Sola Scriptura means on the one hand you accept the Church to decide of all the epistles and letters written which ones are the authentic Word and worthy of being canonised but on the other hand you reject its authority to interpret scriptures. Isn't this contradictory? If one rejects the Church having the right to interpret, then how can you be sure of its decision and conclusion that the chosen canons are the true Word of God ?
@UC1NFx1eS-w9h0dJH8rzHLiw the church discover scriptures? Like the Bible falling out of the sky and landed in the forest and the Church found it The truth is there were many epistles and letters written. Every church had a few of these. The Church gathered in around AD 400 to canonised the scriptures but filtering through these epistles and writings and deciding which ones are inspired and which are not. Saying the Church discover scriptures is a fabrication of lies just like how lies are fabricated that Iraqi had weapons of mass destruction when there were none.
The way they argue this is to say that it was self evident to the Church what counted as Scripture and what didn't like Michael Kruger's work. "My sheep hear my voice," sorta thing. But then again, they don't seem to hear very well
I appreciate hearing this perspective- but wow. As someone who grew up non-denominational and who is discovering orthodox and Catholic models of Christianity... I was hoping this would be more compelling. Rather he almost implicitly makes a case FOR the teaching authority of the church and marginalizes the Protestants who don’t recognize that reality.
It wasn't the greatest argument, and as I argued in a different comment... What the Catholics and Orthodox are really arguing for is the ability to kill heretics. And they need to realize that's what they really need to make their argument work and explicitly argue for it. Also, there's no recognition that Christians have been arguing for stuff forever. This is even in Origen v Celsus. The Catholic argument is really shallow when you look against reality.
@@aGoyforJesus Yes sure. Killing heretics ? Did you time travel from the medieval age ? Shallow argument? OK yours is the best . Now I understand why even there are people Jesus cannot convert..Read the gospel - there are many.
@@jeremiahong248 if you're complaining about multiple denominations what you're really arguing for is the ability to kill people and squash dissent. It's really that simple. Don't be the pacifist who argues for big government but doesn't realize government has one primary tool in the tool belt: violence.
@Zach Blank I formally converted to Orthodox a few months ago. I will be praying for you. You can reach me anytime on my email if you would like to talk, and maybe I could send you an Orthodox icon or a book, or just share with you some of my thoughts and concerns. With love, - Elijah nogodlikeyahweh@pm.me
As a Protestant (sort of anyways) I find sola scriptura to be thoroughly illogical and completely unworkable, as evidenced by its history. BUT, I do appreciate Dr. KVs thoughtful and sincere insights here.
"As Protestants we have to be able to agree to disagree and acknowledge we don't know everything" I wonder if God intended to leave His Church for us to fumble through scripture and cross our fingers and hope we interpret scripture correct. Why was His intention to create Mass confusion with over 30000 denominations. This does not make sense.
@@maryemilysmiley6146 No, I mean the exact opposite. He is not invincibility ignorant. His ignorance is very vincible. He is very smart and well educated on the subject, knows the arguments against him and still chooses to bend over backwards to avoid the obvious truth.
@@CatholicBossHogg His arguments are circuitous. I thought you may have said vincible ignorance in that he could be moved by prayer or rather the Holy Spirit. As the nuns used to tell us when we were being particularly obtuse, "Let us pray this is not invincible ignorance.". God bless the nuns. I just never heard the concept expressed as vincible ignorance rather always the double negative. I do enjoy Austin's presentations, but I prefer the format of a dialogue between two opposing viewpoints rather than a monologue as this one was.
@@maryemilysmiley6146 it's definitely uncommon to see the term vincible ignorance because all we hear about in the modern church is how everyone outside of the church is going to be fine and they don't need to convert because they're invincibly ignorant. The term vincible ignorance is just expressing the traditional teaching that someone like this man cannot in any sense be considered invincibly ignorant at his final judgment. He is not some native, isolated on a island somewhere.
The end of the book of John says "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen." Where did all of these teachings go? Did they get lost to time? No. They were passed down through the succession of the holy Orthodox Church. Trying to be a Christian only using the Bible is like trying to learn English by only reading a dictionary. It can get you to a certain point but you will never have the breath of the English language by just the book.
The Feralcatz, Actually, Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was even written. The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Matthew, Peter didn't make some sort of infallible decree regarding curcumcision at the council. In fact if you keep reading James makes a judgement himself. What they were doing was working out a consensus which is what the true church still does to this day. Why would they even have councils at all if the Pope's opinion was the only one that mattered? The Orthodox church is the faith of the apostles. The western church made their priests celibate, invented purgatory and indulgences, papal infallibility, added the filiioque to the creed, the list goes on. We are the original church. However the Roman Catholics are still a lot more coherent than protestants are.
@@TheFeralcatz Not True, as Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). James then confirms Peter's declaration and simply gives food and sexual restrictions! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@TheFeralcatz Purgatory is where after death, some shall SUFFER LOSS AND BE SAVED ONLY AS THROUGH FIRE, ( 1 Corinthians 3:25), where after death some shall be CHASTENED when judged by the Lord as to NOT BE CONDEMNED, ( Matthew 18:34,35, Luke 12:47. Matthew 5:22, Jamez 2:13), where the Spirits of the just are MADE PERFECT, ( Hebrews 12:23,24), as we must all STRIVE FOR THAT HOLINESS WITHOUT WHICH NO ONE SHALL SEE THE LORD.( Hebrews 12:14) Indulgences are Biblical! " Give alms and all shall be clean within for you ", ( Luke 11:41, Daniel 4:27, 1 Peter 4:8). Pau recommended the ministers of Lord remain celebrate! ( 1 Corinthians 7:32). You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
It’s almost undeniable. Sola scriptura came hand in hand with the rejection of a single living unifying authority. Instead christian individuals became their own living authority on how one goes about interpreting the scripture. There is no longer a true living authority to tell you when your out of line like the church does.
It seems to me Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer is talking about Scriptura primo not sola scriptura. I believe that a lot more common ground could be reached with Scriptura primo as that is what the Church teaches. He quotes the first Catholic council.
@@GospelSimplicity In trying to defend sola scriptura it seems to me that he moves towards an authoritative interpretation of scripture. This is actually what the Church teaches. Not that Tradition is greater than scripture, but that scripture without Tradition is fraught with interpretation errors. The Magjisterium is what he talks about with regard to a collective understanding of what scripture means.
Again, would a Christian in the early Church read Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea and know that it was NOT HOLY SCRIPTURE? Would those same Christians in the early Church read Paul's several letters that he wrote to the Philippians and know only ONE one of these letters written were Holy Scripture? Or the letters of Matthias and Gamaliel and Barnabas? "We must concede the Church of Rome has given us the Scriptures", ( Martin Luther, works.vol. 40). 7 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down. Holy Scripture never teaches Scripture alone. The manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Who has the final authority to interpret "This is My Body ", and "My Flesh is True food and Blood True drink ", ( Matthew 26:26, John 6:53-55).
Of all the letters and epistles written and floating around, it is the Church that decided which ones are really the inspired Word of God and worthy to be canonised. If the Church can decide which writings are the true Word of God and which were not, it has the authority to interpret scriptures. Otherwise how can the Church have authority to decide which writings are true Word without the authority to interpret ? Its like saying your professor has the right to choose which of the students writings deserve to get an A grade but you don't trust what the professor teaches you.
Nah, the Church immediately fell into heresy the moment Christ left the Earth. It wasn't until 20th century American Protestantism came along that we discovered the truth!
According to the professor, Protestants are in agreement on big doctrines, so I guess that means the necessity of a water baptism, the presence of the Lord in holy communion, or the need for ordained clergy, to name a few, are minor doctrines since their is no Protestant consensus on those? I find that argument incredibly difficult to believe.
1. How do we know what scripture is? Not just The Canon, but the idea of a scripture and how we relate to it? 2. How do we determine the Canon? 3. How do we know what level of authority to give scripture? 4. How do we know how to interpret the scripture? 5. How do we apply scripture? 6. Should we expect to be like the Christians of the 1st, 4th, and 10th centuries in matters of doctrine and practice?
Most Protestants won't admit it, but they wish they had some degree of a Magisterium in their church. There are some who are brave enough to say it, but the rest quietly deal with the confusion.
Ok he is willing to accept tradition well then who defines tradition as he all to briefly goes over Lutherans who followed Luther were often iconoclast who smashed statues and art something Luther was aghast when he reemerged from hiding. He went to confession and said the rosary and accepted Traditional Marian dogmas till the day he died how many Protestants accepts these traditions not too many as Protestants even Lutherans define tradition in a Much different ways than Luther
No for the "Great Schism" of 1054 A.D., probably yes (to a degree) for the Reformation, and certainly yes (in varying degrees) within Protestanism itself.
The truth is, Protestantism is not the Ancient Church. Not only does it not hold to the correct beliefs and values of the Nicene Creed, and therefore abuses what came before. But it also abandons the fulness of the faith in all it's truth. The fulness of the faith which our brothers and sisters held to dearly centuries before, even to the point of martyrdom. They held on, as we do to this day, on the Holy traditions which were past down generation to generation which were given to us by the disciples, apostles and the bishops and so on. They died for Christ by not rejecting Him! Amín They died remaining faithful in His love and truth! Amín They died for Christ's Church! Amín One Church, Holy, katholikós (universal), and apostolic in nature. Holding to true Orthodoxía (correct opinion). I hope this serves as a reminder for those who may be struggling right now on this matter. The Church predates the protestant movement, and it will remain for evermore after. Because God's Church is a living Church; for God, is the God of the living and not the dead, and we are blessed that the saints are with us always. Amín As Jesus Christ said "The gates of Hades will not prevail against it!" *Psalm 150* Alleluia Praise God in His saints; Praise Him in the firmament of His power; Praise Him for His mighty acts; Praise Him according to the abundance of His greatness. Praise Him with the sound of a trumpet; Praise Him with the harp and lyre; Praise Him with timbrel and dance; Praise Him with strings and flute; Praise Him with resounding cymbals; Praise Him with triumphant cymbals; Let everything that breathes praise the Lord. Alleluia.
