Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
DEBATE: w Gavin Ortlund | Sola Scriptura: Must It Be Taught in the Bible? (Part 2)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 авг 2024
- Part 2 (of 2) of a discussion between Jimmy Akin and Gavin Ortlund of Truth Unites on the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("by scripture alone").
Gavin's channel Truth Unites: / truthunites
Gavin's original "Sola Scriptura DEFENDED" video: • Sola Scriptura Defended
My recent article on Sola Scriptura: jimmyakin.com/2...
I explore the argument in the linked article in this discussion, particularly in this video.
![Baby Kia - WYG (feat. LAZER DIM 700) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/avlLsOH_oJc/mqdefault.jpg)
This is a model of how we should discuss our faith with all people, everywhere! Amen & thank you gentlemen.
Yuan, thank you for this. Did you copy it from a source?
These guys are both hitting on all cylinders. What a fantastic talk. Even though I stand on one side over the other, the points brought up by both men are so thought provoking. Well done. Please do this more often.
@YAJUN YUAN Could you be more specific? Your answer is a little vague.
@YAJUN YUAN I think what you've written could be good considerations for why they wrote, but not really solid proofs as they are still speculations. The church was quite organic back then and many of the apostles students continue to write long after with those letters also holding authority to the church (i.e. Clements letter to the Corinthians, the Didache and many more). Also I don't think anyone is claiming that the NT writers preached something different from their writings, you may need to clarify.
@YAJUN YUAN Lesser authority is still an authority. And they were certainly teaching from Scripture. As for proof from the Scriptures, I hold a material sufficiency view, who can means every doctrine can be found implicitly or explicitly from Scripture. I think this is superior to the Sola Scriptural view since it allows the Church the binding authority Christ granted it. If scripture is your only infallible source than it makes it difficult to determine if a teaching from scripture is the infallible one (since none exist outside), and you easily end up with the multitude of doctrines floating around. Scripture hold a special place and is above the magisterium. Tradition (in one sense) is the guiding lens on how to read scripture.
Jimmy, I appreciate your careful attention to the practice of Charity as always.
This is a great example of a discussion that "produces more light than heat".
@YAJUN YUAN Then why doesn't a single one of those points have an explicit Scriptural reference?
@YAJUN YUAN yeah, your list is pretty much baloney because you add to the text of scripture and leave off important pieces that frame the verse you use. In 2tim3 Paul tells Timothy to remember the faith and doctrine the he, Paul, taught Timothy through his own example. Then he adds the scripture, which is “profitable” NOT “sufficient”.
While we acknowledge scripture as our only divine word, outside of Jesus himself, Paul does not say it is sufficient. When you CHANGE the words of scripture to defend your position, you at least err and at most lie. In the end you lead people away from truth.
Several of your points have this error.
I’m really struggling with this debate. I’m a Protestant trying to search as genuinely as possible. One of the things that bugged me about what Gavin said was when he said, “why wouldn’t you just want to appeal to Scripture since we know it’s Gods Word.” It sounds simple at first, of course we all believe Scripture. But what does it mean? You could ask a similar question of a Protestant I think. “Why would you would you want to rely on your own fallible interpretation of a book that is constantly misinterpreted and trust that you are the only tradition that got it right?”
He says private interpretation isn’t the only authority and says that we can use tradition, but then immediately after says that Scripture has the final say so. But that is only relevant if you’re assuming your traditions interpretation is correct. I would venture to say that there is no early church father where you can find a nonbaptismal regeneration view or a non real presence view. And Protestants can say they disagree because they believe Scripture because it’s the authority. But no, that can’t be it. It’s not as if the early church just ignored scripture. It basically comes down to my interpretation versus theirs. And it’s starting to become more and more difficult to say. Yes, the church had it wrong the first 1500 years.
@@Mr.Anglo1095 Howdy, Jacob! Thanks for commenting. I appreciate your open mindedness, and I went through similar struggles before I was Catholic. In light of my discussion with Gavin, you may find this article of interest: jimmyakin.com/2021/10/a-new-approach-to-sola-scriptura-can-it-be-saved-by-changing-its-definition.html
God bless you, and I'll pray for guidance on your journey!
At bottom though, everything comes down to your own use of reason. Even if you have an infallible magisterium teaching what the Bible means, you still have to interpret that interpretation since it is also conveyed in words. That’s why I never found this particular argument against sola scriptura very compelling. Motivated reasoning will get you where you want to go whether or not you have a magisterium, as shown by the many professing Catholics who believe things that are (per other Catholics) clearly in contrast with the Church’s teachings. In fairness Gavin’s appeal is no better insofar as a Protestant is debating a Catholic.
@@joshuascott5814 I had fallen away from Catholicism and came back to it about 2 years ago. I agree with you that everyone will use their own reason; however, because the Catholic Church has clear teachings on certain issues, those teachings motivated me to look more deeply at why the Catholic Church holds to those teachings. What I came to understand is that people in the Catholic Church have already used a ton of logic and reason as part of the process of discerning the truth and beauty of those teachings, which are important for human flourishing. The Catholic Church has been dealing with many of these questions for over 2,000 years and has considered them in a very deep way. A good example pertains to human sexuality. In our sex obsessed culture, on the surface it sounds nuts to oppose artificial birth control. But once I came to understand the fruits of artificial birth control - more fatherlessness, more single mothers, more abortions, and the normalizing of pornography- I started to see the wisdom and beauty of the Catholic Church's position that Natural Family Planning (NFP) and behaving with sexual restraint and sexual integrity is better for women, children, and human flourishing as a whole. This is just one example, and a long winded way of saying that the reason and logic is already there in the Catholic Church, and is available to anyone pursuing a full understanding of how and why the Catholic Church teaches particular doctrines and morals.
