I was raised Church of Christ (even preached at some) but since then I've realized when you read scripture in a vacuum divorced from tradition what you really end up doing is reading modern biases into the text instead of reading it for what it actually says. As C.S. Lewis said it's through the reading of old books that mere Christianity reveals itself and one can be made aware of modern biases that lead to synthetic religions.
Very good way to put it. One difficulty I have in fundie circles as someone who is no longer YEC and actually accepts Evolution, etc, is that I get accused of being influenced by the world and minimizing the scripture. No. As a matter of fact, I was one of the most zealous YEC I knew. I would be willing to say among the most zealous in history. As I studied the historical context of scripture more, I slowly realised reading through many proof texts that the proof texts never taught what I believed, so I just said: "I have no reason to be dogmatic on this anymore, lemme give the science a fair test." A good example is whwre God says, "On thy belly shalt thou walk and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." YEC interpret that as cursing snakes or a particular snake with losing its legs. In reality, it's an ancient incantation formula that was chanted when seeing an aggressive snake that is risen to strike. Which is interesting because Adam and Eve didn't realise the snake was trying to kill them-Eve actually flat out says in Hebrew, "the snake said something that I easily misunderstood," meaning she was blaming herself, not the serpent. We translate it as, "he beguiled me," but every other usage is non-accusatory. -- -- -- -- I wish I had known about Dr. John Walton's book's one Genesis 1 and Adam and Eve back when I was a teen. But by the grace of God, I slowly found out about this stuff, then was recommended his books and was shocked the information was so easy to find in one place.
As someone who is part of the Churches of Christ I'm personally happy to see lots of this change. There are many conservative CoC pastors now moving towards embracing scripture in light of tradition. I do still believe in the good intention for what started the Church of Christ movement - unity. I've learned that this unity isn't best done by throwing out tradition and trying to interpret scripture by itself but doing faithful theological triage.
I applaud the Church of Christ for getting close to biblical Christianity, considering they threw away any frame of reference and basically started from scratch. Of course, the issue with that is that they divorced themselves from historical Christianity and started from scratch
Thank you Doctor. I will be teaching on Sola Scriptura at church as the conclusion to a series on the Attributes of Scripture and I will definitely be working in the point that this does not mean we throw out tradition. It's similar to what I was already planning but I loved your wording here!
In his book Lutheran Slogans, Use and Abuse Robert W. Jenson, American Lutheran and top ecumenical systematic theologian, writes sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura, “by grace alone, by faith alone, by Scripture alone” are often treated as a single slogan intended as a summary of the Reformation’s chief concerns. This does cover much of the ground but it also suggests that the three phrases share a common logic and that is misleading. What is it that “only” the three are supposed to do? Grace and faith both, in Reformation theology justify and for that reason the two do belong together. However we are not justified by Scripture or by believing in Scripture. Sola scriptura belongs to a different discussion than the other phrases. ___ Sola scriptura is the most problematic of the three solas --- and in Jenson’s judgement cannot finally be salvaged for any significant use. The first problem with “only Scripture” is that it is supposed to exclude something, but what is that something? One disastrous use of this slogan is by those who claim to need no creed because they have Scripture. Many have often tried to rescue the creeds from the sola by saying that they are summaries of Scripture, which they plainly are not. Sometimes the slogan is used to exclude supposedly rival agents of churchly authority. Some groups exclude governance by bishops or functionally equivalent office-holders. However the canon of the New Testament and the establishment of the episcopate emerged in the church at much the same time and in joint answer to the same crisis. The episcopate was actually there a little earlier, so that it was an episcopally governed church that acknowledged the canon. If the New Testament was a gift of the Spirit in a crucial time, why not the episcopate that received the gift? Jenson points out that it is widely supposed that the slogan affirms Scripture and denigrates “tradition.” The problem is that most of the books that make up the canon themselves came to pass by lengthy processes of community tradition, first oral tradition and then of glossing, supplementing and editing texts. If we have no confidence in tradition under the leading of the Spirit, we can have no confidence in supposedly inspired Scripture. The church received the New Testament as a controlling part of her tradition, not