I've been watching apologetics stuff on RUclips since becoming a Protestant in 2015 and I have to say, at least based on my experience, I think your videos are going to age better than almost anything else out there. Appreciate your sincerity and Christlikeness.
Concordo plenamente, Tim Cole! O Gavin tem uma capacidade ímpar de transitar pelos fatos históricos de forma sucinta e desmistificando uma série de falácias. Deus o abençoe ricamente! I completely agree, Tim Cole! Gavin has an unique ability to move through historical facts succinctly and demystifying a series of fallacies. God richly bless him!
I was Catholic for 35 yr. When I was baptized in the Holy Spirit,all the religion in me transformed into relationship with God. Since that time God has healed me physically more than once and has used me for healing others.I don’t consider myself as a healer,but the faith of Jesus in me does the healing .That knowledge is way beyond my understanding but I follow that way because that’s what the Holy Spirit tells me. I have nothing against the Catholic Church,but my following God is now on a personal basis .God will judge us not by our denomination but by our personal faith in His Son Jesus!!
“You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.” Matthew 7:16-17 RSV I must say, as an avid theology fan who watches dozens of channels on this platform, one of the fews things I find more admirable than meticulous arguments is a loving and charitable spirit. You certainly inspire me to be a theologian and a Christian, Dr. Ortlund!
Well stated. The Apostle Paul wrote "..but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ (Ephesians 4:15, NASB). Many on youtube want to speak the truth but we have to do it in love which I believe is the more difficult part.
Good fruits doesn't mean to act like a Ned Flanders, tolerating everything and holding hands with heretics. Good fruits means acts of repentance and preaching the gospel to make converts. I see many in this comment section often considering to change protestantism for orthodoxy (which is not orthodox at all, is just marketing, first church my ass). So we have hundreds of warnings against idolatry, but then they see a guy on long robes and a big beard doing the sacraments in a church full of icons/idols decked with gold and silver and precious stones everywhere, they hear that same guy saying "we are the first church... Tradition... Holiness... Icons have been accepted since the first century" and other bullshit and believe it. Careful with the RSV. Is a bad translation. But most protestants also don't care about this. They don't care about anything. I'm pissed.
“Do we love the truth more than we love our own agenda.” This is powerful. From a Protestant contemplating Orthodoxy, your videos have been so wonderful to listen to
Same. I have been devouring his stuff as some of the best pro-protestant stuff on RUclips. I'm still leaning toward Orthodoxy, but Gavin is definitely making me have to wrestle with a bunch of questions.
How many times you have to read "idols bad, don't do it" in order for you to understand that orthodoxy is 1) just a marketing name, 2) a heresy. Is that easy to make you forget? You hear one of them saying "is not worship, is honoring the icon" and you just believe it and start thinking about switching? Really?
@@elyudekrane15 ugh... So it's decided. When are you going to start bowing down before Mary and asking for her intercession? How many more hurdles can you get in between you and God? I'm going to vomit.
The irenic spirit, scholarly fidelity and well prepared appeals. We could use more of this in the Christian community all-around. It is a breath of fresh air.
It is a pleasure to listen to someone who wants to be understood as opposed to wanting to "win' (whatever "win" means in such discussions between Christians). It is equally a pleasure to listen to someone who is focused on making points instead of scoring points.
Thank you for all your hard work Gavin. I say well done on setting a tone and example for others on how to handle harsh/angry criticism. Such a blessing being able to come across your channel.
I think you did a fantastic job in both your original video and this response. I'm an easy sell, believing in Sola Scriptura already, but this was fascinating information about Augustine. I agree that he couldn't have been more clear in his writing about the subject.
Gavin the first 7 minutes of this video is SO truthful. Thank you for your work that you do behind the scenes for these teaching videos. I could only guess at the hours for work you do. I've only started to watch your video's and have found them challenging my in my ideas and thoughts.
James, I agree! The truth is no Protestant Pastor ever practices Scripture ALONE, as they place their own fallible interpretations above Holy Scripture! Augustine never taught Scripture ALONE, as Augustine confirms the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
"Also, let's for the sake of argument assume that Augustine believed in Protestant sola scriptura (which he didn't). The problem is, like William said, is that he believes in Catholic doctrines explicitly like penance, purgatory, prayers of the saints, faith and works, Eucharist, sacraments. So, clearly even if Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, he's coming to a conclusion that is completely contrary to Dr. Ortlund's. So, why should I trust Ortlund's interpeation over Augustine? After all, Dr. Ortlund's interpretation isn't infallible. Would he accept Augustine saying that according to the tradition of the apostles that it's impossible for someone to inherit eternal life apart from eating at the table of the Lord (Eucharist) and baptism?" -CTTO
@matthewbroderick6287 I would agree with you, as a protestant, but we shouldn't make the jump to say that those who trust in Jesus with all their hearts (and bear the fruits!) aren't saved because they don't have a membership card somewhere. That's not biblical.
What stands out most in your engagement on this topic, Gavin, is the depth of your character and the degree to which it has been formed in Christlikeness. The nature of your response speaks far louder than the information contained therein. I’m grateful for your example.
Some Catholics go further, that the RCC wrote the scriptures as well. They say we would not have a bible if not for the Catholic church and only the Catholic church.
Even if their claims are true thats conflating the body of christ with the father who delivered us the scriptures. @saintejeannedarc9460 We shouldnt be led astray by thie
I am 82 years old , and in the past have given apologetics a wide berth i, feeling that it was like heated debates ! Quite the opposite , I have learned so much lately. ,and being hopeful that I am for truth and justice , I have been quite amazed at the diplomacy and graciousness , in which these are conducted by both parties thank you for helping me to continue to grow in faith and the knowledge of God , blessings and thank you ✝️
From a protestant who is "sincerely wrestling with these issues" - if there is any way to separate the argument from the mire your continued thoughts on the matters at hand are dearly appreciated. Unfortunately this is a situation where it is impossible not to throw your pearls to the swine because they are intermingled with those who are trying to aim for peace. And of course we all slip from time to time.
Gavin, your irenicism is such a breath of fresh air. I see your approach to this (and other) issues as so fair, so self-scrutinizing, so thought provoking, so free of doctrinaire pronouncements that I just keep coming back for more. I am sincerely wrestling with a lot of these issues you talk about and I really appreciate what you're doing here. Keep it up.
That's a great response Gavin, I think your opponents are not used to dealing with someone like you. I've been finding your videos very helpful and edifying, please don't be discouraged.
"Also, let's for the sake of argument assume that Augustine believed in Protestant sola scriptura (which he didn't). The problem is, like William said, is that he believes in Catholic doctrines explicitly like penance, purgatory, prayers of the saints, faith and works, Eucharist, sacraments. So, clearly even if Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, he's coming to a conclusion that is completely contrary to Dr. Ortlund's. So, why should I trust Ortlund's interpeation over Augustine? After all, Dr. Ortlund's interpretation isn't infallible. Would he accept Augustine saying that according to the tradition of the apostles that it's impossible for someone to inherit eternal life apart from eating at the table of the Lord (Eucharist) and baptism?" -CTTO
@@systemdown4027 he wasn't saying that it was right because Augustine said it, as though he is an authority on all scriptural matters. The point is that Protestants are often critised for holding this view as though it is illogical & unhistorical, a complete innovation of the 16th century. Gavin's point is that these are false claims and if you actually rear the reformers you would see how often they supplement their claims with appeals to historic church figures such as Augustine. Gavin is not asking you to trust his interpretation of scripture, this video is simply demonstrating that Protestants have more support for their doctrines than is often claimed by Catholic and orthodox apologists.
Always appreciate the way you engage in issues such as this. The way in which you handle disagreement, criticism, and even unfair criticism is challenging and encouraging to me.Thanks for posting!
Brother Gavin, I truly appreciate your balance between your personal humbleness and self-awareness and your firm stance in regard to what you have studied. It is a wonderful reflection of Christ.
Gavin. Thank You for all you do. I just want to tell you, that you are a trusted mentor for me and I can imagine for many others as well. This is because, of course, your videos are filled with great substance, and the topics you speak on. But also because of your character and approach to your videos, you give an amazing example for the rest of us, especially me, as I can fall into the same issues that I see many "apologists" fall into, becoming irritated, hot tempered and even insulting, in discussions. I hope this will change in me, and I am sure that when it does, one of the means that God will achieve it through, is the example you set in your videos and debates. Keep it Up please. And I hope everything is going well for you. Also, we're gonna need a Library Tour soon. Haha.
Have to say, i tried to listen to Williams video and couldnt make it more than 15 minutes. Your approach is so incredibly helpful to move the conversation forward. Peace.
I respect and appreciate the desire for sincere dialogue. I find that many of the differences that we struggle over may be founded on misunderstanding and misrepresentation of certain positions. The more open that we listen to one another the more in common that I find.
William Albrecht can not accept any church father disagreeing with his position. Anthony Rogers showed Marius Victorinus believed in Sola Fide yet just days later William produced a video to debunk it. It is time for Protestants to stand on their conviction in being brave to confront the pious snobbery that some Catholic apologists have towards the Father's. Thankfully people like yourself Gavin along with Anthony Rogers are stepping up to denounce that all the Father's agree with one William Albrecht.
I don't know, St. Augustine sure does sound Proto-Protestant to me. ________ On Apostolic Succession "[T]here are many other things that most justly keep me in her bosom [the Catholic Church]. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, put in charge of feeding his sheep, down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" [Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5]. "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" [Letters 53:1:2]. "[I]f you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all" [Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 33:9; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 345]. "And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants" [On Baptism, 4, 24, 31; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 61]. ________ On the Papacy and the Roman See "This was thought to have been the case in him when he replied that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory, in which all doubt about this matter was removed . . . [T]he words of the venerable Bishop Innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council … What could be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the Apostolical See?" [Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 3:5; NPNF 1, Vol. V, 393-394]. "[T]he Catholic Church, by the mercy of God, has repudiated the poison of the Pelagian heresy. There is an account of the provincial Council of Carthage, written to Pope Innocent, and one of the Council of Numidia; and another, somewhat more detailed, written by five bishops, as well as the answer he [Pope Innocent] wrote to these three; likewise, the report to Pope Zosimus of the Council of Africa, and his answer which was sent to all the bishops of the world" [Letter to Valentine, Epistle 215; Deferrari, 32: 63-64]. ". . . the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished" [To Glorius et al, Epistle 43, 7; NPNF 1, Vol. I, 278]. "Argue with them when they speak against grace, and if they persist, bring them to us. You see, there have already been two councils about this matter, and their decisions sent to the Apostolic See; from there rescripts have been sent back here. The case is finished; if only the error were finished too, sometime! So, let us all warn them to take notice of this, teach them to learn the lesson of it, pray for them to change their ideas" [Sermon 131:10]. ________ On Church Authority "It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true" [Sermon 117:6]. "God has placed this authority first of all in his Church" [Explanations of the Psalms, Tract 103:8, PL 37:520-521; in Congar, 392]. "For in the belly of the Church truth abides. Whosoever has been separated from this belly of the Church must needs speak false things: . . ." [Expositions on the Psalms, 58:3 (58, 5)]. "We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Maccabees 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church, which is clear on this point, is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar, the commendation of the dead has its place" [Care to Be Had for the Dead 3]. "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church" [Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 131]. ________ "Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law," have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works" [A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapters 18; NPNF 1, Vol. V]. "Who is he that believes not that Jesus is the Christ? He that does not so live as Christ commanded. For many say, “I believe”: but faith without works saves not. Now the work of faith is Love, . . . " [Homilies on the First Epistle of John 10:1]. "And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope, and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces" [On Christian Doctrine, I, 39:43; NPNF 1, Vol. II, 534]. "[H]uman nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath - in a word, from punishment - except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ (the Eucharist)" [On Nature and Grace 2:3]. "Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord (the Eucharist) it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life?" [On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, 1:34; NPNF 1, V, 28]. "[To Boniface] Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice (the Eucharist), . . . daily among our congregations . . .?" [Letters 98:9]. "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . The bread you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in the chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" [Sermons 227]. "For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body" [Sermons 234:2]. "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But your faith obliges you to accept that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" [Sermons 272]. 10
@@systemdown4027 Regarding the real presence in the Eucharist and to see where I stand as a Protestant may I ask that you watch this. If you would like to comment after I would be happy to have a friendly discussion. ruclips.net/video/4OZOFZ9-QlE/видео.html
@YAJUN YUAN ruclips.net/video/x1ZycIZXnns/видео.html this is the final word. check it out Brother. I understand why Catholics will respond to this video immediately. I think Dr. Ortlund ignored the other meaning of the word "emendari". Just watch the video fam! God bless!
Hey Gavin! Although I myself am reformed I have appreciated your modest and honest approach to Church history and defending the Protestant point of view. One can see clearly that you aren’t arguing absurdly or extravagantly. Thank you for your work, Glory to God!
Thank you for all your work Gavin, I have gained so much from your videos. Stay strong against the caricatures and slander! God bless you and your ministry.
James White is the boogie man for a lot of Catholic apologists and their followers. So, whenever a Protestant starts to score any points on anything, his spectre is what comes to mind. Even when White obviously has nothing to do with the point at hand.
white got demolished by every respectable catholic apologist; trent horn, jimmy aking, sungenis, dave armstrong etc. so no, he`s not boogyman for educated catholic.
I know two Christian apologists who went on record saying they left Protestantism after watching JW debates with Catholics. One of them even said he wanted JW to "crush" the Catholic.
@YAJUN YUAN geusssong Sam shamouin is one, anyway I throughly JW won or tied most of debates with Catholics I saw but I think the new Cath apologists are a lot stronger then t he older ones. JW has also done loads of debates and in some cases the only debates on a catholic issues is JW and someone else.
Gavin I really appreciate your posture in these videos when it comes to how you approach apologetics. Its an example to us all That's why I found some of the responses that provoked this video so disappointing and frankly upsetting. The tragedy is that the posture to those whom you disagree with displayed in these remarks is akin to the posture to theological "opponents" which led to the intolerance which led to the tragic killing of "heretics" during the reformation and subsequent religious conflicts. Jesus in the sermon on the mount talks about how anger in the heart is the seed that can lead to violence and we need to be very careful about the language we use that disparages others. It's sad that many haven't learned that lesson and still talk with violent language of "shredding" and "destroying" and which cast personal asprertions Please continue to express your convictions in the way you do it is helpful to and example to so many of us.
God bless you Gavin. Keep up the good work for the kingdom of God. 9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Irenic approach ftw) 10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Appreciate all of the videos! I know you likely a lot of other stuff you’re working on, but I’d be really interested (and I’d imagine many others would be as well) in seeing you do a video addressing the Eternal functional submission of the son and the Trinity. Looking at current views and what those in church history have or haven’t said about it would be interesting I think.
I appreciate this video, especially your closing remarks about how neither Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox needs to have EVERY church father on their side for their beliefs to be true. Honestly it baffles me when I see apologists twist themselves into a pretzel acting like every father agreed with their positions when an honest look at history would show that isn't the case. The history of the Christian church is very diverse, and I think we as 21st century folk would have a lot of adjusting to do if we had to go back to the time of Augustine.
Great video! As a Protestant, however, I have noted that those Fathers who used a language similar to Sola Scriptura (e.g., Augustine, Gregory Nyssa, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc) they do so in particular polemical contexts - usually when a heretic is in view who was also appealing to Scripture. In other contexts, they gladly affirmed the ultimate authority of the apostolic tradition, both oral and written. So, I do believe that the concept of Sola Scriptura is definitely in the Fathers (so, there's no absolute novelty in the 16th century) but we cannot say that they operated under this category.
They dared not operate as anything but in subjective to the church of that day. What we don't know is if they had more freedom to do so, would they have? I have to wonder about that to a degree. Overall, though, you are right that those fathers saw scripture as the ultimate authority, similar to some tenets of sola scriptura, but that they also put themselves under church authority. Many protestants who, who affirm sola scriptura also will submit to church authority as well though.
Exactly. William resorted to dozens of insults and personal attacks because the second he gives us Protestants an intellectual foothold, Roman Catholicism falls apart. Protestantism came out of an honest reading of the Bible and the Fathers, Catholics fear that more than anything
@@adamheida8549 their academics are way more fair & honest than their apologists & we should note that. That said, I continue to note on my channel that Newman & his development theory exists & their polemics is pretty insane in light of that.
I think that totalizing view happens because in the RCC today, a good Catholic has to affirm every doctrine of the Catholic Church otherwise they aren't considered Catholic, and then that gets applied in retrograde to the historical Church, and so people think that the early Church must have affirmed all the same doctrines. Basically it's, "I have to believe all the Church teaches, so they must have believed all the Church teaches, and Church teaching has never changed, so they are only affirming the same doctrines." That's just another example of how binding consciences to affirm dogmas can be super dangerous.
Gavin, you were asking for the context of the Augustine quote. “The canonical books of scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.” It appears to me, and I would like to submit to you, that he isn’t making a claim about sola scriptura but comparing the canonical books with other books, possibly Christian, possibly apocrypha. Not the creeds, for he believed in the authority of the creeds. It appears clear that he is making a distinction between the canonical books verses other types of literature where authors do have error. He has learned to yield his respect and honor only to the writings of canonical scripture verses other types of writings that are not in the canon but were most definitely in circulation that many read and were edified and by some that were erroneous. He does not seem to be making a claim for the scripture being compared to the tradition of the church. He was a episcopate, he prayed to saints, he believed in the sacraments. I don’t think he’s making a claim for sola scriptura but elevating scripture above all other types of literature Christian or otherwise. What do you think? Am I way off on that?
St. Augustine: 397 A.D. "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so." "Tell us straight out that you do not believe in the Gospel of Christ; for you believe what you want in the Gospel and disbelieve what you want. You believe in yourself rather than in the Gospel."
After seeing your original video I went and read that whole part of On Baptism. The only potential response I saw with your argument was that not everything which happens at an ecumenical council is put forward as infallible. It actually is possible for the non-infallible parts of an ecumenical council to be corrected if the ruling doesn't pan out very well in practice. And this seemed reasonable to me as an interpretation because Augustine speaks of experience (or experiment) of revealing the defficiency of the council's ruling. That said, a response to THAT response could be that Augustine wasn't talking about praxis in that section of the letter, but upon the Church's understanding of the baptisms done by heretics. And that isn't merely a praxis issue. For that reason, I'm more willing to side with you on your overall argument. If one defines Sola Scriptura as you do, then one could say Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura. That said, I think there is a whole conversation to have about the definition of Sola Scriptura. The way I see it, there are multiple forms of Sola Scriptura. The minor form of it being the one you've proposed; "The only infallible rule of faith". The major form including things like sufficiency and perspicuity. In my experience talking to Protestants, I've found the major form to be way more common. So while I don't have a problem with someone holding to the minor form thereof, I think its a bit much to call the major form a "charicature". Many of the critiques which Catholics regularly encounter in their daily lives come from the perspective of the major form. So when someone says that the major form isn't really Sola Scriptura, it can seem like a motte-baily tactic (even if what's really going on is a difference within the Protestant world on what Sola Scriptura means). If it is to be said that Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura (minor), then (as a Catholic) I'd still want to call attention to ways in which he thought Church authority worked which many Protestants wouldn't feel comfortable with. Even if he thought a council was capable of error (even theological error), that doesn't mean he thought a person is at liberty to dissent from it. And as I read On Baptism, I think I saw him say that.