You can argue the same thing the other way. There aren't any early church fathers that even knew about icon veneration, not giving the laity the Lord's supper in both kinds, the papacy etc. The scripture is made up of words and words have meanings sometimes it can be hard to to understand. The prespecuity of scripture is there though for those who seek it honestly. Also, if the church is the one who interprets scripture, why haven't they just interpreted all of scripture? And laid everything out?
These two conversations were fabulous! May God bless you both, and may our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, continue to have mercy on all of us.
We need a part 3,4,5etc on dialogues on multiple topics like this. Great eork gentlemen. God bless you ❤
God bless both of you guys" Im Catholic & I have many ex Prostestants friends who are now Catholic & even a Orthodox family that's Catholic due to Catholic answers & Other great show's like Reason & Theology" Thanks Jimmy 👍🙏🛐🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic 📖✍️🗝️🗝️
This is the most chill and yet informative discussion that I've heard in this subject. Thank you Mr. Akins and Dr. Ortlund for this wonderful discussion
Gavin Ortlund has a PhD
@@bman5257 and lol
@@justsomevids4541 it originally said Mr. Ortlund.
@@bman5257 ooooh now it makes sense lol
@@justsomevids4541 I’m Catholic so I wasn’t saying Dr. Ortlund has a PhD, therefore he’s right about sola scriptura.
As a Protestant, I appreciate the love and understanding you have, Jimmy, as a Catholic (and former Protestant) to adapt you knowledge and insight in a way the other side can digest. I have a lot to research about these issues and I am willing to go to the church fathers to learn more.
This was a civil and healthy exchange of ideas to which all listeners have a lot to learn.
Gavin, as always, has been a beacon of light and a model to us, Protestants, reminding us how important is to study church history to know our position since most Protestant couldn't care less to any teaching prior to the Reformation.
For more debates like this!
Hands down the best Catholic Protestant discussion I've ever got the joy of listening to.
Thank you very much gentlemen!
Great discussion: I would have similar views as Gavin ,but l appreciate Jinny's clarity on RCC teachings.
Brilliant conversation on what can sometimes be a very tough issue to speak reasonably about. As a former Protestant, I really appreciate listening to this very reasoned, balanced, and fair debate. God Bless and Vivat Jesus!
Wow jimmy akin is probably the smartest person alive. He's single handedly changed many of my views and not just theological. Mysterious world gives a nice balance to concepts that typically you'll only see one side of. He always applies critical thinking and acknowledges legitimate criticisms of his conclusions.
I would have probably probed just a tad more. Particularly, on how Mr. Ortlund (as a Baptist) reconciles many of his beliefs that are odds with the early church. For instance, baptismal regeneration and the real presence which were widely held. Perhaps, that is for further discussion in a future episode. I enjoyed the discussion very much and I look forward to part three which tackles such topics and more -- for instance, bishops in the early church, etc. :)
@ thatguy I would like to tackle baptismal regeneration a little bit. So from scripture, in most cases it seems that the Spirit decends before water baptism; Baptism by water using the formula Father,Son and Holy Spirit or God's Spirit decending upon them like fire?
In Acts 10 when Peter gave his speech on Christ the Holy Spirit came before they were water Baptized.
In Acts after Pentecost Peter encourages them to be baptized in the name of Jesus.
But in many other places it seems to indicate two or perhaps 3 different ways to be baptized.
1. Baptism by John the Baptist which was for reptenence for the coming of the Lord
2.) Water baptism using the Trinitarian formula
3.) Being baptized by the Holy Spirit
The early fathers quite clearly had the position on case 2 but for me I see real power in case 3 noted above.
That dosent mean case 2 should be ignored but rather an outwardly display of your inwardly baptism by the Spirit aka circumcision of the heart using case 2.
So here the tricky aspect of this is in which case should we given more weight?
Case 1 is 0 because in the texts also in Acts we read some where baptized by John the Baptist but did not know the Spirit until they laid their hands on them.
Case 2 is tricky outside of acts after Pentecost when Peter speaks to the crowd
But in many other instances it was being baptized by the Holy Spirit is where the spiritual regeneration occurred and then were baptized.
Paul being a perfect example of this on his way to Damascus.The Lord already anointed him as a chooses instrument to preach his word and after he was healed by Barnabas was he then water baptized by him using case 2.
So, to me it could mean that the Fathers were using case 3 but that case 2 got more attention.
Case 3 is really where the true regeneration occurs as this is the spiritual promise to those who believe and elected by God.
I much appreciate the well reasoned charitable discussion from both of the commentators. I am able to appreciate aspects of the Protestant viewpoint that I had not considered. Thank you for your effort.
That was awesome! As much as I love listening to Gavin (not only here, but on many other channels), it seems his position at best, regarding sola scriptura, leads to a kind of scriptural relativity. If he can stand against baptismal regeneration despite all the support for it in scripture, tradition, and history, then what's left other than his own subjective conclusion vs the magisterium. He may revolt at this notion, but what's his fall back other than to vehemently expound scripture to support his view on baptism, at which point there are many who disagree, leaving us to conclude it to be nothing more than subjective.