as a substitute for it. Jenson states that the use of the slogan possibly closest to its actual role in Reformation polemics is directed against any finally decisive magisterium, any final teaching authority in matters which are “necessary to salvation.” There is to be no pastorate on the order of the papacy; only Scripture is to have such a role. This too has its problems. The problem is that Scripture is a book, and cannot itself exert its own authority; someone must do this. Who is that to be? Is every believer to be a magister, as some groups support? If so, whom does he teach? So what is it that only Scripture is supposed to do? Sola scriptura has often been taken as a unit with sola gratia and sola fide. Then it appears that Scripture must justify or save, since that is what faith and grace do. But that cannot be right. We are not justified or saved by believing the Bible. Jenson states that the next generation of Lutheran theologians after the Reformers, the Lutheran scholastics, developed a teaching that has much to recommend it. In one role, as liturgically read in the churches and as pervading the liturgy and read for devotion, Scripture is itself a living voice of the gospel and has the living gospel’s power to awaken faith. “Only” is here appropriate, since without Scripture there would now be no living word at all. Scripture’s other role, according to the old Lutherans is legal: in doctrinal and ethical argument it is the norma normans non normata, the “norm which norms and is not normed,” the authority which cannot be trumped. This does not necessarily mean that all theological arguments must be directly derivable from Scripture, only that they must not deliver results contrary to Scripture. If there is a legitimate reading of sola in sola scriptura Jenson thinks that it is the Old Lutheran reading. However he states that in his judgement it might be better to do without the slogan and simply say what the Old Lutherans said materially: on the one hand we should hearken to Scripture as living law and gospel, and privilege its verbal presence in the church so that it is there to be heard; and on the other hand, when in doubt about moral and theological questions, recur to Scripture as the last authority. The “only” adds nothing that needs to be added. Robert W. Jenson, Lutheran Slogans, Use and Abuse (Delhi, NY: ALPB Books, 2011)
I'm currently reading writings of Martin Luther and one thing I see is that he was just reading the Bible within his tradition and realized that tradition was interfering with the message of the Bible so he wanted to get rid of only that which was interfering. When the issue came to a head at the Diet of Worms he pointed out that Popes and councils contradicted each other and had made errors so that left by default Scripture interpreted by sound reasoning. Here I stand I can do no other. I'm always reading something I never read before. I see a bunch of books to the right of you in the picture (that would be over your left shoulder) which look like the Roberts and Donaldson edition of the Ante Nicene Fathers (red) and the Philip Schaff edition of Augustine and Chrysostom (green) and you probably also have the (blue) Schaff and Wace Nicene Post Nicene Fathers in that series. I still haven't real ALL of those so there is still a lot of Church tradition yet to find for me. So for now I'll do the best I can with the Bible and if those guys can be of help I'll check them out but test them by Scripture.
Effectively, I do not think there is a difference between Sola and Solo Scriptura. Moreover, unless the tradition of the Orthodox Church expressed in its normative authority to bind the Christian to the canon of the scriptures is infallible, then we cannot have confidence that we have access to the infallible scriptures. Every time I read Luther's preface to Revelation (and to a similar degree, the book of James), I marvel at what he says; for someone that holds to Sola Scriptura, he absolutely dismisses Revelation.
@DrJordanBCooper Could you recommend a book or a list of books for a layman that's interested in reading the early church father's? I believe you'd call it patristics
Hey anyone and everyone! I have a close Church of Christ friend and I want to make sure I'm confident on my paedobaptist position before discussing it with him... What are your thoughts when they say Baptism is not like circumcision, because circumcision was done on the 8th day? “And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.” Genesis 17:12 NASB1995 Since they are Church of Christ they would probably like more of Biblical refutation rather than early church history-- I speak from experience with this specific person and their view of the "symbolic" Lord's Supper.. Haha I already watched debates from Gavin Ortlund vs Jordan B Cooper for this too, also later I watched Trent Horn debate Ortlund on this too (Ortlund is credobaptist like this Church of Christ person Thank you guys so much, God bless! ❤️❤️✝️
It's unlike in other ways, too. For example, only men were circumcised. The fact is, no two things are exactly the same. It proves too much, so to speak, if you say that they are different because of that one practice. And you can say that converts were would be circumcised even if they were older than 8 days.
