox) people often define themselves against Protestantism by saying that they are rooted in the fathers and church history and Protestantism is just this weird thing that came out of nowhere, with no basis in Christian history and so on. To have perhaps the most famous and revered of all the fathers be a believer in perhaps the most central of Protestant doctrines is quite a blow to that self-conception.
@@thursdaythursday5884 protestants are "gentiles" as Jesus put it in Matthew. People who refuse to listen to the Church, protestants decided they'll form their own church so they're gentiles.
@@adamduarte895 Jesus used it to mean outsider. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17)
It's actually the other way around. Protestants define themselves against Catholicism. One has the pedigree back to the apostles, the other goes back to Martin Luther. The very meaning of the word Protestant attests that they are protesting against the Church. Furthermore, other Protestant scholars (J. N. D. Kelly, Philip Schaff, and Jaroslav Pelikan) disagree with Gavin about the Church Fathers being Sola Scriptura. Gavin is just one POV which completely ignores the contradictory evidence from Augustine's writings. His scholarship is lacking. Sola Scriptura is not historical, it is unbiblical, and ultimately unworkable as a framework.
Of most importance, the Episode of the Office the quote is from is the one on Sexual Misconduct, Season 2 (maybe) in which Michael forwards inappropriate emails.
I wish everyone who was debating this issue was like you and cordial catholic. As much as I enjoy reason and theology the tone makes me a little uncomfortable sometimes. And even tho I’m a catholic I enjoy your tone. Cordial Catholic lives up to his name lol
We must stick to the content instead of opining on the other person's interpretation. Instead of saying "your opinion is irresponsible and dumb," just provide the relative rebutting content.
My take (I'm a Catholic, so you know where I'm coming from) 1. Yes, "beyond dispute" doesn't have to mean infallible. Gavin is right that an authoritative decision which can't be reversed doesn't have to be infallible. BUT.... But, as Michael Lofton would say, and I'm of the same thoughts, if the context is about faith it would be very very bad if something that is beyond dispute CAN be fallible. So, IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE that when Augustine say that the decision of plenary council is "beyond dispute" (or "solidified" for that matter) he had "infallible" in mind. 2. Gavin also say that when he searched Patrologia Latina for the word "solido" in Augustine's writings, the saint used it in the context of fallible matter. Now, I don't have Logos software or the like to check if this is true, I'll take his word for it. Tho Gavin's argument definitely has merit, it's not definitive. In the sense that just because Augustine wont to use "solido" for fallible matter doesn't necessarily mean he can't use it for infallible matter. Gavin here is basically arguing from silence (tho argument from silence can have merit if you remember Sherlock Holme's The Hound of Bakersville, where he deduced something because the dog didn't bark). As persuasive as Gavin's argument from silence is, it leads to a conclusion that's so devestating that one can reasonably doubt the persuasiveness of the argument. That devastating conclusion is what I elaborated in no. 1. That is, if it's true that Augustine belief that "beyond dispute/solido" is fallible in the context of Christian faith then a devastating conclusion follows. To imagine that in matter of Christian faith something can be "beyond dispute/solido" but erroneous, is devastating. It would be catastrophic to the Christian faith. The Christian God would truly be the God of confusion. 3. Gavin's argument that "corrected" (that is, plenary council can be corrected by subsequent plenary council) in the context must mean correction of error, instead of elaboration, I must say I agree with him. However, be as it may, as Michael Lofton also point out, a plenary council can correct the error of a plenary council as long as this pertain to non-infallible definitions. 4. Gavin asked, "give me a way Augustine could have said it, how could he articulated that scripture alone is infallible?" I don't understand why is this hard to formulate. Augustine could've said what sola scripturist Protestant would say. Such as, he could've said that "in matters of faith, only scripture is infallible and there's no other sources that is also infallible." I mean, one can come up with many formulation. While the ones from the three Augustine quotes (in the initial video), as many Catholics have argued, can still be understand in a Catholic sense (unlike the formulation I made before). 5. Gavin said that Augustine never speak of the Church as being infallible. I'm working on this.
@YAJUN YUAN 2. Have you actually read Exsurge Domine itself instead of reading/hearing it from secondary sources? The bull was listing Luther's error. In error no. 33 Luther said that burning heretics is against the will of the spirit. This is an error because heresy is a direct offense against God and punishable by death. Old Testament prescribed death for heretics, tho not with burning. Burning is just one of the mean to exercise the punishment. 3. By reasoning from what we know about the parameter of infallibility, or just consulting the magisterium. Having the ability to do something doesn't mean one has to exercised it all the time. A man could speak German (tho his native language is english). But he doesn't need to be speaking German all the time. The plenary councils (ecumenical ones) can be infallible. But it doesn't have to exercise it everytime. There are other reason to held plenary councils beside giving infallible definition. Such as if the pressing matter is about discipline instead of faith or moral.
@YAJUN YUAN Death for heretics in the OT: Lev 24:16, Ex 22:20, Deut 13:6-11. Most of what ecumenical councils decided were disciplinary matter (well, maybe except Trent and Vatican I). Just check the canons of Nicea I. Also see all those Lateran Councils. Mostly they're disciplinaries.
Two years later haha. I only disagree with one of your points really. "That is, if it's true that Augustine belief that "beyond dispute/solido" is fallible in the context of Christian faith then a devastating conclusion follows. To imagine that in matter of Christian faith something can be "beyond dispute/solido" but erroneous, is devastating. It would be catastrophic to the Christian faith. The Christian God would truly be the God of confusion." It is perfectly okay if we err and then come to understand God better later. This is the story of the Old Testament and the Gospel. We must be able to adjust when given new evidence. Like Gavin said about the jury when given new evidence.
@@learningmoreandmore1 Use your imagination then. Think Arianism. Christianity almost became an Arian religion. Under Gavin's framework it would be OK for the whole Christian Church to be Arian, ie. denying Christ' consubstantiality with the Father. That is very terrible.
@@namapalsu2364 Thanks for the response! I don't see how Gavin is saying that personally. I and he acknowledge that the Holy Spirit protects the Church throughout the centuries. He is simply saying that ecumenical councils are capable of erring. For instance, let's say that Nicaea 1 did affirm Arianism (thank God it didn't). There would still be many unheretical Christians within the Church that don't believe it. The church would not fizzle out in that moment. I hope this makes sense. I admit I am not well versed in ecumenical dialogues. I probably won't respond anymore. God bless!
Critics: "Dr. Ortlund is an amateur Augustine scholar." Dr. Ortlund: "Hold my non-alcoholic beverage." Maybe--a Lutheran can hope--he is a Beer Imbibing Baptist.
Gavin keep rocking. Regardless of the context (which I say understanding that context is important) Augustines view on scripture is clear. In fact, so clear that despite Augustines respect and reverence for tradition it’s not confusing where he landed on in regard to Holy Writ and the implications of his conviction on infallibility verses authority.
You should talk to Mike Winger about Calvinism. I think you’d both have a great time and it would be more fruitful than his back and forth with James White.
My two cents. I thought your rebuttal of their rebuttal was refreshing on a number of levels. First giving further details of Augustine's position and clarifying points about what he taught instead of going line by line over what the catholics think he said is the better approach. You can go back and forth all day long between what they said and what you said. Sticking to the issue of Augustine's view of sola scriptura is more helpful. We've all been there, even me in my little world of apologetics. Catholics will take you out of context, twist what you say or flat out ignore your point, create a straw man and argue that point. Been there done that. I saw a video recently of Mike Winger saying specifically that he did not think catholicism was a cult. Trent Horn makes a rebuttal video claiming Mike said catholicism is a cult. Its a spiritual battle i'm convinced, which is why they can look straight at A and see B. If they in their video rebuttal, where its just them and the camera don't respect who they are rebutting, why should you debate that person? Mike was offered the opportunity to debate Trent, he declined and i agree wholeheartedly. If they can't be honest talking to themselves, they won't be honest with a live crowd present. Catholics love to claim the early church fathers as theirs which is one reason for the uproar from their side of the tiber. They love them until you show them that they don't agree with rc teachings then all of a sudden its 'Jerome who?' He doesn't speak for the church. In the case of Augustine they simply can not afford to let anyone think they cling to some 'prot' doctrine let alone one of the battle cries of the Reformation. Good post, good video. Keep it up. I've studied catholicism for a pretty long time now. I can't wait for your video on purgatory.
Catholic here (a follower of Lofton) and I must first say that I agree he came of too aggressive against you in that video, and I truly appreciate your humble demanour. Hm, about what your argument that "beyond dispute" can still be fallible, I guess that's possible, but I think that raises two issues. 1. It would still mean Augustine affirmed a very strong Church authority, which might not have been infallible, but still inquestionable - even when it isn't in accordence with scripture. If the point of Sola Scriptura is to put the authority of scripture trump the one of the church, that point would seem to be lost here. 2. I'm sorry if come of as blunt now, but I don't think such a view would make much sense. Why think the Church have such an authority in the first place unless it also taught infallibly? I frankly cant think of any other reason. If one thinks something the church teaches might be a grave heresy, something all believers at the time would have assent to, it follows that you think that teaching not only can but must be corrected. If the church could teach heretical it would be disasterous for every believer if the church also were bound in those errors. There is a reason the denial of church infallibility has came along with the questionability of her dogmas. One comes with the other by my lights.
It seems to me that there were some disagreements among the church fathers on most issues which divide Christians today, except for baptismal regeneration perhaps. It seems to me then that quoting the church fathers will almost never settle a theological argument, as the other side can just cite all of the church fathers who agree with their side of the argument.
"In the Church is where TRUTH presides. The Church is the Authority ". ( Augustine on Authority, exposition of the Psalms ). "If the Catholic Church approved it, then it is true) ( Sermon 117). Dr. Ortlund conveniently left out these and many other writings of Augustine! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Hi Gavin - I wish to express my thanks for this video and especially the end. I was super thrilled that you briefly touched on the topic of canon!!! Yay! I did understand that you view Augustine's view of canon as irrelevant to this question of Augustine's view of scriptural authority in that you view them as separate topics not dependant on the other. I do appreciate then that despite this you did take some time to address the topic and share why you think that. I would agree that sola scriptura can be held regardless of one's view of canon and probably by extension regardless of one's orthodoxy. I am generally then, in the sense in which you defined it, happy to cautiously affirm Augustine held sola scripture. I have to trust you that he nowhere calls the church infallible as it would seem to cause a problem for the position in question. I have read alot of Augustine but have not read everything and cannot read Latin. I'm going to trust you here and if you do find something contrary I would hope you share a retraction like our dear friend did at times. Likewise if I find something I will share with you. To me it makes me want to revisit his work on the Trinity because I am positive he interacts with the question of scripture and tradition on various levels. On this point, have you ever read Irenaeus? I find him a bit more wild and crazy here. He at one point envisions how a Christian would know the truth in a world without the written scriptures (Book 3 Chapter 4). For him, the written scriptures don't seem totally necessary to arriving at truth but rather he shifts things more towards tradition and authority like my beloved roman catholic and eastern orthodox friends and family. Anyways thanks!!
Oh just found you and another fellow Jimmy Akin discussing Irenaeus to a degree. Thank you also for mentioning this. Wow this internet thing sure is cool.
@YAJUN YUAN Thank you for the message. No rush on a response in the doc. I set you as a comment whenever. Appreciate the quotes above. It is good to see Origen and Cyril saying such things. That said I should think the quotes quite unconvincing to a catholic or orthodox by way of proving sola scriptura except in a sense in which they already affirm, namely that scripture is necessary for us a Christians to refer to for doctrine. They are just as careful as us Protestants are with affirming doctrine. Even the assumption of Mary for the catholic has scriptural proofs brought forth from the scriptures. Granted I simply find the interpretations dubious but I cannot deny the antiquity of the belief and its possibility of being true. For this reason probably the best use of such passages from Origen and Cyril would be for me to tease them with my interpretation of the relationship of scripture and tradition assumed. One way of bringing the point of a catholic or orthodox to bear in the force of a question on those quotations is, given what Origen and Cyril say would you then be open to discussion of Arian interperetations of passages towards the nature of Christ as a created being? I should think not as the case was settled long ago though towards a JW I would likely engage in the battle and in a like manner the catholic or orthodox in my experience will assert many of the doctrines they hold had past discussion and struggle by Christians from the scriptures to affirm. For example they would point to the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity as a dogma discussed by Jerome when it was denied by one of his opponents. Another would be the use and benefit of icons in worship as discussed in later centuries at length by various writers which sought to protect Christian freedom in worship against iconoclastic tendencies to over interpret scripture to safeguard the worship of God. Those are just a few examples. Love the quotes though for sure! Thanks again for comments!
