I have a challenge for everyone who watches this video: don't make blanket statements asserting that sola scriptura is right or wrong and call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot or heretic. Instead, state your viewpoint and give a thoughtful argument defending it. This goes for people on both sides of the debate. :)
Thank you, Austin. Didn't the Lord tell us to love our opponents (enemies). That's the beauty of your channel. You have always been a gentleman and a scholar.
@@varginabrown852 The NT was written by the Apostles to churches in the first century. Over time these where recognised by all the various churches as authoritative. The key here is recognised not compiled. I am grateful to the early Church for recognising and copying the NT books. All traditions recognise the same 27 books of the NT if you recognise other books which contracict those 27 then there is a problem. This problem is what Protestants recognise like the doctrine of Purgatory referenced in Macabees. Purgatory in the Roman Catholic view is accepted because of tradition validated by Pope's which gets round the problem. This is how Catholics can harmonise traditions with scripture and the problem disappears. Transubstantiation is a case in fact where it isn't found in scripture but because of tradition which the Orthodox disagree on and a Pope declaring it as dogma much later there is no problem.
@@jotink1 Purgatory and transubstantiation are clearly written in the New Testament (Mt 5:23-26, 1 Cor 3:15, all passages of the Last Supper: Mt 26, Mk 14, Lk 22, Jn 13). Here's the issue: The fact that some 16th century writers rebelled against the Church and decided to reject authoritative scriptural teaching, does not change the fact that it's there.
Alrighty. Post-video megacomment. Point one: Caricatures and realities: As I noted in my "pre-game", there is a common complaint among Protestants that when Catholics critique Sola Scriptura, we are attacking a caricature which is called "Solo Scriptura" or "Nuda Scriptura." But as ya'll note at 22:30, it cannot be a caricature if there are people who operate in that mode. What's really going on is that Protestants want to defend an idealistic, theoretical form of Sola Scriptura. Catholics critique it for what inevitably becomes of it when implemented. By analogy: The designer of the Tacoma Narrow bridge may protest that his design envisioned a bridge which would stand tall. That's great, but moot compared to the historical fact that the things shook itself to pieces. The design inevitably led to that result. The criticisms are valid. The difference that makes the difference is what the doctor says at 17:26, that Scripture Alone(!) is the only wholly reliable authority for the Church's life and thought. That principle reflects what Martin Luther said at the Diet of Worms: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the SCriptures (for I do not trust in the pope or in councils alone, since they have often erred and contradicted), I am bound by the Scriptures which I have quoted..." A subscriber to Sola Scriptura can make overtures toward the importance of tradition and councils. He can praise it as an important ministerial authority, and a vital resources and reference. But it does not make a difference in the end if he does not grant that these authorities have exercized the capacity to permanently settle questions in a way Christians are obligated to obey. Without that, one is left with a system in which the tradition, however exalted, is nothing more than a suggestion which a person can set aside if he thinks it is wrong, Later on he mentions the Acts 15 council. The question needed to be asked, "Were the churches who recieved their ruling obligated before God to obey it? Or could they treat it as one entry into an ongoing conversation?" That's the difference which Sola Scriptura made. It took the authoritative decrees and made them into suggestions which need to be checked against Scripture by later generations. Once that change is made, there are no compliments to tradition which can keep the "caricature" from becoming the reality. The Sola Scriptura Protestants are in the same boat as the Nuda Scriptura Protestants, even if the former is in the part of the boat which is nearer to shore. Point Two: Divisions. In regard to the divisions in the Protestant world, his first move (37:03) is to say that Protestants are not as divided as one would think. And to support this, he points to a statement of faith he created... which he admits many refused to sign. Not a good start. The other thing he points to (at 40:00) is the concept of dogmatic rank. The claim being that Protestants ARE united on those things which are "first order doctrines" - and the "best Protestants" have table fellowship because they have agreed to disagree over their second order disagreements. I'm sorry, but no. When Luther and Zwingli disagreed about the Lord's Supper, Luther said Zwingli was on the side of the devil. John Calvin, in his Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper, said in the first paragraph that a proper understanding of the Lord's supper was necessary for salvation. When it cam to infant baptism, the early Protestants exacted capital punishment on the anabaptists and said they were worse than the Papists. The early Protestants were not sanguine about their disagreements, and the Lutherans and Calvinists did not have table fellowship. He also admits that there are some Protestants who don't agree (with him) on what counts as a first order doctrine. That shows a critical problem: How does one establish what constitutes a first order doctrine? Who decides? Not everyone is going to agree. In regard to the people who have a more expansive view of first order doctrines, he called them "Sub Protestant" and "Small minded". Does he call them that to their face? ! This can go over one's head because the doctor's voice is so jovial and kindly, but his response to such people is to demean them? Holy cow. I could go on about other issues, but that's probably enough. To conclude: He seems like a nice man who has a laudible ideal about Christian unity. But the key question is whether the tradition is authoritative in a way which commands obedience. And if it does not, how does the theory of Sola Scriptura avoid playing out as the caricature. Even after an hour of praising the traditions as an exalted, indispensible suggestion, the question is still left on the table.
Good points. I see a very practical issue with sola scriptura when it comes to the very critical term “works of the Law”. Can sola scriptura really tell us if if refers to jewish identity markers like circumcision or to any work, including the good deeds that the reformers loved to hate? How you interpret that will change the meaning of the concept of justification, and in Protestantism, justification is the heart of the gospel itself. What’s interesting is that they tend to ignore how this idea of works of the Law was received among early Christians. In other words, they don’t want to rely in the tradition or in extra-biblical second temple documents that can give clues to what the term means. So, I see that this is a big dilemma since they are excluding a very important portion of the data here. Fortunately, the New Perspective on Paul is closing that gap, with the unintended consequence that its soteriology is closer to Roman Catholicism than to classic protestantism. That’s why I think that sola scriptura is a recipe for failure.
@@GospelSimplicity hi Austin, I am a Catholic that loves your channel. Could you do a program on Justification? There is a lot of work that Alister McGrath has done that is changing the discussion. Or you can have the wonderful scholar Matthew Thomas that wrote the book "Paul works of the Law in the perspective of second century reception". NT Wright calls the book "theologically explosive". Thanks again. Is always a joy to watch your interviews.
I absolutely loved it. He’s so articulate and so kind as well. I need to have him back to chase some of the rabbit trails available, especially the idea of unitive Protestantism
@@GospelSimplicity "Unitive Protestantism" likely comes from the same spirit as modern ecumenism...which is wholly opposed to traditional Christianity.
As a former Protestant, I understand Sola Scriptura and I understand the position the reformers were in and why they developed it as a doctrine. The main problem is it ultimately makes every reader the arbiter of what is true doctrine. As powerful and important as the Scriptures are, they are not always explicit in their meaning and they don't directly answer every possible question of the faith. This is why well-educated, faithful and sincere Protestants from different backgrounds can disagree on basic questions like when is the appropriate time to baptize a person. In these cases you can't appeal to Scripture as the ultimate authority to prove that somebody is wrong, because they can make just as convincing an argument from Scripture as you can. This has further effects downstream, leading to the many schisms and literally thousands of denominations. The ultimate irony is that Protestants actually follow their own traditions, a thing they claim to be against. Their traditions consist of a line of theologians who interpreted the Scriptures in a particular way down through the centuries, and came to believe that certain practices and beliefs were correct. There is more than one line of tradition, and the different traditions can be seen in the divisions between denominations. All of them believe that they are adhering to Sola Scriptura and that they have come to the correct understanding, which demonstrates the flaw in the concept of Sola Scriptura. The reality is that the set of doctrines developed by the reformers, and passed down through the centuries through their churches and theologians, is in practice no different than the traditions of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. That is, Protestants have different beliefs than those churches, and believe the origin of those beliefs is different, but can't prove them beyond all question using the Scriptures, and are actually passing down the lived experience of their churches - which is exactly what the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions are.
Protestants of course have a tradition. Protestants view scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith not the only rule. This means tradition can inform us on difficult passages but all tradition must not contradict scripture. This is why the Marian dogmas have no place in Protestant theology because they all developed and grew through tradition. I am part of a community of believers and come under the authority of a Pastor/Bishop and Elders like the early Church. I am also a part of many Evangelical communities who are all part of the historical church going back to the Apostles. Catholics are not alone who claim apostolic succession as the Orthodox can to yet don't agree with the Marian dogmas. Differences are part of church history but we all go back to Christ and his apostles and the scriptures they gave us. Protestants see tradition/church history as important but because tradition is not infallible mistakes are made which is why Protestants get back to scripture alone which is infallible In so doing correct false traditions like the Marian dogmas, indulgences, the office of a Pope to name a few.
Different denominations doesn't show a flaw in Sola Scripura that would be like saying bad Popes show the flaw in the infallibility of the Pope. Just as the office is separate according to Catholics so Sola Scripture is separate from individual interpretations. It is the interpretations that differ not the principle of Sola Scriptura.
@@jotink1 The extreme number of denominations demonstrates that either the meaning of scripture is not self evident, or that honest inquiry is not self correcting, or possibly both. Those are two key claims of Sola Scriptura. It is absolutely correct to make the scriptures a pillar of the faith and a check against incorrect beliefs. My experience of Protestantism was that they were treated as an instruction manual that anyone could interpret correctly. We can see that attitude throughout history as denominations have split off over differing interpretations. The reality is that not everyone can be correct, because the disagreements are not trivial. That means you need something in addition to the scriptures to guide the church. For that I believe you need tradition, which includes the early church fathers, some of whom were disciples of the Apostles.
@@robertashley2714 The meaning of Scripture is self evident is regarding salvation only. That is by grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone. Scripture isn't the only means as you say and we have tradition like the church fathers and I agree with you. Sola Scripture I will repeat like a broken record states thst Scripture is the only (infallible) rule of faith. The amount of denominations has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Look at Catholic and Orthodox they can't both be right yet both look to the same tradition of the church fathers. Both have tradition yet they can't both be right so which tradition is right? Protestants rely on many things outside of scripture like science which is why I am not a flat earther for example. Tradition informs Protestants of difficult passages this is what theologians are doing all the time. Wayne Grudem in his systematic theology first edition said monogenes, should be translated as unique son regarding Jesus. In his second edition he says it should be only begotten son. This is what the church fathers taught and the creeds so Protestants do use tradition and scholarship both past and present not scripture alone. All protestant denominations can be grouped into historical families. Their are only a small group of these famines. What you see mostly is independent church but theologically will fall into one of those historical families. Many denominations doesn't mean many theologies. All are Christian who are trinitarian and accept salvation by grace through faith in Jesus. The differences are not a salvation issue just as Catholic and Orthodox who accept Christ's sacrifice with Protestants are part of Christ's body the church.
This was a great interview. As a Catholic, I enjoyed it thoroughly and a lot of what he said made a lot of sense and I found myself nodding with his beliefs because I think we're on the same wavelength as well it's just a matter of different wording, or a different angle. I think my favorite analogy that he provided was how he equated tradition to the moon and how the moon only reflects light but doesn't actually create light but the sun, being the scriptures itself, is what creates the light. As Catholics, we have the exact same analogy when it comes to Mary. When we are accused of worshiping Mary we say the same thing that we don't worship Mary, but she is like the moon. She is the light in the darkness but the true light comes from the sun, which is Jesus. So she is a reflection and guides us back to the greater lightbringer. I thought that was pretty interesting. 😁
So ridiculous. Paul spent every day of 18 months teaching the Thessalonians and then wrote them two tiny letters. Under that analogy the Thessalonians should just sweep those 18 months of straight teaching under the rug and hold onto the two tiny pieces of paper. Oh wait, didn't Paul literally told them to hold onto their traditions whether written or verbal..?
It is written 1st century..hold onto the traditions you were given (past tense). So whatever Paul was appealing to hold onto written or verbal it was already given 1st century...so it's a misuse of that Passage for Roman Catholics to use it anachronistically to insert later traditions i.e Marian Dogmas etc (later non apostolic developments) to apply to Pauls first century Scripture.
@@xpictos777 show where Paul believed and passed on traditions such as Marian dogmas that are later developments. It's clear he had nothing of the sort in mind.
As a relatively recent convert, I appreciate your engagement across differences in understanding what it means to be Christian. This helps me become a better reader of scripture and (hopefully) more faithful in my love for God and my neighbor. Humility about my own interpretation as well as assuming best intent on the part of other interpretations are evident in your discussions. Challenging viewpoints from a variety of perspectives is very helpful. Thank you!
The Orthodox christians believe that Scripture carries the seal of infallibility and is divinely inspired. However we do not believe that it has divine power on its own. That actually reminds me of the pagan belief on runes. That reading or writing a certain language empowers someone in a magical way.
I agree that scripture has the seal of infallibility and is divinely inspired but with that in mind where is the claim it carries no divine power from. As God is the author of scripture then it carries authority. Authority is a form of power.
@@Nino-hy1vk God is scriptures mouthpiece and God the Holy Spirit who authored the scriptures is still speaking today. He speaks as we read scripture and he speaks through Pastors and Elders given to the church to instruct and correct. The authority of scripture governs those who read it and those who teach it in exactly the same way, all come under its authority and are accountable to it and each other.
When I realized I bring my own prejudices to bear on the Bible and on my view of its meanings that forced me ask, "So how can I know what's right?" Because if I simply end up stopping my search and believing something because I'm comfortable with that belief, or because I agree with people that say that, or with what I think sounds most logical then I have become my own Pope. I have become the final authority and so therefore I have put myself above the Scriptures. Then I started wondering, "If the Bible is so clear to understand why are there 33,000 denominations; ALL of them claiming to be based on the Bible "alone?" (Sola Scriptura) I don't blame the Reformers. The Roman Church needed reform! But at the moment they started writing the Eastern Church Patriarchs for validation, and they weren't validated, they should have listened to correction and come back to that original Faith delivered once for all to the Saints. "By cutting the cords of Holy Tradition, and placing in its stead the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Protestants ensured theological divisiveness and fracture between themselves and their descendants and have only multiplied divisions, theories, and interpretations ad infinitum, with no end in view to this day. We may judge a tree by its fruit. The sola scriptura tree has borne the fruit of division and every conceivable heresy." (Father Josiah Trenham, "Rock and Sand" p. 275)
For someone (myself) looking to argue against sola scriptura, it is very helpful when you create videos like these so that I can try to interact with some of the best articulators of the doctrine. Thank you Austin for all of your content creation! God Bless.
Vanhoozer was my last lifeline before becoming Catholic. I just couldn't grab onto his theories concerning authority. I started to wonder at what point it was just sophistry, the Catholic position made much more sense of the Canon, authority and the history of the Church.
Thank you Austin & Dr. Vanhozer for thoughtfully trying to address this very needful conversation. I have come from a Far Eastern background - Budhist , Taoist & Confusionist background. As a young man, I converted to a Protestant "Born Again" faith & went on to Bible College to study Missiology. Although I have many fond affections towards my fellow professed Catholic & Protestant believers ( many of whom are very pious in their own right). There seems that perhaps one among issues I have is that with both approaches lack true reverent awe/ worship of the Blessed Living God. Please forgive me, but it seems that most of the discussion really didn't answer much. Lord knows the Eastern Orthodox have issues of their own that needs addressing. However, within the basic rubrics of the Church's Sacraments & Liturgy/Worship of God there is a sure foundation to wholeness & salvation. It seems to me that the focus needs to be in our union & proper worship to God which is first & foremost a mystery, grace filled & relational ( God is Love) this implies a revelatory relationship to His creation. "Blessed are the pure in heart... Blessed are you when you hunger & thirst. It seems that most of what the Protestant Reformers sought to rightly address became more of the same. We all have some practice/tradition the question is does our tradition have legitimacy. The Church invitation isn't necessarily come & accept certain dogmas ( as important as that is) but rather come live the life of Faith. May God grant us all His mercy, illumination & grace to glorify Him & be fully healed.
I would really like to see more from the protestant side. I feel like this channel, for being hosted by a protestant, skews quite heavily towards Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Being Southern Baptist myself, I'd some of the people from the youtube channel Southern Seminary, would be great. Or someone like John MacArthur I find may also be great choices at explaining and defending Sola Scriptura.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon those that believe but are outside of the church and deny or denigrate the eucharist. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on those who are a part of church and partake in the eucharist. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on those who are ill, who are persecuted, those who are starving and especially for all children suffering through such things. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, wretched man that I am, have mercy on me, a sinner.
Thank you for having this discussion! I’m a lifelong Protestant who has encountered the Eastern Orthodox Church and have felt drawn to it. The “Sola Scriptura” difference was the most difficult hurdle to get over. While I do remain convinced that the Orthodox Church is the true preservation of the faith, I was happy to watch this discussion to hear out an articulate argument in defense of sola scriptura from your channel. I so appreciate all the civil discussion you do here! Stay humble, Austin!
@@kaitieholley116 yes, this is an amazing time to be approaching Orthodoxy. Try to go to as many services as you can. Definitely the forgiveness vespers this Sunday and try to get to at least a day or 2 of the Cannon of St Andrew of Crete next week....and you have to...have to....go to at least one Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. If you are on Instagram you should message me sometime @becomingorthodox
@Kaitie Holley I was hoping you might be so kind to share why you are convinced that the Orthodox Church is the true preservation of the faith. Or perhaps could provide me with some good places to start reading on that. Thank you!
I know I'm late on this, but one observation I've made is that one of the problems when Protestants/evangelicals say they are united on "first order doctrines" is the issue of baptismal regeneration. I've very commonly seen Protestants in the Baptist and Reformed traditions criticize those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation as "adding to the finish work of Christ" or promoting a "Jesus plus" doctrine. Usually they make that critique in the context of criticizing Catholic (and sometimes Orthodox) teaching but that dart hits confessional Lutherans and some Anglicans. Obviously the charge that baptismal regeneration adds to or diminishes Christ's work is a very serious charge and a first order doctrine. That's not to say every Baptist or Reformed holds this view but from what I've seen it's not uncommon.
I suppose it’s only fair to have this discussion considering all the Roman Catholic and Orthodox investigation that has been done on this channel. Frankly however, I cannot imagine that anything new will be added to this debate. This is well worn ground. Many of us who were Protestants wanted Sola Scriptura to be true and were devastated when we realized we could no long defend it. I hope people will listen to this podcast and then put this uniquely Protestant doctrine to the test. This should be good.
@@Justas399 Not really. Low church Protestants have many competing ideas of Holy Scripture that pop up since they have no real framework of interpretation, just their selves and perhaps their denomination's forefathers might've borrowed some partial teachings of Scripture from the Church Fathers that correspond to their new doctrines. Historically the doctrine of Sola Scriptura had some framework but low church Protestants (beginning with the Anabaptists) eschew any framework and create their own traditions of interpretation then complain about Non-Protestants' (Orthodox, Roman Catholic) so-called "traditions of men" when that's what their interpretation really is.
@@Justas399 Infant baptism says otherwise. There is nothing in Scripture mandating it, and so the exegetical death-spiral ensues and any appeals to "how the Church understood" baptism early on can be easily dismissed. I know this game inside and out. Sola Scriptura can't be "easily" defended. At best it's an extra-biblical principle to supposedly safe-guard the priority, sufficiency, and infallibility of the inspired text -- but nobody seems to get around to asking which hermeneutic takes precedent, and who sets the rules for exegesis to stay within the boundaries of the intent of Scripture. It's a shell game, smoke and mirrors. It doesn't give what you claim it does.
In the first century the source of truth was Tradition passed on by the Apostles, both written and oral, as interpreted and applied by the teaching authority of the Church. What needs to be proved is that there was anywhere in the New Testament where Christ or the Apostles said that would change.
Who determine what books belong and declared inspired in the bible. If one believes the Bible shouldn't it be moot to believe on the Church that put the Bible together?
@@alhilford2345 the Canon of Scripture was established over hundreds of years by Ecumenical councils and synods of the Orthodox Catholic Church, whom Rome used to be a part of and participated in those councils. But every single one of them was convened by the roman emperor.
Great discussion with Dr. Vanhoozer! He has a very generous spirit with regard to how he views Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters. I wish more Protestants understood and agreed with him! Unfortunately, those that disagree with him most vehemently are within Evangelicalism. Thank you for having him as a guest on your show!
While you say that Protestants agree on the "main things", who determines what is a "main thing" and what is a "secondary"? When two Protestants teach diametrically opposite things, you can't appeal to the Bible to resolve it. In fact, Jesus told us to "take it to the Church". He didn't say "take it to the Scriptures."
Yeah. One of the major issues with Protestantism is that they have no way to determine what is doctrine and what is mere theological opinion. For that they would need a magisterium.
@@markrome9702 I appreciate the response! Okay so, the context isn’t about matters of interpretation and understanding the scripture, no? It’s addressing a brother sinning against another.
The discussion point I keep encountering again and again is you just need the right "version" of Sola Scriptura... Who is the arbiter of which version we ought to use? And how much tradition do we mix in with the practices we derive from Scripture alone? Is it okay if we don't use tradition? What's the point of tradition if it's being added TO Scripture? A lot of questions that need to be arbitrated by ordinary men that we put our trust in "getting it right."
57:13 there was already Church before the Old Testament was ever written. Abraham was the first Priest and Patriarch. For most of History, the word of God was oral. Then Moses came, and the Jews recognized both the first writings and Oral Tradition, with priests and judges. Then, as the Old Testament was being written, there was a Church with authority. Jesus, who recognized both the Oral Law and the Written, came and established his New Church, with new Patriarchs and Priests, but with genuine authority, an authority that did not go away, but as always, this New Church presided the New Writings. IT IS always the Church, then the Writings as Testaments of the Church. But the Church, the community, is the first breath of the word of God. Writing can disappear, the bibles can be burned, but the Church cannot collapse. After all, it is because of the Church that the Writings survived, not because of the community's nature, but because the community is holy and gracious, and the Holy Spirit protects it to pass down the Tradition, either orally or written,
I agree with most of that but the oral tradition of the OT, that Jews claimed was infallible, was not actually. Jesus called them out because their oral tradition contained errors that contradicted what God had told them.
@@taylorbarrett384 the only argument I made was that there has always been a church. Edit: I actually wasn't making any argument, other than agreeing with the op on the fact that there has always been a church.
In actuality who gets to define sola scriptura? there are at least 12 different schools on this. This was a solid presentation and the most acceptable of building a bridge to apostolic churches however many in the evangelical world would reject his interpretation of this doctrine making it a frustrating dialogue for we will be back were we started at from the Christians who don’t agree with him.
Who had the authority to leave out Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea and Paul's several letters to the Philippians? Ot the letters of Matthias and Gamaliel and Barnabas? Who has the final authority to interpret "My Flesh is True food and Blood True drink ", ( John6:53-55), and "This is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26).
Where did Jesus give the Roman church the authority alone to interpret Scripture? Where has Rome officially and infallibly interpreted the Scriptures? Where is that work to be found?
@@Justas399 Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was even written and that later determined which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Do any of the other apostles acknowledge that Christ built His church on Peter? Does Peter make this claim for Himself and if so, where? Also, even if this were true, how do you get to the bishops of Rome since no one in the NT ever makes this connection?
@@Justas399 Yes, all the Apostles knew that Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, ( John 1:42, Matthew 16:16-19, John 21:17, Matthew 10:1,2). The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. The same Church authority that existed way before the new testament was even written and that later determined the canon! The office of sole key holder is one of succession, as Peter alone received the keys of the Kingdom from Jesus Christ! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@Justas399 In the commission on the authority of the Church, in Mat 18:18: Jesus said: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" Pay attention to the word "Whatever"
We all come with our own bias, but the Dr. said 3 things that just aren't true. 1. The councils created doctrine later, i.e. trinity. The church only made declarations at councils when it was forced to do so, by heretics. Councils only codified what Church always believed. 2. Irenaeus determined Gnosticism was heretical, not independently, but by seeking consensus of other churches founded by apostles. 3. As I presume he knows, the Old Testament is all about Christ and wasn't canonized as we know it, until the Church did it after Christ. In the end, as he said, I don't see Orthodox as only Christians. We're all in the same team.