You realize that all you have is your own subjective conclusion on history, tradition, and scripture in recognition of the authenticity of the magisterium? The day catholics wake up to the fact that they fall to the same epistemic shortcomings they love to throw at protestants will be the day the discussion can move forward. Any argument a catholic can bring can simply be parodied against the catholic, which in turn makes it no argument at all.
@@TKK0812 subjective conclusion on history, tradition, and scripture on the authenticity of the magisterium? Jesus Christ recognized the teaching authority of the Pharisees. And we have the example of the council of Jerusalem in the book of acts. Nothing subjective there. Just like Jimmy said, if tradition and magisterium was the model in the book of acts and the 1st century why would Protestants decide to do alway with it later??? Also apostolic succession ensures that those original teachings are faithfully passed down. After all didn’t Christ give his promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against his Church?? So with that promise we can know for sure that the teachings of the apostles live on to this day. Otherwise you begin to argue like Muslims and Mormans who claim that the original teachings of Christ were lost in the early centuries and only recently resurrected.
@@enniomojica7812 *Just like Jimmy said, if tradition and magisterium was the model in the book of acts and the 1st century why would Protestants decide to do always with it later???*
That's just your private interpretation of scripture. Why should I trust it?
*Also apostolic succession ensures that those original teachings are faithfully passed down*
It absolutely doesn't. Many of the early churches, including ones Paul planted himself, fell into rank heresy almost immediately.
*After all didn’t Christ give his promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against his Church??*
Gates are defensive, not offensive. The meaning of that verse is not that the church won't fall into error, even serious error, for prolonged periods of time. That verse means that the victory of the church over the works of satan are guaranteed. Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, and to crush the head of the serpent. This verse has nothing to do with guaranteeing right doctrine or practice.
*So with that promise we can know for sure that the teachings of the apostles live on to this day*
We certainly can, but it's no thanks to the catholic church or "apostolic succession".
*Otherwise you begin to argue like Muslims and Mormans who claim that the original teachings of Christ were lost in the early centuries and only recently resurrected*
No, that doesn't even make sense, it's simply an assertion.
@@TKK0812 sounds like your refutes have more to do with your frame of bias than an actual historic frame of reference.
I really enjoyed listening to your conversations with Dr. Ortlund. I am continuously interested in fruitful discussions between Catholics and Protestants and am finding this helpful to my own faith journey.
If private interpretation is not the only authority, then what is? Sure, if you don't agree with the Presbyterian traditions then you cease to be Presbuterian, but so what? Because as far as you're concerned, it's the church that's wrong, not you. Sola Scriptura allows for pride and arrogance to get in the way of what the Scripture is actually trying to say. You NEED an authoritative magisterium to mediate Scriptural disputes, if nothing else
If you could do me a favor, I did a rebuttal to this line of thinking called "the Psychology of Catholic Converts" which if you would watch adequately answers your concerns here. One of the things I would mention that I mention in your video is that there's evidence from church history which goes against what you're saying.
@YAJUN YUAN the Church was given the authority by Christ Himself in the Scriptures. All of the Scriptures attest to this. Jesus said that if one of your brothers is lost, and he won't listen to you and one or 2 others, to take the matter to the Church. THE Church. Taking him to the Church only works if there is a single Church, with the authority to settle such disputes. Anything less than that and you end up with 30,000 Protestant denominations with different personal interpretations of the Bible. Back to my original point, Sola Scriptura allows pride to outrule Scripture. If you're reading the Scriptures humbly, you'll see the authority Christ gave to His Church. The only way you won't see it is if you're reading them pridefully and with preconceived ideas of what they say
@YAJUN YUAN Catholics don't understand that any views they hold can be argued against using a parody argument they throw at protestants, namely, "how do you know that"? Any response they give can be equally adopted by the protestant.
I must say, this is a thought provoking comment.
My response to that is that we do have a church to mediate scriptural disputes. I define church as the body of believers (this would include early church fathers and modern church officials). One term I remember from part 1 of this vid is "binding but not infallible". That's my view of the authority of the body of believers, binding and authoritative but not infallible.
So, in my view, we have an authoritative church to settle disputes but do we need an infallible magisterium?
@@damerkharmawphlang4196 "I define church as the body of believers." Sure you do. That's a common protestant definition. But what makes that body of believers authoritative? What binds someone to agree with you? Paul wrote that if your brother is in error, and he can't be convinced by 1 or 2 others (the body of believers), take it to the Church. And of he won't listen even to the Church, let him be as a gentile or a publican. Paul is clearly writing about an official, authoritative body, who has the authority not just to settle disputes, but to excommunicate heretics. Do we really need an infallible magisterium? Yes, and for that exact reason. We have to be able to trust the authoritative decisions made by the Church. And Christ gives us this assurance when He makes the promise to Peter that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church
This is a great example of how to engage in civil discourse on divergent points of view. I watched both parts. I like this but I also like the idea of picking one talking point regarding sola scriptura such as the doctrinal diversity among Protestant denominations and having a shorter but more thorough discussion of it. Maybe one talking point each until there's nothing left to say about it. Thanks so much for this!!!
Janet, yes I noted that Gavin didn't respond to that point from Jimmy, which in a way was a shame (I'm protestant). I imagine the discussion would be something along the lines of whether doctrinal diversity amongst Protestants is necessarily bad, ie it may serve as a form of check and balance, and that it may guard the overall body from scriptural divergence , which a Protestant would say is what happened to the Roman Catholic church, hence the need for the reformation.