There is even disagreement between what is important and what isn't. Interestingly, Eucharistic doctrine was a major area of disagreement at the Reformation, as you say, but is now pretty irrelevant to much of latter-day Protestantism because eucharistic belief and pratice have faded away.
I love your channel, Austin. It raises a lot of questions in me and I wish I knew more. I am curious as to whether Catholics think Luther had some good points after all? I also wonder in what respects the Catholic church may have changed in the past 500 years? Do you bring this up anywhere so I can check it out?
I didn’t get to watch the entire video until yesterday, so I couldn’t make an informed comment until I had. I agree with others that he seems to use circular reasoning. I also agree that he’s teaching “prima scriptura”, not “sola scriptura”. One of my problems with sola scriptura is those who claim to follow it don’t agree on what it means. If you ask a Southern Baptist, Freewill Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Lutheran, Nazarene, Church of Christ, Assembly of God, etc. what scripture means you will get a different answer from each. But they all claim to follow sola scriptura. I don’t know that you can get protestants to agree on much other than Jesus was the Son of God, that he was crucified and rose from the dead. Other than that, you aren’t going to get agreement. If you are using sola scriptura, which translation of the bible do you use? King James? Douay-Rheims? Revised Standard Edition? New American Bible? Good New Bible? This is just the tip of the iceberg! There are so many theological differences among protestants that I doubt you would ever get them to agree to a council. There are those who would think this was too “Catholic” (there is still a strong mindset of “ABC--Anything But Catholic”) and would want no part of it. A real problem with sola scriptura is so many people have interpreted scripture to suit themselves. This is why you have so many protestant denominations, they’ve all interpreted scripture differently, and all say their interpretation is the right one. I think he makes a strong case for a magisterium. Some body to say “this is what scripture has meant, means now, and means going forward”. Otherwise IMHO you have chaos.
All true Protestants agree that the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. None claim that any other book is. Since the Scriptures are the inspired-inerrant Word alone then that means that they are the ultimate authority for the Christian and the church. Translations are the product of scholars translating the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into english. Each translation has a particular emphasis that is true to the Scriptures. All true Protestants believe in the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son, Christ died for sins and rose again. These doctrines and more all true Protestants agree on. BTW- there is much chaos in the RCC. Just look at the different view among catholics on homosexuality, abortion and other moral issues. Look at how many don't believe the real presence doctrine.
@@Justas399 The Catholic Church also believes that the Scripture is the inspired-inerrant Word of God (but not only Scripture is the Word of God, Jesus Himself is the Word). The Catholic Church also believes in the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son, that Christ died for our sins and rose again. So these doctrines are not only agreeable among Protestants. There are no different view among Catholics on homosexuality or abortion. The Catholic Church authoritatively teaches that such acts are intrinsically evil. IF any "Catholic" believes otherwise, then such person is an ignorant "Catholic" or a heretic or a schismatic. A heretic or a schismatic is automatically excommunicated from the Church per canons 751 and 1364; therefore, not formally Catholic.
@@figuenew tell that to your bishops. They allow homosexuals to be priests and bishops and they are supported by the leaders by covering for them. Your catechism calls this a sin yet that is ignored.
you raise some interesting points. As someone in the church of Christ who is exploring Orthodoxy, I can say how church of Christ people would respond without being caustic. First, it is surprising how much unity we have in the restoration movement. There are only three splits (And everyone has splits, even Catholics, with the Copts/Catholics depending on your take, the Orthodox/Romans depending on your take, and the Anglican/Catholics depending on your take. And the church of Christ people would disagree with this guy largely, as they reject tradition (Though we have plenty of them.) My experience with the ABC phenomenon is that it is less in the c of C than in, say the baptists. (Like our view of faith and works, baptism, &c) You ask which translation do you use if you are sola scriptura. You might get a kick out of this, it depends who you ask. Some hold to the KJV, some to the ASV, some to the NASB. But most say the original Greek and Hebrew, though some of us geeks use the Septuagint, to the great dismay of Bible class teachers. (And are ignorant of textual variants, or greek in general except for Strongs.) However, we believe that spirit works through every translation (provided it is translating the greek in a decent way.) And yes we would NEVER agree to a council, "Because that would damage congregational autonomy." Indeed if a church of Christ person knows about church History, he knows that "the great falling away happened at the Council of Nicea" though thankfully, not everyone holds this opinion. We would also say that people interpreting to suit themselves is not a problem with Sola Scriptura, but with people. And that if you have a "good and honest heart" you will get what you need. As someone who is basically Orthodox inside right now, and doesn't fit into the c of C, this may be too harsh, this is just my experience. I was raised in c of C and have seen pretty much the full spectrum. I will say most of the people are really nice people who love the Lord and want unity.
I think my main criticism of this is the fact that he said that councilarism special towards protestants when it has been practiced by all christians since the days of the early Church fathers as well as the days of the apostles
The reformers (and by extension modern day Protestants) are not able to work out their differences because they forsook the very institution that the Holy Spirit had given on Pentecost. Once you forsake the church, each individual becomes the authority to interpret doctrine. Obviously they can’t agree, because each one views his own interpretation of Scripture as authoritative. We need the church.
As a student of philosophy and logic, I just makes no sense. The scripture is a product of the Church not vice versa. If the scriptures in the NT never existed there would still be the Church Jesus established. It is just illogical, either the scriptures are true based on the churches veracity or they are simply false. U cannot have an infallible set of writings safe guarded, kept and decided upon from an un-infallible church who exercised its authority for us to believe them so. To say that the Scripture alone is the authority causes a paradox of how can u prove it?
One thing I'm struggling with is the question of what we really do agree on as Protestants. I'm not 100% sure that we even agree on (for example) the Trinity or the resurrection of Christ. I'd like to hear Dr. Vanhoozer's thoughts on what, specifically, those unifying points are. Also, if my interpretation of scripture is corrected by the text, isn't it really someone else's interpretation that's correcting my interpretation?
@JD Apologetics sure there are outliers. The difference is there is no universal way to determine who is and isn't in/out in Protestantism, since by its very definition, it has no authority structure to determine this. Are Mormons evangelical? Why or why not and who decides? We can't say, "the true church is entirely invisible," and then come around and say, "but those visibly are always NOT the true church because they deny XYZ," when there is no authority to determine that XYZ is the boundary. Even in the video, they mention 1st 2nd and 3rd tier disagreements but again, who decides on what is and isn't in the right tier? Is baptism? But not the Eucharist? For whom and why? Without a unifying authority it's all just arbitrary and up to the founders of one's denomination.
@JD Apologetics I wouldn't know the first thing about how Catholics handle their own in/out group stuff since I'm not Catholic. The Orthodox church maintains the fullness of the Faith and has since the time of the apostles and we know this to be true from the Scriptures that the Orthodox church birthed, curated, edited, compiled, and canonized. We know this to be true from historical data proving the earliest dates of Trinitarian worship, liturgical worship in the form of Hellinized Judaical Temple worship, the Eucharist,baptism, the episcopate, Marian salutations, and iconographic veneration which is even found in 2nd Temple synagogues. And we know it to be true because of the faith and diligence of the direct line of physical descendants of bishops who have preserved the faith with us and for us, and even the laity who have overthrown heretical priests and bishops as the early church once did with Arian priests. When Christ said, "I will lead you into all truth," he meant it. When he established a Church and not just a loose collection of sorta similar ideas (sola scriptura being one of them. This video even acknowledges not all Protestants believe the same thing about the Bible itself much less to interpret it!!), he promised the gates of Hell would not overthrow it, and since Satan is the father of lies who sows confusion and God has no confusion in him, it seems unlikely that Protestantism can be counted as the Church Christ founded. The authority structure has always been the Spirit of God working through the Eucharist and the Bishops collectively, and those who are outside of the authority of one or both are not "Christians" within the Church of God, and this has always been the case. To argue otherwise is entirely arbitrary and ahistorical
@JD Apologetics the teaching of the Church that Sola Scriptura is false. This has always been the teaching of the church. Ecumenical councils only arise if there is a dispute and since there never has been a Reformation within Orthodoxy because the true church has never needed reforming, there was no reason to hold an ecumenical council about what has always been clear and obvious, even in the Scriptures themselves which explicitly teach the opposite of Sola Scriptura, as well as other doctrines like Sola Fide. Regarding the latter, the only time salvation by faith alone is even mentioned in the Scriptures is in James and explicitly says that one cannot be justified by faith alone, which makes perfect sense when we don't come to the Scriptures with western and Roman Catholic assumptions about God, salvation, authority, hell, and sin. I'm digressing, but you're asking me, "well where does it say we *can't* make up dogmas and declare something to be true, regardless of its innovations?" You might as well ask what council determined that God didn't live on a planet called Kolob. Since this is an innovation and no orthodox ever taught it, and the faith of the apostles has continued to be passed down through the bishops who were disciples of Christ's disciples - and this physical lineage can be traced with a simple wikipedia search to prove its authenticity - we have no reason to believe it is true. We can trust that God did not abandon his church to heresy or to innovative dogmas by schismatic monks who were heretics of an even greater apostate church of Rome.