51:30ish - he lost me when he talked about doctrines developing only when they need to be. He then likened the doctrine of the Trinity taking 300 years to develop to Sola Scriptura. He said Sola Scriptura was was shrouded in the midst and only needed to be defined at the reformation. This is confusing on so many levels, especially since the Trinity was defined by ecumenical councils whereas Sola Scriptura was not. And in fact it is opposite in many ways since Sola Scriptura is a principle which cannot help but lead to division.
Not to mention we see the word Trinity was already used by Church Fathers in greek within 100 years of the Apostles. Tertullian brought it into the Latin in the late 2nd century and is the root for the word we know and love.
Hey guys, there's a lot of hate against Sola Scriptura going on here. If you have insensitive comments, it would be nice if you keep it to yourself. Austin is an amazing Christian for having catholics, orthodox, lutherans, and anglicans over to his channel. Not sure why he's getting so much hate for having a protestant over. please be more gracious.
@Bishoy Youhanna. I read through the entire comments section. I am not aware if anyone making disparaging remarks against Austin or Dr Kevin Vanhoozer. Sola Scriptura is an idea. Not a person. There is nothing wrong in pointing out the fallacies of an idea. There is no personal attack on the person who holds the idea.
Yes sure but being a fake pious hippy is basically lying and being a demonic tool for Satan. It's an open forum and you're just gonna have to live with that. It's the internet and for you to try and police it is a huge waste of time. Letting you know for further reference
@@jeremiahong248 I agree, I don't see any hate for anyone, just denials that Sola Scriptura is legit. To OP: Opinions on others' faith traditions' doctrines are not opinions on those that hold to them.
The solas have different meanings in each protestant fragmentation. ps if you dont have a TOTAL canon then how can you have sola scriptura?? So this video will be HIS definition of "Sola Scriptura" but it will not be the definition across the board AT ALL
@@chriscorkern8487 No Taylor Marshall's interpretation is his own. Tim Gordon his once close pal after studying V2 and the associated documents concluded that there is nothing heretical about the council or the documents. Please refer to Matt Fradd's channel Pints with Aquinas for the interview with Tim. The other channel Reason and Theology has a good analysis of V2 and Lumen Gentium too.
@@chriscorkern8487 There will always be disagreements of interpretations in all Christian denominations and churches, including Catholicism. However this is not a good argument for Sola Scriptura because the amount of disagreement between Catholics is not close to the sheer division of Protestants. Tradition is the reason that churches who don't accept Sola Scriptura are much less divided than Protestants. Sola Scriptura allows you to start your own church tomorrow, which is absolutely impossible in traditional churches like the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.
@@taylorbarrett384 But even if there is a discussion concrete and serious enough - not dealing with radical extremists, albeit popular on the Internet, that usually are contaminated with the politicization of the faith - on HOW to interpret the very documents from Councils, actually the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the place to settle the correct interpretation of the counciliar pastoral documents, canons, dogmas and proclamations. And I would say it is the ONLY place indeed capable of it, actually (though I am not going too deep in here, because I don’t want the most anti-Catholic Eastern Orthodox rabidly come after me). Do you think the Council of Nicea was as clear as sunshine and not confusing? The Arians only grew in importance after it, even acquiring political power within the Empire. In fact Arians only got to even more complex argumentations over the Nicene texts precisely. To that history could “add” Macedonianism, a heresy that defended the Holy Spirit was a creature from God and not a person of the Most Holy Trinity, like Arianism did about the Son. And it was kind of settled almost 60 years after Nicea in Constantinople (381 AD) - just talking about the Trinity. So we are not secured from “insecurity”. This kind of ecclesiological naivety is not part of the Catholic _ethos_ but it is for sure part of the caricature of Catholicism made by Protestants, at least most of the time. Even the best among them seem to take this insanely “easy path”, but obvious unfit for discussing the matter. To be very sincere, the Holy Church was born in crisis, my friend, and there she will be. Jesus’ promise is to protect His Church against doctrinal error: clarity is always fundamental, but almost never it is immediate. Obstinacy and insistence on being far from Truth, in the other hand, those are just human facts in postlapsarian world. God bless!
There are 4 different Baptist churches within 2 miles of my home. They all teach different things about salvation, faith, and the Christian Life. The fact that they have some teachings in common doesn't change the fact that they are fundamentally divided on some very important things. This can be extended into every aspect of protestantism. To imply that protestants aren't really divided, is a blatant denial of the reality we live in. Our divisions are divided.
@@joshuamiller9853 Ok. Can you give me a specific example? Do these churches teach there are different ways to be saved? Do they say that faith in Christ is not necessary for salvation?
@@Justas399 There are plenty of videos, books, sermon notes, and doctoral dissertations (made by individuals far more qualified than myself). On the implications the aforementioned teachings have on their adherents view salvation, and and even the nature of God. I'm not going to attempt to lay them all out here. I you don't know, look it up. If you do know, but consider it unimportant then I seriously doubt the comment section under a youtube video is going to change your mind. We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive. -C.S. Lewis
@@joshuamiller9853 You made the claim these churches teach different views of salvation and faith and its looks like you really don't know what you are talking about.
I am Orthodox but I found this a really good talk and got a very clear understanding from a very insightful theologian. Thank you for the talk and for our host and interviewer Austin . FYI I came across your channel via Father Seraphim of the Monastery of All Celtic Saints .
Sola Scriptura is comically NOWHERE to be found in the Bible. Since it is extra-Biblical concept, it can be only one thing - men invented tradition. Ouch.!
@Jordan Campo The truth may be painful, but is also liberating. Sooner one realizes the fallacy of the 16th century man invented tradition, sooner one may repent and return to the original Christianity preserved in Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Church gave us the Bible, not the other way around. Without resorting to scriptural verses “volleyball”, I tend to look at the Early Church Fathers and take a consensus of their opinions on major matters, they never embraced, the Bible alone. It was an invention of Martin Luther because of his disagreements with the Hierarchy.
@@Justas399 The OT didn't have a Canon during Jesus or the Apostles' time. Different Jewish sects were using different versions of the OT, some longer some shorter. The CC decided and finalised the OT Canon in around AD 400. This is why we say the CC gives us the Bible.
@@Justas399 the saducees only used the pentateuch and didn't believe in the resurrection. The pharasees had a different canon. And others a different one. The canon of scripture is tradition, scripture is part of the Churches Apostolic Tradition. Church history and history in general always wins. Christianity is not an intellectual pursuit it is a living Church that is the Body of Christ and Guided by the Holy Spirit in all Truth just as the scripture says (;
Protestants don't have scripture alone we have a wealth of tradition and theological history from the church fathers and the great theolgions of the past. We see scripture as the only infallible rule of faith. Scripture is the only God breathed truth we have so everything else comes under it in authority.
So, here's my thing as a Catholic. Dr. Vanhooser presumably believes that the canon is closed and that the Son is homoousious with the Father. He makes statements saying as much. Now, he also says "it took 300 something years before the Son was definitively understood to be homoousious" and "theology is the crystallization of what scripture says" (those are rough quotes but hopefully accurately represents his position. If he is committed to those doctrines as unchangeable, then he implicitly believes that it is "the Church" (however one defines the Church) that definitively settled those theological debates. And if the Church can definitively settle theological debates, whether by council and/or pope as Catholics believe, or by a gradual distillation as Protestants believe, it seems that both groups hold to ecclesial authority which seems to contradict sola scriptura. Thoughts on that line of argumentation?
I think he would say you can hold to church authority without saying it's an authority above Scripture or on par with Scripture. The argument of sola Scriptura doesn't prevent proximate authorities, at least as stated by Dr. Vanhoozer
@@GospelSimplicity yeah, it really depends on how one defines sola scriptura. If it's defined as the doctrine which holds up scripture as the *highest* authority, there may be some room in there for the Catholic understanding. But if it's the doctrine that holds that scripture is the *only* infallible rule of faith, then it seems that one cannot at the same time believe that the Church can definitively settle on theological matters, because that would make the Church infallible. (I'm operating on the assumption that if the Church can *definitively* interpret scripture/settle on theological matters, that that's tantamount to the Church being infallible.) Furthermore, if it's the Church that slowly distilled scripture (something I actually believe as a Catholic in addition to it being defined by the Magisterium [see Universal and Ordinary Magisterium]) then I wonder if there isn't some agreement between Catholics and Protestants on the idea that just because a group or body has the authority to definitively settle on theological matters/the interpretation of scripture, that doesn't necessarily make said authority *higher* than scripture. These are some ideas I'd really love to see discussed more!
I have a question? Whenever I read Church Fathers they all quote scripture and are students of the Bible. Right? They never start their writings by saying I write the revelation of Jesus Christ, as if they were inspired writings. Example: Paul writes in Romans 2:16 God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according TO MY GOSPEL. We all know the story of Paul being blinded by Jesus for three days and Jesus spoke to Paul and instructed him what to say and he wrote the gospels to the Gentiles. My point is which Church Father ever had that revelation, that we can say” this is doctrine,”for they all had their opinions and were in disagreements with each other. Besides the Bible say we are supposed to study the scriptures for ourselves 2TIMOTHY 2:15.
Exactly only the scriptures are inspired and God breathed. This is why scripture is the sole arbiter of truth. We have tradition to inform us but scripture is the foundation which the church fathers recognised.
You know I think the way we're going about defining earthly authority when we start talking about Sola Scriptura and tradition is backwards because in both cases the arguments become about defending out own authority rather than acknowledging God's. Realistically, both the Bible and traditions are secondary to his will and we need to be humbling ourselves and seeking his will. That should mean that while we value both and that neither should ever really have any more primacy than the other since God has the ultimate authority. Frankly I think any person really trying to follow Jesus understands that this is a relationship and anything we come up with is subject our human limits that need constant input from God. I think if we approached this discussion from that angle you start to notice other things like that you need some sort of interpretation to know what scripture is really saying and Jesus is the way not the Bible itself (heck, it'd be terrible to loose the Bible but I believe even if that theoretical situation were to happen we'd be fine because we have God). Those things seem obvious but I think if we are all being honest with ourselves we forget them when this discussion ends up happening and instead it becomes more a defense of our own earthly way of saying who has authority and that can be done well when we remember the humility bit of all that but without it just leads to everyone being defensive.
The one issue that I have, here, is that, as much as he may contend that Protestants believe and should believe that the Bible should be intimately connected to the church, but from day 2, that just dissolved and is now a small minority opinion among Protestants. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans/Episcopalians, and a few others. They are about the only ones who have really stuck to that 😔 And even they can't agree on some crucial issues (like the Eucharist)
Sola Verbum Dei is a better principle because as the Apostles stated we have God given traditions and culture with the Bible being a part of that and at the forefront but there are other things in addition through tradition. ➕
The question that should have been asked was: did Jesus want His Church to look like present day protestantism? If so why did he wait over 1500yrs to reveal it? Were there no true Church for 1500yrs? Where was SS taught in Church history the same way protestants teach it today?
I think the challenge here is that while yes, there is certainly a more nuanced view of Sola Scriptura that respects other sources, the fathers etc., my own experience as a former Protestant/Evangelical and my ongoing observations of most Protestants I engage with, would suggest this is a minority view. It might not be hyperbole to say an exceedingly small minority view. Most hold the idea of 'solo scriptura' in practice.
From my own experience, as a former heathen catechized in the Orthodox church, is that protestants treat the Bible in the same manner that Muslims treat the Qu'ran, or as their own personal grimoire. I know many who, when making a decision, just open the bible to a random page and read the text and then decide what to do based on that, instead of leaning on God through prayer. It reminded me of all the times we used to use Tarot cards before I eventually became a Christian. Some of the greatest people in my life are protestant, and they live exemplary lives of piety that are true inspirations to me, BUT.... Of all the denominations I've encountered and interacted with, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants, it was always the protestants that made me see the body of Christianity as a prideful, hypocritical mess. It was my interactions with Catholic and Orthodox Christians that ultimately convinced me to seriously investigate the Faith. I think there is a danger and inclination towards spiritual pride built into the fabric of Protestantism. This doesn't mean every protestant is spiritually prideful, not at all, but the total rejection of earthly authority, and the idea that each person is the center of his own spiritual authority can make us very vulnerable to prelest and deception...
Experience is subjective. All protestants accept authority, both civil magistrates and Church leadership. Your views represents a polemical caricature of protestantism that is not rooted in actual protestant teaching.
Probably for similar reasons that political purposes don’t come up when I speak to Catholic guests about the papacy: they don’t see them as the primary factor
I disagree. The Sola-Solo distinction is pointless since tradition, no matter how ubiquitous and approved, may in principle be overturned the moment you *think* Scripture says otherwise. That's still solo. You might tip your hat to Tradition, or give it a wink and a nod, but it doesn't actually lock you into anything on the principle of Sola Scriptura. Good test case: Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This was enshrined in the 5th Ecumenical Council and believed long before that. You couldn't even hope to step into a church anywhere East or West, per Pope Siricius' decree in the 4th century, for the next 1000 years if you dared espouse an opposing opinion on the matter. Now a Protestant comes along, shrugs his shoulders, and says "meh". That's the magic of Sola Scriptura. Overthrow whatsoever the individual feels isn't "biblical" regardless of universal attestation.
@@stevenstuart4194 Thanks for your thoughts. Protestants are commonly caricatured as rejecting all tradition and just reading their Bible. I found his breakdown helpful. Personally, I grew up reading Church History and Church Fathers my entire life and have always found tradition helpful. I suppose I would agree with you - to an extent. We (Protestants) respect tradition as a useful tool *until* it disagrees with Scripture. We do not view tradition as Holy Spirit-inspired, while we do see Scripture as the inspired Word of God, thus it is the supreme authority. That is why I found the "sola not solo" breakdown helpful. I think it's also important to note that most early Christians did not have access to read Scripture (either for lack of access or illiteracy) and so the only option was to take the Pope's word for it. I would give push back on the term "universal attestation". Nothing but respect for you though! God bless.
@@meganbloedel would you say the perpetual virginity of Mary is in disagreement with scripture? It never says she had more children, or entered into relations with Joseph, yet most protestants reject it.
Sorry to keep adding comments, but doctrines like the Trinity, while hinted at in scripture, are not directly stated. Salvation by Grace alone seems to contradict the entire book of James. Without the guidance of Tradition, how can one make sense of these things without falling into error and know they are correct?
I realize that most Protestants will assert the Sola Scriptura vs "Solo Scriptura" distinction as a way of defending the Protestant tradition. However, in actual practice the distinction is truly an example of what is often called a distinction without a difference. If the ultimate sole rule of faith is Scripture Alone, then no Christian can be required to accept as authoritative any view except that which is consistent with his own interpretation of Scripture. This prevents many Christians from growing in Holiness and at times it has lead to situations which put in danger their eternal salvation. For example before his death, R.C. Sproul spoke out against a movement among American Evangelicals who claimed that Scripture taught that living lives free of the sin of fornication was not required of Christians. R.C. Sproul used his own interpretation to argue against that view, but they had their own Chapter and verse in hand to trump his arguments and those of all the FALLIBLE Reformers who came before Sproul. It happens all the time. I met a hospital chaplain who was once a Evangelical Minister who lost his congregation because they didn't want to hear him preach on what he had been taught in seminary to be the proper way to interpret the Infallible Word of God. For as long as Sola Scriptura is accepted, the final authority in practice will be one's own sensibilities & fallible judgement. That is how sinners will often remain slaves to temptation and blind to the healing power of the Gospel. The alternative is to find the Visible Body of Christ which is the Institutional Church and Assembly of Believers Christ founded and gave Authority to Preach to the World, an authority which included the Authority to write the New Testament and Proclaim to the World the Canon of Texts God Inspired to be the Norm of all other Norms (Canon of Both OT & NT). You can try to avoid the logical necessity of this paradigm in order to justify remaining part of the Protestant tradition, but your logic will always fail. Sorry, it's just the truth.
Even scripture says the Church is the pillar of truth, not Scripture (1 Tim 3:15). Even scripture talks about “holding fast to the traditions you were taught by word or epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15) Church holds the scriptures, so She has the right to interpret them by divine inspiration, same as the scriptures were divinely inspired. It’s why apostolic succession/tradition is so important - it’s the lens by which the scriptures are interpreted. Scriptures are impossible to read without interpretation - if there was, there would only be one Protestant denomination instead of thousands. I was Protestant my whole life, the serious examination of church history, especially in the first few centuries, changed that. Am now Orthodox.
Hey @Gospel Simplicity just wanted to thank you for another great video. If I were a fraction as mature in college as you are, I might be making a difference in the world. I am blown away by the great work you do and how you do it. Also, in the video on Baptismal Regeneration with Dr. Cooper- did you cut your hair? Lookin' sharp and keeping it real with the Solae! I've been finding myself moving more toward the Lutheran position. While I have enjoyed my time with the people in the Orthodox Church, I am struggling with things that seem idolatrous to me (invoking saints, view of the Theotokos, etc) so I have been speaking with a wonderful Lutheran Pastor and it is a positive thing. I guess I share because the amount of time spent learning from your videos, I've come to see you as a classmate in life and a friend. So thanks! God bless you and your nearest and dearest!
I have missed your channel for a while because of numerous life events. I saw you’re engaged, congratulations, but you were getting into The Catholic Church a lot... what’s your status there? You’re a good man and God bless you and your fiancé.
A few thoughts. I think that the Catholic position practically/functionally is Sola Ecclesia. To be clear, “practically/functionally” are the key markers in that sentence. When Catholics raise the objection that Protestants are shooting in the dark when they affirm the NT canon, it’s a false complaint. Suppose we found the mythical inspired table of contents, the 28th book of the NT. That wouldn’t be enough for consistent Catholics. They are already operating with the presupposition that no manuscript can be self authenticating. It’s an endless regress. Any thoughts from my Catholic brothers/sisters?
This argument makes me laugh because both parties are doing the same thing the Protestant think that the individual has the final say, the Catholics think the church has. Each group will say that they appeal to the Holy Spirit but in the end in practice it is either the individual's interpretation or the church's interpretation that is followed.
Still working through the latest "Apostolic Rumble" video, but I thought I'd pregame this one: Here's the four hurdles which I think he needs to clear: 1) The origin / self-refutation problem: IF it is true that the Christian faith contains a doctrine which stipulations that all doctrines must be derived from the sacred text, then that doctrine must itself be taught by the sacred text. So where does it do that? 2) The Canon Conundrum: If it is true that the Christian faith has a doctrine of the canon of Scripture, or has an authoritative list of books from which people are not permitted to dissent, then that list must also be spelled out in Scripture. It isn't enough to state, "God makes the books inspired, not the Church". The Church is nonetheless responsible for discerning and promulgating the list as a teaching. 3) The "whose interpretation" problem: If it is true that everything must be checked against Scripture (as is often said), then who is tasked with doing the checking? Credit may be paid to councils and commentaries, but if they are not authoritative as such - in a way which binds believers, then they are merely human suggestions. Thus, even if one wants to honor the witness of Councils in regulating Christian doctrine, for lack of a magisterium, the final interpretive authority will always boil down to each individual, making unity and certainty impossible. 4) The historical problem: If the New Testament documents were not finished being composed until around 70AD, then how would Christians practice Sola Scriptura at the dawn of the Christian age? How would this doctrine be anything other than massive shift away from the founding model? This problem is compounded when one considers that the list of books was still in dispute in the year 325AD. I look forward to seeing this interview, and I'll have my notepad ready!!
@@chriscorkern8487 : I appreciate the suggestion. I went searching for works (of his) which I could read in the meantime. I found this lecture he gave in 2018 at Western theological seminary: www.saintbenedictinstitute.org/blog/2018/2/7/recovering-biblical-christianity-roman-catholic-and-reformed-perspectives His basic proposal went like this: "The Catholic critique of Sola Scriptura is a caricature, and more accurately describes a distortion we call 'solo scriptura' - a version which pays no attention to councils, creeds, and tradition. But that isn't what the original Reformers intended. The true version of Sola Scriptura, or sometimes called Prima Scripture, recognizes the rightful place of tradition as reflections of Scripture. They have their rightful place when they accurately reflect the word of God. And by recovering that original meaning, by committing ourselves to dialogue, and by focusing on the fundamental issues primarily, Sola Scriptura can be a unifying force in the Church, rather than a dividing principle." If that is similar to what he says to Austin, I'd say he clears none of the hurdles. The complaint about Catholics distorting the true "sola scriptura" into "solo scriptura", and that the Reformers never intended Solo Scriptura ... it is not a good argument. I compare it to the British vehicle, the Reliant Robin. It is a 3 wheeled vehicle which famously flips over the moment you take a hard turn in it. Now, suppose someone criticizes the design as obviously and inevitably leading to that result. Then someone replies, "That's not what the designs of the Reliant Robin intended. They envisioned a vehicle which remained upright!" Well, that's all well and good, but is trivial. The reality is the thing flips over, and all the good intentions in the world doesn't change that. When Catholics critique Sola Scriptura, they often point to the inevitable results of the schema. Protestants call it a caricature because the Reformers had a more idealistic intention for it. But as I pointed out with the Robin... those ideal intentions don't have much traction if the result is a system which obviously and inevitably conforms to the Catholic critique.
Good points! I think the Scripture/Tradition waters are quite murky, however. I think a Protestant might reply along the following lines: 1) Sola scriptura proponents might consider this a false dilemma. Certainly Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians would all agree that scripture is infallible -- so then one could argue this turns the authority of scripture into the default assumption and shifts the burden of proof to anyone asserting an extra-scriptural source of authority (e.g. a Magisterium) to prove that said authority exists. If other authorities can be shown to be flawed/contradictory, then it seems sola scriptura is what remains by process of elimination. 2) I don't think any historical Protestant would disagree that the Church is responsible for discerning and promulgating the canon. It's precisely because the Church unanimously considered the homologoumena to have apostolic authorship that Protestants use it to build doctrine. I believe the claim is that we can be absolutely certain of which books *could* be canonical (homologoumena + antilegomena + deuterocanon), but apart from the homologoumena not necessarily sure which of those books *are* canonical. And again, that's why no Protestant doctrine stems from the antilegomena or deuterocanon alone. 3) This is a very good argument, but one also has to use private/individual judgement to interpret Magisterial documents -- so having a Magisterium merely seems to shift ambiguity instead of eliminating it. If one is Catholic, one can ask how many infallible statements exist. If one is Orthodox, one can ask how many councils are infallible (3, 7, or 9?) I'm not convinced you can get away from ambiguity in any tradition. 4) Ties back to #2. The Protestant would just say Scripture is the most accurate record of apostolic teaching. If one considers Tradition to be the original apostolic teaching, then one can almost consider the Protestant viewpoint to be that Scripture and Tradition are equivalent. If St. Paul were currently alive, for example, it would be nice to ask him things. But since he isn't, the Protestant approach is to do the best one can using his writings, and those of the other apostles of which one can be certain of apostolic authorship.
