Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Gavin Ortlund's Case for Sola Scriptura: A Catholic Critique - Suan Sonna
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 авг 2024
- 00:00:00 - Trip Summary
00:00:29 - Meeting Gavin
00:05:50 - @ReasonandTheology
00:06:15 - Stream Begins
00:07:42 - Presentation Begins
00:10:09 - Inerrancy vs. Infallibility
00:12:59 - Inspired word of God vs. word of God
00:17:08 - "Interpretation is Everything"
00:21:57 - Tradition of the Elders
00:32:40 - Jesus's Case against "tradition"
00:34:52 - Jewish Traditions in the NT
00:44:30 - NT views tradition positively
00:46:28 - Unwritten Apostolic Traditions
00:51:30 - Israel in the OT
00:55:49 - Does an infallible magisterium make a difference?
01:07:54 - The Open Canon Problem
01:19:21 - Fallible list of infallible teachings?
01:24:12 - Death Penalty
01:38:50 - Pope Eugene IV
Patreon: / intellectualcatholicism
Podcast: podcasts.apple...
Facebook: / intellectualcatholicism
Suan Sonna is a Baptist convert to Catholicism who is dedicated to curating the best Catholic intellectual content on philosophy, politics, and theology. He is also passionate about engaging people outside of the Catholic tradition on issues relevant to the Church.
Scripture was conceived and inspired by God to be written, compiled, preserved, disseminated and interpreted in the Church, by the Church and for the Church, so that it may be spiritually nourished and bring the good news to all peoples. Pope Damasus canonical list says it all: it is explicitly based on the primacy of the successor of Peter, on its power to bind and loose.
!
The questions you ask during “The Open Canon Problem” played a major role in my becoming Catholic
The "open canon" is actually a bigger problem for catholicism... doctrines about Mary's assumption, for example, were added to the church canon many years after the last Books were written.
Now I am "anathema" to the catholic church if I disagree with a doctrine that was added to the canon long after Scripture was written, and has zero support within Scripture.
And the church can continue to add whatever else it wants to the canon, and just claim that it is part of "church tradition" like the ascension of Mary, even though it was not part of church tradition or canon when the Scriptures were written.
@@xrendezv0usx Watch the debate between Dr. Sungenis and Dr. James White on the Assumption of Mary watch it with an open mind. God Bless.
@@xrendezv0usxthis is a false understanding of how doctrine develops in Catholicism. It’s a common misunderstanding, but a misunderstanding nonetheless.
@thenazarenecatholic well one way or the other the catholic doctrines of Mary and of bowing down to images have nothing to do with Scripture and are exactly the type of false doctrines that reveal that it is the catholic church which suffers from the problem of "open canon" for those like myself who hold Scripture to be the highest authority NOTHING can be added nor removed.
So that means that for me I know whether or not homosexual couples can receive blessings as couples. The answer is NO according to Scripture so the case is closed and the Canon is closed.
For catholics? Well who knows maybe blessing homosexual couples is allowed? Canon is still open on that one it seems....
@@xrendezv0usx what you’re describing is not related to whether or not the canon is open
Trent Horn:
Black swans debunk Sola Scriptura
Intellectual Catholicism:
Asian Suan debunks Sola Scriptura
Beautiful intro, man. Love hearing you share about your friendship and love for Gavin. When I was a Protestant, I loved (still do) the Ortlund family. Love his brother’s book “Gentle and Lowly.”
Saw this on R&T. Excellent presentation! I have a background in Biblical Studies, and it really hit me when you talked about the distinction between following the “letter of the written word” versus the intention of the author. I see that as a major point of disagreement when it comes to biblical interpretation, and a cause for so many theological positions in modern biblical scholarship.
Thank you for drawing that out!
Thank you for the comment. My personal position is that there is a distinction between interpreting legal documents and scripture. Scripture requires understanding things in their original historical context and intention insofar as that can be discerned. Once that’s established then other kinds of interpretations (other senses) can follow. The meaning of legal documents/statutes is much more flexible; the personal interpretation of the drafter does not matter as much.