With respect to your wonderful guest, it sounds like he's working with a different definition of Sola Scriptura than I or my church use ( I am Eastern Orthodox). When we criticize Sola Scriptura, we criticize the idea that scripture is the ONLY authority (or that anything not explicitly said in scripture should be thrown out). It sounds like he is more working with the idea of a prima scriptura (don't know if that's an actual term lol), or that scripture should be the MAIN authority source, in conjunction with others (tradition, church, etc:). I have very little problem with what he's saying; perhaps every discussion/debate on Sola Scriptura should start with an explicit definition of the term, so communities don't end up talking past each other from misunderstanding. As always, thank you for the wonderful content on your channel and the grace with which you conduct these interviews 🙏😁
Catholic worship is a very different thing. The “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” has a completely different intent than a Protestant worship service. I’ve been on both sides of the holy aisle. And the differences are not small.
3 года назад
I prefer Sola Verbum Dei. I do not limit the Word of God into its written form. Scriptures and Tradition comes from the same source but through different means: written and unwritten. Also Material Sufficiency considers Scriptures as the highest revelation. Tradition and the Magisterium serves it.
Once you acknowledge some tradition (and it would be foolish not to) the question is which tradition is consistent and historical and there is no question that its Eastern Orthodox. Protestantism makes no sense
@@GospelSimplicity of course the Church is not divided. It's alive, and visible in the saints. I humbly suggest that you read the lives and writings of the Orthodox saints throughout the centuries-from the lives of the apostles (besides what's recorded in scripture) and post-apostolic fathers, to recent saints such as Paisios of Mount Athos, Nektarios of Aegina, John Maximovitch, Luke of Simferopol, Matrona of Moscow, Porphyrios of Kafsokalivia, and countless others in between-and you will realize what you are missing, like Apollos did in Acts. God bless you and your pious work.
As a church of Christ (Restoration Movement) person who is in love with Orthodoxy, I can say there is a lot of truth to this. Those in the c of C who have read the Anti Nicean Fathers know that the early church was not Sola Scriptura. However, the restoration movement came out of the idea that if we could just do what they did in the Bible that would fix the divisions, so our rigid view of Sola Scriptura is a response to divisions. Interestingly the Orthodox have a very strong case for being the original Church in my Opinion.
The problem with this argument is he's saying "tradition is secondary to scripture." But he's just taking preference to Protestant tradition, as they ignore scripture when they don't partake in the eucharist and in how they get baptized
To me, this is personal, so I am wondering what you mean? There’s a lot I don’t understand yet about the Catholic faith so please be gracious. I parttake in the holy communion every Sunday when I go to my protestant church, and I was baptised as a baby in a protestant church. Would you not recognise that? I desire unity between Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox believers. Our love for each other that would be such a testimony to the world.
Where in Scripture did Jesus command his Disciples to write the New Testament down? Scripture was the Old Testament not New. If the New Testament was not written down, I believe God would divinely preserve this historical account, through Sacred Church Tradition.
"The text can always correct my interpretation"........and who is exactly interpreting the text? This professor is all over the place, but one thing is sure....he doesn't actually believe in sola scripture....yet preaches it.
I liked this interview but that response wasn’t compelling. particularly the second part sounded to me like the church has divided over secondary issues because of disagreements, but if we come together and interpret the Bible in the same way we can resolve these differences. Only that’s not what happens, if it did then there would be one Protestant church right? Seems clear to me you need something more than scripture to hope to achieve ecclesial unity.
first order doctrines diiffer based on the group you ask and having a lax attitude about truth does not mean holding to one faith and unity. Holding to tradition is not saying "we know it all" (this mostly seen in strictly bible only ppl) it mean to believe that Christ led it into all truth as He promised and it has always been the pillar and ground of truth. It is to humbly accept those core doctrines over one's own interpretations.
I doesn't mean we wont find anything new through a study of scripture(for eg. Chrysostom urges his parishioners to read the scriptures than just to listen to his sermons and they are called a a bottomless well of wisdom by St. Basil ) but that it wont contridict what has been revealed and change every decade according to the zeitgiest.
When Kevin states that "Protestants have much of the important things in common"...this severely begs the question. Who determines what doctrines are important? This is the dilemma for the Protestant and is inescapable, imho.
With due respect, At min 12:00 he is exactely making a case for prima Scriptura and Church Authority. Catholics believe that when Bishops are gathered in Councils they are guided by the Holy Spirit and can speak just as authoritatively as the Scriptures. And since the Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself, it's more than clear that those claims cannot say something in contrast to Scriptures. If you are seeing any contradiction, you are misinterpreting. The huge problem now is to define which Church still holds that perfect authority given by the Holy Spirit, which Church can be 100% sure of the fullness of truth. And if you cannot find any, within the Trinitarians, we should just go back to the 9th - 10th century and see, before the great schism, which doctrines were taught at that time and start back "counseling" from There.
The problem is that in order to know that the New Testament is inspired by God, you have to know the mind and intentions of God (at least regarding that particular question). In other words, you have to have some special authorithy coming from God that allows you to declare that Scripture is indeed in accordance with God's mind and will. That is the whole point: declaring that Scripture is an infallible divine authorithy already presupposes that those who make this declaration have an infallible authorithy from God. It is simply a matter of logical coherence. Therefore it is inconsistent to attribute infallible authority only to Scripture and not to Tradition. And yes the Old Testament was recognized as inspired before the Church, but here we can note that the "Chair of Moses" in the Jewish religion also had some infallible authority (albeit less extended than the authority of the Church).
Yeah, he was talking about prima scriptura, not sola scriptura. I have been in Protestant/evangelical churches my entire life and tradition was never discussed, nor were the early church fathers, nor were the councils, nor was church history. It’s always been the pastor’s interpretation of scripture, in the name of sola scriptura. And this was a poor argument for its efficacy.
About this Reforming Catholic Confession: Why develop this, instead of accepting the Nicene Creed? What's wrong with the Nicene Creed, to cause the need for a new confession?
I think because the Nicene Creed doesn't address many issues that are doctrinally important for Protestants: ie, the 5 solae, the inerrancy of the Bible, the sacraments, etc. Even the 5 solae are defined in different ways by different Protestants so they aren't always a sufficient Protestant doctrine confession
I will stick with Eastern Orthodox, the way Jesus intended it. No where in scripture does it say, go out and franchise your own rebranded version of my teaching.
@@Justas399 I don't know but Constantine had to create a litmus test for what was Christian. He called the First Council of Nicaea in 325, at which the Nicene Creed was professed by Christians. No mention of franchising .
The speaker says Scripture is the sun and tradition is the moon. So did Scripture record tradition or was tradition instituted by Scripture? I'd like to think it's the former cause Scripture records events and traditions from Genesis onwards after they happened and not the other way round so tradition does not depend on Scripture. It's tradition that is reflected in Scripture.
I think he gets his analogy wrong. Tradition is the lenses of the light of scripture it helps focus it and enable us to see it clearly without the divided protestant denomination mess of interpretations that lack concise singular focus.
What protestants do not understand is that JESUS MADE THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. AND IT IS STILL HERE. HE said it would last, and it HAS. If you believe in Jesus. If you believe what HE said in the bible. Then Believe that HIS Church is still here- the real one, root, trunk and branch. Jesus would not lie. History shows us that he didn't. Come home. The door really is open to you.
2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things Sola Scriptura leads to SOLO Scriptura which contravenes 2 Peter 1:20
What about Baptism. It touches a Salvation issue? For Lutheran's Baptism saves the baby, for Anglicans or Presbyterians it's a "covenant promise" for future salvation and for the Baptist it's nothing more than a sign of Salvation began in an adult believer and for the Salvation Army they don't practice Baptism or Eurcuist at all. Is this not important? Surely the meaning of Baptism matters and we agree to disagree. What about faith and practice regarding male & female roles in Church & family. I'm a man, husband and father.... Is it God's Will for me to step up to a higher calling than my wife. Where more authority is given more is expected. However we see a redemptive spirit throughout the Bible freeing women from cultural Patriarchy. (William J Webb & Tim Mackie for two examples hold to a complimentary Egalitarianism. It matters to me to interpret this subject correctly... Also in a Anglican church setting. I attended an Anglican church. Knowing God's Will matters. Also are Spiritual gifts for the church today and the church should be practicing or not anymore? How we worship? I think these things matter and Gods small c catholic have different opinions for faith & practice. What do we do with this infallible problem?
As you know my channel is all about unity in Christ. I am very glad he said that the attitude to approach each other with is that of humility. I did a video on four point of where to start coming together in unity and an attitude of humility was the first point. Humility and love are the way forward towards what Christ prayed for in John 17.
How can you say Protestants are "united" when you guyscan't agree on core doctrines such as whether or not baptism regenerates or whether the Eucharist consubstantiate or memoralize? Seriously think our Lord is O.k with all the Protestants believing different things just because they 'believe in Jesus'?
On a lighter note, only two things were actually written by God, one is the the first set of The Ten Commandments that Moses broke in anger and second when Jesus wrote on the ground as the woman was about to be stoned and no evangelist has said what exactly he wrote. Everything else in scripture though inspired by the Holy Spirit, was written by humans. With human intervention comes imperfection and free will and diversity. That's why the books of the NT written by four different people recounting the life of Jesus have different perspectives. Even the same parable has different details in two or more Gospels. John doesn't dwell on the childhood of Jesus, Luke extensively records parable. So to say Sola Scripture is to limit oneself to human imperfections.