Dr. Ortlund - my 2nd comment: (earlier one is more important) Good to see a Protestant know Latin that well. (I have to take your word for it, since I don't know Latin). That is one of our greatest weaknesses and for me also - I wish I had learned Latin to be able to interact with that kind of argumentation. We (Evangelical Protestants) have good seminary training in Greek and Hebrew, but one has to go on to historical theology studies and higher degrees to get the Latin needed for that kind of argumentation. Well done. It would be great if you do a future video on the Latin in that famous Irenaeus paragraph about the church of Rome in Against Heresies, Book 3 ("every church resorts or reflects the tradition, because all come to Rome, the capital", or "every church must agree with the church of Rome", etc.)
Great video, I'm protestant because because of the writings of Paul , Peter,John and other Holy Spirit inspired writers of the Bible. I don't care who put them together, I know God chose what writings would be part of His Logos, regardless of who claims to own the bible.(church or councils). I respect "church Fathers" as fellow believers but as far as their writings they hold no authority for me. Ill take Paul's writings over theirs after all they came before the "church fathers writings." Gavin thanks for all the hard work.
I have made an in-depth (friendly) response to this video: "Augustine & Sola Scriptura, Pt. 2 (vs. Gavin Ortlund)" [4-29-22] It's posted on my "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" blog.
There's a lot of misunderstanding and talking past each other here, and I suspect it's because of the Catholic-Protestant polemic/dynamic, that often degenerates to psychologizing and ad hominem. It also only tangentially includes the Orthodox and usually ignores the nuance of the Eastern perspective. There are a few points that need to be addressed and clarified, from an Orthodox perspective. 1. It is not the Orthodox position that Ecumenical (or Imperial) Councils are an essential feature of the Church. If that were the case, then the Church would not have been the Church until Constantine established the Christian Empire and, conversely, the Church would not be so today, given that the empire collapsed long ago. The essential features include the body of bishops, the sacraments and the liturgy. That said, the Church is inherently synodical and there is most certainly a hierarchy of authority (as St. Augustine emphasizes), which is consummated in global/ecumenical/plenary council, consisting of the Body of Bishops (including the Apostolic Sees), guided by the Holy Spirit in Truth. It's not the case, however, that the description just provided is applicable to every council, or even to every global/plenary council. There are false councils and councils that taught error, just as St. Augustine describes (many false Arian councils in his own time). 2. Because of this, it could very well be the case that St. Augustine, as a very early Church Father, did not have a very clear conception of Ecumenical Councils, at least not as clear as it's understood today. I would say that his view is likely very different from that of the current Catholic view. That said, it does not follow that St. Augustine held the position that the Church (the Body of Bishops) is unable to come together and, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to produce infallible dogma that's authoritatively binding on the whole Church. Indeed, he's very clear that that's precisely what Nicea 1 did (see St. Augustine, answer to Maximinus, Book II, XIV - On the Sameness of Substance in the Trinity, Section 3). So your distinction between 'infallible,' on the one hand, and 'binding,' on the other, sort of misses the point. The point is that, according to St. Augustine, the Church is able to bind and loose because it (again as a Body) is infallible, and it's infallible because it's inspired by the Holy Spirit. 3. Let's consider the context: you allude to it in your argument. St. Augustine is commenting on St. Cyprian. St. Cyprian, at the Council of Carthage, rejected all heretical baptisms. Where was this corrected? Well, it was corrected at Constantinople 1 with Canon #7. Constantinople 1 (plenary) corrected Carthage (also considered plenary). It's not a secret that Constantinople 1 was not intended/expected to be considered an "Ecumenical Council." It emerged as such because it became clear, over time and by the grace of the Holy Spirit, that it was a spotless Council that taught only true doctrine and was thus received by the Church. That St. Augustine did not clearly distinguish between these two categories (plenary in general and plenary/Ecumenical) does *not* mean that he rejected the notion of an inspired/infallible council. 4. So if we look at the two broad categories: (i) Scripture and a whole and (ii) Councils as a whole, it's true that only (i) is always infallible (though it's interpretation, obviously, may not be). In addition, one can easily affirm that Scripture is more authoritative than councils, even ecumenical councils. Why? Because the purpose/function of Councils is to elucidate Scripture. Scripture, if decoupled from the Body/Church, is a puzzle that's misinterpreted. The magisterium is what provides the infallible hermeneutic/interpretation. Finally, and not directly related, but you said that the saints pose a problem from the existing Orthodox Church. That is not a claim that you have ever substantiated. You tried one time on the issue of the Filioque. Unfortunately, your attempt did not address the Orthodox argument but rather outright ignored it (understanding "from the Son" as "through the Son"). I suspect that it's because it's not a strong area of yours and that you haven't read the Eastern sources (Blachernae 1285, St. Mark of Ephesus, Maximus/Damascus/Palamas on the matter, etc.).
This is a bit late in coming. But last night 01/01/2024, I asked chat gpt whether or not St Augustine supported something like the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. And it said yes! I asked it to synthesize his views and it did so, essentially affirming all you’ve talked about. I was shocked, and then thought for a second about what exactly Chat GPT is. A large language model with access to all those works and more, capable of doing analysis like that. So, weird affirmation? Haha. Just thought I’d share
Very informative and thoughtful content as always. I like your irenic approach to these discussions. I wonder if getting an Augustine scholar such as Dr. Ken Wilson would be useful to shed light on this matter?
Dr. Ortlund can you post the chapter and verse of your Augustine quote about not following/obeying catholic bishops? This was cited at the 26 minute mark..roughly, and by Henry Manning. I'd appreciate the citation from Augustine. Thanks in advance.
Hey Dr. Ortlund. Do you know where I can find the St. Augustine's letters in latin? Because I've seen that some spanish catholic apologists quote some letters of him when It appears he's talking about infallibility on the plenary councils. For example: "todo lo que observa la Iglesia en todo el orbe, se sobreentiende que se guarda por recomendación o precepto de los apóstoles o de los concilios plenarios, *cuya autoridad es indiscutible en la Iglesia* " St. Augustine Letter 54 chapter 1. "cuya autoridad es indiscutible en la iglesia" means literally "whose authority is *undisputed* in the church" but when I check the english version says: "and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful" I mean "useful" It's radically different to "undisputed"; so if you know where I can find the Letter 54 in latin just to check what traslation is correct let me know please. Thanks
@@Mygoalwogel Hey, yeah, I searched it a few hours ago. The word used there in latin is "saluberrima", which means something like "wholesome" and can be used in both terms, "most useful" and "undisputed", so I think it depends on the context
"The Church is the Channel of Truth". (Augustine) "Not everything the Apostles taught was written down. Yet, this oral teaching holds the same weight as Scripture ", ( John Chrysostom ). Dr. Ortlund conveniently leaves out these writings! Dr. Ortlund is not being honest in his research! William Albrecht is more than happy to present the complete writings of the Church Fathers, and not leave out some as is seen here! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Dr. Ortlund - great discussion and fleshing out of the difference between Authority and Infallibility; very helpful. Around 18:50 - "Cyprian was wrong" - is Augustine saying Cyprian and 86 other bishops were all wrong vs. Stephen, bishop of Rome, around 257 AD, on the question of re-baptizing heretics? ("For no one has the right to claim that they are bishop over all other bishops or by tyrannical decree interfere in other bishopric areas" (my paraphrase of the statement in the 7th Council of Carthage of 257-258 AD) or are you saying that you believe Cyprian was wrong? "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,4675 nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.4676 But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." (Cyprian & 86 other bishops, 7th Council of Carthage, first paragraph, at end) ccel.org/ccel/cyprian/carthage_council/anf05.iv.vi.i.html Are the Donatists arguing using Cyprian, Firmillian and the 85 other bishops to make their point, and apply it differently to the character of the bishop / one who baptizes?
Strong and well-stated arguments for the Sola Scriptura position from Gavin. They are about the best arguments I could see being made from these texts. His position is clearly not without merit. I especially felt the force of his linguistic argument against Michael Lofton’s “beyond all dispute” argument. However, ultimately I find the unanswered contextual problems raised by Kieth to be damaging to his overall summation that Augustine was a proponent of SS. That alone contributes much to undermine Gavin’s foundation here. Also, when he states that Augustine is making a “hypothetical” argument about formal councils often being corrected by later ones, I find that to be a big stretch. It certainly seems more like what William Albrecht suggested, that here Augustine would not have meant Ecumenical councils, but rather regional plenary ones. Also, Michael’s point about how the Church holds Scripture in Primacy, without saying it is the only infallible authority seems to create a very neat space for Augustine’s views without a need for a protestant view of Sola Scriptura. Finally, the narrowness of the question, rather than working in favor of the specific issue of just SS actually seems in a larger view of Augustine to work against it. In the context of his life and work as a Bishop and Doctor of the Church, it seems especially unlikely that on this point he would hold such an unorthodox view, he who was and is such a pillar of Catholic orthodoxy. Great work on all sides. Looking forward to hearing more soon.
Augustine clearly calls pleneray councils as those formed for the whole Christian world and hence cannot be mere regional councils only ...His presents a hierarchy of authority in the church culminating in plenary councils. He admits to no higher authority than these pleneray councils for the church . The catholic encyclopedia states that Augustine calls ecumenical councils as pleneray . There is evidence in Augustine's writings that he is aware of First Nicea. Hence Nicea would come under his category of plenary councils though his list of pleneray councils could have been broader that the list we recognise today but would not have excluded an ecumenical council like Nicea. . After all councils that qualify to be considered ecumenical was determined only at Chalcedon . Before that the boundaries of this category was more fluid.
The question at the heart of all this is: Are there any identifiable conditions under which the Holy Spirit will intervene to prevent a certain thing from happening, - to prevent the Church from committing error in teaching or believing what it thinks to be true? The Protestant answer is, "No". Another matter is the position taken by Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy of 1529, which found its way into the Black Rubric in the Book of Common Prayer: that the body of Christ which is in heaven cannot also be in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, because it is impossible for the same body even by the power of God to be at the same time in more places than one. This proposition is not in the Bible, and it is not uncontroversially commendable to reason.
Let’s just be honest, Lofton seems like a real jerk. Tom Jump is a pretty intolerable atheist and in their discussion I found Lofton even worse than him. His overly confident rhetoric is his only form of argument.
Mr. Ortlund, you asked how Augustine could have stated that Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith. My answer is that he could have said something to the effect of “Scripture alone is infallible, and the sole measure of truth. All other rules of faith, whether statements from bishops, decrees of councils, and other pronouncements of the Church are liable to error, and have erred in the past. When these authorities do err, the only way to correct them is to appeal to the clear sense of the Scriptures.” In other words, he could have used language similar to what modern-day Protestants such as yourself use. I, as a Catholic, have no problem affirming every word of Augustine’s that you quoted in this video. After listening to your (very well articulated) argument, I am still unconvinced that Augustine held to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as it is held by Protestants today (although I would argue that he held to a principle of Prima Scriptura, which, although some Catholics would disagree, is still a position that a Catholic can hold).
@@DF_UniatePapist In my understanding, many Protestants allow their own interpretation of scripture to contradict the words of scripture. Paul says, "Christ loved the Church giving himself up for her that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of water with the word." Many Protestants say water baptism does nothing. They don't believe in scripture but in their own opinions. On the other side of the Tiber, papists allow councils to contradict scripture. Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. Lateran Council 2 Canon 6: For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is *unbecoming* that they *indulge in marriage* and in *impurities.* 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage* 1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance. Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.
@@Mygoalwogel A Council cannot err on infallible declarations. The examples you have brought up are not examples of infallible, irreversible decrees. There have always been married priests in the Catholic Church. The discipline of the Lateran Council regarding priestly celibacy applies only the the Latin rite, and has never applied to every Catholic priest of every rite. The Church could undo it tomorrow if it wanted to. In any case, the Church doesn’t forbid anybody to marry. Nobody is forced to become a priest.
