Sola Scriptura with Nathan Jacobs (Hank Unplugged Podcast)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 мар 2020
- Nathan Jacobs is a renaissance man. As an artist, author, philosopher, professor and filmmaker, Dr. Jacobs is truly an inspirational, informative, and interesting individual. He joins host Hank Hanegraaff for a series of podcasts seeking to better explain Eastern Orthodoxy and explain away many of the most common misconceptions people have about Eastern Orthodoxy. In this episode, they discuss Sola Scriptura and the dangers of Sola Scriptura becoming “Solo Scriptura.”
Topics discussed include: Early New Testament manuscripts and how soon after the ascension of Christ we actually had a New Testament (3:25); Christianity and the Church was established and practiced before there was a compiled New Testament through the teachings of Christ to the Apostles (6:15); the importance of a proper interpretation of Scripture (9:00); Christian beliefs and practices that are not found in the Bible and whether Sola Scriptura is biblical (10:55); the problems with so many competing and contradictory interpretations of the Bible (15:50); closing thoughts on Sola Scriptura (24:20).
-------------------------------------------------
Connect with the Christian Research Institute (CRI):
🔴 Subscribe to our channel: ruclips.net/user/CRInstit...
🔴 Subscribe to the Bible Answer Man on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
✔️ Subscribe to “Hank Unplugged” on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
✔️ Subscribe to our magazine the Cʜʀɪsᴛɪᴀɴ Rᴇsᴇᴀʀᴄʜ Jᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟ's weekly podcast www.spreaker.com/show/postmod...
📒 Visit CRI’s website: www.equip.org/
✅ Listen to the Bible Answer Man broadcast live streaming Monday through Friday from 6-6:30 PM ET online at www.equip.org/
#hankhanegraaff #EasternOrthodoxy #Bible
Dr. Jacobs was one of the most impactful professors I had at Trinity College. I was a low church, non-denominational Baptist when I took his History of Christian Doctrine course. He opened my eyes to Patristics and the broader Church Catholic throughout history and I think about the things I learned in that course very often. I have such respect for the Orthodox Church even though I haven’t landed there myself.
As a Protestant I have benefited greatly from much that has been written from an Orthodox perspective. I have been blessed to form a friendship with a Coptic Orthodox priest. He is a humble man of God who's humility and love for Christ is evident to all who meet him. I personally will not make the transition, their are to many areas of disagreement. But at the same time I am blessed to call them brothers in Christ. God Bless.
I have never heard such ungracious comments not to mention ignorant ones , about Hank and Eastern Orthodoxy . As always Hank shows true Christian Grace
From my personal experience, there is something about the Orthodox Church that really resonates with my heart and illumines my mind to scripture. The idea of sola scriptura has only made the very language in the scripture mean very little in practice of the very scriptures itself.
Sir I recall sending you prayers during your cancer. You survived for many more but WOW this is a biggest in my life this year. Already lost a brother, whom I led to Christ when we were both 16, over this just this week! 😢
Hank.. Keith Nester’s Are Catholics Christians video today mentioned you in loving terms.
Dr. Jacobs’ is the best explanation on this subject I’ve heard 👏🏻
Very good discussion. I can't fault any of the basic logic that runs throughout it. How many people can actually even hear this logic I'm not so sure... For so many it seems to be threatening & just elicits a knee-jerk reaction which seems to prevent them from even hearing or thinking about whats being said. How very human is that!
Appealing to the authority of Scripture to refute its own authority seems to me a logical inconsistency.
I agree that it sounds persuasive but a key problem is that several of the "facts" they cite simply aren't true.
E.g. the church WAS using scripture as an authority from as soon as it was written. Additionally the claim that Athanasius created the canon is false - barely even debatable it's just not true.
Additionally they're trying to argue that the Bible is God's word BUT that you need tradition as well BUT their tradition brings them to positions that actually contradict the Bible.
@@Rhuanjl But the issue itself is that scripture contradicts itself I come to being its sole authority it never proclaims that.
@@MrJMB122 If scripture contradicted itself that would be an argument against it having any authority NOT against an argument against it as a sole authority - however it does not contradict itself.
As to scripture never saying it's the sole authority - what it does do is very clearly state that it is an authority AND undermine/deny every other authority. Notably in 2 Timothy 4, Paul tells Timothy that scripture will leave the man of God FULLY equipped in the face of what's coming and mentions nothing else to look at.
Conversely in Acts 20 Paul warns the Ephesian elders that even from their own number (i.e. from among early church leaders) false teachers will arise.