@@anthonywhitney634 Doctrinal diversity IS scriptural divergence. Isn't it true that every Protestant doctrine is backed up by scripture or are you talking about doctrines of men that have NO scriptural basis? The problem occurs when the same passages are interpreted differently by different denominations. The question for the Baptist for instance, is not 'why are you not Catholic?' It is 'why are you not Presbyterian or Lutheran?' Which denomination has the correct scriptural interpretation? The one that believes baptism saves or the one that believes baptism is just a symbolic ritual? The one that believes in predestination or the one that upholds that salvation is a free-will choice available to every single person?
here for part 2....listening as I work
me too
@YAJUN YUAN sufficient doesn’t mean complete. In most times it really just means a minimum condition to meet for a particular action within language itself. There is also sacred tradition. Also not to mention the fact that Saint Paul himself told others to preserve the secret traditions that they had communicated to them. There wasn’t a Bible for the first 200 years as we know it. The scripture he would’ve been referring to what I’ve been mostly the old testament. Meaning there would be a significant gap period that this thesis that you’re proposing doesn’t account for. This means there would have been a significant oral tradition that would’ve been unaccounted for within Christian communities. Also the authorities stems from the persons of the apostle after they were give it from Christ. So the persons of the apostles of themselves carry some sway. This accounts for the catholic understanding of Scripture and tradition both having weight. Yes, we acknowledge scripture as having the highest authority. Saint Thomas Aquinas states that scripture is the highest form of knowledge. However it needs to be interpreted and taught by those who are the successors of the apostles. And that is why we have Bishops. The fact that there are historically bishops in the early church who taught and had to pass on succession is confirmation of this claim. History bares witness of Saint Ignatius of Antioch being a successor of John for example.
@YAJUN YUAN There was a church in the early times with Bishops. It's just a fact. You're playing exegetical games when history bares witness.
Several interesting points there, however I would challenge that "Scripture claims for itself to be God breathed". When it comes to the history of the canon of the bible, sola scriptura simply cannot be defended. As Gary Michuta says, you cannot have the "Sola" without the "Scriptura". In other words if you don´t know which books are in the bible for sure, you cannot maintain the "scripture alone" approach. I am glad Jimmy touched upon this, since this is crucial. With all respect to Dr. Ortlund saying that Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing the scriptures is really scant and simplistic. Yes he did refer to the "Law and the Prophets", or "Law, the Prophets and the Psalms", however that is not the same terminology as the "Law, the Prophet and the Writings" as we see in later Rabbinic Judaism. And I heard no explanation why the rabbis debated books such as the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and not even talking about Esther which was debated till the 4th century as we see in the Talmud. Esther was not even found among the Dead See Scrolls.
So it is more plausible that there was a core that was accepted (the Law was accepted virtually in the whole Israel), the Prophets were accepted by some, yet the Writings as a third group was probably still in formation as the protestant scholar Lee McDonald points out. So Jesus could still refer to the "Law and the Prophets and the Psalms" which were recognized as Scripture by the majority, while some books were yet debated, or on the fuzzy edges. And that is understandable, since if you have a prophetic or inspired book written down, that does not mean it will be automatically and immediately be accepted by everyone, especially books written in the Second Temple period. But the very first Christians such as Clement of Rome (trained by apostle Paul) whose name is even recorded in the NT (Phil 4:3) did recognize without a doubt the book of Judith as scripture. He also recognized the book of Esther as scripture, while the Jews were debating it.
And books of the NT and their acceptance are also not without problems. Books like Revelation, letter to the Hebrews and other books were also not accepted by all Christians for a few centuries. Why if according to Dr. Ortlund scripture claims for itself to be the Word of God? History shows, in both Judaism and Christianity there was a need for some kind of authority to "determine" the canon.
The history of the formation of the canon is a clear defeater of Sola Scriptura.
This was a lovely conversation to listen in on in the background will working on an art project. Well done to both participants for charity and carefulness throughout, and I'd love to see more conversations between the same two men!
(1) If Ortlund accepts the infallibility of apostolic tradition, and by implication the apostolic magisterium, that necessarily posits two distinct infallible authorities outside the bible, which would nullify any definition of sola scriptura as the only source of infallible ecclesial authority (at least within the first century). I think Ortlund is bound to demonstrate the paradigmatic shift after the first century if he wants to be consistent with the principle of sola scriptura, or retain the formal sufficiency of scripture. the question of how one ascertains the contents of tradition would be similar to how one ascertains the canon of scripture (i.e., ecclesial hierarchy and reception).
(2) The underlying doctrine of sola scriptura, namely, the right of private judgment, inevitably ends up inverting sola scriptura into nuda scriptura (as Dr. Bryan Cross rightly pointed out in his articles). The doctrine of private judgment holds that a Christian may freely appeal to his/her own private interpretation of scripture to check and even overthrow the doctrinal pronouncements of the Magisterium. It should be noted that this argument isn’t primarily an epistemic question regarding the meaning of scripture, but rather the normativity of private judgments in relation to ecclesial authority. The question is who has ultimate interpretive authority? Scripture clearly indicates that Christ gave this authority to the Church, and not individuals. This is implied by the Church’s power of binding and loosing, which includes the power of excommunication.