@@cosmicwatermelon7707 : One by one, then: 1) So, the mental image I get with your first point is that we have two boxes. In one box is the Bible, in the other box is Tradition and Magisterium. Everyone agrees the first box is reliable. So if the second box is shown to be unreliable, all we have is the Bible. The issue with this is that it does not capture the interrelatedness of Scripture and tradition. The Bible did not fall from the sky fully assembled. Its history is interwoven with the Christian tradition and magisterium. If one determines that the tradition and magisterium are flawed and untrustworthy, the reliability of the Bible which was formed, discerned, and promulgated by the tradition and magisterium does not remain untouched. 2) Your second point about the Canon Conundrum does not resolve the dilemma, it just chooses one result and makes the case that things can still work. That is to say, it acknowleges that Sola Scriptura severely hampers our ability to know the Canon with certainty, but then says we can still make things work by only forming doctrine based on those books which are held universally to be Apostolic. My reply is twofold: First this is not the way most Protestants interact with the Bible. The distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena is not known by most. The majority would have no problem basing doctrine off 2Peter or Hebrews without a thought to its status. Second, it still doesn't answer the Canon Conundrum issue with Sola Scriptura. Because if all doctrine is supposed to come from Scripture, then where does the Scripture indicate which books are homologoumena, and where does it say we should only base doctrine on those? It doesn't. So this business of saying we only rely on the HL for doctrine is like trying to stop halfway down a slide at a place which is percieved to still function. I'm afraid an adherent to Sola Scriptura must ride this one all the way to the bottom. 3) This is what I call the "turnabout is fair play" argument. If Sola Scriptura inevitably becomes Solo Scriptura ... don't Catholics have to do the same? No so. The important thing a magisterium does is provide feedback. If me and my neighbor come to different conclusions about what a magisterial document means, that isn't the end of the road. We can ask for clarification. It might not happen in this century, but there is still a possibility of the Church getting redress to our query. In Sola Scriptura, God has spoken once, and that's all the clarfication you're getting. This goes to something I call "Exegetical Indeterminacy". That term means the ability of educated, well-intentioned people to come to differing interpretations of a text. The Bible has a lot of it, which is why there are so many divergent Protestant doctrines. This is why all traditions - Catholic or Protestant - inevitably form Catechisms and statements of faith to distill the Bible into something with less indeterminacy. Scholars disagree about what the Bible teaches on Baptism. No one wonders what the Catholics teach on the matter. So a magisterium can do something important: Reduce the uncertainty authoritatively.
Why do the catholics here get so upset when a viewpoint other than their own is shown on this channel. Can you just let Austin create the content he wants? I'm sure this video will be very interesting!
Thanks for this! Sorry if I missed this in one of the 500+ comments: can I have a link to the EO person who wrote about a Sola Scriptura-like idea in Irenaeus? Thanks in advance.
Dr. Vanhoozer is very charitable and gives his perspective in good faith. With that said, it’s important to understand that the Bible is not a rubix cube. Christ did not leave us in the dark. Christ left us His Church.
It's because of Sola Scriptura that we have thousands of denominations. It's because of Sola Scriptura that a church is easily divided. I'm talking about what I've seen in reality. A pastor who does not agree with the church can start his own using the Bible alone and nobody can tell him that he cannot do that. Looking at reality where we deal with ordinary people, I could say that nothing divided Christianity like Sola Scriptura. Christianity is not meant for the highly intellectuals only but for all. Please look at Sola Scriptura from ordinary people's view also.
I think the original commenter is implying that with out Church authority and magisterium, everyone becomes their own pope and interprets the bible as they see fit, which causes denominational splits and erases sacramental theology.
@@Justas399 my intention of the comment was to clarify the original poster's comment, that lack of a unified, central teaching authority on scripture can easily lead to denominational splits. Take for example, Metropolitan Community Church who I actually discovered today because they solicited me via phone. I found that they have a declaration of faith and that it's basically progressive, liberal social justice but also openly state they don't have unified beliefs. It's a denomination because that's how that small group of people interpret scripture and there is no central authority they submit to or are taught by, so they form their own sect. Personal interpretation causes splintering at an institutional level.
@@williamswenson3970 thanks alot. That is exactly what I meant. I don't know why many people who promoted Sola Scriptura keep ignoring this fact. Why don't they want to talk about it? It's amazing.
I'm enjoying this talk, he seems understand the arguments mostly. I do find it concerning how protestants replace Christ with the Bible as the Word of the Lord. Isaiah 55:11 is talking about Christ, and Christ is the Sun that both scripture and tradition reflect, using Dr. Vanhoozer's analogy. The scriptures do not have life unto themselves, which I also hear many protestants saying, saying John 6 is about the red text. The gospel isn't the first 4 books in the New Testament, it is the good news of the work of Christ. The scriptures are an attestation to Christ and His conquering of death
This guy pretty much danced around the question the entire time and took a position that is very ambiguous and undecided. A very “academic” approach that reminds me of Jordan’s Peterson’s no mans land of relativity and ultimately confusion.
I recently have transitioned from a Solo Scriptura to a broader viewpoint. As cosmic watermelon challenged, I won't make blanket statements or call names. I will state what led me to my position, and maybe some people want to enter an epic discussion. First, I want to say that I have high respect for scripture, that it is the word of God, and profitable for whatever it says it is in 1 Ti 3:16 (Teaching, correction, reproof, sound doctrine, training and instruction in righteousness, completion of the man of God.) The environment I was raised in was Solo as opposed to Sola Scriptura. It was defended in this way, "The Bible is the word of God, but the Catholics have nullified it with their traditions and the baptists are stupid because they don't interpret correctly." As a kid that was easy to swallow. I assumed that if everyone thought clearly, they would come to the conclusions we do. Obviously, this is not what the guy in the video holds at all, and this is not the blanket view people have (I hope anyway). Eventually, though I came to the realization that people approach with baggage, and that includes myself, and my group. I came to the realization that I got things wrong when I read the Bible. I am a bible fanatic and have hour-long discussions with our preacher, which we both enjoy. At the same time, I realized that the Bible was powerful, or much better put, that God is powerful. His word creates. So my view of the Bible switched from a rule book/blueprint of how to generate the perfect theologically correct Christian, to God creating me. I still hold this viewpoint. So the issue wasn't the Scriptura it was the Solo. Now on to Sola scriptura. The issue boils down to authority. Not who has authority Christ or the body of Christ? But who has authority Christ and me by myself? or Christ and his body? I would agree that the body of Christ can't (or better put won't) override scripture, but is it possible that if I disagree with the church that the Body is wrong, and I am right? will I become a new body of Christ, and the three people who agree with me almost completely? I have read the bible enough where I get the sense it is pointing to a church. Not an invisible phantom church, or a platonic ideal, but an actual body. Scripture also suggests being part of the body is vital. Because of external circumstances where people would leave the congregation over disagreements I came to a question, "When is it OK to leave the congregation and start a church?" The thing was that when I looked in the scripture, I didn't find that in the new testament. I found churches with Jezabel teaching, churches where sexual immorality was boasted about, churches where Diotrephes ran the church like a herd of cattle. Churches I would have left the moment I walked in the door, and yet nowhere was anyone told to leave, except sometimes to the heretic. So I figured, if my congregation has a disagreement with me, at what point do I leave? I didn't find anything in the book that permitted me to do so. I also studied enough history to know that the only viable candidates are the RCC and the EO and the Oriental Orthodox. I haven't yet made up my mind on which one is the right one, but it seems to me that EO has the strongest case in my studies so far. So how does this go against Sola Scriptura? Only because all those groups do not hold to it. They have immense respect for it, But they don't hold to Sola Scriptura. Does scripture create us? Absolutely. Does scripture alone? Absolutely not. Is scripture the sole *infallible* rule of faith and practice. I do not find that in scripture. As for faith, that is rooted in Christ. As for practice, one of the things I found is that it is far easier to be a hearer than a doer. I see practice occurring in the Church, with the Apostles setting rules, including obedience of the Presbyters. One of the weakest criticisms is that it creates disunity. On the contrary, Sola Scriptura creates tremendous unity between small groups of people. It is nice to be the only ones right, the only enlightened, the ones who see the obvious meaning no one else does. If it is non-denom, it also creates unity by denying that one interpretation is the sole rule. I do think that a member cut off from the body is dead, and here is how my understanding of history went. After a while, either the OO or the RCC/EO schismed at Chalcedon, I haven't figured out which. That means that one of them is in trouble. If the OO is the original, then I need to be part of the OO which does not hold to Sola Scriptura. If the RCC/EO is correct, then you have 1054. If the EO is the body, then I need to be part of that. If the RCC is the body, then you have the issue of the reformation. Luther got excommunicated, as well as the other reformers. That means they were no longer in communion, which means whatever the start is not the body of Christ. That means those who hold to Sola Scriptura are at best a step removed from the body of Christ, at worst, four steps removed. That is kinda where I am at. I hope that isn't too harsh, that is just how I am working through it. This is not to say that Protestants (which I technically am) are evil, they are sincere people many of whom I expect to meet in heaven. There are a lot of people who have come to some correct conclusions by themselves, but there is no one who came to a correct conclusion against the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. When a council affirms an understanding, is that infallible? Sola scriptura says it is important, not infallible, but the original church says if it is a legitimate counsel it is.
The purpose of the doctrine of "sola scriptura" was and has been just to take authority from The Church, this makes it completely unbiblical doctrine according to the bible. 1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." It is pretty obvious why Lutero invented it.
Great interview Austin I really appreciated the Professor’s time and humility. I’m Orthodox so obviously a bunch of objections leaped into my mind. However I was surprised that you didn’t raise the objection that Sola Scriptura isn’t taught in the scriptures themselves. I would liked to have heard his response to that question.
Properly defining "sola Scriptura" is important, but defining the doctrine is one thing; defending it is another. Vanhoozer spends a lot of time defining but not defending. Does the book actually offer a defense of the doctrine? If so, can anyone sum up the main lines of argument in its defense?
His statement about Scripture being the only means which truth was handed down by the Apostles isn't Scruptural. 2 Thess. 2:15 states that it was handed down by oral and written means. Sadly this was the only unscriptural statement that I detected in an otherwise valiant attempt to defend SS. As a Lutheran, I must be prepared to always admit reality and be unafraid of facts as I question what I believe and why. It is my view that this is how we all ought to be, as Dr Vanhoozer said, and done so humbly.
Interesting that the moment he begins talking about unity he sets in differentiating “small” Protestants, “idealistic” Protestants, “paradigmatic” Protestants, and so on. Unity discourse takes a form of identity through differences.
@@Justas399 By definition those people are not Catholic. The fact the they say they are Catholic is like a man saying he's a bus driver when he never learned to drive. It's just a lie.
@@Justas399 the definition of catholic is someone who accepts the teaching authority of the Church, and the Church hasn't changed its position on homosexuality or abortion. We operate different than Protestantism because we have dogmas and doctrines that we are bound to accept. Also, those who don't believe in the real presence cannot really be called catholics since this is a de fide proposition. Of course many of them are badly catechized, like me who left the Church for many years and later came back. So, there is a significant difference, because we are not allowed to split based on different opinions or interpretations of scripture, whereas protestants do.
@@HosannaInExcelsis According to church studies on the sexual orientation of its leaders over 40% are homosexuals. Your pope has never condemned homosexuality. Do you realize that there is no official-infallible interpretations of the Scriptures in your church? This means there are millions of different interpretations of the Scriptures in your church. Each must interpret the Scriptures on their own.
@@Justas399 does he really need to repeat every teaching that is in the Catechism? Your arguments just makes no sense. He has never contradicted any Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality. But he, as a pastor needs to also try to find ways to bring sinners to the Church. Homosexuals too deserve to hear the gospel and be given an opportunity to repent and live a holy life. Do I need an official infallible interpretation of EVERY verse in the bible? why should I? I don't think I need it, and neither does the Church. But when it comes to complex issues like free-will, justification, predestination and grace, I certainly need an infallible teaching authority. Or else the bible becomes impossible to interpret. Let me give you an example: Paul says in Romans 3:10 "“There is no one righteous, not even one". But if that's the case how do you interpret the following verses from the bible? "Noah was a righteous man" Gen 6:9 "Joseph was a righteous man" Mat 1:19 "John was a righteous and holy man" Mar 6:20 "Zacharias and Elizabeth...were both righteous in the SIGHT OF GOD" Luk 1:6 "Simeon was righteous and devout" Luk 2:25 "Joseph from Arimathea was a good and righteous man" Luk 23:50 "Cornelius, a centurion, a rigtheous and God-fearing man" Acts 10:22 That's the reason I need the Church. Because there is an interpretative traditions that dates back to the the time of Christ, and a teaching authority that I believe was given by him to Peter's successors in Mat 16. So, I am glad I have the freedom to hold many theological positions and speculate on theology as long as I don't contradict Church dogmas. As Chesterton used to say: "“Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground,”
I took the host advise and listened to the whole interview. The distinction he made of some groups being biblicists rings true from personal experience. But, generally I winced at his presentation because of his fuzziness and his longing for some kind of unity. I have former Roman Catholic friends who see Protestantism creeping into Catholicism. After 500 years, the only thing he has to cling to is his longings. He appeals to orthodoxy and Orthodoxy yet a book: Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession
No offence, but this guy like all Protestants that talk about Orthodoxy has not taken the time to understand the difference between patristic theology and their own systematic theology.
Taken from Chapter 2 of St. Vincent of Lerins' Commonitorium, written in 434: "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 Novation expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, 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 prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."
Sola Scripturas weakness is that it puts God in a box or in this case God in a book. God transcends our human ideas of who He is and what we think he is based on our interpretation of Scripture. A good lesson to learn from is How pious Jews who knew all about the Tora and studied it day and night still managed to miss God when he was right in front of them. Christian's on all sides make the same mistake today. God wants to be loved with our free will and we Love him by loving the people He create in His image. Especially the forgotten, the poor and the suffering, the homosexual who is hated and disowned, the refugee seeking a home. It is when we begin to see God in everyone, those different then us that we can begin to love him. God is not gonna ask us about our theology He will know if we Loved.
Austin, thanks for a good discussion on Sola Scriptura. The most important principle of interpretation that Martin Luther used was “Scripture interprets Scripture.” The tools for properly interpreting the Bible are contained in the Bible itself. Thus, he delved into the New Testament to see how Jesus and the apostles had interpreted Scripture. There he found a valuable tool. He discovered that many Old Testament people and institutions were to be understood as types or patterns that foreshadowed and proclaimed the Christ, who would surpass them and fulfill them(Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant). Thus, in his Preface to the Psalter, Luther wrote, “The true, the only sense of the Psalms is the Christ-sense.” This has led to the current Protestant principles of interpreting Scripture. 1. No binding authority but the Bible alone. Sola Scriptura. 2. No official binding, interpreter or interpretation-You’re your own Pope. 3. The Bible is precipices, easy to understand. (Not According to 2 Peter3:15-16) 4. As an individual I can and should read the Bible and interpret it myself. These principles have led and continue to lead to nothing but division, now near 30,000 different sects. It shows just how unworkable, Sola Scriptura is and is but an icon for what Martin Luther came to regret at the end of his life:“There are almost as many sects, division and factions and beliefs as there are heads. This one will not admit baptism. This one rejects the Sacrament of the Altar. Some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual however clownish he maybe, does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and who does not put forth his prophecy to his own ravings and dreams.”
Can you give me a couple of examples that shows that division in Protestant churches was due to Sola Scriptura? The problem for the Rc is that when his church does evil and promotes false doctrine he has no way to reform or rebuke the leadership of his church. He has to stay.
@@stagwilliams5419 Eh, usury, the death penalty, and salvation of non-Catholics come to mind. Either the current positions are false, or -- given that revelation is officially closed and the Church is indefectible -- the entire clergy was somehow unable to adequately interpret magisterial teaching for centuries. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@cosmicwatermelon7707 The Red Herring Of Usury First, passages such as Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35-38 command that the poor among the Israelites are to receive interest-free loans, out of compassion and mercy. The second group of texts is illustrated by Deuteronomy 23:19-21: "You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest. You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countryman you shall not charge interest, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess." Here the principle of interest-free loans is extended to embrace all of Israel (and would include those non-Jews who are living under Israel's protection). But notice that the Scripture also says, "You may charge interest to a foreigner," indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful. Finally, the third group of texts (Ezek. 18:13, 17, Jer. 15:10, Prov. 28:8) condemn the greed of the rich, who oppress the poor by, among other things, exacting interest which the unfortunate are unable to pay. The Church’s teaching on usury is scripturally based and due to major societal shifts has developed and evolved within the biblical framework. For a longer and detailed account go to: www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646 Death Penalty Are all the teachings laid out in the catechism infallible? While the catechism contains the infallible doctrines proclaimed by popes and ecumenical councils in church history - called dogmas - it also presents teachings not communicated and defined in those terms. In other words, all dogmas are considered doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. For a pope to speak infallibly, he must speak ex cathedra (Latin meaning “of the chair”). This mean he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. Pope Francis issued a request to revise the catechism’s death penalty teaching. He did not issue an ex cathedra statement that alters church doctrine. Can Non-Catholic be Saved? Q: Okay, so I’m a Catholic but my parents are devout Baptists, and I recently discovered the “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” doctrine. Does this say that they will not be saved since they aren’t Catholics? I’m really worried about them. -B.M. Answered by Fr. Edward McIlmail, LC A: Thanks for your show of love for your parents. “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (Outside the Church there is no salvation) is a commonly misunderstood teaching. It assuredly does not mean that non-Catholics are doomed. What it does do is point to Christ as the one mediator and path of salvation. And since he continues to be present on earth in his body the Church, the Church by its nature is an instrument for salvation. The Catechism in No. 846 recognizes the need for this doctrine to be understood properly: “Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the [Second Vatican] Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” No. 847 adds, “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.” These points could be restated like this: Whether a person realizes or not, his salvation would come through the Church as the body of Christ. This is part of Christ’s plan. Even a non-Christian could be saved, since through no fault of his own he might never have heard of the Gospel or made the connection between the Gospel message and the Church. No. 1257 of the Catechism notes, “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” This doesn’t mean that we Catholics should neglect our duty to spread the truth of the Gospel; it just means that God will never be unfair. This principle applies to non-Catholic Christians as well; many have a deep love for Christ and live exemplary lives yet for various reasons they never entered into full communion with the Church. All this assumes good will on the part of the person, of course. The good news is that there is hope for everyone to obtain salvation. Your own example as a loving son and a fervent Catholic might go a long way to bring your parents closer to the Church. I pray that that happens. God bless.
@@stagwilliams5419 Thanks for the explanations. Now, one can redefine, reinterpret, and develop doctrine all one wants -- but that still doesn't explain how, given the Church's claims of closed revelation and indefectibility, seemingly no clergy were able to get these teachings correct for centuries. I'd also ask which of the original infallibility criteria outlined in Pastor Aeternus was not fulfilled by Francis in changing the catechism. Did he really not teach ex cathedra according to the original promulgation of infallibility, or did he not teach ex cathedra according to additional refinements and language criteria retroactively proposed in the decades after Vatican I? If the latter, then infallibility has become seemingly arbitrary and it's not quite clear what sort of thing is actually divinely inspired. (As an example, think of all the controversy over Ordinatio sacerdotalis. Or why an organization that can make infallible statements is unable to precisely identify all of them.) Personally, I don't tend to think this sort of thing amounts to much more than magisterial goalpost shifting and mental gymnastics. I think there's a point after which you've seen enough of it that you start to wonder whether everything holds together, whether God really operates in this consistently retroactive manner. So, I'd ask you if you find such explanations genuinely convincing. I don't. If you do, though, that's cool with me. We can disagree. :)
Another great discussion, Austin. I would love to see Dr. Vanhoozer have a dialogue with a Catholic theologian on this topic. Here are a few thoughts on what I still found lacking in Dr. Vanhoozer's presentation. (Part 1 of 2) *Few initial points*: - Everyone agrees that scriptures are the word of God. - Everyone agrees that since scriptures are the Word of God they are supremely authoritative. - Saying these things do not get to the heart of the disagreement, nor are they challenges to the Catholic view of scriptures in any way (see Dei Verbum). - I think it would be very helpful for Protestants to acknowledge that Catholics emphatically teach that nothing in Church teaching can contradict scriptures. Of course, many will say that Catholics do hold to teachings that contradict scriptures, but that is going to part of the later stages of the debate. Initially, I believe that if we first have agreement that Catholics do not believe they have the authority to change scriptures or teaching something contrary to scriptures, then we can move past so many misunderstandings and get to the key disagreements. *First problem*: The Bible can't give you the Canon Around 18 minutes "scriptures alone are what the Church has recognized as the Word of God." We already have a strike against sola scriptura in that we have an authority other than the Bible that tells us what is considered part of the Bible. There is already the acknowledgment here that the Church authoritatively declared what books are in the scriptures. This isn't to say the Church created the Bible, God obviously did, but the Church did give us the epistemological knowledge of what is God's Word and what is not. How can anyone think they have any theological certainty on any teaching in the Bible if we can't be sure whether the book they are deriving that teaching from is actually scripture or not? *Second problem*: Inconsistent Historical Method The same standards that you would use to argue for the 27 book New Testament will also get you the magisterium. This is to say that in looking for the historical consensus of the early Church in deciding what books should be in the Bible will also give you consesus on the existence of an ecclesial community established by God to authoritatively interpret scripture and declare dogma and doctrine. To accept one while rejecting the other is simply inconsistent. *Third Problem*: nuda/solo scriptura vs. the sola scriptura distinction is a distinction without a difference Around 19 min: The nuda/solo scriptura vs. the sola scriptura distinction seems like a distinction that is impossible to maintain. I used to think this was true too when I was Lutheran. But then, I listened to how much disagreement there is over moral issues in the Christian world and I saw no one actually lives out this distinction in practice. For just one example, the teleological view of the moral law clearly shows that contraception is intrinsically wrong. Here, we have an example of God's authority outside the Bible (the natural moral law) that is clearly teaching one thing, and yet, I heard again and again in the Lutheran church that since contraception isn't explicitly in the Bible (adiaphora), this is a matter of Christian freedom of conscience. This is just one quick example, but can multiplied almost beyond belief. This seems like another strong piece of evidence for authority the living magisterium of the Catholic Church which can declare doctrine and dogma that isn't explicitly in scripture as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible and has solid reasons backing up the teaching. I would also argue that everything taught by the Catholic Church is implicitly in scripture, but that is a side issue and not necessary for the main problem. *Fourth problem*: The authoritative interpretation problem 23 min: "The Reformers did not advocate just holding themselves up in their closets and reading the Bible without any other guidance, that is solo scriptura and they repudiated it, they read with the Church." Also 29 minutes and the discussion of perspicuity of scriptures The Reformers did indeed selectively quote the Church Fathers to try and make their case stronger. However, they also rejected so many things from the Church Fathers that went against their case. This isn't actually the problem as the Catholic Church does the same thing too! They read the Church Fathers to see what is good and reject the bad. There is an infinite difference, though. The real problem is the denial that the Catholic Church was given the authority by Jesus to do this. They have the authority from God to make dogma and doctrine that is binding for all Christians and in the process are documenting a collection of Christian teaching that are within the bounds of acceptable belief. In the Protestant world, without this binding authority, you can never, and I repeat, never, have any binding or authoritative doctrine in matters of dispute. It always comes down to what an individual believes the Bible says or which Church community's interpretation they decide to align their beliefs with. Note: I am not implying that there are not very clear things in the Bible that all can come to know without the magisterium (e.g. Jesus rose from the dead). However, there are countless core doctrines of the Church that one could never have any theological certainty without an interpretive authority (e.g. Trinity, hypostatic union, baptismal regeneration, etc.). Scriptures do not interpret themselves. *Fifth problem*: material vs. formal sufficiency of scripture problem Around 30 minutes, Dr. Vanhoozer states that he thinks the Bible contains both the ingredients and the recipe, hence saying it is both materially and formally sufficient for all Christians and their salvation. This seems empirically false. This ties in immediately with the canon problem in that you don't know from scriptures what the ingredients are (books of the canon). Also, just as discussed above with the interpretation problem, there are countless divisions in the Protestant world over essential/first order doctrine (e.g. baptismal regeneration, real presence in Eucharist, etc.). If the Bible is formally sufficient for our salvation, how is it that many Protestants hold contradictory views over essential doctrine? Also, there will always be endless division over what even counts as essential doctrine! *Sixth Problem*: Individualism problem Around 37 min, I was very happy to hear Dr. Vanhoozer acknowledge the individualism problem. I still haven't come across a sola scriptura argument that overcomes this problem, though. To simply say that you read the Bible in light of tradition doesn't overcome the problem. Every individual can read more things other than the Bible and apply their own take on it. The same problem exists about interpretive authority, you are just throwing in more resources to interpret. The Catholic Church isn't prone to the same objection because they are making an entirely different ontological claim. They are the living magisterium of God that can settle dispute whenever it arises. If something previously declared becomes disputed again, the Church has the authority to further clarify the matter. The written word of the Bible can never further clarify itself. 45 min: Dr. Vanhoozer said he was sad that the Reformers couldn't work out difference over the Lord's Supper but he is happy that they were still able to still fellowship with one another and share the Lord's Supper. Umm.. I don't know what Dr. Vanhoozer is trying to get at with this one. The disagreement over the Lord's Supper fractured the early Protestant groups that were trying to find their way apart from the Catholic Church. They did not maintain fellowship with one another after this. Conservative Lutherans, to this day, will not let someone who is not a part of their particular brand of Lutheranism to partake in communion (i.e. closed communion). Don't get me wrong, I think excluding those of different beliefs from the Eucharist is the right thing to do (1 Corinthians 11:29). The fact there is not table fellowship among Protestants, is yet another example of the fallout from the hermeneutical chaos that exists apart from the Catholic Church.