I really like this thoughtful comment and assessment! As a protestant, this “major view” of Sola Scriptura is receiving some well-deserved scrutiny & from what I can tell the “minor form” is in fact the reformers view, as well as Chemnitz, Turretin, etc. I guess I could see the Anabaptists as being the first of the “major form” - so in theory the majority of Protestants could find (and ofcourse some do) heritage of their views in them. I know that the older traditions of Pentecostalism would consider the anabaptists as one strand of purity that they link to their lineage of a return to “first-century Christianity” - which I do not at all share in this
thank you so much of your response I love the honesty and the great insight! What do you think of William's response, I think him and his followers are disagreeing for no reason, perhaps they are anti-protestants or anti-reformed?
Gavin does talk about this in the first video and he acknowledged that others may define it differently based on experience. But he defined it based on the historic Protestant view articulated by the early Protestant leaders. He gave the example of "Catholics worship Mary" as an analogy - many people, maybe even the majority live out a Mary-idolizing lifestyle which may not reflect the actual Catholic doctrine on her.
I forget which Cardinal it was who said, "we will [stamp] out doctrine with dogma" but that is the position of many Roman Catholics that I see online, and those whom I dialogue with.
3:38 ascribing doxastic attitudes to others is generally something you want to avoid. For what it's worth Dr. Ortlund, I am Catholic and I'll say you took the high road here. Kind of disappointing behavior from William.
I recently found your channel as I am focusing on the study of Sola Scriptura from a historical perspective. I find your style very similar to pastor Mike who is from Calvary Chapel. I see that you ar now a Baptist. I thought you were Presbyterian (because of a comment you made in one of your videos) and was excited to have someone from my perspective putting out these important topics. Now, this (infant baptism) doesn't have a direct relation to your topic of Sola Scriptura, but serves as an example (a perfect one) of how universal tradition affirms the Scriptures. As a former credobaotist and Pentecostal since I was born, I came to see and understand that the validity of infant baptism not only sustained by Scriptures and the Covenant Theology clearly gou d in it, but also as a fact that it was a universal and unbroken tradition seen in practice since the second century as a strong point in favor of its apostolic origin. Augustine himself claims that the universal practice of infant baptism came down directly from the Apostles.
William is a special boy, please be patient. In all seriousness though, it is strange how often you see Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox online who get so irrationally angry at the mere presentation of a Protestant perspective. They only want to get quick jabs in instead of interacting with anything. You never see Catholic or Orthodox people like that in real life, only on the internet. My suspicion is that these are mostly converts from Protestantism, probably fairly young, who still have some doubts over whether or not they made the right choice, hence why videos like yours cause them to lash out so emotionally. But I guess I shouldn't assume too much. William has been at this for 10-15 years and he still acts like that.
Most are like that offline and online. Has nothing to do with their protestant background. Do not reward bad behaviour. He's still like that till today
Everything I've seen from William makes me roll my eyes. He is the embodiment of Catholics who overstate their case, Claiming things like "all of the church fathers say X"
We need to be irenic as possible, but as aggressive and confrontational as necessary. As Walter Martin said, "Controversy for the sake of controversy is sin. Controversy for the sake of truth is a divine command.” And John Calvin said: "A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."- John Calvin
Gavin, thank you so much for doing these videos. I'm one of those described in the beginning of the video struggling with where in Christianity I should be (catholic, protestant, etc). I was wondering what your response would be to the idea that an infallible document without an infallible interpretor is, in a way, fallible? Just something I've been struggling to answer from my own protestant background
We are all fallible interpreters. Having an infallible magisterium doesn’t solve the problem of our fallibility, since now fallible humans have to interpret the infallible magisterium. There are many different interpretations on all the ecumenical councils, especially Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II. The ordinary magisterium, that is the discharge of the bishops day-to-day duties, is not considered infallible. For instance, papal bulls are not considered infallible. So for all the talk about needing infallibility to know what is moral, (ie birth control), the Roman Catholic Church has not made an infallible irreformable declaration on that topic or many others. Additionally, the Roman Catholic Church has not published an infallible Bible commentary or translation. What you have are the ecumenical councils and what the pope has declared Ex Cathedra after Vatican I, (ie the Marian Dogmas). These items are considered infallible declarations. As previously stated, people, even bishops, interpret the councils differently. So, what you are always left with in any situation is infallible revelation that must be received through fallible interpreters.
I'm not sure how us being fallible interpreters lessons the bible, which is infallible. I would say the only way to have an infallible interpreter is to have Jesus interpret all scripture for us. He left us w/ the truth, and sent the Holy Spirit w/in us to help us interpret it. To get it right sometimes and wrong sometimes is part of all of our struggles as we struggle w/ sinful flesh.
It has to be really tough trying to be so very intellectual about it all. Catholsism has a history that can be researched to openly see the evil of what is portrayed as God's church. The original Protesters that started dayb1 of the establishment of the RCC is evident in history along with the RCC pope's continued massacre of them, on and on. To consider wondering about joining such an institution would only take common sense. The RCC of history manipulation is overwhelming even today. To put one's trust solely in the Word of God can only be the only way to go. It is breathed by God alone & alive this very day. To read outside of that especially with things tainted by such evil as the RCC & Vatican is absolutely nuts and leads to doubt of which the author of confusion hopes. 300 years from now some supposed wannabe scholars will be having these same discussions on a supposed church father named Benny Hinn and all his book writings.
Excellent Dr. Ortlund. You have a great method of standing ground in a godly way. I have a question about the abbreviation on the slide with the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. at that 10:03 mark - what do these abbreviations stand for ? = (C. illa, xi, Dist. 12) ? "The ecumenical councils or synods of the Univeral church are called planary council by St. Augustine (C. illa, xi, Dist. 12)" ? Love your videos! Ken Temple
As a brother in Christ, I really appreciate and respect you Dr. Ortland. I'm a recent Catholic "convert", but I've been really challenged and refreshed by the way you approach so much of history that others (from all sides) often balk at or explain away with caricatures and strawmen. The trend I keep finding with your videos and materials though is that you seem to resort to what all scholars and traditions inevitably have do--cherrypicking. You always seem to resourcefully and thoroughly point out the early sources that disagree with/challenge the traditional (or what eventually became traditional) positions of the Catholic (and often Eastern Orthodox) Church: "The Church has always believed in and accepted the 73 book canon of the Bible" the Catholic claims. "Not so fast," you say. "Let me show you how Jerome seemed to side with the Jewish, and eventually Protestant, position on the canon." "The Church from the earliest stages has venerated and prayed to the saints and martyrs", the Catholic affirms. "Not so fast," you say again. "I don't seem to find sources supporting that till at least the 3rd century, and look at how Origen rejects the proposal that Christians pray to other spirits other than God." "Apostolic Succession existed from the beginning of the Christian movement," says the Catholic. "Not so fast," you insert. "The Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp, and many others seem to posit a plurality of elders, that only later developed into the Catholic position." Etc, etc. I'll be the first to admit that these considerations are important, and shouldn't quickly be overlooked. But in my estimate, I think in bringing up these points you are inadvertently proving the very necessity of a present and living authority in every age of the Church, now as much as then. What/who mediates between those who argue for, and those arguing against circumcision? What/who solidifies the doctrines of truth when some people assert one view of Christ, while others defend another? What/who settles between this canon of the Scriptures and that one? What/who is to sift through the various voices and opinions and writings to arrive at an orthodox conclusion? What/who determines what is legitimate development, and what is dangerous corruption? What/who gets to be the chief "cherrypicker"? I know there's much more nuance than just this, so I apologize if this comes across as reductionistic. But the Catholic (and in incomplete form, the Eastern Orthodox) view is precisely that it is God, by His Spirit, through his Church and its appointed authorities that accomplishes the necessary "cherrypicking" to prune and nurture His Church. In light of the plethora of historical voices, I really do respect you, Dr. Ortland, for critically examining as many perspectives in such an honest manner, and I don't necessarily blame you for then siding with those voices that seem to best support what you presently believe to be orthodox, and being unconvinced by the inevitably mixed history of many Catholic (and EO) doctrines. Again, all scholars and traditions do the same to varying extents. But, if I may be so bold, I feel that until there's a more serious grappling with the question of authority as briefly illustrated above, I don't anticipate you ever arriving at a view that adequately encompasses and accounts for all of church history, that which supports your present positions, as well as those that don't. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've heard feedback of this nature, and I know you likely won't have the time to reply to this, so no worries! Just wanted to express my grattitude for your work and spirit, and also issue a hardy challenge for you as you continue pursuing the truth that unites. Blessings, brother!
I don't think protestants are looking for early church unanimity on contentious issues. Rather, if some ancient saints agree with Reformation doctrines, then no one had a right to burn Huss and excommunicate Luther. The real question is, does the Pope have the right to suppress valid historical readings of scripture?
@@Mygoalwogel I appreciate your response! Forgive me for not seeing this comment earlier. I agree! I'm definitely not on board with burnings and such, just like I'm not in favor of the Hellenist widows being neglected at the daily distribution of bread in Acts 6 (I know those are two very different degrees of abuse, but just stating a baseline point about how there are abuses and neglects across various generations, even in the apostolic age). I think you're onto the right questions, because yes, there'll most certainly never be true universal consensus on most theological points . And sure, let's say for arguments sake that the Pope (more correctly, the Magesterium as a whole) doesn't have the "right" to "suppress" "valid" historical readings of Scripture. Ok, so then who does? Constantine? Augustine? Aquinas? Luther? Calvin? John Piper? You? Me? Each individual believer? What happens when they disagree on who has that "right", and on the methods of "suppressing" what is false, and on how to evaluate whether a reading is "valid" or not? It's an endless cycle approaching anarchy and relativity without the authority Christ himself seemingly bestows upon men he fully knew were broken, sinful, and human, yet who he'd soon lead personally through his very Spirit bind and loose his Church to and away from various practices and beliefs. That, in my estimate, is when the better questions begin leading to more substantial answers.
@@gabrieln3836 Glad you agree the sword ought not to have become a way to suppress the Gospel. The Pope's church actually stopped using murder and torture before the pompous sees of Constantinople, Moscow, and Axum did. They continued to arrest, torture and execute Old Believers, Old Calendarists, and Stephanites into the 20th century. It was the communists, Turks, and fascists who finally stopped them, not the Holy Spirit. So you have that to your credit. Your question about who has the right to suppress in other ways is more difficult. Over time, more and more pieces of the Lutheran Book of Concord have become acceptable to the Papal magisterium. Maybe the Holy Spirit Himself can actually bring about unity as rebellious "Christians" draw further and further away from the creeds and as honest believing Christians continue to ask (pray), seek (truly face the scriptures) and knock (visit and dialogue)?
@@Mygoalwogel Agreed again, although I wouldn't discredit the Creeds themselves, but rather the people who misuse them, just as I don't don't discredit Scripture in any way, just the people who (as Peter said) twist them to their own destruction. The Spirit takes what is word and gives it flesh! I'm right there with you praying for that unity to incarnate in its fullness someday soon.
@@gabrieln3836 I'm not discrediting the creeds, but those who abandon them, moving further and further away from mutual reconciliation. That was my point.
I was raised in an atmosphere of bigotry , both parties catholic and non catholic, I was brought up catholic , and loved both sides , I now thank God that He has turned this to good! I grew to love the word of God when my life became hard , and that was all that I could trust! Therefore I hope at my age after many testings , that I try to see everything through the eyes of Jesus Our Lord , and let love be my aim , but at the same time test all things to see if they are of God , we can disagree but our spirit should be controlled by His spirit , ultimately ?
Awesome video Dr. Ortlund, may I ask where you got your schaff Church Fathers set, as an aspiring church history major, it would be indispensable- thanks!
When people make uncharitable response videos I have a hard time taking them seriously (I really try) because in the back of my mind I'm wondering if the person making the video is just insecure about their position. I can't help but think, is this person even convinced of his own position? I know I am not right to think that all the time, after all some people are just passionate... I dunno, it just throws me off. I prefer the calm approach.
You’re the soul of honor. And I can understand the points you made in the original video. I just don’t think it is as clear as you do but you do make a reasonable argument
I have found many with that attitude: mind tightly closed, deaf and blind to anything that interferes with their indoctrination, and often nasty too. I address beliefs, practices, history and not the person; but many take it as a personal attack and comment back with a personal attack.
Dude, you literally laughed at me when I did nothing but try to defend Jimmy and Trent from a nasty personal attack against them. Also, you did this on Easter Sunday. It's so weird.... why would you spend your Easter that way?
@@enshala6401 Dude?? What are you? You did nothing but? What a liar. You had the nasty personal attacks. Then you have the nerve to complain you were laughed at...what a baby and hypocrite. What better thing to do on Easter than witness to the lost and deceived (yes you).
@@joycegreer9391 Catholics have a very different attitude about their church than we do. It is part of their personal identity and the very crux of their faith. So any time we don't agree w/ their faith, which is completely in their church, they take that very personally. We seem to have a difference in that our denomination is very secondary to the bible and our ultimate head is Christ, and our identity is as Christians. It is not to say that Catholics are not Christians, they definitely are, but for many, maybe most, that isn't the pinnacle of their identity. It is more about their church, and being Catholic.
Hi Guys merely wish to add my 2 cents worth. I'm a Catholic and I really feel that these videos are awesome. I do not Always agree, I do not always disagree, I think your research and scholarly attitude are great and I learn a lot. I don't agree with Sola Scriptura. My feeling is that scripture has to be opened and interpreted in the light of the tradition of the Fathers, and ones experience. These must all act together. The historical divide is I believe a tremendous mistake as are the "hardened" positions taken up there after. I cannot abide the attitude that seeks to trash other's and which normally characterizes (normally American ) apologetics
Hi Dudley. Just a word of encouragement. It is entirely Protestant to read Scripture in light of the testimony of the Fathers, as well as our own experience and reason. I as a Protestant make an effort to be as in line with the Fathers as Scripture allows me to be. Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture alone is the infallible source of doctrine. We don't rule out reading Scripture in light of tradition - in fact we encourage it! What we reject and Roman Catholics affirm, is that tradition is equally authoritative. I reject that Tradition is equal to Scripture for many reasons, and instead see Scripture as uniquely authoritative, in that it alone is infallible, God-breathed, and the norm for faith
@@adamheida8549 Good point. I think where that method goes wrong is that it places the Fathers and their relationship with Scripture in subjection to our own judgment of their orthodoxy rather than allowing ourselves to be judged by the teachings of the Fathers.
@tonywallens217 The fathers are fallible, scripture is not. Gavin has made the point on several occasions that even the fathers don't agree on all topics and that church history is messy. So if we must read scripture in light of the fathers' teachings, then how do we adjudicate when father A disagrees with father B, C, and D. It is why we protestants say sola or prima scriptura. Only scripture is infallible, and traditions and all church teachings must be read in light of it. I honestly don't understand why this should be contended for.
I fail to understand why you assume that Augustine can trust Tradition only because it's closer to Christ. It's still FOUR CENTURIES. The guy doesn't have problem with Tradition that had Been developing for CENTURIES and sees it as authorative. He clearly doesn't belive sola scriptura. The way you talk about universal Tradition and testimony of church make it seem like universal =found in protestant churches. When it's not a case. Why even bother with Augustine if you can simply dismiss him ?
Continue fighting the good fight, Dr. O. Unregenerate men will try to justify themselves and deny the sufficiency of Christ's once for all sacrifice revealed in Holy Writ. Not surprised by the charitable responses from certain of our Imperial church interlocutors and other responses more reminiscent of the Inquisition from others.
Hello, Dr. Ortlund. I was not sure where I should write that comment. I hope you don’t mind that I write it here. I watched your conversation with Craig Truglia - ,,Why are you Orthodox or Protestant? With Gavin Ortlund“. You asked something important in relation with the impossibility of salvation outside of the Orthodox Church. Your question is important because it is often asked by many people. You asked concretely about C.S.Lewis and Tolkien and their conversation in 1929. You asked whether they are damned in hell. With your question you were referring to the belivers in Christ who are outside the Orthodox Church. In 2011 there is issued the book ,,Пламень огненный. Жизнь и наследие архиепископа Серафима (Соболева)». I am not sure if the book is translated in English. This would be the translation of the title in English: ,,A fire flame. The life and legacy of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) (1881-1950)). It is a book by A.Kostrykov who is a doctor of history and a pedagogue. It contains chosen sentences of the newly canonized (2016) saint, Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) of Boguchar (Bulgaria). He was canonized by the Russian Church and our Churche together in 2016. There he says the following about the pagans, although it is relevant in some way to your question: ,,I asked Vladyka Seraphim: “After all, the majority of people on earth are not Christians but pagans. But among them there are good, loving, honourable people. Will they, too, all fall into the fire of the Gehenna after death? ” Vladika:“ No! For their suffering and good deeds, the pagans will not fall into the worst hellish torments, for them there is a “northern side” at the Last Judgment. They will not come to know the kingdom of God but they will not taste the terrible torments of hell, too.” He is referring to the good people who are non-believers and says that they will neither come to know the kingdom of God, nor will they suffer eternal torment. What St.Seraphim says is relevant to what St.Gregory the Theologian says in his Oration 40 - on Baptism, about the unbaptized infants - he says that they will neither be glorified, nor punished. Similarly, Ambrosiaster (6th century), although he is not a Holy Father of the Church, says something about those outside of the Church that is relevant to your question, although he gives an example with Montanists, Novatianists and Donatists. He says in his Commentary on Pauline Epistles, more specifically on the book of Romans: Romans 2:15-16:,,And their thoughts, debating with each other, accuse or even defend them 16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of humankind according to my gospel through Jesus Christ our Lord. …Those whom Paul says are in turn accused or defended by their thoughts on the day of judgement, are Christians. Those who disagree with the Catholic Church - who hold different views about Christ or about the meaning of the law according to the tradition of the church, whether Cataphrygians, Novatianists, Donatists, or other heretics - their thoughts will in turn accuse them on the day of judgment. If a person understood that the Catholic Church is the true Church and was unwilling to follow it because he did not wish to appear to have been corrected, being ashamed to abandon a view he was held for a long time, on the day of judgment he will be accused by his thinking. In fact, two ways of thinking in a person will accuse each other, good and bad. The good way of thinking accuses the bad because it has contradicted the truth. The bad way of thinking in turn accuses the good, which did not follow along as it - the bad way of thinking - thought it should. For this reason, a person who knowingly thought that the Catholic Church was good and true but persevered in heresy or schism, will be found guilty. But with a person who always thought this way (e.g., a person raised as a Montanist, Novatianist, or Donatist), suppossing that what he followed was right, his thoughts in turn will excuse him. For it will be said:,,When I thought about it, I always supposed that what I followed was right. This was my faith.“ Although this person must be corrected, his is a less serious case, because he will not be accused by his conscience on the day of judgment. In this manner will the secrets of humankind be judged on the day of God’s judgement by Jesus Christ our Lord.“ So those who have been part of the Church (I am referring to the Orthodox Church here) and leave it, are guilty of the unforgiveable sin of schism but those who are born and raised in another tradition, are not held liable for schism or heresy because they have not seceded from the Church, although Ambrosiaster says that that they will not be accused by their thoughts in the Day of Judgement, i.e. they are not condemned at the Day of Judgement but they are still not being justified because they have passed away outside of the Church. He only implies that their fate will not be of eternal damnation. This can be related to what St.Gregory says about the unbaptized infants and what St.Seraphim says about the good people among the pagans - that they will neither come to know the kingdom of God, nor suffer eternal torment. As for those who have consciously seceded from the Church, commit the unforgiveable sin of schism - usually for the reason of the unforgiveable sin of heresy but not in all cases. Both schism and heresy are considered unforgiveable sins because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (John 15:26) and since for the reason that the heresies are damnable the way of truth shall be evil spoken of (2 Peter 2:1-3), the heresies are blasphemies against the Holy Spirit which is an unforgiveable sin (Matthew 12:32), wherefore they are damnable. So, if someone who is born and raised outside of the Church (I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church) but has a respectful, humble, civilized attitude towards the Orthodox Church, although hacing disagreements with certain points of the teaching of the Church, does not commit the unforgivable sin. Although it is possible for a person who is born outside of the Church to commit that sin, if he or she (I am talking in general), for example, consciously insults the Church and its members, openly manifests his or her hatred towards the Church, attacks the Church etc. - this kind of attitude is also a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. But outside of that case, if someone who is born outside of the Church, has a normal attitude, an attitude of dignity and respect towards the Church, does not commit the unforgiveable sin and will not be eternally damned (in relation with the words of St.Gregory the Theologian, St.Seraphim and Ambrosiaster) but still is not saved because he has died outside of the Church. So they are in like a middle position between eternal salvation and eternal damnation. But the Church has barely referred to the matter because it has always strived to emphasize the impossibility of salvation outside of the Church (I mean the Orthodox Church).