@@DF_UniatePapist Thanks. I think that answers my question. Paul says apostles (and their successors, presumably) have the right to have a wife, and bishops may have only one wife. But the Lateran councils are allowed to forbid wives to Latin bishops, removing that right. Is that correct?
The topic of sola scriptura, whether you believe that scripture is the only infallible source or not, still does not answer a very nagging question: By who's understanding of the scriptures are we to go with? In my readings of Augustine, I think he would say the Church, considering the heresies that he defended against throughout his writings.
Augistine himself was taught by Ambrose to interpret scripture through Plato... sooo, that explains some things, like his weird cosmology in his Genesis commentary thays so left field it feels like he's reading a totally different book. I'm not saying he wasn't brilliant, but Augustine is not a church father I'd turn to for good biblical exegesis. The most controversial doctrines of the reformation came by way of slavish borrowing from him.
1.) It seems implausible that St. Augustine would have affirmed the position of Sola Scripture, because he would recognize that scripture required interpretation. Augustine would likely recognize the error or sola scriptura and man’s capacity for misuse. 2.) it is more likely that Augustine would recognize that while scripture was authoritative it required interpretation, and while several decisions would be seen as infallible meaning they had already been exhaustively argued. In other words they would have high bars to be cleared by scripture along with magisterium. 3.) It seems reasonable to say Sacred Scripture is authoritative within its pages through its use it is interpreted and debated. While the written word of scripture has the capacity within its pages to reveal truth, the issue is alway when man gets involved. So then we arrive at the central issue of authority. So the models we naturally arrive at are the Papacy, magisterium and Scripture or Sola Scriptura and the local church authority. If Scripture was the sole authority, as Sola scriptura suggests it would settle our differences. Either way there is effectively an interpretative structure, because reason tells us that even as scripture is authoritative, it doesn’t have the capacity as written word to settle every argument without being interpreted by church leadership that understands church history, church traditions, etc.
Augustine obviously put scripture above all church authority. So why then would he want to mind control all Christians and only spoonfeed them his and the church's view on scripture? That is against scripture.
Seems like Dr. Ortlund has hit a nerve with this topic. I watched two of the rebuttals to Dr. Ortlund's original video on Augustine and Sola Scriptura. I was a bit taken aback by one of them. The speaker appeared to be angry and even hinted that Dr. Ortlund was being dishonest or disingenuous. This was even before he provided any information to attempt to refute Dr. Ortlund's point. The speaker brought forth some relevant information but, in my opinion, hurt his presentation with the over-the-top tone and rhetoric.
Dear Dr Ortlund, I think you used the phrase Sola Scriptura and Augustine as clickbait. St. Augustine taught the infallibility of Scripture. But to use the phrase sola scriptura is to suggest he advocated scripture alone. Or scripture above which you clarified. Which is the position of Prima Scriptura. It goes for good advertising but unfortunately provokes response which at times may be not as cordial as Keith's. I wont blame you for using a contentious title but at the same time, one can hardly blame others for misunderstanding. In goodwill, one can say bad titling. But the opposite can also be said that you baited people. Intention is only known to you and God. But thanks for clarifying in response to them all. In the end, Augustine will not stand for Protestantism. He advocated for much which Protestants reject. He held true to what was taught to him. I pray we do too and that one does not twist the Lord's teachings to justify their own ends.
I defined sola scriptura clearly, according to the historical Protestant definition. There’s no clickbait. I mean the claim exactly literally: Augustine affirmed sola scriptura. You seem to be operating with the caricature of sola scriptura I’ve been laboring to disabuse people of. If you disagree, I’d be curious to understand what definition of sola scriptura you are operating with.
@@TruthUnites Please correct me if I am wrong - Sola Scriptura - the bible (written scripture) is the only sole infalliable rule/authority for Christian faith and practice. My response Dr Ortlund, because time is brief and does not permit, and also because I know so little. Augustine says "But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church." (note church at this point is not that invisible body of Christ some adhere to) He has gathered from the Authority, according to tradition or testimony of divine Scriptures. He places Authority first built upon Tradition and Scripture. Perhaps (I am not an expert in this field, I will need time to study) on the knowledge that Tradition is Dei Verbum too, the word of God is not soley the written word for the spoken and the taught precedes the wriitten. Does this show Sola Scriptura? Reasonable proof? Why does he not say "gathered from the Authority of the Scriptures"? Because I know that would be a slamdunk for you. But it isnt. If Augustine affirms Sola Scriptura, what of other Fathers? Doesn't seem to be much there (again I am a novice in this field) So does Augustine preach what is not in alignment with the rest? Of Authority of the Church, built upon scripture and tradition? If Tradition be not infallible and is reformable or alterable, why mention it? There is weight there in why he brings it up and places it in the same level as Scripture. Is it really Sola Scriptura from Augustine? I need extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claim. "But their error, as none can be ignorant, ought not to be attributed to me, if they have deviated into false doctrine through following my steps without apprehending me, whilst I am compelled to pick my way through a hard and obscure subject: seeing that neither can any one, in any way, rightly ascribe the numerous and various errors of heretics to the holy testimonies themselves of the divine books; although all of them endeavor to defend out of those same Scriptures their own false and erroneous opinions. " From Augustine
My 3rd comment: Does this debate relate to the famous statement by B. B. Warfield? "The Reformation, inwardly considered, is the triumph of Augustine's theology of grace [ vs. Pelagianism, semi-pelagianism, Election, Predestination, bondage of the will, etc.] verses Augustine's theology of the church? [ sacraments, baptism, arguments vs. Donatists] ? And if so, how? (flesh it out)
I had a comment on this video that received a load of replies, which was really cool! I can't say that the engagement was particularly helpful though. Some slander against me was made, and I was like, "It was a fun week of back and forth, but these guys don't represent Catholics well and I wasn't representing my confession of faith well." I really do like this video, and I think the points made in it are worth considering. I went outside, prayed and wanted to say, "If you read our exchange, it was definitely passionate, and people were invested lol. I don't believe Catholics and Lutherans are that far apart, despite what some people want to think. We are all part of one mystical Body of Christ, brothers and sisters united in Communion and Baptism - we should treat each other that way, despite our differences in theology." :)
Dr Gavin comes across as a polite man; but, is certainly a sophist (and dishonest) - wittingly or not. (Lofton & others: not a fan of either due to their own sophistry and SJW/cancel culture tactics on Gospel Simplicity). Dr Gavin, in this online back-and-forth discussion, commits word-concept fallacy: his personal semiotic of the rigid designator "Catholic Church" is radically, radically different to that of St Augustine and all the Fathers without exception. Universally and in every case - without exception - the Fathers' Church phromena/worldview/conception was NOT that of Protestantism's denominations or the "invisible church" heresy. Gavin takes Catholic Church and then applies it to himself/Protestantism/Ecuminism - as a flaccid designator. He does to the Fathers what the cults do to the Scriptures. All Protestants - by definition - are outside of the Church. Thus, by definition, Gavin is not part of the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. Did the Fathers at Nicea & Constantinople intend for Creed to mean, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic (invisible/thousands of denominations) Church? Of course not! So, presupposed in the very definition of "Church" is a refutation of Protestantism and every heresy it teaches. It is a refutation of Sola Scriptura - as heresy vis-à-vis the phromena of the Orthodox (Catholic) Church. Also, dishonest is Dr Gavin's assertion that the number of books is unconnected to Sola Scriptura. It's very connected because the Deutercanon teaches prayer for the departed and other dogmas, which Protestants reject. À la RC Sproul, who stupidly asserted that the canon is a "fallible collection of infallible books", Dr Gavin teaches self-refuting nonsense. Dr Gavin's other favourite fallacies are numerous appeals to emotion and irrelevent autobiographical details (i.e. "I find it hard to believe X"; or, "I find Y unconvincing"). These are not arguments. These he did with Fr Patrick - who schooled him & won on Orthodoxy; but, sadly, didn't absolutely hammer Dr Gavin on these many fallacies, during their debate.
Here is a question. Is Jesus being consubstantial with the Father an infallible teaching? According to your view of Augustine, it would seem that must be a fallible teaching. Is the Trinity a fallible Church teaching?
@ktownbball ktownbball The word consubstantial is not found in the Bible. It is Greek philosophy. You said that it is infallible teaching and we know it comes out of the Council of Nicaea. The Arians used the Bible to prove Jesus was not consubstantial and the Church brought in the desert fathers to testify to Christ's nature. Now, where do you get the teaching from if it isn't in the Bible that you say is infallible? No, it isn't clear in the Bible as I have explained. This infallible teaching came from the Church, a Tradition handed down from the apostles.
@@markrome9702 The word consubstantial may not be found in the bible but the fact that Jesus ie consubstantial is John 10:30 Sola scriptura doesnt mean were restricted to The words of the bible. Actually watch the video man
@@ReformedR If something is infallible that isn't in the Bible but is from a Church ecumenical council, then that isn't Sola Scriptura because, according to Gavin's interpretation of Augustine, the Bible is the ONLY infallible rule of faith. If you want to hold to Sola Scriptura, then you must say that the teaching that Jesus being consubstantial with the Father is a fallible statement. Even your list of the books of the Bible are fallible. As the late RC Sproul would say, Protestants have a fallible list of infallible books.
@@markrome9702 I agree with Captain Bloodfire that you don't understand what Sola Scriptura means, but that aside, are you suggesting that the councils came up with the Trinity apart from or even against the Holy Scriptures? That would certainly be a unique position.
@@mj6493 I know what Sola Scriptura means. That's why I am saying that if you hold to it, the Council's declaration has to be a fallible pronouncement. Otherwise, you do not hold to Sola Scriptura. Of course they used Scripture, but that wasn't their only source, as I've explained. They called in the great desert monk, St. Anthony the Great. It was his testimony against the Arians (who adamantly used scripture to defend their position). If you say consubstantial is infallible then you are inconsistent because that did not come from Scripture alone but mostly from Sacred Tradition against the Arians. Do you agree with RC Sproul that you have a fallible collection of infallible books? You should, if you want to be consistent with Sola Scriptura.
I apologize for being a year late to this discussion. As far as I can recall, I already watched these video exchanges a year ago on whether or not St. Augustine affirmed sola scriptura, but never really took the opportunity to comment on them. Anyway, this is not a comprehensive rebuttal (I don't think I'm competent enough for that anyway), but rather a collection of observations that merit discussion or require clarification. I might have misunderstood some of your points, especially since I was watching at double speed. Please feel free to correct any misconceptions. So, to support your assertion that Augustine was using “plenary council” in a broader sense without distinction between the categories of councils, and that it even encompasses an ecumenical council, you said that a good case can be made that Augustine didn't have detailed knowledge of previous councils on the basis that at one point in his writings, he seems to be ignorant of the Council of Sardica. You then cited Robert Eno who, in response to scholars who are in the position that it could not have been an ecumenical council since there had not been enough councils to be corrected “often,” said that this assumes that Augustine had a clear-cut idea of what an ecumenical council is. First, it's important to emphasize that the Council of Sardica is not classified as an ecumenical council. Consequently, Augustine's potential lack of awareness regarding this council, if we assume that to be the case, does not in any way impact the discussion surrounding whether he used the term “plenary council” to refer to ecumenical councils as well. Augustine's possible unawareness of a specific ecclesiastical council held at Sardica does not provide any conclusive evidence regarding his comprehension of what an “ecumenical council” is and what it entails. The logical connection between these points appears to be missing. I must add also that introducing this point into the discussion could be misleading. Less informed individuals might misinterpret it as implying that Augustine was unaware of a particular ecumenical council, which is not the case. But even if we were to assume that Augustine was unaware or was initially unaware of the existence of a particular ecumenical council, it wouldn't necessarily demonstrate a lack of awareness of the concept of an "ecumenical council." I find it challenging to discern the logical connection between these elements. Moreover, let's consider the irony in Robert Eno's argument. While Eno challenges the assumption that Augustine possessed a well-defined understanding of what constitutes an ecumenical council, he appears to lean towards the contrary presumption that Augustine might have been ignorant of the concept of an ecumenical council. This irony arises from the contrast between disputing the clarity of Augustine's knowledge on this topic and then assuming a definitive stance (ignorance) in its place. To presume a lack of knowledge on Augustine’s part, without concrete evidence to support such a claim, seems to be an extremely more questionable position to adopt, wouldn't you agree? After all, considering Augustine's role as a very well-read, very knowledgeable bishop, theologian, and writer who actively participated in theological discussions and correspondence with other church leaders of his time, it seems far more reasonable to suggest that he had a keen awareness of the concept of ecumenical councils. Also, if I’m not mistaken (and feel free to correct me on this one), he also seems to be aware, and have referenced, the decisions and creeds, of earlier ecumenical councils. All of these raise a legitimate question: Why would one assume a position of ignorance on his part regarding ecumenical councils? But again, the wordings employed by Augustine seem to suggest that he is not talking about ecumenical councils. Dismissing this by suggesting he was ignorant of the concept of ecumenical councils appears to be an oversimplified explanation, a cop-out answer to be honest. And you asked us how else could Augustine have articulated it? Well, for starters, he could have said something like "including ecumenical councils" (or mentioned them by name), or simply used a clearly broad term "councils," instead of "plenary councils." He did not. Can you please explain these matters to me? If not you, then anyone else here could do so, since a lot of the people here seems to agree with your reasoning, although I can't understand why.
