Defending Sola Scriptura
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 окт 2024
- A response to two points made by the Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin during his recent debate with The Other Paul, in which I defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura
The Debate can be found here:
• Protestant/Catholic Au...
Your article on The North American Anglican concerning the ordination of women and why it's prohibited was absolutely perfect by the grace of God. So edifying. Thanks so much brother. Much love in Christ.
Very good comments from the legendary River Deveraux. 😊
Kind words, thank you!
Good responses to the debate and great defense of scripture. God bless
Thank you!
Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
YEP
Would love to see you debate Jimmy Akin 🙂
Hey River, good points added and agreed Jimmy's harping on that Sola Scriptura as doctrine needed to be explicitly in the text as doctrine isn't the knockout punch he thinks it is. However, the RC and EO positions around magisterium and infallibility are they define what is implicitly or explicitly in the deposit of faith from the Apostles whether passed down orally or in writing, not the charism of adding to the deposit as with the Apostles. And this is the stronger argument that, again, comes down to authority. They assert that as the "one, Catholic and apostolic church" the Holy Spirit will guide the church to proper interpretation of Holy Scripture and passing on of oral traditions (which I think as Anglicans we would agree with), infallibly so in cases of Ecumenical Council or Ex Cathedra statement (which is finally where we differ). So it becomes a "because I said so" situation. And unfortunately while that was the central debate, "authority", Paul and Jimmy didn't get into it all that much: what is the charism of the magisterium as it pertains to passing on the deposit of faith and on what assurance of authority?
Sola scriptura just seems so self evident too. If Sola Scriptura is false, then what other metric do we have comparable to scripture? If the church is the final authority, then which church has the right tradition? Good job brotha!
Thankfully, we serve a merciful God that is full of love for His children even when they get their theology wrong. I cling to that bc I know my views aren't infallible. I cling to Jesus bc I know He is love and mercy and His Holy Spirit will guide me in this life and despite my little knowledge, He will bear fruit through me, through my surrender to His will. The more I dig into apologetics, the more I'm thankful for Jesus bc I just can't understand everything perfectly. But, He is giving me deeper understanding of His love. That's the most important aspect of who He is and the most misunderstood.
Another great video! Well put
Thank you!
May I suggest you and Paul secure and study a copy of John Owen’s volume 14, Adminadversions of Fiat Lux, Owen’s work on countering Roman Catholicism. You will be repaid many times over.
Thanks for this!
It is interesting how much Roman Catholic doctrine is related to the New Apostolic Reformation.
There is so much that is extraneous about the Catholic faith that can potentially lead one astray (Marian dogmas, Novenas, relics, apparitions, indulgences, as well as Papal infallibility) that I feel we are on safer ground if we concentrate only on God's Word.
Exactly the RCC mass makes no sense in light of Hebrew 10
This is brilliant. The only thing I can anticipate is someone saying that’s all fine that Scripture is the “new magisterium”, but it still needs interpreting. For instance the early church dealt with heresies which entails they had to go deeper than what’s at face value in scripture to explicate certain doctrines. Are their interpretations infallible or fallible? How do you make sense of this with what you said?
It's important to note that under Sola Scriptura we say that Scripture is perspicuous. So for the regenerate its meaning regarding essentials is clear. That said, the church can only offer a fallible interpretation of Scripture which is why the Reformation happened and why we reject things like the Second Council of Nicaea.
@@newkingdommedia9434 so the doctrine of the trinity as spelled out by the Church - is this fallible? I don’t mean that there *is* a Trinity. I’m just saying the doctrine.
@@newkingdommedia9434 So the regenerate have clear access to the essentials because of the indwelling Spirit, but the Church gathered in council doesn't? Do the regenerate have a fallible understanding of the essentials just like the Church in your view? Or does "clear" mean the regenerate are afforded something of certainty on an individual level that the very Body of Christ is not promised on a corporate level?
@@merecatholicity Article XXI says it best:
General Councils... when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, & sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation, have neither Strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.
The reason why councils can err is because those attending them are not necessarily all regenerate and regeneration does not give you infallibility anyway, only a saving knowledge of the essentials.
Question: did the jerusalem counsel contain only the apostles? If yes, then your argument seems very strong. If more than just the apostles, then it seems Jimmy’s argument may be plausible, or at least there is some wiggle room for him to argue this point.
You have a very clear way of explaining and summarizing multifaceted arguments- thank you for this video!
Thank you for your kind words! There were "elders" present at the council but we see that it was the Apostles who made the important speeches and steered the conversation. Only the Apostles are promised infallible guidance, certainly elders can be guided too, but we have no assurance that they are without error.
Well done.
As a former Roman Catholic who came to a true faith in Christ over 40 years ago, I know from first hand experience that only God can break through the religious strongholds over Roman Catholics.
Roman Catholicism is a huge mission field and they need to hear the truth of the gospel, but only God can remove their blinders.
It’s easier to share the gospel with a hardcore sinner than a Roman Catholic because they believe they are serving God when in reality they are greatly deceived. 🥲
But how do you know that you have the correct books in the Bible?