@@intellectualcatholicism thank you very much for clarifying that!
The seriousness of God on achieving unity and willing the means to unity reminds me of Sijuwade's a priori argument for the papacy on Capturing Christianity. Honestly, I think your explanation of the argument was much more concise and stronger than Sijuwade's complicated philosophical terms and method.
This video is great! Thank you both for your work
Thanks for this thoughtful critique. I agree with your analysis that many of the arguments brought forward for Sola Scriptura are ultimately quite arbitrary. Great work!
It was when my wife and I realized that Sola Scriptura was false that we finally decided we could not be Protestant any longer, so this topic has always been very interesting to us.
Ortlund's argument only holds water if Jesus left us the Bible, or if it fell down from the sky. Since neither happened, the elephant in the room is - WHO assembled the Bible? Those who think the Bible is infallible accede the the infallibility of those who assembled it.
Gavin is the Catholics most favorite Protestant. He is the most humble and charitable Protestant out there. We'd love to see him and his family come home to the Catholic church. He'd make the most welcome addition to so many young Protestants converting to Catholicism. But as Jesus said, his time might have not yet come. But what the heck, Gavin, come home to the Catholic church with us. We're all excited to have you.
Gavin thinks he understands Christianity better than the Apostles and the Church Fathers. That is the opposite of humble.
Excellent job !
I had a protestant very recently use st augustine to refute the need for a church to close the Canon. Augustine basically said that scripture is self evident. That there's a unique sense that what you're reading is scripture that nothing else has. My response was if he was right, then the dueterocanon must be scripture
Still i didnt concede.... i showed him a quote from augustine about infant baptism. He sounds like he believed in that proto infallibility of the church to discern tradition that isn't written in scripture. He almost seems dismissive about not having biblical support for the doctrine and fully trusting the church to get a salvation issue right.
@Conquering Death Just read the same quote in my Augustine class last semester at Boston college. I kept thinking of it during the Ortlund Debate. :)
Augustine said he believed Scripture because the Catholic Church said so.
@fantasia55 Yeah Ortlund learned about augustine through a lens. Now his students learn about him through that same lens. Catholics tend to take a broader look at the man, I don't know of a single catholic for instance that denies the things augustine said that ortlund talks about. They just add other things he said to give you a broader spectrum. Like the quotes you and I posted will likely never be spoke of on this channel. It's like Gavin's hoping his audience doesn't look into Augustine further than what he teaches. It's sneaky but typical of protestants in general.
@@timboslice980This is another reason why Catholic apologists should end their ritual of praising Gavin Ortlund.
This makes sense than the debate I saw
One small note on the Partim-Partim view where I believe you mispoke. You said that the partim-partim view means that "literally half of the apostolic deposit is in Scripture and literally half of it is in Tradition" which appears to be an exaggeration. The view is not that its a 50/50 split, it's that there are some elements in one which are not in the other. In my understanding of the position, it's often held that a majority of identifiable Divine Revelation is found in Scripture and then repeated in the Sacred Tradition, but that there are some elements which could be found in Sacred Tradition but not Sacred Scripture. It's not a 50/50 split since the Sacred Tradition would include all the teachings of Scripture, the majority of teaching would be in common with only select elements being claimed to be only found in Tradition.
I thought Gavin Ortlund was going to lend you his lint roller.
God bless you really ❤
At 20:00 I wonder if you are conflating tradition, interpretation and magisterium. There are so many different types of tradition. The protestant is saying that the church is a witness to the custody of the traditions of the Apostles. But the Church’s focus was on what were the writing from or approved by the Apostles. The churches standard of antiquity was based upon Apostolic authority.
