thanks for this video (and videos like it). i’m a reformed Christian (presbyterian) discerning a switch to the anglican tradition and your videos have been extremely helpful ❤️ may God continue to bless your work🙏🏽
@@newkingdommedia9434 The doctrine of the Trinity is not "clear in scripture". Belief in the Trinity is not merely a “necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible”. This rather, is the presumption of Sola Scriptura folk who have no other foundation upon which to base their belief in the Trinity. The foundation for Christian belief in the Trinity has more to do with the authority of Sacred Tradition, as the bishops of the Church gathered at the Council of Nicaea to discern what was the true Tradition as passed down from the churches of the Apostles. The scriptural witness was a portion of that Sacred Tradition, but those very heretics the Council Fathers were fighting against were the Sola Scriptura representatives of their day. These heretics were using the logic of self-interpretation from the proof-texting of Scripture to propose a wide variety of heretical understandings of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus our Lord, and the Holy Spirit. This is precisely because the Trinity is not so “clearly taught in the Bible.” The assertion that the Trinity is a “necessary logical deduction” clearly illustrates that Protestants have Sola Scriptura as their grid for interpreting the early Church. This is is a form of circular logic, rather than examining the actual facts of doctrinal history.
I thank God for your boldness and conviction on this subject. We are sometimes, apprehensive to defend private judgement and I am grateful for your defense. My faith is firm because of what I know through the scriptures which I can read and understand. I believe in what Paul said because I can read what Paul wrote 2k yrs, ago. Everything after Paul is subject to what he originally wrote.
"Submitting to the Church" the speaker asks? Christ established his church, and guaranteed it to teach his truth, in his name, in every generation, until the end. The scriptures sprang from the church. And this is the corect way to view the issue. To rip the scriptures out of the the whole Word and use ones "private interpretation" is a flawed starting point. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" not an individual running around with the written word. (1Tim 3:15) PAX
@@DD-bx8rb You must put private judgement back into its historical context of the reformation to fully understand the Protestant argument of private judgement and thetefore better understand its relationship to the church. No Protestant or anyone on the planet thinks in a vaccum which comes across by many who think we do. Scripture is full of teaching to submit to leaders this is a basic principle but it is to which leaders when speaking of the church not to an institution. When I submit to my Pastor and Elders I am submitting to the church. Saying I must submit to the church is also a wrong starting point for Protestants because what you mean by that phrase is Rome. Jesus did start a church but as a Protestant I don't believe what he started has continued correctly in Rome or the East. This is key to Protestant thought the church that Christ started has not continued correctly in Rome or the East. Scripture fundamentally is revelation from God and is therefore the lifeblood of the church. If Rome and the East over many centuries have been led down a wrong path then I can't summit to it. Rome claims that the Church can't err think about that and ask yourself what your starting point is. If you can think of it in a Protestant way and not Catholic then progress can be made. Christ started a church and that church can err and has erred and scripture is the churches rudder to guide it. Rome and the East have erred and Protestants are asking Rome and the East to look again at that guide which is Scripture to get you back on track. So I submit to the church that best represents the church that Christ did start and the guide to know what that is is Christ himself and his Apostles not Rome or the East.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not "clear in scripture". Belief in the Trinity is not merely a “necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible”. This rather, is the presumption of Sola Scriptura folk who have no other foundation upon which to base their belief in the Trinity. The foundation for Christian belief in the Trinity has more to do with the authority of Sacred Tradition, as the bishops of the Church gathered at the Council of Nicaea to discern what was the true Tradition as passed down from the churches of the Apostles. The scriptural witness was a portion of that Sacred Tradition, but those very heretics the Council Fathers were fighting against were the Sola Scriptura representatives of their day. These heretics were using the logic of self-interpretation from the proof-texting of Scripture to propose a wide variety of heretical understandings of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus our Lord, and the Holy Spirit. This is precisely because the Trinity is not so “clearly taught in the Bible.” The assertion that the Trinity is a “necessary logical deduction” clearly illustrates that Protestants have Sola Scriptura as their grid for interpreting the early Church. This is is a form of circular logic, rather than examining the actual facts of doctrinal history.
"Submitting to the Church" the speaker asks? Christ established his church, and guaranteed it to teach his truth, in his name, in every generation, until the end. The scriptures sprang from the church. And this is the corect way to view the issue. To rip the scriptures out of the the whole Word and use ones "private interpretation" is a flawed starting point. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" not an individual running around with the written word. (1Tim 3:15) PAX
@@DD-bx8rb Sola Scriptura was the very framework affirmed by the Church Fathers: *1) Hippolytus (170-235)* “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9) ... *2) Irenaeus (175)* “They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For they [the Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. Proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9) ... *3) Ambrose (330-397)* “For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102) “The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father. So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119) ... *4) Clement of Alexandria (150-215)* “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits will not desist from the search after truth until they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16) ... *5) Augustine (354-430)* “In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5) “Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy.” (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2; notice the sufficiency of Scripture being iterated here) ... *6) Cyprian (248)* “Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” (Letter 73:2) ... *7) Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386)* “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17) “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford: Parker, 1845, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17). ... *8) Dionysius of Alexandria (265)* “Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cited in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, 7:24) ... *9) Gregory of Nyssa (335-394)* “We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings. And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?” - (“On the Soul and the Resurrection” A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 442) ... *10) Basil the Great (379)* Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Letter CCLXXXIII, ANCF, p. 312). ... *11) Hilary of Poitiers (300-368)* “Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter….We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning….I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.” (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23) ... *12) Jerome (347-420)* “When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” (Letter, 48:20) “I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [Scriptures], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” (Letter, 53:10) ... *13) Theodoret (393-457)* “I shall yield to scripture alone.” (Dialogues, 1)
"Submitting to the Church" the speaker asks? Christ established his church, and guaranteed it to teach his truth, in his name, in every generation, until the end. The scriptures sprang from the church. And this is the corect way to view the issue. To rip the scriptures out of the the whole Word and use ones "private interpretation" is a flawed starting point. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" not an individual running around with the written word. (1Tim 3:15) PAX
This video was so refreshing thanks brother. I had the same thoughts about Nicaea 2 when I heard Jay Dyer defend it. His defence was just as bad as the council. He kept referring to scripture about the cheribum in the OT saying people venerated the images in the temple. Then I would go look up those references and every time without fail it NEVER said anyone bowed to those images, rather they bowed when the prescence/the glory of God came down and dwelled betwern the cheribum then the poeple and priest bowed because God had entered the building visibly. Also if he wants to defend bowing to the cherubim on the ark of the covenant those were not icons but actual statues laid over with gold. So the Roman catholics would be right since they are not 2D icons but 3D ststues. But obviously thats wrong because God commanded them not to bow down to any statue of anything in HEAVEN or EARTH. The only time they bowed and venerated was when God was physically present and manifested his glory!
I've been saying these things for a little over a decade now. I've never heard anyone put it just about the same way that I would, before you, that is. Thanks for being one of the few voices of reason in the Protestant traditions. You, The Other Paul, Sub Umbra, Gavin Ortlund, and a few others, are the very few using reasoning and evidence to defend the orthodox, catholic (lowercase 'c') faith.