The same way as you: faith.
@@newkingdommedia9434 So you don't know....Okay.
Faith in whom/what?
@@dennisboznango4942 Faith in those books themselves.
New video on that question: ruclips.net/video/5yFpYYOePc8/видео.html
We could credibly argue that Sola scriptura is not a doctrine in itself but a method of finding the apostles doctrine for the church( ie to look to the infallible scriptures) . The slogan was coined in the historic setting of other additional infallible methods being proposed to find the apostles doctrine ( ie the pope ex cathedra or ecumenical councils ).So even if Akin does not find the biblical evidence for Sola scriptura convincing it does not matter to the concept of Sola Scriptura.
You should debate him
TREMENDOUS.
I would like to see what you think: You said that we have no reason to believe that "God's Word" could be anything other than what was written (scripture). But in the same Bible we can see things like " *And the word of God* continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem" - Acts 6:7a. The disciples were speaking "The Word of God" though it had not been written, and it also says "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." - John 21:25. Now you say, "How could one know that the oral tradition is the Word of God after the apostles?", this seems to indicate that New Testament must be written by an apostle, but that excludes Mark, Luke, Acts, and Hebrews. How do you know those are inspired? It seems to me arbitrary to say, "That which the apostles taught to the early church and was unanimously recognized is not the Word of God, but that which was written down by people who knew the apostles could be scripture." You may say to me that Mark was probably inspired by Peter (but the Bible does not say so) and you may also say that the book of Hebrews was probably written by an apostle. This is impossible to prove. Not only that, but Revelation is often in doubt as to who wrote it; some believe it was a different John than from the apostle John, and please don't depend on tradition to say that it was written by the apostle. The issue is that for every reason I give why your judgement concerning these documents is inconsistent, you may supply *descriptive* reasons rather than *prescriptive* : Q: "What makes something scripture?" - A: "Whatever matches what I have in my Bible." I'm working through this subject and would like to see what you think.
No I said in the video that God's Word can be oral, and was always oral first, however, today we can only reliably turn to Scripture for God's Word. Scripture does not have to have been written by an Apostle himself to be God's Word, it only has to be a faithful and infallible recording of what the Apostolic teaching is, and be inspired by the Holy Ghost. The NT books which were never held in dispute (Gospels, Acts, Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John) are the standard by which we can tell what is Apostolic, the disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, Revelation) are compared with those and found to be in harmony and throughout history believers have found those books to also reveal themselves as being God-breathed through the illumination of the Holy Ghost in their hearts.
Without the Holy Scriptures the Story of what God Taught & did then there would be no church or tradtion. Maybe a bit simplistic view of it. Great vids thanks.
You can't defend something not there
The Word of God apparently included at some point in time everything taught by by Pharisees who sat in Moses' seat.
However reading the entire Old Testament, I never found it.
So someone like Our Lord or the apostles could point and laugh at the Seat of Moses and say, the exact same argument you made and ignore the teaching of the Pharisees.
However that would be foolish.
Now, the early Christians would point to something called laying on of hands and the office of bishop as inheriting the authority of apostles to some degree.
Now you can say, corrupted traditions, but at that point it is if we are hearing materialistic skeptics with regards to Scripture itself.
You can say it isn't clear in Scripture, but I know you know that St Irenaeus would not agree with you. Because, he was quite happy with how the church would function and would continue to function even if the apostles didn't write a single letter. At least that's how it seems, you could say like The Other Paul that it is only because of close proximity in time and place, but note he makes the point if no letter was ever written. So, when would you say would his argument no longer work? 3 century or 4th century?
Trent Horn made a sola scriptura video and used a clip of your video. He’s a joke but just wanted you to know
"It is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED ". Holy Scripture has spoken! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Can one know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ".
Why the need for fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures?
Holy Scripture teaches the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! The same Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
“St. Mark’s Gospel is inspired Scripture and to be included in the Church’s canon" - is this a fallible doctrine in your worldview?
1. That's not in the category of doctrine, it's just a truth claim.
2. Asking how any writing is discerned to be God's Word is always going to be extremely difficult to answer. Ultimately it is faith alone that makes us see something as in fact being Divine.
3. Since Mark's Gospel is Scripture, you can't really step outside of it like you have. Sola Scriptura presupposes Mark being Scripture, it doesn't argue for it.
4. Mark's Gospel was never held in any dispute by the Church. Ever since it was written, during the time of the Apostles, it has been unanimously accepted as Divine Scripture. It's canonicty has therefore never depended on a Church decree or Council. It is simply part of the Apostolic Deposit the Church has received. The Church does not make a writing Scripture, she merely recognizes what already is Scripture.
5. The Spirit, as the author of Scripture, has as part of His authorship the role of confirming that authorship to the elect via illumination. It is thus perfectly acceptable to trust that the Church, whose most sacred and important duty is to be a steward of God's Word, has been guided by the Spirit to have accurately recognized what is Scripture.