In theory, I do get your point as a Catholic as long as you take sola scriptura in the same way it was defined by reformers. it sounds good in theory. My main problem is that in practice it really isnt working because it is not like there is this one reformed church that runs exactly as as intended from reformers using the basic core of faith. what we see in practice are churches applying sola scriptura in a different way it was defined to create their own version of how a bible based church should be like as if Jesus was ok with "relativism or let "let agree to disagree" breaking the body of christ in million of different pieces. Evangelical churches are growing more and more and their way at looking at scripture is basically nowhere near the way reformers did. if protestant cant see this is a problem then there is not much to say than just "Lord have mercy on us".
@David V I dissagree. even with all the schism, the still are very close to each other on the core teaching and the reason to that is that they dont follow sola scriptura the way protestant do. Also some orthodox churches came back to comunion with Rome after the schism. this shows it is possible for all them to be in comunion at some point. the same cant be said for protestants.
Mark 7:13 "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." Who were the masters of tradition in Jesus' day? The Pharisees and scribes? Tradition is fine and dandy, unless you put it over God Himself, and many do. The Church Fathers were never guaranteed by God to get everything right. It gets to the point where they get studied more than Christ.
“How more clearly could he have said it?” - But perhaps that’s not the right question. A better question might be “Were his statements enough to be taken to heart as a stand-alone doctrine unrelated to the issue at hand?” or “Was his statement merely a point of sober humility by saying that enough time had elapsed that the Church and its leaders could confidently say that the canon was infallible, in contrast to what bishops of that present day were writing which could potentially be warped or incorrectly viewed absent 20/20 hindsight?”. I would certainly argue the latter is a more accurate and reasonable takeaway from such statements being construed here as “clear” defense of sola scriptura, a doctrine which in practice Church fathers like Augustine would most certainly not have subscribed to if it meant throwing out the authority of the Church as they understood it at the time.
First, Dr Ortlund, I am sorry my fellow Catholics would attack you personally. I haven’t watched their videos, and if the quotes are accurate, then they are very uncharitable. May I comment on the “alone” quote? The way I read it is since he’s referring to the canonical books, those are free from and the others aren’t. I don’t believe he is saying scripture alone is free from error just the canonical books. Have you read it that way? Would you take time and think about that? In the letter to Januarius, he says “ but in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from strict scripture, but from tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordaine to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plannerary councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church.” In the “boundary line” quote, if you go on, he’s talking about scripture VS other types of books. Anyway, I truly appreciate your charity and your willingness to hear the opposite side. Although we may not agree (yet) your love for Christ is apparent and your search for the Truth is extremely admirable.
Jim, William was not being disrespectful, just honest! Unfortunately, Dr. Ortlund was not being sincere and totally honest, as Dr. Ortlund does not provide the complete writings of Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine ALSO TEACHES the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Saint Augustine ALSO TEACHES the oral Teachings of 7 the Apostles who never wrote anything down ,is ALSO the Word of God! Augustine ALSO teaches that if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures! William was not being disrespectful at all, just honest. I wish Dr. Ortlund tries that in his future videos! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@JD Apologetics I sure dont possess all the knowledge u have but i also dont think Augustine made a difference between '' scripture'' and '' cannonical books'' I hope this person will be humble and communicate with you.... God bless
Very interesting. Lots to ruminate on in this specific issue. Augustine is so vast, I feel like I’m not ready to assume much about his overarching worldview on the issue of Sola Scriptura. I suppose that Augustine might have held that view, based on the quotes from Gavin, and I guess I don’t feel like that is necessarily a problem for Catholics, but I also feel that it does seem out of keeping with some of the counter quotes from Eric Ibarra. Tough to say. One thought on the idea that something “couldn’t be clearer” is that it often says more about the person reading the passage than the passage itself. A perfect example is how Catholic Christians will argue for Transubstantiation from John Ch. 6 and often say that it “couldn’t be clearer”, and yet many Protestants will reply, as Gavin sometimes does in various Catholic arguments, that they “just don’t see it”. Sometimes when something seems like it “couldn’t be clearer” it may mean that our view on this issue is narrower than we may like to admit. Another example would be the age of the earth; Genesis “couldn’t be clearer” in saying that creation took 6 days, yet the truth is probably, like Gavin urges us to consider at the end of his video, more complex.
"This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (On the Creed: Sermon to Catechumens (14) c. 395) St. Augustine of Hippo
Hi Adam, nice to meet a new friend. In response, "Yes with reservations". I'm not in favor of either Scriptural nor Papal "infallibility". Scripture as written product is the product of the community called Israel and then church. The primary instigator is Christ experienced and interpreted in the Spirit. All very difficult to put to paper "infallibly", that' s why so much patristic correspondence went on and why so many got it wrong. Thus what scripture entails is an agreement of the church, and containing enough Divine Truth for our salvation. No more and no less. More than that and we get into blood soaked argument over infallibility and less than that , well we end up in a "who cares" type of relativism and heresy we see today. Both for me not worthy. So I go the minimal route in making statements. Peace brother! Great chatting! Under
Hi Gavin - Thank you for the video and thoughts. Curious how you might respond to the following question / criticism below. In what way does it matter whether Augustine held the essentials of sola scriptura or not given his obvious affirmation of beliefs viewed with suspicion by most all protestantism and reformers such as his acceptance and use of the deuterocanon in prayer and teaching, his generous use of allegorical interpretation and more particularly his affirmation of the practice of prayer for the dead? I ask it as a protestant who much enjoys Augustine and reading on the church fathers and the challenge of their faith and thought to my faith and thinking but who also struggles with the tradition of sola scriptura and its assumption of canon. (That was a small joke!) Curious your thoughts on this! Thanks for the videos! Appreciate the comments on peaceful and charitable dialogue.
Hi brother! Thank you for the comment. It appears you may be misinformed on the nature of the canon prior to Augustine. Will try to gather some items together for you and post here soon. As a initial response, it is beyond doubt some of the apostolic fathers quoted freely from the books of the dueterocanon and called them scripture. Also one of the earliest most complete Christian bibles we have contain them in the typical catholic/orthodox order. Will supply more specifics as I have time. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and offering one of your own.
@YAJUN YUAN Hi brother! Had a few moments to dig up a few references for you in the spirit of establishing the broad use of deuterocanonical books on the basis several witnesses in conjunction with a few other items to reinforce the point. The extensive use of the deuterocanonical books as scripture is evident in many early writers prior to Augustine (354-430). Below are samples from Barnabas (70-132), Clement of Alexandria (150-210) and Eucebius (260-339) who quotes an earlier figure Melitos (c.180). In addition to these quotations there is the existence of both Codex Vaticanus (300-325) and Codex Siniaticus (330-360) which contain deuterocanonical works along with other well known OT works. Add to this the broad observation that the Septuagint (LXX) was used by the early church and the case appears to be beyond doubt. I share this because I very much love the Bible and so my study has lead me to dig in deep to its history and transmission out of love for God. It is my firm conviction that Truth should stand against all manner of scrutiny. This simply shows the acceptance and use of deuterocanon before Augustine. Barnabas (70-132) in his letter quotes from the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom Barnabas 6 For the prophet speaks against Israel, “Woe to their soul, because they have counselled an evil counsel against themselves,[60] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us.”[61] [61] Wisdom ii. 12. This apocryphal book is thus quoted as Scripture, and intertwined with it. Source en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/The_Epistle_of_Barnabas Clement of Alexandria (150-215) in his work The Instructor calls the deuterocanonical book of Baruch scripture Clement of Alexandria Excellently, therefore, the Divine Scripture, addressing boasters and lovers of their own selves, says, “Where are the rulers of the nations, and the lords of the wild beasts of the earth, who sport among the birds of heaven, who treasured up silver and gold, in whom men trusted, and there was no end of their substance, who fashioned silver and gold, and were full of care? There is no finding of their works. They have vanished, and gone down to Hades.”[93] [93] Baruch iii. 16-19. Source en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_II/The_Instructor/Book_II Eucebius (260-339) relays in his church history the canon of Melitos (? - 180) which includes the book of Wisdom Melitos canon list as relayed by Eucebius Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus,[35] Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David,[36] the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also,[37] Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book[38]; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.[39] From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito. Source en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_I/Church_History_of_Eusebius/Book_IV/Chapter_26 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melito%27s_canon?wprov=sfla1
@YAJUN YUAN appreciate the response!! Good to hear from you.. I'll be looking into your comments more but a quick question: why should lists be more important than usage? They seem the same weight to me. If I say scripture says thus and quote Enoch, seems about the same as saying I consider Enoch scripture. Let me know as you have a moment!
@YAJUN YUAN Appreciate the further explanation but I'm afraid the dilemma we face with the list of Melito brings to the forefront that lists are in fact not unambiguous. I interpreted "Wisdom also" as "also the Wisdom [of Solomon]", you interpreted it as a redundant reference to Proverbs (“the proverbs of Solomon, [namely] also [called] Wisdom). Who can arbitrate between us on this point? Melito and God only know. It would appear lists are not quite so unambiguous as we might think. Add to that many other canonical lists also require some degree of interpretation by the reader to parse and I would actually argue that ancient canon lists are far from unambiguous and the interpretation of them typically reveals a theological bias.I do think there is a case to be made for the …possibility… that Melito’s list does not admit the deuterocanon but it can’t be taken as fact. And quite simply Melito’s list is the only one I know of by a church father. In otherwards to me your original assertion rests on one piece of questionable evidence. I know of another list by Origen that is more explicit in mentioning Maccabees but I think this could only be used to… support… the case for Melito’s list including a deuterocanonical reference since both Melito’s list and Origen’s come from the same author, Eusebius. For sure there are early Jewish lists but we need to be aware that even in the second century Justin Martyr spoke of scriptures not admitted by the Jews which Christians held. What those are, God and Justin only know. I suspect they could be some or all of the deuterocanonical books. Personally for me, I don’t have any problem with viewing a canonical list as admitting deuterocanon as I don’t view them as ineligible for deriving doctrine. I’m not operating in a protestant framework that demands a 66 book view and I have yet to find the scripture verse that gives me an explicit canonical list. I would guess this opinion of mine is a minority position from someone who admittedly is a protestant but one that sits me quite more comfortably in the company of people like Augustine, Clement of Alexandria and Barnabas. It is my conviction that the ancients operated in a broader hermeneutical framework than that in which most protestants are instructed in which becomes more evident the more of the ancient church one reads. This is a place where I think our protestant tradition functions as a kind of minimizing tunnel vision that can wrongly restrict the meaning of scriptural texts in name of the safety of minimalism. I suppose this is my fear and my dread regarding sola scriptura which was expressed as a joke in my original comment to Gavin. Sola scriptura sounds very scientific and sure until one learns just how much variety there is within the semantic range of words and the variety of interpretations by God fearing men. In my thinking sola scriptura has been utterly shattered to be every bit as scriptural as the catholic and orthodox view of the importance of tradition. It’s for this reason I have little reason to be upset with my catholic brother or my orthodox friend on their views. We all have the same love for Christ, a relatively orthodox faith and generally the same high regard for scripture. To me it’s more than enough for unity and the fun is in the disagreement. Love ya brother! I’m having a blast.
@YAJUN YUAN Good Morning! Thanks for the further response. I enjoyed hearing more from your perspective. Am pretty sure the catholic and orthodox consider themselves canonical. Is the quotation of Greek really helpful in this discussion? If we could settle it that way I am pretty sure we would all be unified in doctrine. It is great to have confidence in one's opinions but I would be careful. I once recall many months of discussion with a friendly Jehovah's Witness who argued much Greek and literal meanings to me. Quite fascinating really especially during my time in seminary studying Greek and Hebrew. I studied on it for years and still hesitate to use it for any proofs (not sure how good a student I was). This admittedly is just me and my caution however. That comment on Origen got me chuckling. Just read paragraph 5 here en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_IV/Origen/Origen_De_Principiis/II/Chapter_1 Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on another list by a church father before Augustine? Your conjecture regarding church fathers use of deuterocanon was nothing less than facinating. Not sure you can prove it but to each his own. I for one would rather assume they read scripture more carefully than me since they defended much of the doctrines I take for granted. I find it difficult to find much fault with a man who literally wrote the book On The Trinity (Augustine)... (Oh look a small pun) As for the unity bit. It begins with me not them. I begin my love for neighbor with what is within my own power to do. I don't focus on them but on how I can show love. For me this involves going to church on occassion with my catholic brother and orthodox friend because I am free to do so and they like it. I respect their view of communion and do not partake. I listen to their perspective and we reason together on the scriptures. The exortation is for me to love my neighbor irregardless of how they act or think. I constantly learn more I did not know as I have in our discussion so thank you!!. I've never met the borg catholic you refer to but I have met plenty of borg calvinists. (Small star trek reference/joke here on uniformity at calvinist expense) Sure my catholic twin brother thinks I am a schismatic or heretic but that doesn't stop me from talking with him and listening and learning from him (by the way he also thinks I am a separated brother so there is grounds for some unity). I got my concerns on his traditions and God can handle that. Should I find I am incorrect on my views and change well I figure God's discipline is always best in the end though painful in the moment. I think what is needed at times is not taking oneself or ones doctrine too seriously and instead taking God more important and seriously. By this I mean sometimes we just can't see past our own opinions to see God so challenging ourselves in the Iron of another's opinion is helpful so thank you again! Grace and Peace to you bro!
Hi All and fellow Christians. I've been reading and thinking on a lot of the comments here and elsewhere. It seems to me that generally we've lost our way when we put too much stake on inter church apologetics and not evangelization of the secular apostacy. However learned and erudite, the apologetic impetus when trying to sort out which tradition in Christianity is "Right", is not altogether on the wrong track but is likely not to succeed in much more than a divisive response. Our hackles are too easily raised and based on this idea that truth is some head-stuff commodity to be owned. Truth in the Christian sense always exceeds us, always challenges us, is ultimately Mysterious, Is the Way and Life as Christ Jesus. It belongs to us by no right or virtue of our own. Yet also, this is not the full picture because bad theology leads to bad anthropology and to tyranny. There's to much secular tyranny going on at this very moment. That my dear siblings in Christ is the Diabolical enemy. I think we set ourselves up for ridicule when we run after our snobbish identity with personality movements be those of Luther, Calvin, or Prelates. I think something has gone wrong in trying to understand the shock and surprise of the Gospel message in worldly logical terms only. To my mind if we are to engage in debate about our tradition, the more historical and dare I say "traditional" our hermeneutics the greater our chance of not playing into secularist hands. This tradition does not start at the Council of Trent - Trad Catholics, nor at the Reformation - Reformers and certainly theology never began with Immanuel Kant! Lets face it theology since the latter has really become wonky. Let us all be a little more humble here. In the face of a Two thousand year old tradition, it is highly unlikely that God has selected You to be right. Think on this.
There's only so many arguments so it's naturally expected that some or a lot of overlapping happens even with one not being aware of others making the same arguments.
It doesn't do much good to claim they have been refuted. Protestants are saying the Catholic arguments have been refuted and yet the same old arguments are employed.
@@Adam-ue2ig you mean protestant refuted catholic argument like the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Don't think soo. Dude, Protestant arguments like "some of the Church fathers believe in sola scriptura" had been refuted many times.
The nature and content of the Holy Scriptures has been, for me, the most precious and surprising thing from my time spent with the Church Fathers. Cyril of Jerusalem said this. “Even to me (bishop of the mother church in Jerusalem), who tell you these things (teaching catechumens the faith), give not absolute credence (no concept of infallibility), unless you receive proof of the things which I announce (laity are encouraged and able to judge) from the Divine Scriptures (the Standard). For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." [CL 4.17] So, the Scriptures, once established by a higher consensus than any other Christian doctrine, including formulations of the Trinity, become the authoritative Standard by which all teachers and teachings can and must be judged. The idea of an oral tradition equal to Scriptures and required to authoritatively interpret them seems more in keeping with Gnosticism than Early Christianity. Irenaeus put it this way. "When they (heretics) are refuted from the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but by word of mouth." [AH 3.2.1] He goes on describe an oral tradition attested to by succession from and in living memory of the Apostles, but it is cumulative and corroborating in nature (and is not without seemingly synonymous written testimony [AH 3.3.3-4]) as a strong case for the adequacy of Scripture (i.e., if someone claims something new, previously unknown, and not in Scripture, it would be highly unlikely to have also escaped the attention of so many so closely associated with the Apostles and to whom they entrusted the Church). [AH 3.3.1] Only later would this idea develop into one of succession by office alone. The idea of unbroken lines of intimate association, like that of Paul and Timothy [2 Tim. 3] and seemingly what Irenaeus has in mind, from the Apostles to the bishops of today is nice but does not historically exist due to later rivalries and struggles for imperial authority or function in the same way.
I had to stop watching William Albrecht's refutation (if you can even call that a refutation, it was more like a rant). It did, however, make me appreciate your careful and measured scholarship even more. Thank you, Gavin.
Its obvious that in any realm of any truth their is the common response of quoting the fathers of any beliefs,be it for science, philosophy and medical issues. Its what we call human fallibility.
Hi Dr. Ortlund, As an Anglican, you probably could think a question like this was coming :P You said “if I lived in the fourth century I might hold that something is apostolic”. Ok-so infant baptism. That was universal in the 4th century, no?