Absolutely amazing! I'm a Lutheran and I still really really enjoyed this! So you would say that's why we can have different denominations? Because of private judgement? I've often thought of it like good works. Basically we can't be perfect but because of our faith we will desire to have good doctrine and works which is what matters. I'm not really sure what you would say about that because my logic always sounds confusing LOL. How does God work through division like that? How can God draw people to different denominations with different opinions and still have an objective truth? How does that connect?
Thank you! I believe that differences among denominations are fine and that we do not have to have institutional unity to be spiritually united. I have no doubt that Lutherans and Presbyterians, for instance, will be saved despite my disagreements with them. Cling to Jesus Christ by faith and not to your own denomination, for He alone can heal you.
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.[1] Basil the Great, The Letters, Letter 189 (To Eustathius the Physician).
My friend, you are quoting St Basil out of context to assert he was some proponent of Sola Scriptura. An simple examination of Basil illustrates how you fall short of your objective. St. Basil is debating with Arian heretics who don’t believe in the church’s authority. The Arians appealed to their tradition, and to scripture. Basil also had tradition(church tradition not Arian tradition), and scripture. So Basil says “Okay, fine. We will debate using common ground. We both agree on the scriptures, so let’s see what the Scriptures say, and let them decide between us.” This is NOT REJECTION OF TRADITION by Basil- he simply resorts to the common ground of scripture. The Arians of course disagreed with Basils rendering of Scripture. Basils other famous actions are also the opposite of what the Sola Scriptura proponents wish for. He is certainly a great disappointment to the Protestant founders. Basil defended the Church’s position. He became a highly influential theologian who helped defend the Nicene Creed. The Council of Nicaea was a major ecumenical council, and the whole Church accepted its statements as a dogmatic framework-although not the complete synthesis-for the Church’s final position on the argument of the multiplicity of the Godhead. Basils position is all the confirmation one needs to know which side he was on. He demonstrates in full-color how he sees the position of the Church- Scripture and Tradition together are manifested in the teaching authority, the "magisterium". To the dismay of advocates of sola scriptura, Basil is simply in agreement with the Bible itself, maintaining that the responsibility of interpretation is solely vested the Church, which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
And in addition to what I have outlined regarding St Basil, the fact is the practice of Sola Scriptura, by it's very nature, just does not work. You assert we can settle disputes by us both going to the Scriptures... So, how has the last 500 years of that practice gone for you? The various Protestant sects are in complete doctrinal disagreement, including on their 2 essentials" of Faith Alone and Bible Alone, and they continue to divide, divide, divide. Even if you could rope-in St Basil (you cannot), the fact still remains that the practice does not provide the doctrinal certainty promised by Christ. The practice is flawed and clearly of Satan.
The quote is clear indication that Basil was not a Sola Scriptura advocate: "If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them". Basil is saying Arians have their tradition, and the Church has it's tradition, and that if the Arians do not acccept Church tradition then people are not bound to follow them. Basil appeals to church tradition as the decider! He also refers to scripture in his over-all quote, but tells us the Arians also disagree on scripture regarding the Trinity. And so Basil falls back on the tradition of the church, under which "we are not bound to follow the Arians. In other words, when there is disagreement on scripture, or tradition, the church is the final authority. (And the divisions in Protestantism certainly illustrate how much disageement there can be on scripture).
@@dougy6237 That is Basi's' point. Where Traditions and Magisterium differ e.g. Magisterial Reformation verses Roman Magisterium, Scripture must decide. Amos 7:8And the LORD said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumbline. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more:
@@jamessheffield41731. My friend, the Protestant revolt was not part of the magisterium. It was simply a heretical movement who's doctrine of Sola Scriptura continues to fail. Scripture cannot "decide" as you try to assert, and proof of this is the myriad of separate Protestant sects that arrive at their different versions of "truth". A book does not, cannot, "decide", because a book must have a meaning rendered to it, and that meaning will always be in dispute. Christ would not ordain such an illogical practice in order to give us the doctrinal truth which he promised. You insult Christ. Christ does not confuse and divide. A book cannot "decide", a living authority decides. 2. "Basil's point" was not that 'scripture is above the magisterium', because to say so is to say a magisterium is not required. By your assertion one is in a perpetual state where groups/individuals are interpreting scripture and dividing. They are effectively setting up their OWN "MAGISTERIUM". 3. You are ignoring the historical and well-known context pertaining to Basil. To cherry-pick quotes of the Fathers is a common ploy of the Protestant diviners, though it something they increasingly retreat from. You should realise that Basil's situation was simply this. He was dealing with the Arain heretics and he simply asked them to consider what the scriptures said on the matter. That is not a "rejection of the magisterium". And we know this because Basil had tried to convince the Arians with church tradition but they had rejected it. Basil then invited them to consider what scripture said on the matter but he found that was not possible because they ALSO rejected the proper meaning OF SCRIPTURE. 4. Basil knew the magisterium was the final authority in relation to the correct interpretation of the oral tradition and the written scripture. He was a MAJOR PARTICIPANT IN THE EXERCISING OF THAT VERY MAGESTERIUM ITSELF (!!!) at the Council where the decrees were issued in regard to the correct understanding of written scripture and oral tradition as asserted by the heretical Arians. Basil, like any Catholic, subscribed to the 3 sources of written scripture, oral tradition, and the magisterium which guards and interprets them. He knew that through the teaching office, the "magisterium", that Christ was 'leading the church into all truth' (John 16:13) and that the church was the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1Tim 3:15). PAX
Thank you! I hope to make a video on that next year. One must have apostolic succession as defined by adherence to the apostolic doctrine of Scripture. One may have apostolic succession as defined by a succession of Bishops traceable back to the Apostles.
@@newkingdommedia9434 very cool. Thanks brother! I think I agree with that. I'm very much new to all these conversations having grown up a lifelong evangelical.
@@cullanfritts4499 Don't get too hung up on them. Too many theology nerds end up making people think Christianity and even one's salvation hinges on peripheral issues like whether your church has bishops. Cling to our Lord Jesus Christ in faith and trust in Him as your Saviour. Never lose sight of what matters most.