What is the point of SOLA Scriptura if tradition is acknowledged? And what tradition is it that starts 1500 years after the Tradition of the original Christian Churches that carry the traditional teachings of the Apostles? What a bogus argument!
And the gatherings of theologians weekly in Calvin's Geneva must be interesting since if you seriously disagreed with Calvin you could end up burned at the stake like Servetus was, or hounded from town to town like Sebastian Castellio, who was not even different theologically from Calvin, just thought that people with doctrinary differences should not be punished. I cannot take this guy seriously when he talks about Calvin's meetings every Friday, knowing Castellio's fate!
What do the Early Church father's have to say about Sola scriptura: Quoting Scripture Against the Church by Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C. TERTULLIAN (160-220 AD) describes contemporary 'bible-Christians' in the following manner: 'They fiddle with the Scriptures, and base their arguments on them. Speaking of faith they claim that the only basis for discussion is the written word of faith: thus they wear down those whose faith is strong, they ensnare the weak and fill all those in between with doubts. We commence, by laying down as a principle that people should not be allowed to use Scripture as a basis for arguing about the faith.' 'Discussions about the meaning of Scripture, [says Tertullian in the same work] generally have no other effect than to upset either one's stomach or one's brain. As a method, it is wrong to appeal to the Scriptures, since one either cannot reach a decision, or at best, a doubtful one. And even if this were not the case, if one is going to appeal to Scripture, common sense requires that one enquire to whom do the Scriptures belong? From whom, and on what occasion and to whom was this Tradition handed on by which we became Christians? For where the truth of Christian discipline and faith is found, there is found the truth of the Scriptures and its interpretation, and of all Christian Traditions.' [Elsewhere in the same work Tertullian comments:] 'That doctrine is clearly true which was given first. And the reverse is also correct: what comes later can be shown to be false. This principle cannot be budged by later heresies. Let these then produce the origin of their Churches. Let them show the succession of their bishops from the Apostles or their disciples. tf you live close to Italy, you see before your eyes the Church of Rome. What a fortunate Church, to which the Apostles left their doctrine as an inheritance, as they shed their blood. Where Peter was crucified like the Master; where Paul was beheaded like the Baptist. This being so it is clear, as we have already said, that heretics should not be allowed to appeal to Scripture, since it does not belong to them'. - See: De Praescript. Haeretic. xv, xvii, xix, xxxvi. Ed.
Thanks for sharing this! For what it's worth though, most Catholics and Orthodox don't actually consider Tertullian a church father, but rather an "ecclesial writer" due to his later defection to Montanism
@@GospelSimplicity Love your work. God knows it takes a special kind of man with the virtues of St. Joseph to have these conversations. Tertullian is definitely regarded as a Church Father by the Catholic Church, he defended the early Church against heresy. St. Augustine and St. Jerome quoted Tertullian in their works. Unfortunately you are right in that he eventually fell into heresy himself but his work by in large is Catholic. God bless.
Austin, I have found your channel to be very enriching. Keep putting strong, evangelical voices out there. You and Gavin Ortlund at Truth United are about the only Protestants in a sea of Catholic RUclipsrs! I would love to see you interview a reformed theologian; a guy like Michael Horton, for instance, would be fantastic to see on your channel. Stay strong and stay Protestant!!! From, a fellow Bible/theology student.
There is this wonderful circular argument, that the things which Protestants agree on are the important things - because they agree on them - and the things they disagree on are the unimportant things - because they disagree on them.
You do understand that sola scriptura IS NOT historical right? 🤔...i mean, Jesus made the Church. I don't want ANY other Church. Why would I want a church that some guy down the road made?
"Why would I want a church that some guy down the road made?" Exactly. This whole mess was caused by a carpenter from Nazareth who kept saying "It is written" and rejected traditions of the rabbis. We need to go back to the holy Pharisaic tradition.
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:18. You see, that is clearly not true, in fact Jesus only left a church as the bible was created by men inspired by the holy spirit. There wasn't even a canonical bible until centuries after the death of Jesus.
@@DJNO4444 according to scripture the foundation of belief is that Jesus is the Son of God. That is the cornerstone belief for any professed Christian. Then comes the idea of working to expand the Kingdom until Jesus' Parosia and the bodily resurrection of all. My brother is Eastern Ortho now and uses this scripture as well, but the more research I have done into the early church the more I have come to understand how fragmented it was. Even the establishment of the church in Jerusalem was in direct opposition to what Jesus told his followers to do. For ages Christians haven't understood how long it would be before Jesus' return and that has caused us to make poor choices in our resources and our activities. And now we live in a world with a divided church and gnostic beliefs every where we look. (None of this is said with attitude, just my opinion/observation offered humbly)
Jesus didnt write a word in the Holy Bible. He gave his word to the Apostles, who spread it orally, and then wrote it down later (probably not as late as these left leaning scholars think, certainly before 70 AD). According to Acts, the church was making decisions (decisions, mind you, on their authority as Apostles and the word Jesus had given them) long before St. Paul wrote anything down. So *really* Jesus left a church, and the the Inspired authors as part of the early church gave us the scriptures.
Church divisions? No.... The Church has never been divided. Only those who separate themselves from the Church will always be divided and scattered. Whether it is caused by Sola scriptura or something else, the main cause is still separation from the Church.
Why do the Japanese in WW 2 see themselves as liberators of Asia instead of aggressors ? One selectively reads history and select the parts that favours his own biases
@@DaCaldwell I am also trying to speculate why Protestants don't see the light when they study history and wonder what history they are actually reading. Why can they arrive at the right conclusion and do the right thing . I am Catholic by the way and I see Orthodoxy as brothers and sisters.
@@jeremiahong248 I grew up Protestant, still am but I'll be heading East soon. Lol I think the answer is "Tradition." We are taught to look at the Scriptures in a certain way and we are pretty ignorant of Church History overall. When I started studying Church Histoty I expected take away some useful things but I don't expect to see not something like Protestantism in the Early Church.
Haven't listened to the interview (yet!). But one major problem with pretty much any version of sola scriptura - despite the obvious problems of it not itself being scriptural or professed by any Christian for 15 centuries - is that it includes the Doctrine of the Right of Private Judgement as an essential aspect. This is basically the thesis that the individual is only obligated to adhere to beliefs he judges to be scriptural. In other words, the individual's conscience is made the normative principle of justification of proper interpretation and belief. The upshot is that even if one admits that external authorities or church bodies play a role they can only ever do so accidentally (subordinately). For as soon as one of these bodies teaches something contrary to the individuals earnestly held belief/interpretation he is justified in rejecting that authority. So the believer in sola scriptura can place himself under authority voluntarily but is under no *normative* obligation to assent to teachings that violate his conscience or contradict what he himself believes is scriptural. This is the primary reason why sola scriptura results in an intrinsically fissile ecclesiology.
Make sense of the Scriptures under the authority of the Scriptures? Hope that to make sense? I don't know how can the Scriptures be an authority in itself without an external entity who interprets it. Also who is the arbiter or who is capable to determine in the prot world which are primarly, secondarily or tertiary doctrines and expect them to be on the same page on that? It's impossible!
Not being able to kill those who disagree with you is what causes organizational splintering. If they want to argue for that, be explicit. Otherwise, they’re just saying “not agreeing with me causes divisions” and then the problem in their argument becomes more apparent. Brad Gregory doesn’t take into account how the Counter-Reformation utilized Greek skepticism as well. I have a relatively recent video on that from some Anglicans if anyone is interested.
Sola Scriptura means on the one hand you accept the Church to decide of all the epistles and letters written which ones are the authentic Word and worthy of being canonised but on the other hand you reject its authority to interpret scriptures.
Isn't this contradictory? If one rejects the Church having the right to interpret, then how can you be sure of its decision and conclusion that the chosen canons are the true Word of God ?
I came here to say this and it was already said.
@UC1NFx1eS-w9h0dJH8rzHLiw the church discover scriptures? Like the Bible falling out of the sky and landed in the forest and the Church found it
The truth is there were many epistles and letters written. Every church had a few of these. The Church gathered in around AD 400 to canonised the scriptures but filtering through these epistles and writings and deciding which ones are inspired and which are not. Saying the Church discover scriptures is a fabrication of lies just like how lies are fabricated that Iraqi had weapons of mass destruction when there were none.
The way they argue this is to say that it was self evident to the Church what counted as Scripture and what didn't like Michael Kruger's work. "My sheep hear my voice," sorta thing. But then again, they don't seem to hear very well
"To be deep in the Bible is to be absent from the vatican" - J.D Randall
@@samename5875 JD Randall ? Alias for Satan?
I appreciate hearing this perspective- but wow. As someone who grew up non-denominational and who is discovering orthodox and Catholic models of Christianity... I was hoping this would be more compelling. Rather he almost implicitly makes a case FOR the teaching authority of the church and marginalizes the Protestants who don’t recognize that reality.
It wasn't the greatest argument, and as I argued in a different comment...
What the Catholics and Orthodox are really arguing for is the ability to kill heretics. And they need to realize that's what they really need to make their argument work and explicitly argue for it.
Also, there's no recognition that Christians have been arguing for stuff forever. This is even in Origen v Celsus. The Catholic argument is really shallow when you look against reality.
@@aGoyforJesus Yes sure. Killing heretics ? Did you time travel from the medieval age ? Shallow argument? OK yours is the best . Now I understand why even there are people Jesus cannot convert..Read the gospel - there are many.
@@jeremiahong248 if you're complaining about multiple denominations what you're really arguing for is the ability to kill people and squash dissent. It's really that simple.