I was born and raised COC, went to a COC University, and even preached at a few COCs. Scripture is definitely the way to go but because we/they view baptism as one of the key means of salvation and also a choice infant baptism is going to be a very hard sell to them (appeals to early church probably won't accomplish much).
Sola scriptura is about infallibility: only the Bible is infallible. Prima scriptura seems to imply there are other sources that are infallible (a second, a third, etc). Prima scriptura is either in contradiction with sola scriptura or doesn’t mean much.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 incorrect. Prima scriptura means Scripture primarily. But that church father writings get secondary status. It's considered important but definitely not Infallible.
Dr Cooper, Concerning Enoch1, it is quoted word for word in Jude, and was discussed at length by well known early Christians and could have been included in our cannon. It was accepted in the Ethiopen cannon, as you know. Also your Seth interpretation of Gen 6, is not what the Bible teaches at all. The early Christians did not agree at all with the Seth view of Gen 6. Thanks
Every American Christian is a Solo Scriptura Baptist. Sure, we may baptize babies, have Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, etc theologies on paper and externals on the wall, but those are all cosmetic. Every man is his own Priest, Bishop, & Pope
Sadly there’s a lot of truth to that statement. It’s what happens when you live in a consumerist country like America. Thank God there are some outliers left at least.
What do you mean? Catholics in America are actually closeted "Solo Scriptura" Baptists? How so? I know so many American Christians who know and have deep love for Church history and Tradition that I find this hard to believe so maybe I'm misunderstanding, which is why I am asking for clarification.
@@4jgarner We are Americans. Individualism is hard baked into us from birth. That is our core. This means our relationship with God is, at it's core, individualistic. With this in mind, everything else about our religion must be seen as external to our core (eg, our church, our tradition, our sacraments, our scriptures, etc). Also, the way we subconsciously prioritize these externals is, the ones that offer us the greatest degree of individuality in our relationship to God are the most sacred to us. Consider, for example, our particular congregation. Suppose we ran afoul of our local congregation, and the ultimatum we got was "look, buddy, it's our way or the hiway!" Push came to shove, if we saw this as an assault on our sacred individuality, we would drop our congregation in a heartbeat, and find a more agreeable congregation within our broader Church. So we consider our congregation to be of low priority. Still, though, if we came into a similar push-shove situation with the Church, we would then switch to something perhaps similar but still different (eg Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, etc). So, imagine an ongoing series of these push-shove threats to our individuality. I say, our "final court of appeals" is Scripture. And even then, it's still theoretically possible we'd run into a situation where we found Scripture was impending on our individuality, and despite our best efforts at creative reinterpretations, there'd finally come a point where we chuck the Bible aside and say "Eh, whatever, I'll just be independent and spiritual, but not religious"
@@ShaneShelldriickI see what you're saying but I find it very flawed. American culture is a weird animal. Individualism permeates it deeply but also a massive group mentality and a pack of individualism can be easily seen. But much more to my point is that I don't think it follows at all that every American necessarily holds this as their deepest most sacred value or is even very individualistic. I for one have deep disagreements with my local congregation but not on anything that I might would call primary doctrine. So I am happy to stay and serve Christ and His Church there. I would only leave if they were to dip into actually heresy. As far as Scripture I have come into contact with that exact situation and I reading surrendered myself to Scripture instead of giving it up for myself. And I'm not even that great! Lol
Throwing out Sola Scriptural would be throwing out tradition. I love history and studying all that we have inherited from the past as Christians, but no, you can't just put tradition up against Scripture without carefully critiquing WHAT exactly you are talking about. All traditions should be weighed and revisited. Scripture is the guiding central source of that weighing. The Confessions are not the Word of God but are based carefully on it during a time of challenge & need. They have a special place and should not be easily messed with.