I'm only half way through but it's also illogical to reject private interpretation when the EO and RC type apologists appeal so much to church fathers and ancient thinkers and councils. Where those people not also just regular humans trying to figure stuff out from scripture and otherwise? They cannot appeal to anything that isn't either a plain reading of scripture, OR is the interpretation made by people. The only alternative to "private" interpretation would be "multiple" interpretation. Instead of 1 person, it's many people haivng the same conclusion. But this is still useless because there isn't a single religious thought among any church in any nation that is not upheld by a multitude of thinkers, leaders, and churches. I would go out on a limb and suggest there is not one single idea on earth that is unique to a single person's private interpretation. We all stand on the shoulders of some community or tradition or group that upholds a certain idea. So the EO/RC types have no special priviledge along the lines of anti-private interpretation. No person is a silo, no person has their own thought that isn't shared amongst greater thinkers.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not "clear in scripture". Belief in the Trinity is not merely a “necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible”. This rather, is the presumption of Sola Scriptura folk who have no other foundation upon which to base their belief in the Trinity. The foundation for Christian belief in the Trinity has more to do with the authority of Sacred Tradition, as the bishops of the Church gathered at the Council of Nicaea to discern what was the true Tradition as passed down from the churches of the Apostles. The scriptural witness was a portion of that Sacred Tradition, but those very heretics the Council Fathers were fighting against were the Sola Scriptura representatives of their day. These heretics were using the logic of self-interpretation from the proof-texting of Scripture to propose a wide variety of heretical understandings of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus our Lord, and the Holy Spirit. This is precisely because the Trinity is not so “clearly taught in the Bible.” The assertion that the Trinity is a “necessary logical deduction” clearly illustrates that Protestants have Sola Scriptura as their grid for interpreting the early Church. This is is a form of circular logic, rather than examining the actual facts of doctrinal history.
@@DD-bx8rb Sorry, if you are RC or EO then you have zero rights to talk about inventing "heretical understandings", given all the false doctrines you all have and unbiblical "traditions" that aren't in scripture. You might want to point that "personal intepretation" right back at yourselves.
Peter is simply saying the prophecies did not come by Isaiah's or Jeremiah's own cunning wisdom or insight but that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and shown those things by the Spirit and therefore they were God breathed words of God not words which came by the will of man.
That is why a couple verses earlier he commends them to read the scriptures and take heed to them because they are God's words not man's. It has nothing to do with you trying to understand the scriptures yourself.
@@BibleFanatics My friend, your assertion about 2 Peter1, 20-21 is manifestly false, and we know this when we read the rest of the information. The next verse (2 Peter 2:1) informs us Peter was concerned with false teachers. He warned of “false teachers” who would teach “heresies,” not just false teachers who would write apocryphal works and claim them to be Scripture: "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies". In 2:10 he describes these false teachers as “despising authority,” and then, in 3:16, he tells us they “twist the scriptures to their own destruction.” The context of Peter’s letter leaves no room to doubt that our the first pope was condemning the private interpretation of Scripture, that very foundation of the Protestant movement.
@@DD-bx8rb that's not what he is saying in the passage at all. Where is he saying his interpretation is the one that is infallible in this passage? He is saying the prophets where inspired by the Holy Spirit and not speaking merely from a human wisdom. This why he says they should take heed to these prophesies which are more sure than the vision he had of Christ on the mount of transfiguration. They are God breathed and therefore are to be read for our benefit. He is telling them to read them not submit to his interpretation. He then goes on in chapter 2 to say there were false prophets who spoke with their own wisdom which was not from God and therefore it lead the people astray. Like when God told Jeremiah Jerusalem will be judged and taken into Babylon but the false prophets said they would actually have peace and not go into exile. It was shown Jeremiah was inspired and lead by the Holy Spirit because his prophecy came to pass and theirs did not. So he didn't speak with man's wisdom but was led by the Holy Spirit, hence the prophets should be read and studied because they are the words of God and are for our benefit.
Sorry this is unrelated, but I remember one hearing I think you or maybe Barely Protostant talking about some work they did debunking skeptical scholarship on the authorship of the disputed pauline letters, and I'm trying to track that work down, was that you?
The speaker on this video states "It depends on how it's defined. The Church has authority beneath the Scriptures, not equal to or over them, and so it cannot bind our consciences". Friends, individual interpetation is not above scripture! You are simply replacing the authority of the church with the authority of the individual. But which of the 2 has the divine guarantee? The scriptures, like any written word requires interpretation, for the reader will render to scripture their own meaning, the myriad of Protestant sects being proof of this. Yet we know Christ promised and guaranteed doctrinal truth, not doctrinal confusion! Hence, He established HIs church on the apostles and their successors, and gave it the authority to teach His truth, in His name, in every generation, until the end. This promise of Christ is not achieved by the Protestant practice of 'Bible as final authority'. Certianly scripture is infallible, but individual interpretation is not. 'Individual interpretation' is simply the 'en masse confusion of individuals'. The church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not an individual running around with a Bible (1 Tim 3:15)
Who interprets the interpretation? There’s still so much division and varying interpretation of so-called infallible teachings/interpretations. At the end of the day, you are still the final link and are subject to your own private interpretation. Doesn’t make any sense that we can’t interpret the infallible scriptures but we can some how interpret the “infallible” interpretation of the church. Christ promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth, which He did. They are called the scriptures. Protestant denominations that do not follow sola scriptura are the vast majority, easily led astray by whatever traditions/other teachings they hold to. Those that hold to sola scriptura are much more united. Rome is just as split, it’s just held together shakily by a pope, which doesn’t solve the problem. It’s held together by a facade. There’s not as much unity amongst Rome and Byzantium as you think there is. His word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. If only you’d hold to His Word being the only infallible source, it could serve as your lamp and light as well.
@@KnightFel 1. We are talking about OFFICIAL TEACHING, not "intepretation". The official teaching of the Church is unambiguous because Christ does not decieve. The official teaching of the Church is ONE, unlike in Protestantism where there are THOUSANDS of offical teachings for each of the many thousands of sects. 2. No, Christ did not restrict infallible apostolic teaching to written teaching. ALL, the Oral and the Written, was infallible, and ALL was to be available in every age, just at it was the the very first Christians. 3. Christ founded and established ONE Church with ONE faith. Protestants are divided on everything including Faith Alone and Bible Alone...Until 1930 all Protestants sects held that the the Bible taught contraception was a sin. You can see the problem you have.
"Submitting to the Church" the speaker asks? Christ established his church, and guaranteed it to teach his truth, in his name, in every generation, until the end. The scriptures sprang from the church. And this is the corect way to view the issue. To rip the scriptures out of the the whole Word and use ones "private interpretation" is a flawed starting point. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" not an individual running around with the written word. (1Tim 3:15) PAX
The doctrine of the Trinity is not "clear in scripture". Belief in the Trinity is not merely a “necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible”. This rather, is the presumption of Sola Scriptura folk who have no other foundation upon which to base their belief in the Trinity. The foundation for Christian belief in the Trinity has more to do with the authority of Sacred Tradition, as the bishops of the Church gathered at the Council of Nicaea to discern what was the true Tradition as passed down from the churches of the Apostles. The scriptural witness was a portion of that Sacred Tradition, but those very heretics the Council Fathers were fighting against were the Sola Scriptura representatives of their day. These heretics were using the logic of self-interpretation from the proof-texting of Scripture to propose a wide variety of heretical understandings of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus our Lord, and the Holy Spirit. This is precisely because the Trinity is not so “clearly taught in the Bible.” The assertion that the Trinity is a “necessary logical deduction” clearly illustrates that Protestants have Sola Scriptura as their grid for interpreting the early Church. This is is a form of circular logic, rather than examining the actual facts of doctrinal history.
Rome's public judgement cannot guarantee that it is the correct judgement so private judgement wins by default. There. I saved everyone an hour worth of video.