It seems to have become universal at some point in the 4th century, but we should note that major bishops like Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa were baptized as adults, despite being the children of believers. If it had been universal, why were they baptized later? Between that, Tertullian's arguments for adult baptism, the Didache not even having a notion of infant baptism, and Origen calling it a hotly debated issue, I (a Reformed Baptist, to make clear my bias) believe infant baptism was a development which took hold in the 4th century
@@adamheida8549 Hi Adam-a lot of people even in Anglicanism wait to baptize their children because they want their child to be able to remember their baptism, trusting that the child is saved chiefly through the faith of the parent and only baptized in the faith of the parents. As Anglicans, we would argue we’ve preserved that belief. And this is also true with the examples of children who died who were baptized far after their births from sickness, in early Christian burial sites. Tertullian, while arguing for adult baptism, acknowledges the widespread practice of infant baptism by the second century. Origen, while acknowledging disagreement, doesn’t seem to portray the issue as “hotly debated”-he thinks most of the church accepts it as received by the apostles. And the Apostolic constitutions by Hippolytus seem almost certainly to confirm infant baptism as a practice.
Unfortunately,, Dr. Ortlund was the one not being charitable, as Dr. Ortlund conveniently left out the writings of Saint Augustine where Augustine calls the Church the very first Authority, and teaches the oral teaching of the 7 Apostles who never wrote anything down, as being the Word of God as well. Augustine ALSO TEACHES that if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures! William was not mean as Dr. Ortlund insinuated, but just calling Dr. Ortlund for not being honest for not providing the complete writings of Saint Augustine! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Dealing with Roman Catholics online has led me to the following conclusion: Never learn Roman Catholicism from a layperson (which is also what most RC apologists happen to be as well). Just read their church’s official statements and books.
Thank you for calling out Mr. Albrecht. As a Catholic, I find him difficult to listen to even though I typically agree with the substance of his argument.
Stay strong to the True Faith, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord. Faith alone, in Christ Alone. Faith = Salvation + Works, not Faith + Works = Salvation. That is a different gospel and nothing is worth standing up for more than the Gospel. We live in a current Western Culture that is falling apart at the seams and nothing seems to be lasting. The fault for this is us Protestants. We have not held onto our traditions and our own confessions and the culture and the Body of Christ has suffered as a result. I get the appeals that both Rome and the EO make that they, and not the other, are the 1 true church. It sounds and feels like something stable. It sounds like something that has always been the same. Even though they both claim it, and neither of them are. Problem is that these are just manipulations of history and the truth. Both have changed immensely over the years and are nowhere close to the early church and the early church fathers. Marian dogmas, icon veneration, purgatory, infallibility of people and institutions, elevation of the church above that of scripture, it’s all nowhere in the early church, but people today don’t do their own research, they just take what someone tells them that their church is the one true church and Protestants are a new invention. If they did more research and read more church history, they would see the Reformation and the Confessions that came from it are simply a return to the scripture and the early church, removing all the changes and departures of Rome and the EO. Getting rid of the awful heretical positions that started centuries after the Apostles and grew and distorted the faith until the Middle Ages. It’s sad that we have not held to our confessions and given these brothers and sisters wrestling with these things more anxiety than they need. We need to return to our traditions. Christ will keep His church alive and bring people back to the truth, if they are really one of the elect. If they are not, then so be it. But thank you for standing for truth. Don’t ever give in. The truth is too important
It seems to me that even if someone were to prove to you that he wasn't in fact teaching Sola Scriptura, that wouldn't really matter since he's ultimately a fallible man and subordinate to Scripture. I'm puzzled by Protestants bringing up the Fathers to prove doctrine because when they're shown that the Fathers actually taught something contrary to what they believe, they can just brush it off as a judgement from a fallible man, which leads me into what I consider the fundamental fatal flaw of Sola Scriptura. Jesus never told the apostles to write anything down let alone what the NT canon was supposed to be, and the apostles never put the canon together either. If we aren't bound by any fallible man, then we aren't bound by the judgements of the councils and church fathers in the 4th and 5th centuries who first promulgated the 27 book NT canon we have today. The Protestant response to this is usually them trying to brush off canonicity as a separate topic to be discussed at a later time, but that doesn't make sense. When you give someone directions, you don't just tell them they need to use the road, because that would be useless to them. You tell them exactly which roads to use to get there. Sure, the purpose of a road and which roads to use to get to a destination are two different topics, but when applied to reality where someone actually needs directions to someplace, the person needs to know exactly which roads to use, not just what the purpose of a road is. In the same way, when a prospective Christian asks you about what the purpose of the Bible is and which one is the correct one to use, you wouldn't just say the Bible is the sole infallible source of Christian truth and brush off his question about which one is correct as a separate topic. You would presumably give him a Bible with 66 books, and not some other canon such as Marcion's canon which had 11 books or a the full 73 book Catholic Bible, confirming that you believe the 66 book Biblical canon is the objectively correct canon. Saying that the topic of canonicity is not important to Sola Scriptura is clearly not true because you would say I have the wrong Bible by submitting to a different canon such as Marcion's canon or say a custom canon where I only preferred the four gospels as being the NT.
As a Protestant, I can understand your concerns regarding the church fathers and the canon. It should be noted that many of us Protestants who enjoy exploring church history, that we find it interesting that Roman Catholics appeal to the church fathers, because whenever a church father disagrees with any particular Roman Catholic dogma, that issue is just brushed aside as being that man's own personal and errant opinion. Ultimately in Roman Catholicism, the church fathers opinions don't matter, the only thing that does matter are the declarations of "the Church". Also, matters of canon are important. Many people may brush them off because they don't know how to tackle the issue possibly. But the canon is not something that man can come up with or declare. The canon is what has been called an artifact of revelation. Not all books are canonical, only those books which have been θεόπνευστος (God-breathed). God did not deliver another book declaring what the canon was. The canon is the canon because that is what God provided for us. We as men can recognize the canon, but we have no power or right to determine the canon. I hope this helps. God bless.
@@zipper778 We reference the Fathers to provide a preliminary indication of what the early Church believed, but ultimately it's not the ending point of our apologetic, because yes, they are fallible men. It is through sacred tradition and the opinions of the church as a whole that we get inerrant truth, and ultimately the Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit infallibly steps in in areas where there is confusion, such as when the divinity of Christ was defined at the Council of Nicaea in response to the Arians, or when the canon of Scripture was dogmatized at the Council of Trent when the Reformers aimed to take out 7 books of the OT. There are many nuances when it comes to sacred tradition and how we identify it, but it is there, and the Protestant can't deny sacred tradition while at the same time holding to the Bible that was given to them whether they admit it or not, by sacred tradition. The ontological fact of the matter is that God gave us the canon. Both Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox agree on this. The question that no Protestant can answer though, is the epistemological question of how we as humans came to the knowledge of that canon. In the OT, the Torah was given to the Jews by God, and the means in which that knowledge was transferred to the Jews was through Moses on Mount Sinai. In the same way, God gave us the NT canon, and the way that knowledge was transferred to us was through sacred tradition and ultimately the Church that Christ founded. Saying that the canon was given to us by God without showing the means by which God gave us that canon begs the question. Did God give the canon to Marcion? Is it the Codex Vaticanus? Was the canon complete when St. Irenaeus wrote about the Tetramorph, or fourfold Gospels in the late 2nd century? Are early apostolic texts such as the Didache or the Shepard of Hermas that were read alongside the epistles in the ancient liturgy part of Scripture? These are questions that no Protestant can provide an answer for, and not surprisingly either, since conceding to the immediate implications of them would pull the rug out from under their entire theology.
@@grantbenson7458 "We reference the Fathers to provide a preliminary indication of what the early Church believed, but ultimately it's not the ending point of our apologetic, because yes, they are fallible men." You have just made my point, but allow me to reestablish it more clearly. Being confused with why Protestants cite early church fathers because Protestants can "write them off" due to Sola Scriptura is no different than Roman Catholics who "write off" the early church fathers because they disagree with modern Roman Catholicism. Your argument here is self refuting. "The question that no Protestant can answer though, is the epistemological question of how we as humans came to the knowledge of that canon." Realistically, God is under no obligation to reveal anything to mankind. He owes us nothing. We owe Him more than we could ever repay. He doesn't have to tell us what the canon is if He doesn't want to. Whatever we have, we have because of the grace of God. With that said, God demonstrates what the canon is in a number of ways. He does so first, Biblically. In Luke 11:51 Jesus gives us the chronological outline of the Scriptures, from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. This is the same Old Testament that both the Jews and Protestants share together. We can dive more into that if you wish. "Did God give the canon to Marcion?" No He did not. "Is it the Codex Vaticanus?" Well, considering that neither of us have the same canon as Vaticanus, we can safely rule that one out. "Was the canon complete when St. Irenaeus wrote about the Tetramorph, or fourfold Gospels in the late 2nd century?" Yes it was. The canon was completed as soon as the last character was written down. Whether people recognized that or not is irrelevant. "Are early apostolic texts such as the Didache or the Shepard of Hermas that were read alongside the epistles in the ancient liturgy part of Scripture?" No, they are not. This is partly due to the fact that, in regards to the Didache at least, we don't have the text in completed form. I've read what we do have of it and it reads like a to-do manual for the church. There's nothing in it that I disagree with. It would be odd for God to not leave His Word anywhere. The Shepard of Hermas is something that I've been meaning to read, but I haven't yet, so I can't make a comment on it at this time. It's on my list though. I think the biggest disagreement that I have with you is with your presuppositions. What you have presented is a Bible that must be authorized by men. This is something that I cannot accept. If man can define authoritatively what Scripture is and what Scripture means, then man is of a higher authority than the Scriptures themselves. If man can determine what "Tradition" is and what it means, then man is higher than "Tradition". This is putting the church's authority where God's authority should be. The Scriptures are the only thing left for us that is θεόπνευστος. Tradition has a place, but it must always be in submission to what God has breathed out. The Bible is authorized by God alone. Man can only recognize what God has done. You have said a lot, and I'm not going to be able to respond to everything in this post, but if I didn't cover something that you would like me to answer, please let me know.
@@zipper778 I’m not saying the Bible was authorized by men. God made the canon, period. The books of the NT were Scripture the moment they were put to ink. This is the ontological side of this. What I am trying to point out to you is the epistemological side of this. God knew the canon before time began, but how did the church come to the certain knowledge of that canon? The Gospels and Epistles were just a part of many highly praised texts and read aloud in the liturgy in the 1st century, and no one in the 1st century Church really realized yet that many of these texts would later be recognized as infallible Scripture. The attempts you’ve given to prove canonicity all beg the question of what the correct canon is. When you say things like Marcion didn’t have the right canon, or St. Irenaeus completed the canon, you’re implying there is indeed a completed canon out there that we should know, so which one is it?
Regarding Augustine’s letter to Jerome and his treatise on baptism, could this not simply be a way of stating or remarking “The science is settled” (so to speak) or “We are all agreed on what is truly canon and all else is debate upon non-canonical matters”? Seems to me this is not at all claiming “Scripture alone and all else should be discarded!”, which to be honest is most certainly the historical Protestant view in order to defend and maintain their position outside of either the Catholic or Orthodox Church. In other words, could not Protestants such as yourself be reading into it beyond the original intent of the writing? I’d argue there is a strong possibility.
Historically, Protestants did not believe “all else should be discarded.” Protestant reformers, like Luther, even criticized some Christians for going too far.
What I’m unable to comprehend is that St. Augustine is listed by the Catholic Church as one of the writers that penned “Sacred Tradition”. However, none of the quotes you mentioned from Augustine are included in “Sacred Tradition” by the Catholic Church. Even more confusing is that the Catholic Church does not to my knowledge publish their “Sacred Tradition” you have to read all of the ecumenical councils and some of the Papal Bulls and encyclicals to extract what writings are and aren’t included in “Sacred Tradition”.
I don't think Augustine's comments on universal tradition and church authority mesh as well as you think they do with Sola Scriptura, but I still appreciate that you took the time to address all this. Thank you for your kindness and charity.
It depends on what you think sola scriptura means. Gavin meant it simply that Augustine held sacred scripture as the highest and only infallible authority. Not the other things that Catholics equate w/ sola scriptura, that he would have been protestant, or a reformer, or a maverick, or like Luther. None of those were the claims of Augustine simply holding scripture as the ultimate authority.
Dr.Ortlund, you said in 11:43-12:53:,,Others have said ,But there’s only two Ecumenical Councils by this time.“ And William was arguing that Augustine didn’t know about Constantinople. That is irrelevant. He is not giving a history lesson of what has already happened within his lifetime. He is giving a framework of what is liable to happen. That’s the starting phrase for what follows. Others have said:,,That’s just doctrinal development.“ Again, that’s not what he says. He doesn’t say that one plenary council is developed by another but corrected and the context of the statement ,,corrected“ is precisely to substantiate his point that you’ve got the infallible and the fallible. You’ve got what you know is true. You can take it to the bank and then you’ve got what may not be true because it’s fallible. That’s what he means when he says ,,Scripture is confined within its own limits. Again here’s his language:,, stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true“. End quote.“ St.Augustine is saying what is liable to happen only regarding the letters of the bishops. The Church has never denied the infallibility and centrality of Scripture, and the later letter of bishops are laible to refutation in case they contain something contrary to the truth. They undergo the sanction of the Church. But when St.Augsutine is speaking about the correction of an Ecumenical Council by a subsequent Ecumenical Council, he is not saying what is liable to happen because he says:,,the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them“ - he is saying ,,often“, i.e. he is referring to something that has already happened, something that is past and that is known to him. So he is referring to the development of the Nicene Creed (325) at the Second Ecumenical Council (381) with the development of the article about the Father, the article about the Son and mosst notably the article about f the Holy Spirit in the context of the condemnation of the Macedonianist heresy which denied the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed did not explicitly emphasize in its article about the Holy Spirit His eternity and Godhead because the First Council (325) dealt primarily with the Arian heresy which denied the Godhead of the Son and which the Council condemned. Although Arianism denied the eternity and the Godhead of both the Son and the Holy Spirit and taught that the Holy Spirit was subsurvient to the Son, the article about the Holy Ghost in the Nicene Creed said only that we believe ,,And in the Holy Ghost''. That problem was solved at the Second Council which developed the article but the First Council not refute anything that the First one had declared. The Nicene Creed was also developed in its article about God the Father, the article about our Lord Jesus Christ and an article about the Church was also included.
Just to note that I edited my comment in its second part. In summary it must be said that he Nicene Creed (325) was developed at the Second Council (381) with a development of its articles about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Also an article about the Church was included. So St.Sugustine referred to the development of the Nicene Creed in Constantinople in 381.
Protestants pick and choose on the basis of how closely Augustine’s views comport with scripture. Even though Augustine does the same, he is not infallible, none of us are. That’s why we study scripture carefully, listen to one another respectfully, and are always open to reform. Over time our understanding deepens, our souls are nourished, the Church is strengthened, and God is glorified.
Well the magisterium denies sola Scriptura, so rather than being intellectually honest about my presuppositions I’m going to simply read Augustine anachronistically now, and claim church history is on my side.
If only Sola Scriptura is infallible, and since Sola Scriptura is not found in Scriptures, does that mean Sola Scriptura is fallible? You're argument that "universality implies apostlicity" is rather weak. The phrase "universal Church" is used not to imply that what is practiced 'universally' by the individual churches in necessarily apostolic (though it could be), but rather that the true Church is also the universal Church for all humanity and creation, regardless of how many parishes or parishioners that true Church may have. I personally have never come across your interpretation of the "universal Church", so I'm curious where the idea comes from. Now which church is the "very Church which the Holy Scriptures point out without ambiguity"? You kind of glossed over this question even though this is the heart of the issue. Which church is the Holy Scriptures pointing to? Which real and physical congregation embodies the Word of God? I'd love to hear your take on this. Anyways, this video is reminding me that I need to finally finish reading St. Augustine's 'The Literal Meaning of Genesis', so I guess I'll get back to that.
The phrase Sola scriptura is not found in Scripture, but the tenets of Sola scriptura are most certainly found in Scripture. This is what Sola Scriptura means: Luke 1:4 Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine. John 5:39 We have eternal life from the Scriptures only because they bear witness about Christ. John 10:35 Scripture cannot be broken or invalidated. John 15:20 No one may contradict or neglect the Apostles and be a Christian. John 17:20 The word of the Apostles is the source of true faith. John 20:31 The Gospel of John alone is enough to tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name. John 22:24 The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it. Acts 17:11 We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true. Acts 24:14 We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets. Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope. 1 Corinthians 12:28 All other teachers and servants in the Church come after the Apostles in priority. 1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord. 2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord. Galatians 1:8 No one may contradict what the Apostles preached. Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote. Galatians 3:22 The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Eph 2:20 The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church and the faith with Christ as cornerstone. All other authorities must build on that foundation and no other. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 We are to firmly hold to the teachings of the Apostles. They are the only true standard by which other teachers and doctrines are to be judged. I challenge anyone to identify an oral Apostolic teaching that is not written in the New Testament. 1 Timothy 3:14-15 This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons, and how the Church is to be godly. This godliness is unchanging. 1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. 2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable. Scripture is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged. 2 Timothy 3:17 Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work. 1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it. 2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles. 2 Peter 3:16 The ignorant and unstable who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. Paul's Epistles are Scripture. 1 John 1:3-4 The eye-wittness writings of the Apostles are what give us fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father, and with His Son. 1 John 4:6 The Apostles are from God. Whoever knows God listens to the words of the Apostles; whoever is not from God does not believe the Apostles. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
@@r.lizarraga693 The Church that takes the Apostles at their word, refuses to obviously contradict them, and seeks to proclaim rather than interpret. The Apostles say Baptism saves. The Church that says, "Waddaou' the thief on the cross??" does not have the right interpretation, for example.
I've been watching apologetics stuff on RUclips since becoming a Protestant in 2015 and I have to say, at least based on my experience, I think your videos are going to age better than almost anything else out there. Appreciate your sincerity and Christlikeness.
What were you before Protestant, if you don't mind me asking?
@@johnathanrhoades7751 just lost… not Roman Catholic
@@timcole2701 🙂 I'm glad you found Christ. He is wonderful and your path of union with him will be hard, sure, but oh so wonderful!
@@johnathanrhoades7751 thank you brother
Concordo plenamente, Tim Cole! O Gavin tem uma capacidade ímpar de transitar pelos fatos históricos de forma sucinta e desmistificando uma série de falácias. Deus o abençoe ricamente!
I completely agree, Tim Cole! Gavin has an unique ability to move through historical facts succinctly and demystifying a series of fallacies. God richly bless him!
I was Catholic for 35 yr. When I was baptized in the Holy Spirit,all the religion in me transformed into relationship with God. Since that time God has healed me physically more than once and has used me for healing others.I don’t consider myself as a healer,but the faith of Jesus in me does the healing .That knowledge is way beyond my understanding but I follow that way because that’s what the Holy Spirit tells me. I have nothing against the Catholic Church,but my following God is now on a personal basis .God will judge us not by our denomination but by our personal faith in His Son Jesus!!
“You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.”
Matthew 7:16-17 RSV
I must say, as an avid theology fan who watches dozens of channels on this platform, one of the fews things I find more admirable than meticulous arguments is a loving and charitable spirit. You certainly inspire me to be a theologian and a Christian, Dr. Ortlund!
Well stated. The Apostle Paul wrote "..but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ (Ephesians 4:15, NASB). Many on youtube want to speak the truth but we have to do it in love which I believe is the more difficult part.
Good fruits doesn't mean to act like a Ned Flanders, tolerating everything and holding hands with heretics. Good fruits means acts of repentance and preaching the gospel to make converts.