Hank your face reveals you are in the truth, grace shows itself. Humility likewise, bless you
The Westminster Confession of Faith in section 1.6 explicitly acknowledges that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine "expressly set down in scripture"... so, there you have it. If your theological categories are titled in Medieval Latin, not ancient Greek or Aramaic, that should be a red flag right out of the gate.
A very useful commentary that was personally helpful for me to reform my circular thinking on this topic and return to the Apostolic view of Holy Scripture (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 3:6, Acts 2:42) is the Commonitorium of Vincent of Lerins written 434, which serves as an explanation of why the church canonized the NT Scriptures in the first place. Here he is an original witness of the early Undivided church and details the original intended purpose, use and place of the Holy Scriptures in the theology of the Church and the life of an individual Christian. The Bible was just recently further canonized at the regional Orthodox Council of Laodicea 364 and subsequently, Bishop Athanasius put his stamp on it, and Vincent of Lerins publishes this explanation of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition less than a century after this when the Bible as a unified canon was brand new. He writes:
"But here some one perhaps will ask, since the canon of scripture is complete and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason; because owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Enomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apploinarius, Priscillian, another, Novinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard Ecclesiastical interpretations."
Ecumenist and Academic George Florevsky in his paper "Scripture and Tradition: an Orthodox view". (Dialog, Vol.2, No. 4 Autumn 1963) further details that the false dichotomy between Scripture & Tradition is a Medieval Catholic creation that is not present in the Orthodox church at all, which makes discussions with the Western Schismatics difficult because of the lack of a common theological framework. A fascinating read for prots and orthos alike.
Ty
My thinking when I was a Protestant: "We test everything according to God's breathed word".
Me, reflecting on who I once was (now that I'm Orthodox): "No, you test everything according to your interpretation (personal opinion) as to what you believe God's infallible word says. You, along with tens of thousands of others (who adhere to *the very same* ideology) -----most ironically, can not agree on *anything* ...while using *the very same bible* . If Protestantism consisted of two different interpretations and two different denominations, sola scriptura would then hold some weight. But, the fact that sola scriptura has churned out over 40,000 different denominations and literally *millions* of spuriously-varying interpretations------it becomes readily evident that sola scriptura is the the ideology of chaos, division, anarchy, spiritual-narcissism and a chronic self-absorption that turns Christianity into a "choose your own adventure novel".
1. Any time there is ANY kind of communication there has to be interpretation. No escaping it.
2. The fact that people misuse a perfect source doesnt prove the deficiency of that source.
3. What about the divisions within Orthodoxy? Would you say the divisions reflect something about Orthodoxy or those that adhere to it?
4. 40,000 denominations? Really? Is that really a reflection of Sola Scriptura? Or did you just find a number on google and rolled with it? It’s a joke, not a meaningful argument
@@dylanwagoner9768 Exactly, within Orthodoxy there are divisions.
His arguments are parroted by Roman Catholics as well who have the same problems if not worse since they have a pope.
Biblical Theology I’m really not picking up what you’re laying down. I don’t see how that’s responding to what I said, unless I’ve just totally misunderstood you.
@@dylanwagoner9768 I'm agreeing with you what you said lol
Biblical Theology 😂 😂 I thought you were the guy who made the post and I wasn’t paying attention to the name at all. I was really lost there, my bad.
But yes I agree with you. They act as if since we’re fallible we cant understand the Bible, when they with all their fallibleness choose Orthodoxy or Rome to understand it for them. It doesn’t really make since to me.
I got an honest answer to Mr. Hank: what should be the alternative for those living in areas where OC is absent?
@Henrique Tristão > Hank encourages all Christians to be get connected to a healthy well-balanced church. Please see the video series on finding a church….
WOW - How To Find a Healthy, Well-Balanced Church in 3 Steps - Introduction > ruclips.net/video/_IgUxIJVm8k/видео.html
WOW - How To Find a Healthy, Well-Balanced Church in 3 Steps - Part 1 Worship > ruclips.net/video/PuWHFWzsCck/видео.html
WOW - How To Find a Healthy, Well-Balanced Church in 3 Steps - Part 2 Oneness > ruclips.net/video/IZ9ZxHQLlhM/видео.html
WOW - How To Find a Healthy, Well-Balanced Church in 3 Steps - Part 3 Witness > ruclips.net/video/-8dFPepo68A/видео.html
The Reformers were ready to criticise the Fathers: this was one of the great bones of contention between them and the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church would quote the Fathers, but the Reformers said, 'What does Scripture say?' Even the early Fathers of the Church not only could go astray, but patently did. We must therefore not slavishly accept everything that tradition brings down to us. We must say, 'It's helpful but lets examine it in the light of scripture and then decide what we must do.'