//If Ortlund accepts the infallibility of apostolic tradition, and by implication the apostolic magisterium, that necessarily posits two distinct infallible authorities outside the bible, which would nullify any definition of sola scriptura as the only source of infallible ecclesial authority (at least within the first century). //
You answered your question. All the apostles have been dead for a long time. Sola Scriptura is operative when prophets and apostles aren't around. But even in those eras, prophets and apostles were to be tested against Scripture.
//The doctrine of private judgment holds that a Christian may freely appeal to his/her own private interpretation of scripture to check and even overthrow the doctrinal pronouncements of the Magisterium. //
There's no way around this in any paradigm. Even yours. You are always the last link in the chain.
@@aGoyforJesus //But even in those eras, prophets and apostles were to be tested against Scripture.//
How are the apostles to be tested against scripture if scripture was being revealed? According to your logic, if someone had determined that their interpretation of the OT was contrary to apostolic teaching, they were well within their right to reject it, which is rather absurd. Furthermore, you are not comprehending the force of my argument. You have three distinct infallible sources of authority within the first century; you would have to PROVE that this was no longer the case after the first century. Also, where does scripture teach formal sufficiency?
//There's no way around this in any paradigm. Even yours. You are always the last link in the chain.//
You can only come to that conclusion if you don't understand what private judgement is. It's specifically a Christian doctrine which states that Christians can reject the teaching authority of the Church based on their private interpretation of scripture. In the Catholic framework, Catholics are bound to follow the judgements of the church. For example, if I currently thought that Mary was not the mediatrix of grace, but tomorrow the church defined that she was, I would be obliged to follow it. In your paradigm that isn't the case.
@@contrasedevacantism6811 //How are the apostles to be tested against scripture if scripture was being revealed? According to your logic, if someone had determined that their interpretation of the OT was contrary to apostolic teaching, they were well within their right to reject it, which is rather absurd.//
The Torah orders people to test prophets according to what's in the Torah. Current prophets are tested against past revelation. This is in the Torah. This is what the Bereans were commended for.
//Furthermore, you are not comprehending the force of my argument. You have three distinct infallible sources of authority within the first century; you would have to PROVE that this was no longer the case after the first century. //
All the apostles are dead. It's not incumbent on me to prove there's an ongoing revelation. Given both myself and your church actually agree on that, I'm not sure what the issue would be. I guess what the issue is in the last 200 years your church came to recognize due to historical analysis that previous claims that all their beliefs were delivered by the apostles were untenable. So your church claims that ongoing revelation is not happening while you need the equivalent of ongoing revelation for your developed doctrines.
//Also, where does scripture teach formal sufficiency?//
Mark 7 teaches both material and formal sufficiency. I have a video which covers this if you're interested.
//You can only come to that conclusion if you don't understand what private judgement is. It's specifically a Christian doctrine which states that Christians can reject the teaching authority of the Church based on their private interpretation of scripture. In the Catholic framework, Catholics are bound to follow the judgements of the church. For example, if I currently thought that Mary was not the mediatrix of grace, but tomorrow the church defined that she was, I would be obliged to follow it. In your paradigm that isn't the case.//
As we see in both the New Testament and Old, God expects us to reject teachings coming to us in the name of God which don't conform to Scripture? How do you think an Israelite was supposed to detect that a prophet was a false prophet?
@@aGoyforJesus //The Torah orders people to test prophets according to what's in the Torah. Current prophets are tested against past revelation. This is in the Torah. This is what the Bereans were commended for.//
Technically, Deuteronomy 13:1-5 does no such thing. First, God is speaking at a time when the Torah was yet to be revealed, so this would be a reference to the oral commands given through Moses. Second, the Bereans weren’t commended for examining the teaching of the apostles per se, but accepting Apostolic Teaching; contrary to the Thessalonians whom I’m sure also examined the scriptures but rejected the teaching of the Apostles. Also you do not understand what private judgment is. It exists exclusively within an ecclesial context; so it doesn’t apply to those outside of it. So they can’t be used in support of sola scriptura.
//All the apostles are dead. It's not incumbent on me to prove there's an ongoing revelation.//
No one is suggesting that there is ongoing revelation. What I was arguing was that private judgment wasn’t operative in the first century at least with regard to legitimate authority. In other words, Christians couldn’t appeal to their interpretation in OPPOSITION to the apostles’ teachings or their legitimate successors.
//I guess what the issue is in the last 200 years your church came to recognize due to historical analysis that previous claims that all their beliefs were delivered by the apostles were untenable.//
You would have to explain.
//Mark 7 teaches both material and formal sufficiency. I have a video which covers this if you're interested. //
Mark 7 would simply be an instance of binding and loosing, without it having been authorized by heaven. In fact, there was never an official decree by the Sanhedrin to my recollection that made such a claim regarding washing hands. Even supposing that the rabbis didn’t have such authority, Jesus now clearly gives that the apostles and their successors in Matthew 16.
//As we see in both the New Testament and Old, God expects us to reject teachings coming to us in the name of God which don't conform to Scripture? How do you think an Israelite was supposed to detect that a prophet was a false prophet?//
You don’t need revelation to know that Idolatry and polytheism are wrong; this is clearly stated by Romans 1:19-20. Given that the Jews accepted the infallibility of tradition and the authority of their teachers (in some cases even the infallibility of their decrees), we know that they didn’t practice sola scriptura; so I don’t know why you are even bringing the Jews up. The same would be second century Christians; they had the traditions of the apostles and their legitimate successors.