Don't be the pacifist who argues for big government but doesn't realize government has one primary tool in the tool belt: violence.
@@aGoyforJesus Sorry I don't share your political views. Anyway I am from the US so I don't bother with big / small government argument of the US
@Zach Blank I formally converted to Orthodox a few months ago. I will be praying for you. You can reach me anytime on my email if you would like to talk, and maybe I could send you an Orthodox icon or a book, or just share with you some of my thoughts and concerns.
With love,
- Elijah
nogodlikeyahweh@pm.me
A little incongruity would be that scripture comes from tradition. In a sense, scripture is tradition. Upholding Sola Scriptura is simply impossible.
That's another question we talk about in the interview!
@@GospelSimplicity I thought it was the whole intervention. I would just like us to be together at last...
As a Protestant (sort of anyways) I find sola scriptura to be thoroughly illogical and completely unworkable, as evidenced by its history. BUT, I do appreciate Dr. KVs thoughtful and sincere insights here.
Catholic friends, this is what we call vincible ignorance. This man will jump through any hoop to avoid the obvious. Pray for him and his conversion.
Did you mean invincible ignorance?
"As Protestants we have to be able to agree to disagree and acknowledge we don't know everything"
I wonder if God intended to leave His Church for us to fumble through scripture and cross our fingers and hope we interpret scripture correct. Why was His intention to create Mass confusion with over 30000 denominations. This does not make sense.
@@maryemilysmiley6146 No, I mean the exact opposite. He is not invincibility ignorant. His ignorance is very vincible. He is very smart and well educated on the subject, knows the arguments against him and still chooses to bend over backwards to avoid the obvious truth.
@@CatholicBossHogg His arguments are circuitous. I thought you may have said vincible ignorance in that he could be moved by prayer or rather the Holy Spirit. As the nuns used to tell us when we were being particularly obtuse, "Let us pray this is not invincible ignorance.". God bless the nuns. I just never heard the concept expressed as vincible ignorance rather always the double negative. I do enjoy Austin's presentations, but I prefer the format of a dialogue between two opposing viewpoints rather than a monologue as this one was.
@@maryemilysmiley6146 it's definitely uncommon to see the term vincible ignorance because all we hear about in the modern church is how everyone outside of the church is going to be fine and they don't need to convert because they're invincibly ignorant. The term vincible ignorance is just expressing the traditional teaching that someone like this man cannot in any sense be considered invincibly ignorant at his final judgment. He is not some native, isolated on a island somewhere.
If you include tradition then it isn’t “sola”. It’s tradition + scripture which is what Catholics do. However, Catholics read the Bible in context.
The end of the book of John says "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen."
Where did all of these teachings go? Did they get lost to time? No. They were passed down through the succession of the holy Orthodox Church. Trying to be a Christian only using the Bible is like trying to learn English by only reading a dictionary. It can get you to a certain point but you will never have the breath of the English language by just the book.
Nah, they came back in 1982 when Pastor Bob down the street founded Calvary United Church and rediscovered the true teachings.
The Feralcatz, Actually, Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was even written.
The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Matthew, Peter didn't make some sort of infallible decree regarding curcumcision at the council. In fact if you keep reading James makes a judgement himself. What they were doing was working out a consensus which is what the true church still does to this day.
Why would they even have councils at all if the Pope's opinion was the only one that mattered?
The Orthodox church is the faith of the apostles. The western church made their priests celibate, invented purgatory and indulgences, papal infallibility, added the filiioque to the creed, the list goes on. We are the original church.
However the Roman Catholics are still a lot more coherent than protestants are.
@@TheFeralcatz Not True, as Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). James then confirms Peter's declaration and simply gives food and sexual restrictions! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@TheFeralcatz Purgatory is where after death, some shall SUFFER LOSS AND BE SAVED ONLY AS THROUGH FIRE, ( 1 Corinthians 3:25), where after death some shall be CHASTENED when judged by the Lord as to NOT BE CONDEMNED, ( Matthew 18:34,35, Luke 12:47. Matthew 5:22, Jamez 2:13), where the Spirits of the just are MADE PERFECT, ( Hebrews 12:23,24), as we must all STRIVE FOR THAT HOLINESS WITHOUT WHICH NO ONE SHALL SEE THE LORD.( Hebrews 12:14)
Indulgences are Biblical! " Give alms and all shall be clean within for you ", ( Luke 11:41, Daniel 4:27, 1 Peter 4:8).
Pau recommended the ministers of Lord remain celebrate! ( 1 Corinthians 7:32). You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
It’s almost undeniable. Sola scriptura came hand in hand with the rejection of a single living unifying authority. Instead christian individuals became their own living authority on how one goes about interpreting the scripture. There is no longer a true living authority to tell you when your out of line like the church does.
It seems to me Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer is talking about Scriptura primo not sola scriptura. I believe that a lot more common ground could be reached with Scriptura primo as that is what the Church teaches. He quotes the first Catholic council.
It would've been interesting to ask him if he thinks that is a better term
@@GospelSimplicity In trying to defend sola scriptura it seems to me that he moves towards an authoritative interpretation of scripture. This is actually what the Church teaches. Not that Tradition is greater than scripture, but that scripture without Tradition is fraught with interpretation errors. The Magjisterium is what he talks about with regard to a collective understanding of what scripture means.
Again, would a Christian in the early Church read Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea and know that it was NOT HOLY SCRIPTURE? Would those same Christians in the early Church read Paul's several letters that he wrote to the Philippians and know only ONE one of these letters written were Holy Scripture? Or the letters of Matthias and Gamaliel and Barnabas? "We must concede the Church of Rome has given us the Scriptures", ( Martin Luther, works.vol. 40). 7 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down. Holy Scripture never teaches Scripture alone. The manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH!
Who has the final authority to interpret "This is My Body ", and "My Flesh is True food and Blood True drink ", ( Matthew 26:26, John 6:53-55).
Of all the letters and epistles written and floating around, it is the Church that decided which ones are really the inspired Word of God and worthy to be canonised. If the Church can decide which writings are the true Word of God and which were not, it has the authority to interpret scriptures. Otherwise how can the Church have authority to decide which writings are true Word without the authority to interpret ?
Its like saying your professor has the right to choose which of the students writings deserve to get an A grade but you don't trust what the professor teaches you.
@@jeremiahong248 great illustration!
Nah, the Church immediately fell into heresy the moment Christ left the Earth. It wasn't until 20th century American Protestantism came along that we discovered the truth!
@@CatholicBossHogg Ha ! Ha ! Thanks for humouring me ! Yes its always USA to the rescue and saving the world ! I believe your last name is Rambo ?
@@jeremiahong248 Bryan Budweiser Rambo to be precise
If the "Bible interprets itself" why are there 45,000 Protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Baptist, and "non-denominational" denominations?
According to the professor, Protestants are in agreement on big doctrines, so I guess that means the necessity of a water baptism, the presence of the Lord in holy communion, or the need for ordained clergy, to name a few, are minor doctrines since their is no Protestant consensus on those?
I find that argument incredibly difficult to believe.
Sola Scriptura fails at the table of contents.
1. How do we know what scripture is? Not just The Canon, but the idea of a scripture and how we relate to it?
2. How do we determine the Canon?
3. How do we know what level of authority to give scripture?
4. How do we know how to interpret the scripture?
5. How do we apply scripture?
6. Should we expect to be like the Christians of the 1st, 4th, and 10th centuries in matters of doctrine and practice?
Most Protestants won't admit it, but they wish they had some degree of a Magisterium in their church. There are some who are brave enough to say it, but the rest quietly deal with the confusion.
If Sola Scriptura were true, then how were Christians being saved prior to the invention of the printing press in the 1600's?
It isn't the only reason but it is one of the major reasons anyone who denys this imho is being specious.
Ok he is willing to accept tradition well then who defines tradition as he all to briefly goes over Lutherans who followed Luther were often iconoclast who smashed statues and art something Luther was aghast when he reemerged from hiding.
He went to confession and said the rosary and accepted Traditional Marian dogmas till the day he died how many Protestants accepts these traditions not too many as Protestants even Lutherans define tradition in a Much different ways than Luther
Correct, Luther's theology was steeped in the "Ronan Catholicism" of his day in relation to the protestants he influenced.
No for the "Great Schism" of 1054 A.D., probably yes (to a degree) for the Reformation, and certainly yes (in varying degrees) within Protestanism itself.
The truth is, Protestantism is not the Ancient Church.
Not only does it not hold to the correct beliefs and values of the Nicene Creed, and therefore abuses what came before.
But it also abandons the fulness of the faith in all it's truth.
The fulness of the faith which our brothers and sisters held to dearly centuries before, even to the point of martyrdom.
They held on, as we do to this day, on the Holy traditions which were past down generation to generation which were given to us by the disciples, apostles and the bishops and so on.
They died for Christ by not rejecting Him!
Amín
They died remaining faithful in His love and truth!
Amín
They died for Christ's Church!
Amín
One Church, Holy, katholikós (universal), and apostolic in nature.
Holding to true Orthodoxía (correct opinion).
I hope this serves as a reminder for those who may be struggling right now on this matter.
The Church predates the protestant movement, and it will remain for evermore after.
Because God's Church is a living Church; for God, is the God of the living and not the dead, and we are blessed that the saints are with us always.
Amín
As Jesus Christ said
"The gates of Hades will not prevail against it!"
*Psalm 150*
Alleluia
Praise God in His saints;
Praise Him in the firmament of His power;
Praise Him for His mighty acts;
Praise Him according to the abundance of His greatness.