Says who?...by what authority?
From my experience I look at scripture and I see what it it can say to me. When it comes to actual church practices I look at in the lights of the father's and my own spiritual father to guide.
So somehow you think a few guys in Europe got Christianity more correct than the people who knew the apostles and their kids and their descendants? Right...
"Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?" I'm not sure that as an epistemological foundation the Bible should be used to refute its own final authority. This is not a matter of polemics or contention but rather a logical reductio. I think what might also factor into this discussion is what is definitional, misunderstanding is rampant among most participants. "The Bible alone" did not mean the same thing for the magisterial reformers as it does for modern Evangelicals.
Hank, I drove an hour to and from school when I was in college nearly 30 years ago. I'm now 55. My life has been far from easy. Found you again a couple of years ago. I have to say that I am thoroughly confused now as to what is right or wrong with Christianity. Can you help me!?
Hank shares about his own inquiry into finding the authentic Christian faith in the book Truth Matters Life Matters More > www.equip.org/product/truth-matters-life-matters-more/
Here is a review of the book > www.equip.org/article/a-book-review-of-truth-matters-life-matters-more-the-unexpected-beauty-of-an-authentic-christian-life-hank-hanegraaff-reviewed-and-endorsed-by-jean-claude-larchet/
Sola Scriptural: So simple to debunk! The church did not stop with the final period in the Bible.
The Christian Faith is dynamic and growing as we speak! 🌹☦️🌹
A debate with James white on this topic would be great!
James has repeatedly refused to debate Orthodox thinkers and theologians.
Tradition and Church are not infallible, only Holy Scripture is 2 Tim 3:16-17. The fathers agree with this as well. Also, MANY have no idea what Sola Scriptura teaches, it's that Scripture alone is the final authority for faith and practice, Scripture is the only source of infallible authority this means we believe in the Holy catholic creeds, confessions and a catechisms which are taken from God breathed Scripture , we test everything to God's breathed Word other non Reformation churches reject this and believe the Bible only rejecting the creeds and thus some of them are heretics.
"We test everything according to God's breathed word".
No, you test everything according to your interpretation (personal opinion) as to what you believe God's infallible word says. You, along with tens of thousands of others (who adhere to *the very same* ideology) -----most ironically, can not agree on *anything* ...while using *the very same bible* . If Protestantism consisted of two different interpretations and two different denominations, sola scriptura would then hold some weight. But, the fact that sola scriptura has churned out over 40,000 different denominations and literally *millions* of spuriously-varying interpretations------it becomes readily evident that sola scriptura is the the ideology of chaos, division, anarchy, spiritual-narcissism and a chronic self-absorption that turns Christianity into a "choose your own adventure novel".
@@ontologicallysteve7765 Testing everything to the Word of God assumes one knows how to interpret the Scriptures properly which sadly many don't and they reject Sola Scriptura.
Do you even know which churches believe and practice Sola Scriptura? The ones that do have very similar beliefs. No church can agree on anything that's why the Roman Catholics had the schism with the east. Even with the early fathers we see Origen condemned by St. Jerome, Cassian against St. Augustine it goes on Marcion, Arius, Nestorius etc.. Rome and the Orthodox had divisions before the Reformation, you guys have the same problem because we are sinners who will always cause division. The point is as long as we have unity in the Gospel.
Can you give me evidence that there are 40,000 denominations? Back up your claim.
Ontologically Steve Dang, really didn’t this was any good the first time you said it. But a second time is where I draw the line. Please go no further sir
@@reformedcatholic457 If all of Prothestant denominations use the Scriptures as their source of authority how do some reject sola scriptura? Also, as you said, testing everything to the word of God assumes one knows how to interpret it, but you assume that you know how to interpret it. That same error is in the original fall. Eve sees that the fruits are good to look at and good to eat, and then she accepts the misinterpretation of the word of God. It's the unconscious desires that guide our understanding of any text, Holy Sripture included.
Your reading of Timothy is a great example. Not only does the St. Apostle Paul speaks of the OT there when he uses the word Scriptures, but he is also in those letters advising St. Timothy on how to act when he takes the role of the Episcope (Bishop) of the Church. And he is set as such in order to guide the Church as was passed down to him by the Apostles, and to preserve that which was given to the Church and that is the Tradition of the Church. St. Timothy already has the "interpretation", the proper understanding and the authority to teach other Scriptures given to him by the Apostles. All of the teachings of the Church are known to St. Timothy and that is why he has the authority to interpret the Scriptures in light of those teachings (as it is mentioned in many places by St. Paul and others as they all interpret the Scriptures to explain the teachings they are passing down, so the Sriptures are only to be understood in light of those teachings)
@@goranvuksa1220 Halo, kako ste ;)
Only the Reformation churches hold to Sola Scriptura/Prima Scriptura, that is the Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed churches we believe the Holy catholic creeds, councils, confessions and catechisms, Scripture is the final authority since that alone is God breathed. This means we can appeal to other authorities other from Scripture, as long as it's proven to be biblical.