(Part 2 of 2) *Seventh problem*: Sola scriptura is a novel idea to Luther Austin asked this question around 53 min. I actually disagree with this too. There were others in the history of the Church that tried to use scripture as the sole principle to teach against the authority of Church. They were consistently called out by the Church as heretics and pointed out what danger exists in removing the authority of the Church. Here is one example from St. Vincent in 434 a.d.: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins) Chapter 2. [4.] I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. [5.] 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, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, 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 prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm Luther even argued the same point in 1516, before the reformation, that without the authority of the Catholic Church it leads to endless division. "If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many Churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills, in order that all may be assembled in one unity, that His Power be exercised by one man to whom also He commits it. He has, however, made this Power so strong that He looses all the powers of Hell (without injury) against it. He says: The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, as though He said: They will fight against it but never overcome it, so that in this way it is made manifest that this power is in reality from God and not from man. Wherefore whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the Power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, for much better is obedience than the victims of fools who know not what evil they do (Eccles. iv. 17)." - Luther, Martin. (Sermo in Vincula S. Petri, hence on August 1. " Werke " Weim. ed., 1 (1883), p. 69). And yet, even as the early Reformation was spinning out of control and Luther saw the maleffects that came from sola scriptura, he blamed it on the Devil and not his removing the authority of the Church. "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit, and he himself a prophet." - Luther, Martin. The Letter of doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp (1525) Glad to see you continue to dig in on these discussions, Austin. Again, I think Dr. Vanhoozer would make for a great discussion guest with a Catholic on this topic. God bless!
Wow, thanks for such a substantive response! It's always a pleasure to read such comments. I think your idea of having him on with a Catholic Theologian could be really interesting
I think interpreting "the word" as "the bible" is wrong. None of the writers of the bible thought they where writing a holy book (with the possible exception of Moses and some others I cannot recall who where explicitly told to write stuff down by God). I think "the word" which does not return void rather is the Logos - Christ. God has spoken the whole world into being, when God speaks things happen. IDK just rambling late on a friday, have fun ya'll.
Actually there are no Sola's per se, none stand alone and if there was one it would be Christ Alone!...but actually he and his work is never alone. Solar Scriptura, not only is unbiblical, but actually dangerous. The fruit of the Protestant Reformation alone makes my point clear, but think of this topic from another perspective...so we have fallible man interpreting an infallible book. This logically is an impossibility and a recipe for disaster! What we do have to guide us comes from the Living Spirit Empowered Church...which is the Magisterium, the Tradition and the Apostolic Epistles & Writings (the New Testament). New Addition: The Church doesn't usurp the Scripture, plus Scripture doesn't strong arm the Church. By Faith we believe in the Inspired New Testament. Though with said how do we know that...it is from The Church who in the 4th Century clarified and codified the New Testament Canon. We must be careful not to create a false antithesis between the NT & the Church. After all the New Testament Scriptures came from the Church, not the Church from the Scriptures. Though please keep in mind Scripture Old and New Covenant guide, edify the Church this is why we must embrace, teach and promote The Whole Council of God as St. Paul proclaimed.
This was an excellent interview and I learned more about what "Sola Scriptura" means - or at least what Dr. Vanhoozer means in its defense. I truly respect his scholarship and thoughtful explanations. As I listened, however, I kept wondering who or what he was referring to when he talked about "the Church". Toward the end, he suggested that he feels part of the Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant Church. On a spiritual level, I do not disagree that all who follow Christ in good faith are "the Church". However, without common and agreed upon leadership, I still sense some "anarchy" in earthly practice - primary issues of dogma are left without authoritative definition.
53:00 Quoting an Orthodox quoting a Church Father to bolster the case for Sola Scriptura - and then having to point out that the quote itself is actually a misquoting of I Tim 3:15... Interesting... My take on Sola Scriptura is that after all the terms are defined and all the qualifications are made, there is very little practical difference between Catholics and Protestants on how scripture functions.
It is a sound argument to say that scripture is the authority, and that God is the author ultimately, speaking through the Spirit. But he would still be wrong to say that sola scriptura could be anything other than scripture alone. You all need to drop the saying itself, or replace it with Scriptura Primus. Even then, you would be wrong, as authority must always take into account the wisdom of the elders in the decisions they must take to fulfill mercy and justice by understanding the spirit of the times (1 Chronicles 12:32), which a handbook can never be of better use than a person who understands the "handbook" of faith and applies the authority of the Church to the prominent issues of our age .
In the Brenton Septuagint its: Brenton(i) 16 They passed by in full number, and not one of them perished: they sought not one another; for the Lord commanded them, and his Spirit gathered them.
There’s a lot I can get behind here, but I’m still left with the question of vagueness: authority rests in God and because scripture is God breathed it is our first authority. Yes, but that still does not resolved the initial problem. How can we all be Biblical and radically different. I’d even say liberal Christians are biblical in that they derive there authority from scripture but of course define that scripture the way they see fit. So how do you define scripture correctly? Can this be done? This is why Holy Tradition is necessary.
This was a really well-articulated and useful discussion. I am catholic and fully - respectfully - disagree. If you love the game, if you really respect the game, then you love the presence of an umpire, or a “living voice” to resolve the disputes. Without that, christianity devolves into constant bickering ( = 30,000 protestant denominations in the world ). Luther had a pious reaction, motivated by good reasons, but unfortunately he went beyond what was righteous when he created a schism. There are and always have been very harsh critics of the Church who still respected the role of the Church and of the papacy (for example, Dante). The concept of a “consensus of the majority” clearly doesn’t work, just look at the wild disparity between all these 30,000 interpretations. No political system has ever worked and provided unity by listening to 30,000 decision-makers.
As someone who was raised protestant, and still technically a protestant, I have to admit Sola Scriptura is a weakly established doctrine. I was utterly on team sola scriptura, because thats what I was raised on, while completely ignoring any other view point. However, when looking into the arguments for and against sola scriptura, the arguments “for” all seem rather feeble. Scripture is still the prime authority, but it just isn’t the sole authority, that is, if we’re trying to be as biblical as possible. Early Church history and the reality of the historic Christian faith is a mountain every reformed Christian must summit; if we don’t really know where we come from, our claim to the hope of faith we have is weakened. Us Protestants believe that we are more like the early church than the “puffed up,” “rich,” and “strange” Catholic church, except, when you read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and the other Early Church Fathers, their theology doesn’t really sound like Protestant theology...rather, it sounds a lot like Catholic and Orthodox theology. How do we reconcile that fact? I don’t think its possible.
It's difficult for low Church Protestants, absolutely. For Anglicans and Lutherans, it's not as difficult. Ultimately, I'm Catholic because (a) I feel, based on my experiences with God, it's where God wants me to be, (b) the arguments from Scripture and history point towards the Papacy having enough truth to make being Catholic the more sensical option than anything else. But I am NOT Catholic because I think other denominations aren't rationally tenable. They are. I just don't think they are "the true Church" in the way the Catholic Church is.
A 2 hour 30min debate on Calvinism between two Bible experts quoting scripture after scripture at each other was the final straw for me. Even if sola scriptura was true (by just looking at history it demonstrably isn’t) still leaves you with the problem of who exactly has the right to interpret it. Protestantism is an empty vessel and I am so glad I left it behind.
@@xpictos777 Well I just watched 2 hours of Catholic theologians arguing over whether lying is always wrong, and both of them were quoting from the Bible and Church teaching, and I wasn't able to tell who was right by the end of it. So
@@taylorbarrett384 I agree with everything you said. I'm wanting to convert to the Catholic church, just looking for the right parish while learning more about the Catholic faith. I've begun to pray the rosary daily, starting a few weeks ago, and surprisingly I think its been tremendously helpful, in helping me resist certain things I've been struggling with for close to 20 years. It's a miraculous difference, which I'm so thankful to Mother Mary for, and so ashamed I ever denied her the love, respect, and veneration she so deserves.
@@xpictos777 the easy way to stay a Protestant is to just close your eyes to the first 1000+ years of Christian history. Maybe its time for the Body of Christ to be reconciled and reunified again. I pray that we will be blessed with that grace
Great interview my only criticism is that we missed out on getting into the nitty gritty of what Scripture says about Sola Scriptura (cue Catholics/Eastern Orthodox swooping in to say that it isn't in Scripture). What I loved was the careful explanation that while there are wings of Protestantism which take Sola Scriptura too far, the historical line has always been that Scripture is the ultimate authority but not the only authority. As Protestants we should be careful to digest this and think it through. Taking Scripture and sitting in our rooms and developing our own theology without reference to anyone else is how sects/cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Wells have come about. Scripture very clearly teaches that churches are to have Elders who are demonstrably wise not just in practical terms but theologically as well. That can only come from interacting with Scripture and others as they interact with Scripture.
No one actually does this though. Scripture is studied in community (eg the emergence of Pietism 17th century and their "conventicles" all the up to now in contemporary evangelical Bible studies). Its mostly people that have authority within the Church structures who start heresies not laypeople that was true in the 4-5 centuries with the Christological heresies all the way to today (eg Children of God cult started by a former minister of the C&MA). Of course there are counterexamples, but private devotional reading doesnt normally lead to the formation of heresy. The formation of heresies has fundamentally to do with pride and the desire to have power and control other. Most individuals have idiosyncratic theological belief, but its harmless becuase they arent trying to usurp authority or start a new sect. (furthermore for it to be a heresy it has to be a false teaching combined with a sectarian motivation).
Maybe it is naive because the Bible pressuposed the Church. Also, as there are different interpretations of the same data (the books of the Bible), without the guidance of the Church who produced it, and was driven by the Holy Spirit, we fall to the illusion of personal interpretations. Since the Bible is not "self-evident", it necessarily pressuposes the Church, that is the Orthodox Church. But I have to admit, I am not well read at all about Protestantism. Feel free to enlgihten me.
Why does the host keep looking down repeatedly around the 12 min. mark? Is he looking at a chat session or notes ? I've noticed this in a number of these dialogues and it's very strange and distracting. Is he looking at notes? What is going on there? And then he comes up and gives a wry smile and a head nod. This pattern repeats. It's weird.
Scripture is a traditioned text. It was sub-created by Orthodox Tradition, synergistic and cooperative with God, guided by The Holy Spirit. It’s also strange to me that a Christian doesn’t can’t understand how 2 things (scripture and tradition) could hold the #1 spot (supreme) given that we are Trinitarian. “I find it kinda funny. I find it kinda sad.”
@@GospelSimplicity I respect your what you’re doing with your channel and commend you for it. Bravo. But, if that’s the case then he chose a poor example to illustrate his point, counting 3,2,1. Precisely because it illustrates that he is using pure reason, which the Trinity eludes, to come to his conclusion. But that was really a secondary point in my comment that I could have left out. The fact remains still that Scripture is a product of Orthodox Tradition.
I always come back to the same point. Sola Scriptura doesn't exist. What actually exists is Sola Hermeneutica. The Constitution is not the final arbiter of the laws of our republic, its the Supreme Court. Similarly, the Bible cannot be the final authority, but the Church. The Bible cannot interpret itself, therefore the Church must interpret it. If not then it boils down to the Hermeneutics of individuals. It doesn't matter whether you call it Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura, its still wrong. The Bible clearly states that: "the Church is the bulwark and foundation of the truth."
If God can inspire authorship, can he not also inspire a living/active interpretation? It seems to me to be pleasing to God to work through living human beings to bring forth His truth - he has always worked through active/living voices. Protestants & Catholics BOTH exercise interpretive authority - i.e. how they interpret the Eucharist or Baptism or the sacraments in general - neither then truly accepts Sola Scriptura precisely because both exercise interpretive authority. And it takes authority to claim Sola Scriptura as THE truth and then tradition to hand that belief down to the next generation. Authority & Tradition.
Think about this; Christ didn't write a single word down (unlike Mohammed). So what did he do? Well He spent every day of his 3 year ministry trying to delegate authority to His disciples (the Church).
Sola Scriptura basically replaces God with the Bible. St. Paul in Hebrews says that God spoke to his people at various times and in many ways through his prophets and in the present times through his Son Jesus. This itself shows that Scriptura cannot be Sola. Also the phrase present times means us today also. The kingdom of God is a work in progress it didn't start with and doesn't end with the Bible. Though Scripture cannot be set aside, If I may dare say it is a manual to a gadget say a new computer, it only tells you about the hardware and where the buttons are but the real thing is the gadget and the wonderful experience of exploring it. Don't be hung up on Scripture. There's more to Christianity than Scripture, there is Tradition, there is Authority and thereby forgiveness of sins, there is Service to others, there is Worship, there is denial of oneself for the kingdom of God, last but not the least there is Martyrdom. And yes there is Eternal Life.
I agree that there is more to Christianity than just Scripture, but I also believe that Scripture is much more than merely a manual. Scripture is God breathed(inspired) by the Holy Spirit. And it must be remembered that we, as Christians, wouldn't know about Tradition, Authority, forgiveness of sins, service to others, worship, denial of self, martyrdom, or eternal life if we didn't have the inspired written Word of God. We wouldn't even know what Jesus Christ did for us by His dying on the cross, and His resurrection from the dead without Holy Scripture. You wouldn't know that the Book of Hebrews says how God spoke through the prophets and in these last days by His Son unless you had first read it from the Holy Scriptures. I'm not saying that each person should have their own private interpretation of Scripture, and I agree that we can't properly understand Scripture without having someone to guide us( Acts 8:31), but we wouldn't even know that we need proper guidance in understanding Scripture, unless we had first read it and believed it.
@@jamestrotter3162 Then how do you explain the fact that people became Christians without having read the Bible but only on the witness of the Apostles. I'm not saying Scripture should be trivialised, cause it records the history of Judaism and Christianity and helps us to understand our faith better but faith itself is a gift from God, no study of the Bible can give you faith. It can give you knowledge but it can't give you faith simply because Jesus said I chose you, you did not choose me. Yeh i quoted Hebrews to convince teachers of the law like you. I'd still be Christian without knowing this passage. 2 Timothy 3:16 says All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; This is exactly what I'm trying to say when I say it's a manual.
@@SD-fk8bt It's true that people became Christians without having read the New Testament, but not without having read the Old Testament, which was the only Bible they had at the time. And it wasn't only on the witness of the Apostles alone. All the Apostles used the Scriptures of their day, what we call the Old Testament, in their preaching and teaching. And the reading and study of the Scriptures definitely does bring us to saving faith in Christ according to Paul. "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is Written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, " Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."- Romans 10:14-17. Paul also wrote to Timothy," But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be COMPLETE, equipped for every good work."- 2nd Timothy 3:14-17. It's true that faith is the gift of God, but that gift comes by the hearing of the Scriptures when they are faithfully preached and taught by the one who preaches the good news of the gospel.
@@jamestrotter3162 Peter was a fisherman, do you think he could read and write. Moreover Jesus's life was not recorded in the OT, it was written down as part of the NT later but people became Christians much before that. What I'm trying to say is that your faith in Christ does not depend on knowledge of the Scripture because it is a gift from God but yes the Bible increases the understanding of your faith. It's one of the many graces which enriches our life but it is not the Alpha and the Omega. BTW what does Timothy mean by good work.
@@SD-fk8bt Peter definitely could read and write. He wasn't illiterate. He was a fisherman, but he was also a business man. He made his living as a commercial fisherman so he would have to have been able to keep records of his sales. He also had to pay his taxes and other bills. But that's really irrelevant. The fact remains that when he preached his first sermon on the day of Pentecost, he preached, using the Scriptures, quoting them word for word, to the people who were listening. And those who gladly received his word were baptized and were added to the Church. He also used Scripture when preaching to the house of Cornelius. Some of the Apostles were more educated than others. We know that Paul was very educated and knew the Scriptures very well, but Paul knew, as did also Peter and the other apostles, that it wasn't their learning or lack thereof that cause peoplke to believe in Christ. But they also knew that it was through the preaching of the gospel, and using the Scriptures to validate their preaching, that God chose to save those who believed. Paul always used the Scriptures when preaching the gospel. " And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you is the Christ."-Acts 17:2-3. " The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."-Acts 17:10-11. The prophecies about Jesus recorded in the Old Testament were what all the apostles used when preaching and teaching the gospel, and God used His written word to convict sinners and bring them to saving faith in Christ. " So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word(written) of Christ."- Romans 10:17. Faith that saves does most definitely depend on the knowledge and belief of the Scriptures according to the apostle Paul. Faith in Christ is the gift of God, but it can only be received by the preaching and teaching of the written word of God.
If we read with the church, we would have affirmed all seven of the ecumenical councils. If my interpretation differs from their's, then it is I and not they that is in error.
I am curious how Dr. Vanhoozer deals with the reality of mass illiteracy up until the mid 19th century. There appears to be an unspoken assumption that modern literacy has been a historical constant when in fact the opposite is true. How can the scripture be "clear" and "accessible" if most cannot read it? And how can sola scriptura be lurking in the shadows if most Christians have not access?
The Bible doesn’t say it is the final or sole or supreme authority, so Sola Scriptura is unBiblical. The Bible says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...” So, useful, but not supreme authority. And Paul would have been talking about the scriptures he knew at the time: the Jewish scriptures before the New Testament was written or compiled by the Catholic Church. But the Bible does indicate where to go for a final authority. Paul tells Timothy also, “so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.” Now, “pillar and foundation of truth” sounds authoritative, not just “useful”. So, to be Biblical is to NOT believe in Sola Scriptura. Another place where Paul gives instructions as to how to decipher the truth when there is different ideas in the Church is found in 2 Thessalonians 2, when Paul says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” So Paul says that the final authority to go to are the traditions passed down and the words shared by word of mouth or by letter from the apostles of the Church. And since what Protestants call “The Bible” didn’t exist as a thing called The Bible until the 4th Century, the early Church clearly didn’t have the Bible as their final authority. The Bible doesn’t really say anything. Only persons say things. And every person can disagree with another about what they think the words in the Bible mean. The early Church didn’t know if non-Jewish believers, and in Act 15 what did they do? Called a council of the apostles of the Church to decide what the final authority would be just as this teacher admits. So, clearly, the Church apostles were given the final word on what was true. There really is no way to hold onto Protestantism once Sola Scriptura is shown to be self-contradictory and against certain scriptures and historical moments in the early Church. The writings from Eusebius that Protestants need to wrestle with are the ones tracing the lineage of the papacy back to Peter. The words of Christ about a house divided against itself not standing, Paul’s description of a body where parts do not listen to the head, and Christ’s prayers that His Church would “be One as He and His Father are One” should be enough for all followers of Christ to drop their own interpretations and join the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”. We cannot be divided and the only place we can come together and have the full authority of the 2000 year history since Christ is in Rome. Quit dawdling and causing divisions and cross the Tiber. The world is falling apart because we are not United.
I have a challenge for everyone who watches this video: don't make blanket statements asserting that sola scriptura is right or wrong and call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot or heretic.
Instead, state your viewpoint and give a thoughtful argument defending it. This goes for people on both sides of the debate. :)
Love this
Perfect
Thank you, Austin. Didn't the Lord tell us to love our opponents (enemies). That's the beauty of your channel. You have always been a gentleman and a scholar.
@@varginabrown852 The NT was written by the Apostles to churches in the first century. Over time these where recognised by all the various churches as authoritative. The key here is recognised not compiled. I am grateful to the early Church for recognising and copying the NT books. All traditions recognise the same 27 books of the NT if you recognise other books which contracict those 27 then there is a problem. This problem is what Protestants recognise like the doctrine of Purgatory referenced in Macabees. Purgatory in the Roman Catholic view is accepted because of tradition validated by Pope's which gets round the problem. This is how Catholics can harmonise traditions with scripture and the problem disappears. Transubstantiation is a case in fact where it isn't found in scripture but because of tradition which the Orthodox disagree on and a Pope declaring it as dogma much later there is no problem.
@@jotink1 Purgatory and transubstantiation are clearly written in the New Testament (Mt 5:23-26, 1 Cor 3:15, all passages of the Last Supper: Mt 26, Mk 14, Lk 22, Jn 13).
Here's the issue: The fact that some 16th century writers rebelled against the Church and decided to reject authoritative scriptural teaching, does not change the fact that it's there.
Alrighty. Post-video megacomment.
Point one: Caricatures and realities: As I noted in my "pre-game", there is a common complaint among Protestants that when Catholics critique Sola Scriptura, we are attacking a caricature which is called "Solo Scriptura" or "Nuda Scriptura." But as ya'll note at 22:30, it cannot be a caricature if there are people who operate in that mode.
What's really going on is that Protestants want to defend an idealistic, theoretical form of Sola Scriptura. Catholics critique it for what inevitably becomes of it when implemented. By analogy: The designer of the Tacoma Narrow bridge may protest that his design envisioned a bridge which would stand tall. That's great, but moot compared to the historical fact that the things shook itself to pieces. The design inevitably led to that result. The criticisms are valid.
The difference that makes the difference is what the doctor says at 17:26, that Scripture Alone(!) is the only wholly reliable authority for the Church's life and thought. That principle reflects what Martin Luther said at the Diet of Worms: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the SCriptures (for I do not trust in the pope or in councils alone, since they have often erred and contradicted), I am bound by the Scriptures which I have quoted..."
A subscriber to Sola Scriptura can make overtures toward the importance of tradition and councils. He can praise it as an important ministerial authority, and a vital resources and reference. But it does not make a difference in the end if he does not grant that these authorities have exercized the capacity to permanently settle questions in a way Christians are obligated to obey. Without that, one is left with a system in which the tradition, however exalted, is nothing more than a suggestion which a person can set aside if he thinks it is wrong,
Later on he mentions the Acts 15 council. The question needed to be asked, "Were the churches who recieved their ruling obligated before God to obey it? Or could they treat it as one entry into an ongoing conversation?" That's the difference which Sola Scriptura made. It took the authoritative decrees and made them into suggestions which need to be checked against Scripture by later generations. Once that change is made, there are no compliments to tradition which can keep the "caricature" from becoming the reality. The Sola Scriptura Protestants are in the same boat as the Nuda Scriptura Protestants, even if the former is in the part of the boat which is nearer to shore.