How can private judgement be "guaranteed" as you assert? There are a myriad of groups and individuals claiming "the right interpretation". Individual interpretation is obviously not divinely guaranteed. You may reject Rome, but your alternative is illogical.
You've dabbled in a clear case of obfuscation. The doctrine, note, I said "doctrine", of private judgment is not merely the use of the intellect to ascertain truth; it is a particularly Protestant concept that there is no absolutely binding authority outside of Scripture. Even here you would have to qualify your position, since during the lifetime of the apostles you would have considered their oral teachings absolutely binding. I would offer a three prong attack against the Doctrine of Private Judgment. First a philosophical note from Dr. Bryan Cross: the Protestant private judgment undermines the normativity of magisterial interpretation; making private judgment ultimately normative. Second, as Jimmy Akin argued in his debate against the Other Paul, we can assume a continuation of the Apostolic paradigm of infallible magisterial authority. Certainly you would admit the Apostles were infallible in their oral teachings. Third, we can offer a scriptural argument from several sources: 1) from the concept of binding and loosing, and 2) the concept of excommunication, which implies the absolute power of binding and loosing.
I agree that there is no absolutely binding authority other than Scripture. I made that clear and said that the Church only has ministerial, not magisterial, authority. I disagree with your second and third arguments obviously but don't have time to debate them now.
Here we go again: "the Protestant private judgment undermines the normativity of magisterial interpretation; making private judgment ultimately normative." It doesn't actually, because what Cross and others falsely assume is that a lack of ultimate normativity for the "magisterium" automatically entails ultimate normativity for private judgement, which it does not, and no Reformer ever said this. What those Reformers themselves say is that our own judgement is itself normed by Scripture without constraint by the Magisterium. In sum, Cross and others assume (and thus beg the question) that normativity is only imputed by the readers onto the texts, and so this must be either the Magisterium or the individual. The Reformers *actually* say, to the contrary, that Scripture itself - being the clear, discernible word of God - binds our conscience directly with objective content, and by consequence we do not have the right to decide Scripture's meaning howsoever we wish, which was the whole reason why they opposed Rome's pretended claims to authority; they were justifying their twisting of Scripture. In fact, there is an *entire book* by the major Presbyterian writer Samuel Rutherford titled "A free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience" which attacks the very idea of the individual's conscience itself being ultimately normative. Numerous other statements in Reformation and post-Reformation era authors show the same attitude, and I can cite them too if you wish. "Second, as Jimmy Akin argued in his debate against the Other Paul, we can assume a continuation of the Apostolic paradigm of infallible magisterial authority." Though my performance was not good there, I nonetheless explained in that debate (and elsewhere, esp. my debate review with Christian Wagner) that Apostolic infallibility was predicated on the Apostles themselves, and no Scriptural (read: historical) evidence shows their particular charism being passed down to the Bishops/elders. I thus do not need any scriptural/historic statement that explicitly spells out the ceasing of this infallibility, because it follows by good and necessary consequence from the Apostles not passing such down and them eventually dying. "Third, we can offer a scriptural argument from several sources: 1) from the concept of binding and loosing, and 2) the concept of excommunication, which implies the absolute power of binding and loosing." These are just assertions; what is "binding and loosing"? To whom was it given? If it was passed down, did it necessarily maintain the same power? How? According to what divine oracle? Why does excommunication "imply the absolute power" thereof? You don't get to assume these things and expect us to believe you/your magisterium. Note also how you are almost certainly drawing from the biblical texts on "binding and loosing" to make this argument against us. If that is what you are doing, then you are doing the very thing Bryan Cross and associates of his like Casey Chalk say *not* to do, and that is presupposing the thesis of the perspicuity of Scripture. That is what you are doing as soon as you make arguments straight from the scriptural text with the assumption that they establish with certainty in themselves some element of your case.
@@TheOtherPaul You're not seriously saying that the Apostles couldn't confer their authority nor responsibilities are you? That response to the second point you replied to reads as though you're trying to say that the Apostle's weren't not able to have successors that possessed their distinct responsibilities and subsequent authority.
As a Calvinist do you believe that God has decreed what your "private judgment" would actually be? Has He in eternity past already predetermined that your belief and interpretation would be right and Jonah's would be wrong?
Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on Romans 8: But under predestination falls every salutary benefit prepared for man from all eternity by God; hence all the benefits he confers on us in time he prepared for us from all eternity. Hence, to claim that some merit on our part is presupposed, the foreknowledge of which is the reason for predestination, is nothing less than to claim that grace is given because of our merits, and that the source of our good works is from us and their consummation from God. Hence, it is more suitable to interpret the present text as stating that those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. Then this conformity is not the reason for predestination, but its terminus or effect. For the Apostle says: "He destined us to be his adopted sons through Jesus Christ" (Eph 1:5).
How can private judgement be "guaranteed"? There are a myriad of groups and individuals claiming "the right interpretation". Individual interpretation is obviously not divinely guaranteed. You may reject Rome, but your alternative is illogical.
You mean the style of clerical collar that was invented by Presbyterians and adopted by all Anglicans decades before the Roman Catholics then adopted it too?
The speaker on this video states "It depends on how it's defined. The Church has authority beneath the Scriptures, not equal to or over them, and so it cannot bind our consciences". Friends, individual interpetation is not above scripture! You are simply replacing the authority of the church with the authority of the individual. But which of the 2 has the divine guarantee? The scriptures, like any written word requires interpretation, for the reader will render to scripture their own meaning, the myriad of Protestant sects being proof of this. Yet we know Christ promised and guaranteed doctrinal truth, not doctrinal confusion! Hence, He established HIs church on the apostles and their successors, and gave it the authority to teach His truth, in His name, in every generation, until the end. This promise of Christ is not achieved by the Protestant practice of 'Bible as final authority'. Certianly scripture is infallible, but individual interpretation is not. 'Individual interpretation' is simply the 'en masse confusion of individuals'. The church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not an individual running around with a Bible (1 Tim 3:15)
thanks for this video (and videos like it). i’m a reformed Christian (presbyterian) discerning a switch to the anglican tradition and your videos have been extremely helpful ❤️ may God continue to bless your work🙏🏽
Thank you!
@@newkingdommedia9434 The doctrine of the Trinity is not "clear in scripture". Belief in the Trinity is not merely a “necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible”. This rather, is the presumption of Sola Scriptura folk who have no other foundation upon which to base their belief in the Trinity. The foundation for Christian belief in the Trinity has more to do with the authority of Sacred Tradition, as the bishops of the Church gathered at the Council of Nicaea to discern what was the true Tradition as passed down from the churches of the Apostles. The scriptural witness was a portion of that Sacred Tradition, but those very heretics the Council Fathers were fighting against were the Sola Scriptura representatives of their day. These heretics were using the logic of self-interpretation from the proof-texting of Scripture to propose a wide variety of heretical understandings of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus our Lord, and the Holy Spirit. This is precisely because the Trinity is not so “clearly taught in the Bible.” The assertion that the Trinity is a “necessary logical deduction” clearly illustrates that Protestants have Sola Scriptura as their grid for interpreting the early Church. This is is a form of circular logic, rather than examining the actual facts of doctrinal history.