The non Reformation churches reject the creeds and councils and believe the Bible alone, which is solo scriptura, just me and my Bible and they usually don't care about Church history, they have very unusual hermeneutics in interpreting the Scriptures.
As an evangelical catholic I read the writings of the fathers in St. Irenaeus, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine etc...they weren't infallible but their commentaries on Scripture helped my understanding of certain passages. I also read Church historians in Jaroslav Pelikan, J.N.D. Kelly etc.. to understand the issues that led to the councils and creeds. We see the Apostolic fathers to 1000 AD and further quoting Scripture to prove their doctrine and even to refute heretics as St. Athanasius stated "Scripture is sufficient above all things".
I believe the tradition that was to be the Apostles creed, which Pelikan and Kelly stated was brought down from Jesus to the Apostles to the early fathers which is basically the Gospel, also known as the rule of faith basically taken from Scripture.
Thanks for the reply.
epic.. downloaded with youtube-dl
This one is going to trigger a lot of protestants. Sola scriptura=man made.
Dynamite Fresh apart from tradition and the church how do u know what sacred scripture is?
Dynamite Fresh i notice u didnt answer the question and now we are on a different subject. Its ok but the bible does need interpretation and even though it is perfect however understanding it is not so easy as u make it seem. For example in Acts 8:31 when phillip runs into the Ethiopian who's reading scripture he doesn't understand it. i like what he says "and phillip heard him read from the book of Isaiah and asked do you understand what you are reading? And the Ethiopian says how can i except some man should guide me? And he desired phillip that he would come up and sit with him." the thing is unfortunately scripture can be twisted or just simply be misunderstood. And as u said we are sinful do u think God would leave us with his word with out a guide? That guide is his church guided by the Holy Spirit. The same guide that discerned sacred scripture for us.
Alfred which Protestants are going to be triggered?
@@reformedcatholic457 Only those Protestants who know what Sola Scriptura is. . .
Alfred S. How do you know the church has the authority to define the canon? It would fill my soul with joy to hear your answer for that.
I detected some premises that I believe are faulty. For example, he argues for a tradition of facing East when praying, which he claims is implied in the verse "as the lightning comes from the East and flashes to the West, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be." Yet, when we see the parallel statement in Luke which reads (as opposed to East and West) "under the heaven," "part of the sky," "horizon to horizon" by various translations. So then, when you take the whole scripture in context, it's easy to see that the point of the statement is on how it's going to happen, not on the direction from which it comes. Also, the angel spoke to the disciples that Jesus was going to come back just as He left, and that was straight up, the way I read it. It appears to me that the tradition is invented by a fertile imagination of scripture taken out of context. It seems to me that if we read the scripture in context (in its full context), we don't need traditions to tell us how to interpret it. Chances are, we will find many traditions that turn out to be wrong. I also heard the term "the church" which one might interpret in different ways, so it begs the question just what exactly do they mean by the term? I'm not jumping on this bus any time soon.
Sam Miller i think tradition is important. I dont think we can toss it out. Question. Apart from tradition and the church how do u know what is sacred scripture? Nowhere in scripture do we have a list of inspired books. I think the church and tradition along with bible are necessary.
Sam Miller also i think sola scriptura poses some problems. For one interpretation. Whos interpretation is right? Which protestant denominations interpretation of the bible is right? They cant all be right and in fact contradict each other. With out tradition u end up with novice interpretations of the bible which gets further and further away from the truth. This has allowed the fracturing u see in protestantism. There is no unity which is contrary to what Jesus wants.
Sam Miller when you talk about “reading Scripture in context” what you are actually saying is that your personal logical deductions from an aggregate of Scripture is more authoritative than the witness of the early Church. This is great hubris.
@@alfreds.2335 And I will ask one question. If you have one central authority for governing interpretation, what happens when it falls into error? Is that not the case with Rome? By what standard can I judge the errors of Rome or one of the various claimants to the title of Orthodoxy? At some point don't we need an authority beyond the Churches authority? If not then how can she ever fall into error? Or can she?