Your comment merely proves the necessity of an ongoing teaching authority. Here is an argument for you:
(1) The deposit of faith (DF) was received in fullness by the Holy Apostles.
(2) One may construct a proposition P that contains concepts or facts unknown to the apostolic generation.
Who decides whether P contradicts or is consistent with DF? The Apostles themselves could not answer. Though they knew DF in its fullness, they could not have been aware of P. So we will not find the answer explicitly written in Scripture. We need a teaching authority who understands both DF and P.
@YAJUN YUAN I don't know why you are copying and pasting the same comment on different posts that have nothing to do with the content of those aforementioned posts. If you want to debate me, I already told you that we can do so on a different forum such as streamyard or over the phone.
Regarding your comment, a Catholic can licitly hold to the view that all of Christian doctrine was materially (i.e., implicitly) committed to writing. However, I don't necessarily adhere to that view. I think the strongest counter argument is that oral teaching (through legitimate succession) was the primary mode of handing on apostolic teaching. As proof of this, only 5 out of the 11 original apostles committed anything to writing. Plus we are not including the numerous other disciples who committed nothing to writing. If oral teaching was unreliable as you suggest then it wouldn't have been their primary mode of teaching.
While I respect Dr. Ortlund a ton, I can't help but notice that he often refers to feelings or senses about some of Jimmy's questions. He refers to an instinct around 26 minutes. Just an observation.
Regarding the argument from anarchy, Dr. Ortlund's insistence that every tradition has its own tradition and magisterium is true.... but the difference (as he notes) is that Catholics claim theirs can be infallible.
Well, that is the difference which makes the difference. If the tradition cannot rise to infallibility, then the corallary is that it could by wrong. One can always say that a given tradition needs to be "checked against scripture."
The key question is: "Who does the checking?" Under Sola Scriptura there really is no answer to that question. So while the early Protestants may have said they honored tradition, by saying it COULD be wrong, they made for themselves an escape hatch in case they found something in the tradition they didn't like. But once that door is opened for one person, it is open for all.
In defence against the anarchy argument, Dr. Ortlund appealed to the internal magisterium of each tradition. Yeah, individuals with a strong loyalty to their tradition don't feel themselves free to go out of bounds. However, the growing trend within Protestantism is a lack of loyalty to a single denomination. So this pressure isn't so much applicable to the average layman.
That said, one also needs to ask: "How did each of those traditions come about in the first place?" The answer is..... someone went out of bounds of his tradition and made a new one. And since no tradition is infallible, there's nothing to say definitively that you can't do that. That's what is made possible by saying the tradition is fallible. And that's why the anarchy argument is one which ultimately finds its mark.
I did a video you may want to look up called "the Psychology of Catholic Converts." Without reiterating the arguments here, the desire for everything to be clean & orderly doesn't make it so.
Also, you know Pope Francis is your pope, right?
@@aGoyforJesus : I think psychologizing away other people's motivations is not a good way of pursuading folks. Nor is sarcasm.
@@actsapologist1991 // I think psychologizing away other people's motivations is not a good way of pursuading folks. //
You guys straight up tell us what your considerations are. Are we not supposed to analyze it?
// Nor is sarcasm.//
You go on and on about the speck in Sola Scriptura's eye but ignore the Pope Francis-shaped log in your own.
Jimmy is such a bright mind filled with the Holy Spirit, his position was extremely convincing in both these sessions.
amen my brother
Tradition and magisterium as a guardrail against errant private interpretation of Scripture - 100% yes.
This is a big reason I stopped believing in Sola Scriptura: because it led me through my private interpretations into dangerous territory that paradoxically caused a shipwreck in the faith!
And as a former Protestant, I've seen it lead many others into the same dangerous error, not the least of which is my best friend who led me to Christ and who is now a pastor of his own church where he teaches things that are borderline heresy.
@@jakesanders136 Good point. There is no escaping personal intuition, conscience, and interpretation. Adding a magisterium really just removes the issue a step back. One reason I chose Orthodoxy and not RC.
"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name."
(John 20: 30-31)
"But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
(John 21: 25)
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter."
(2 Thessalonians 2: 15)
"Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
(2 Peter 3: 14-16)
Akin: If Sola Scriptura were true, there would need to be some hint or clue from the Apostles that, after we die, your faith in our authority needs to be lessened or transferred primarily to Scripture itself.
1 John 2:27
"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit-just as it has taught you, remain in him."
Sola Scriptura is implicitly taught in the Bible by the fact that it teaches established Scripture takes precedence over all other further alleged inspired infallible revelation [whether given in written, verbal, oral, angelic or oneiric form] so long as those further revelations haven't yet been authenticated and/or recognized as being inspired and infallible revelation. This was the case since inscripturation began with Moses. The Torah was the standard and final court of appeal until later recognized revelation was added little by little.
Since you're only absolutely required to believe what is inspired and infallible revelation, and since all alleged revelation since the death of the Apostles isn't certain revelation, Sola Scriptura follows. Even under Catholicism this is especially true since Catholicism officially affirms that new revelation stopped with the death of the Apostles. Which is the same thing as saying that the Catholic Church affirms she does not produce new inspired revelation.