Just curious, Dr. Ortlund, do you think there is a difference between demonstrating in Augustine a denial of a particular form of infallibility (plenary councils) and demonstrating a positive statement affirming Scripture as the only organ of infallibility? Even if Augustine completely denies infallibility in all teachings in all councils, he could still believe in infallibility in the universal consensus of the apostles or the early fathers or an example of binding and loosing from the pope or other bishops, or theoretically all kinds of things (I'm not saying he did, just that he could have). At one point you seemed to retreat to the position that you weren't "aware" of any examples of him maintaining infallibility in any ecclesial function of the church. But that would make you merely agnostic on Augustine's view of sola scriptura, yet you seemed at the beginning to be asserting that he affirmed the doctrine.
I have found that personal attacking insulting tactic so much with evolutionists and atheists, also plenty of R Cath. I try to address issues, but so many take it personally and claim it's attacking and hate. I emphasize that it's not personal and truth is not hate, but love. I think that it's also true that the more a response is personal attack and insults, the more the person just doesn't have the knowledge and/or expertise to reasonably address issues. So, they are just being rejecting and hostile. I would say it also takes practice in debating. That takes some time to learn, how to handle responses and individuals. It is hard to stay on topic and not react when faced with nasty attacks and insults. I would also question about assuming individuals are truly in Christ? I think all reality, especially scripture, show that many people claiming Christian, being in churches, are not truly saved in Christ. While that applies to all, I would say particularly in Catholicism because of their religious system. So, the question would be truly Christian OR doing religion.
The problem with this thought is that it doesn't recognize that Christ granted a degree of infallibility to his church. Which you and find, ironically, in scripture alone. The existence of the church is prior, the existence of Christ's body is prior to the inscripturation of some of his and the apostles teachings. And if Christ's body doesn't share in his authority, it does not share in his life. At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me,is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be broken- do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands. John 10:22-39 ESV bible.com/bible/59/jhn.10.22-39.ESV I understand the idea of theological recovery and renewal, sola scriptura being a non-biblical extra-christian teaching seems more like ossification.
Augustine ALSO TEACHES the oral teaching of the 7 Apostles who never wrote anything down, is ALSO infallible! So no, not Scripture ALONE as infallible as Dr. Ortlund claimed Augustine taught! Augustine ALSO believes The Church is the Channel of Truth. Dr. Ortlund's ignorance of Augustine is quite evident! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
The Oral Tradition claim as infallible is not evidenced and does not conform to 2 Timothy 3:16. It must be throughly unsettling to your religious worldview to hear an informed voice displaying sound Augustinian scholarship! Your shouting with upper case in your comments does not refute Dr. Ortlund’s presentation or make your beliefs truer.
@@Tanjaicholan but 2 Timothy doesn’t say Scripture is the ONLY authority but that it’s an authority in 1 Thessalonians Paul says that his disciples should keep is written and oral teachings.
10 minutes in and so far it's been entirely rhetoric and complaining that the people didn't act the way he wanted. I hope. Gavin actually gets to a point soon, because so far this has been embarrassing. It's really convincing to modern effeminate men, but to people trying to see Gavin defend his point and not his ego, it's just boring.
He imputs to Lofton a behavior that he( Michael Loft) did not externally expressed. Lofton didn't said that Ortlund was irresponsible in asserting that St.Augustine belived in _Sola Scriptura_ ; but rather that "if" but only "if" Ortlund did this out of a deepening study Augustine as whole, i.e, a reading of all Augustine's works. Further, Augustine said this in his "On the Care of the Dead" Possibly your inquiry is satisfied by this my brief reply. But what other considerations move me, to which I think meet to answer, do thou for a short space attend. In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Howbeit even if it were no where at all read in the *Old Scriptures*, not *small* is the *authority*, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely, that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the Commendation of the dead has also its place. But then, whether there be some profit accruing unto the soul of the dead from the place of its body, requires a more careful inquiry. And first, whether it make any difference in causing or increasing of misery after this life to the spirits of men if their bodies be not buried, this must be looked into, not in the light of opinion however commonly received, but rather of the holy writ of our religion. For we are not to credit that, as is read in Maro, the unburied are prohibited from navigating and crossing the infernal stream: because forsooth To none is giv'n to pass the hideous banks And waters hoarse, ere in their meet abode The bones have sunk to rest.
The early church fathers challenged many things, until those things were dogmatized!. They were trying to hash it out, which is perfectly fine. So you may find a few that were stubborn on a specific issue but its near all the fathers that submitted once the church dogmatized an issue. Huge difference than becoming a heretic after an issue was dogmatized. Check the dates to see how the early church fathers that were CATHOLIC btw, submitted to the One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic church, once an issue was dogmatized! Many protestants do the same with the fathers as they do with scripture. They take one, two verses that support their position and put the other verses on the shelf, totally missing the context. This is just a fact! God bless you all ❤.
Roman Catholics very often claim "context" when they actually mean "interpretation through the controlling lens of the Council of Trent." They don't actually mean the real context.
SO TRUE!
Never too much of Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ. Were you at the foot of the Cross, sir?
I like the other Marys, too. Can't get enough of them.
The problem with this statement is that it's somewhat disingenuous. It assumes that the Protestant position is perspicacious, which it is not.
@@Silverhailo21 Thats not good enough.
I am deeply concerned that all the unfair antagonism is going to deter you from making the sort of content that pushes back against accepted norms in Roman Catholicism. At the moment the market of ideas, surrounding Church History and the Fathers, is flooded with Roman Catholic advocates who rely on aggressive rhetoric to make their case. It cannot be easy to be the sole voice in the middle of all the "crashing waves". But an irenic voice that present the protestant position fair and in an articulated manner is sorely needed for those of us who need to know why our traditions formed the way that they did and yet do not have time and opportunity to pursue these matters. I am not in a position to financially back your channel. All I can do is subscribe, like and comment. Please just know that this channel has had a very powerful impact on my life.
This channel has been huge means by which God has kept me in my evangelical faith. I owe a large debt of gratitude to Dr. Ortlund.
Well said
The histrionics in this paragraph though 😂😂😂. I am Catholic who is subscribed to all 3 channels and the other 2 channels were not aggressive at all so please just stop the nonsense.
William Albrecht has definitely been aggressive and many Roman Catholics have actually called him out for his behavior.
Wow couldn’t of said it better myself
As a Catholic, your gracious tone is what wants me to learn more about Protestantism and reduce caricatures for both sides.
I was coming to say the same thing! I am also Catholic and appreciate the charitable way he presents his view. I think we can dialogue and be charitable.
@@JHH1027 Did you see Gavin's first video on Augustine affirming a similar view of holding scripture infallible and above other writings, bishops and church councils? I'm wondering what your view of this is. As he's reiterated, the claim was never that Augustine was protestant in any way, just that our view is not completely novel, for scripture first.
Thank God for your videos Gavin.keep on! Praying for more Grace on your ministry.
Your final statements were a true blessing. As someone who has struggled with these topics, i was somewhat fearful of my position being challenged. I think with matters of the faith, because these matters have eternal significance it takes courage to examine other views. When I used to argue more aggressively it was mostly because I was afraid that the other view could be correct. it was freeing to eventually say "yunno what? This is complicated so I'm gonna just hold on to Christ", as a result i became much more open to Catholicism and other traditions. I also am a settled protestant but it is freeing to appreciate the richness of other traditions without them being a threat.
Just wanted to pop in and say, I have learned so much about charity and kindness from you Dr. Ortlund. This channel has greatly encouraged me as a believer and Protestant. I appreciate so much how you respond to critics, and deal gently with them! Please keep up the great work! Also just thought I’d let you know that I’m using your videos as educational materials for a ministry training program that I lead at my Church! Thank you for the excellent resources!
I’ve learned so much from you Gavin. You’ve brought scholarly study down to the public marketplace for discussion. Many have & will smear you because you don’t affirm their bias, but your continued irenicism is such a great witness for Christ. Keep it up!
Another great kind-hearted response. It's so easy for us to get "dug in" to a belief that no matter what evidence comes along we will not change positions. Gentle approaches like this are more likely to convince than more harsh responses. Thanks.
Dr Gavin Ortlund I just wanted to say how much I love your videos and your calmness. Please do not hesitate to make more videos even when you disagree with many of the Catholic claims and I understand that in apologetics it can be quite difficult to deal with the "heat" but I think your videos have impacted us Catholics to keep learning about our faith and how we can approach topics with our protestant friends. I just want to wish you and your family all the best and may God bless you!
What a gracious comment and encouragement. Would that all Catholics thought in this way, to keep peaceful dialogue going, rather than just trying to win over each other. God bless.
Hi Gavin, your gracious manner is very rare these days. As a former Catholic, I know that Catholics aren't allowed to follow the truth wherever it leads. They are required to uphold Catholic teaching no matter what.
Hi, do you have a video of your testimony online? Would love to see it. 🙂
The most striking thing about this video is your gracious correction. While you could have "nuked" your opponents, you used their responses as a teaching point and expressed your concerns. It would be a privilege to be a layman in your church!
Keep up the good fight! I am very encouraged by your content!
"Nuked?" LOL
Great response Gavin. As always, after your videos I feel encouraged to show greater humility and to desire to seek Christ above all else. Hope you had a good holiday! Blessings.
LOVE how you don't stoop to that ignorant level but at the same time, I'm SO GLAD you addressed WHAT they're doing so others can identify it and know
Keep up the great work. I'm a Catholic but I love listening to your talks because of your thoughtfulness and pleasant tone.
Thank you for reminding us how important it is to understand the meaning of the words we use.
Until more recently, by seeing comments, I didn't know that sola scriptura was even a question. I thought it was obvious to everyone who believes God. I lived a long time thinking that everyone, of course, believed sola scriptura. To not believe it is to deny God.
🔥🔥🔥”we have to find our identity in Christ, not in our church tradition” 🔥🔥🔥
Is that 1 ORT vs 19?
@Goblin Demon is the corporeal the only thing that is real? I would think long and hard about that.
@Goblin Demon Caricatures galore, I’m Protestant and believe in the Real Bodily Presence.
Btw, which orthodox tradition are you referring to? Moscow, Constantinople, Coptic, Ethiopia, etc…? Because those are not in communion with each other. Which orthodox tradition has it right? I guess I’ll need your opinion as the Orthodox Church is divided.
@Bb Dl I receive the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. I worship Jesus
@Bb Dl Not sure what you mean by worship. Eucharistic theology is not discussed in that way, at least in my tradition. The Holy Meal is more about receiving Christ and has little to do with me. I approach as a beggar needing to receive Christ and His continual promise of the gospel. The bread and wine are some of the means He instituted to do this. It’s His work and His action.The faith in receiving the Eucharist (the body and blood of Christ) is directed at Christ. It’s His body and blood.
This was a great video Pastor Gavin. Thank you for the time and effort you put into researching this material and formulating your response videos. Your videos are full of light and provide me with a sense of peace that comes from being able to place my trust in Christ.