Praise Him with the sound of a trumpet;
Praise Him with the harp and lyre;
Praise Him with timbrel and dance;
Praise Him with strings and flute;
Praise Him with resounding cymbals;
Praise Him with triumphant cymbals;
Let everything that breathes praise the Lord.
Alleluia.
There is even disagreement between what is important and what isn't. Interestingly, Eucharistic doctrine was a major area of disagreement at the Reformation, as you say, but is now pretty irrelevant to much of latter-day Protestantism because eucharistic belief and pratice have faded away.
I love your channel, Austin. It raises a lot of questions in me and I wish I knew more. I am curious as to whether Catholics think Luther had some good points after all? I also wonder in what respects the Catholic church may have changed in the past 500 years? Do you bring this up anywhere so I can check it out?
I didn’t get to watch the entire video until yesterday, so I couldn’t make an informed comment until I had. I agree with others that he seems to use circular reasoning. I also agree that he’s teaching “prima scriptura”, not “sola scriptura”. One of my problems with sola scriptura is those who claim to follow it don’t agree on what it means. If you ask a Southern Baptist, Freewill Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Lutheran, Nazarene, Church of Christ, Assembly of God, etc. what scripture means you will get a different answer from each. But they all claim to follow sola scriptura.
I don’t know that you can get protestants to agree on much other than Jesus was the Son of God, that he was crucified and rose from the dead. Other than that, you aren’t going to get agreement. If you are using sola scriptura, which translation of the bible do you use? King James? Douay-Rheims? Revised Standard Edition? New American Bible? Good New Bible? This is just the tip of the iceberg! There are so many theological differences among protestants that I doubt you would ever get them to agree to a council. There are those who would think this was too “Catholic” (there is still a strong mindset of “ABC--Anything But Catholic”) and would want no part of it.
A real problem with sola scriptura is so many people have interpreted scripture to suit themselves. This is why you have so many protestant denominations, they’ve all interpreted scripture differently, and all say their interpretation is the right one. I think he makes a strong case for a magisterium. Some body to say “this is what scripture has meant, means now, and means going forward”. Otherwise IMHO you have chaos.
All true Protestants agree that the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. None claim that any other book is. Since the Scriptures are the inspired-inerrant Word alone then that means that they are the ultimate authority for the Christian and the church.
Translations are the product of scholars translating the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into english. Each translation has a particular emphasis that is true to the Scriptures.
All true Protestants believe in the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son, Christ died for sins and rose again. These doctrines and more all true Protestants agree on.
BTW- there is much chaos in the RCC. Just look at the different view among catholics on homosexuality, abortion and other moral issues. Look at how many don't believe the real presence doctrine.
@@Justas399 The Catholic Church also believes that the Scripture is the inspired-inerrant Word of God (but not only Scripture is the Word of God, Jesus Himself is the Word). The Catholic Church also believes in the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son, that Christ died for our sins and rose again. So these doctrines are not only agreeable among Protestants. There are no different view among Catholics on homosexuality or abortion. The Catholic Church authoritatively teaches that such acts are intrinsically evil. IF any "Catholic" believes otherwise, then such person is an ignorant "Catholic" or a heretic or a schismatic. A heretic or a schismatic is automatically excommunicated from the Church per canons 751 and 1364; therefore, not formally Catholic.
@@figuenew tell that to your bishops. They allow homosexuals to be priests and bishops and they are supported by the leaders by covering for them. Your catechism calls this a sin yet that is ignored.
@@Justas399 Yes, sadly some bishops become heretics and traitors (like Judas) - but per canon law, such bishops are automatically excommunicated.
you raise some interesting points. As someone in the church of Christ who is exploring Orthodoxy, I can say how church of Christ people would respond without being caustic. First, it is surprising how much unity we have in the restoration movement. There are only three splits (And everyone has splits, even Catholics, with the Copts/Catholics depending on your take, the Orthodox/Romans depending on your take, and the Anglican/Catholics depending on your take.
And the church of Christ people would disagree with this guy largely, as they reject tradition (Though we have plenty of them.)
My experience with the ABC phenomenon is that it is less in the c of C than in, say the baptists. (Like our view of faith and works, baptism, &c)
You ask which translation do you use if you are sola scriptura.
You might get a kick out of this, it depends who you ask.
Some hold to the KJV, some to the ASV, some to the NASB.
But most say the original Greek and Hebrew, though some of us geeks use the Septuagint, to the great dismay of Bible class teachers. (And are ignorant of textual variants, or greek in general except for Strongs.) However, we believe that spirit works through every translation (provided it is translating the greek in a decent way.)
And yes we would NEVER agree to a council, "Because that would damage congregational autonomy." Indeed if a church of Christ person knows about church History, he knows that "the great falling away happened at the Council of Nicea" though thankfully, not everyone holds this opinion.
We would also say that people interpreting to suit themselves is not a problem with Sola Scriptura, but with people. And that if you have a "good and honest heart" you will get what you need.
As someone who is basically Orthodox inside right now, and doesn't fit into the c of C, this may be too harsh, this is just my experience. I was raised in c of C and have seen pretty much the full spectrum.
I will say most of the people are really nice people who love the Lord and want unity.
I think my main criticism of this is the fact that he said that councilarism special towards protestants when it has been practiced by all christians since the days of the early Church fathers as well as the days of the apostles
When sola scriptural became a doctrine and by who's authority?
The reformers (and by extension modern day Protestants) are not able to work out their differences because they forsook the very institution that the Holy Spirit had given on Pentecost. Once you forsake the church, each individual becomes the authority to interpret doctrine. Obviously they can’t agree, because each one views his own interpretation of Scripture as authoritative. We need the church.
Yes...end of video :)
Also 1 Timothy 3:15 blatantly states that the Church upholds the truth.
We actually talk about that verse in the full interview!
That verse was speaking of Calvary United Church led by pastor Billy Bob of Liberty University seminary specifically, not the Catholic Church.
@@CatholicBossHogg Ha ! Ha !
@Paulus Landericus Please go and do your research from independent source. You will find what I say to be true
As a student of philosophy and logic, I just makes no sense. The scripture is a product of the Church not vice versa. If the scriptures in the NT never existed there would still be the Church Jesus established. It is just illogical, either the scriptures are true based on the churches veracity or they are simply false. U cannot have an infallible set of writings safe guarded, kept and decided upon from an un-infallible church who exercised its authority for us to believe them so. To say that the Scripture alone is the authority causes a paradox of how can u prove it?
I don’t think Luther was a model of dialogical virtue.
One thing I'm struggling with is the question of what we really do agree on as Protestants. I'm not 100% sure that we even agree on (for example) the Trinity or the resurrection of Christ. I'd like to hear Dr. Vanhoozer's thoughts on what, specifically, those unifying points are. Also, if my interpretation of scripture is corrected by the text, isn't it really someone else's interpretation that's correcting my interpretation?
@JD Apologetics I'm not sure, actually. I should probably check my facts before I type something like that again.
@JD Apologetics who decides what counts as a Protestant? Or an evangelical?
@JD Apologetics sure there are outliers. The difference is there is no universal way to determine who is and isn't in/out in Protestantism, since by its very definition, it has no authority structure to determine this. Are Mormons evangelical? Why or why not and who decides? We can't say, "the true church is entirely invisible," and then come around and say, "but those visibly are always NOT the true church because they deny XYZ," when there is no authority to determine that XYZ is the boundary. Even in the video, they mention 1st 2nd and 3rd tier disagreements but again, who decides on what is and isn't in the right tier? Is baptism? But not the Eucharist? For whom and why? Without a unifying authority it's all just arbitrary and up to the founders of one's denomination.
@JD Apologetics I wouldn't know the first thing about how Catholics handle their own in/out group stuff since I'm not Catholic. The Orthodox church maintains the fullness of the Faith and has since the time of the apostles and we know this to be true from the Scriptures that the Orthodox church birthed, curated, edited, compiled, and canonized. We know this to be true from historical data proving the earliest dates of Trinitarian worship, liturgical worship in the form of Hellinized Judaical Temple worship, the Eucharist,baptism, the episcopate, Marian salutations, and iconographic veneration which is even found in 2nd Temple synagogues. And we know it to be true because of the faith and diligence of the direct line of physical descendants of bishops who have preserved the faith with us and for us, and even the laity who have overthrown heretical priests and bishops as the early church once did with Arian priests. When Christ said, "I will lead you into all truth," he meant it. When he established a Church and not just a loose collection of sorta similar ideas (sola scriptura being one of them. This video even acknowledges not all Protestants believe the same thing about the Bible itself much less to interpret it!!), he promised the gates of Hell would not overthrow it, and since Satan is the father of lies who sows confusion and God has no confusion in him, it seems unlikely that Protestantism can be counted as the Church Christ founded. The authority structure has always been the Spirit of God working through the Eucharist and the Bishops collectively, and those who are outside of the authority of one or both are not "Christians" within the Church of God, and this has always been the case. To argue otherwise is entirely arbitrary and ahistorical
@JD Apologetics the teaching of the Church that Sola Scriptura is false. This has always been the teaching of the church. Ecumenical councils only arise if there is a dispute and since there never has been a Reformation within Orthodoxy because the true church has never needed reforming, there was no reason to hold an ecumenical council about what has always been clear and obvious, even in the Scriptures themselves which explicitly teach the opposite of Sola Scriptura, as well as other doctrines like Sola Fide. Regarding the latter, the only time salvation by faith alone is even mentioned in the Scriptures is in James and explicitly says that one cannot be justified by faith alone, which makes perfect sense when we don't come to the Scriptures with western and Roman Catholic assumptions about God, salvation, authority, hell, and sin. I'm digressing, but you're asking me, "well where does it say we *can't* make up dogmas and declare something to be true, regardless of its innovations?" You might as well ask what council determined that God didn't live on a planet called Kolob. Since this is an innovation and no orthodox ever taught it, and the faith of the apostles has continued to be passed down through the bishops who were disciples of Christ's disciples - and this physical lineage can be traced with a simple wikipedia search to prove its authenticity - we have no reason to believe it is true. We can trust that God did not abandon his church to heresy or to innovative dogmas by schismatic monks who were heretics of an even greater apostate church of Rome.