Baanah I'm guessing you can't answer the question so you're diverting to another topic?
Most protestants will close their eyes while praying, which is nowhere commanded in the scriptures. So how is this practice justified?
I don’t think this is a legitimate objection. I don’t remember reading of Luther being fed up to the hips with Rome’s teaching on posture in prayer. I think it had more to do with the perfection and completeness of the work of Christ on behalf of sinners.
@@dylanwagoner9768 it is a practise of more radical protestants, particularly in America. After all Luther still crossed himself and many lutherans kept that practise. Calvinists, on the other hand, would have condemned this practice
Si Rasputin Again, not really an issue. The differences are much more substantial and much more worth talking about than that.
@@dylanwagoner9768 I was just referencing their discussion about protestant objection to crossing yourself when praying. of course it's a trivial matter overall
16:10 Matthew c24v27 by the way
Missed the Didache?
I thought this video would help to alleviate a lot of my concern.. unfortunately, it has multiplied it. I’m not here to engage in debate with anyone, though I think it wouldn’t be terribly difficult, so keep responses to clarifying my questions about the arguments in the video. I won’t respond to anything else. Thanks
* The lines of reasoning and justification for many of the ritual-type practices are unneeded. I don’t see anyone concerned because Christians are crossing themselves or making hand gestures; there is nothing inherently wrong with doing these things. They are either good... or worthless. Doing them is not damnable.
* Most of what was addressed, was irrelevant. I find it strange to be forming defenses for issues nobody is concerned with.. some haven’t even been mentioned by skeptics, that I’ve heard anyway.
* There’s so much more I can say, but let’s cut to the chase: sola scriptura. The early church did not have a completed, and some, didn’t even have a partial New Testament... ok, so what? People have been saved (maybe even a majority) without a Bible since the beginning... I’m not understanding the reasoning. Does sola scriptura say that people are justified by Scripture alone? That without scripture, nobody is saved?! Of course not. I wouldn’t identify as a Calvanist by any stretch, but James White has addressed this issue multiple times. To the point that it is kind of strange that he is always having to define what the term means correctly, because (ironically), the opponents to Sola Scrip are saying the problem is people “become their own pope” is the meaning of scripture isn’t explained. (Btw, doesn’t the Holy Spirit do this?) So we need some person to tell us what scripture really means, but when you have a top advocate for sola scrip, you don’t accept his definition of what he is saying he means by the term. Umm... ok?
The energy nonsense at the end was also off topic, irrelevant, and flat out turning people who are freaked out by the language away; though not me, idc what weird extras you want to add to the faith, as long as we all understand praying east, or south, or north-by-north-east is NOT a salvation issue... do what you please in that regard.
Oh yeah, if other “Christians” are concerned with incense burning (even if it smells like “weed”), that’s their problem and we can count it as ignorance and move on w life. However, take care not to stumble a brother by your actions! At least Paul got that in the scriptures... even if he forgot to mention that sweet, sweet herbal ;-)
Take care not so stumble a brother by your actions does not mean to abandon what God commanded us to do because a brother does not understand or like it. The significance and usage of the incense is in the OT and NT. But never mind that, I think that the first question you asked is the most important one.
"ritual-type" practices are not unneeded, far from it. All of the fundamental Christian doctrines are expressed and preserved in those "ritual" actions. For example, when making the sign of cross, we hold three fingers together and other two together. That is the confession of the Holly trinity (three that are one) and the two natures of Christ and we can trace this at least to the first Ecumenical council. Making a sign of Cross like that we are not only confessing these two truths, but are also devoting ourselves to carry the Cross. It is a way in which (along with prayers and/or confessions of faith) we express our faith not only by mouth but by our whole being. If you would make an effort to experience this form of the expression of faith, the rest of the questions you have asked and the lack of understanding and significance of Gods Divine energies would be self explained to you.
Goran Vukša again, I have no problem w the rituals and the hand signs (west side!!) and the incense. But. They. Don’t. Save. Period.
Do them all you want, I like some of them. But they are not- “damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Please cite where they are commanded of God, oh wait... that’s what the WHOLE post is about, right there: Sola Scrip.
Also you know nothing of my “experience”... aside from the fact I just wasted 30 more mins on this video trying to understand all sides of the issue. I suggest you do the same. Peace.✌🏻Live Long and Prosper🖖🏻
Are you an evangelical Christian? I still am for now. But everything rings in the ears of evangelicals that they spoke about.
This is and many others is why I am no longer a Protestant, Baptist, and became Eastern Orthodox.
@toddkidder9642 Thanks for sharing. 🙏
the bible came from tradition..