Great video as always! With as much sincerity as I can give through a RUclips comment, you have taught me, besides the actual explicit teaching on church tradition, how to give a reason for my hope with meekness and fear. God Bless Dr. Ortlund.
This is so important and I appreciate you continuing the discussion.
If I may, I know it's difficult to communicate the part about Augustine in context. Let me take a crack. As you've been sharing about Augustine, context does NOT always limit the full application of what one is talking about. For instance:
"For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword" Heb. 4:12.
This verse is situated in the context of New Testament Sabbath rest. But does this mean that the Word of God is living and active only insofar as we talk about Sabbath rest? Certainly not. The confusion, I think becomes clear when the argument of Hebrews is laid out in a syllogism...
Major Premise: the word of God is living and active (Heb. 4:12)
Minor Premise: According to the word of God, the people of God formerly did not enter the Sabbath rest (Heb. 4:8-10)
Conclusion: Therefore, let's strive to enter that rest (Heb. 4:11)
The context will determine what truth we can draw from the minor premise of an argument and the conclusion. But the major premise of an argument, by definition, is not bound to the context in which it is situated. It's a truism, an axiom of faith, which is applied into the context but not itself governed by the context. It seems that Augustine is doing a similar thing - taking a truism of his faith and applying it to the context at hand. This truism is his view on Scripture.
I so appreciate the way you engage in these conversations and I admire the sort of "blunt gentleness" that you display. It's quite Christlike and despite everything I learn about church history, I trust know that I, and I trust others are too, learning first from your example. Thank you brother. I know that you have a particular aim in exploring church history (please continue!!!), but I wonder if it has ever been in your mind to engage other doctrines like divine providence, election, depravity, etc? I've been part of a class that surveys various models of God's providence (Open Theism, Arminianism, classical Calvinism) and I find that gentle but thoroughly thoughtful voices, similar to yours, are quite rare. I realize that you are a local pastor as well and that staying in a vein is probably a much healthier way to manage your own bandwidth. I'm really just curious. I'm a church planter and wish I could spend more time learning from you in other areas like I have been through church history. Keep on keeping on!
Thanks a lot! Will consider this. Perhaps I could do at least a video or two down the line. Take care!
Clinging to Christ is the key. Truth cannot contradict Truth.
What an outstanding example of theological argumentation, both in posture to opponents and content in response to those opponents criticism. Than you.
Good response. Consistent, helpful, and important analysis. We must learn to be content letting the church fathers be exactly that: the church fathers. They can be helpful and hurtful in polemics for every Theological side!
Amazing way of how you deal with hostility. Christ-like. ❤️
One of the reasons that this video has so struck such a chord is that Catholic (and, to a lesser extent, Orthodox) people often define themselves against Protestantism by saying that they are rooted in the fathers and church history and Protestantism is just this weird thing that came out of nowhere, with no basis in Christian history and so on. To have perhaps the most famous and revered of all the fathers be a believer in perhaps the most central of Protestant doctrines is quite a blow to that self-conception.
Protestantism is as much a reading of the fathers as it is of scripture.
@@thursdaythursday5884 protestants are "gentiles" as Jesus put it in Matthew. People who refuse to listen to the Church, protestants decided they'll form their own church so they're gentiles.
@@koppite9600 ? Gentile means non Jew dude
@@adamduarte895 Jesus used it to mean outsider.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17)
It's actually the other way around. Protestants define themselves against Catholicism. One has the pedigree back to the apostles, the other goes back to Martin Luther. The very meaning of the word Protestant attests that they are protesting against the Church. Furthermore, other Protestant scholars (J. N. D. Kelly, Philip Schaff, and Jaroslav Pelikan) disagree with Gavin about the Church Fathers being Sola Scriptura. Gavin is just one POV which completely ignores the contradictory evidence from Augustine's writings. His scholarship is lacking. Sola Scriptura is not historical, it is unbiblical, and ultimately unworkable as a framework.
Great video! What a kind and respectful response. Keep it up brother!
What is the source document for the Augustine quote at 19 minutes 58 seconds?
Love the concept of creating conceptual space for a distinction.
Amazing video as always Gavin. Don’t get too swallowed up by these e-debates though. Enjoy the holidays.
Of most importance, the Episode of the Office the quote is from is the one on Sexual Misconduct, Season 2 (maybe) in which Michael forwards inappropriate emails.
I wish everyone who was debating this issue was like you and cordial catholic. As much as I enjoy reason and theology the tone makes me a little uncomfortable sometimes. And even tho I’m a catholic I enjoy your tone. Cordial Catholic lives up to his name lol
We must stick to the content instead of opining on the other person's interpretation. Instead of saying "your opinion is irresponsible and dumb," just provide the relative rebutting content.
Basil writes when traditions differ, let divine Scripture decide. Basil the Great, , Letter 189 ().
Great work brother, setting an example for the rest of us in civil dialogue.
My take (I'm a Catholic, so you know where I'm coming from)
1. Yes, "beyond dispute" doesn't have to mean infallible. Gavin is right that an authoritative decision which can't be reversed doesn't have to be infallible. BUT....
But, as Michael Lofton would say, and I'm of the same thoughts, if the context is about faith it would be very very bad if something that is beyond dispute CAN be fallible. So, IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE that when Augustine say that the decision of plenary council is "beyond dispute" (or "solidified" for that matter) he had "infallible" in mind.
2. Gavin also say that when he searched Patrologia Latina for the word "solido" in Augustine's writings, the saint used it in the context of fallible matter.
Now, I don't have Logos software or the like to check if this is true, I'll take his word for it. Tho Gavin's argument definitely has merit, it's not definitive. In the sense that just because Augustine wont to use "solido" for fallible matter doesn't necessarily mean he can't use it for infallible matter. Gavin here is basically arguing from silence (tho argument from silence can have merit if you remember Sherlock Holme's The Hound of Bakersville, where he deduced something because the dog didn't bark). As persuasive as Gavin's argument from silence is, it leads to a conclusion that's so devestating that one can reasonably doubt the persuasiveness of the argument. That devastating conclusion is what I elaborated in no. 1. That is, if it's true that Augustine belief that "beyond dispute/solido" is fallible in the context of Christian faith then a devastating conclusion follows. To imagine that in matter of Christian faith something can be "beyond dispute/solido" but erroneous, is devastating. It would be catastrophic to the Christian faith. The Christian God would truly be the God of confusion.
3. Gavin's argument that "corrected" (that is, plenary council can be corrected by subsequent plenary council) in the context must mean correction of error, instead of elaboration, I must say I agree with him. However, be as it may, as Michael Lofton also point out, a plenary council can correct the error of a plenary council as long as this pertain to non-infallible definitions.
4. Gavin asked, "give me a way Augustine could have said it, how could he articulated that scripture alone is infallible?"
I don't understand why is this hard to formulate. Augustine could've said what sola scripturist Protestant would say. Such as, he could've said that "in matters of faith, only scripture is infallible and there's no other sources that is also infallible." I mean, one can come up with many formulation. While the ones from the three Augustine quotes (in the initial video), as many Catholics have argued, can still be understand in a Catholic sense (unlike the formulation I made before).
5. Gavin said that Augustine never speak of the Church as being infallible. I'm working on this.
@YAJUN YUAN
2. Have you actually read Exsurge Domine itself instead of reading/hearing it from secondary sources? The bull was listing Luther's error. In error no. 33 Luther said that burning heretics is against the will of the spirit. This is an error because heresy is a direct offense against God and punishable by death. Old Testament prescribed death for heretics, tho not with burning. Burning is just one of the mean to exercise the punishment.
3. By reasoning from what we know about the parameter of infallibility, or just consulting the magisterium.
Having the ability to do something doesn't mean one has to exercised it all the time. A man could speak German (tho his native language is english). But he doesn't need to be speaking German all the time. The plenary councils (ecumenical ones) can be infallible. But it doesn't have to exercise it everytime. There are other reason to held plenary councils beside giving infallible definition. Such as if the pressing matter is about discipline instead of faith or moral.
@YAJUN YUAN
Death for heretics in the OT: Lev 24:16, Ex 22:20, Deut 13:6-11.
Most of what ecumenical councils decided were disciplinary matter (well, maybe except Trent and Vatican I). Just check the canons of Nicea I. Also see all those Lateran Councils. Mostly they're disciplinaries.
Two years later haha. I only disagree with one of your points really.
"That is, if it's true that Augustine belief that "beyond dispute/solido" is fallible in the context of Christian faith then a devastating conclusion follows. To imagine that in matter of Christian faith something can be "beyond dispute/solido" but erroneous, is devastating. It would be catastrophic to the Christian faith. The Christian God would truly be the God of confusion."
It is perfectly okay if we err and then come to understand God better later. This is the story of the Old Testament and the Gospel. We must be able to adjust when given new evidence. Like Gavin said about the jury when given new evidence.
@@learningmoreandmore1
Use your imagination then.
Think Arianism. Christianity almost became an Arian religion. Under Gavin's framework it would be OK for the whole Christian Church to be Arian, ie. denying Christ' consubstantiality with the Father.
That is very terrible.
@@namapalsu2364 Thanks for the response! I don't see how Gavin is saying that personally. I and he acknowledge that the Holy Spirit protects the Church throughout the centuries. He is simply saying that ecumenical councils are capable of erring. For instance, let's say that Nicaea 1 did affirm Arianism (thank God it didn't). There would still be many unheretical Christians within the Church that don't believe it. The church would not fizzle out in that moment. I hope this makes sense. I admit I am not well versed in ecumenical dialogues. I probably won't respond anymore. God bless!
Best thumbnail ever
Critics: "Dr. Ortlund is an amateur Augustine scholar."
Dr. Ortlund: "Hold my non-alcoholic beverage."
Maybe--a Lutheran can hope--he is a Beer Imbibing Baptist.
I am indeed. Baptist-Lutheran ecumenical dialogue goes much more productively over a pint. :)
@@TruthUnites said as a true Scot, Mr Ortlund
Indeed! “Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Both Lutheran and Baptist.
@@TruthUnites haha niiiiice~
Good response. Would there be a bookshelf tour or recommendations?
a bookshelf tour would be absolutely awesome, please consider Dr. Ortlund
@@cristian_5305 I would also love to see that
Yes!
Gavin keep rocking. Regardless of the context (which I say understanding that context is important) Augustines view on scripture is clear. In fact, so clear that despite Augustines respect and reverence for tradition it’s not confusing where he landed on in regard to Holy Writ and the implications of his conviction on infallibility verses authority.
Very well done
You should talk to Mike Winger about Calvinism. I think you’d both have a great time and it would be more fruitful than his back and forth with James White.
Good call
Wait, Dr. Ortlund is a Calvinist?
@@computationaltheist7267 yeah he’s a Reformed Baptist. in the heritage of the Puritans
@@ConciseCabbage That's quite a surprise. Reformed Baptists tend to be very anti-Catholic. Dr. Ortlund is quite a rare individual.
@@computationaltheist7267 a lot of reformed baptists are thomists actually. it’s quite interesting
@24:57 I was thinking the same thing in tell time when listening to Keith's response
My two cents.
I thought your rebuttal of their rebuttal was refreshing on a number of levels. First giving further details of Augustine's position and clarifying points about what he taught instead of going line by line over what the catholics think he said is the better approach. You can go back and forth all day long between what they said and what you said. Sticking to the issue of Augustine's view of sola scriptura is more helpful.
We've all been there, even me in my little world of apologetics. Catholics will take you out of context, twist what you say or flat out ignore your point, create a straw man and argue that point. Been there done that. I saw a video recently of Mike Winger saying specifically that he did not think catholicism was a cult. Trent Horn makes a rebuttal video claiming Mike said catholicism is a cult. Its a spiritual battle i'm convinced, which is why they can look straight at A and see B. If they in their video rebuttal, where its just them and the camera don't respect who they are rebutting, why should you debate that person? Mike was offered the opportunity to debate Trent, he declined and i agree wholeheartedly. If they can't be honest talking to themselves, they won't be honest with a live crowd present.