Please help me: Is not "solo scriptura" just incorrect Latin grammar? (mixing gender). I appreciate the video but I don't think you get to the real issues I find, that is, an increasing number of Lutheran theologians (mostly younger pastors) who do not accept the Lutheran Confessions' teaching (in Luther, and clarified especially in FC Rule and Norm) that there is NO source of doctrine (no doctrinal tradition) except Scripture alone (sola scriptura as the highest and ONLY infallible authority for Christian doctrine). Doctrinal traditions (including the Lutheran Confessions) are only binding (and liberating) Christian doctrine when they are based clearly on the Word of God. Lutheran pastors subscribe the Lutheran Confessions because they are clearly based on the Word of God (alone). Arguments in interpreting the Confessions need to go back to Scripture alone for defense of those arguments. Not to the church fathers. Not to Luther or the other Reformers. And not to the Lutheran Confessions as norms (norma normata). Regarding other Protestants, I agree with you that there are various views but you might need to deal critically with the arguments in A. McGrath's (incoherent and deficient) book "Christianity's Dangerous Idea." (Which is not based on the views of ANY 16th century reformers but actually only on later "Fundamentalist-type" (and Arminian and Baptist) evangelicals.
Whenever i hear sola scriptura it reminds me of calvinism and the sick twisted teachings of scripture they have. Im so glad i left calvinism and became a Christian
Why so much hatred toward a group that has done so much for the church historically and society in general? As far as I’m concerned, the essentials are not denied, so they’re therefore as Christian as you are.
As a middle schooler I encountered Christianity for the first time in the form of a traditional Baptist church. It was sola scriptoria. It was problematic in so many ways. I was not given a good foundation of the faith. All I ever got was the Bible and then modern (last twenty or so years) of Christianity. I did not even get historical context. They interpreted the Bible with a view of legalism and rigidity. I was shamed for going to church in pants and ridiculed for my parents divorce. In led to me walking away when I (And my family) could not met the standard. Luckily as an adult I wandered into the church again. And I discovered the writings of the church fathers. And a whole new world of tradition, plus scripture opened up. I have a faith that is more solid than ever before. Here I am at 38 in RCIA and will likely be Catholic by Christmas. I am leaving the world of Protestantism and the reformation behind me.
Because something doesn't have to be infallible for it to be trustworthy. Infallibility refers to the inherent nature of something being unable to err. The scriptures are the very words of God, and are therefore free from any possibility to err whatsoever. Creeds and confessions on the other hand come from men, who can err, and therefore they are fallible. We adhere to confessions when we ascertain that confessions faithfully reflect the teachings of scripture. i adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith. I believe the document is fallible (I.E the document is not inherently infallible) but I do not believe the confession has erred because I believe the document constitutes an accurate interpretation of the scriptures. To sum it up, infallibility refers to the impossibility of something or someone to err, it doesn't mean that other things that do not possess that quality have not erred
@@jeremybamgbade "Creeds and confessions on the other hand come from men, who can err, and therefore they are fallible...I believe the document is fallible (I.E the document is not inherently infallible) but I do not believe the confession has erred." So, the "document is fallible" but you "do not believe the confession has erred?"
@@jeremybamgbade exactly! Even a science textbook might be produced without error in it. But it's certainly not infallible. It's POSSIBLE that it could err at some point.
I was raised Church of Christ (even preached at some) but since then I've realized when you read scripture in a vacuum divorced from tradition what you really end up doing is reading modern biases into the text instead of reading it for what it actually says. As C.S. Lewis said it's through the reading of old books that mere Christianity reveals itself and one can be made aware of modern biases that lead to synthetic religions.
Are you personally credobaptist or paedobaptist?
Very good way to put it. One difficulty I have in fundie circles as someone who is no longer YEC and actually accepts Evolution, etc, is that I get accused of being influenced by the world and minimizing the scripture.
No. As a matter of fact, I was one of the most zealous YEC I knew. I would be willing to say among the most zealous in history. As I studied the historical context of scripture more, I slowly realised reading through many proof texts that the proof texts never taught what I believed, so I just said: "I have no reason to be dogmatic on this anymore, lemme give the science a fair test."
A good example is whwre God says, "On thy belly shalt thou walk and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." YEC interpret that as cursing snakes or a particular snake with losing its legs. In reality, it's an ancient incantation formula that was chanted when seeing an aggressive snake that is risen to strike. Which is interesting because Adam and Eve didn't realise the snake was trying to kill them-Eve actually flat out says in Hebrew, "the snake said something that I easily misunderstood," meaning she was blaming herself, not the serpent. We translate it as, "he beguiled me," but every other usage is non-accusatory.