I see many in this comment section often considering to change protestantism for orthodoxy (which is not orthodox at all, is just marketing, first church my ass). So we have hundreds of warnings against idolatry, but then they see a guy on long robes and a big beard doing the sacraments in a church full of icons/idols decked with gold and silver and precious stones everywhere, they hear that same guy saying "we are the first church... Tradition... Holiness... Icons have been accepted since the first century" and other bullshit and believe it.
Careful with the RSV. Is a bad translation. But most protestants also don't care about this. They don't care about anything. I'm pissed.
“Do we love the truth more than we love our own agenda.” This is powerful. From a Protestant contemplating Orthodoxy, your videos have been so wonderful to listen to
Same. I have been devouring his stuff as some of the best pro-protestant stuff on RUclips. I'm still leaning toward Orthodoxy, but Gavin is definitely making me have to wrestle with a bunch of questions.
Im glad to hear that others have been wresting in this way as I have
@@whiphess7658 wrestling is over for me. Headed to Orthodoxy.
How many times you have to read "idols bad, don't do it" in order for you to understand that orthodoxy is 1) just a marketing name, 2) a heresy.
Is that easy to make you forget? You hear one of them saying "is not worship, is honoring the icon" and you just believe it and start thinking about switching?
Really?
@@elyudekrane15 ugh... So it's decided. When are you going to start bowing down before Mary and asking for her intercession?
How many more hurdles can you get in between you and God?
I'm going to vomit.
The irenic spirit, scholarly fidelity and well prepared appeals. We could use more of this in the Christian community all-around. It is a breath of fresh air.
It is a pleasure to listen to someone who wants to be understood as opposed to wanting to "win' (whatever "win" means in such discussions between Christians). It is equally a pleasure to listen to someone who is focused on making points instead of scoring points.
Thank you for all your hard work Gavin.
I say well done on setting a tone and example for others on how to handle harsh/angry criticism.
Such a blessing being able to come across your channel.
I think you did a fantastic job in both your original video and this response. I'm an easy sell, believing in Sola Scriptura already, but this was fascinating information about Augustine. I agree that he couldn't have been more clear in his writing about the subject.
Gavin the first 7 minutes of this video is SO truthful. Thank you for your work that you do behind the scenes for these teaching videos. I could only guess at the hours for work you do.
I've only started to watch your video's and have found them challenging my in my ideas and thoughts.
Thank you Gavin. I always appreciate the kindness and care that you show opponents, it's a very Christ like attitude
Don't be discouraged brother. Truth will always defend and vindicate itself, regardless of the critics.
James, I agree! The truth is no Protestant Pastor ever practices Scripture ALONE, as they place their own fallible interpretations above Holy Scripture! Augustine never taught Scripture ALONE, as Augustine confirms the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
"Also, let's for the sake of argument assume that Augustine believed in Protestant sola scriptura (which he didn't). The problem is, like William said, is that he believes in Catholic doctrines explicitly like penance, purgatory, prayers of the saints, faith and works, Eucharist, sacraments. So, clearly even if Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, he's coming to a conclusion that is completely contrary to Dr. Ortlund's. So, why should I trust Ortlund's interpeation over Augustine? After all, Dr. Ortlund's interpretation isn't infallible.
Would he accept Augustine saying that according to the tradition of the apostles that it's impossible for someone to inherit eternal life apart from eating at the table of the Lord (Eucharist) and baptism?"
-CTTO
@matthewbroderick6287
I would agree with you, as a protestant, but we shouldn't make the jump to say that those who trust in Jesus with all their hearts (and bear the fruits!) aren't saved because they don't have a membership card somewhere. That's not biblical.
What stands out most in your engagement on this topic, Gavin, is the depth of your character and the degree to which it has been formed in Christlikeness. The nature of your response speaks far louder than the information contained therein. I’m grateful for your example.
Remember, only the RCC determines what is sacred tradition. Only the RCC determines what Scripture means. Rome is in a conversation with herself.
Some Catholics go further, that the RCC wrote the scriptures as well. They say we would not have a bible if not for the Catholic church and only the Catholic church.
Even if their claims are true thats conflating the body of christ with the father who delivered us the scriptures.
@saintejeannedarc9460
We shouldnt be led astray by thie
I am 82 years old , and in the past have given apologetics a wide berth i,
feeling that it was like heated debates ! Quite the opposite , I have learned so much lately. ,and being hopeful that I am for truth and justice , I have been quite amazed at the diplomacy and graciousness , in which these are conducted by both parties thank you for helping me to continue to grow in faith and the knowledge of God , blessings and thank you ✝️
From a protestant who is "sincerely wrestling with these issues" - if there is any way to separate the argument from the mire your continued thoughts on the matters at hand are dearly appreciated. Unfortunately this is a situation where it is impossible not to throw your pearls to the swine because they are intermingled with those who are trying to aim for peace. And of course we all slip from time to time.
Gavin, your irenicism is such a breath of fresh air. I see your approach to this (and other) issues as so fair, so self-scrutinizing, so thought provoking, so free of doctrinaire pronouncements that I just keep coming back for more. I am sincerely wrestling with a lot of these issues you talk about and I really appreciate what you're doing here. Keep it up.
That's a great response Gavin, I think your opponents are not used to dealing with someone like you. I've been finding your videos very helpful and edifying, please don't be discouraged.
"Also, let's for the sake of argument assume that Augustine believed in Protestant sola scriptura (which he didn't). The problem is, like William said, is that he believes in Catholic doctrines explicitly like penance, purgatory, prayers of the saints, faith and works, Eucharist, sacraments. So, clearly even if Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, he's coming to a conclusion that is completely contrary to Dr. Ortlund's. So, why should I trust Ortlund's interpeation over Augustine? After all, Dr. Ortlund's interpretation isn't infallible.
Would he accept Augustine saying that according to the tradition of the apostles that it's impossible for someone to inherit eternal life apart from eating at the table of the Lord (Eucharist) and baptism?"
-CTTO
@@systemdown4027 he wasn't saying that it was right because Augustine said it, as though he is an authority on all scriptural matters. The point is that Protestants are often critised for holding this view as though it is illogical & unhistorical, a complete innovation of the 16th century. Gavin's point is that these are false claims and if you actually rear the reformers you would see how often they supplement their claims with appeals to historic church figures such as Augustine. Gavin is not asking you to trust his interpretation of scripture, this video is simply demonstrating that Protestants have more support for their doctrines than is often claimed by Catholic and orthodox apologists.
The information you gave it so helpful.
Also for me this is an example of a kind answer to a less-than-charitable alternative viewpoint. Thank you!
Always appreciate the way you engage in issues such as this. The way in which you handle disagreement, criticism, and even unfair criticism is challenging and encouraging to me.Thanks for posting!
Brother Gavin,
I truly appreciate your balance between your personal humbleness and self-awareness and your firm stance in regard to what you have studied. It is a wonderful reflection of Christ.
Gavin. Thank You for all you do. I just want to tell you, that you are a trusted mentor for me and I can imagine for many others as well. This is because, of course, your videos are filled with great substance, and the topics you speak on. But also because of your character and approach to your videos, you give an amazing example for the rest of us, especially me, as I can fall into the same issues that I see many "apologists" fall into, becoming irritated, hot tempered and even insulting, in discussions. I hope this will change in me, and I am sure that when it does, one of the means that God will achieve it through, is the example you set in your videos and debates.
Keep it Up please. And I hope everything is going well for you.
Also, we're gonna need a Library Tour soon. Haha.
Amen!
I hold you and your approach in the highest regard, I hope I can learn and incorporate the grace that you display in your honest pursuit for truth
Have to say, i tried to listen to Williams video and couldnt make it more than 15 minutes. Your approach is so incredibly helpful to move the conversation forward.
Peace.
I respect and appreciate the desire for sincere dialogue. I find that many of the differences that we struggle over may be founded on misunderstanding and misrepresentation of certain positions. The more open that we listen to one another the more in common that I find.
William Albrecht can not accept any church father disagreeing with his position. Anthony Rogers showed Marius Victorinus believed in Sola Fide yet just days later William produced a video to debunk it. It is time for Protestants to stand on their conviction in being brave to confront the pious snobbery that some Catholic apologists have towards the Father's. Thankfully people like yourself Gavin along with Anthony Rogers are stepping up to denounce that all the Father's agree with one William Albrecht.
I don't know, St. Augustine sure does sound Proto-Protestant to me.
________
On Apostolic Succession
"[T]here are many other things that most justly keep me in her bosom [the Catholic Church]. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, put in charge of feeding his sheep, down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" [Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5].
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" [Letters 53:1:2].
"[I]f you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all" [Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 33:9; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 345].
"And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants" [On Baptism, 4, 24, 31; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 61].
________
On the Papacy and the Roman See
"This was thought to have been the case in him when he replied that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory, in which all doubt about this matter was removed . . . [T]he words of the venerable Bishop Innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council … What could be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the Apostolical See?" [Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 3:5; NPNF 1, Vol. V, 393-394].
"[T]he Catholic Church, by the mercy of God, has repudiated the poison of the Pelagian heresy. There is an account of the provincial Council of Carthage, written to Pope Innocent, and one of the Council of Numidia; and another, somewhat more detailed, written by five bishops, as well as the answer he [Pope Innocent] wrote to these three; likewise, the report to Pope Zosimus of the Council of Africa, and his answer which was sent to all the bishops of the world" [Letter to Valentine, Epistle 215; Deferrari, 32: 63-64].
". . . the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished" [To Glorius et al, Epistle 43, 7; NPNF 1, Vol. I, 278].
"Argue with them when they speak against grace, and if they persist, bring them to us. You see, there have already been two councils about this matter, and their decisions sent to the Apostolic See; from there rescripts have been sent back here. The case is finished; if only the error were finished too, sometime! So, let us all warn them to take notice of this, teach them to learn the lesson of it, pray for them to change their ideas" [Sermon 131:10].
________
On Church Authority
"It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true" [Sermon 117:6].
"God has placed this authority first of all in his Church" [Explanations of the Psalms, Tract 103:8, PL 37:520-521; in Congar, 392].
"For in the belly of the Church truth abides. Whosoever has been separated from this belly of the Church must needs speak false things: . . ." [Expositions on the Psalms, 58:3 (58, 5)].
"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Maccabees 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church, which is clear on this point, is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar, the commendation of the dead has its place" [Care to Be Had for the Dead 3].
"For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church" [Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 131].
________
"Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law," have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works" [A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapters 18; NPNF 1, Vol. V].
"Who is he that believes not that Jesus is the Christ? He that does not so live as Christ commanded. For many say, “I believe”: but faith without works saves not. Now the work of faith is Love, . . . " [Homilies on the First Epistle of John 10:1].
"And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope, and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces" [On Christian Doctrine, I, 39:43; NPNF 1, Vol. II, 534].
"[H]uman nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath - in a word, from punishment - except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ (the Eucharist)" [On Nature and Grace 2:3].
"Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord (the Eucharist) it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life?" [On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, 1:34; NPNF 1, V, 28].
"[To Boniface] Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice (the Eucharist), . . . daily among our congregations . . .?" [Letters 98:9].
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . The bread you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in the chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" [Sermons 227].
"For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body" [Sermons 234:2].
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But your faith obliges you to accept that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" [Sermons 272].
10
@@systemdown4027 Regarding the real presence in the Eucharist and to see where I stand as a Protestant may I ask that you watch this. If you would like to comment after I would be happy to have a friendly discussion. ruclips.net/video/4OZOFZ9-QlE/видео.html
@YAJUN YUAN ruclips.net/video/x1ZycIZXnns/видео.html
this is the final word. check it out Brother. I understand why Catholics will respond to this video immediately. I think Dr. Ortlund ignored the other meaning of the word "emendari". Just watch the video fam! God bless!
Hey Gavin! Although I myself am reformed I have appreciated your modest and honest approach to Church history and defending the Protestant point of view. One can see clearly that you aren’t arguing absurdly or extravagantly. Thank you for your work, Glory to God!
Keep up the great work, brother! Thankful for you and your ministry.
Thank you for all your work Gavin, I have gained so much from your videos. Stay strong against the caricatures and slander! God bless you and your ministry.
Congrats brother for 7k I was here when you where at 1k lol. Keep preaching the Word brother.
Your approach, as always, is irenic. Thank you for being an excellent example on how to respond to antagonism online.
James White is the boogie man for a lot of Catholic apologists and their followers. So, whenever a Protestant starts to score any points on anything, his spectre is what comes to mind. Even when White obviously has nothing to do with the point at hand.
white got demolished by every respectable catholic apologist; trent horn, jimmy aking, sungenis, dave armstrong etc.
so no, he`s not boogyman for educated catholic.
@@kyriosbooks8400 Stay mad, bro.
I know two Christian apologists who went on record saying they left Protestantism after watching JW debates with Catholics. One of them even said he wanted JW to "crush" the Catholic.
Boogie man? 😂
@YAJUN YUAN geusssong Sam shamouin is one, anyway I throughly JW won or tied most of debates with Catholics I saw but I think the new Cath apologists are a lot stronger then t he older ones. JW has also done loads of debates and in some cases the only debates on a catholic issues is JW and someone else.
Gavin I really appreciate your posture in these videos when it comes to how you approach apologetics. Its an example to us all
That's why I found some of the responses that provoked this video so disappointing and frankly upsetting. The tragedy is that the posture to those whom you disagree with displayed in these remarks is akin to the posture to theological "opponents" which led to the intolerance which led to the tragic killing of "heretics" during the reformation and subsequent religious conflicts.
Jesus in the sermon on the mount talks about how anger in the heart is the seed that can lead to violence and we need to be very careful about the language we use that disparages others. It's sad that many haven't learned that lesson and still talk with violent language of "shredding" and "destroying" and which cast personal asprertions
Please continue to express your convictions in the way you do it is helpful to and example to so many of us.
God bless you Gavin. Keep up the good work for the kingdom of God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Irenic approach ftw)
10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Appreciate all of the videos!
I know you likely a lot of other stuff you’re working on, but I’d be really interested (and I’d imagine many others would be as well) in seeing you do a video addressing the Eternal functional submission of the son and the Trinity. Looking at current views and what those in church history have or haven’t said about it would be interesting I think.
God bless you Brother!
John is a witness, so is the church. Amen brother, Amen
Thanks Gavin! Keep it up!
I appreciate this video, especially your closing remarks about how neither Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox needs to have EVERY church father on their side for their beliefs to be true. Honestly it baffles me when I see apologists twist themselves into a pretzel acting like every father agreed with their positions when an honest look at history would show that isn't the case. The history of the Christian church is very diverse, and I think we as 21st century folk would have a lot of adjusting to do if we had to go back to the time of Augustine.
Great video!
As a Protestant, however, I have noted that those Fathers who used a language similar to Sola Scriptura (e.g., Augustine, Gregory Nyssa, Basil the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc) they do so in particular polemical contexts - usually when a heretic is in view who was also appealing to Scripture. In other contexts, they gladly affirmed the ultimate authority of the apostolic tradition, both oral and written.
So, I do believe that the concept of Sola Scriptura is definitely in the Fathers (so, there's no absolute novelty in the 16th century) but we cannot say that they operated under this category.
They dared not operate as anything but in subjective to the church of that day. What we don't know is if they had more freedom to do so, would they have? I have to wonder about that to a degree. Overall, though, you are right that those fathers saw scripture as the ultimate authority, similar to some tenets of sola scriptura, but that they also put themselves under church authority. Many protestants who, who affirm sola scriptura also will submit to church authority as well though.
They're over the top because they need Protestantism to be some complete historical novelty for their public polemics.
Right, Protestantism wasn’t just a return to scripture, but a reading of the fathers.
Exactly. William resorted to dozens of insults and personal attacks because the second he gives us Protestants an intellectual foothold, Roman Catholicism falls apart. Protestantism came out of an honest reading of the Bible and the Fathers, Catholics fear that more than anything
@@adamheida8549 their academics are way more fair & honest than their apologists & we should note that. That said, I continue to note on my channel that Newman & his development theory exists & their polemics is pretty insane in light of that.
I think that totalizing view happens because in the RCC today, a good Catholic has to affirm every doctrine of the Catholic Church otherwise they aren't considered Catholic, and then that gets applied in retrograde to the historical Church, and so people think that the early Church must have affirmed all the same doctrines. Basically it's, "I have to believe all the Church teaches, so they must have believed all the Church teaches, and Church teaching has never changed, so they are only affirming the same doctrines." That's just another example of how binding consciences to affirm dogmas can be super dangerous.
Thank you
Really positive, thoughtful content. Thank you.
Gavin, you were asking for the context of the Augustine quote. “The canonical books of scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.” It appears to me, and I would like to submit to you, that he isn’t making a claim about sola scriptura but comparing the canonical books with other books, possibly Christian, possibly apocrypha. Not the creeds, for he believed in the authority of the creeds. It appears clear that he is making a distinction between the canonical books verses other types of literature where authors do have error. He has learned to yield his respect and honor only to the writings of canonical scripture verses other types of writings that are not in the canon but were most definitely in circulation that many read and were edified and by some that were erroneous. He does not seem to be making a claim for the scripture being compared to the tradition of the church. He was a episcopate, he prayed to saints, he believed in the sacraments. I don’t think he’s making a claim for sola scriptura but elevating scripture above all other types of literature Christian or otherwise. What do you think? Am I way off on that?
St. Augustine: 397 A.D.
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
"Tell us straight out that you do not believe in the Gospel of Christ; for you believe what you want in the Gospel and disbelieve what you want. You believe in yourself rather than in the Gospel."
Thank you this is exactly what I was thinking!!!!
After seeing your original video I went and read that whole part of On Baptism. The only potential response I saw with your argument was that not everything which happens at an ecumenical council is put forward as infallible. It actually is possible for the non-infallible parts of an ecumenical council to be corrected if the ruling doesn't pan out very well in practice. And this seemed reasonable to me as an interpretation because Augustine speaks of experience (or experiment) of revealing the defficiency of the council's ruling.
That said, a response to THAT response could be that Augustine wasn't talking about praxis in that section of the letter, but upon the Church's understanding of the baptisms done by heretics. And that isn't merely a praxis issue.
For that reason, I'm more willing to side with you on your overall argument. If one defines Sola Scriptura as you do, then one could say Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura.
That said, I think there is a whole conversation to have about the definition of Sola Scriptura. The way I see it, there are multiple forms of Sola Scriptura. The minor form of it being the one you've proposed; "The only infallible rule of faith". The major form including things like sufficiency and perspicuity. In my experience talking to Protestants, I've found the major form to be way more common. So while I don't have a problem with someone holding to the minor form thereof, I think its a bit much to call the major form a "charicature". Many of the critiques which Catholics regularly encounter in their daily lives come from the perspective of the major form. So when someone says that the major form isn't really Sola Scriptura, it can seem like a motte-baily tactic (even if what's really going on is a difference within the Protestant world on what Sola Scriptura means).
If it is to be said that Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura (minor), then (as a Catholic) I'd still want to call attention to ways in which he thought Church authority worked which many Protestants wouldn't feel comfortable with. Even if he thought a council was capable of error (even theological error), that doesn't mean he thought a person is at liberty to dissent from it. And as I read On Baptism, I think I saw him say that.
I really like this thoughtful comment and assessment! As a protestant, this “major view” of Sola Scriptura is receiving some well-deserved scrutiny & from what I can tell the “minor form” is in fact the reformers view, as well as Chemnitz, Turretin, etc.