Catholics love to claim the early church fathers as theirs which is one reason for the uproar from their side of the tiber. They love them until you show them that they don't agree with rc teachings then all of a sudden its 'Jerome who?' He doesn't speak for the church. In the case of Augustine they simply can not afford to let anyone think they cling to some 'prot' doctrine let alone one of the battle cries of the Reformation.
Good post, good video. Keep it up. I've studied catholicism for a pretty long time now. I can't wait for your video on purgatory.
I think your spot on here Dr. Ortlund!
Catholic here (a follower of Lofton) and I must first say that I agree he came of too aggressive against you in that video, and I truly appreciate your humble demanour.
Hm, about what your argument that "beyond dispute" can still be fallible, I guess that's possible, but I think that raises two issues. 1. It would still mean Augustine affirmed a very strong Church authority, which might not have been infallible, but still inquestionable - even when it isn't in accordence with scripture. If the point of Sola Scriptura is to put the authority of scripture trump the one of the church, that point would seem to be lost here. 2. I'm sorry if come of as blunt now, but I don't think such a view would make much sense. Why think the Church have such an authority in the first place unless it also taught infallibly? I frankly cant think of any other reason.
If one thinks something the church teaches might be a grave heresy, something all believers at the time would have assent to, it follows that you think that teaching not only can but must be corrected. If the church could teach heretical it would be disasterous for every believer if the church also were bound in those errors. There is a reason the denial of church infallibility has came along with the questionability of her dogmas. One comes with the other by my lights.
Thank you!
It seems to me that there were some disagreements among the church fathers on most issues which divide Christians today, except for baptismal regeneration perhaps. It seems to me then that quoting the church fathers will almost never settle a theological argument, as the other side can just cite all of the church fathers who agree with their side of the argument.
"In the Church is where TRUTH presides. The Church is the Authority ". ( Augustine on Authority, exposition of the Psalms ). "If the Catholic Church approved it, then it is true) ( Sermon 117). Dr. Ortlund conveniently left out these and many other writings of Augustine! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Hi Gavin - I wish to express my thanks for this video and especially the end. I was super thrilled that you briefly touched on the topic of canon!!! Yay! I did understand that you view Augustine's view of canon as irrelevant to this question of Augustine's view of scriptural authority in that you view them as separate topics not dependant on the other. I do appreciate then that despite this you did take some time to address the topic and share why you think that. I would agree that sola scriptura can be held regardless of one's view of canon and probably by extension regardless of one's orthodoxy.
I am generally then, in the sense in which you defined it, happy to cautiously affirm Augustine held sola scripture.
I have to trust you that he nowhere calls the church infallible as it would seem to cause a problem for the position in question. I have read alot of Augustine but have not read everything and cannot read Latin. I'm going to trust you here and if you do find something contrary I would hope you share a retraction like our dear friend did at times. Likewise if I find something I will share with you. To me it makes me want to revisit his work on the Trinity because I am positive he interacts with the question of scripture and tradition on various levels.
On this point, have you ever read Irenaeus? I find him a bit more wild and crazy here. He at one point envisions how a Christian would know the truth in a world without the written scriptures (Book 3 Chapter 4). For him, the written scriptures don't seem totally necessary to arriving at truth but rather he shifts things more towards tradition and authority like my beloved roman catholic and eastern orthodox friends and family.
Anyways thanks!!
Oh just found you and another fellow Jimmy Akin discussing Irenaeus to a degree. Thank you also for mentioning this. Wow this internet thing sure is cool.
@YAJUN YUAN - I'll have to message you privately here my response as for whatever reason it keeps getting removed.
@YAJUN YUAN Thank you for the message. No rush on a response in the doc. I set you as a comment whenever.
Appreciate the quotes above. It is good to see Origen and Cyril saying such things. That said I should think the quotes quite unconvincing to a catholic or orthodox by way of proving sola scriptura except in a sense in which they already affirm, namely that scripture is necessary for us a Christians to refer to for doctrine. They are just as careful as us Protestants are with affirming doctrine. Even the assumption of Mary for the catholic has scriptural proofs brought forth from the scriptures. Granted I simply find the interpretations dubious but I cannot deny the antiquity of the belief and its possibility of being true. For this reason probably the best use of such passages from Origen and Cyril would be for me to tease them with my interpretation of the relationship of scripture and tradition assumed.
One way of bringing the point of a catholic or orthodox to bear in the force of a question on those quotations is, given what Origen and Cyril say would you then be open to discussion of Arian interperetations of passages towards the nature of Christ as a created being? I should think not as the case was settled long ago though towards a JW I would likely engage in the battle and in a like manner the catholic or orthodox in my experience will assert many of the doctrines they hold had past discussion and struggle by Christians from the scriptures to affirm. For example they would point to the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity as a dogma discussed by Jerome when it was denied by one of his opponents. Another would be the use and benefit of icons in worship as discussed in later centuries at length by various writers which sought to protect Christian freedom in worship against iconoclastic tendencies to over interpret scripture to safeguard the worship of God. Those are just a few examples. Love the quotes though for sure! Thanks again for comments!
Great video, Gavin! Quick question: did Augustine affirm the Catholic or Protestant canon of the Old Testament?
Dr. Ortlund - my 2nd comment: (earlier one is more important)
Good to see a Protestant know Latin that well. (I have to take your word for it, since I don't know Latin). That is one of our greatest weaknesses and for me also - I wish I had learned Latin to be able to interact with that kind of argumentation. We (Evangelical Protestants) have good seminary training in Greek and Hebrew, but one has to go on to historical theology studies and higher degrees to get the Latin needed for that kind of argumentation. Well done.
It would be great if you do a future video on the Latin in that famous Irenaeus paragraph about the church of Rome in Against Heresies, Book 3 ("every church resorts or reflects the tradition, because all come to Rome, the capital", or "every church must agree with the church of Rome", etc.)
Great video, I'm protestant because because of the writings of Paul , Peter,John and other Holy Spirit inspired writers of the Bible. I don't care who put them together, I know God chose what writings would be part of His Logos, regardless of who claims to own the bible.(church or councils). I respect "church Fathers" as fellow believers but as far as their writings they hold no authority for me. Ill take Paul's writings over theirs after all they came before the "church fathers writings."
Gavin thanks for all the hard work.
which platform is the best to support you? this or Spotify?
Probably RUclips, thanks
@@TruthUnites done and done!
Nice
Nice
Nice
@@TheRoark Nice
Nice
Nice
I have made an in-depth (friendly) response to this video:
"Augustine & Sola Scriptura, Pt. 2 (vs. Gavin Ortlund)" [4-29-22]
It's posted on my "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" blog.
There's a lot of misunderstanding and talking past each other here, and I suspect it's because of the Catholic-Protestant polemic/dynamic, that often degenerates to psychologizing and ad hominem. It also only tangentially includes the Orthodox and usually ignores the nuance of the Eastern perspective. There are a few points that need to be addressed and clarified, from an Orthodox perspective.
1. It is not the Orthodox position that Ecumenical (or Imperial) Councils are an essential feature of the Church. If that were the case, then the Church would not have been the Church until Constantine established the Christian Empire and, conversely, the Church would not be so today, given that the empire collapsed long ago. The essential features include the body of bishops, the sacraments and the liturgy. That said, the Church is inherently synodical and there is most certainly a hierarchy of authority (as St. Augustine emphasizes), which is consummated in global/ecumenical/plenary council, consisting of the Body of Bishops (including the Apostolic Sees), guided by the Holy Spirit in Truth. It's not the case, however, that the description just provided is applicable to every council, or even to every global/plenary council. There are false councils and councils that taught error, just as St. Augustine describes (many false Arian councils in his own time).
2. Because of this, it could very well be the case that St. Augustine, as a very early Church Father, did not have a very clear conception of Ecumenical Councils, at least not as clear as it's understood today. I would say that his view is likely very different from that of the current Catholic view. That said, it does not follow that St. Augustine held the position that the Church (the Body of Bishops) is unable to come together and, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to produce infallible dogma that's authoritatively binding on the whole Church. Indeed, he's very clear that that's precisely what Nicea 1 did (see St. Augustine, answer to Maximinus, Book II, XIV - On the Sameness of Substance in the Trinity, Section 3). So your distinction between 'infallible,' on the one hand, and 'binding,' on the other, sort of misses the point. The point is that, according to St. Augustine, the Church is able to bind and loose because it (again as a Body) is infallible, and it's infallible because it's inspired by the Holy Spirit.
3. Let's consider the context: you allude to it in your argument. St. Augustine is commenting on St. Cyprian. St. Cyprian, at the Council of Carthage, rejected all heretical baptisms. Where was this corrected? Well, it was corrected at Constantinople 1 with Canon #7. Constantinople 1 (plenary) corrected Carthage (also considered plenary). It's not a secret that Constantinople 1 was not intended/expected to be considered an "Ecumenical Council." It emerged as such because it became clear, over time and by the grace of the Holy Spirit, that it was a spotless Council that taught only true doctrine and was thus received by the Church. That St. Augustine did not clearly distinguish between these two categories (plenary in general and plenary/Ecumenical) does *not* mean that he rejected the notion of an inspired/infallible council.
4. So if we look at the two broad categories: (i) Scripture and a whole and (ii) Councils as a whole, it's true that only (i) is always infallible (though it's interpretation, obviously, may not be). In addition, one can easily affirm that Scripture is more authoritative than councils, even ecumenical councils. Why? Because the purpose/function of Councils is to elucidate Scripture. Scripture, if decoupled from the Body/Church, is a puzzle that's misinterpreted. The magisterium is what provides the infallible hermeneutic/interpretation.
Finally, and not directly related, but you said that the saints pose a problem from the existing Orthodox Church. That is not a claim that you have ever substantiated. You tried one time on the issue of the Filioque. Unfortunately, your attempt did not address the Orthodox argument but rather outright ignored it (understanding "from the Son" as "through the Son"). I suspect that it's because it's not a strong area of yours and that you haven't read the Eastern sources (Blachernae 1285, St. Mark of Ephesus, Maximus/Damascus/Palamas on the matter, etc.).
Thoughtful reply. Thanks.
Thank you for the thoughtful input from the orthodox perspective.
This is a bit late in coming. But last night 01/01/2024, I asked chat gpt whether or not St Augustine supported something like the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. And it said yes! I asked it to synthesize his views and it did so, essentially affirming all you’ve talked about. I was shocked, and then thought for a second about what exactly Chat GPT is. A large language model with access to all those works and more, capable of doing analysis like that. So, weird affirmation? Haha. Just thought I’d share
haha, chat gpt for the win!
Very informative and thoughtful content as always. I like your irenic approach to these discussions. I wonder if getting an Augustine scholar such as Dr. Ken Wilson would be useful to shed light on this matter?
This Dr. Ortlund gentleman is an Augustine Scholar.
Dr. Ortlund can you post the chapter and verse of your Augustine quote about not following/obeying catholic bishops? This was cited at the 26 minute mark..roughly, and by Henry Manning. I'd appreciate the citation from Augustine. Thanks in advance.
19:18
23:41
26:50, 27:17
28:01 - Augustine vs Origen’s universalism
Hey Dr. Ortlund. Do you know where I can find the St. Augustine's letters in latin? Because I've seen that some spanish catholic apologists quote some letters of him when It appears he's talking about infallibility on the plenary councils. For example:
"todo lo que observa la Iglesia en todo el orbe, se sobreentiende que se guarda por recomendación o precepto de los apóstoles o de los concilios plenarios, *cuya autoridad es indiscutible en la Iglesia* " St. Augustine Letter 54 chapter 1.
"cuya autoridad es indiscutible en la iglesia" means literally "whose authority is *undisputed* in the church" but when I check the english version says:
"and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful"
I mean "useful" It's radically different to "undisputed"; so if you know where I can find the Letter 54 in latin just to check what traslation is correct let me know please. Thanks
No puedo leer latín. ¿Ha Ud. intentado
augustinus
punto
it
barra oblicua
latino
A RUclips no le gustan los hipervínculos.