-- -- -- --
I wish I had known about Dr. John Walton's book's one Genesis 1 and Adam and Eve back when I was a teen. But by the grace of God, I slowly found out about this stuff, then was recommended his books and was shocked the information was so easy to find in one place.
As someone who is part of the Churches of Christ I'm personally happy to see lots of this change. There are many conservative CoC pastors now moving towards embracing scripture in light of tradition. I do still believe in the good intention for what started the Church of Christ movement - unity. I've learned that this unity isn't best done by throwing out tradition and trying to interpret scripture by itself but doing faithful theological triage.
@@ElvisI97 nice! Don’t get me wrong I don’t think COC is nearly as bad as a lot of people think. Hearing that is heart warming
I applaud the Church of Christ for getting close to biblical Christianity, considering they threw away any frame of reference and basically started from scratch.
Of course, the issue with that is that they divorced themselves from historical Christianity and started from scratch
Great video Dr. Cooper!
Thank you Doctor. I will be teaching on Sola Scriptura at church as the conclusion to a series on the Attributes of Scripture and I will definitely be working in the point that this does not mean we throw out tradition. It's similar to what I was already planning but I loved your wording here!
My current running theory is that how a church defines the role of a deacon is a possible litmus test between Sola and Solo
In his book Lutheran Slogans, Use and Abuse Robert W. Jenson, American Lutheran and top ecumenical systematic theologian, writes sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura, “by grace alone, by faith alone, by Scripture alone” are often treated as a single slogan intended as a summary of the Reformation’s chief concerns. This does cover much of the ground but it also suggests that the three phrases share a common logic and that is misleading.
What is it that “only” the three are supposed to do? Grace and faith both, in Reformation theology justify and for that reason the two do belong together. However we are not justified by Scripture or by believing in Scripture. Sola scriptura belongs to a different discussion than the other phrases.
___
Sola scriptura is the most problematic of the three solas --- and in Jenson’s judgement cannot finally be salvaged for any significant use.
The first problem with “only Scripture” is that it is supposed to exclude something, but what is that something?
One disastrous use of this slogan is by those who claim to need no creed because they have Scripture. Many have often tried to rescue the creeds from the sola by saying that they are summaries of Scripture, which they plainly are not.
Sometimes the slogan is used to exclude supposedly rival agents of churchly authority. Some groups exclude governance by bishops or functionally equivalent office-holders.
However the canon of the New Testament and the establishment of the episcopate emerged in the church at much the same time and in joint answer to the same crisis. The episcopate was actually there a little earlier, so that it was an episcopally governed church that acknowledged the canon. If the New Testament was a gift of the Spirit in a crucial time, why not the episcopate that received the gift?
Jenson points out that it is widely supposed that the slogan affirms Scripture and denigrates “tradition.” The problem is that most of the books that make up the canon themselves came to pass by lengthy processes of community tradition, first oral tradition and then of glossing, supplementing and editing texts. If we have no confidence in tradition under the leading of the Spirit, we can have no confidence in supposedly inspired Scripture. The church received the New Testament as a controlling part of her tradition, not as a substitute for it.
Jenson states that the use of the slogan possibly closest to its actual role in Reformation polemics is directed against any finally decisive magisterium, any final teaching authority in matters which are “necessary to salvation.” There is to be no pastorate on the order of the papacy; only Scripture is to have such a role. This too has its problems. The problem is that Scripture is a book, and cannot itself exert its own authority; someone must do this. Who is that to be? Is every believer to be a magister, as some groups support? If so, whom does he teach?
So what is it that only Scripture is supposed to do? Sola scriptura has often been taken as a unit with sola gratia and sola fide. Then it appears that Scripture must justify or save, since that is what faith and grace do. But that cannot be right. We are not justified or saved by believing the Bible.
Jenson states that the next generation of Lutheran theologians after the Reformers, the Lutheran scholastics, developed a teaching that has much to recommend it.
In one role, as liturgically read in the churches and as pervading the liturgy and read for devotion, Scripture is itself a living voice of the gospel and has the living gospel’s power to awaken faith. “Only” is here appropriate, since without Scripture there would now be no living word at all.