With respect to your wonderful guest, it sounds like he's working with a different definition of Sola Scriptura than I or my church use ( I am Eastern Orthodox). When we criticize Sola Scriptura, we criticize the idea that scripture is the ONLY authority (or that anything not explicitly said in scripture should be thrown out). It sounds like he is more working with the idea of a prima scriptura (don't know if that's an actual term lol), or that scripture should be the MAIN authority source, in conjunction with others (tradition, church, etc:). I have very little problem with what he's saying; perhaps every discussion/debate on Sola Scriptura should start with an explicit definition of the term, so communities don't end up talking past each other from misunderstanding.
As always, thank you for the wonderful content on your channel and the grace with which you conduct these interviews 🙏😁
Catholic worship is a very different thing. The “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” has a completely different intent than a Protestant worship service. I’ve been on both sides of the holy aisle. And the differences are not small.
I prefer Sola Verbum Dei. I do not limit the Word of God into its written form. Scriptures and Tradition comes from the same source but through different means: written and unwritten.
Also Material Sufficiency considers Scriptures as the highest revelation. Tradition and the Magisterium serves it.
Once you acknowledge some tradition (and it would be foolish not to) the question is which tradition is consistent and historical and there is no question that its Eastern Orthodox.
Protestantism makes no sense
Please give an example of a "tradition is consistent and historical and there is no question that its Eastern Orthodox".
Church divisions are responsible for sola scriptura.
Also the printing press...
Interesting take
@@GospelSimplicity of course the Church is not divided. It's alive, and visible in the saints. I humbly suggest that you read the lives and writings of the Orthodox saints throughout the centuries-from the lives of the apostles (besides what's recorded in scripture) and post-apostolic fathers, to recent saints such as Paisios of Mount Athos, Nektarios of Aegina, John Maximovitch, Luke of Simferopol, Matrona of Moscow, Porphyrios of Kafsokalivia, and countless others in between-and you will realize what you are missing, like Apollos did in Acts. God bless you and your pious work.
As a church of Christ (Restoration Movement) person who is in love with Orthodoxy, I can say there is a lot of truth to this. Those in the c of C who have read the Anti Nicean Fathers know that the early church was not Sola Scriptura. However, the restoration movement came out of the idea that if we could just do what they did in the Bible that would fix the divisions, so our rigid view of Sola Scriptura is a response to divisions. Interestingly the Orthodox have a very strong case for being the original Church in my Opinion.
The problem with this argument is he's saying "tradition is secondary to scripture." But he's just taking preference to Protestant tradition, as they ignore scripture when they don't partake in the eucharist and in how they get baptized
To me, this is personal, so I am wondering what you mean? There’s a lot I don’t understand yet about the Catholic faith so please be gracious. I parttake in the holy communion every Sunday when I go to my protestant church, and I was baptised as a baby in a protestant church. Would you not recognise that? I desire unity between Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox believers. Our love for each other that would be such a testimony to the world.
Where in Scripture did Jesus command his Disciples to write the New Testament down?
Scripture was the Old Testament not New.
If the New Testament was not written down, I believe God would divinely preserve this historical account, through Sacred Church Tradition.
Bro, now I think that the Catholic Church is right even more
My thoughts exactly
"The text can always correct my interpretation"........and who is exactly interpreting the text? This professor is all over the place, but one thing is sure....he doesn't actually believe in sola scripture....yet preaches it.
I liked this interview but that response wasn’t compelling. particularly the second part sounded to me like the church has divided over secondary issues because of disagreements, but if we come together and interpret the Bible in the same way we can resolve these differences. Only that’s not what happens, if it did then there would be one Protestant church right? Seems clear to me you need something more than scripture to hope to achieve ecclesial unity.
first order doctrines diiffer based on the group you ask and having a lax attitude about truth does not mean holding to one faith and unity. Holding to tradition is not saying "we know it all" (this mostly seen in strictly bible only ppl) it mean to believe that Christ led it into all truth as He promised and it has always been the pillar and ground of truth. It is to humbly accept those core doctrines over one's own interpretations.
I doesn't mean we wont find anything new through a study of scripture(for eg. Chrysostom urges his parishioners to read the scriptures than just to listen to his sermons and they are called a a bottomless well of wisdom by St. Basil ) but that it wont contridict what has been revealed and change every decade according to the zeitgiest.
When Kevin states that "Protestants have much of the important things in common"...this severely begs the question. Who determines what doctrines are important? This is the dilemma for the Protestant and is inescapable, imho.
With due respect,
At min 12:00 he is exactely making a case for prima Scriptura and Church Authority. Catholics believe that when Bishops are gathered in Councils they are guided by the Holy Spirit and can speak just as authoritatively as the Scriptures. And since the Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself, it's more than clear that those claims cannot say something in contrast to Scriptures. If you are seeing any contradiction, you are misinterpreting.
The huge problem now is to define which Church still holds that perfect authority given by the Holy Spirit, which Church can be 100% sure of the fullness of truth. And if you cannot find any, within the Trinitarians, we should just go back to the 9th - 10th century and see, before the great schism, which doctrines were taught at that time and start back "counseling" from There.
Nice conversation… but the Bible states the moon gives her light… not a reflection of sunlight. Completely different kind of unique light
The problem is that in order to know that the New Testament is inspired by God, you have to know the mind and intentions of God (at least regarding that particular question). In other words, you have to have some special authorithy coming from God that allows you to declare that Scripture is indeed in accordance with God's mind and will. That is the whole point: declaring that Scripture is an infallible divine authorithy already presupposes that those who make this declaration have an infallible authorithy from God. It is simply a matter of logical coherence. Therefore it is inconsistent to attribute infallible authority only to Scripture and not to Tradition.
And yes the Old Testament was recognized as inspired before the Church, but here we can note that the "Chair of Moses" in the Jewish religion also had some infallible authority (albeit less extended than the authority of the Church).
Yeah, he was talking about prima scriptura, not sola scriptura. I have been in Protestant/evangelical churches my entire life and tradition was never discussed, nor were the early church fathers, nor were the councils, nor was church history. It’s always been the pastor’s interpretation of scripture, in the name of sola scriptura.
And this was a poor argument for its efficacy.
About this Reforming Catholic Confession: Why develop this, instead of accepting the Nicene Creed? What's wrong with the Nicene Creed, to cause the need for a new confession?
I think because the Nicene Creed doesn't address many issues that are doctrinally important for Protestants: ie, the 5 solae, the inerrancy of the Bible, the sacraments, etc. Even the 5 solae are defined in different ways by different Protestants so they aren't always a sufficient Protestant doctrine confession
I will stick with Eastern Orthodox, the way Jesus intended it. No where in scripture does it say, go out and franchise your own rebranded version of my teaching.
But just think you can start your own McChurch!
@@CatholicBossHogg Have it your way, at Jesus King.
So Paul was sinning when he founded new churches?
@@Justas399 I don't know but Constantine had to create a litmus test for what was Christian. He called the First Council of Nicaea in 325, at which the Nicene Creed was professed by Christians. No mention of franchising .
The speaker says Scripture is the sun and tradition is the moon. So did Scripture record tradition or was tradition instituted by Scripture? I'd like to think it's the former cause Scripture records events and traditions from Genesis onwards after they happened and not the other way round so tradition does not depend on Scripture. It's tradition that is reflected in Scripture.
logically true...
I think he gets his analogy wrong. Tradition is the lenses of the light of scripture it helps focus it and enable us to see it clearly without the divided protestant denomination mess of interpretations that lack concise singular focus.
What protestants do not understand is that JESUS MADE THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. AND IT IS STILL HERE.
HE said it would last, and it HAS.
If you believe in Jesus.
If you believe what HE said in the bible.
Then Believe that HIS Church is still here- the real one, root, trunk and branch.
Jesus would not lie.
History shows us that he didn't.
Come home. The door really is open to you.
2 Peter 1:20
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things
Sola Scriptura leads to SOLO Scriptura which contravenes 2 Peter 1:20
Really didn't make a lot of sense. I was hoping to hear a robust argument for Sola Scriptura. I'm not exactly sure what I heard but it wasn't that.
What about Baptism. It touches a Salvation issue? For Lutheran's Baptism saves the baby, for Anglicans or Presbyterians it's a "covenant promise" for future salvation and for the Baptist it's nothing more than a sign of Salvation began in an adult believer and for the Salvation Army they don't practice Baptism or Eurcuist at all. Is this not important? Surely the meaning of Baptism matters and we agree to disagree. What about faith and practice regarding male & female roles in Church & family. I'm a man, husband and father.... Is it God's Will for me to step up to a higher calling than my wife. Where more authority is given more is expected. However we see a redemptive spirit throughout the Bible freeing women from cultural Patriarchy. (William J Webb & Tim Mackie for two examples hold to a complimentary Egalitarianism. It matters to me to interpret this subject correctly... Also in a Anglican church setting. I attended an Anglican church. Knowing God's Will matters. Also are Spiritual gifts for the church today and the church should be practicing or not anymore? How we worship? I think these things matter and Gods small c catholic have different opinions for faith & practice. What do we do with this infallible problem?