Point Two: Divisions. In regard to the divisions in the Protestant world, his first move (37:03) is to say that Protestants are not as divided as one would think. And to support this, he points to a statement of faith he created... which he admits many refused to sign. Not a good start.
The other thing he points to (at 40:00) is the concept of dogmatic rank. The claim being that Protestants ARE united on those things which are "first order doctrines" - and the "best Protestants" have table fellowship because they have agreed to disagree over their second order disagreements.
I'm sorry, but no. When Luther and Zwingli disagreed about the Lord's Supper, Luther said Zwingli was on the side of the devil. John Calvin, in his Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper, said in the first paragraph that a proper understanding of the Lord's supper was necessary for salvation. When it cam to infant baptism, the early Protestants exacted capital punishment on the anabaptists and said they were worse than the Papists. The early Protestants were not sanguine about their disagreements, and the Lutherans and Calvinists did not have table fellowship.
He also admits that there are some Protestants who don't agree (with him) on what counts as a first order doctrine. That shows a critical problem: How does one establish what constitutes a first order doctrine? Who decides? Not everyone is going to agree. In regard to the people who have a more expansive view of first order doctrines, he called them "Sub Protestant" and "Small minded". Does he call them that to their face? ! This can go over one's head because the doctor's voice is so jovial and kindly, but his response to such people is to demean them? Holy cow.
I could go on about other issues, but that's probably enough. To conclude: He seems like a nice man who has a laudible ideal about Christian unity. But the key question is whether the tradition is authoritative in a way which commands obedience. And if it does not, how does the theory of Sola Scriptura avoid playing out as the caricature. Even after an hour of praising the traditions as an exalted, indispensible suggestion, the question is still left on the table.
Good points. I see a very practical issue with sola scriptura when it comes to the very critical term “works of the Law”. Can sola scriptura really tell us if if refers to jewish identity markers like circumcision or to any work, including the good deeds that the reformers loved to hate?
How you interpret that will change the meaning of the concept of justification, and in Protestantism, justification is the heart of the gospel itself.
What’s interesting is that they tend to ignore how this idea of works of the Law was received among early Christians. In other words, they don’t want to rely in the tradition or in extra-biblical second temple documents that can give clues to what the term means.
So, I see that this is a big dilemma since they are excluding a very important portion of the data here. Fortunately, the New Perspective on Paul is closing that gap, with the unintended consequence that its soteriology is closer to Roman Catholicism than to classic protestantism.
That’s why I think that sola scriptura is a recipe for failure.
Always a pleasure engaging with your comments! I found the Tacoma Narrows analogy really interesting. I'll have to think more on that one
@@GospelSimplicity hi Austin, I am a Catholic that loves your channel. Could you do a program on Justification? There is a lot of work that Alister McGrath has done that is changing the discussion. Or you can have the wonderful scholar Matthew Thomas that wrote the book "Paul works of the Law in the perspective of second century reception". NT Wright calls the book "theologically explosive".
Thanks again. Is always a joy to watch your interviews.
@@HosannaInExcelsis thomas is on my hopeful list!
@@GospelSimplicity having him on your channel would be FANTASTIC!
Looking forward to this! Dr. Vanhoozer is an excellent scholar. I'm really glad you invited him into these conversations!
I absolutely loved it. He’s so articulate and so kind as well. I need to have him back to chase some of the rabbit trails available, especially the idea of unitive Protestantism
@@GospelSimplicity "Unitive Protestantism" likely comes from the same spirit as modern ecumenism...which is wholly opposed to traditional Christianity.
As a former Protestant, I understand Sola Scriptura and I understand the position the reformers were in and why they developed it as a doctrine. The main problem is it ultimately makes every reader the arbiter of what is true doctrine. As powerful and important as the Scriptures are, they are not always explicit in their meaning and they don't directly answer every possible question of the faith. This is why well-educated, faithful and sincere Protestants from different backgrounds can disagree on basic questions like when is the appropriate time to baptize a person. In these cases you can't appeal to Scripture as the ultimate authority to prove that somebody is wrong, because they can make just as convincing an argument from Scripture as you can. This has further effects downstream, leading to the many schisms and literally thousands of denominations.
The ultimate irony is that Protestants actually follow their own traditions, a thing they claim to be against. Their traditions consist of a line of theologians who interpreted the Scriptures in a particular way down through the centuries, and came to believe that certain practices and beliefs were correct. There is more than one line of tradition, and the different traditions can be seen in the divisions between denominations. All of them believe that they are adhering to Sola Scriptura and that they have come to the correct understanding, which demonstrates the flaw in the concept of Sola Scriptura. The reality is that the set of doctrines developed by the reformers, and passed down through the centuries through their churches and theologians, is in practice no different than the traditions of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. That is, Protestants have different beliefs than those churches, and believe the origin of those beliefs is different, but can't prove them beyond all question using the Scriptures, and are actually passing down the lived experience of their churches - which is exactly what the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions are.
I couldn't have said it any better.
Protestants of course have a tradition. Protestants view scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith not the only rule. This means tradition can inform us on difficult passages but all tradition must not contradict scripture. This is why the Marian dogmas have no place in Protestant theology because they all developed and grew through tradition. I am part of a community of believers and come under the authority of a Pastor/Bishop and Elders like the early Church. I am also a part of many Evangelical communities who are all part of the historical church going back to the Apostles. Catholics are not alone who claim apostolic succession as the Orthodox can to yet don't agree with the Marian dogmas. Differences are part of church history but we all go back to Christ and his apostles and the scriptures they gave us. Protestants see tradition/church history as important but because tradition is not infallible mistakes are made which is why Protestants get back to scripture alone which is infallible In so doing correct false traditions like the Marian dogmas, indulgences, the office of a Pope to name a few.
Different denominations doesn't show a flaw in Sola Scripura that would be like saying bad Popes show the flaw in the infallibility of the Pope. Just as the office is separate according to Catholics so Sola Scripture is separate from individual interpretations. It is the interpretations that differ not the principle of Sola Scriptura.
@@jotink1 The extreme number of denominations demonstrates that either the meaning of scripture is not self evident, or that honest inquiry is not self correcting, or possibly both. Those are two key claims of Sola Scriptura. It is absolutely correct to make the scriptures a pillar of the faith and a check against incorrect beliefs. My experience of Protestantism was that they were treated as an instruction manual that anyone could interpret correctly. We can see that attitude throughout history as denominations have split off over differing interpretations. The reality is that not everyone can be correct, because the disagreements are not trivial. That means you need something in addition to the scriptures to guide the church. For that I believe you need tradition, which includes the early church fathers, some of whom were disciples of the Apostles.
@@robertashley2714 The meaning of Scripture is self evident is regarding salvation only. That is by grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone. Scripture isn't the only means as you say and we have tradition like the church fathers and I agree with you. Sola Scripture I will repeat like a broken record states thst Scripture is the only (infallible) rule of faith. The amount of denominations has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Look at Catholic and Orthodox they can't both be right yet both look to the same tradition of the church fathers. Both have tradition yet they can't both be right so which tradition is right? Protestants rely on many things outside of scripture like science which is why I am not a flat earther for example. Tradition informs Protestants of difficult passages this is what theologians are doing all the time. Wayne Grudem in his systematic theology first edition said monogenes, should be translated as unique son regarding Jesus. In his second edition he says it should be only begotten son. This is what the church fathers taught and the creeds so Protestants do use tradition and scholarship both past and present not scripture alone. All protestant denominations can be grouped into historical families. Their are only a small group of these famines. What you see mostly is independent church but theologically will fall into one of those historical families. Many denominations doesn't mean many theologies. All are Christian who are trinitarian and accept salvation by grace through faith in Jesus. The differences are not a salvation issue just as Catholic and Orthodox who accept Christ's sacrifice with Protestants are part of Christ's body the church.
This was a great interview. As a Catholic, I enjoyed it thoroughly and a lot of what he said made a lot of sense and I found myself nodding with his beliefs because I think we're on the same wavelength as well it's just a matter of different wording, or a different angle.
I think my favorite analogy that he provided was how he equated tradition to the moon and how the moon only reflects light but doesn't actually create light but the sun, being the scriptures itself, is what creates the light. As Catholics, we have the exact same analogy when it comes to Mary. When we are accused of worshiping Mary we say the same thing that we don't worship Mary, but she is like the moon. She is the light in the darkness but the true light comes from the sun, which is Jesus. So she is a reflection and guides us back to the greater lightbringer. I thought that was pretty interesting. 😁
So ridiculous. Paul spent every day of 18 months teaching the Thessalonians and then wrote them two tiny letters. Under that analogy the Thessalonians should just sweep those 18 months of straight teaching under the rug and hold onto the two tiny pieces of paper. Oh wait, didn't Paul literally told them to hold onto their traditions whether written or verbal..?
beautiful
It is written 1st century..hold onto the traditions you were given (past tense). So whatever Paul was appealing to hold onto written or verbal it was already given 1st century...so it's a misuse of that Passage for Roman Catholics to use it anachronistically to insert later traditions i.e Marian Dogmas etc (later non apostolic developments) to apply to Pauls first century Scripture.
@@Adam-ue2ig Tradition is dynamic as long as it is anchored in the bible and sacred Tradition, it's good.
@@xpictos777 show where Paul believed and passed on traditions such as Marian dogmas that are later developments. It's clear he had nothing of the sort in mind.
As a relatively recent convert, I appreciate your engagement across differences in understanding what it means to be Christian. This helps me become a better reader of scripture and (hopefully) more faithful in my love for God and my neighbor. Humility about my own interpretation as well as assuming best intent on the part of other interpretations are evident in your discussions. Challenging viewpoints from a variety of perspectives is very helpful. Thank you!
The Orthodox christians believe that Scripture carries the seal of infallibility and is divinely inspired. However we do not believe that it has divine power on its own. That actually reminds me of the pagan belief on runes. That reading or writing a certain language empowers someone in a magical way.
I agree that scripture has the seal of infallibility and is divinely inspired but with that in mind where is the claim it carries no divine power from. As God is the author of scripture then it carries authority. Authority is a form of power.
@@jotink1 But scripture does not have a mouth, you cannot just knock on it and ask it what is the true meaning of it.
@@Nino-hy1vk God is scriptures mouthpiece and God the Holy Spirit who authored the scriptures is still speaking today. He speaks as we read scripture and he speaks through Pastors and Elders given to the church to instruct and correct. The authority of scripture governs those who read it and those who teach it in exactly the same way, all come under its authority and are accountable to it and each other.
@@jotink1 how does he speak? And how do you know when it is God dho speaks and when it's a demon trying to distort your mind.
@@jotink1 And how do you know you're interpreting the scriptures the way the apostles understood it.
When I realized I bring my own prejudices to bear on the Bible and on my view of its meanings that forced me ask, "So how can I know what's right?" Because if I simply end up stopping my search and believing something because I'm comfortable with that belief, or because I agree with people that say that, or with what I think sounds most logical then I have become my own Pope. I have become the final authority and so therefore I have put myself above the Scriptures. Then I started wondering, "If the Bible is so clear to understand why are there 33,000 denominations; ALL of them claiming to be based on the Bible "alone?" (Sola Scriptura)
I don't blame the Reformers. The Roman Church needed reform! But at the moment they started writing the Eastern Church Patriarchs for validation, and they weren't validated, they should have listened to correction and come back to that original Faith delivered once for all to the Saints.
"By cutting the cords of Holy Tradition, and placing in its stead the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Protestants ensured theological divisiveness and fracture between themselves and their descendants and have only multiplied divisions, theories, and interpretations ad infinitum, with no end in view to this day. We may judge a tree by its fruit. The sola scriptura tree has borne the fruit of division and every conceivable heresy." (Father Josiah Trenham, "Rock and Sand" p. 275)
For someone (myself) looking to argue against sola scriptura, it is very helpful when you create videos like these so that I can try to interact with some of the best articulators of the doctrine. Thank you Austin for all of your content creation!
God Bless.
My pleasure!
This interview was so great!
Listened to it last night, and I'm listening to it again. Thanks for making this happen!
My pleasure!
Vanhoozer was my last lifeline before becoming Catholic. I just couldn't grab onto his theories concerning authority. I started to wonder at what point it was just sophistry, the Catholic position made much more sense of the Canon, authority and the history of the Church.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you Austin & Dr. Vanhozer for thoughtfully trying to address this very needful conversation. I have come from a Far Eastern background - Budhist , Taoist & Confusionist background. As a young man, I converted to a Protestant "Born Again" faith & went on to Bible College to study Missiology. Although I have many fond affections towards my fellow professed Catholic & Protestant believers ( many of whom are very pious in their own right). There seems that perhaps one among issues I have is that with both approaches lack true reverent awe/ worship of the Blessed Living God. Please forgive me, but it seems that most of the discussion really didn't answer much. Lord knows the Eastern Orthodox have issues of their own that needs addressing. However, within the basic rubrics of the Church's Sacraments & Liturgy/Worship of God there is a sure foundation to wholeness & salvation. It seems to me that the focus needs to be in our union & proper worship to God which is first & foremost a mystery, grace filled & relational ( God is Love) this implies a revelatory relationship to His creation. "Blessed are the pure in heart... Blessed are you when you hunger & thirst. It seems that most of what the Protestant Reformers sought to rightly address became more of the same. We all have some practice/tradition the question is does our tradition have legitimacy. The Church invitation isn't necessarily come & accept certain dogmas ( as important as that is) but rather come live the life of Faith. May God grant us all His mercy, illumination & grace to glorify Him & be fully healed.
I would really like to see more from the protestant side. I feel like this channel, for being hosted by a protestant, skews quite heavily towards Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Being Southern Baptist myself, I'd some of the people from the youtube channel Southern Seminary, would be great. Or someone like John MacArthur I find may also be great choices at explaining and defending Sola Scriptura.
Thanks for the feedback! I've actually had two Southern Seminary professors on so far. I'd be open to others though
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon those that believe but are outside of the church and deny or denigrate the eucharist.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on those who are a part of church and partake in the eucharist.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on those who are ill, who are persecuted, those who are starving and especially for all children suffering through such things.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, wretched man that I am, have mercy on me, a sinner.
Thank you for having this discussion! I’m a lifelong Protestant who has encountered the Eastern Orthodox Church and have felt drawn to it. The “Sola Scriptura” difference was the most difficult hurdle to get over. While I do remain convinced that the Orthodox Church is the true preservation of the faith, I was happy to watch this discussion to hear out an articulate argument in defense of sola scriptura from your channel. I so appreciate all the civil discussion you do here! Stay humble, Austin!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Are you attending any services?
@@Maine-Life I am! Super excited for my first experience of an orthodox Holy Week/ Pascha!
@@kaitieholley116 yes, this is an amazing time to be approaching Orthodoxy. Try to go to as many services as you can. Definitely the forgiveness vespers this Sunday and try to get to at least a day or 2 of the Cannon of St Andrew of Crete next week....and you have to...have to....go to at least one Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts.
If you are on Instagram you should message me sometime @becomingorthodox
@Kaitie Holley I was hoping you might be so kind to share why you are convinced that the Orthodox Church is the true preservation of the faith. Or perhaps could provide me with some good places to start reading on that. Thank you!
I know I'm late on this, but one observation I've made is that one of the problems when Protestants/evangelicals say they are united on "first order doctrines" is the issue of baptismal regeneration. I've very commonly seen Protestants in the Baptist and Reformed traditions criticize those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation as "adding to the finish work of Christ" or promoting a "Jesus plus" doctrine. Usually they make that critique in the context of criticizing Catholic (and sometimes Orthodox) teaching but that dart hits confessional Lutherans and some Anglicans. Obviously the charge that baptismal regeneration adds to or diminishes Christ's work is a very serious charge and a first order doctrine.
That's not to say every Baptist or Reformed holds this view but from what I've seen it's not uncommon.
I suppose it’s only fair to have this discussion considering all the Roman Catholic and Orthodox investigation that has been done on this channel. Frankly however, I cannot imagine that anything new will be added to this debate. This is well worn ground. Many of us who were Protestants wanted Sola Scriptura to be true and were devastated when we realized we could no long defend it. I hope people will listen to this podcast and then put this uniquely Protestant doctrine to the test. This should be good.
Sola Scriptura is easily defended.
@@Justas399 Not really. Low church Protestants have many competing ideas of Holy Scripture that pop up since they have no real framework of interpretation, just their selves and perhaps their denomination's forefathers might've borrowed some partial teachings of Scripture from the Church Fathers that correspond to their new doctrines.
Historically the doctrine of Sola Scriptura had some framework but low church Protestants (beginning with the Anabaptists) eschew any framework and create their own traditions of interpretation then complain about Non-Protestants' (Orthodox, Roman Catholic) so-called "traditions of men" when that's what their interpretation really is.
@@LadyMaria Huh??? What would be a "real framework of interpretation"? Who says what this supposed is?
@@Justas399 Infant baptism says otherwise. There is nothing in Scripture mandating it, and so the exegetical death-spiral ensues and any appeals to "how the Church understood" baptism early on can be easily dismissed. I know this game inside and out. Sola Scriptura can't be "easily" defended. At best it's an extra-biblical principle to supposedly safe-guard the priority, sufficiency, and infallibility of the inspired text -- but nobody seems to get around to asking which hermeneutic takes precedent, and who sets the rules for exegesis to stay within the boundaries of the intent of Scripture. It's a shell game, smoke and mirrors. It doesn't give what you claim it does.
@@stevenstuart4194 So what else is considered to the inspired-inerrant Word of God in the church? What else in the church is greater in authority?
In the first century the source of truth was Tradition passed on by the Apostles, both written and oral, as interpreted and applied by the teaching authority of the Church. What needs to be proved is that there was anywhere in the New Testament where Christ or the Apostles said that would change.
Who determine what books belong and declared inspired in the bible. If one believes the Bible shouldn't it be moot to believe on the Church that put the Bible together?
@@TheDanzman1211 :
Which church put the Bible together?
@@alhilford2345 Ask Siri or Alexa who founded the Catholic Church :)
@@alhilford2345 the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament table of contents.
@@alhilford2345 the Canon of Scripture was established over hundreds of years by Ecumenical councils and synods of the Orthodox Catholic Church, whom Rome used to be a part of and participated in those councils. But every single one of them was convened by the roman emperor.
Great discussion with Dr. Vanhoozer! He has a very generous spirit with regard to how he views Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters. I wish more Protestants understood and agreed with him!
Unfortunately, those that disagree with him most vehemently are within Evangelicalism.
Thank you for having him as a guest on your show!
It was my pleasure!
I wish the Catholics/Orthodox view their Protestant counterpart generously they always damn them to hell unless they join their churches
While you say that Protestants agree on the "main things", who determines what is a "main thing" and what is a "secondary"? When two Protestants teach diametrically opposite things, you can't appeal to the Bible to resolve it. In fact, Jesus told us to "take it to the Church". He didn't say "take it to the Scriptures."
Yeah. One of the major issues with Protestantism is that they have no way to determine what is doctrine and what is mere theological opinion. For that they would need a magisterium.
Just curious, where did Jesus say, “Take it to the Church?”
@@zekdom Matthew 18:17
@@markrome9702 I appreciate the response!
Okay so, the context isn’t about matters of interpretation and understanding the scripture, no?
It’s addressing a brother sinning against another.
@@zekdom There is no greater sin than to spread and teach heresy.
The discussion point I keep encountering again and again is you just need the right "version" of Sola Scriptura... Who is the arbiter of which version we ought to use? And how much tradition do we mix in with the practices we derive from Scripture alone? Is it okay if we don't use tradition? What's the point of tradition if it's being added TO Scripture? A lot of questions that need to be arbitrated by ordinary men that we put our trust in "getting it right."
The Holy Spirit
57:13 there was already Church before the Old Testament was ever written. Abraham was the first Priest and Patriarch. For most of History, the word of God was oral. Then Moses came, and the Jews recognized both the first writings and Oral Tradition, with priests and judges. Then, as the Old Testament was being written, there was a Church with authority. Jesus, who recognized both the Oral Law and the Written, came and established his New Church, with new Patriarchs and Priests, but with genuine authority, an authority that did not go away, but as always, this New Church presided the New Writings.
IT IS always the Church, then the Writings as Testaments of the Church. But the Church, the community, is the first breath of the word of God. Writing can disappear, the bibles can be burned, but the Church cannot collapse. After all, it is because of the Church that the Writings survived, not because of the community's nature, but because the community is holy and gracious, and the Holy Spirit protects it to pass down the Tradition, either orally or written,
I agree with most of that but the oral tradition of the OT, that Jews claimed was infallible, was not actually. Jesus called them out because their oral tradition contained errors that contradicted what God had told them.
You know, I was thinking the same thing. There's always been a church and the church has always gathered the books together.
@@RicardoReyes Yes but we Catholics don't believe the Church has authority for that reason. In fact, that argument isn't valid.
@@taylorbarrett384 the only argument I made was that there has always been a church.
Edit: I actually wasn't making any argument, other than agreeing with the op on the fact that there has always been a church.
Actually, the Bride of Christ began at Pentecost.
In actuality who gets to define sola scriptura? there are at least 12 different schools on this. This was a solid presentation and the most acceptable of building a bridge to apostolic churches however many in the evangelical world would reject his interpretation of this doctrine making it a frustrating dialogue for we will be back were we started at from the Christians who don’t agree with him.
Who had the authority to leave out Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea and Paul's several letters to the Philippians? Ot the letters of Matthias and Gamaliel and Barnabas?
Who has the final authority to interpret "My Flesh is True food and Blood True drink ", ( John6:53-55), and "This is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26).
Where did Jesus give the Roman church the authority alone to interpret Scripture? Where has Rome officially and infallibly interpreted the Scriptures? Where is that work to be found?
@@Justas399 Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was even written and that later determined which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not!
The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Do any of the other apostles acknowledge that Christ built His church on Peter? Does Peter make this claim for Himself and if so, where?
Also, even if this were true, how do you get to the bishops of Rome since no one in the NT ever makes this connection?
@@Justas399 Yes, all the Apostles knew that Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, ( John 1:42, Matthew 16:16-19, John 21:17, Matthew 10:1,2). The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. The same Church authority that existed way before the new testament was even written and that later determined the canon! The office of sole key holder is one of succession, as Peter alone received the keys of the Kingdom from Jesus Christ! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@Justas399 In the commission on the authority of the Church, in Mat 18:18: Jesus said: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" Pay attention to the word "Whatever"
We all come with our own bias, but the Dr. said 3 things that just aren't true. 1. The councils created doctrine later, i.e. trinity. The church only made declarations at councils when it was forced to do so, by heretics. Councils only codified what Church always believed. 2. Irenaeus determined Gnosticism was heretical, not independently, but by seeking consensus of other churches founded by apostles. 3. As I presume he knows, the Old Testament is all about Christ and wasn't canonized as we know it, until the Church did it after Christ. In the end, as he said, I don't see Orthodox as only Christians. We're all in the same team.
51:30ish - he lost me when he talked about doctrines developing only when they need to be. He then likened the doctrine of the Trinity taking 300 years to develop to Sola Scriptura. He said Sola Scriptura was was shrouded in the midst and only needed to be defined at the reformation. This is confusing on so many levels, especially since the Trinity was defined by ecumenical councils whereas Sola Scriptura was not. And in fact it is opposite in many ways since Sola Scriptura is a principle which cannot help but lead to division.
Not to mention we see the word Trinity was already used by Church Fathers in greek within 100 years of the Apostles. Tertullian brought it into the Latin in the late 2nd century and is the root for the word we know and love.
Hey guys, there's a lot of hate against Sola Scriptura going on here. If you have insensitive comments, it would be nice if you keep it to yourself. Austin is an amazing Christian for having catholics, orthodox, lutherans, and anglicans over to his channel. Not sure why he's getting so much hate for having a protestant over. please be more gracious.
To be fair, Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestants. They are what is known as high church Protestants.