Scripture’s other role, according to the old Lutherans is legal: in doctrinal and ethical argument it is the norma normans non normata, the “norm which norms and is not normed,” the authority which cannot be trumped. This does not necessarily mean that all theological arguments must be directly derivable from Scripture, only that they must not deliver results contrary to Scripture.
If there is a legitimate reading of sola in sola scriptura Jenson thinks that it is the Old Lutheran reading. However he states that in his judgement it might be better to do without the slogan and simply say what the Old Lutherans said materially: on the one hand we should hearken to Scripture as living law and gospel, and privilege its verbal presence in the church so that it is there to be heard; and on the other hand, when in doubt about moral and theological questions, recur to Scripture as the last authority. The “only” adds nothing that needs to be added.
Robert W. Jenson, Lutheran Slogans, Use and Abuse (Delhi, NY: ALPB Books, 2011)
Submit to Pastor Jim's Free Will Baptist Church
Based
Nah you're good thanks, I'll just stick with Uncle Billy Bob's Bible Church
@@jonathanbennigsen5625 But he's a schizmatic who believes in post-tribulation rapture!!!!
@libatonvhs 😮😮😮
I'm currently reading writings of Martin Luther and one thing I see is that he was just reading the Bible within his tradition and realized that tradition was interfering with the message of the Bible so he wanted to get rid of only that which was interfering. When the issue came to a head at the Diet of Worms he pointed out that Popes and councils contradicted each other and had made errors so that left by default Scripture interpreted by sound reasoning. Here I stand I can do no other. I'm always reading something I never read before. I see a bunch of books to the right of you in the picture (that would be over your left shoulder) which look like the Roberts and Donaldson edition of the Ante Nicene Fathers (red) and the Philip Schaff edition of Augustine and Chrysostom (green) and you probably also have the (blue) Schaff and Wace Nicene Post Nicene Fathers in that series. I still haven't real ALL of those so there is still a lot of Church tradition yet to find for me. So for now I'll do the best I can with the Bible and if those guys can be of help I'll check them out but test them by Scripture.
Unfortunately, you'd be suspired how many Baptists these days would say they hold to "solo scriptura"
Hey Clark, it's Sola Scriptura and not Solo. Where's paedobaptism in the Bible? Was Jesus baptize when he was a kid? Was Jesus sprinkled with water?
what are the two texts hanging on the wall in the background ?
Effectively, I do not think there is a difference between Sola and Solo Scriptura. Moreover, unless the tradition of the Orthodox Church expressed in its normative authority to bind the Christian to the canon of the scriptures is infallible, then we cannot have confidence that we have access to the infallible scriptures. Every time I read Luther's preface to Revelation (and to a similar degree, the book of James), I marvel at what he says; for someone that holds to Sola Scriptura, he absolutely dismisses Revelation.
@DrJordanBCooper
Could you recommend a book or a list of books for a layman that's interested in reading the early church father's? I believe you'd call it patristics
I see ready to harvest grew a beard
Hey anyone and everyone! I have a close Church of Christ friend and I want to make sure I'm confident on my paedobaptist position before discussing it with him...
What are your thoughts when they say Baptism is not like circumcision, because circumcision was done on the 8th day?
“And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.”
Genesis 17:12 NASB1995
Since they are Church of Christ they would probably like more of Biblical refutation rather than early church history--
I speak from experience with this specific person and their view of the "symbolic" Lord's Supper.. Haha
I already watched debates from Gavin Ortlund vs Jordan B Cooper for this too, also later I watched Trent Horn debate Ortlund on this too (Ortlund is credobaptist like this Church of Christ person
Thank you guys so much, God bless! ❤️❤️✝️
It's unlike in other ways, too. For example, only men were circumcised. The fact is, no two things are exactly the same. It proves too much, so to speak, if you say that they are different because of that one practice. And you can say that converts were would be circumcised even if they were older than 8 days.
I was born and raised COC, went to a COC University, and even preached at a few COCs. Scripture is definitely the way to go but because we/they view baptism as one of the key means of salvation and also a choice infant baptism is going to be a very hard sell to them (appeals to early church probably won't accomplish much).