Presbyterians and Lutherans alike often find that they fit well within Anglicanism. The opposite is also true.
I thank God for your boldness and conviction on this subject. We are sometimes, apprehensive to defend private judgement and I am grateful for your defense. My faith is firm because of what I know through the scriptures which I can read and understand. I believe in what Paul said because I can read what Paul wrote 2k yrs, ago. Everything after Paul is subject to what he originally wrote.
Agreed! And yes, the reticence among Protestants these days to affirm private judgement is definitely a problem.
"Submitting to the Church" the speaker asks? Christ established his church, and guaranteed it to teach his truth, in his name, in every generation, until the end. The scriptures sprang from the church. And this is the corect way to view the issue. To rip the scriptures out of the the whole Word and use ones "private interpretation" is a flawed starting point. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" not an individual running around with the written word. (1Tim 3:15) PAX
@@DD-bx8rb You must put private judgement back into its historical context of the reformation to fully understand the Protestant argument of private judgement and thetefore better understand its relationship to the church. No Protestant or anyone on the planet thinks in a vaccum which comes across by many who think we do. Scripture is full of teaching to submit to leaders this is a basic principle but it is to which leaders when speaking of the church not to an institution. When I submit to my Pastor and Elders I am submitting to the church. Saying I must submit to the church is also a wrong starting point for Protestants because what you mean by that phrase is Rome. Jesus did start a church but as a Protestant I don't believe what he started has continued correctly in Rome or the East. This is key to Protestant thought the church that Christ started has not continued correctly in Rome or the East. Scripture fundamentally is revelation from God and is therefore the lifeblood of the church. If Rome and the East over many centuries have been led down a wrong path then I can't summit to it. Rome claims that the Church can't err think about that and ask yourself what your starting point is. If you can think of it in a Protestant way and not Catholic then progress can be made. Christ started a church and that church can err and has erred and scripture is the churches rudder to guide it. Rome and the East have erred and Protestants are asking Rome and the East to look again at that guide which is Scripture to get you back on track. So I submit to the church that best represents the church that Christ did start and the guide to know what that is is Christ himself and his Apostles not Rome or the East.
Fantastic video Rev. Super keen to host the discussion with you and Jonah :)
Thank you brother! I'm looking forward to it as well.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not "clear in scripture". Belief in the Trinity is not merely a “necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible”. This rather, is the presumption of Sola Scriptura folk who have no other foundation upon which to base their belief in the Trinity. The foundation for Christian belief in the Trinity has more to do with the authority of Sacred Tradition, as the bishops of the Church gathered at the Council of Nicaea to discern what was the true Tradition as passed down from the churches of the Apostles. The scriptural witness was a portion of that Sacred Tradition, but those very heretics the Council Fathers were fighting against were the Sola Scriptura representatives of their day. These heretics were using the logic of self-interpretation from the proof-texting of Scripture to propose a wide variety of heretical understandings of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus our Lord, and the Holy Spirit. This is precisely because the Trinity is not so “clearly taught in the Bible.” The assertion that the Trinity is a “necessary logical deduction” clearly illustrates that Protestants have Sola Scriptura as their grid for interpreting the early Church. This is is a form of circular logic, rather than examining the actual facts of doctrinal history.
"Submitting to the Church" the speaker asks? Christ established his church, and guaranteed it to teach his truth, in his name, in every generation, until the end. The scriptures sprang from the church. And this is the corect way to view the issue. To rip the scriptures out of the the whole Word and use ones "private interpretation" is a flawed starting point. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" not an individual running around with the written word. (1Tim 3:15) PAX
@@DD-bx8rb
Sola Scriptura was the very framework affirmed by the Church Fathers:
*1) Hippolytus (170-235)*
“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)
...
*2) Irenaeus (175)*
“They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
For they [the Apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. Proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves.” (Against Heresies, 1:8:1, 3:1:1, 3:3:1, 3:12:9)
...
*3) Ambrose (330-397)*
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
“The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father. So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint.” (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)
...
*4) Clement of Alexandria (150-215)*
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits will not desist from the search after truth until they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)
...
*5) Augustine (354-430)*
“In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)
“Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy.” (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2; notice the sufficiency of Scripture being iterated here)
...
*6) Cyprian (248)*
“Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’ Also the Lord, sending His apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized, and taught to observe all things which He commanded. If, therefore, it is either prescribed in the Gospel, or contained in the epistles or Acts of the Apostles, that those who come from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid upon them to repentance, let this divine and holy tradition be observed.” (Letter 73:2)
...
*7) Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386)*
“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford: Parker, 1845, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).
...
*8) Dionysius of Alexandria (265)*
“Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cited in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, 7:24)
...
*9) Gregory of Nyssa (335-394)*
“We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.
And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?” - (“On the Soul and the Resurrection” A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 442)
...
*10) Basil the Great (379)*
Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Letter CCLXXXIII, ANCF, p. 312).
...
*11) Hilary of Poitiers (300-368)*
“Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter….We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning….I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.” (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23)
...
*12) Jerome (347-420)*
“When, then, anything in my little work seems to you harsh, have regard not to my words, but to the Scripture, whence they are taken.” (Letter, 48:20)
“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [Scriptures], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else.” (Letter, 53:10)
...
*13) Theodoret (393-457)*
“I shall yield to scripture alone.” (Dialogues, 1)
In my private judgment you are building on the foundation with gold. Thank you again reverend.
Thank you! The gold of God's word.
"Submitting to the Church" the speaker asks? Christ established his church, and guaranteed it to teach his truth, in his name, in every generation, until the end. The scriptures sprang from the church. And this is the corect way to view the issue. To rip the scriptures out of the the whole Word and use ones "private interpretation" is a flawed starting point. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" not an individual running around with the written word. (1Tim 3:15) PAX
This video was so refreshing thanks brother. I had the same thoughts about Nicaea 2 when I heard Jay Dyer defend it. His defence was just as bad as the council. He kept referring to scripture about the cheribum in the OT saying people venerated the images in the temple. Then I would go look up those references and every time without fail it NEVER said anyone bowed to those images, rather they bowed when the prescence/the glory of God came down and dwelled betwern the cheribum then the poeple and priest bowed because God had entered the building visibly.
Also if he wants to defend bowing to the cherubim on the ark of the covenant those were not icons but actual statues laid over with gold. So the Roman catholics would be right since they are not 2D icons but 3D ststues. But obviously thats wrong because God commanded them not to bow down to any statue of anything in HEAVEN or EARTH. The only time they bowed and venerated was when God was physically present and manifested his glory!
Great points!
@@newkingdommedia9434 Thanka brother. Also I know this is late but congrats on your ordination! Looking forward to see how God uses you!
I've been saying these things for a little over a decade now. I've never heard anyone put it just about the same way that I would, before you, that is. Thanks for being one of the few voices of reason in the Protestant traditions. You, The Other Paul, Sub Umbra, Gavin Ortlund, and a few others, are the very few using reasoning and evidence to defend the orthodox, catholic (lowercase 'c') faith.