OBJECTION: "But if the post-apostolic church could recognize written revelation, why can't it recognize oral revelation?" The problem is that as times passes, it becomes more and more difficult for the church to determine what's truly Apostolic. Whereas it was much easier for the early church to recognize written Apostolic tradition [i.e. the Scriptures] precisely BECAUSE it was written with all the advantages of being written [e.g. chain of custody better proven etc.]. So, written revelation suffers less from the degradation of the "telephone game." In all previous ages infallibility and revelational inspiration went hand in hand. It's Catholicism that posits the theological novum of having infallibility apart from revelational inspiration. For example, in the Catholic claim of infallible Ecumenical Councils. Sola Scriptura preserves the connection between infallibility and revelational inspiration.
In fact, this concept of the priority of Scripture is already found in the OT EVEN when there were living prophets who could give fresh inspired revelation. Even their revelation had to be tested by the already existing and acknowledged Written revelation of the Torah [and as the Writings and Prophets were slowly added]. Even Paul submitted his teaching to the scrutiny of the Scriptures [Acts 17:11]. Even the Apostles could be tested [Gal. 1:8; Rev. 2:2]. Even the Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, who could pull rank, nevertheless hinged His messianic and divine claims and authority on conformity to Scripture.
If that type of Scriptural priority was the case DURING times when fresh revelation in all forms [written, verbal, angelic, oneiric etc,] were being given, HOW MUCH MORE should Scriptural priority be enforced AFTER new inspired revelation has ceased and the certainty of oral traditions claiming to be Apostolic revelation becomes less and less certain due to the "telephone game" effect as time passes? Jesus' teaching on tradition applies to all traditions unless Catholics can show that their alleged Apostolic traditions are truly Apostolic. A case can be made that Jesus' teaching on tradition in Matt. 15 regarding alleged Mosaic traditions parallel and should apply to alleged Apostolic traditions. It's rigging the game for a Catholic to say genuine Apostolic traditions are exempt from that Dominical test, and then go on to presuppose their traditions are genuinely Apostolic a priori. The whole point of the Dominical test is to question all traditions, including and especially those claiming to be truly authoritative.
With regard to Jimmy's statement in 15:00 to 15:35, there is reason to think something radical and drastic changed. Namely, there are no longer any living Apostles who can given fresh inspired revelation or can infallibly (via inspiration) tell us which oral traditions are genuine and binding. They all died. What made the 1st century church magisterium and councils infallible was precisely because of the presence of inspired Apostles who could speak on Christ's behalf with inspired revelational authority. Whereas in Catholic "Apostolic Succession, the alleged "Successors" don't have all of the prerogatives of the original Apostles [and that by the admission of the Catholic Church]. So, what use is it to call them Successors of the Apostles if they don't have all the rights and privileges/prerogatives of the 12 Apostles and Paul? Like writing Scripture. Or making divinely inspired decisions and decrees like Moses. That's just playing word games.
With regard to 17:32 there is no parallel reverence for oral tradition in the OT on with it's reverence for written Scripture. Why don't Roman Catholic accept Jewish claims of the oral law that came down from Moses [which are parallel to Catholic claims of oral apostolic tradition]? Why don't they add the alleged Jewish Oral Law to their Canon Law or to Scripture? The priority of Scripture over oral tradition in the OT age should be paralleled in the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic age [i.e. Sola Scriptura]. Just as the wariness of OT oral traditions under Christ and the Apostles should be paralleled with wariness of alleged Apostolic oral tradition in the Post-Apostolic age. See Messianic Jew Eitan Bar's books refuting the Jewish Oral Law. The same type of arguments should be applied to alleged Apostolic oral tradition. Or watch his debate with rabbi Chaim Sheitrit where he lists many of the arguments in his books during the course of the debate.
Regrading the dilemma Jimmy refers to in 57:44 , I would say that what Jimmy said about Jesus and the Jews who had different canons. Like how the Lord held the Sadducees accountable to the canon they accepted which seems to have been very truncated. This is why as a Protestant I don't think that Sola Scriptura depends or requires one have the correct canon. I think Sola Scriptura can function even with an imperfect canon. The priority of Scripture in the OT [which wasn't exactly Sola Scriptura] functioned even when the OT canon wasn't complete, yet God could judge the Jews based on their incomplete canon. I believe something similar is the case under the New Covenant regarding Sola Scriptura and an imperfect knowledge of the OT and NT canon..
Hey Jimmy! Will you be doing more of these dialogues with Gavin? This was so helpful, I'd love to see more. Thank you so much!
Humans are just searching for an answer that we never can be sure of. I don’t know. Seems to be the best answer.
Great discussion, Jimmy. Learned a bunch and great info to balance the Catholic approach to not oversell certain ideas.
I wish I could discuss as calm and respectful as these two with people of different faith. Such a great example. Thank you!
I will share all your videos with my 22,500 followers on Linkedin. God Bless You Jimmy, You are a gift.
@Jimmy Akin, it will be interesting to hear from Gavin regarding Augustine and Scripture. I am reading On Christian Doctrine. While there are some concepts that Protestants would accept (Scripture interprets Scripture, clearer passages help ambiguous ones), Augustine has a different view of Church life.
Gavin has a video on Augustine’s affirmation of sola scriptura
Just the first 11 minutes should convince most people that Sola Scriptura is false.
Now have 30,00+ denominations!
Right there you've demonstrated RC is false so well done 👍♥️.