@@jimmu2008Interesting, thanks so much for responding! How about you personally, do you subscribe to the credobaptist or paedobaptist view?
@@bradleymarshall5489Yupp I've heard. How about you personally, do you subscribe to the credobaptist or paedobaptist view?
@@bradleymarshall5489Yupp I've heard. But How about you personally, are you paedobaptist or credobaptist?
Prima scriptura 😊
Sola scriptura is about infallibility: only the Bible is infallible.
Prima scriptura seems to imply there are other sources that are infallible (a second, a third, etc).
Prima scriptura is either in contradiction with sola scriptura or doesn’t mean much.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 incorrect.
Prima scriptura means Scripture primarily.
But that church father writings get secondary status. It's considered important but definitely not Infallible.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 nobody considers Churches fathers’ writings infallible, so what’s your point?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 they're secondary and must be implemented except where they are wrong.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 then they’re as secondary as any contemporary writings, which are equally subject to the one infallible authority.
Based
Dr Cooper, Concerning Enoch1, it is quoted word for word in Jude, and was discussed at length by well known early Christians and could have been included in our cannon. It was accepted in the Ethiopen cannon, as you know.
Also your Seth interpretation of Gen 6, is not what the Bible teaches at all. The early Christians did not agree at all with the Seth view of Gen 6. Thanks
I think it’s much more historically tenable and logical to just swim the Tiber.
You end up drowning in the sewage of man made traditions which run contrary to plain bible teaching
Every American Christian is a Solo Scriptura Baptist. Sure, we may baptize babies, have Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, etc theologies on paper and externals on the wall, but those are all cosmetic. Every man is his own Priest, Bishop, & Pope
Sadly there’s a lot of truth to that statement. It’s what happens when you live in a consumerist country like America. Thank God there are some outliers left at least.
What do you mean? Catholics in America are actually closeted "Solo Scriptura" Baptists? How so?
I know so many American Christians who know and have deep love for Church history and Tradition that I find this hard to believe so maybe I'm misunderstanding, which is why I am asking for clarification.
@@4jgarner We are Americans. Individualism is hard baked into us from birth. That is our core. This means our relationship with God is, at it's core, individualistic. With this in mind, everything else about our religion must be seen as external to our core (eg, our church, our tradition, our sacraments, our scriptures, etc). Also, the way we subconsciously prioritize these externals is, the ones that offer us the greatest degree of individuality in our relationship to God are the most sacred to us. Consider, for example, our particular congregation. Suppose we ran afoul of our local congregation, and the ultimatum we got was "look, buddy, it's our way or the hiway!" Push came to shove, if we saw this as an assault on our sacred individuality, we would drop our congregation in a heartbeat, and find a more agreeable congregation within our broader Church. So we consider our congregation to be of low priority. Still, though, if we came into a similar push-shove situation with the Church, we would then switch to something perhaps similar but still different (eg Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, etc). So, imagine an ongoing series of these push-shove threats to our individuality. I say, our "final court of appeals" is Scripture.
And even then, it's still theoretically possible we'd run into a situation where we found Scripture was impending on our individuality, and despite our best efforts at creative reinterpretations, there'd finally come a point where we chuck the Bible aside and say "Eh, whatever, I'll just be independent and spiritual, but not religious"
@@4jgarner for some reason, Comments isn't uploading my reply, but you can find it under the Newest tab
@@ShaneShelldriickI see what you're saying but I find it very flawed. American culture is a weird animal. Individualism permeates it deeply but also a massive group mentality and a pack of individualism can be easily seen. But much more to my point is that I don't think it follows at all that every American necessarily holds this as their deepest most sacred value or is even very individualistic. I for one have deep disagreements with my local congregation but not on anything that I might would call primary doctrine. So I am happy to stay and serve Christ and His Church there. I would only leave if they were to dip into actually heresy.
As far as Scripture I have come into contact with that exact situation and I reading surrendered myself to Scripture instead of giving it up for myself. And I'm not even that great! Lol
Throwing out Sola Scriptural would be throwing out tradition. I love history and studying all that we have inherited from the past as Christians, but no, you can't just put tradition up against Scripture without carefully critiquing WHAT exactly you are talking about. All traditions should be weighed and revisited. Scripture is the guiding central source of that weighing. The Confessions are not the Word of God but are based carefully on it during a time of challenge & need. They have a special place and should not be easily messed with.