@Bishoy Youhanna. I read through the entire comments section. I am not aware if anyone making disparaging remarks against Austin or Dr Kevin Vanhoozer. Sola Scriptura is an idea. Not a person. There is nothing wrong in pointing out the fallacies of an idea. There is no personal attack on the person who holds the idea.
Yes sure but being a fake pious hippy is basically lying and being a demonic tool for Satan. It's an open forum and you're just gonna have to live with that. It's the internet and for you to try and police it is a huge waste of time. Letting you know for further reference
@@jeremiahong248 I agree, I don't see any hate for anyone, just denials that Sola Scriptura is legit.
To OP: Opinions on others' faith traditions' doctrines are not opinions on those that hold to them.
You can hate (i.e., reject) Sola Scriptura while being glad the topic is being debated.
The solas have different meanings in each protestant fragmentation. ps if you dont have a TOTAL canon then how can you have sola scriptura?? So this video will be HIS definition of "Sola Scriptura" but it will not be the definition across the board AT ALL
Question. Is Taylor Marshall’s interpretation of Vatican 2 true across the board?
@@chriscorkern8487 No Taylor Marshall's interpretation is his own. Tim Gordon his once close pal after studying V2 and the associated documents concluded that there is nothing heretical about the council or the documents. Please refer to Matt Fradd's channel Pints with Aquinas for the interview with Tim.
The other channel Reason and Theology has a good analysis of V2 and Lumen Gentium too.
@@jeremiahong248 you missed the point of Chris' question
@@chriscorkern8487 There will always be disagreements of interpretations in all Christian denominations and churches, including Catholicism. However this is not a good argument for Sola Scriptura because the amount of disagreement between Catholics is not close to the sheer division of Protestants. Tradition is the reason that churches who don't accept Sola Scriptura are much less divided than Protestants. Sola Scriptura allows you to start your own church tomorrow, which is absolutely impossible in traditional churches like the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.
@@taylorbarrett384 But even if there is a discussion concrete and serious enough - not dealing with radical extremists, albeit popular on the Internet, that usually are contaminated with the politicization of the faith - on HOW to interpret the very documents from Councils, actually the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the place to settle the correct interpretation of the counciliar pastoral documents, canons, dogmas and proclamations. And I would say it is the ONLY place indeed capable of it, actually (though I am not going too deep in here, because I don’t want the most anti-Catholic Eastern Orthodox rabidly come after me).
Do you think the Council of Nicea was as clear as sunshine and not confusing? The Arians only grew in importance after it, even acquiring political power within the Empire. In fact Arians only got to even more complex argumentations over the Nicene texts precisely. To that history could “add” Macedonianism, a heresy that defended the Holy Spirit was a creature from God and not a person of the Most Holy Trinity, like Arianism did about the Son. And it was kind of settled almost 60 years after Nicea in Constantinople (381 AD) - just talking about the Trinity.
So we are not secured from “insecurity”. This kind of ecclesiological naivety is not part of the Catholic _ethos_ but it is for sure part of the caricature of Catholicism made by Protestants, at least most of the time. Even the best among them seem to take this insanely “easy path”, but obvious unfit for discussing the matter. To be very sincere, the Holy Church was born in crisis, my friend, and there she will be. Jesus’ promise is to protect His Church against doctrinal error: clarity is always fundamental, but almost never it is immediate. Obstinacy and insistence on being far from Truth, in the other hand, those are just human facts in postlapsarian world.
God bless!
There are 4 different Baptist churches within 2 miles of my home. They all teach different things about salvation, faith, and the Christian Life. The fact that they have some teachings in common doesn't change the fact that they are fundamentally divided on some very important things. This can be extended into every aspect of protestantism. To imply that protestants aren't really divided, is a blatant denial of the reality we live in. Our divisions are divided.
Wow. Can you give a couple of examples from these churches that teach different things about salvation?
Reformed and non-reformed theologies paint very different pictures of what salvation is and how it works.
@@joshuamiller9853 Ok. Can you give me a specific example?
Do these churches teach there are different ways to be saved? Do they say that faith in Christ is not necessary for salvation?
@@Justas399 There are plenty of videos, books, sermon notes, and doctoral dissertations (made by individuals far more qualified than myself). On the implications the aforementioned teachings have on their adherents view salvation, and and even the nature of God. I'm not going to attempt to lay them all out here. I you don't know, look it up. If you do know, but consider it unimportant then I seriously doubt the comment section under a youtube video is going to change your mind.
We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive. -C.S. Lewis
@@joshuamiller9853 You made the claim these churches teach different views of salvation and faith and its looks like you really don't know what you are talking about.
I am Orthodox but I found this a really good talk and got a very clear understanding from a very insightful theologian. Thank you for the talk and for our host and interviewer Austin . FYI I came across your channel via Father Seraphim of the Monastery of All Celtic Saints .
Glad you enjoyed it!
Sola Scriptura is comically NOWHERE to be found in the Bible. Since it is extra-Biblical concept, it can be only one thing - men invented tradition. Ouch.!
@Jordan Campo The truth may be painful, but is also liberating. Sooner one realizes the fallacy of the 16th century man invented tradition, sooner one may repent and return to the original Christianity preserved in Eastern Orthodox Church.
@Jordan Campo Actually it was intelligent, telling the truth of the matter.
You don't understand what Sola Scriptura means.
@@Justas399 We know what it means traditionally and what it means now to low church Protestants. It's heterodox.
@@LadyMaria ok. Please define Sola Scriptura.
The Church gave us the Bible, not the other way around. Without resorting to scriptural verses “volleyball”, I tend to look at the Early Church Fathers and take a consensus of their opinions on major matters, they never embraced, the Bible alone. It was an invention of Martin Luther because of his disagreements with the Hierarchy.
Actually the OT Scriptures in which the Jews were entrusted with predates the church.
@@Justas399 The Catholic Church assembled the Bible as it exists today with all 73 books.
@@Justas399 The OT didn't have a Canon during Jesus or the Apostles' time. Different Jewish sects were using different versions of the OT, some longer some shorter. The CC decided and finalised the OT Canon in around AD 400. This is why we say the CC gives us the Bible.
@@Justas399 the saducees only used the pentateuch and didn't believe in the resurrection. The pharasees had a different canon. And others a different one. The canon of scripture is tradition, scripture is part of the Churches Apostolic Tradition. Church history and history in general always wins. Christianity is not an intellectual pursuit it is a living Church that is the Body of Christ and Guided by the Holy Spirit in all Truth just as the scripture says (;
Protestants don't have scripture alone we have a wealth of tradition and theological history from the church fathers and the great theolgions of the past. We see scripture as the only infallible rule of faith. Scripture is the only God breathed truth we have so everything else comes under it in authority.
So, here's my thing as a Catholic. Dr. Vanhooser presumably believes that the canon is closed and that the Son is homoousious with the Father. He makes statements saying as much. Now, he also says "it took 300 something years before the Son was definitively understood to be homoousious" and "theology is the crystallization of what scripture says" (those are rough quotes but hopefully accurately represents his position. If he is committed to those doctrines as unchangeable, then he implicitly believes that it is "the Church" (however one defines the Church) that definitively settled those theological debates. And if the Church can definitively settle theological debates, whether by council and/or pope as Catholics believe, or by a gradual distillation as Protestants believe, it seems that both groups hold to ecclesial authority which seems to contradict sola scriptura. Thoughts on that line of argumentation?
I think he would say you can hold to church authority without saying it's an authority above Scripture or on par with Scripture. The argument of sola Scriptura doesn't prevent proximate authorities, at least as stated by Dr. Vanhoozer
@@GospelSimplicity yeah, it really depends on how one defines sola scriptura. If it's defined as the doctrine which holds up scripture as the *highest* authority, there may be some room in there for the Catholic understanding. But if it's the doctrine that holds that scripture is the *only* infallible rule of faith, then it seems that one cannot at the same time believe that the Church can definitively settle on theological matters, because that would make the Church infallible. (I'm operating on the assumption that if the Church can *definitively* interpret scripture/settle on theological matters, that that's tantamount to the Church being infallible.) Furthermore, if it's the Church that slowly distilled scripture (something I actually believe as a Catholic in addition to it being defined by the Magisterium [see Universal and Ordinary Magisterium]) then I wonder if there isn't some agreement between Catholics and Protestants on the idea that just because a group or body has the authority to definitively settle on theological matters/the interpretation of scripture, that doesn't necessarily make said authority *higher* than scripture. These are some ideas I'd really love to see discussed more!
I have a question? Whenever I read Church Fathers they all quote scripture and are students of the Bible. Right? They never start their writings by saying I write the revelation of Jesus Christ, as if they were inspired writings.
Example: Paul writes in Romans 2:16 God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according TO MY GOSPEL.
We all know the story of Paul being blinded by Jesus for three days and Jesus spoke to Paul and instructed him what to say and he wrote the gospels to the Gentiles.
My point is which Church Father ever had that revelation, that we can say” this is doctrine,”for they all had their opinions and were in disagreements with each other.
Besides the Bible say we are supposed to study the scriptures for ourselves 2TIMOTHY 2:15.
Exactly only the scriptures are inspired and God breathed. This is why scripture is the sole arbiter of truth. We have tradition to inform us but scripture is the foundation which the church fathers recognised.
You know I think the way we're going about defining earthly authority when we start talking about Sola Scriptura and tradition is backwards because in both cases the arguments become about defending out own authority rather than acknowledging God's.
Realistically, both the Bible and traditions are secondary to his will and we need to be humbling ourselves and seeking his will. That should mean that while we value both and that neither should ever really have any more primacy than the other since God has the ultimate authority. Frankly I think any person really trying to follow Jesus understands that this is a relationship and anything we come up with is subject our human limits that need constant input from God. I think if we approached this discussion from that angle you start to notice other things like that you need some sort of interpretation to know what scripture is really saying and Jesus is the way not the Bible itself (heck, it'd be terrible to loose the Bible but I believe even if that theoretical situation were to happen we'd be fine because we have God). Those things seem obvious but I think if we are all being honest with ourselves we forget them when this discussion ends up happening and instead it becomes more a defense of our own earthly way of saying who has authority and that can be done well when we remember the humility bit of all that but without it just leads to everyone being defensive.
The one issue that I have, here, is that, as much as he may contend that Protestants believe and should believe that the Bible should be intimately connected to the church, but from day 2, that just dissolved and is now a small minority opinion among Protestants. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans/Episcopalians, and a few others. They are about the only ones who have really stuck to that 😔 And even they can't agree on some crucial issues (like the Eucharist)
Sola Verbum Dei is a better principle because as the Apostles stated we have God given traditions and culture with the Bible being a part of that and at the forefront but there are other things in addition through tradition. ➕
The question that should have been asked was: did Jesus want His Church to look like present day protestantism? If so why did he wait over 1500yrs to reveal it? Were there no true Church for 1500yrs? Where was SS taught in Church history the same way protestants teach it today?
I think the challenge here is that while yes, there is certainly a more nuanced view of Sola Scriptura that respects other sources, the fathers etc., my own experience as a former Protestant/Evangelical and my ongoing observations of most Protestants I engage with, would suggest this is a minority view. It might not be hyperbole to say an exceedingly small minority view. Most hold the idea of 'solo scriptura' in practice.
From my own experience, as a former heathen catechized in the Orthodox church, is that protestants treat the Bible in the same manner that Muslims treat the Qu'ran, or as their own personal grimoire. I know many who, when making a decision, just open the bible to a random page and read the text and then decide what to do based on that, instead of leaning on God through prayer. It reminded me of all the times we used to use Tarot cards before I eventually became a Christian.
Some of the greatest people in my life are protestant, and they live exemplary lives of piety that are true inspirations to me, BUT....
Of all the denominations I've encountered and interacted with, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants, it was always the protestants that made me see the body of Christianity as a prideful, hypocritical mess. It was my interactions with Catholic and Orthodox Christians that ultimately convinced me to seriously investigate the Faith. I think there is a danger and inclination towards spiritual pride built into the fabric of Protestantism. This doesn't mean every protestant is spiritually prideful, not at all, but the total rejection of earthly authority, and the idea that each person is the center of his own spiritual authority can make us very vulnerable to prelest and deception...
Experience is subjective. All protestants accept authority, both civil magistrates and Church leadership. Your views represents a polemical caricature of protestantism that is not rooted in actual protestant teaching.
How come the political purposes of the Solas are never a part of this discussion? I say purpose because power and politics is their purpose.
Probably for similar reasons that political purposes don’t come up when I speak to Catholic guests about the papacy: they don’t see them as the primary factor
@@GospelSimplicity Well they should be seen as primary. It's true.
Thanks for the great, informative, positive, Christian interview! I really appreciate the emphasis on unity and humble spirit.
Great conversation!! I thought the explanation of what authority is and his breakdown of “Sola not solo” was super helpful.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I disagree. The Sola-Solo distinction is pointless since tradition, no matter how ubiquitous and approved, may in principle be overturned the moment you *think* Scripture says otherwise. That's still solo. You might tip your hat to Tradition, or give it a wink and a nod, but it doesn't actually lock you into anything on the principle of Sola Scriptura.
Good test case: Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This was enshrined in the 5th Ecumenical Council and believed long before that. You couldn't even hope to step into a church anywhere East or West, per Pope Siricius' decree in the 4th century, for the next 1000 years if you dared espouse an opposing opinion on the matter.
Now a Protestant comes along, shrugs his shoulders, and says "meh". That's the magic of Sola Scriptura. Overthrow whatsoever the individual feels isn't "biblical" regardless of universal attestation.
@@stevenstuart4194 Thanks for your thoughts. Protestants are commonly caricatured as rejecting all tradition and just reading their Bible. I found his breakdown helpful. Personally, I grew up reading Church History and Church Fathers my entire life and have always found tradition helpful.
I suppose I would agree with you - to an extent. We (Protestants) respect tradition as a useful tool *until* it disagrees with Scripture. We do not view tradition as Holy Spirit-inspired, while we do see Scripture as the inspired Word of God, thus it is the supreme authority. That is why I found the "sola not solo" breakdown helpful.
I think it's also important to note that most early Christians did not have access to read Scripture (either for lack of access or illiteracy) and so the only option was to take the Pope's word for it. I would give push back on the term "universal attestation".
Nothing but respect for you though! God bless.
@@meganbloedel would you say the perpetual virginity of Mary is in disagreement with scripture? It never says she had more children, or entered into relations with Joseph, yet most protestants reject it.
Sorry to keep adding comments, but doctrines like the Trinity, while hinted at in scripture, are not directly stated. Salvation by Grace alone seems to contradict the entire book of James. Without the guidance of Tradition, how can one make sense of these things without falling into error and know they are correct?
I realize that most Protestants will assert the Sola Scriptura vs "Solo Scriptura" distinction as a way of defending the Protestant tradition. However, in actual practice the distinction is truly an example of what is often called a distinction without a difference. If the ultimate sole rule of faith is Scripture Alone, then no Christian can be required to accept as authoritative any view except that which is consistent with his own interpretation of Scripture. This prevents many Christians from growing in Holiness and at times it has lead to situations which put in danger their eternal salvation. For example before his death, R.C. Sproul spoke out against a movement among American Evangelicals who claimed that Scripture taught that living lives free of the sin of fornication was not required of Christians. R.C. Sproul used his own interpretation to argue against that view, but they had their own Chapter and verse in hand to trump his arguments and those of all the FALLIBLE Reformers who came before Sproul. It happens all the time. I met a hospital chaplain who was once a Evangelical Minister who lost his congregation because they didn't want to hear him preach on what he had been taught in seminary to be the proper way to interpret the Infallible Word of God. For as long as Sola Scriptura is accepted, the final authority in practice will be one's own sensibilities & fallible judgement. That is how sinners will often remain slaves to temptation and blind to the healing power of the Gospel. The alternative is to find the Visible Body of Christ which is the Institutional Church and Assembly of Believers Christ founded and gave Authority to Preach to the World, an authority which included the Authority to write the New Testament and Proclaim to the World the Canon of Texts God Inspired to be the Norm of all other Norms (Canon of Both OT & NT). You can try to avoid the logical necessity of this paradigm in order to justify remaining part of the Protestant tradition, but your logic will always fail. Sorry, it's just the truth.
Even scripture says the Church is the pillar of truth, not Scripture (1 Tim 3:15). Even scripture talks about “holding fast to the traditions you were taught by word or epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15) Church holds the scriptures, so She has the right to interpret them by divine inspiration, same as the scriptures were divinely inspired. It’s why apostolic succession/tradition is so important - it’s the lens by which the scriptures are interpreted. Scriptures are impossible to read without interpretation - if there was, there would only be one Protestant denomination instead of thousands.
I was Protestant my whole life, the serious examination of church history, especially in the first few centuries, changed that. Am now Orthodox.
Hey @Gospel Simplicity just wanted to thank you for another great video. If I were a fraction as mature in college as you are, I might be making a difference in the world. I am blown away by the great work you do and how you do it. Also, in the video on Baptismal Regeneration with Dr. Cooper- did you cut your hair? Lookin' sharp and keeping it real with the Solae! I've been finding myself moving more toward the Lutheran position. While I have enjoyed my time with the people in the Orthodox Church, I am struggling with things that seem idolatrous to me (invoking saints, view of the Theotokos, etc) so I have been speaking with a wonderful Lutheran Pastor and it is a positive thing. I guess I share because the amount of time spent learning from your videos, I've come to see you as a classmate in life and a friend. So thanks! God bless you and your nearest and dearest!
I’m so glad these videos have been helpful to you! I did in fact cut my hair, thanks for the kind worlds!
Oh boy THIS is going to be a goodie
Hope you enjoy it!
@@GospelSimplicity oh I will! Is it going on Patreon?
@@huwfulcher yep!
@@GospelSimplicity 🎉
I have missed your channel for a while because of numerous life events. I saw you’re engaged, congratulations, but you were getting into The Catholic Church a lot... what’s your status there? You’re a good man and God bless you and your fiancé.
A few thoughts. I think that the Catholic position practically/functionally is Sola Ecclesia. To be clear, “practically/functionally” are the key markers in that sentence.
When Catholics raise the objection that Protestants are shooting in the dark when they affirm the NT canon, it’s a false complaint. Suppose we found the mythical inspired table of contents, the 28th book of the NT. That wouldn’t be enough for consistent Catholics. They are already operating with the presupposition that no manuscript can be self authenticating. It’s an endless regress.
Any thoughts from my Catholic brothers/sisters?
This argument makes me laugh because both parties are doing the same thing the Protestant think that the individual has the final say, the Catholics think the church has. Each group will say that they appeal to the Holy Spirit but in the end in practice it is either the individual's interpretation or the church's interpretation that is followed.
Still working through the latest "Apostolic Rumble" video, but I thought I'd pregame this one:
Here's the four hurdles which I think he needs to clear:
1) The origin / self-refutation problem: IF it is true that the Christian faith contains a doctrine which stipulations that all doctrines must be derived from the sacred text, then that doctrine must itself be taught by the sacred text. So where does it do that?
2) The Canon Conundrum: If it is true that the Christian faith has a doctrine of the canon of Scripture, or has an authoritative list of books from which people are not permitted to dissent, then that list must also be spelled out in Scripture. It isn't enough to state, "God makes the books inspired, not the Church". The Church is nonetheless responsible for discerning and promulgating the list as a teaching.
3) The "whose interpretation" problem: If it is true that everything must be checked against Scripture (as is often said), then who is tasked with doing the checking? Credit may be paid to councils and commentaries, but if they are not authoritative as such - in a way which binds believers, then they are merely human suggestions. Thus, even if one wants to honor the witness of Councils in regulating Christian doctrine, for lack of a magisterium, the final interpretive authority will always boil down to each individual, making unity and certainty impossible.
4) The historical problem: If the New Testament documents were not finished being composed until around 70AD, then how would Christians practice Sola Scriptura at the dawn of the Christian age? How would this doctrine be anything other than massive shift away from the founding model? This problem is compounded when one considers that the list of books was still in dispute in the year 325AD.
I look forward to seeing this interview, and I'll have my notepad ready!!
Pick up his book, “Authority After Babel”. I’m sure he will hit some of these in the interview, but the full treatment is in the book.
@@chriscorkern8487 : I appreciate the suggestion. I went searching for works (of his) which I could read in the meantime. I found this lecture he gave in 2018 at Western theological seminary: www.saintbenedictinstitute.org/blog/2018/2/7/recovering-biblical-christianity-roman-catholic-and-reformed-perspectives
His basic proposal went like this: "The Catholic critique of Sola Scriptura is a caricature, and more accurately describes a distortion we call 'solo scriptura' - a version which pays no attention to councils, creeds, and tradition. But that isn't what the original Reformers intended. The true version of Sola Scriptura, or sometimes called Prima Scripture, recognizes the rightful place of tradition as reflections of Scripture. They have their rightful place when they accurately reflect the word of God. And by recovering that original meaning, by committing ourselves to dialogue, and by focusing on the fundamental issues primarily, Sola Scriptura can be a unifying force in the Church, rather than a dividing principle."
If that is similar to what he says to Austin, I'd say he clears none of the hurdles. The complaint about Catholics distorting the true "sola scriptura" into "solo scriptura", and that the Reformers never intended Solo Scriptura ... it is not a good argument.
I compare it to the British vehicle, the Reliant Robin. It is a 3 wheeled vehicle which famously flips over the moment you take a hard turn in it. Now, suppose someone criticizes the design as obviously and inevitably leading to that result. Then someone replies, "That's not what the designs of the Reliant Robin intended. They envisioned a vehicle which remained upright!" Well, that's all well and good, but is trivial. The reality is the thing flips over, and all the good intentions in the world doesn't change that.
When Catholics critique Sola Scriptura, they often point to the inevitable results of the schema. Protestants call it a caricature because the Reformers had a more idealistic intention for it. But as I pointed out with the Robin... those ideal intentions don't have much traction if the result is a system which obviously and inevitably conforms to the Catholic critique.
@Pneumatic , We'll find out soon!
Good points! I think the Scripture/Tradition waters are quite murky, however. I think a Protestant might reply along the following lines:
1) Sola scriptura proponents might consider this a false dilemma. Certainly Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians would all agree that scripture is infallible -- so then one could argue this turns the authority of scripture into the default assumption and shifts the burden of proof to anyone asserting an extra-scriptural source of authority (e.g. a Magisterium) to prove that said authority exists. If other authorities can be shown to be flawed/contradictory, then it seems sola scriptura is what remains by process of elimination.
2) I don't think any historical Protestant would disagree that the Church is responsible for discerning and promulgating the canon. It's precisely because the Church unanimously considered the homologoumena to have apostolic authorship that Protestants use it to build doctrine. I believe the claim is that we can be absolutely certain of which books *could* be canonical (homologoumena + antilegomena + deuterocanon), but apart from the homologoumena not necessarily sure which of those books *are* canonical. And again, that's why no Protestant doctrine stems from the antilegomena or deuterocanon alone.
3) This is a very good argument, but one also has to use private/individual judgement to interpret Magisterial documents -- so having a Magisterium merely seems to shift ambiguity instead of eliminating it. If one is Catholic, one can ask how many infallible statements exist. If one is Orthodox, one can ask how many councils are infallible (3, 7, or 9?) I'm not convinced you can get away from ambiguity in any tradition.
4) Ties back to #2. The Protestant would just say Scripture is the most accurate record of apostolic teaching. If one considers Tradition to be the original apostolic teaching, then one can almost consider the Protestant viewpoint to be that Scripture and Tradition are equivalent. If St. Paul were currently alive, for example, it would be nice to ask him things. But since he isn't, the Protestant approach is to do the best one can using his writings, and those of the other apostles of which one can be certain of apostolic authorship.