Absolutely amazing! I'm a Lutheran and I still really really enjoyed this! So you would say that's why we can have different denominations? Because of private judgement? I've often thought of it like good works. Basically we can't be perfect but because of our faith we will desire to have good doctrine and works which is what matters. I'm not really sure what you would say about that because my logic always sounds confusing LOL. How does God work through division like that? How can God draw people to different denominations with different opinions and still have an objective truth? How does that connect?
Thank you! I believe that differences among denominations are fine and that we do not have to have institutional unity to be spiritually united. I have no doubt that Lutherans and Presbyterians, for instance, will be saved despite my disagreements with them. Cling to Jesus Christ by faith and not to your own denomination, for He alone can heal you.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Thank you very much!
@@StevenSmith-1863 Agreed!
Great video, River! Thanks for sharing this precious truth.
Holy smoke, this was good! 🙌
Thank you brother!
I have a question related to Anglican formularies: What is the best physical edition of "Book of Homilies" that I could buy to read?
Gerald Bray's Critical Edition
@@newkingdommedia9434 Thank you so much!
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.[1] Basil the Great, The Letters, Letter 189 (To Eustathius the Physician).
My friend, you are quoting St Basil out of context to assert he was some proponent of Sola Scriptura. An simple examination of Basil illustrates how you fall short of your objective. St. Basil is debating with Arian heretics who don’t believe in the church’s authority. The Arians appealed to their tradition, and to scripture. Basil also had tradition(church tradition not Arian tradition), and scripture. So Basil says “Okay, fine. We will debate using common ground. We both agree on the scriptures, so let’s see what the Scriptures say, and let them decide between us.” This is NOT REJECTION OF TRADITION by Basil- he simply resorts to the common ground of scripture. The Arians of course disagreed with Basils rendering of Scripture.
Basils other famous actions are also the opposite of what the Sola Scriptura proponents wish for. He is certainly a great disappointment to the Protestant founders. Basil defended the Church’s position. He became a highly influential theologian who helped defend the Nicene Creed. The Council of Nicaea was a major ecumenical council, and the whole Church accepted its statements as a dogmatic framework-although not the complete synthesis-for the Church’s final position on the argument of the multiplicity of the Godhead.
Basils position is all the confirmation one needs to know which side he was on. He demonstrates in full-color how he sees the position of the Church- Scripture and Tradition together are manifested in the teaching authority, the "magisterium".
To the dismay of advocates of sola scriptura, Basil is simply in agreement with the Bible itself, maintaining that the responsibility of interpretation is solely vested the Church, which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
And in addition to what I have outlined regarding St Basil, the fact is the practice of Sola Scriptura, by it's very nature, just does not work. You assert we can settle disputes by us both going to the Scriptures... So, how has the last 500 years of that practice gone for you? The various Protestant sects are in complete doctrinal disagreement, including on their 2 essentials" of Faith Alone and Bible Alone, and they continue to divide, divide, divide. Even if you could rope-in St Basil (you cannot), the fact still remains that the practice does not provide the doctrinal certainty promised by Christ. The practice is flawed and clearly of Satan.
The quote is clear indication that Basil was not a Sola Scriptura advocate: "If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them". Basil is saying Arians have their tradition, and the Church has it's tradition, and that if the Arians do not acccept Church tradition then people are not bound to follow them. Basil appeals to church tradition as the decider! He also refers to scripture in his over-all quote, but tells us the Arians also disagree on scripture regarding the Trinity. And so Basil falls back on the tradition of the church, under which "we are not bound to follow the Arians. In other words, when there is disagreement on scripture, or tradition, the church is the final authority. (And the divisions in Protestantism certainly illustrate how much disageement there can be on scripture).
@@dougy6237 That is Basi's' point. Where Traditions and Magisterium differ e.g. Magisterial Reformation verses Roman Magisterium, Scripture must decide. Amos 7:8And the LORD said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumbline. Then said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more:
@@jamessheffield41731. My friend, the Protestant revolt was not part of the magisterium. It was simply a heretical movement who's doctrine of Sola Scriptura continues to fail. Scripture cannot "decide" as you try to assert, and proof of this is the myriad of separate Protestant sects that arrive at their different versions of "truth". A book does not, cannot, "decide", because a book must have a meaning rendered to it, and that meaning will always be in dispute. Christ would not ordain such an illogical practice in order to give us the doctrinal truth which he promised. You insult Christ. Christ does not confuse and divide. A book cannot "decide", a living authority decides.
2. "Basil's point" was not that 'scripture is above the magisterium', because to say so is to say a magisterium is not required. By your assertion one is in a perpetual state where groups/individuals are interpreting scripture and dividing. They are effectively setting up their OWN "MAGISTERIUM".
3. You are ignoring the historical and well-known context pertaining to Basil. To cherry-pick quotes of the Fathers is a common ploy of the Protestant diviners, though it something they increasingly retreat from. You should realise that Basil's situation was simply this. He was dealing with the Arain heretics and he simply asked them to consider what the scriptures said on the matter. That is not a "rejection of the magisterium". And we know this because Basil had tried to convince the Arians with church tradition but they had rejected it. Basil then invited them to consider what scripture said on the matter but he found that was not possible because they ALSO rejected the proper meaning OF SCRIPTURE.
4. Basil knew the magisterium was the final authority in relation to the correct interpretation of the oral tradition and the written scripture. He was a MAJOR PARTICIPANT IN THE EXERCISING OF THAT VERY MAGESTERIUM ITSELF (!!!) at the Council where the decrees were issued in regard to the correct understanding of written scripture and oral tradition as asserted by the heretical Arians. Basil, like any Catholic, subscribed to the 3 sources of written scripture, oral tradition, and the magisterium which guards and interprets them. He knew that through the teaching office, the "magisterium", that Christ was 'leading the church into all truth' (John 16:13) and that the church was the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1Tim 3:15). PAX
Excellent!!! Would love to hear your thoughts on apostolic succession.
Thank you! I hope to make a video on that next year.
One must have apostolic succession as defined by adherence to the apostolic doctrine of Scripture.
One may have apostolic succession as defined by a succession of Bishops traceable back to the Apostles.
@@newkingdommedia9434 would that be a plene esse or bene esse view?
@@cullanfritts4499 Plene esse. The fullness of the Church is to have Bishops but without them you are still a church.
@@newkingdommedia9434 very cool. Thanks brother! I think I agree with that. I'm very much new to all these conversations having grown up a lifelong evangelical.
@@cullanfritts4499 Don't get too hung up on them. Too many theology nerds end up making people think Christianity and even one's salvation hinges on peripheral issues like whether your church has bishops. Cling to our Lord Jesus Christ in faith and trust in Him as your Saviour. Never lose sight of what matters most.
Not an Anglican but great video
Thank you!
I'm only half way through but it's also illogical to reject private interpretation when the EO and RC type apologists appeal so much to church fathers and ancient thinkers and councils. Where those people not also just regular humans trying to figure stuff out from scripture and otherwise? They cannot appeal to anything that isn't either a plain reading of scripture, OR is the interpretation made by people.