Once the Apostles died the source of the canon (inspired writings) was closed because Jesus authorization for his Apostles passed away with them. The church then creates a recorded through preservation of the writings. This solves the closed canon issue, and it is based upon the catholic test for scripture (see Eusebius). The test is a historical one, which is open to all to test. But for which the actual practice of the churches plays a large part. For example Eusebius isn’t so sure about 2 Peter and James. But use was so wide spread his doubts didn’t overcome this evidence by wide use.
The question is, are there any oral traditions that a historical pedigree like the scriptures? This evidence seems very shallow, and what really happens to these “oral traditions” is that it collapses into the authority of the magisterium. The oral tradition is what the church says it is, even if the evidence for the decision was 50/50 or even less. The dogma of Mary’s assumption is an example. It’s not based on much of an early oral witness, but is much later. The church is acting like the Apostles when it raises such a teaching to dogma rather than leave it as one of several options within the church.
The oral traditions, such as Irenaeus calls the rule of faith, are very central teachings of the faith, which are also found in scripture. These traditions were used as evidence against heretics who rejected scripture and believed in their own “oral” traditions from the Apostles. Irenaeus asks who should we believe, these men who have no connection to the Apostles, or those churches which the Apostles left behind.
Today the argument for oral tradition is really just an argument for the magisterium. So the question is why does the Roman church need to be infallible or able to usurp the authority of the Apostles by claiming to be equal to scripture? Rome could hold to sola scriptura and still argue for a fallible but very real authority as the church.
Why should Rome not honor its own history of preserving the Apostolic writings as scripture? Why should it not adopt sola scriptura and reject infallibility? It would still have ordinary authority. I’m really curious, would it lose anything? Would it not open the door to unity with many more Protestants?
If the psychological intent of authors isn’t what we should base our understanding of texts on, why would Paul being here to clear up what he meant on salvation be of any benefit to us?
If this is only how we should interpret the magisterium and not Sacred Scripture, why?
1:50:47 v 19:50 & 20:24
I’m just a guy, relatively new to the faith, but this seems in tension to me.
The fundamental core of sola scriptura is that God stands above and beyond all men and all councils of men in His divine authority and eternal infallibility.
And it logically follows that God's Word stands above and beyond the words of all men and councils of men in its divine authority and eternal infallibility.
Ive never seen an argument that convinces me that any man or group of men are equal to God in any way shape or form, nor that any man or group of men speak with authority and perfection equal to God's speech.
If any man claims to be equal to God or to possess speech equal to God's speech, he is a blasphemer. Very simple.
The New Testament did not exist until AD 382. How could a Christian have followed Sola Scriptura before then?
@fantasia55 it's the same way that the Jews of Jesus' time knew that the Torah was Scripture, many centuries before any catholic council: its the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit did use the catholic church mightily! To preserve and compile Scripture. Thank God for the catholic church! You have built massively upon the Kingdom of God!
But never make the mistake of believing that Holy Scripture gets its validity or authority from any men or councils of men. Being approved by catholic priests is not what makes God's Word God's Word.
The Holy Spirit used the catholic church mightily, just as He used the early pharisees and scribes mightily to preserve and compile the Torah and the Prophets.
And Jesus even said that the pharisees "sit on the seat of Moses" and that we should obey what they say (not what they do). That is true authority, yet the traditions of the pharisees DO NOT equal the Word of God. Never have. Never will.
Same with the catholic church. You carry real authority, appointed by the Lord.
That does NOT mean that your speech is equal to God's speech, or that your words are equal to God's Word!!
The pharisees who sat on the seat of Moses had real authority, but they were not equal to God. Their words were not equal to God's Word.
The catholic priests and bishops and popes were appointed to feed the sheep, and they carry real authority. But they are not equal to God. And their words are not equal to God's Word.
God bless.
@@xrendezv0usx So, a Christian of the 2nd century was bound to follow a book that did not yet exist? Such nonsense is why Sola Scriptura didn't even occur to anyone until the 16th century.