@@cosmicwatermelon7707 : One by one, then:
1) So, the mental image I get with your first point is that we have two boxes. In one box is the Bible, in the other box is Tradition and Magisterium. Everyone agrees the first box is reliable. So if the second box is shown to be unreliable, all we have is the Bible.
The issue with this is that it does not capture the interrelatedness of Scripture and tradition. The Bible did not fall from the sky fully assembled. Its history is interwoven with the Christian tradition and magisterium. If one determines that the tradition and magisterium are flawed and untrustworthy, the reliability of the Bible which was formed, discerned, and promulgated by the tradition and magisterium does not remain untouched.
2) Your second point about the Canon Conundrum does not resolve the dilemma, it just chooses one result and makes the case that things can still work. That is to say, it acknowleges that Sola Scriptura severely hampers our ability to know the Canon with certainty, but then says we can still make things work by only forming doctrine based on those books which are held universally to be Apostolic.
My reply is twofold: First this is not the way most Protestants interact with the Bible. The distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena is not known by most. The majority would have no problem basing doctrine off 2Peter or Hebrews without a thought to its status.
Second, it still doesn't answer the Canon Conundrum issue with Sola Scriptura. Because if all doctrine is supposed to come from Scripture, then where does the Scripture indicate which books are homologoumena, and where does it say we should only base doctrine on those? It doesn't. So this business of saying we only rely on the HL for doctrine is like trying to stop halfway down a slide at a place which is percieved to still function. I'm afraid an adherent to Sola Scriptura must ride this one all the way to the bottom.
3) This is what I call the "turnabout is fair play" argument. If Sola Scriptura inevitably becomes Solo Scriptura ... don't Catholics have to do the same?
No so. The important thing a magisterium does is provide feedback. If me and my neighbor come to different conclusions about what a magisterial document means, that isn't the end of the road. We can ask for clarification. It might not happen in this century, but there is still a possibility of the Church getting redress to our query. In Sola Scriptura, God has spoken once, and that's all the clarfication you're getting.
This goes to something I call "Exegetical Indeterminacy". That term means the ability of educated, well-intentioned people to come to differing interpretations of a text. The Bible has a lot of it, which is why there are so many divergent Protestant doctrines. This is why all traditions - Catholic or Protestant - inevitably form Catechisms and statements of faith to distill the Bible into something with less indeterminacy. Scholars disagree about what the Bible teaches on Baptism. No one wonders what the Catholics teach on the matter. So a magisterium can do something important: Reduce the uncertainty authoritatively.
Why do the catholics here get so upset when a viewpoint other than their own is shown on this channel. Can you just let Austin create the content he wants? I'm sure this video will be very interesting!
I think people are just passionate about their views, but sometimes I do think people could be more charitable towards my Protestant guests
I was just wondering the same thing.
To be fair Protestants have been known to get up in arms about Roman Catholic stuff in the comments section.
Maybe because you guys showed up to the party 1500 years after it started and then declared that we aren’t Christians. It makes us a little cranky.
I'm a Catholic and I like when he has Protestants on 😁
As an Orthodox Christian I found this video informative. Reasonable dialog is always profitable.
Glad to hear that!
Thanks for this! Sorry if I missed this in one of the 500+ comments: can I have a link to the EO person who wrote about a Sola Scriptura-like idea in Irenaeus? Thanks in advance.
I don't have a link but it was John Behr
@@GospelSimplicity Thanks! Didn't catch the last name so I went down all sorts of rabbit holes looking for "John Bear" 🙂
Dr. Vanhoozer is very charitable and gives his perspective in good faith. With that said, it’s important to understand that the Bible is not a rubix cube. Christ did not leave us in the dark. Christ left us His Church.
It's because of Sola Scriptura that we have thousands of denominations. It's because of Sola Scriptura that a church is easily divided. I'm talking about what I've seen in reality. A pastor who does not agree with the church can start his own using the Bible alone and nobody can tell him that he cannot do that. Looking at reality where we deal with ordinary people, I could say that nothing divided Christianity like Sola Scriptura. Christianity is not meant for the highly intellectuals only but for all. Please look at Sola Scriptura from ordinary people's view also.
Where did it say in these supposed splits in the Protestantism that it was due to Sola Scriptura?
I think the original commenter is implying that with out Church authority and magisterium, everyone becomes their own pope and interprets the bible as they see fit, which causes denominational splits and erases sacramental theology.
@@williamswenson3970 Your church has never officially nor infallibly interpreted the Scriptures. You on your own must interpret the Scriptures.
@@Justas399 my intention of the comment was to clarify the original poster's comment, that lack of a unified, central teaching authority on scripture can easily lead to denominational splits. Take for example, Metropolitan Community Church who I actually discovered today because they solicited me via phone. I found that they have a declaration of faith and that it's basically progressive, liberal social justice but also openly state they don't have unified beliefs. It's a denomination because that's how that small group of people interpret scripture and there is no central authority they submit to or are taught by, so they form their own sect. Personal interpretation causes splintering at an institutional level.
@@williamswenson3970 thanks alot. That is exactly what I meant. I don't know why many people who promoted Sola Scriptura keep ignoring this fact. Why don't they want to talk about it? It's amazing.
I'm enjoying this talk, he seems understand the arguments mostly. I do find it concerning how protestants replace Christ with the Bible as the Word of the Lord. Isaiah 55:11 is talking about Christ, and Christ is the Sun that both scripture and tradition reflect, using Dr. Vanhoozer's analogy. The scriptures do not have life unto themselves, which I also hear many protestants saying, saying John 6 is about the red text. The gospel isn't the first 4 books in the New Testament, it is the good news of the work of Christ. The scriptures are an attestation to Christ and His conquering of death
This guy pretty much danced around the question the entire time and took a position that is very ambiguous and undecided. A very “academic” approach that reminds me of Jordan’s Peterson’s no mans land of relativity and ultimately confusion.
great interview, as always! Dr. Vanhoozer is one of my favorites!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I recently have transitioned from a Solo Scriptura to a broader viewpoint.
As cosmic watermelon challenged, I won't make blanket statements or call names. I will state what led me to my position, and maybe some people want to enter an epic discussion.
First, I want to say that I have high respect for scripture, that it is the word of God, and profitable for whatever it says it is in 1 Ti 3:16 (Teaching, correction, reproof, sound doctrine, training and instruction in righteousness, completion of the man of God.)
The environment I was raised in was Solo as opposed to Sola Scriptura. It was defended in this way, "The Bible is the word of God, but the Catholics have nullified it with their traditions and the baptists are stupid because they don't interpret correctly."
As a kid that was easy to swallow. I assumed that if everyone thought clearly, they would come to the conclusions we do. Obviously, this is not what the guy in the video holds at all, and this is not the blanket view people have (I hope anyway). Eventually, though I came to the realization that people approach with baggage, and that includes myself, and my group. I came to the realization that I got things wrong when I read the Bible. I am a bible fanatic and have hour-long discussions with our preacher, which we both enjoy. At the same time, I realized that the Bible was powerful, or much better put, that God is powerful. His word creates. So my view of the Bible switched from a rule book/blueprint of how to generate the perfect theologically correct Christian, to God creating me. I still hold this viewpoint. So the issue wasn't the Scriptura it was the Solo.
Now on to Sola scriptura. The issue boils down to authority. Not who has authority Christ or the body of Christ? But who has authority Christ and me by myself? or Christ and his body?
I would agree that the body of Christ can't (or better put won't) override scripture, but is it possible that if I disagree with the church that the Body is wrong, and I am right? will I become a new body of Christ, and the three people who agree with me almost completely? I have read the bible enough where I get the sense it is pointing to a church. Not an invisible phantom church, or a platonic ideal, but an actual body. Scripture also suggests being part of the body is vital.
Because of external circumstances where people would leave the congregation over disagreements I came to a question, "When is it OK to leave the congregation and start a church?" The thing was that when I looked in the scripture, I didn't find that in the new testament. I found churches with Jezabel teaching, churches where sexual immorality was boasted about, churches where Diotrephes ran the church like a herd of cattle. Churches I would have left the moment I walked in the door, and yet nowhere was anyone told to leave, except sometimes to the heretic.
So I figured, if my congregation has a disagreement with me, at what point do I leave? I didn't find anything in the book that permitted me to do so.
I also studied enough history to know that the only viable candidates are the RCC and the EO and the Oriental Orthodox. I haven't yet made up my mind on which one is the right one, but it seems to me that EO has the strongest case in my studies so far.
So how does this go against Sola Scriptura? Only because all those groups do not hold to it.
They have immense respect for it, But they don't hold to Sola Scriptura. Does scripture create us? Absolutely. Does scripture alone? Absolutely not. Is scripture the sole *infallible* rule of faith and practice. I do not find that in scripture. As for faith, that is rooted in Christ. As for practice, one of the things I found is that it is far easier to be a hearer than a doer. I see practice occurring in the Church, with the Apostles setting rules, including obedience of the Presbyters.
One of the weakest criticisms is that it creates disunity. On the contrary, Sola Scriptura creates tremendous unity between small groups of people. It is nice to be the only ones right, the only enlightened, the ones who see the obvious meaning no one else does. If it is non-denom, it also creates unity by denying that one interpretation is the sole rule. I do think that a member cut off from the body is dead, and here is how my understanding of history went.
After a while, either the OO or the RCC/EO schismed at Chalcedon, I haven't figured out which.
That means that one of them is in trouble. If the OO is the original, then I need to be part of the OO which does not hold to Sola Scriptura. If the RCC/EO is correct, then you have 1054.
If the EO is the body, then I need to be part of that. If the RCC is the body, then you have the issue of the reformation. Luther got excommunicated, as well as the other reformers. That means they were no longer in communion, which means whatever the start is not the body of Christ.
That means those who hold to Sola Scriptura are at best a step removed from the body of Christ, at worst, four steps removed. That is kinda where I am at. I hope that isn't too harsh, that is just how I am working through it. This is not to say that Protestants (which I technically am) are evil, they are sincere people many of whom I expect to meet in heaven. There are a lot of people who have come to some correct conclusions by themselves, but there is no one who came to a correct conclusion against the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ.
When a council affirms an understanding, is that infallible? Sola scriptura says it is important, not infallible, but the original church says if it is a legitimate counsel it is.
I see you’ve added to your collection of icons! Please post a picture !
The purpose of the doctrine of "sola scriptura" was and has been just to take authority from The Church, this makes it completely unbiblical doctrine according to the bible.
1 Timothy 3:15
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
It is pretty obvious why Lutero invented it.
Great interview Austin I really appreciated the Professor’s time and humility. I’m Orthodox so obviously a bunch of objections leaped into my mind. However I was surprised that you didn’t raise the objection that Sola Scriptura isn’t taught in the scriptures themselves. I would liked to have heard his response to that question.
Glad you enjoyed it! That was definitely an oversight on my end. Perhaps we'll be able to address that another time!
ruclips.net/video/cHg0sXkfwvI/видео.html
Hope this answer your question
Properly defining "sola Scriptura" is important, but defining the doctrine is one thing; defending it is another. Vanhoozer spends a lot of time defining but not defending. Does the book actually offer a defense of the doctrine? If so, can anyone sum up the main lines of argument in its defense?
His statement about Scripture being the only means which truth was handed down by the Apostles isn't Scruptural. 2 Thess. 2:15 states that it was handed down by oral and written means. Sadly this was the only unscriptural statement that I detected in an otherwise valiant attempt to defend SS. As a Lutheran, I must be prepared to always admit reality and be unafraid of facts as I question what I believe and why. It is my view that this is how we all ought to be, as Dr Vanhoozer said, and done so humbly.
Interesting that the moment he begins talking about unity he sets in differentiating “small” Protestants, “idealistic” Protestants, “paradigmatic” Protestants, and so on. Unity discourse takes a form of identity through differences.
There is no true unity in the RCC. Just look at how many support homosexuality and abortion. Many don't even believe in the real presence.
@@Justas399 By definition those people are not Catholic. The fact the they say they are Catholic is like a man saying he's a bus driver when he never learned to drive. It's just a lie.
@@Justas399 the definition of catholic is someone who accepts the teaching authority of the Church, and the Church hasn't changed its position on homosexuality or abortion. We operate different than Protestantism because we have dogmas and doctrines that we are bound to accept. Also, those who don't believe in the real presence cannot really be called catholics since this is a de fide proposition. Of course many of them are badly catechized, like me who left the Church for many years and later came back. So, there is a significant difference, because we are not allowed to split based on different opinions or interpretations of scripture, whereas protestants do.
@@HosannaInExcelsis According to church studies on the sexual orientation of its leaders over 40% are homosexuals. Your pope has never condemned homosexuality.
Do you realize that there is no official-infallible interpretations of the Scriptures in your church? This means there are millions of different interpretations of the Scriptures in your church. Each must interpret the Scriptures on their own.
@@Justas399 does he really need to repeat every teaching that is in the Catechism? Your arguments just makes no sense. He has never contradicted any Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality. But he, as a pastor needs to also try to find ways to bring sinners to the Church. Homosexuals too deserve to hear the gospel and be given an opportunity to repent and live a holy life.
Do I need an official infallible interpretation of EVERY verse in the bible? why should I? I don't think I need it, and neither does the Church. But when it comes to complex issues like free-will, justification, predestination and grace, I certainly need an infallible teaching authority. Or else the bible becomes impossible to interpret. Let me give you an example:
Paul says in Romans 3:10 "“There is no one righteous, not even one". But if that's the case how do you interpret the following verses from the bible?
"Noah was a righteous man" Gen 6:9
"Joseph was a righteous man" Mat 1:19
"John was a righteous and holy man" Mar 6:20
"Zacharias and Elizabeth...were both righteous in the SIGHT OF GOD" Luk 1:6
"Simeon was righteous and devout" Luk 2:25
"Joseph from Arimathea was a good and righteous man" Luk 23:50
"Cornelius, a centurion, a rigtheous and God-fearing man" Acts 10:22
That's the reason I need the Church. Because there is an interpretative traditions that dates back to the the time of Christ, and a teaching authority that I believe was given by him to Peter's successors in Mat 16.
So, I am glad I have the freedom to hold many theological positions and speculate on theology as long as I don't contradict Church dogmas. As Chesterton used to say: "“Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground,”
Prima Scriptura within the integral triumverite of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Teaching Magisterium.
I took the host advise and listened to the whole interview. The distinction he made of some groups being biblicists rings true from personal experience. But, generally I winced at his presentation because of his fuzziness and his longing for some kind of unity. I have former Roman Catholic friends who see Protestantism creeping into Catholicism. After 500 years, the only thing he has to cling to is his longings. He appeals to orthodoxy and Orthodoxy yet a book: Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession
No offence, but this guy like all Protestants that talk about Orthodoxy has not taken the time to understand the difference between patristic theology and their own systematic theology.
Taken from Chapter 2 of St. Vincent of Lerins' Commonitorium, written in 434:
"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 Novation expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, 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 prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."
Sola Scripturas weakness is that it puts God in a box or in this case God in a book. God transcends our human ideas of who He is and what we think he is based on our interpretation of Scripture. A good lesson to learn from is How pious Jews who knew all about the Tora and studied it day and night still managed to miss God when he was right in front of them. Christian's on all sides make the same mistake today. God wants to be loved with our free will and we Love him by loving the people He create in His image. Especially the forgotten, the poor and the suffering, the homosexual who is hated and disowned, the refugee seeking a home. It is when we begin to see God in everyone, those different then us that we can begin to love him. God is not gonna ask us about our theology He will know if we Loved.
So according to you were left with just your ideas of what you think God is like?
@@Justas399 "As much as you did for the least of these, you have done it to me"
I like the idea and specifics of dialogic virtues
Austin, thanks for a good discussion on Sola Scriptura. The most important principle of interpretation that Martin Luther used was “Scripture interprets Scripture.” The tools for properly interpreting the Bible are contained in the Bible itself. Thus, he delved into the New Testament to see how Jesus and the apostles had interpreted Scripture. There he found a valuable tool. He discovered that many Old Testament people and institutions were to be understood as types or patterns that foreshadowed and proclaimed the Christ, who would surpass them and fulfill them(Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant). Thus, in his Preface to the Psalter, Luther wrote, “The true, the only sense of the Psalms is the Christ-sense.”
This has led to the current Protestant principles of interpreting Scripture.
1. No binding authority but the Bible alone. Sola Scriptura.
2. No official binding, interpreter or interpretation-You’re your own Pope.
3. The Bible is precipices, easy to understand. (Not According to 2 Peter3:15-16)
4. As an individual I can and should read the Bible and interpret it myself.
These principles have led and continue to lead to nothing but division, now near 30,000 different sects. It shows just how unworkable, Sola Scriptura is and is but an icon for what Martin Luther came to regret at the end of his life:“There are almost as many sects, division and factions and beliefs as there are heads. This one will not admit baptism. This one rejects the Sacrament of the Altar. Some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual however clownish he maybe, does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and who does not put forth his prophecy to his own ravings and dreams.”
Can you give me a couple of examples that shows that division in Protestant churches was due to Sola Scriptura?
The problem for the Rc is that when his church does evil and promotes false doctrine he has no way to reform or rebuke the leadership of his church. He has to stay.
@@Justas399 Which false doctrines? Please not the usual one that have been debunked forever and a day.
@@stagwilliams5419 Eh, usury, the death penalty, and salvation of non-Catholics come to mind. Either the current positions are false, or -- given that revelation is officially closed and the Church is indefectible -- the entire clergy was somehow unable to adequately interpret magisterial teaching for centuries. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@cosmicwatermelon7707 The Red Herring Of Usury
First, passages such as Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35-38 command that the poor among the Israelites are to receive interest-free loans, out of compassion and mercy.
The second group of texts is illustrated by Deuteronomy 23:19-21: "You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest. You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countryman you shall not charge interest, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess." Here the principle of interest-free loans is extended to embrace all of Israel (and would include those non-Jews who are living under Israel's protection). But notice that the Scripture also says, "You may charge interest to a foreigner," indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful.
Finally, the third group of texts (Ezek. 18:13, 17, Jer. 15:10, Prov. 28:8) condemn the greed of the rich, who oppress the poor by, among other things, exacting interest which the unfortunate are unable to pay.
The Church’s teaching on usury is scripturally based and due to major societal shifts has developed and evolved within the biblical framework. For a longer and detailed account go to: www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646
Death Penalty
Are all the teachings laid out in the catechism infallible?
While the catechism contains the infallible doctrines proclaimed by popes and ecumenical councils in church history - called dogmas - it also presents teachings not communicated and defined in those terms. In other words, all dogmas are considered doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas.
For a pope to speak infallibly, he must speak ex cathedra (Latin meaning “of the chair”). This mean he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. Pope Francis issued a request to revise the catechism’s death penalty teaching. He did not issue an ex cathedra statement that alters church doctrine.
Can Non-Catholic be Saved?
Q: Okay, so I’m a Catholic but my parents are devout Baptists, and I recently discovered the “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” doctrine. Does this say that they will not be saved since they aren’t Catholics? I’m really worried about them. -B.M.
Answered by Fr. Edward McIlmail, LC
A: Thanks for your show of love for your parents. “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (Outside the Church there is no salvation) is a commonly misunderstood teaching. It assuredly does not mean that non-Catholics are doomed.
What it does do is point to Christ as the one mediator and path of salvation. And since he continues to be present on earth in his body the Church, the Church by its nature is an instrument for salvation.
The Catechism in No. 846 recognizes the need for this doctrine to be understood properly: “Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the [Second Vatican] Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”
No. 847 adds, “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
These points could be restated like this: Whether a person realizes or not, his salvation would come through the Church as the body of Christ. This is part of Christ’s plan. Even a non-Christian could be saved, since through no fault of his own he might never have heard of the Gospel or made the connection between the Gospel message and the Church. No. 1257 of the Catechism notes, “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” This doesn’t mean that we Catholics should neglect our duty to spread the truth of the Gospel; it just means that God will never be unfair.
This principle applies to non-Catholic Christians as well; many have a deep love for Christ and live exemplary lives yet for various reasons they never entered into full communion with the Church.
All this assumes good will on the part of the person, of course. The good news is that there is hope for everyone to obtain salvation. Your own example as a loving son and a fervent Catholic might go a long way to bring your parents closer to the Church. I pray that that happens. God bless.
@@stagwilliams5419 Thanks for the explanations. Now, one can redefine, reinterpret, and develop doctrine all one wants -- but that still doesn't explain how, given the Church's claims of closed revelation and indefectibility, seemingly no clergy were able to get these teachings correct for centuries. I'd also ask which of the original infallibility criteria outlined in Pastor Aeternus was not fulfilled by Francis in changing the catechism. Did he really not teach ex cathedra according to the original promulgation of infallibility, or did he not teach ex cathedra according to additional refinements and language criteria retroactively proposed in the decades after Vatican I? If the latter, then infallibility has become seemingly arbitrary and it's not quite clear what sort of thing is actually divinely inspired. (As an example, think of all the controversy over Ordinatio sacerdotalis. Or why an organization that can make infallible statements is unable to precisely identify all of them.)
Personally, I don't tend to think this sort of thing amounts to much more than magisterial goalpost shifting and mental gymnastics. I think there's a point after which you've seen enough of it that you start to wonder whether everything holds together, whether God really operates in this consistently retroactive manner.
So, I'd ask you if you find such explanations genuinely convincing. I don't. If you do, though, that's cool with me. We can disagree. :)
Another great discussion, Austin. I would love to see Dr. Vanhoozer have a dialogue with a Catholic theologian on this topic. Here are a few thoughts on what I still found lacking in Dr. Vanhoozer's presentation.
(Part 1 of 2)
*Few initial points*:
- Everyone agrees that scriptures are the word of God.
- Everyone agrees that since scriptures are the Word of God they are supremely authoritative.
- Saying these things do not get to the heart of the disagreement, nor are they challenges to the Catholic view of scriptures in any way (see Dei Verbum).
- I think it would be very helpful for Protestants to acknowledge that Catholics emphatically teach that nothing in Church teaching can contradict scriptures. Of course, many will say that Catholics do hold to teachings that contradict scriptures, but that is going to part of the later stages of the debate. Initially, I believe that if we first have agreement that Catholics do not believe they have the authority to change scriptures or teaching something contrary to scriptures, then we can move past so many misunderstandings and get to the key disagreements.
*First problem*: The Bible can't give you the Canon
Around 18 minutes "scriptures alone are what the Church has recognized as the Word of God."
We already have a strike against sola scriptura in that we have an authority other than the Bible that tells us what is considered part of the Bible. There is already the acknowledgment here that the Church authoritatively declared what books are in the scriptures. This isn't to say the Church created the Bible, God obviously did, but the Church did give us the epistemological knowledge of what is God's Word and what is not. How can anyone think they have any theological certainty on any teaching in the Bible if we can't be sure whether the book they are deriving that teaching from is actually scripture or not?
*Second problem*: Inconsistent Historical Method
The same standards that you would use to argue for the 27 book New Testament will also get you the magisterium. This is to say that in looking for the historical consensus of the early Church in deciding what books should be in the Bible will also give you consesus on the existence of an ecclesial community established by God to authoritatively interpret scripture and declare dogma and doctrine. To accept one while rejecting the other is simply inconsistent.
*Third Problem*: nuda/solo scriptura vs. the sola scriptura distinction is a distinction without a difference
Around 19 min: The nuda/solo scriptura vs. the sola scriptura distinction seems like a distinction that is impossible to maintain. I used to think this was true too when I was Lutheran. But then, I listened to how much disagreement there is over moral issues in the Christian world and I saw no one actually lives out this distinction in practice. For just one example, the teleological view of the moral law clearly shows that contraception is intrinsically wrong. Here, we have an example of God's authority outside the Bible (the natural moral law) that is clearly teaching one thing, and yet, I heard again and again in the Lutheran church that since contraception isn't explicitly in the Bible (adiaphora), this is a matter of Christian freedom of conscience. This is just one quick example, but can multiplied almost beyond belief. This seems like another strong piece of evidence for authority the living magisterium of the Catholic Church which can declare doctrine and dogma that isn't explicitly in scripture as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible and has solid reasons backing up the teaching. I would also argue that everything taught by the Catholic Church is implicitly in scripture, but that is a side issue and not necessary for the main problem.