No, the bible came as men of God were carried along and inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did, so that it is called God breathed.
@@ACRejiWhat are you talking about? What we call the Bible is a collection of sacred writings also referred to as the scriptures. If you are a Christian you should be able to affirm that. Are you a Christian?
@@ACReji You can't prove that the oral tradition goes back to the first century or that it ever came from the apostles. Many traditions developed over time.
Textual criticism allows us to compare the earliest manuscripts to the later ones to see if the text has changed substantially (and it hasn't) . We believe that the Bible (as it was originally transmitted) is inspired and inneranct. Jesus clearly believed the same thing and He referred to Scripture as God speaking when he quoted it. He obviously also had confidence that the same God who inspired the text had preserved it.
@@ACReji I appreciate your honesty, but am a little shocked at your regard for the Holy Scriptures and your trust in God's ability to preserve them.
The reason I mentioned Jesus is that although He lived many hundreds of years or even thousands of years after the old testament books were written and had access to none of the originals He had no hesitation in declaring that God had spoken through those books and quoted from them in their first century format. He didn't take the same approach you are taking. That should give you pause for thought.
I also find it strange that you place so much confidence in a supposed oral tradition that wasn't even written down and have no problem believing that it was given in the first century and preserved until it was recorded centuries later. The contrast in your faith in this oral tradition versus the copies of the books of the bible suggests to me that your bias towards your tradition or church is affecting your judgement.
The word tradition simply means teaching. There is no convincing reason to believe that the apostles would have deliberately ommited some important teachings from being written down and instead entrusted this to the memory of fallible men and women. Besides, if you have that much confidence in oral traditions, why write anything down at all? Surely the reason they did commit their teachings to writing is because they knew the fallibility of memory and knew they had a duty to write what they had received. Saying that there was a body of oral teachings that was deliberately kept separate from the written teachings makes no sense. It also gives religious leaders a license to add to the teachings of the apostles and nobody could challenge them.
@Ioannis Grivas And tradition means teaching whether oral or written, and it could refer to inspired or non inspired writings. Peter and Paul did not simply refer to the writings as a collection of traditions though.
Paul used the word Theonoustos meaning God breathed. Peter said that no word in scripture was a result of private interpretation (purely human agency) but that men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Clearly they are indicating that the process of producing scripture was one where God took charge and did not merely rely on the memories and personal intuition and opinions of men.
The scriptures are the word of God,breathed out by Him. He chose to use the apostoles and their close associates as the vessels but saying that the word of God is dependent on the traditions of men is to fail to give credit to the real author and also undermines the authority of the teachings.
As soon as you read “cult.” I was laughing out loud 😂. Wow people can be arrogant
@blessedt5676 Why? What would be funny about that?
I love you Hank but you still have misconceptions of Catholics and the development of doctrine in Christian history...the ifallibility of the pope ...purgatory, immaculate conception...all of these teachings have powerful doctrinal insight and logical deduction based on scripture, the early church and guidance of the Holy Spirit in the bosom of the Church...God bless my friend 😊
All three of those are completely made up and catholic creations, not scripturaly based.
Sola scriptura is the main problem with Protestantism. It creates all kinds of confusion.
Jacobs' arguments against sola scriptura have been refuted for centuries, and in fact, I refuted them, on the Bible Answer Man Show, in the 1990s, repeatedly. Likewise these perspectives were refuted *at the CRI Conference* in Florida I spoke at when I debated an atheist---I guess Hank wasn't listening? Such a shame. But, today on the Dividing Line, a rebuttal.
DrOakley1689 personally i think your arguments have been refuted many times. In fact on the bible answer man program in your debate against Jimmy Akin on sola scriptura i think he won convincingly. Of course tho you've never lost a debate and know all the answers.
The major question I would pose to you is ,how as finite human beings we can avoid establishing a "standard" of tradition? Confessional Churches will often, it seems to me exalt the Scriptures as the final authority and at the same time solidify their particular confession. I think the 5 solas of the Reformation might serve as a case in point. How can you discipline a member of a particular church for departing from orthodoxy if his understanding of the text leads him to his beliefs? I personally have met men who hold the Westminster Standards as definitional of orthodoxy. Is that not inconsistent? Is that not an exaltation of tradition?
I have seen a strange tendency among men. Those who argue strongest against tradition hold most tenaciously to their own. As a young man I attended a Bible Church that anathematized non dispensationalists. Please, their traditions were held at least as close as Rome's.