Please help me: Is not "solo scriptura" just incorrect Latin grammar? (mixing gender). I appreciate the video but I don't think you get to the real issues I find, that is, an increasing number of Lutheran theologians (mostly younger pastors) who do not accept the Lutheran Confessions' teaching (in Luther, and clarified especially in FC Rule and Norm) that there is NO source of doctrine (no doctrinal tradition) except Scripture alone (sola scriptura as the highest and ONLY infallible authority for Christian doctrine). Doctrinal traditions (including the Lutheran Confessions) are only binding (and liberating) Christian doctrine when they are based clearly on the Word of God. Lutheran pastors subscribe the Lutheran Confessions because they are clearly based on the Word of God (alone). Arguments in interpreting the Confessions need to go back to Scripture alone for defense of those arguments. Not to the church fathers. Not to Luther or the other Reformers. And not to the Lutheran Confessions as norms (norma normata). Regarding other Protestants, I agree with you that there are various views but you might need to deal critically with the arguments in A. McGrath's (incoherent and deficient) book "Christianity's Dangerous Idea." (Which is not based on the views of ANY 16th century reformers but actually only on later "Fundamentalist-type" (and Arminian and Baptist) evangelicals.
Whenever i hear sola scriptura it reminds me of calvinism and the sick twisted teachings of scripture they have. Im so glad i left calvinism and became a Christian
Why so much hatred toward a group that has done so much for the church historically and society in general? As far as I’m concerned, the essentials are not denied, so they’re therefore as Christian as you are.
@@FRodriguez_has done a lot? By dividing the Christians? Preaching false teachings and doctrines?
As a middle schooler I encountered Christianity for the first time in the form of a traditional Baptist church. It was sola scriptoria. It was problematic in so many ways. I was not given a good foundation of the faith. All I ever got was the Bible and then modern (last twenty or so years) of Christianity. I did not even get historical context. They interpreted the Bible with a view of legalism and rigidity. I was shamed for going to church in pants and ridiculed for my parents divorce.
In led to me walking away when I (And my family) could not met the standard.
Luckily as an adult I wandered into the church again. And I discovered the writings of the church fathers. And a whole new world of tradition, plus scripture opened up. I have a faith that is more solid than ever before.
Here I am at 38 in RCIA and will likely be Catholic by Christmas. I am leaving the world of Protestantism and the reformation behind me.
Buy lip balm for kissing all your idols
Welcome home. God bless you.
Welcome in the Mother-Home
You all are coming back slowly to the teaching of the Mother Catholic Church.
Go to Rome 😊
Sola Scriptura makes scripture opinion your Gospel
If your Confessions of faith (BOC) aren’t infallible, then why adhere to them? Asking for a friend 😊
Because something doesn't have to be infallible for it to be trustworthy. Infallibility refers to the inherent nature of something being unable to err. The scriptures are the very words of God, and are therefore free from any possibility to err whatsoever. Creeds and confessions on the other hand come from men, who can err, and therefore they are fallible. We adhere to confessions when we ascertain that confessions faithfully reflect the teachings of scripture. i adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith. I believe the document is fallible (I.E the document is not inherently infallible) but I do not believe the confession has erred because I believe the document constitutes an accurate interpretation of the scriptures.
To sum it up, infallibility refers to the impossibility of something or someone to err, it doesn't mean that other things that do not possess that quality have not erred
@@jeremybamgbade "Creeds and confessions on the other hand come from men, who can err, and therefore they are fallible...I believe the document is fallible (I.E the document is not inherently infallible) but I do not believe the confession has erred."
So, the "document is fallible" but you "do not believe the confession has erred?"
@@The_Catholic_Christian Correct. There is no contradiction there. "Cannot err" and "has not erred" are not categorically the same thing
In the RCC, a priest isn't believed to be infallible but his authority is to be recognized by those in his parish, no?
@@jeremybamgbade exactly! Even a science textbook might be produced without error in it. But it's certainly not infallible. It's POSSIBLE that it could err at some point.