6.The OT Canon itself was recognized by the Jewish leaders and Pharisees, but Jesus clearly does not therefore see them as being infallible authorities as a result.
@@newkingdommedia9434
Your points:
1. It is obviously a teaching that is not found in Scripture, don't understand what you gain by just saying it is a truth claim.
Is Holy Trinity just a truth claim and not a teaching or a doctrine?
2. Having faith that something is not inspired like Maccabees or Wisdom would be highly problematic in your worldview as correct canon would be highly important to form correct doctrine by Scripture Alone, as Jimmy pointed out, truncating or polluting the data set will cause issues without even including the problem of the formal sufficiency or the lens you use than to properly interpret it.
3. "Since Mark's Gospel is Scripture" well it seems to me you are presupposing it on the ground of evidence that is in your opinion fallible, like the deposit that seems to be a smorgasbord, a Succession of fallible witnesses and fallible Liturgical writs and traditions.
4. it's not about making something inspired it's about having an infallible witness, so my logical problem is how can you claim only infallible rule on the Canon if you operate from a probabilistic foundation? I really don't get how you get infallible rule from probabilities... Now since I'm not an evidentialist here we would disagree epistemically. Also there is no such thing as "Simply a part" there's no such thing as a generic tradition there's only a specific living body a living community that was in
continuity with what came before that
has a given Authority by Christ in terms
of the breathing honor of the Holy
Spirit who can then in successive
Generations make decisions about
doctrines and about how to rule and
govern the Church.
5. This is a perfect case of Special pleading, i'ts acknowledging the Holy Spirit working in the Church when it comes to something you agree with and the Holy Spirit is not working within the Church when it doesn't agree with your opinions or judgements of "Articles of Faith"- NT canon Holy Spirit working, OT canon Holy Spirit Not working, Church hierarchy and authority -Not Working etc. and down the line we go..
6. the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, they had the teaching office Snahedrin to settle issues of faith and morals. In order to combat the spreading "Christian cult", rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God and this canon excluded certain books you would take as inspired word of God.
The earliest fragments or lists in the Early Church included Wisdom, - 1 Clement quotes Wisdom as Scripture as well as Iraneus, it holds Prophecies that came true, so it passes the Deuteronomy 18 test. So just based by Empirical standards, it passes the test, but my problem is that even with all of that I would not put my money on such investigation from myself or historians and scholars, and to just claim God's providence somehow through the history with your own Canon by blind belief would also be very problematic for me.
I’d hardly characterize Mr. Akin as “legendary”!
Oooohhh bitter!!
I’m Orthodox. The Church itself is divine, scripture is part of the tradition of the Church.
It’s odd given that Luke-Acts-Hebrews is a text of a person WHO is not an apostle or eyewitness and YET YOU HOLD IT INFALLIBLE!
I think these arguments miss the point. There is no point in relying on the Bible alone when the Bible is incoherent.
Example:
"The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks yo his friend."
"No man has seen God at any time."
If one can reconcile these two statements with a hermeneutic, then that same hermebneutic might even salvage the Koran, Book of Mormon, and Mao's Red Book as infallible texts.
Imagine being so desperate to oppose Sola Scriptura that you end up claiming God's Word is "incoherent."
@@newkingdommedia9434 I'll take that as an admission.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Your reply sounds more like an admission.
@@newkingdommedia9434 If you can defend the Bible, defend it. Otherwise your reply just sounds like an admission.
Scripture is said to be ‘a lamp to my feet and a light to my path’ (Ps 119:105). ‘The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple’ (Ps 19:7 cf. Ps 119:105, 130 ; 1 Cor 10:15). And as Deuteronomy 30:11-14 says, the knowledge of God’s will in Scripture is not ‘far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?” Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?” But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it."
Scripture is not incoherent because it all comes from the same Author, God, and can be understood even by the simple. To say God's Word is incoherent is almost blasphemous.
As for what you raised, Moses saw the pre-incarnate Son, but John says we cannot see the Father, for He is invisible.
Going up against Jimmy Akin? Good luck
If you could defend the Bible against a charge of incoherence you might not be so quick to block comments.
I haven't blocked any comments so not sure what you're talking about. The comments on this video are set to be reviewed and the reason for that is the sheer amount of hate speech I get from Roman Catholics whenever I make videos like this. I won't tolerate countless comments saying I'm going to hell etc.
Also if my interlocutor is honestly claiming that God's Divinely breathed out Word is incoherent, I have little desire to discuss with him further, however, I will make another reply to him shortly.
METALIFEX are you a Christian? I suppose not from your ignorant accusations concerning the holy Book of God. In fact how would you suppose that you would understand anything using Gods gifts of reasoning that he alone bestows on men to argue about a book that is spiritual when you yourself are spiritually dead and have no life of God in you. How would you understand God when you doubt in your heart? How would you reason the holy scriptures from a irrational and dead spirit? How do you manage to breathe out accusations against the God who created you and gave you breathe? I hope you are able to wake up from the darkness you are in and repent to receive spiritual life from God. Amen