The only alternative to "private" interpretation would be "multiple" interpretation. Instead of 1 person, it's many people haivng the same conclusion. But this is still useless because there isn't a single religious thought among any church in any nation that is not upheld by a multitude of thinkers, leaders, and churches. I would go out on a limb and suggest there is not one single idea on earth that is unique to a single person's private interpretation. We all stand on the shoulders of some community or tradition or group that upholds a certain idea.
So the EO/RC types have no special priviledge along the lines of anti-private interpretation. No person is a silo, no person has their own thought that isn't shared amongst greater thinkers.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not "clear in scripture". Belief in the Trinity is not merely a “necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible”. This rather, is the presumption of Sola Scriptura folk who have no other foundation upon which to base their belief in the Trinity. The foundation for Christian belief in the Trinity has more to do with the authority of Sacred Tradition, as the bishops of the Church gathered at the Council of Nicaea to discern what was the true Tradition as passed down from the churches of the Apostles. The scriptural witness was a portion of that Sacred Tradition, but those very heretics the Council Fathers were fighting against were the Sola Scriptura representatives of their day. These heretics were using the logic of self-interpretation from the proof-texting of Scripture to propose a wide variety of heretical understandings of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus our Lord, and the Holy Spirit. This is precisely because the Trinity is not so “clearly taught in the Bible.” The assertion that the Trinity is a “necessary logical deduction” clearly illustrates that Protestants have Sola Scriptura as their grid for interpreting the early Church. This is is a form of circular logic, rather than examining the actual facts of doctrinal history.
@@DD-bx8rb Sorry, if you are RC or EO then you have zero rights to talk about inventing "heretical understandings", given all the false doctrines you all have and unbiblical "traditions" that aren't in scripture. You might want to point that "personal intepretation" right back at yourselves.
How then do you answer St Peter's condemnation of Private interpretation 2 Peter 1.20-21
Sola Scriptura has not basis in Scripture itself. The Church was, is, always will be, Final Authority.
Peter is simply saying the prophecies did not come by Isaiah's or Jeremiah's own cunning wisdom or insight but that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and shown those things by the Spirit and therefore they were God breathed words of God not words which came by the will of man.
That is why a couple verses earlier he commends them to read the scriptures and take heed to them because they are God's words not man's. It has nothing to do with you trying to understand the scriptures yourself.
@@BibleFanatics My friend, your assertion about 2 Peter1, 20-21 is manifestly false, and we know this when we read the rest of the information. The next verse (2 Peter 2:1) informs us Peter was concerned with false teachers. He warned of “false teachers” who would teach “heresies,” not just false teachers who would write apocryphal works and claim them to be Scripture: "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies". In 2:10 he describes these false teachers as “despising authority,” and then, in 3:16, he tells us they “twist the scriptures to their own destruction.” The context of Peter’s letter leaves no room to doubt that our the first pope was condemning the private interpretation of Scripture, that very foundation of the Protestant movement.
@@DD-bx8rb that's not what he is saying in the passage at all. Where is he saying his interpretation is the one that is infallible in this passage? He is saying the prophets where inspired by the Holy Spirit and not speaking merely from a human wisdom. This why he says they should take heed to these prophesies which are more sure than the vision he had of Christ on the mount of transfiguration. They are God breathed and therefore are to be read for our benefit. He is telling them to read them not submit to his interpretation. He then goes on in chapter 2 to say there were false prophets who spoke with their own wisdom which was not from God and therefore it lead the people astray. Like when God told Jeremiah Jerusalem will be judged and taken into Babylon but the false prophets said they would actually have peace and not go into exile. It was shown Jeremiah was inspired and lead by the Holy Spirit because his prophecy came to pass and theirs did not. So he didn't speak with man's wisdom but was led by the Holy Spirit, hence the prophets should be read and studied because they are the words of God and are for our benefit.
Sorry this is unrelated, but I remember one hearing I think you or maybe Barely Protostant talking about some work they did debunking skeptical scholarship on the authorship of the disputed pauline letters, and I'm trying to track that work down, was that you?
The speaker on this video states "It depends on how it's defined. The Church has authority beneath the Scriptures, not equal to or over them, and so it cannot bind our consciences". Friends, individual interpetation is not above scripture! You are simply replacing the authority of the church with the authority of the individual. But which of the 2 has the divine guarantee? The scriptures, like any written word requires interpretation, for the reader will render to scripture their own meaning, the myriad of Protestant sects being proof of this. Yet we know Christ promised and guaranteed doctrinal truth, not doctrinal confusion! Hence, He established HIs church on the apostles and their successors, and gave it the authority to teach His truth, in His name, in every generation, until the end. This promise of Christ is not achieved by the Protestant practice of 'Bible as final authority'. Certianly scripture is infallible, but individual interpretation is not. 'Individual interpretation' is simply the 'en masse confusion of individuals'. The church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not an individual running around with a Bible (1 Tim 3:15)
Who interprets the interpretation? There’s still so much division and varying interpretation of so-called infallible teachings/interpretations. At the end of the day, you are still the final link and are subject to your own private interpretation. Doesn’t make any sense that we can’t interpret the infallible scriptures but we can some how interpret the “infallible” interpretation of the church.
Christ promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth, which He did. They are called the scriptures. Protestant denominations that do not follow sola scriptura are the vast majority, easily led astray by whatever traditions/other teachings they hold to. Those that hold to sola scriptura are much more united. Rome is just as split, it’s just held together shakily by a pope, which doesn’t solve the problem. It’s held together by a facade. There’s not as much unity amongst Rome and Byzantium as you think there is.
His word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. If only you’d hold to His Word being the only infallible source, it could serve as your lamp and light as well.
@@KnightFel 1. We are talking about OFFICIAL TEACHING, not "intepretation". The official teaching of the Church is unambiguous because Christ does not decieve. The official teaching of the Church is ONE, unlike in Protestantism where there are THOUSANDS of offical teachings for each of the many thousands of sects.
2. No, Christ did not restrict infallible apostolic teaching to written teaching. ALL, the Oral and the Written, was infallible, and ALL was to be available in every age, just at it was the the very first Christians.
3. Christ founded and established ONE Church with ONE faith. Protestants are divided on everything including Faith Alone and Bible Alone...Until 1930 all Protestants sects held that the the Bible taught contraception was a sin.
You can see the problem you have.
Excellent!
Thank you Father!
"Submitting to the Church" the speaker asks? Christ established his church, and guaranteed it to teach his truth, in his name, in every generation, until the end. The scriptures sprang from the church. And this is the corect way to view the issue. To rip the scriptures out of the the whole Word and use ones "private interpretation" is a flawed starting point. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" not an individual running around with the written word. (1Tim 3:15) PAX
The doctrine of the Trinity is not "clear in scripture". Belief in the Trinity is not merely a “necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible”. This rather, is the presumption of Sola Scriptura folk who have no other foundation upon which to base their belief in the Trinity. The foundation for Christian belief in the Trinity has more to do with the authority of Sacred Tradition, as the bishops of the Church gathered at the Council of Nicaea to discern what was the true Tradition as passed down from the churches of the Apostles. The scriptural witness was a portion of that Sacred Tradition, but those very heretics the Council Fathers were fighting against were the Sola Scriptura representatives of their day. These heretics were using the logic of self-interpretation from the proof-texting of Scripture to propose a wide variety of heretical understandings of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus our Lord, and the Holy Spirit. This is precisely because the Trinity is not so “clearly taught in the Bible.” The assertion that the Trinity is a “necessary logical deduction” clearly illustrates that Protestants have Sola Scriptura as their grid for interpreting the early Church. This is is a form of circular logic, rather than examining the actual facts of doctrinal history.