@@retrograd332 Personally I can detect what I believe are a number of defects in both camps (in terms of arguments). To my mind the line of division between "Sola" and "Solo" is not easily drawn. If a particular Christian has a legitimate disagreement over his understanding of Scripture that go beyond the peramiteres agreed upon by his particular church, how can he be charged with error? He may very well go down the road and find another church that sees it his way. I fully understand that this does nothing to undermine the Scriptures themselves as the ultimate authority, but it does it seems undermine the notion that any self identified group of Christians can operate apart from a set of parallel binding traditions.
I listened to carefully to your response. For the most part I am in agreement. But the "Sola-Solo" issue received scant refutation. You did sight the importance of being connected to a local body and the importance of historic collective understanding. To my mind this is another way of saying the "Church" as a corporate entity has at least an elevated position when it comes to interpretation. Maybe I'm missing something but I cannot understand either logically or from personal experience how we can escape the notion of parallel authoritative traditions.
These arguments about Mary is almost the same as the Calvinist TULIP arguments. Scripture is silent on the theology. There are remarkable Bible contradictions against it. And the only way to reach such conclusion is to proof text the doctrine stretching allegory to realms unknown to the early church. I believe any Christian should avoid this. This is why we personally honor the understanding of the ante-Nicene fathers only. We DON'T use the Latin fathers because they are misleading and oftentimes contradictory. We use the post-Nicen Greek fathers for supplementary resources rejecting any new doctrine like the theotokos and prayers of the dead where the early church is silent except by unclear implications. John Wesley himself said that the ante-Nicene church is the pristine church. the post-Nicen church is a corrupted church beginning with the union of church and state. We believe that he is absolutely RIGHT
Hi , I don’t think it is worth arguing
over . If a orthodox priest shows up at church and preaches something contrary to the word of God or writes a book contrary to the word of God , You would open up your bible and show him his error . That means sola scriptura , If the Orthodox Church went crazy some how and preach a different Gospel or that Jesus was not God’s son or some other insane teaching , you would open up your bible and try to correct them from the word of God and if not you would leave the Orthodox Church, that is sola scriptura in practice . It’s not worth arguing over . I would behave the same way at my evangelical church in America.
The problem is that the Orthodox and Catholic Church have wandered away from the Apostolic teachings. Jesus said that the Apostles were the foundation of the church. This is what we build upon not the following Church Fathers that came 200-300 years after. Praying to the dead was NOT mentioned anywhere by the Apostles. Taking bones from the dead and immersing them in water to make holy water was NEVER talked about by the Apostles or the first Church. You guys talk about Christ but you do not Venerate Him as you should. You give glory to the creation (saints, Mary)c and not to the Creator. So many things I like about the Orthodox Church (my family came out of the Orthodox Church) but so much added teachings after the initial followers and the Apostles were gone.
We never have address the use of relics, the relationship to the energies of God, and their place in deification.
The tradition of immersing a bone of the dead (saint) i.e., a relic in the making of holy water is more like a tradition with a small “t,” and distinct from the capital “T” Holy Tradition of the East. But relics in themselves tie into the Eastern view of essence and energies of God.
See this video - ruclips.net/video/XffBvcBO3xM/видео.html The essence and energies of God is also explained in Hank’s Truth Matters Life Matters More. www.equip.org/product/truth-matters-life-matters-more/
But you already understand, or ought to know better given your background in Orthodoxy, that Mary and the saints are never given the same kind of “glory,” obeisance or worship due to God. Rather, they are shown the deepest veneration as people who spur, inspire, and encourage Christians to remain faithful to the Lord. But the prayers to the saints are connected to the prayers to the Creator. We pray to God. We ask the saints to pray for us. The saints in heaven pray to God on our behalf too. To find our more on this subject, see www.equip.org/hank-unplugged-podcast-and-shorts/how-orthodoxy-saved-me-from-myself-a-conversation-with-frederica-mathewes-green/
Yes, written liturgies go back to around the third and fourth century, but the that hardly precludes Christian passing on oral traditions from one generation to the next, just like the Israelites did, so Deuteronomy 6:6-9. There was then a living tradition received from Christ and the apostles passed on from one generation to the next. The East seeks to perpetuate the traditions and not innovate.
Protestants tend to innovate. They insist on leaving behind old traditions and start their own new traditions. But there is a free for all on the new traditions. New traditions are simply chosen based on emotionalism. Protestant Christianity the has a variety of traditions, but none trace back to Christ and the Apostles. Nowhere do we find Christ and the Apostles passing on traditions like being slain in the Spirit, praying privately in tongues, the pretribulation rapture, altar calls, positive psychology self-affirmations (declaring, “I am a saint,” “I am beloved,” “I am chose,” etc…) positive confession, prosperity gospel, the end time restoration of apostles and prophets, the fivefold ministry, video services, Saturday worship, and numerous other innovations in doctrine and practice common to evangelical and charismatic Christianity.