*Fourth problem*: The authoritative interpretation problem
23 min: "The Reformers did not advocate just holding themselves up in their closets and reading the Bible without any other guidance, that is solo scriptura and they repudiated it, they read with the Church."
Also 29 minutes and the discussion of perspicuity of scriptures
The Reformers did indeed selectively quote the Church Fathers to try and make their case stronger. However, they also rejected so many things from the Church Fathers that went against their case. This isn't actually the problem as the Catholic Church does the same thing too! They read the Church Fathers to see what is good and reject the bad. There is an infinite difference, though. The real problem is the denial that the Catholic Church was given the authority by Jesus to do this. They have the authority from God to make dogma and doctrine that is binding for all Christians and in the process are documenting a collection of Christian teaching that are within the bounds of acceptable belief. In the Protestant world, without this binding authority, you can never, and I repeat, never, have any binding or authoritative doctrine in matters of dispute. It always comes down to what an individual believes the Bible says or which Church community's interpretation they decide to align their beliefs with. Note: I am not implying that there are not very clear things in the Bible that all can come to know without the magisterium (e.g. Jesus rose from the dead). However, there are countless core doctrines of the Church that one could never have any theological certainty without an interpretive authority (e.g. Trinity, hypostatic union, baptismal regeneration, etc.). Scriptures do not interpret themselves.
*Fifth problem*: material vs. formal sufficiency of scripture problem
Around 30 minutes, Dr. Vanhoozer states that he thinks the Bible contains both the ingredients and the recipe, hence saying it is both materially and formally sufficient for all Christians and their salvation. This seems empirically false. This ties in immediately with the canon problem in that you don't know from scriptures what the ingredients are (books of the canon). Also, just as discussed above with the interpretation problem, there are countless divisions in the Protestant world over essential/first order doctrine (e.g. baptismal regeneration, real presence in Eucharist, etc.). If the Bible is formally sufficient for our salvation, how is it that many Protestants hold contradictory views over essential doctrine? Also, there will always be endless division over what even counts as essential doctrine!
*Sixth Problem*: Individualism problem
Around 37 min, I was very happy to hear Dr. Vanhoozer acknowledge the individualism problem. I still haven't come across a sola scriptura argument that overcomes this problem, though. To simply say that you read the Bible in light of tradition doesn't overcome the problem. Every individual can read more things other than the Bible and apply their own take on it. The same problem exists about interpretive authority, you are just throwing in more resources to interpret. The Catholic Church isn't prone to the same objection because they are making an entirely different ontological claim. They are the living magisterium of God that can settle dispute whenever it arises. If something previously declared becomes disputed again, the Church has the authority to further clarify the matter. The written word of the Bible can never further clarify itself.
45 min: Dr. Vanhoozer said he was sad that the Reformers couldn't work out difference over the Lord's Supper but he is happy that they were still able to still fellowship with one another and share the Lord's Supper.
Umm.. I don't know what Dr. Vanhoozer is trying to get at with this one. The disagreement over the Lord's Supper fractured the early Protestant groups that were trying to find their way apart from the Catholic Church. They did not maintain fellowship with one another after this. Conservative Lutherans, to this day, will not let someone who is not a part of their particular brand of Lutheranism to partake in communion (i.e. closed communion). Don't get me wrong, I think excluding those of different beliefs from the Eucharist is the right thing to do (1 Corinthians 11:29). The fact there is not table fellowship among Protestants, is yet another example of the fallout from the hermeneutical chaos that exists apart from the Catholic Church.
(Part 2 of 2) *Seventh problem*: Sola scriptura is a novel idea to Luther
Austin asked this question around 53 min. I actually disagree with this too. There were others in the history of the Church that tried to use scripture as the sole principle to teach against the authority of Church. They were consistently called out by the Church as heretics and pointed out what danger exists in removing the authority of the Church. Here is one example from St. Vincent in 434 a.d.:
Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins) Chapter 2.
[4.] I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
[5.] 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, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, 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 prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm
Luther even argued the same point in 1516, before the reformation, that without the authority of the Catholic Church it leads to endless division.
"If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many Churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills, in order that all may be assembled in one unity, that His Power be exercised by one man to whom also He commits it. He has, however, made this Power so strong that He looses all the powers of Hell (without injury) against it. He says: The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, as though He said: They will fight against it but never overcome it, so that in this way it is made manifest that this power is in reality from God and not from man. Wherefore whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the Power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, for much better is obedience than the victims of fools who know not what evil they do (Eccles. iv. 17)."
- Luther, Martin. (Sermo in Vincula S. Petri, hence on August 1. " Werke " Weim. ed., 1 (1883), p. 69).
And yet, even as the early Reformation was spinning out of control and Luther saw the maleffects that came from sola scriptura, he blamed it on the Devil and not his removing the authority of the Church.
"There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the Sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit, and he himself a prophet."
- Luther, Martin. The Letter of doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp (1525)
Glad to see you continue to dig in on these discussions, Austin. Again, I think Dr. Vanhoozer would make for a great discussion guest with a Catholic on this topic. God bless!
Wow, thanks for such a substantive response! It's always a pleasure to read such comments. I think your idea of having him on with a Catholic Theologian could be really interesting
I always see "First Baptist," Churches, but never "Second Baptist," Churches. Can't figure it out.
It deals with the confession of faith to which they adhere. There's a few second baptist churches near me
@@GospelSimplicity There is a third and fourth Baptist Church near me. Richmond, VA has a fifth and sixth Baptist Church.
I think interpreting "the word" as "the bible" is wrong. None of the writers of the bible thought they where writing a holy book (with the possible exception of Moses and some others I cannot recall who where explicitly told to write stuff down by God). I think "the word" which does not return void rather is the Logos - Christ. God has spoken the whole world into being, when God speaks things happen. IDK just rambling late on a friday, have fun ya'll.
Actually there are no Sola's per se, none stand alone and if there was one it would be Christ Alone!...but actually he and his work is never alone. Solar Scriptura, not only is unbiblical, but actually dangerous. The fruit of the Protestant Reformation alone makes my point clear, but think of this topic from another perspective...so we have fallible man interpreting an infallible book. This logically is an impossibility and a recipe for disaster! What we do have to guide us comes from the Living Spirit Empowered Church...which is the Magisterium, the Tradition and the Apostolic Epistles & Writings (the New Testament).
New Addition: The Church doesn't usurp the Scripture, plus Scripture doesn't strong arm the Church. By Faith we believe in the Inspired New Testament. Though with said how do we know that...it is from The Church who in the 4th Century clarified and codified the New Testament Canon. We must be careful not to create a false antithesis between the NT & the Church. After all the New Testament Scriptures came from the Church, not the Church from the Scriptures. Though please keep in mind Scripture Old and New Covenant guide, edify the Church this is why we must embrace, teach and promote The Whole Council of God as St. Paul proclaimed.
This was an excellent interview and I learned more about what "Sola Scriptura" means - or at least what Dr. Vanhoozer means in its defense. I truly respect his scholarship and thoughtful explanations. As I listened, however, I kept wondering who or what he was referring to when he talked about "the Church". Toward the end, he suggested that he feels part of the Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant Church. On a spiritual level, I do not disagree that all who follow Christ in good faith are "the Church". However, without common and agreed upon leadership, I still sense some "anarchy" in earthly practice - primary issues of dogma are left without authoritative definition.
53:00 Quoting an Orthodox quoting a Church Father to bolster the case for Sola Scriptura - and then having to point out that the quote itself is actually a misquoting of I Tim 3:15... Interesting...
My take on Sola Scriptura is that after all the terms are defined and all the qualifications are made, there is very little practical difference between Catholics and Protestants on how scripture functions.
Protestants vary however and aren't unanimous.
It is a sound argument to say that scripture is the authority, and that God is the author ultimately, speaking through the Spirit. But he would still be wrong to say that sola scriptura could be anything other than scripture alone. You all need to drop the saying itself, or replace it with Scriptura Primus. Even then, you would be wrong, as authority must always take into account the wisdom of the elders in the decisions they must take to fulfill mercy and justice by understanding the spirit of the times (1 Chronicles 12:32), which a handbook can never be of better use than a person who understands the "handbook" of faith and applies the authority of the Church to the prominent issues of our age .
Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...
In the Brenton Septuagint its:
Brenton(i) 16 They passed by in full number, and not one of them perished: they sought not one another; for the Lord commanded them, and his Spirit gathered them.
There’s a lot I can get behind here, but I’m still left with the question of vagueness: authority rests in God and because scripture is God breathed it is our first authority. Yes, but that still does not resolved the initial problem. How can we all be Biblical and radically different. I’d even say liberal Christians are biblical in that they derive there authority from scripture but of course define that scripture the way they see fit. So how do you define scripture correctly? Can this be done? This is why Holy Tradition is necessary.
And which traditions are elevated to Holy Tradition? And how do we interpret them for today? The problem is only removed a step.
This was a really well-articulated and useful discussion. I am catholic and fully - respectfully - disagree. If you love the game, if you really respect the game, then you love the presence of an umpire, or a “living voice” to resolve the disputes. Without that, christianity devolves into constant bickering ( = 30,000 protestant denominations in the world ). Luther had a pious reaction, motivated by good reasons, but unfortunately he went beyond what was righteous when he created a schism. There are and always have been very harsh critics of the Church who still respected the role of the Church and of the papacy (for example, Dante).
The concept of a “consensus of the majority” clearly doesn’t work, just look at the wild disparity between all these 30,000 interpretations. No political system has ever worked and provided unity by listening to 30,000 decision-makers.
From where did you get this "30,000" can you provide evidence?
As someone who was raised protestant, and still technically a protestant, I have to admit Sola Scriptura is a weakly established doctrine. I was utterly on team sola scriptura, because thats what I was raised on, while completely ignoring any other view point. However, when looking into the arguments for and against sola scriptura, the arguments “for” all seem rather feeble. Scripture is still the prime authority, but it just isn’t the sole authority, that is, if we’re trying to be as biblical as possible. Early Church history and the reality of the historic Christian faith is a mountain every reformed Christian must summit; if we don’t really know where we come from, our claim to the hope of faith we have is weakened. Us Protestants believe that we are more like the early church than the “puffed up,” “rich,” and “strange” Catholic church, except, when you read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and the other Early Church Fathers, their theology doesn’t really sound like Protestant theology...rather, it sounds a lot like Catholic and Orthodox theology. How do we reconcile that fact? I don’t think its possible.
It's difficult for low Church Protestants, absolutely. For Anglicans and Lutherans, it's not as difficult. Ultimately, I'm Catholic because (a) I feel, based on my experiences with God, it's where God wants me to be, (b) the arguments from Scripture and history point towards the Papacy having enough truth to make being Catholic the more sensical option than anything else. But I am NOT Catholic because I think other denominations aren't rationally tenable. They are. I just don't think they are "the true Church" in the way the Catholic Church is.
A 2 hour 30min debate on Calvinism between two Bible experts quoting scripture after scripture at each other was the final straw for me. Even if sola scriptura was true (by just looking at history it demonstrably isn’t) still leaves you with the problem of who exactly has the right to interpret it. Protestantism is an empty vessel and I am so glad I left it behind.
@@xpictos777 Well I just watched 2 hours of Catholic theologians arguing over whether lying is always wrong, and both of them were quoting from the Bible and Church teaching, and I wasn't able to tell who was right by the end of it. So
@@taylorbarrett384 I agree with everything you said. I'm wanting to convert to the Catholic church, just looking for the right parish while learning more about the Catholic faith. I've begun to pray the rosary daily, starting a few weeks ago, and surprisingly I think its been tremendously helpful, in helping me resist certain things I've been struggling with for close to 20 years. It's a miraculous difference, which I'm so thankful to Mother Mary for, and so ashamed I ever denied her the love, respect, and veneration she so deserves.
@@xpictos777 the easy way to stay a Protestant is to just close your eyes to the first 1000+ years of Christian history. Maybe its time for the Body of Christ to be reconciled and reunified again. I pray that we will be blessed with that grace
Great interview my only criticism is that we missed out on getting into the nitty gritty of what Scripture says about Sola Scriptura (cue Catholics/Eastern Orthodox swooping in to say that it isn't in Scripture). What I loved was the careful explanation that while there are wings of Protestantism which take Sola Scriptura too far, the historical line has always been that Scripture is the ultimate authority but not the only authority.
As Protestants we should be careful to digest this and think it through. Taking Scripture and sitting in our rooms and developing our own theology without reference to anyone else is how sects/cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Wells have come about. Scripture very clearly teaches that churches are to have Elders who are demonstrably wise not just in practical terms but theologically as well. That can only come from interacting with Scripture and others as they interact with Scripture.
No one actually does this though. Scripture is studied in community (eg the emergence of Pietism 17th century and their "conventicles" all the up to now in contemporary evangelical Bible studies).
Its mostly people that have authority within the Church structures who start heresies not laypeople that was true in the 4-5 centuries with the Christological heresies all the way to today (eg Children of God cult started by a former minister of the C&MA). Of course there are counterexamples, but private devotional reading doesnt normally lead to the formation of heresy. The formation of heresies has fundamentally to do with pride and the desire to have power and control other. Most individuals have idiosyncratic theological belief, but its harmless becuase they arent trying to usurp authority or start a new sect. (furthermore for it to be a heresy it has to be a false teaching combined with a sectarian motivation).
"Attenuated" might be better than "abbreviated."
Maybe it is naive because the Bible pressuposed the Church. Also, as there are different interpretations of the same data (the books of the Bible), without the guidance of the Church who produced it, and was driven by the Holy Spirit, we fall to the illusion of personal interpretations. Since the Bible is not "self-evident", it necessarily pressuposes the Church, that is the Orthodox Church. But I have to admit, I am not well read at all about Protestantism. Feel free to enlgihten me.
Why does the host keep looking down repeatedly around the 12 min. mark? Is he looking at a chat session or notes ? I've noticed this in a number of these dialogues and it's very strange and distracting. Is he looking at notes? What is going on there? And then he comes up and gives a wry smile and a head nod. This pattern repeats. It's weird.
Could be a number of things. My laptop is below the camera, so I'm either looking at the video feed of my guest, or I'm looking at my outline
Scripture is a traditioned text. It was sub-created by Orthodox Tradition, synergistic and cooperative with God, guided by The Holy Spirit.
It’s also strange to me that a Christian doesn’t can’t understand how 2 things (scripture and tradition) could hold the #1 spot (supreme) given that we are Trinitarian. “I find it kinda funny. I find it kinda sad.”
I don't think it's that he can't understand that, but rather that he thinks it's not true
@@GospelSimplicity I respect your what you’re doing with your channel and commend you for it. Bravo.
But, if that’s the case then he chose a poor example to illustrate his point, counting 3,2,1. Precisely because it illustrates that he is using pure reason, which the Trinity eludes, to come to his conclusion. But that was really a secondary point in my comment that I could have left out.
The fact remains still that Scripture is a product of Orthodox Tradition.
False, Scripture created and antedates the Church. (Hebrew canon existed before there was ever such a things as a Church).
45:00 Uh.. Luther wanted to stick a shiv in Zwingli.
I always come back to the same point. Sola Scriptura doesn't exist. What actually exists is Sola Hermeneutica. The Constitution is not the final arbiter of the laws of our republic, its the Supreme Court. Similarly, the Bible cannot be the final authority, but the Church. The Bible cannot interpret itself, therefore the Church must interpret it. If not then it boils down to the Hermeneutics of individuals. It doesn't matter whether you call it Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura, its still wrong. The Bible clearly states that: "the Church is the bulwark and foundation of the truth."
If God can inspire authorship, can he not also inspire a living/active interpretation? It seems to me to be pleasing to God to work through living human beings to bring forth His truth - he has always worked through active/living voices. Protestants & Catholics BOTH exercise interpretive authority - i.e. how they interpret the Eucharist or Baptism or the sacraments in general - neither then truly accepts Sola Scriptura precisely because both exercise interpretive authority. And it takes authority to claim Sola Scriptura as THE truth and then tradition to hand that belief down to the next generation. Authority & Tradition.
So good
Think about this; Christ didn't write a single word down (unlike Mohammed). So what did he do? Well He spent every day of his 3 year ministry trying to delegate authority to His disciples (the Church).
Boom! 🔥
What is an inanimate authority?
I would refer to the question, “what does it mean for a text to be authoritative?”
Sola Scriptura basically replaces God with the Bible. St. Paul in Hebrews says that God spoke to his people at various times and in many ways through his prophets and in the present times through his Son Jesus. This itself shows that Scriptura cannot be Sola. Also the phrase present times means us today also. The kingdom of God is a work in progress it didn't start with and doesn't end with the Bible. Though Scripture cannot be set aside, If I may dare say it is a manual to a gadget say a new computer, it only tells you about the hardware and where the buttons are but the real thing is the gadget and the wonderful experience of exploring it. Don't be hung up on Scripture. There's more to Christianity than Scripture, there is Tradition, there is Authority and thereby forgiveness of sins, there is Service to others, there is Worship, there is denial of oneself for the kingdom of God, last but not the least there is Martyrdom. And yes there is Eternal Life.
I agree that there is more to Christianity than just Scripture, but I also believe that Scripture is much more than merely a manual. Scripture is God breathed(inspired) by the Holy Spirit. And it must be remembered that we, as Christians, wouldn't know about Tradition, Authority, forgiveness of sins, service to others, worship, denial of self, martyrdom, or eternal life if we didn't have the inspired written Word of God. We wouldn't even know what Jesus Christ did for us by His dying on the cross, and His resurrection from the dead without Holy Scripture. You wouldn't know that the Book of Hebrews says how God spoke through the prophets and in these last days by His Son unless you had first read it from the Holy Scriptures. I'm not saying that each person should have their own private interpretation of Scripture, and I agree that we can't properly understand Scripture without having someone to guide us( Acts 8:31), but we wouldn't even know that we need proper guidance in understanding Scripture, unless we had first read it and believed it.
@@jamestrotter3162 Then how do you explain the fact that people became Christians without having read the Bible but only on the witness of the Apostles. I'm not saying Scripture should be trivialised, cause it records the history of Judaism and Christianity and helps us to understand our faith better but faith itself is a gift from God, no study of the Bible can give you faith. It can give you knowledge but it can't give you faith simply because Jesus said I chose you, you did not choose me. Yeh i quoted Hebrews to convince teachers of the law like you. I'd still be Christian without knowing this passage. 2 Timothy 3:16 says All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; This is exactly what I'm trying to say when I say it's a manual.
@@SD-fk8bt It's true that people became Christians without having read the New Testament, but not without having read the Old Testament, which was the only Bible they had at the time. And it wasn't only on the witness of the Apostles alone. All the Apostles used the Scriptures of their day, what we call the Old Testament, in their preaching and teaching. And the reading and study of the Scriptures definitely does bring us to saving faith in Christ according to Paul. "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is Written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, " Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."- Romans 10:14-17. Paul also wrote to Timothy," But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be COMPLETE, equipped for every good work."- 2nd Timothy 3:14-17. It's true that faith is the gift of God, but that gift comes by the hearing of the Scriptures when they are faithfully preached and taught by the one who preaches the good news of the gospel.
@@jamestrotter3162 Peter was a fisherman, do you think he could read and write. Moreover Jesus's life was not recorded in the OT, it was written down as part of the NT later but people became Christians much before that. What I'm trying to say is that your faith in Christ does not depend on knowledge of the Scripture because it is a gift from God but yes the Bible increases the understanding of your faith. It's one of the many graces which enriches our life but it is not the Alpha and the Omega.
BTW what does Timothy mean by good work.
@@SD-fk8bt Peter definitely could read and write. He wasn't illiterate. He was a fisherman, but he was also a business man. He made his living as a commercial fisherman so he would have to have been able to keep records of his sales. He also had to pay his taxes and other bills. But that's really irrelevant. The fact remains that when he preached his first sermon on the day of Pentecost, he preached, using the Scriptures, quoting them word for word, to the people who were listening. And those who gladly received his word were baptized and were added to the Church. He also used Scripture when preaching to the house of Cornelius. Some of the Apostles were more educated than others. We know that Paul was very educated and knew the Scriptures very well, but Paul knew, as did also Peter and the other apostles, that it wasn't their learning or lack thereof that cause peoplke to believe in Christ. But they also knew that it was through the preaching of the gospel, and using the Scriptures to validate their preaching, that God chose to save those who believed. Paul always used the Scriptures when preaching the gospel. " And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you is the Christ."-Acts 17:2-3. " The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."-Acts 17:10-11. The prophecies about Jesus recorded in the Old Testament were what all the apostles used when preaching and teaching the gospel, and God used His written word to convict sinners and bring them to saving faith in Christ. " So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word(written) of Christ."- Romans 10:17. Faith that saves does most definitely depend on the knowledge and belief of the Scriptures according to the apostle Paul. Faith in Christ is the gift of God, but it can only be received by the preaching and teaching of the written word of God.
If we read with the church, we would have affirmed all seven of the ecumenical councils. If my interpretation differs from their's, then it is I and not they that is in error.
I am curious how Dr. Vanhoozer deals with the reality of mass illiteracy up until the mid 19th century. There appears to be an unspoken assumption that modern literacy has been a historical constant when in fact the opposite is true. How can the scripture be "clear" and "accessible" if most cannot read it? And how can sola scriptura be lurking in the shadows if most Christians have not access?
The latest from Dr. Vanhoozer on this topic ruclips.net/video/miAfyr4hHhM/видео.html
The Bible doesn’t say it is the final or sole or supreme authority, so Sola Scriptura is unBiblical. The Bible says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...” So, useful, but not supreme authority. And Paul would have been talking about the scriptures he knew at the time: the Jewish scriptures before the New Testament was written or compiled by the Catholic Church.
But the Bible does indicate where to go for a final authority. Paul tells Timothy also, “so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.” Now, “pillar and foundation of truth” sounds authoritative, not just “useful”. So, to be Biblical is to NOT believe in Sola Scriptura.
Another place where Paul gives instructions as to how to decipher the truth when there is different ideas in the Church is found in 2 Thessalonians 2, when Paul says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
So Paul says that the final authority to go to are the traditions passed down and the words shared by word of mouth or by letter from the apostles of the Church.
And since what Protestants call “The Bible” didn’t exist as a thing called The Bible until the 4th Century, the early Church clearly didn’t have the Bible as their final authority.
The Bible doesn’t really say anything. Only persons say things. And every person can disagree with another about what they think the words in the Bible mean. The early Church didn’t know if non-Jewish believers, and in Act 15 what did they do? Called a council of the apostles of the Church to decide what the final authority would be just as this teacher admits. So, clearly, the Church apostles were given the final word on what was true.
There really is no way to hold onto Protestantism once Sola Scriptura is shown to be self-contradictory and against certain scriptures and historical moments in the early Church.
The writings from Eusebius that Protestants need to wrestle with are the ones tracing the lineage of the papacy back to Peter.
The words of Christ about a house divided against itself not standing, Paul’s description of a body where parts do not listen to the head, and Christ’s prayers that His Church would “be One as He and His Father are One” should be enough for all followers of Christ to drop their own interpretations and join the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”.
We cannot be divided and the only place we can come together and have the full authority of the 2000 year history since Christ is in Rome.
Quit dawdling and causing divisions and cross the Tiber. The world is falling apart because we are not United.