I guess I could see the Anabaptists as being the first of the “major form” - so in theory the majority of Protestants could find (and ofcourse some do) heritage of their views in them. I know that the older traditions of Pentecostalism would consider the anabaptists as one strand of purity that they link to their lineage of a return to “first-century Christianity” - which I do not at all share in this
thank you so much of your response I love the honesty and the great insight! What do you think of William's response, I think him and his followers are disagreeing for no reason, perhaps they are anti-protestants or anti-reformed?
@@junkim5853 I don't know enough about the fella to say one way or the other.
@@actsapologist1991 would you like to watch William's response to Gavin's? Would love your opinion.
Gavin does talk about this in the first video and he acknowledged that others may define it differently based on experience. But he defined it based on the historic Protestant view articulated by the early Protestant leaders. He gave the example of "Catholics worship Mary" as an analogy - many people, maybe even the majority live out a Mary-idolizing lifestyle which may not reflect the actual Catholic doctrine on her.
I forget which Cardinal it was who said, "we will [stamp] out doctrine with dogma" but that is the position of many Roman Catholics that I see online, and those whom I dialogue with.
3:38 ascribing doxastic attitudes to others is generally something you want to avoid.
For what it's worth Dr. Ortlund, I am Catholic and I'll say you took the high road here. Kind of disappointing behavior from William.
Great job!
I recently found your channel as I am focusing on the study of Sola Scriptura from a historical perspective. I find your style very similar to pastor Mike who is from Calvary Chapel. I see that you ar now a Baptist. I thought you were Presbyterian (because of a comment you made in one of your videos) and was excited to have someone from my perspective putting out these important topics.
Now, this (infant baptism) doesn't have a direct relation to your topic of Sola Scriptura, but serves as an example (a perfect one) of how universal tradition affirms the Scriptures.
As a former credobaotist and Pentecostal since I was born, I came to see and understand that the validity of infant baptism not only sustained by Scriptures and the Covenant Theology clearly gou d in it, but also as a fact that it was a universal and unbroken tradition seen in practice since the second century as a strong point in favor of its apostolic origin. Augustine himself claims that the universal practice of infant baptism came down directly from the Apostles.
William is a special boy, please be patient.
In all seriousness though, it is strange how often you see Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox online who get so irrationally angry at the mere presentation of a Protestant perspective. They only want to get quick jabs in instead of interacting with anything. You never see Catholic or Orthodox people like that in real life, only on the internet. My suspicion is that these are mostly converts from Protestantism, probably fairly young, who still have some doubts over whether or not they made the right choice, hence why videos like yours cause them to lash out so emotionally. But I guess I shouldn't assume too much. William has been at this for 10-15 years and he still acts like that.
Most are like that offline and online. Has nothing to do with their protestant background. Do not reward bad behaviour. He's still like that till today
Great. Really Good.
Everything I've seen from William makes me roll my eyes. He is the embodiment of Catholics who overstate their case, Claiming things like "all of the church fathers say X"
I don't think I ever caught William's last name to be able to even look up his argument.
We need to be irenic as possible, but as aggressive and confrontational as necessary. As Walter Martin said, "Controversy for the sake of controversy is sin. Controversy for the sake of truth is a divine command.” And John Calvin said: "A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."- John Calvin
Gavin, thank you so much for doing these videos. I'm one of those described in the beginning of the video struggling with where in Christianity I should be (catholic, protestant, etc).
I was wondering what your response would be to the idea that an infallible document without an infallible interpretor is, in a way, fallible? Just something I've been struggling to answer from my own protestant background
We are all fallible interpreters. Having an infallible magisterium doesn’t solve the problem of our fallibility, since now fallible humans have to interpret the infallible magisterium. There are many different interpretations on all the ecumenical councils, especially Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II.
The ordinary magisterium, that is the discharge of the bishops day-to-day duties, is not considered infallible.
For instance, papal bulls are not considered infallible. So for all the talk about needing infallibility to know what is moral, (ie birth control), the Roman Catholic Church has not made an infallible irreformable declaration on that topic or many others.
Additionally, the Roman Catholic Church has not published an infallible Bible commentary or translation.
What you have are the ecumenical councils and what the pope has declared Ex Cathedra after Vatican I, (ie the Marian Dogmas). These items are considered infallible declarations. As previously stated, people, even bishops, interpret the councils differently.
So, what you are always left with in any situation is infallible revelation that must be received through fallible interpreters.
I'm not sure how us being fallible interpreters lessons the bible, which is infallible. I would say the only way to have an infallible interpreter is to have Jesus interpret all scripture for us. He left us w/ the truth, and sent the Holy Spirit w/in us to help us interpret it. To get it right sometimes and wrong sometimes is part of all of our struggles as we struggle w/ sinful flesh.
It has to be really tough trying to be so very intellectual about it all. Catholsism has a history that can be researched to openly see the evil of what is portrayed as God's church. The original Protesters that started dayb1 of the establishment of the RCC is evident in history along with the RCC pope's continued massacre of them, on and on. To consider wondering about joining such an institution would only take common sense. The RCC of history manipulation is overwhelming even today. To put one's trust solely in the Word of God can only be the only way to go. It is breathed by God alone & alive this very day. To read outside of that especially with things tainted by such evil as the RCC & Vatican is absolutely nuts and leads to doubt of which the author of confusion hopes. 300 years from now some supposed wannabe scholars will be having these same discussions on a supposed church father named Benny Hinn and all his book writings.
Excellent Dr. Ortlund. You have a great method of standing ground in a godly way. I have a question about the abbreviation on the slide with the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. at that 10:03 mark - what do these abbreviations stand for ? = (C. illa, xi, Dist. 12) ?
"The ecumenical councils or synods of the Univeral church are called planary council by St. Augustine (C. illa, xi, Dist. 12)" ?
Love your videos!
Ken Temple
As a brother in Christ, I really appreciate and respect you Dr. Ortland. I'm a recent Catholic "convert", but I've been really challenged and refreshed by the way you approach so much of history that others (from all sides) often balk at or explain away with caricatures and strawmen.
The trend I keep finding with your videos and materials though is that you seem to resort to what all scholars and traditions inevitably have do--cherrypicking. You always seem to resourcefully and thoroughly point out the early sources that disagree with/challenge the traditional (or what eventually became traditional) positions of the Catholic (and often Eastern Orthodox) Church:
"The Church has always believed in and accepted the 73 book canon of the Bible" the Catholic claims. "Not so fast," you say. "Let me show you how Jerome seemed to side with the Jewish, and eventually Protestant, position on the canon."
"The Church from the earliest stages has venerated and prayed to the saints and martyrs", the Catholic affirms. "Not so fast," you say again. "I don't seem to find sources supporting that till at least the 3rd century, and look at how Origen rejects the proposal that Christians pray to other spirits other than God."
"Apostolic Succession existed from the beginning of the Christian movement," says the Catholic. "Not so fast," you insert. "The Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp, and many others seem to posit a plurality of elders, that only later developed into the Catholic position." Etc, etc.
I'll be the first to admit that these considerations are important, and shouldn't quickly be overlooked. But in my estimate, I think in bringing up these points you are inadvertently proving the very necessity of a present and living authority in every age of the Church, now as much as then. What/who mediates between those who argue for, and those arguing against circumcision? What/who solidifies the doctrines of truth when some people assert one view of Christ, while others defend another? What/who settles between this canon of the Scriptures and that one? What/who is to sift through the various voices and opinions and writings to arrive at an orthodox conclusion? What/who determines what is legitimate development, and what is dangerous corruption? What/who gets to be the chief "cherrypicker"? I know there's much more nuance than just this, so I apologize if this comes across as reductionistic. But the Catholic (and in incomplete form, the Eastern Orthodox) view is precisely that it is God, by His Spirit, through his Church and its appointed authorities that accomplishes the necessary "cherrypicking" to prune and nurture His Church.
In light of the plethora of historical voices, I really do respect you, Dr. Ortland, for critically examining as many perspectives in such an honest manner, and I don't necessarily blame you for then siding with those voices that seem to best support what you presently believe to be orthodox, and being unconvinced by the inevitably mixed history of many Catholic (and EO) doctrines. Again, all scholars and traditions do the same to varying extents. But, if I may be so bold, I feel that until there's a more serious grappling with the question of authority as briefly illustrated above, I don't anticipate you ever arriving at a view that adequately encompasses and accounts for all of church history, that which supports your present positions, as well as those that don't.
I'm sure this isn't the first time you've heard feedback of this nature, and I know you likely won't have the time to reply to this, so no worries! Just wanted to express my grattitude for your work and spirit, and also issue a hardy challenge for you as you continue pursuing the truth that unites.
Blessings, brother!
I don't think protestants are looking for early church unanimity on contentious issues. Rather, if some ancient saints agree with Reformation doctrines, then no one had a right to burn Huss and excommunicate Luther. The real question is, does the Pope have the right to suppress valid historical readings of scripture?
@@Mygoalwogel I appreciate your response! Forgive me for not seeing this comment earlier.
I agree! I'm definitely not on board with burnings and such, just like I'm not in favor of the Hellenist widows being neglected at the daily distribution of bread in Acts 6 (I know those are two very different degrees of abuse, but just stating a baseline point about how there are abuses and neglects across various generations, even in the apostolic age).
I think you're onto the right questions, because yes, there'll most certainly never be true universal consensus on most theological points . And sure, let's say for arguments sake that the Pope (more correctly, the Magesterium as a whole) doesn't have the "right" to "suppress" "valid" historical readings of Scripture. Ok, so then who does? Constantine? Augustine? Aquinas? Luther? Calvin? John Piper? You? Me? Each individual believer? What happens when they disagree on who has that "right", and on the methods of "suppressing" what is false, and on how to evaluate whether a reading is "valid" or not? It's an endless cycle approaching anarchy and relativity without the authority Christ himself seemingly bestows upon men he fully knew were broken, sinful, and human, yet who he'd soon lead personally through his very Spirit bind and loose his Church to and away from various practices and beliefs.
That, in my estimate, is when the better questions begin leading to more substantial answers.
@@gabrieln3836 Glad you agree the sword ought not to have become a way to suppress the Gospel. The Pope's church actually stopped using murder and torture before the pompous sees of Constantinople, Moscow, and Axum did. They continued to arrest, torture and execute Old Believers, Old Calendarists, and Stephanites into the 20th century. It was the communists, Turks, and fascists who finally stopped them, not the Holy Spirit. So you have that to your credit.
Your question about who has the right to suppress in other ways is more difficult. Over time, more and more pieces of the Lutheran Book of Concord have become acceptable to the Papal magisterium. Maybe the Holy Spirit Himself can actually bring about unity as rebellious "Christians" draw further and further away from the creeds and as honest believing Christians continue to ask (pray), seek (truly face the scriptures) and knock (visit and dialogue)?
@@Mygoalwogel Agreed again, although I wouldn't discredit the Creeds themselves, but rather the people who misuse them, just as I don't don't discredit Scripture in any way, just the people who (as Peter said) twist them to their own destruction. The Spirit takes what is word and gives it flesh! I'm right there with you praying for that unity to incarnate in its fullness someday soon.
@@gabrieln3836 I'm not discrediting the creeds, but those who abandon them, moving further and further away from mutual reconciliation. That was my point.
I was raised in an atmosphere of bigotry , both parties catholic and non catholic, I was brought up catholic , and loved both sides , I now thank God that He has turned this to good! I grew to love the word of God when my life became hard , and that was all that I could trust! Therefore I hope at my age after many testings , that I try to see everything through the eyes of Jesus Our Lord , and let love be my aim , but at the same time test all things to see if they are of God , we can disagree but our spirit should be controlled by His spirit , ultimately ?
Awesome video Dr. Ortlund, may I ask where you got your schaff Church Fathers set, as an aspiring church history major, it would be indispensable- thanks!
this topic is a good topic for a debate.
When people make uncharitable response videos I have a hard time taking them seriously (I really try) because in the back of my mind I'm wondering if the person making the video is just insecure about their position. I can't help but think, is this person even convinced of his own position? I know I am not right to think that all the time, after all some people are just passionate... I dunno, it just throws me off. I prefer the calm approach.
You’re the soul of honor. And I can understand the points you made in the original video. I just don’t think it is as clear as you do but you do make a reasonable argument
I have found many with that attitude: mind tightly closed, deaf and blind to anything that interferes with their indoctrination, and often nasty too. I address beliefs, practices, history and not the person; but many take it as a personal attack and comment back with a personal attack.
Dude, you literally laughed at me when I did nothing but try to defend Jimmy and Trent from a nasty personal attack against them.
Also, you did this on Easter Sunday. It's so weird.... why would you spend your Easter that way?
@@enshala6401 Dude?? What are you? You did nothing but? What a liar. You had the nasty personal attacks. Then you have the nerve to complain you were laughed at...what a baby and hypocrite.
What better thing to do on Easter than witness to the lost and deceived (yes you).
@@joycegreer9391 Catholics have a very different attitude about their church than we do. It is part of their personal identity and the very crux of their faith. So any time we don't agree w/ their faith, which is completely in their church, they take that very personally. We seem to have a difference in that our denomination is very secondary to the bible and our ultimate head is Christ, and our identity is as Christians. It is not to say that Catholics are not Christians, they definitely are, but for many, maybe most, that isn't the pinnacle of their identity. It is more about their church, and being Catholic.
Hi Guys merely wish to add my 2 cents worth. I'm a Catholic and I really feel that these videos are awesome. I do not Always agree, I do not always disagree, I think your research and scholarly attitude are great and I learn a lot. I don't agree with Sola Scriptura. My feeling is that scripture has to be opened and interpreted in the light of the tradition of the Fathers, and ones experience. These must all act together. The historical divide is I believe a tremendous mistake as are the "hardened" positions taken up there after. I cannot abide the attitude that seeks to trash other's and which normally characterizes (normally American ) apologetics
Hi Dudley. Just a word of encouragement. It is entirely Protestant to read Scripture in light of the testimony of the Fathers, as well as our own experience and reason. I as a Protestant make an effort to be as in line with the Fathers as Scripture allows me to be. Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture alone is the infallible source of doctrine. We don't rule out reading Scripture in light of tradition - in fact we encourage it! What we reject and Roman Catholics affirm, is that tradition is equally authoritative. I reject that Tradition is equal to Scripture for many reasons, and instead see Scripture as uniquely authoritative, in that it alone is infallible, God-breathed, and the norm for faith
@@adamheida8549 Good point. I think where that method goes wrong is that it places the Fathers and their relationship with Scripture in subjection to our own judgment of their orthodoxy rather than allowing ourselves to be judged by the teachings of the Fathers.
@tonywallens217 The fathers are fallible, scripture is not. Gavin has made the point on several occasions that even the fathers don't agree on all topics and that church history is messy. So if we must read scripture in light of the fathers' teachings, then how do we adjudicate when father A disagrees with father B, C, and D. It is why we protestants say sola or prima scriptura. Only scripture is infallible, and traditions and all church teachings must be read in light of it. I honestly don't understand why this should be contended for.
@@addjoaprekobaah5914 God bless you ✝️🙏
@@adamheida8549 That's inspiring
I fail to understand why you assume that Augustine can trust Tradition only because it's closer to Christ. It's still FOUR CENTURIES. The guy doesn't have problem with Tradition that had Been developing for CENTURIES and sees it as authorative. He clearly doesn't belive sola scriptura. The way you talk about universal Tradition and testimony of church make it seem like universal =found in protestant churches. When it's not a case. Why even bother with Augustine if you can simply dismiss him ?
For anyone interested in these topics I highly, highly recommend checking out Brother Anthony Rogers channel! He also had a run in with Mr. Albrecht.
Continue fighting the good fight, Dr. O. Unregenerate men will try to justify themselves and deny the sufficiency of Christ's once for all sacrifice revealed in Holy Writ. Not surprised by the charitable responses from certain of our Imperial church interlocutors and other responses more reminiscent of the Inquisition from others.
Hello, Dr. Ortlund. I was not sure where I should write that comment. I hope you don’t mind that I write it here. I watched your conversation with Craig Truglia - ,,Why are you Orthodox or Protestant? With Gavin Ortlund“. You asked something important in relation with the impossibility of salvation outside of the Orthodox Church. Your question is important because it is often asked by many people. You asked concretely about C.S.Lewis and Tolkien and their conversation in 1929. You asked whether they are damned in hell. With your question you were referring to the belivers in Christ who are outside the Orthodox Church.
In 2011 there is issued the book ,,Пламень огненный. Жизнь и наследие архиепископа Серафима (Соболева)». I am not sure if the book is translated in English. This would be the translation of the title in English: ,,A fire flame. The life and legacy of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) (1881-1950)). It is a book by A.Kostrykov who is a doctor of history and a pedagogue. It contains chosen sentences of the newly canonized (2016) saint, Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) of Boguchar (Bulgaria). He was canonized by the Russian Church and our Churche together in 2016. There he says the following about the pagans, although it is relevant in some way to your question:
,,I asked Vladyka Seraphim: “After all, the majority of people on earth are not Christians but pagans. But among them there are good, loving, honourable people. Will they, too, all fall into the fire of the Gehenna after death? ” Vladika:“ No! For their suffering and good deeds, the pagans will not fall into the worst hellish torments, for them there is a “northern side” at the Last Judgment. They will not come to know the kingdom of God but they will not taste the terrible torments of hell, too.” He is referring to the good people who are non-believers and says that they will neither come to know the kingdom of God, nor will they suffer eternal torment. What St.Seraphim says is relevant to what St.Gregory the Theologian says in his Oration 40 - on Baptism, about the unbaptized infants - he says that they will neither be glorified, nor punished.
Similarly, Ambrosiaster (6th century), although he is not a Holy Father of the Church, says something about those outside of the Church that is relevant to your question, although he gives an example with Montanists, Novatianists and Donatists.
He says in his Commentary on Pauline Epistles, more specifically on the book of Romans:
Romans 2:15-16:,,And their thoughts, debating with each other, accuse or even defend them 16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of humankind according to my gospel through Jesus Christ our Lord.
…Those whom Paul says are in turn accused or defended by their thoughts on the day of judgement, are Christians. Those who disagree with the Catholic Church - who hold different views about Christ or about the meaning of the law according to the tradition of the church, whether Cataphrygians, Novatianists, Donatists, or other heretics - their thoughts will in turn accuse them on the day of judgment. If a person understood that the Catholic Church is the true Church and was unwilling to follow it because he did not wish to appear to have been corrected, being ashamed to abandon a view he was held for a long time, on the day of judgment he will be accused by his thinking. In fact, two ways of thinking in a person will accuse each other, good and bad. The good way of thinking accuses the bad because it has contradicted the truth. The bad way of thinking in turn accuses the good, which did not follow along as it - the bad way of thinking - thought it should. For this reason, a person who knowingly thought that the Catholic Church was good and true but persevered in heresy or schism, will be found guilty. But with a person who always thought this way (e.g., a person raised as a Montanist, Novatianist, or Donatist), suppossing that what he followed was right, his thoughts in turn will excuse him. For it will be said:,,When I thought about it, I always supposed that what I followed was right. This was my faith.“ Although this person must be corrected, his is a less serious case, because he will not be accused by his conscience on the day of judgment. In this manner will the secrets of humankind be judged on the day of God’s judgement by Jesus Christ our Lord.“
So those who have been part of the Church (I am referring to the Orthodox Church here) and leave it, are guilty of the unforgiveable sin of schism but those who are born and raised in another tradition, are not held liable for schism or heresy because they have not seceded from the Church, although Ambrosiaster says that that they will not be accused by their thoughts in the Day of Judgement, i.e. they are not condemned at the Day of Judgement but they are still not being justified because they have passed away outside of the Church. He only implies that their fate will not be of eternal damnation. This can be related to what St.Gregory says about the unbaptized infants and what St.Seraphim says about the good people among the pagans - that they will neither come to know the kingdom of God, nor suffer eternal torment.