@@Mygoalwogel Hey, yeah, I searched it a few hours ago. The word used there in latin is "saluberrima", which means something like "wholesome" and can be used in both terms, "most useful" and "undisputed", so I think it depends on the context
"The Church is the Channel of Truth". (Augustine) "Not everything the Apostles taught was written down. Yet, this oral teaching holds the same weight as Scripture ", ( John Chrysostom ). Dr. Ortlund conveniently leaves out these writings! Dr. Ortlund is not being honest in his research! William Albrecht is more than happy to present the complete writings of the Church Fathers, and not leave out some as is seen here! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Dr. Ortlund - great discussion and fleshing out of the difference between Authority and Infallibility; very helpful.
Around 18:50 - "Cyprian was wrong" - is Augustine saying Cyprian and 86 other bishops were all wrong vs. Stephen, bishop of Rome, around 257 AD, on the question of re-baptizing heretics? ("For no one has the right to claim that they are bishop over all other bishops or by tyrannical decree interfere in other bishopric areas" (my paraphrase of the statement in the 7th Council of Carthage of 257-258 AD) or are you saying that you believe Cyprian was wrong?
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,4675 nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.4676 But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." (Cyprian & 86 other bishops, 7th Council of Carthage, first paragraph, at end)
ccel.org/ccel/cyprian/carthage_council/anf05.iv.vi.i.html
Are the Donatists arguing using Cyprian, Firmillian and the 85 other bishops to make their point, and apply it differently to the character of the bishop / one who baptizes?
Strong and well-stated arguments for the Sola Scriptura position from Gavin. They are about the best arguments I could see being made from these texts. His position is clearly not without merit. I especially felt the force of his linguistic argument against Michael Lofton’s “beyond all dispute” argument.
However, ultimately I find the unanswered contextual problems raised by Kieth to be damaging to his overall summation that Augustine was a proponent of SS. That alone contributes much to undermine Gavin’s foundation here. Also, when he states that Augustine is making a “hypothetical” argument about formal councils often being corrected by later ones, I find that to be a big stretch. It certainly seems more like what William Albrecht suggested, that here Augustine would not have meant Ecumenical councils, but rather regional plenary ones.
Also, Michael’s point about how the Church holds Scripture in Primacy, without saying it is the only infallible authority seems to create a very neat space for Augustine’s views without a need for a protestant view of Sola Scriptura.
Finally, the narrowness of the question, rather than working in favor of the specific issue of just SS actually seems in a larger view of Augustine to work against it. In the context of his life and work as a Bishop and Doctor of the Church, it seems especially unlikely that on this point he would hold such an unorthodox view, he who was and is such a pillar of Catholic orthodoxy.
Great work on all sides. Looking forward to hearing more soon.
Augustine clearly calls pleneray councils as those formed for the whole Christian world and hence cannot be mere regional councils only ...His presents a hierarchy of authority in the church culminating in plenary councils. He admits to no higher authority than these pleneray councils for the church . The catholic encyclopedia states that Augustine calls ecumenical councils as pleneray . There is evidence in Augustine's writings that he is aware of First Nicea. Hence Nicea would come under his category of plenary councils though his list of pleneray councils could have been broader that the list we recognise today but would not have excluded an ecumenical council like Nicea. . After all councils that qualify to be considered ecumenical was determined only at Chalcedon . Before that the boundaries of this category was more fluid.
The question at the heart of all this is: Are there any identifiable conditions under which the Holy Spirit will intervene to prevent a certain thing from happening, - to prevent the Church from committing error in teaching or believing what it thinks to be true?
The Protestant answer is, "No".
Another matter is the position taken by Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy of 1529, which found its way into the Black Rubric in the Book of Common Prayer: that the body of Christ which is in heaven cannot also be in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, because it is impossible for the same body even by the power of God to be at the same time in more places than one. This proposition is not in the Bible, and it is not uncontroversially commendable to reason.
Let’s just be honest, Lofton seems like a real jerk. Tom Jump is a pretty intolerable atheist and in their discussion I found Lofton even worse than him. His overly confident rhetoric is his only form of argument.
When throwing a stick into a pack of dogs, it’s the dog who yelps the loudest that got hit
👌🏼
Mr. Ortlund, you asked how Augustine could have stated that Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith. My answer is that he could have said something to the effect of “Scripture alone is infallible, and the sole measure of truth. All other rules of faith, whether statements from bishops, decrees of councils, and other pronouncements of the Church are liable to error, and have erred in the past. When these authorities do err, the only way to correct them is to appeal to the clear sense of the Scriptures.” In other words, he could have used language similar to what modern-day Protestants such as yourself use. I, as a Catholic, have no problem affirming every word of Augustine’s that you quoted in this video. After listening to your (very well articulated) argument, I am still unconvinced that Augustine held to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as it is held by Protestants today (although I would argue that he held to a principle of Prima Scriptura, which, although some Catholics would disagree, is still a position that a Catholic can hold).
Does Prima Scriptura include a premise that other authorities do not have permission to contradict the Apostles?
@@Mygoalwogel I’m a bit confused by your question. Could you please elaborate?
@@DF_UniatePapist In my understanding, many Protestants allow their own interpretation of scripture to contradict the words of scripture. Paul says, "Christ loved the Church giving himself up for her that he might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of water with the word." Many Protestants say water baptism does nothing. They don't believe in scripture but in their own opinions.
On the other side of the Tiber, papists allow councils to contradict scripture.
Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage.
Lateran Council 2 Canon 6: For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is *unbecoming* that they *indulge in marriage* and in *impurities.*
1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage*
1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance.
Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.
@@Mygoalwogel A Council cannot err on infallible declarations. The examples you have brought up are not examples of infallible, irreversible decrees. There have always been married priests in the Catholic Church. The discipline of the Lateran Council regarding priestly celibacy applies only the the Latin rite, and has never applied to every Catholic priest of every rite. The Church could undo it tomorrow if it wanted to. In any case, the Church doesn’t forbid anybody to marry. Nobody is forced to become a priest.
@@DF_UniatePapist Thanks. I think that answers my question. Paul says apostles (and their successors, presumably) have the right to have a wife, and bishops may have only one wife. But the Lateran councils are allowed to forbid wives to Latin bishops, removing that right. Is that correct?
The topic of sola scriptura, whether you believe that scripture is the only infallible source or not, still does not answer a very nagging question: By who's understanding of the scriptures are we to go with? In my readings of Augustine, I think he would say the Church, considering the heresies that he defended against throughout his writings.
Augistine himself was taught by Ambrose to interpret scripture through Plato... sooo, that explains some things, like his weird cosmology in his Genesis commentary thays so left field it feels like he's reading a totally different book.
I'm not saying he wasn't brilliant, but Augustine is not a church father I'd turn to for good biblical exegesis.
The most controversial doctrines of the reformation came by way of slavish borrowing from him.
Historic Protestants would agree with you😁. There's a different between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura.
Hello Dr. Ortlund< Have you read the book by Kenneth Wilson on Augustine? What do you think? Steve
1.) It seems implausible that St. Augustine would have affirmed the position of Sola Scripture, because he would recognize that scripture required interpretation. Augustine would likely recognize the error or sola scriptura and man’s capacity for misuse.
2.) it is more likely that Augustine would recognize that while scripture was authoritative it required interpretation, and while several decisions would be seen as infallible meaning they had already been exhaustively argued. In other words they would have high bars to be cleared by scripture along with magisterium.
3.) It seems reasonable to say Sacred Scripture is authoritative within its pages through its use it is interpreted and debated. While the written word of scripture has the capacity within its pages to reveal truth, the issue is alway when man gets involved. So then we arrive at the central issue of authority. So the models we naturally arrive at are the Papacy, magisterium and Scripture or Sola Scriptura and the local church authority. If Scripture was the sole authority, as Sola scriptura suggests it would settle our differences. Either way there is effectively an interpretative structure, because reason tells us that even as scripture is authoritative, it doesn’t have the capacity as written word to settle every argument without being interpreted by church leadership that understands church history, church traditions, etc.
Augustine obviously put scripture above all church authority. So why then would he want to mind control all Christians and only spoonfeed them his and the church's view on scripture? That is against scripture.
Seems like Dr. Ortlund has hit a nerve with this topic.
I watched two of the rebuttals to Dr. Ortlund's original video on Augustine and Sola Scriptura. I was a bit taken aback by one of them. The speaker appeared to be angry and even hinted that Dr. Ortlund was being dishonest or disingenuous. This was even before he provided any information to attempt to refute Dr. Ortlund's point.
The speaker brought forth some relevant information but, in my opinion, hurt his presentation with the over-the-top tone and rhetoric.
Why are you picking on the “Little” guy?
Dear Dr Ortlund, I think you used the phrase Sola Scriptura and Augustine as clickbait. St. Augustine taught the infallibility of Scripture. But to use the phrase sola scriptura is to suggest he advocated scripture alone. Or scripture above which you clarified. Which is the position of Prima Scriptura.
It goes for good advertising but unfortunately provokes response which at times may be not as cordial as Keith's.
I wont blame you for using a contentious title but at the same time, one can hardly blame others for misunderstanding.
In goodwill, one can say bad titling. But the opposite can also be said that you baited people.
Intention is only known to you and God. But thanks for clarifying in response to them all.
In the end, Augustine will not stand for Protestantism. He advocated for much which Protestants reject. He held true to what was taught to him. I pray we do too and that one does not twist the Lord's teachings to justify their own ends.
I defined sola scriptura clearly, according to the historical Protestant definition. There’s no clickbait. I mean the claim exactly literally: Augustine affirmed sola scriptura. You seem to be operating with the caricature of sola scriptura I’ve been laboring to disabuse people of. If you disagree, I’d be curious to understand what definition of sola scriptura you are operating with.
@@TruthUnites Please correct me if I am wrong - Sola Scriptura - the bible (written scripture) is the only sole infalliable rule/authority for Christian faith and practice.
My response Dr Ortlund, because time is brief and does not permit, and also because I know so little.
Augustine says "But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church." (note church at this point is not that invisible body of Christ some adhere to)
He has gathered from the Authority, according to tradition or testimony of divine Scriptures. He places Authority first built upon Tradition and Scripture. Perhaps (I am not an expert in this field, I will need time to study) on the knowledge that Tradition is Dei Verbum too, the word of God is not soley the written word for the spoken and the taught precedes the wriitten. Does this show Sola Scriptura?
Reasonable proof? Why does he not say "gathered from the Authority of the Scriptures"? Because I know that would be a slamdunk for you. But it isnt. If Augustine affirms Sola Scriptura, what of other Fathers? Doesn't seem to be much there (again I am a novice in this field)
So does Augustine preach what is not in alignment with the rest? Of Authority of the Church, built upon scripture and tradition? If Tradition be not infallible and is reformable or alterable, why mention it? There is weight there in why he brings it up and places it in the same level as Scripture. Is it really Sola Scriptura from Augustine? I need extraordinary proof for your extraordinary claim.
"But their error, as none can be ignorant, ought not to be attributed to me, if they have deviated into false doctrine through following my steps without apprehending me, whilst I am compelled to pick my way through a hard and obscure subject: seeing that neither can any one, in any way, rightly ascribe the numerous and various errors of heretics to the holy testimonies themselves of the divine books; although all of them endeavor to defend out of those same Scriptures their own false and erroneous opinions. " From Augustine
My 3rd comment:
Does this debate relate to the famous statement by B. B. Warfield? "The Reformation, inwardly considered, is the triumph of Augustine's theology of grace [ vs. Pelagianism, semi-pelagianism, Election, Predestination, bondage of the will, etc.] verses Augustine's theology of the church? [ sacraments, baptism, arguments vs. Donatists] ?
And if so, how? (flesh it out)
Why is the theology of grace considered to be at odds with the theology of the church?
Where can I read “On Baptism Against the Donatist”?
I had a comment on this video that received a load of replies, which was really cool! I can't say that the engagement was particularly helpful though. Some slander against me was made, and I was like, "It was a fun week of back and forth, but these guys don't represent Catholics well and I wasn't representing my confession of faith well." I really do like this video, and I think the points made in it are worth considering. I went outside, prayed and wanted to say, "If you read our exchange, it was definitely passionate, and people were invested lol. I don't believe Catholics and Lutherans are that far apart, despite what some people want to think. We are all part of one mystical Body of Christ, brothers and sisters united in Communion and Baptism - we should treat each other that way, despite our differences in theology."
:)
Dr Gavin comes across as a polite man; but, is certainly a sophist (and dishonest) - wittingly or not. (Lofton & others: not a fan of either due to their own sophistry and SJW/cancel culture tactics on Gospel Simplicity).