As you know my channel is all about unity in Christ. I am very glad he said that the attitude to approach each other with is that of humility. I did a video on four point of where to start coming together in unity and an attitude of humility was the first point. Humility and love are the way forward towards what Christ prayed for in John 17.
How can you say Protestants are "united" when you guyscan't agree on core doctrines such as whether or not baptism regenerates or whether the Eucharist consubstantiate or memoralize? Seriously think our Lord is O.k with all the Protestants believing different things just because they 'believe in Jesus'?
On a lighter note, only two things were actually written by God, one is the the first set of The Ten Commandments that Moses broke in anger and second when Jesus wrote on the ground as the woman was about to be stoned and no evangelist has said what exactly he wrote.
Everything else in scripture though inspired by the Holy Spirit, was written by humans. With human intervention comes imperfection and free will and diversity. That's why the books of the NT written by four different people recounting the life of Jesus have different perspectives. Even the same parable has different details in two or more Gospels. John doesn't dwell on the childhood of Jesus, Luke extensively records parable. So to say Sola Scripture is to limit oneself to human imperfections.
The Bible says the Church is the pillar and buttress of truth.
What is the point of SOLA Scriptura if tradition is acknowledged? And what tradition is it that starts 1500 years after the Tradition of the original Christian Churches that carry the traditional teachings of the Apostles? What a bogus argument!
And church councils are the means by which the Orthodox Church formed it's theology.
And the gatherings of theologians weekly in Calvin's Geneva must be interesting since if you seriously disagreed with Calvin you could end up burned at the stake like Servetus was, or hounded from town to town like Sebastian Castellio, who was not even different theologically from Calvin, just thought that people with doctrinary differences should not be punished. I cannot take this guy seriously when he talks about Calvin's meetings every Friday, knowing Castellio's fate!
What do the Early Church father's have to say about Sola scriptura:
Quoting Scripture Against the Church
by Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C.
TERTULLIAN (160-220 AD) describes contemporary 'bible-Christians' in the following manner:
'They fiddle with the Scriptures, and base their arguments on them. Speaking of faith they claim that the only basis for discussion is the written word of faith: thus they wear down those whose faith is strong, they ensnare the weak and fill all those in between with doubts. We commence, by laying down as a principle that people should not be allowed to use Scripture as a basis for arguing about the faith.'
'Discussions about the meaning of Scripture, [says Tertullian in the same work] generally have no other effect than to upset either one's stomach or one's brain. As a method, it is wrong to appeal to the Scriptures, since one either cannot reach a decision, or at best, a doubtful one. And even if this were not the case, if one is going to appeal to Scripture, common sense requires that one enquire to whom do the Scriptures belong? From whom, and on what occasion and to whom was this Tradition handed on by which we became Christians? For where the truth of Christian discipline and faith is found, there is found the truth of the Scriptures and its interpretation, and of all Christian Traditions.'
[Elsewhere in the same work Tertullian comments:] 'That doctrine is clearly true which was given first. And the reverse is also correct: what comes later can be shown to be false. This principle cannot be budged by later heresies. Let these then produce the origin of their Churches. Let them show the succession of their bishops from the Apostles or their disciples. tf you live close to Italy, you see before your eyes the Church of Rome. What a fortunate Church, to which the Apostles left their doctrine as an inheritance, as they shed their blood. Where Peter was crucified like the Master; where Paul was beheaded like the Baptist. This being so it is clear, as we have already said, that heretics should not be allowed to appeal to Scripture, since it does not belong to them'.
- See: De Praescript. Haeretic. xv, xvii, xix, xxxvi. Ed.
Thanks for sharing this! For what it's worth though, most Catholics and Orthodox don't actually consider Tertullian a church father, but rather an "ecclesial writer" due to his later defection to Montanism
@@GospelSimplicity Love your work. God knows it takes a special kind of man with the virtues of St. Joseph to have these conversations.
Tertullian is definitely regarded as a Church Father by the Catholic Church, he defended the early Church against heresy. St. Augustine and St. Jerome quoted Tertullian in their works. Unfortunately you are right in that he eventually fell into heresy himself but his work by in large is Catholic. God bless.
Austin, I have found your channel to be very enriching. Keep putting strong, evangelical voices out there. You and Gavin Ortlund at Truth United are about the only Protestants in a sea of Catholic RUclipsrs! I would love to see you interview a reformed theologian; a guy like Michael Horton, for instance, would be fantastic to see on your channel. Stay strong and stay Protestant!!!
From, a fellow Bible/theology student.
Yes I second having Michael Horton on!
There is this wonderful circular argument, that the things which Protestants agree on are the important things - because they agree on them - and the things they disagree on are the unimportant things - because they disagree on them.
You do understand that sola scriptura IS NOT historical right? 🤔...i mean, Jesus made the Church.
I don't want ANY other Church.
Why would I want a church that some guy down the road made?
"Why would I want a church that some guy down the road made?"
Exactly. This whole mess was caused by a carpenter from Nazareth who kept saying "It is written" and rejected traditions of the rabbis.
We need to go back to the holy Pharisaic tradition.
@@adamfiser7645 🤔....you mean the one that was resposible for giving you the Scribe- god Metatron?...🤔...🤣🤣🤣 NO!
4:11 “the question is how does Christ distribute his authority?”
Well as the old saying goes “Jesus left a bible not a church” 🙃
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:18. You see, that is clearly not true, in fact Jesus only left a church as the bible was created by men inspired by the holy spirit. There wasn't even a canonical bible until centuries after the death of Jesus.
@@DJNO4444 according to scripture the foundation of belief is that Jesus is the Son of God. That is the cornerstone belief for any professed Christian. Then comes the idea of working to expand the Kingdom until Jesus' Parosia and the bodily resurrection of all. My brother is Eastern Ortho now and uses this scripture as well, but the more research I have done into the early church the more I have come to understand how fragmented it was. Even the establishment of the church in Jerusalem was in direct opposition to what Jesus told his followers to do. For ages Christians haven't understood how long it would be before Jesus' return and that has caused us to make poor choices in our resources and our activities. And now we live in a world with a divided church and gnostic beliefs every where we look. (None of this is said with attitude, just my opinion/observation offered humbly)
@@DJNO4444 I think he was making a joke
Jesus didnt write a word in the Holy Bible. He gave his word to the Apostles, who spread it orally, and then wrote it down later (probably not as late as these left leaning scholars think, certainly before 70 AD). According to Acts, the church was making decisions (decisions, mind you, on their authority as Apostles and the word Jesus had given them) long before St. Paul wrote anything down. So *really* Jesus left a church, and the the Inspired authors as part of the early church gave us the scriptures.
Church divisions? No....
The Church has never been divided. Only those who separate themselves from the Church will always be divided and scattered. Whether it is caused by Sola scriptura or something else, the main cause is still separation from the Church.
How does his view of Tradition and concilliar theology not lead to Orthodxy?
Why do the Japanese in WW 2 see themselves as liberators of Asia instead of aggressors ? One selectively reads history and select the parts that favours his own biases
@@jeremiahong248 fair! And I saw you eloquently make that point above. We have to be very careful with our own biases.
@@DaCaldwell I am also trying to speculate why Protestants don't see the light when they study history and wonder what history they are actually reading. Why can they arrive at the right conclusion and do the right thing . I am Catholic by the way and I see Orthodoxy as brothers and sisters.
@@jeremiahong248 I grew up Protestant, still am but I'll be heading East soon. Lol I think the answer is "Tradition." We are taught to look at the Scriptures in a certain way and we are pretty ignorant of Church History overall. When I started studying Church Histoty I expected take away some useful things but I don't expect to see not something like Protestantism in the Early Church.
For those that aren't as ignorant of history there's still a sense that "I can judge what us true and who is right."
Excelente
Haven't listened to the interview (yet!). But one major problem with pretty much any version of sola scriptura - despite the obvious problems of it not itself being scriptural or professed by any Christian for 15 centuries - is that it includes the Doctrine of the Right of Private Judgement as an essential aspect.
This is basically the thesis that the individual is only obligated to adhere to beliefs he judges to be scriptural. In other words, the individual's conscience is made the normative principle of justification of proper interpretation and belief. The upshot is that even if one admits that external authorities or church bodies play a role they can only ever do so accidentally (subordinately). For as soon as one of these bodies teaches something contrary to the individuals earnestly held belief/interpretation he is justified in rejecting that authority. So the believer in sola scriptura can place himself under authority voluntarily but is under no *normative* obligation to assent to teachings that violate his conscience or contradict what he himself believes is scriptural.
This is the primary reason why sola scriptura results in an intrinsically fissile ecclesiology.
Sola Scriptura is the dumbest sola
Make sense of the Scriptures under the authority of the Scriptures? Hope that to make sense? I don't know how can the Scriptures be an authority in itself without an external entity who interprets it.
Also who is the arbiter or who is capable to determine in the prot world which are primarly, secondarily or tertiary doctrines and expect them to be on the same page on that? It's impossible!
Not being able to kill those who disagree with you is what causes organizational splintering. If they want to argue for that, be explicit. Otherwise, they’re just saying “not agreeing with me causes divisions” and then the problem in their argument becomes more apparent.
Brad Gregory doesn’t take into account how the Counter-Reformation utilized Greek skepticism as well. I have a relatively recent video on that from some Anglicans if anyone is interested.