As for those who have consciously seceded from the Church, commit the unforgiveable sin of schism - usually for the reason of the unforgiveable sin of heresy but not in all cases. Both schism and heresy are considered unforgiveable sins because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (John 15:26) and since for the reason that the heresies are damnable the way of truth shall be evil spoken of (2 Peter 2:1-3), the heresies are blasphemies against the Holy Spirit which is an unforgiveable sin (Matthew 12:32), wherefore they are damnable.
So, if someone who is born and raised outside of the Church (I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church) but has a respectful, humble, civilized attitude towards the Orthodox Church, although hacing disagreements with certain points of the teaching of the Church, does not commit the unforgivable sin. Although it is possible for a person who is born outside of the Church to commit that sin, if he or she (I am talking in general), for example, consciously insults the Church and its members, openly manifests his or her hatred towards the Church, attacks the Church etc. - this kind of attitude is also a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. But outside of that case, if someone who is born outside of the Church, has a normal attitude, an attitude of dignity and respect towards the Church, does not commit the unforgiveable sin and will not be eternally damned (in relation with the words of St.Gregory the Theologian, St.Seraphim and Ambrosiaster) but still is not saved because he has died outside of the Church. So they are in like a middle position between eternal salvation and eternal damnation. But the Church has barely referred to the matter because it has always strived to emphasize the impossibility of salvation outside of the Church (I mean the Orthodox Church).
In theory, I do get your point as a Catholic as long as you take sola scriptura in the same way it was defined by reformers. it sounds good in theory. My main problem is that in practice it really isnt working because it is not like there is this one reformed church that runs exactly as as intended from reformers using the basic core of faith. what we see in practice are churches applying sola scriptura in a different way it was defined to create their own version of how a bible based church should be like as if Jesus was ok with "relativism or let "let agree to disagree" breaking the body of christ in million of different pieces. Evangelical churches are growing more and more and their way at looking at scripture is basically nowhere near the way reformers did. if protestant cant see this is a problem then there is not much to say than just "Lord have mercy on us".
@David V I dissagree. even with all the schism, the still are very close to each other on the core teaching and the reason to that is that they dont follow sola scriptura the way protestant do. Also some orthodox churches came back to comunion with Rome after the schism. this shows it is possible for all them to be in comunion at some point. the same cant be said for protestants.
@David V that's ok. it is just my opinion anyway.
Mark 7:13
"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
Who were the masters of tradition in Jesus' day? The Pharisees and scribes? Tradition is fine and dandy, unless you put it over God Himself, and many do.
The Church Fathers were never guaranteed by God to get everything right. It gets to the point where they get studied more than Christ.
“How more clearly could he have said it?” - But perhaps that’s not the right question. A better question might be “Were his statements enough to be taken to heart as a stand-alone doctrine unrelated to the issue at hand?” or “Was his statement merely a point of sober humility by saying that enough time had elapsed that the Church and its leaders could confidently say that the canon was infallible, in contrast to what bishops of that present day were writing which could potentially be warped or incorrectly viewed absent 20/20 hindsight?”. I would certainly argue the latter is a more accurate and reasonable takeaway from such statements being construed here as “clear” defense of sola scriptura, a doctrine which in practice Church fathers like Augustine would most certainly not have subscribed to if it meant throwing out the authority of the Church as they understood it at the time.
First, Dr Ortlund, I am sorry my fellow Catholics would attack you personally. I haven’t watched their videos, and if the quotes are accurate, then they are very uncharitable.
May I comment on the “alone” quote? The way I read it is since he’s referring to the canonical books, those are free from and the others aren’t. I don’t believe he is saying scripture alone is free from error just the canonical books. Have you read it that way? Would you take time and think about that?
In the letter to Januarius, he says “ but in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from strict scripture, but from tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordaine to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plannerary councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church.”
In the “boundary line” quote, if you go on, he’s talking about scripture VS other types of books.
Anyway, I truly appreciate your charity and your willingness to hear the opposite side. Although we may not agree (yet) your love for Christ is apparent and your search for the Truth is extremely admirable.
Jim, William was not being disrespectful, just honest! Unfortunately, Dr. Ortlund was not being sincere and totally honest, as Dr. Ortlund does not provide the complete writings of Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine ALSO TEACHES the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Saint Augustine ALSO TEACHES the oral Teachings of 7 the Apostles who never wrote anything down ,is ALSO the Word of God! Augustine ALSO teaches that if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures! William was not being disrespectful at all, just honest. I wish Dr. Ortlund tries that in his future videos! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@JD Apologetics
I sure dont possess all the knowledge u have but i also dont think Augustine made a difference between '' scripture'' and '' cannonical books''
I hope this person will be humble and communicate with you....
God bless
Have you read Augustine’s Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, De Tobia,
Or
His Sermon 226, on Tobit?
What is your opinion?
Very interesting. Lots to ruminate on in this specific issue. Augustine is so vast, I feel like I’m not ready to assume much about his overarching worldview on the issue of Sola Scriptura. I suppose that Augustine might have held that view, based on the quotes from Gavin, and I guess I don’t feel like that is necessarily a problem for Catholics, but I also feel that it does seem out of keeping with some of the counter quotes from Eric Ibarra. Tough to say. One thought on the idea that something “couldn’t be clearer” is that it often says more about the person reading the passage than the passage itself. A perfect example is how Catholic Christians will argue for Transubstantiation from John Ch. 6 and often say that it “couldn’t be clearer”, and yet many Protestants will reply, as Gavin sometimes does in various Catholic arguments, that they “just don’t see it”. Sometimes when something seems like it “couldn’t be clearer” it may mean that our view on this issue is narrower than we may like to admit. Another example would be the age of the earth; Genesis “couldn’t be clearer” in saying that creation took 6 days, yet the truth is probably, like Gavin urges us to consider at the end of his video, more complex.
"This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (On the Creed: Sermon to Catechumens (14) c. 395)
St. Augustine of Hippo
Hi Adam, nice to meet a new friend. In response, "Yes with reservations". I'm not in favor of either Scriptural nor Papal "infallibility". Scripture as written product is the product of the community called Israel and then church. The primary instigator is Christ experienced and interpreted in the Spirit. All very difficult to put to paper "infallibly", that' s why so much patristic correspondence went on and why so many got it wrong. Thus what scripture entails is an agreement of the church, and containing enough Divine Truth for our salvation. No more and no less. More than that and we get into blood soaked argument over infallibility and less than that , well we end up in a "who cares" type of relativism and heresy we see today. Both for me not worthy. So I go the minimal route in making statements. Peace brother! Great chatting!
Under
Hi Gavin - Thank you for the video and thoughts. Curious how you might respond to the following question / criticism below.
In what way does it matter whether Augustine held the essentials of sola scriptura or not given his obvious affirmation of beliefs viewed with suspicion by most all protestantism and reformers such as his acceptance and use of the deuterocanon in prayer and teaching, his generous use of allegorical interpretation and more particularly his affirmation of the practice of prayer for the dead?
I ask it as a protestant who much enjoys Augustine and reading on the church fathers and the challenge of their faith and thought to my faith and thinking but who also struggles with the tradition of sola scriptura and its assumption of canon. (That was a small joke!)
Curious your thoughts on this! Thanks for the videos! Appreciate the comments on peaceful and charitable dialogue.
Hi brother! Thank you for the comment. It appears you may be misinformed on the nature of the canon prior to Augustine. Will try to gather some items together for you and post here soon. As a initial response, it is beyond doubt some of the apostolic fathers quoted freely from the books of the dueterocanon and called them scripture. Also one of the earliest most complete Christian bibles we have contain them in the typical catholic/orthodox order. Will supply more specifics as I have time. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and offering one of your own.
@YAJUN YUAN
Hi brother!
Had a few moments to dig up a few references for you in the spirit of establishing the broad use of deuterocanonical books on the basis several witnesses in conjunction with a few other items to reinforce the point. The extensive use of the deuterocanonical books as scripture is evident in many early writers prior to Augustine (354-430). Below are samples from Barnabas (70-132), Clement of Alexandria (150-210) and Eucebius (260-339) who quotes an earlier figure Melitos (c.180). In addition to these quotations there is the existence of both Codex Vaticanus (300-325) and Codex Siniaticus (330-360) which contain deuterocanonical works along with other well known OT works. Add to this the broad observation that the Septuagint (LXX) was used by the early church and the case appears to be beyond doubt.
I share this because I very much love the Bible and so my study has lead me to dig in deep to its history and transmission out of love for God. It is my firm conviction that Truth should stand against all manner of scrutiny. This simply shows the acceptance and use of deuterocanon before Augustine.
Barnabas (70-132) in his letter quotes from the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom
Barnabas 6
For the prophet speaks against Israel, “Woe to their soul, because they have counselled an evil counsel against themselves,[60] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us.”[61]
[61] Wisdom ii. 12. This apocryphal book is thus quoted as Scripture, and intertwined with it.
Source
en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/The_Epistle_of_Barnabas
Clement of Alexandria (150-215) in his work The Instructor calls the deuterocanonical book of Baruch scripture
Clement of Alexandria
Excellently, therefore, the Divine Scripture, addressing boasters and lovers of their own selves, says, “Where are the rulers of the nations, and the lords of the wild beasts of the earth, who sport among the birds of heaven, who treasured up silver and gold, in whom men trusted, and there was no end of their substance, who fashioned silver and gold, and were full of care? There is no finding of their works. They have vanished, and gone down to Hades.”[93]
[93] Baruch iii. 16-19.
Source
en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_II/The_Instructor/Book_II
Eucebius (260-339) relays in his church history the canon of Melitos (? - 180) which includes the book of Wisdom
Melitos canon list as relayed by Eucebius
Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus,[35] Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David,[36] the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also,[37] Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book[38]; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.[39] From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito.
Source
en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_I/Church_History_of_Eusebius/Book_IV/Chapter_26
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melito%27s_canon?wprov=sfla1
@YAJUN YUAN appreciate the response!! Good to hear from you.. I'll be looking into your comments more but a quick question: why should lists be more important than usage? They seem the same weight to me. If I say scripture says thus and quote Enoch, seems about the same as saying I consider Enoch scripture. Let me know as you have a moment!
@YAJUN YUAN
Appreciate the further explanation but I'm afraid the dilemma we face with the list of Melito brings to the forefront that lists are in fact not unambiguous. I interpreted "Wisdom also" as "also the Wisdom [of Solomon]", you interpreted it as a redundant reference to Proverbs (“the proverbs of Solomon, [namely] also [called] Wisdom). Who can arbitrate between us on this point? Melito and God only know. It would appear lists are not quite so unambiguous as we might think. Add to that many other canonical lists also require some degree of interpretation by the reader to parse and I would actually argue that ancient canon lists are far from unambiguous and the interpretation of them typically reveals a theological bias.I do think there is a case to be made for the …possibility… that Melito’s list does not admit the deuterocanon but it can’t be taken as fact. And quite simply Melito’s list is the only one I know of by a church father. In otherwards to me your original assertion rests on one piece of questionable evidence. I know of another list by Origen that is more explicit in mentioning Maccabees but I think this could only be used to… support… the case for Melito’s list including a deuterocanonical reference since both Melito’s list and Origen’s come from the same author, Eusebius. For sure there are early Jewish lists but we need to be aware that even in the second century Justin Martyr spoke of scriptures not admitted by the Jews which Christians held. What those are, God and Justin only know. I suspect they could be some or all of the deuterocanonical books.
Personally for me, I don’t have any problem with viewing a canonical list as admitting deuterocanon as I don’t view them as ineligible for deriving doctrine. I’m not operating in a protestant framework that demands a 66 book view and I have yet to find the scripture verse that gives me an explicit canonical list. I would guess this opinion of mine is a minority position from someone who admittedly is a protestant but one that sits me quite more comfortably in the company of people like Augustine, Clement of Alexandria and Barnabas. It is my conviction that the ancients operated in a broader hermeneutical framework than that in which most protestants are instructed in which becomes more evident the more of the ancient church one reads. This is a place where I think our protestant tradition functions as a kind of minimizing tunnel vision that can wrongly restrict the meaning of scriptural texts in name of the safety of minimalism. I suppose this is my fear and my dread regarding sola scriptura which was expressed as a joke in my original comment to Gavin. Sola scriptura sounds very scientific and sure until one learns just how much variety there is within the semantic range of words and the variety of interpretations by God fearing men. In my thinking sola scriptura has been utterly shattered to be every bit as scriptural as the catholic and orthodox view of the importance of tradition. It’s for this reason I have little reason to be upset with my catholic brother or my orthodox friend on their views. We all have the same love for Christ, a relatively orthodox faith and generally the same high regard for scripture. To me it’s more than enough for unity and the fun is in the disagreement.
Love ya brother! I’m having a blast.
@YAJUN YUAN Good Morning! Thanks for the further response. I enjoyed hearing more from your perspective. Am pretty sure the catholic and orthodox consider themselves canonical. Is the quotation of Greek really helpful in this discussion? If we could settle it that way I am pretty sure we would all be unified in doctrine. It is great to have confidence in one's opinions but I would be careful. I once recall many months of discussion with a friendly Jehovah's Witness who argued much Greek and literal meanings to me. Quite fascinating really especially during my time in seminary studying Greek and Hebrew. I studied on it for years and still hesitate to use it for any proofs (not sure how good a student I was). This admittedly is just me and my caution however.
That comment on Origen got me chuckling. Just read paragraph 5 here en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_IV/Origen/Origen_De_Principiis/II/Chapter_1
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on another list by a church father before Augustine?
Your conjecture regarding church fathers use of deuterocanon was nothing less than facinating. Not sure you can prove it but to each his own. I for one would rather assume they read scripture more carefully than me since they defended much of the doctrines I take for granted. I find it difficult to find much fault with a man who literally wrote the book On The Trinity (Augustine)... (Oh look a small pun)
As for the unity bit. It begins with me not them. I begin my love for neighbor with what is within my own power to do. I don't focus on them but on how I can show love. For me this involves going to church on occassion with my catholic brother and orthodox friend because I am free to do so and they like it. I respect their view of communion and do not partake. I listen to their perspective and we reason together on the scriptures. The exortation is for me to love my neighbor irregardless of how they act or think. I constantly learn more I did not know as I have in our discussion so thank you!!. I've never met the borg catholic you refer to but I have met plenty of borg calvinists. (Small star trek reference/joke here on uniformity at calvinist expense) Sure my catholic twin brother thinks I am a schismatic or heretic but that doesn't stop me from talking with him and listening and learning from him (by the way he also thinks I am a separated brother so there is grounds for some unity). I got my concerns on his traditions and God can handle that. Should I find I am incorrect on my views and change well I figure God's discipline is always best in the end though painful in the moment. I think what is needed at times is not taking oneself or ones doctrine too seriously and instead taking God more important and seriously. By this I mean sometimes we just can't see past our own opinions to see God so challenging ourselves in the Iron of another's opinion is helpful so thank you again!
Grace and Peace to you bro!
Hi All and fellow Christians. I've been reading and thinking on a lot of the comments here and elsewhere. It seems to me that generally we've lost our way when we put too much stake on inter church apologetics and not evangelization of the secular apostacy. However learned and erudite, the apologetic impetus when trying to sort out which tradition in Christianity is "Right", is not altogether on the wrong track but is likely not to succeed in much more than a divisive response. Our hackles are too easily raised and based on this idea that truth is some head-stuff commodity to be owned. Truth in the Christian sense always exceeds us, always challenges us, is ultimately Mysterious, Is the Way and Life as Christ Jesus. It belongs to us by no right or virtue of our own. Yet also, this is not the full picture because bad theology leads to bad anthropology and to tyranny. There's to much secular tyranny going on at this very moment. That my dear siblings in Christ is the Diabolical enemy. I think we set ourselves up for ridicule when we run after our snobbish identity with personality movements be those of Luther, Calvin, or Prelates. I think something has gone wrong in trying to understand the shock and surprise of the Gospel message in worldly logical terms only. To my mind if we are to engage in debate about our tradition, the more historical and dare I say "traditional" our hermeneutics the greater our chance of not playing into secularist hands. This tradition does not start at the Council of Trent - Trad Catholics, nor at the Reformation - Reformers and certainly theology never began with Immanuel Kant! Lets face it theology since the latter has really become wonky. Let us all be a little more humble here. In the face of a Two thousand year old tradition, it is highly unlikely that God has selected You to be right. Think on this.
William was right. Back in the 90s ,James white uses the same argument( in his debate with Tim Staples).
There's only so many arguments so it's naturally expected that some or a lot of overlapping happens even with one not being aware of others making the same arguments.
It doesn't do much good to claim they have been refuted. Protestants are saying the Catholic arguments have been refuted and yet the same old arguments are employed.
@@Adam-ue2ig you mean protestant refuted catholic argument like the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Don't think soo.
Dude, Protestant arguments like "some of the Church fathers believe in sola scriptura" had been refuted many times.
@YAJUN YUAN Did you read what the early church fathers have to say about the Eucharist?
Where is the Chemnitz point from? (Excuse any misspellings)
Thanks Gavin 19:00
22:02 book recommendation by Muller to go back to
23:00 John the Baptist as pointing to Christ, as analog picture of Traditions witnessing to Scripture
The nature and content of the Holy Scriptures has been, for me, the most precious and surprising thing from my time spent with the Church Fathers. Cyril of Jerusalem said this.
“Even to me (bishop of the mother church in Jerusalem), who tell you these things (teaching catechumens the faith), give not absolute credence (no concept of infallibility), unless you receive proof of the things which I announce (laity are encouraged and able to judge) from the Divine Scriptures (the Standard). For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." [CL 4.17]
So, the Scriptures, once established by a higher consensus than any other Christian doctrine, including formulations of the Trinity, become the authoritative Standard by which all teachers and teachings can and must be judged. The idea of an oral tradition equal to Scriptures and required to authoritatively interpret them seems more in keeping with Gnosticism than Early Christianity. Irenaeus put it this way.
"When they (heretics) are refuted from the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but by word of mouth." [AH 3.2.1]
He goes on describe an oral tradition attested to by succession from and in living memory of the Apostles, but it is cumulative and corroborating in nature (and is not without seemingly synonymous written testimony [AH 3.3.3-4]) as a strong case for the adequacy of Scripture (i.e., if someone claims something new, previously unknown, and not in Scripture, it would be highly unlikely to have also escaped the attention of so many so closely associated with the Apostles and to whom they entrusted the Church). [AH 3.3.1]
Only later would this idea develop into one of succession by office alone. The idea of unbroken lines of intimate association, like that of Paul and Timothy [2 Tim. 3] and seemingly what Irenaeus has in mind, from the Apostles to the bishops of today is nice but does not historically exist due to later rivalries and struggles for imperial authority or function in the same way.