Peckham's book is a good one.
Rome's public judgement cannot guarantee that it is the correct judgement so private judgement wins by default. There. I saved everyone an hour worth of video.
How can private judgement be "guaranteed" as you assert? There are a myriad of groups and individuals claiming "the right interpretation". Individual interpretation is obviously not divinely guaranteed. You may reject Rome, but your alternative is illogical.
You've dabbled in a clear case of obfuscation. The doctrine, note, I said "doctrine", of private judgment is not merely the use of the intellect to ascertain truth; it is a particularly Protestant concept that there is no absolutely binding authority outside of Scripture. Even here you would have to qualify your position, since during the lifetime of the apostles you would have considered their oral teachings absolutely binding. I would offer a three prong attack against the Doctrine of Private Judgment. First a philosophical note from Dr. Bryan Cross: the Protestant private judgment undermines the normativity of magisterial interpretation; making private judgment ultimately normative. Second, as Jimmy Akin argued in his debate against the Other Paul, we can assume a continuation of the Apostolic paradigm of infallible magisterial authority. Certainly you would admit the Apostles were infallible in their oral teachings. Third, we can offer a scriptural argument from several sources: 1) from the concept of binding and loosing, and 2) the concept of excommunication, which implies the absolute power of binding and loosing.
I agree that there is no absolutely binding authority other than Scripture. I made that clear and said that the Church only has ministerial, not magisterial, authority.
I disagree with your second and third arguments obviously but don't have time to debate them now.
Here we go again:
"the Protestant private judgment undermines the normativity of magisterial interpretation; making private judgment ultimately normative."
It doesn't actually, because what Cross and others falsely assume is that a lack of ultimate normativity for the "magisterium" automatically entails ultimate normativity for private judgement, which it does not, and no Reformer ever said this. What those Reformers themselves say is that our own judgement is itself normed by Scripture without constraint by the Magisterium. In sum, Cross and others assume (and thus beg the question) that normativity is only imputed by the readers onto the texts, and so this must be either the Magisterium or the individual. The Reformers *actually* say, to the contrary, that Scripture itself - being the clear, discernible word of God - binds our conscience directly with objective content, and by consequence we do not have the right to decide Scripture's meaning howsoever we wish, which was the whole reason why they opposed Rome's pretended claims to authority; they were justifying their twisting of Scripture. In fact, there is an *entire book* by the major Presbyterian writer Samuel Rutherford titled "A free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience" which attacks the very idea of the individual's conscience itself being ultimately normative. Numerous other statements in Reformation and post-Reformation era authors show the same attitude, and I can cite them too if you wish.
"Second, as Jimmy Akin argued in his debate against the Other Paul, we can assume a continuation of the Apostolic paradigm of infallible magisterial authority."
Though my performance was not good there, I nonetheless explained in that debate (and elsewhere, esp. my debate review with Christian Wagner) that Apostolic infallibility was predicated on the Apostles themselves, and no Scriptural (read: historical) evidence shows their particular charism being passed down to the Bishops/elders. I thus do not need any scriptural/historic statement that explicitly spells out the ceasing of this infallibility, because it follows by good and necessary consequence from the Apostles not passing such down and them eventually dying.
"Third, we can offer a scriptural argument from several sources: 1) from the concept of binding and loosing, and 2) the concept of excommunication, which implies the absolute power of binding and loosing."
These are just assertions; what is "binding and loosing"? To whom was it given? If it was passed down, did it necessarily maintain the same power? How? According to what divine oracle? Why does excommunication "imply the absolute power" thereof? You don't get to assume these things and expect us to believe you/your magisterium.
Note also how you are almost certainly drawing from the biblical texts on "binding and loosing" to make this argument against us. If that is what you are doing, then you are doing the very thing Bryan Cross and associates of his like Casey Chalk say *not* to do, and that is presupposing the thesis of the perspicuity of Scripture. That is what you are doing as soon as you make arguments straight from the scriptural text with the assumption that they establish with certainty in themselves some element of your case.
@@TheOtherPaul Absolutely epic comment mate. Awesome.
@@newkingdommedia9434 my pleasure Rev :)
@@TheOtherPaul
You're not seriously saying that the Apostles couldn't confer their authority nor responsibilities are you? That response to the second point you replied to reads as though you're trying to say that the Apostle's weren't not able to have successors that possessed their distinct responsibilities and subsequent authority.
As a Calvinist do you believe that God has decreed what your "private judgment" would actually be? Has He in eternity past already predetermined that your belief and interpretation would be right and Jonah's would be wrong?
Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on Romans 8:
But under predestination falls every salutary benefit prepared for man from all eternity by God; hence all the benefits he confers on us in time he prepared for us from all eternity. Hence, to claim that some merit on our part is presupposed, the foreknowledge of which is the reason for predestination, is nothing less than to claim that grace is given because of our merits, and that the source of our good works is from us and their consummation from God. Hence, it is more suitable to interpret the present text as stating that those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. Then this conformity is not the reason for predestination, but its terminus or effect. For the Apostle says: "He destined us to be his adopted sons through Jesus Christ" (Eph 1:5).
debate Jay Dyer!
How can private judgement be "guaranteed"? There are a myriad of groups and individuals claiming "the right interpretation". Individual interpretation is obviously not divinely guaranteed. You may reject Rome, but your alternative is illogical.
Stop using rhe the Roman collar to defend protestantism.
You mean the style of clerical collar that was invented by Presbyterians and adopted by all Anglicans decades before the Roman Catholics then adopted it too?
@@newkingdommedia9434Haha someone doesn't know church history. The clerical collar is protestant. Thanks brother for clearing that up.
@EnergeticProcession
The speaker on this video states "It depends on how it's defined. The Church has authority beneath the Scriptures, not equal to or over them, and so it cannot bind our consciences". Friends, individual interpetation is not above scripture! You are simply replacing the authority of the church with the authority of the individual. But which of the 2 has the divine guarantee? The scriptures, like any written word requires interpretation, for the reader will render to scripture their own meaning, the myriad of Protestant sects being proof of this. Yet we know Christ promised and guaranteed doctrinal truth, not doctrinal confusion! Hence, He established HIs church on the apostles and their successors, and gave it the authority to teach His truth, in His name, in every generation, until the end. This promise of Christ is not achieved by the Protestant practice of 'Bible as final authority'. Certianly scripture is infallible, but individual interpretation is not. 'Individual interpretation' is simply the 'en masse confusion of individuals'. The church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not an individual running around with a Bible (1 Tim 3:15)