@fantasia55 okay God bless you 🙏
@@xrendezv0usx the jews had a teaching authority instituted by God, it was split between the judges, that come from Moses, and the priests, that come from Aaron. The Bible is clear the jews had to obey the sentences of these groups.
Neither of those authorities were promised infallibility, that's why in the first century they were largely split, with most priests being Sadducees and most judges being Pharisees.
Side note: music in background? It’s jammy
Great presentation but I doubt you will change Gavin Ortlund’s mind.
I believe Gavin Ortlund will convert
@@chriscoke2505 Amen. I like your optimism.
@@chriscoke2505
Believe me, Galvin will never convert.
He is writing book on a case for Protestantism. He thought it through
@@chriscoke2505 Humanly speaking - I doubt Gavin will ever convert. He s a guy who acknowledges the early church universally baptized babies - yet he doesn’t adhere to or practice what was universally held to be an apostolic practice in the early church.
I see Gavin as a guy who is a kind James white. He might not be as abrasive but he uses the same tactics - searches for subtle differences in the church fathers from what was ultimately decided upon - then uses this differences to supposedly disprove what the church teaches. It’s a tired ploy that unfortunately will keep people out of the church especially those who are not inclined to read the fathers for themselves
@@cephasmwila7537 I have faith that his soul will be saved
How can a book be more infallible than the church that compiled or cannonized it??
Because Scripture, being inspired, has God as its principal author, whereas the Magisterium has the lesser charism of infallibility, freedom from error in defining the canon. That is not inspiration, and we should be accurate about what we believe and want the Protestants to believe.
@johncollorafi257 God left a Church, not a bible. That Church made the bible.
We need to stop talking about "unwritten" oral apostolic traditions. Surely Protestants bristle at the thought of "unwritten" traditions that they think the Catholic Church fabricated centuries after the apostles. You and Lofton used to be Protestants; is that not how Protestants feel?? Even you recognized this in this video and clarified that certain sacred traditions ARE written down EARLY ON in the writings of Church fathers like Clement of Rome. There is no point in using the labels "unwritten" or "oral," even relative to the New Testament Scripture. Just causes more confusion and obstacles, no? They are merely sacred Traditions written down soon after the New Testament was.
There are some that were not written down. For example, anything about the Assumption of Mary wasn't written down until the year 300AD. That is centuries of oral tradition.
@@user-hj8vd2od9h The Assumption is actually more clearly written down in Scripture than the Immaculate Conception. Rev 12 tells us that the mother of Jesus is _bodily_ in heaven, her body clothed and crowned, in contrast to the bodiless souls in heaven that we see in the rest of Revelation.
Also, according to Tim Staples/Fr. Michael O’Carroll, it seems there may be 3rd century (200s) Syriac documents about the Assumption. In particular, there is a new Vienna fragment with the Assumption that some scholars (Hans Forster and Ally Kateusz in particular) believe may be 2nd century or even perhaps 1st century.
thank you for seeing the humanity, in a guy that openly lies about Jesus.
Jesus Christ " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall never pass away. " Matthew 24:35.
What does that mean?
Does it mean what you think?
Does it apply?
It means that sola scritura is everything and catholic doctrines will go away.
Yes, the death penalty is inherently violent, by definition. But I think it is a mistake to say it is inherently cruel, with all due respect to you (and JP2). Cruel has "injustice" baked into the connotation. It is not cruel to execute a criminal prisoner who will not stop raping and/or assaulting fellow prisoners or the prison guards. A person who refuses to be peaceably and justly imprisoned deserves the death penalty because even life imprisonment cannot safeguard the lives of others. Need to come up with another word other than cruel. Maybe brutal or harsh or extreme or unmerciful?
Hell, Pope Francis believes life in prison is as bad as the death penalty.