I had to stop watching William Albrecht's refutation (if you can even call that a refutation, it was more like a rant). It did, however, make me appreciate your careful and measured scholarship even more. Thank you, Gavin.
Its obvious that in any realm of any truth their is the common response of quoting the fathers of any beliefs,be it for science, philosophy and medical issues. Its what we call human fallibility.
Hi Dr. Ortlund,
As an Anglican, you probably could think a question like this was coming :P
You said “if I lived in the fourth century I might hold that something is apostolic”. Ok-so infant baptism. That was universal in the 4th century, no?
I think he'd say that was a development....tbh its starting to look like a q anon conspiracy theory.
It seems to have become universal at some point in the 4th century, but we should note that major bishops like Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa were baptized as adults, despite being the children of believers. If it had been universal, why were they baptized later? Between that, Tertullian's arguments for adult baptism, the Didache not even having a notion of infant baptism, and Origen calling it a hotly debated issue, I (a Reformed Baptist, to make clear my bias) believe infant baptism was a development which took hold in the 4th century
@@adamheida8549 Hi Adam-a lot of people even in Anglicanism wait to baptize their children because they want their child to be able to remember their baptism, trusting that the child is saved chiefly through the faith of the parent and only baptized in the faith of the parents. As Anglicans, we would argue we’ve preserved that belief. And this is also true with the examples of children who died who were baptized far after their births from sickness, in early Christian burial sites.
Tertullian, while arguing for adult baptism, acknowledges the widespread practice of infant baptism by the second century. Origen, while acknowledging disagreement, doesn’t seem to portray the issue as “hotly debated”-he thinks most of the church accepts it as received by the apostles. And the Apostolic constitutions by Hippolytus seem almost certainly to confirm infant baptism as a practice.
Unfortunately,, Dr. Ortlund was the one not being charitable, as Dr. Ortlund conveniently left out the writings of Saint Augustine where Augustine calls the Church the very first Authority, and teaches the oral teaching of the 7 Apostles who never wrote anything down, as being the Word of God as well.
Augustine ALSO TEACHES that if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures! William was not mean as Dr. Ortlund insinuated, but just calling Dr. Ortlund for not being honest for not providing the complete writings of Saint Augustine! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Dealing with Roman Catholics online has led me to the following conclusion:
Never learn Roman Catholicism from a layperson (which is also what most RC apologists happen to be as well). Just read their church’s official statements and books.
What is your evaluation of Augustine's treatment of grace, faith and good works at Chapters 18-20 of his Treatise on Grace and Free Will?
Thank you for calling out Mr. Albrecht. As a Catholic, I find him difficult to listen to even though I typically agree with the substance of his argument.
Stay strong to the True Faith, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord. Faith alone, in Christ Alone. Faith = Salvation + Works, not Faith + Works = Salvation. That is a different gospel and nothing is worth standing up for more than the Gospel. We live in a current Western Culture that is falling apart at the seams and nothing seems to be lasting. The fault for this is us Protestants. We have not held onto our traditions and our own confessions and the culture and the Body of Christ has suffered as a result. I get the appeals that both Rome and the EO make that they, and not the other, are the 1 true church. It sounds and feels like something stable. It sounds like something that has always been the same. Even though they both claim it, and neither of them are. Problem is that these are just manipulations of history and the truth. Both have changed immensely over the years and are nowhere close to the early church and the early church fathers. Marian dogmas, icon veneration, purgatory, infallibility of people and institutions, elevation of the church above that of scripture, it’s all nowhere in the early church, but people today don’t do their own research, they just take what someone tells them that their church is the one true church and Protestants are a new invention. If they did more research and read more church history, they would see the Reformation and the Confessions that came from it are simply a return to the scripture and the early church, removing all the changes and departures of Rome and the EO. Getting rid of the awful heretical positions that started centuries after the Apostles and grew and distorted the faith until the Middle Ages. It’s sad that we have not held to our confessions and given these brothers and sisters wrestling with these things more anxiety than they need. We need to return to our traditions. Christ will keep His church alive and bring people back to the truth, if they are really one of the elect. If they are not, then so be it. But thank you for standing for truth. Don’t ever give in. The truth is too important
It seems to me that even if someone were to prove to you that he wasn't in fact teaching Sola Scriptura, that wouldn't really matter since he's ultimately a fallible man and subordinate to Scripture. I'm puzzled by Protestants bringing up the Fathers to prove doctrine because when they're shown that the Fathers actually taught something contrary to what they believe, they can just brush it off as a judgement from a fallible man, which leads me into what I consider the fundamental fatal flaw of Sola Scriptura.
Jesus never told the apostles to write anything down let alone what the NT canon was supposed to be, and the apostles never put the canon together either. If we aren't bound by any fallible man, then we aren't bound by the judgements of the councils and church fathers in the 4th and 5th centuries who first promulgated the 27 book NT canon we have today. The Protestant response to this is usually them trying to brush off canonicity as a separate topic to be discussed at a later time, but that doesn't make sense.
When you give someone directions, you don't just tell them they need to use the road, because that would be useless to them. You tell them exactly which roads to use to get there. Sure, the purpose of a road and which roads to use to get to a destination are two different topics, but when applied to reality where someone actually needs directions to someplace, the person needs to know exactly which roads to use, not just what the purpose of a road is. In the same way, when a prospective Christian asks you about what the purpose of the Bible is and which one is the correct one to use, you wouldn't just say the Bible is the sole infallible source of Christian truth and brush off his question about which one is correct as a separate topic. You would presumably give him a Bible with 66 books, and not some other canon such as Marcion's canon which had 11 books or a the full 73 book Catholic Bible, confirming that you believe the 66 book Biblical canon is the objectively correct canon.
Saying that the topic of canonicity is not important to Sola Scriptura is clearly not true because you would say I have the wrong Bible by submitting to a different canon such as Marcion's canon or say a custom canon where I only preferred the four gospels as being the NT.
As a Protestant, I can understand your concerns regarding the church fathers and the canon. It should be noted that many of us Protestants who enjoy exploring church history, that we find it interesting that Roman Catholics appeal to the church fathers, because whenever a church father disagrees with any particular Roman Catholic dogma, that issue is just brushed aside as being that man's own personal and errant opinion. Ultimately in Roman Catholicism, the church fathers opinions don't matter, the only thing that does matter are the declarations of "the Church".
Also, matters of canon are important. Many people may brush them off because they don't know how to tackle the issue possibly. But the canon is not something that man can come up with or declare. The canon is what has been called an artifact of revelation. Not all books are canonical, only those books which have been θεόπνευστος (God-breathed). God did not deliver another book declaring what the canon was. The canon is the canon because that is what God provided for us. We as men can recognize the canon, but we have no power or right to determine the canon.
I hope this helps. God bless.
@@zipper778 We reference the Fathers to provide a preliminary indication of what the early Church believed, but ultimately it's not the ending point of our apologetic, because yes, they are fallible men. It is through sacred tradition and the opinions of the church as a whole that we get inerrant truth, and ultimately the Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit infallibly steps in in areas where there is confusion, such as when the divinity of Christ was defined at the Council of Nicaea in response to the Arians, or when the canon of Scripture was dogmatized at the Council of Trent when the Reformers aimed to take out 7 books of the OT. There are many nuances when it comes to sacred tradition and how we identify it, but it is there, and the Protestant can't deny sacred tradition while at the same time holding to the Bible that was given to them whether they admit it or not, by sacred tradition.
The ontological fact of the matter is that God gave us the canon. Both Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox agree on this. The question that no Protestant can answer though, is the epistemological question of how we as humans came to the knowledge of that canon. In the OT, the Torah was given to the Jews by God, and the means in which that knowledge was transferred to the Jews was through Moses on Mount Sinai. In the same way, God gave us the NT canon, and the way that knowledge was transferred to us was through sacred tradition and ultimately the Church that Christ founded. Saying that the canon was given to us by God without showing the means by which God gave us that canon begs the question. Did God give the canon to Marcion? Is it the Codex Vaticanus? Was the canon complete when St. Irenaeus wrote about the Tetramorph, or fourfold Gospels in the late 2nd century? Are early apostolic texts such as the Didache or the Shepard of Hermas that were read alongside the epistles in the ancient liturgy part of Scripture? These are questions that no Protestant can provide an answer for, and not surprisingly either, since conceding to the immediate implications of them would pull the rug out from under their entire theology.
@Grant B...well said!!
@@grantbenson7458 "We reference the Fathers to provide a preliminary indication of what the early Church believed, but ultimately it's not the ending point of our apologetic, because yes, they are fallible men."
You have just made my point, but allow me to reestablish it more clearly. Being confused with why Protestants cite early church fathers because Protestants can "write them off" due to Sola Scriptura is no different than Roman Catholics who "write off" the early church fathers because they disagree with modern Roman Catholicism. Your argument here is self refuting.
"The question that no Protestant can answer though, is the epistemological question of how we as humans came to the knowledge of that canon."
Realistically, God is under no obligation to reveal anything to mankind. He owes us nothing. We owe Him more than we could ever repay. He doesn't have to tell us what the canon is if He doesn't want to. Whatever we have, we have because of the grace of God. With that said, God demonstrates what the canon is in a number of ways. He does so first, Biblically. In Luke 11:51 Jesus gives us the chronological outline of the Scriptures, from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. This is the same Old Testament that both the Jews and Protestants share together. We can dive more into that if you wish.
"Did God give the canon to Marcion?"
No He did not.
"Is it the Codex Vaticanus?"
Well, considering that neither of us have the same canon as Vaticanus, we can safely rule that one out.
"Was the canon complete when St. Irenaeus wrote about the Tetramorph, or fourfold Gospels in the late 2nd century?"
Yes it was. The canon was completed as soon as the last character was written down. Whether people recognized that or not is irrelevant.
"Are early apostolic texts such as the Didache or the Shepard of Hermas that were read alongside the epistles in the ancient liturgy part of Scripture?"
No, they are not. This is partly due to the fact that, in regards to the Didache at least, we don't have the text in completed form. I've read what we do have of it and it reads like a to-do manual for the church. There's nothing in it that I disagree with. It would be odd for God to not leave His Word anywhere. The Shepard of Hermas is something that I've been meaning to read, but I haven't yet, so I can't make a comment on it at this time. It's on my list though.
I think the biggest disagreement that I have with you is with your presuppositions. What you have presented is a Bible that must be authorized by men. This is something that I cannot accept. If man can define authoritatively what Scripture is and what Scripture means, then man is of a higher authority than the Scriptures themselves. If man can determine what "Tradition" is and what it means, then man is higher than "Tradition". This is putting the church's authority where God's authority should be. The Scriptures are the only thing left for us that is θεόπνευστος. Tradition has a place, but it must always be in submission to what God has breathed out. The Bible is authorized by God alone. Man can only recognize what God has done.
You have said a lot, and I'm not going to be able to respond to everything in this post, but if I didn't cover something that you would like me to answer, please let me know.
@@zipper778 I’m not saying the Bible was authorized by men. God made the canon, period. The books of the NT were Scripture the moment they were put to ink. This is the ontological side of this. What I am trying to point out to you is the epistemological side of this. God knew the canon before time began, but how did the church come to the certain knowledge of that canon? The Gospels and Epistles were just a part of many highly praised texts and read aloud in the liturgy in the 1st century, and no one in the 1st century Church really realized yet that many of these texts would later be recognized as infallible Scripture. The attempts you’ve given to prove canonicity all beg the question of what the correct canon is. When you say things like Marcion didn’t have the right canon, or St. Irenaeus completed the canon, you’re implying there is indeed a completed canon out there that we should know, so which one is it?
Regarding Augustine’s letter to Jerome and his treatise on baptism, could this not simply be a way of stating or remarking “The science is settled” (so to speak) or “We are all agreed on what is truly canon and all else is debate upon non-canonical matters”? Seems to me this is not at all claiming “Scripture alone and all else should be discarded!”, which to be honest is most certainly the historical Protestant view in order to defend and maintain their position outside of either the Catholic or Orthodox Church. In other words, could not Protestants such as yourself be reading into it beyond the original intent of the writing? I’d argue there is a strong possibility.
Historically, Protestants did not believe “all else should be discarded.” Protestant reformers, like Luther, even criticized some Christians for going too far.
What I’m unable to comprehend is that St. Augustine is listed by the Catholic Church as one of the writers that penned “Sacred Tradition”. However, none of the quotes you mentioned from Augustine are included in “Sacred Tradition” by the Catholic Church. Even more confusing is that the Catholic Church does not to my knowledge publish their “Sacred Tradition” you have to read all of the ecumenical councils and some of the Papal Bulls and encyclicals to extract what writings are and aren’t included in “Sacred Tradition”.
What's your take on original sin, Dr. Ortlund? Do you believe that a Protestant is required to believe in original sin?
I don't think Augustine's comments on universal tradition and church authority mesh as well as you think they do with Sola Scriptura, but I still appreciate that you took the time to address all this. Thank you for your kindness and charity.
It depends on what you think sola scriptura means. Gavin meant it simply that Augustine held sacred scripture as the highest and only infallible authority. Not the other things that Catholics equate w/ sola scriptura, that he would have been protestant, or a reformer, or a maverick, or like Luther. None of those were the claims of Augustine simply holding scripture as the ultimate authority.
"They fit together like peanut butter and jelly fit together";
Europeans in the audience ... ?!!
I'm a Catholic and I must agree I thought William's video was unhelpful. He could just make his point without the personal stuff thrown in.
Dr.Ortlund, you said in 11:43-12:53:,,Others have said ,But there’s only two Ecumenical Councils by this time.“ And William was arguing that Augustine didn’t know about Constantinople. That is irrelevant. He is not giving a history lesson of what has already happened within his lifetime. He is giving a framework of what is liable to happen. That’s the starting phrase for what follows. Others have said:,,That’s just doctrinal development.“ Again, that’s not what he says. He doesn’t say that one plenary council is developed by another but corrected and the context of the statement ,,corrected“ is precisely to substantiate his point that you’ve got the infallible and the fallible. You’ve got what you know is true. You can take it to the bank and then you’ve got what may not be true because it’s fallible. That’s what he means when he says ,,Scripture is confined within its own limits. Again here’s his language:,, stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true“. End quote.“
St.Augustine is saying what is liable to happen only regarding the letters of the bishops. The Church has never denied the infallibility and centrality of Scripture, and the later letter of bishops are laible to refutation in case they contain something contrary to the truth. They undergo the sanction of the Church. But when St.Augsutine is speaking about the correction of an Ecumenical Council by a subsequent Ecumenical Council, he is not saying what is liable to happen because he says:,,the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them“ - he is saying ,,often“, i.e. he is referring to something that has already happened, something that is past and that is known to him. So he is referring to the development of the Nicene Creed (325) at the Second Ecumenical Council (381) with the development of the article about the Father, the article about the Son and mosst notably the article about f the Holy Spirit in the context of the condemnation of the Macedonianist heresy which denied the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed did not explicitly emphasize in its article about the Holy Spirit His eternity and Godhead because the First Council (325) dealt primarily with the Arian heresy which denied the Godhead of the Son and which the Council condemned. Although Arianism denied the eternity and the Godhead of both the Son and the Holy Spirit and taught that the Holy Spirit was subsurvient to the Son, the article about the Holy Ghost in the Nicene Creed said only that we believe ,,And in the Holy Ghost''. That problem was solved at the Second Council which developed the article but the First Council not refute anything that the First one had declared. The Nicene Creed was also developed in its article about God the Father, the article about our Lord Jesus Christ and an article about the Church was also included.
Just to note that I edited my comment in its second part. In summary it must be said that he Nicene Creed (325) was developed at the Second Council (381) with a development of its articles about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Also an article about the Church was included. So St.Sugustine referred to the development of the Nicene Creed in Constantinople in 381.
How about Augustine on the Eucharist, baptism, justification ? Why do Protestants always pick and choose in the fathers what suits them?
Protestants pick and choose on the basis of how closely Augustine’s views comport with scripture. Even though Augustine does the same, he is not infallible, none of us are. That’s why we study scripture carefully, listen to one another respectfully, and are always open to reform. Over time our understanding deepens, our souls are nourished, the Church is strengthened, and God is glorified.
yeah..they think they know better than the church fathers
William has called me a loser, lots of laughs!
William Albrecht
5 hours ago
"Adam, you really need to get a life, loser"
Were you acting like one on his channel?
Well the magisterium denies sola Scriptura, so rather than being intellectually honest about my presuppositions I’m going to simply read Augustine anachronistically now, and claim church history is on my side.
If only Sola Scriptura is infallible, and since Sola Scriptura is not found in Scriptures, does that mean Sola Scriptura is fallible?
You're argument that "universality implies apostlicity" is rather weak. The phrase "universal Church" is used not to imply that what is practiced 'universally' by the individual churches in necessarily apostolic (though it could be), but rather that the true Church is also the universal Church for all humanity and creation, regardless of how many parishes or parishioners that true Church may have. I personally have never come across your interpretation of the "universal Church", so I'm curious where the idea comes from.
Now which church is the "very Church which the Holy Scriptures point out without ambiguity"? You kind of glossed over this question even though this is the heart of the issue. Which church is the Holy Scriptures pointing to? Which real and physical congregation embodies the Word of God? I'd love to hear your take on this.
Anyways, this video is reminding me that I need to finally finish reading St. Augustine's 'The Literal Meaning of Genesis', so I guess I'll get back to that.
The phrase Sola scriptura is not found in Scripture, but the tenets of Sola scriptura are most certainly found in Scripture.
This is what Sola Scriptura means:
Luke 1:4 Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine.
John 5:39 We have eternal life from the Scriptures only because they bear witness about Christ.
John 10:35 Scripture cannot be broken or invalidated.
John 15:20 No one may contradict or neglect the Apostles and be a Christian.
John 17:20 The word of the Apostles is the source of true faith.
John 20:31 The Gospel of John alone is enough to tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name.
John 22:24 The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it.
Acts 17:11 We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true.
Acts 24:14 We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.
Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope.
1 Corinthians 12:28 All other teachers and servants in the Church come after the Apostles in priority.
1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord.
2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord.
Galatians 1:8 No one may contradict what the Apostles preached.
Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote.
Galatians 3:22 The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Eph 2:20 The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church and the faith with Christ as cornerstone. All other authorities must build on that foundation and no other.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 We are to firmly hold to the teachings of the Apostles. They are the only true standard by which other teachers and doctrines are to be judged. I challenge anyone to identify an oral Apostolic teaching that is not written in the New Testament.
1 Timothy 3:14-15 This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons, and how the Church is to be godly. This godliness is unchanging.
1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable. Scripture is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged.
2 Timothy 3:17 Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work.
1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it.
2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles.
2 Peter 3:16 The ignorant and unstable who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. Paul's Epistles are Scripture.
1 John 1:3-4 The eye-wittness writings of the Apostles are what give us fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father, and with His Son.
1 John 4:6 The Apostles are from God. Whoever knows God listens to the words of the Apostles; whoever is not from God does not believe the Apostles. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
@@Mygoalwogel Tell me who has the true interpretation of Holy Scriptures and why?
@@r.lizarraga693 The Church that takes the Apostles at their word, refuses to obviously contradict them, and seeks to proclaim rather than interpret. The Apostles say Baptism saves. The Church that says, "Waddaou' the thief on the cross??" does not have the right interpretation, for example.
@@Mygoalwogel So which Church is this then?
@@Mygoalwogel correct