We all have our pet traditions. The real issue is whether were perpetuating Holy Tradition. There is pious Tradition and there are impious traditions.
I don't see either of these guys calling anyone to Jesus but only showing each other That they think they know so much.
Perry Good Through their actions they draw people to Christ.
They are calling you but you are ignoring them blatantly. Hank had a whole channel and radio show with thousands and videos and thousands of viewers... how many people have you reached.???
Most traditions of Orthodoxy are not first century traditions. They cannot be traced back to the first century. While the phrase sola scriptura does not appear in the bible, it does claim to be authoritative, divinely inspired, and sufficient - it leaves the man of God fully equipped for every good work. It is a lie that there was no Canon for centuries. For starters, the old testament books were widely available and Christians were encouraged to read these. Paul entreats Timothy to rely on the Scriptures to keep him on the right path. Furthermore, the vast majority of the new testament canon, with the exception of a few books were widely accepted as Canonical before the final decision. There was different oral traditions in different places. The absolute authority of the scripture is diminished by placing it within a wider body of tradition without which it supposedly cannot be interpreted. Thus says the Lord becomes thus says the church. The most damaging examples of this within Orthodoxy are the acceptance of idolatry in the guise of icons and the departure from the biblical teaching on justification which is at the heart of the gospel.
You are confusing traditions with the Tradition. These are two distinct things. Traditions can be created and changed as much as people like, for as long as they don't go against the Church Tradition.
OT Scriptures were available and used by the Jewish rabbis, so why do you disagree with their understandings of these? It is only in light of the Apostolic teachings that the Scriptures can be understood properly. In the letters to St. Timothy, St. Paul gives a lot of advice to him since St. Timothy is being placed as the head (Bishop) of the Church. Remember that St. Paul does not write to the whole Church to rely on the Scriptures, but only to the one who is assigned to preserve the proper doctrinal teachings given by the Apostles.
You are correct that the NT documents were widely accepted as canonical before the final decision. In the video, Hank says the same thing. These documents were part of the Tradition, and that is why they were canonized. Thus says the Lord was from the very first day same as thus says the Church. Remember that the Apostles were the Church leaders that were passing down not only what Christ was teaching, but also who He is, what is the nature of God and so on... Letters and Epistles are older then the Gospels. Timothy is set as the head of that particular Church in order to preserve and pass down those teachings. Apostles warn very clearly of those who will deviate and teach differently then they had given to the Churches, and how important is to preserve those proper teachings. It is the Church elders (fathers) who made sure that these are properly preserved as they were passed down.
And since all of the NT documents were part of the Tradition, and the OT was only understood in light of the Tradition, taking these texts in order to understand them outside of the Tradition is exactly what the Apostles warn against throughout the NT. And in Protestanism we have a clear picture of what confusion takes place when this is done.
You know the Bible also doesn't date back to the 1st century... people had no idea what was to be taken as Canon or not. What did exist was the church.
@@josephsaab7208 Hi Joseph. The church existed for sure and it continues to exist. But the church was never understood to be infallible and different church fathers had different understandings regarding some doctrines. Many doctrines widely accepted now developed over time and some important doctrines widely believed at the beginning changed until finally the doctrine became unrecognisable from the early version. The reformers quoted extensively from the early church fathers in support of sola fide and sola scriptura.
The scriptures are said to be God breathed. The apostles and the prophets before them didn't merely voice their own wisdom or hold a council to come to a consensus. Peter tells us:
2 Peter 1:21 "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. 21 For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Peter also called the writings of Paul "scripture" before the NT canon was finalised.
Augustine did not use the phrase sola scriptura but he clearly agreed with the concept.
"I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. . . . As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. (Letter to Jerome [no. 82])
John Chrysostom had much to say about justification by faith alone and he also understood that scripture possesses an authority not held by any man.
What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, ‘I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?’ How shall we answer him? ‘Each of you’ (says he) ‘asserts, “I speak the truth.”’
No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule." (33rd homily on Acts)
@@philblagden actually the church help ecumenical councils where all the bishops and more attendez and tbey decided issues with the guidance of the Holy spirit
Human speculation we look to these guys and priests and bishops and pope's as our guides. The media is saturated with apologetics posts,it causes more confusion. Now l know why Jesus said call no man on earth Father or teacher ,you dont putt your faith in any man whoever he is, from the church fathers or divines of the church .