Infallibility is about potentiality primarily and about actuality secondarily. Infallibility entails the absolute lack of possibility-the total inability-to fail. It's not the equivalent of inerrancy. Inerrancy entails the absence of error, infallibility the absence of possibility. I am inerrant in my assertion that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that there is no other name under heaven by which a person may be saved than Jesus. Likewise, I am inerrant in stating that C.S. Lewis is the author of The Great Divorce. But I am not endowed with infallibility because I still could have gotten that wrong. I could have messed up and said Tolkien was the author. It isn't this way with Scripture. The Holy Spirit, in the act of inspiration, gave to the prophets and the apostles the total inability to get it wrong in the writing of Scripture. Furthermore, infallibility entails the active purposes of God in revealing himself and saving the elect through the means of the written, interpreted, and preached Scriptures. That's why Scripture is both inerrant and infallible. Not only does it lack error, but it lacks the possibility of ever erring, by reason of the source-the Holy Spirit-who moved through the writers of Scripture and today reveals himself perfectly through Scripture. The question is: Does Scripture testify this of itself? Does it do so clearly, if implicitly? And does the kind of self-attestation that belongs to the Scripture, and that has been recognized from the beginning by the Church, also belong to the Magisterium? Or is the current self-understanding of the powers enjoyed by the Magisterium (and the papal office) an accretion foreign both to Scripture and the early Church? The answer to that question will determine whether you will be Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.
Can we just admit/concede that the 1st century Jew could not know for certain whether or not they were yoked to error? Or should we believe that Jesus singled out the Pharisees as the most authoritative Jewish sect because they have the seat of Moses? Not sure I see the point of giving all that advice to various Jewish sects of the time.
*sigh*
And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity.
When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.
@@Mouthwash019283 Looks like you have cited a verse that supports the point I"m making: the Jews were divided like sheep without a shepherd. They had institutions that would foreshadow the power and authority of the Church but didn't have that power and authority.
Jannes and jambre are actually living with their father Balaam in Kush during the 40 years the bible described Moses as being in the wilderness.
First 30 years of which he was first general with the King of Kush during the days that Kush is unifying the northern regions of Egypt and Balaam and his sons take over the capital of Kush with the soldier's families inside.
King dies and his Son is too young to be ready to take the crown the people voted Moses to be their King and when the Son is of age they loaded him up with riches and send him on his way.
Ends up being cast into reuel's, father of ziporah, dungeon, ziporah feeds him over the 10 years he is imprisoned.
Reuel is the second wise man along with Job from the land of uz, he somehow has Joseph's rod/staff, which most likely is one of six possibly 7 rods that God has an angel fetch from the garden to cheer up Adam when he was seriously depressed living in a cave.
If the Sola scriptora crowd would get a clue of the fact that they have made the bible an idol made of wood, and actually research the bible seeking The author they might not have skipped over the passage from the author telling them where they, as good bereans, would be able to get confirmation of the events as described in short form in the bible.
Is it not written in the book of Jasher?
I really don't see the need to have done this on Michael Lofton's channel. Lofton is bad news. There is something seriously wrong with him.
What’s wrong with Micheal? So far he’s very solid from what I’ve seen.
Why is Lofton bad news?
@@Americanninjaman Aside from being such an intellectual lightweight that he cannot show himself on video without his diplomas and books in the background, and aside from the fact that he converted back to Catholicism yesterday after having abandoned it a few times already in the past, his whole body is covered in demonic tattoos and he apparently has 3 children with 3 different women.
@@billyhw5492 sounds more like you have a problem
@@tonywallens217 Yeah no.
Suan, you should really stop with the obligatory praise for Gavin Ortlund. His nice-guy demeanor is a manipulative shtick. Look at the comment section of his videos. He and his followers delight in bringing Catholics away from the Faith. He is no better than Jack Chick and John MacArthur.
In the book of Jeremiah the Jews were condemned by God for worshipping "the queen of heaven"
Catholics do not worship Mary, the true Queen of Heaven.
yes, that was the title wrongly attributed to a female goddess.