Dr Gavin, in this online back-and-forth discussion, commits word-concept fallacy: his personal semiotic of the rigid designator "Catholic Church" is radically, radically different to that of St Augustine and all the Fathers without exception. Universally and in every case - without exception - the Fathers' Church phromena/worldview/conception was NOT that of Protestantism's denominations or the "invisible church" heresy. Gavin takes Catholic Church and then applies it to himself/Protestantism/Ecuminism - as a flaccid designator. He does to the Fathers what the cults do to the Scriptures.
All Protestants - by definition - are outside of the Church. Thus, by definition, Gavin is not part of the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. Did the Fathers at Nicea & Constantinople intend for Creed to mean, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic (invisible/thousands of denominations) Church? Of course not! So, presupposed in the very definition of "Church" is a refutation of Protestantism and every heresy it teaches. It is a refutation of Sola Scriptura - as heresy vis-à-vis the phromena of the Orthodox (Catholic) Church.
Also, dishonest is Dr Gavin's assertion that the number of books is unconnected to Sola Scriptura. It's very connected because the Deutercanon teaches prayer for the departed and other dogmas, which Protestants reject. À la RC Sproul, who stupidly asserted that the canon is a "fallible collection of infallible books", Dr Gavin teaches self-refuting nonsense.
Dr Gavin's other favourite fallacies are numerous appeals to emotion and irrelevent autobiographical details (i.e. "I find it hard to believe X"; or, "I find Y unconvincing"). These are not arguments. These he did with Fr Patrick - who schooled him & won on Orthodoxy; but, sadly, didn't absolutely hammer Dr Gavin on these many fallacies, during their debate.
Here is a question. Is Jesus being consubstantial with the Father an infallible teaching? According to your view of Augustine, it would seem that must be a fallible teaching. Is the Trinity a fallible Church teaching?
@ktownbball ktownbball The word consubstantial is not found in the Bible. It is Greek philosophy. You said that it is infallible teaching and we know it comes out of the Council of Nicaea. The Arians used the Bible to prove Jesus was not consubstantial and the Church brought in the desert fathers to testify to Christ's nature. Now, where do you get the teaching from if it isn't in the Bible that you say is infallible? No, it isn't clear in the Bible as I have explained. This infallible teaching came from the Church, a Tradition handed down from the apostles.
@@markrome9702 The word consubstantial may not be found in the bible but the fact that Jesus ie consubstantial is John 10:30 Sola scriptura doesnt mean were restricted to The words of the bible. Actually watch the video man
@@ReformedR If something is infallible that isn't in the Bible but is from a Church ecumenical council, then that isn't Sola Scriptura because, according to Gavin's interpretation of Augustine, the Bible is the ONLY infallible rule of faith. If you want to hold to Sola Scriptura, then you must say that the teaching that Jesus being consubstantial with the Father is a fallible statement. Even your list of the books of the Bible are fallible. As the late RC Sproul would say, Protestants have a fallible list of infallible books.
@@markrome9702 I agree with Captain Bloodfire that you don't understand what Sola Scriptura means, but that aside, are you suggesting that the councils came up with the Trinity apart from or even against the Holy Scriptures? That would certainly be a unique position.
@@mj6493 I know what Sola Scriptura means. That's why I am saying that if you hold to it, the Council's declaration has to be a fallible pronouncement. Otherwise, you do not hold to Sola Scriptura. Of course they used Scripture, but that wasn't their only source, as I've explained. They called in the great desert monk, St. Anthony the Great. It was his testimony against the Arians (who adamantly used scripture to defend their position). If you say consubstantial is infallible then you are inconsistent because that did not come from Scripture alone but mostly from Sacred Tradition against the Arians. Do you agree with RC Sproul that you have a fallible collection of infallible books? You should, if you want to be consistent with Sola Scriptura.
I apologize for being a year late to this discussion. As far as I can recall, I already watched these video exchanges a year ago on whether or not St. Augustine affirmed sola scriptura, but never really took the opportunity to comment on them. Anyway, this is not a comprehensive rebuttal (I don't think I'm competent enough for that anyway), but rather a collection of observations that merit discussion or require clarification. I might have misunderstood some of your points, especially since I was watching at double speed. Please feel free to correct any misconceptions.
So, to support your assertion that Augustine was using “plenary council” in a broader sense without distinction between the categories of councils, and that it even encompasses an ecumenical council, you said that a good case can be made that Augustine didn't have detailed knowledge of previous councils on the basis that at one point in his writings, he seems to be ignorant of the Council of Sardica. You then cited Robert Eno who, in response to scholars who are in the position that it could not have been an ecumenical council since there had not been enough councils to be corrected “often,” said that this assumes that Augustine had a clear-cut idea of what an ecumenical council is.
First, it's important to emphasize that the Council of Sardica is not classified as an ecumenical council. Consequently, Augustine's potential lack of awareness regarding this council, if we assume that to be the case, does not in any way impact the discussion surrounding whether he used the term “plenary council” to refer to ecumenical councils as well. Augustine's possible unawareness of a specific ecclesiastical council held at Sardica does not provide any conclusive evidence regarding his comprehension of what an “ecumenical council” is and what it entails. The logical connection between these points appears to be missing. I must add also that introducing this point into the discussion could be misleading. Less informed individuals might misinterpret it as implying that Augustine was unaware of a particular ecumenical council, which is not the case. But even if we were to assume that Augustine was unaware or was initially unaware of the existence of a particular ecumenical council, it wouldn't necessarily demonstrate a lack of awareness of the concept of an "ecumenical council." I find it challenging to discern the logical connection between these elements.
Moreover, let's consider the irony in Robert Eno's argument. While Eno challenges the assumption that Augustine possessed a well-defined understanding of what constitutes an ecumenical council, he appears to lean towards the contrary presumption that Augustine might have been ignorant of the concept of an ecumenical council. This irony arises from the contrast between disputing the clarity of Augustine's knowledge on this topic and then assuming a definitive stance (ignorance) in its place. To presume a lack of knowledge on Augustine’s part, without concrete evidence to support such a claim, seems to be an extremely more questionable position to adopt, wouldn't you agree? After all, considering Augustine's role as a very well-read, very knowledgeable bishop, theologian, and writer who actively participated in theological discussions and correspondence with other church leaders of his time, it seems far more reasonable to suggest that he had a keen awareness of the concept of ecumenical councils. Also, if I’m not mistaken (and feel free to correct me on this one), he also seems to be aware, and have referenced, the decisions and creeds, of earlier ecumenical councils. All of these raise a legitimate question: Why would one assume a position of ignorance on his part regarding ecumenical councils?
But again, the wordings employed by Augustine seem to suggest that he is not talking about ecumenical councils. Dismissing this by suggesting he was ignorant of the concept of ecumenical councils appears to be an oversimplified explanation, a cop-out answer to be honest. And you asked us how else could Augustine have articulated it? Well, for starters, he could have said something like "including ecumenical councils" (or mentioned them by name), or simply used a clearly broad term "councils," instead of "plenary councils." He did not.
Can you please explain these matters to me? If not you, then anyone else here could do so, since a lot of the people here seems to agree with your reasoning, although I can't understand why.
Just curious, Dr. Ortlund, do you think there is a difference between demonstrating in Augustine a denial of a particular form of infallibility (plenary councils) and demonstrating a positive statement affirming Scripture as the only organ of infallibility? Even if Augustine completely denies infallibility in all teachings in all councils, he could still believe in infallibility in the universal consensus of the apostles or the early fathers or an example of binding and loosing from the pope or other bishops, or theoretically all kinds of things (I'm not saying he did, just that he could have). At one point you seemed to retreat to the position that you weren't "aware" of any examples of him maintaining infallibility in any ecclesial function of the church. But that would make you merely agnostic on Augustine's view of sola scriptura, yet you seemed at the beginning to be asserting that he affirmed the doctrine.
I have found that personal attacking insulting tactic so much with evolutionists and atheists, also plenty of R Cath. I try to address issues, but so many take it personally and claim it's attacking and hate. I emphasize that it's not personal and truth is not hate, but love.
I think that it's also true that the more a response is personal attack and insults, the more the person just doesn't have the knowledge and/or expertise to reasonably address issues. So, they are just being rejecting and hostile.
I would say it also takes practice in debating. That takes some time to learn, how to handle responses and individuals. It is hard to stay on topic and not react when faced with nasty attacks and insults.
I would also question about assuming individuals are truly in Christ? I think all reality, especially scripture, show that many people claiming Christian, being in churches, are not truly saved in Christ. While that applies to all, I would say particularly in Catholicism because of their religious system. So, the question would be truly Christian OR doing religion.
The problem with this thought is that it doesn't recognize that Christ granted a degree of infallibility to his church. Which you and find, ironically, in scripture alone. The existence of the church is prior, the existence of Christ's body is prior to the inscripturation of some of his and the apostles teachings. And if Christ's body doesn't share in his authority, it does not share in his life.
At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me,is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be broken- do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.
John 10:22-39 ESV
bible.com/bible/59/jhn.10.22-39.ESV
I understand the idea of theological recovery and renewal, sola scriptura being a non-biblical extra-christian teaching seems more like ossification.
Augustine ALSO TEACHES the oral teaching of the 7 Apostles who never wrote anything down, is ALSO infallible! So no, not Scripture ALONE as infallible as Dr. Ortlund claimed Augustine taught!
Augustine ALSO believes The Church is the Channel of Truth. Dr. Ortlund's ignorance of Augustine is quite evident! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Welcome back.
The Oral Tradition claim as infallible is not evidenced and does not conform to 2 Timothy 3:16.
It must be throughly unsettling to your religious worldview to hear an informed voice displaying sound Augustinian scholarship!
Your shouting with upper case in your comments does not refute Dr. Ortlund’s presentation or make your beliefs truer.
Curious about the citation for the first assertion? I am just beginning to read some of Augustine and curious where to focus my efforts.
Do you have a reference for Augustine's views about the oral teaching of the 7 apostles.?
@@Tanjaicholan but 2 Timothy doesn’t say Scripture is the ONLY authority but that it’s an authority in 1 Thessalonians Paul says that his disciples should keep is written and oral teachings.
10 minutes in and so far it's been entirely rhetoric and complaining that the people didn't act the way he wanted. I hope. Gavin actually gets to a point soon, because so far this has been embarrassing. It's really convincing to modern effeminate men, but to people trying to see Gavin defend his point and not his ego, it's just boring.
He imputs to Lofton a behavior that he( Michael Loft) did not externally expressed. Lofton didn't said that Ortlund was irresponsible in asserting that St.Augustine belived in _Sola Scriptura_ ; but rather that "if" but only "if" Ortlund did this out of a deepening study Augustine as whole, i.e, a reading of all Augustine's works.
Further, Augustine said this in his "On the Care of the Dead"
Possibly your inquiry is satisfied by this my brief reply. But what other considerations move me, to which I think meet to answer, do thou for a short space attend. In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Howbeit even if it were no where at all read in the *Old Scriptures*, not *small* is the *authority*, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely, that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the Commendation of the dead has also its place. But then, whether there be some profit accruing unto the soul of the dead from the place of its body, requires a more careful inquiry. And first, whether it make any difference in causing or increasing of misery after this life to the spirits of men if their bodies be not buried, this must be looked into, not in the light of opinion however commonly received, but rather of the holy writ of our religion. For we are not to credit that, as is read in Maro, the unburied are prohibited from navigating and crossing the infernal stream: because forsooth
To none is giv'n to pass the hideous banks
And waters hoarse, ere in their meet abode
The bones have sunk to rest.
The early church fathers challenged many things, until those things were dogmatized!. They were trying to hash it out, which is perfectly fine. So you may find a few that were stubborn on a specific issue but its near all the fathers that submitted once the church dogmatized an issue. Huge difference than becoming a heretic after an issue was dogmatized. Check the dates to see how the early church fathers that were CATHOLIC btw, submitted to the One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic church, once an issue was dogmatized!
Many protestants do the same with the fathers as they do with scripture. They take one, two verses that support their position and put the other verses on the shelf, totally missing the context. This is just a fact!
God bless you all ❤.