The scripture says, in the wisdom literature, 'the first person appears to be correct until he's challenged' see 11:45minutes also
Saying something is false, then immediately following it with your own false statement (the oft-repeated but blatantly mythical '30,000 denominations' urban legend) doesn't really do much for the reliability and trustworthiness of your case. If only you approached a desire for accuracy as diligently as either of these two gentlemen.
@@Mic1904 that's not what they did at all. When the thought they saw something that was not true, the would question ititerally, never accuse the power person spreading lies.
@@thomasdimattia3556 No idea which part of my comment that's a reply to, sorry
Dr Ortland asked to point to where the Bible teaches sola scriptura even implicitly. He states that the Bible is divenely inspired which is true. He then issues an opinion that such level of presence is only in Scripture. It does not answer the question. There need to be an argument inferred from Scripture for the exclusiveness of scripture v tradition which Jmmy Akin proves to be uncharacteristic of first century and in any event impossible to implement viably at that time. And Jimmy Akin already argued that all the seeds for God's plan were laid down from the very start.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:51 *🎙️ Gavin Ortland discusses the concept of sola scriptura, emphasizing its importance in Protestant theology.*
02:46 *📖 Gavin argues that if Scripture is sufficient for teaching all doctrines, then it must implicitly or explicitly teach sola scriptura, to avoid self-refutation.*
06:11 *💬 Gavin challenges the concept of sola scriptura by highlighting the early Christian reliance on Scripture, tradition, and magisterium.*
08:37 *🔍 Jimmy Akin argues against sola scriptura by suggesting that the New Testament doesn't explicitly support the doctrine, and early Christians relied on Scripture, tradition, and magisterium.*
11:24 *💭 Gavin Ortland counters the argument for sola scriptura by stating that the New Testament doesn't foresee a shift away from reliance on tradition and magisterium post-apostolic age.*
12:21 *💬 Jimmy Akin contends that Scripture's divine authority makes sola scriptura a reasonable inference, supported by passages like 2 Peter 1:20-21.*
20:42 *📜 Jimmy Akin references Matthew 15 to illustrate Jesus' critique of human traditions conflicting with divine commands, suggesting that not all traditions are trustworthy.*
24:13 *📜 Gavin Ortlund discusses the acknowledgment of divine backing to the Pharisees' position by Jesus in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, supporting the Protestant instinct of sola scriptura.*
25:46 *📖 Sola scriptura is viewed as a modest doctrine, advocating for measuring later developments against divine authority found in the word of God.*
27:52 *💬 Translation choices, like substituting "tradition" with "teaching" in some passages, can impact the understanding of tradition's role in the New Testament.*
30:38 *🤝 Catholic apologists may oversell arguments against sola scriptura, leading to misrepresentations of Protestant views on doctrinal authority.*
31:33 *🌍 Sola scriptura historically correlates with greater doctrinal diversity in Protestantism compared to churches recognizing a greater role for tradition and magisterium.*
32:58 *🔍 While individuals interpret scripture, Catholicism emphasizes additional resources like tradition and magisterium to prevent doctrinal error.*
35:05 *🏛️ Protestants operate within ecclesial contexts and adhere to doctrinal standards, though not viewing them as infallible authorities like the magisterium in Catholicism.*
39:58 *🤔 Determining consensus within Christianity throughout history presents challenges due to differing interpretations and criteria for defining "everybody" and "everywhere."*
42:05 *📚 Gavin Ortlund suggests that the criterion of consensus among Christians throughout time is one of several criteria for theological judgment, not a sole criterion.*
45:46 *🔍 Protestants, like Catholics, engage in discernment and dialogue with ecclesiastical traditions, balancing scripture, tradition, and reason in theological interpretation.*
48:02 *📜 The role of the church in establishing the canon of scripture is a point of contention, with Catholics emphasizing the church's role in providing the Bible, while Protestants may view it differently.*
48:16 *📜 The claim that the Church gave us the Bible requires nuance, acknowledging its role in preserving and passing on both the Old and New Testament scriptures.*
51:02 *🕊️ Various ways the Church contributed to the formation of the Bible include transmitting Jewish scriptures, producing the New Testament writings, and discerning the canon over centuries, all guided by the Holy Spirit.*
55:38 *💡 Jesus held people accountable to the scriptures they recognized, suggesting a flexible understanding of canon even in ancient times, as seen in interactions with different Jewish sects.*
57:58 *📚 The question of the canon becomes crucial for adherents of sola scriptura, as the inclusion or exclusion of books affects doctrinal integrity, highlighting the importance of defining the biblical canon, especially in the Protestant context.*
01:04:05 *🤝 The Second Vatican Council aimed to articulate Catholic doctrine in a way that fostered understanding and common ground with Protestant perspectives, emphasizing areas of agreement while respecting differences.*
I'm really glad you are being active and disscusing this important topics as Sola SCriptura and Soteriology with new Protestant apologists.
This is not even a debate. Jimmy Akin is level 9999999999 when it comes to Christianity
If ancient Jews believed sola scriptura, they would have thought the New Testament didn't belong in the Bible.
Ah, what class, from both men! Of course, I side with one more than the other but I can't help but admire the gentleness and clarity each use to present their respective positions!
Is it just me, or does it feel like once Dr. Ortlund explains his "uncaricutured" nuanced views on various Protestant issues, it begins to sound a lot like Catholic ways? :-)
Jimmy is on to the similarities. For instance Catholics believe you can walk away from God and some protestants say they were never truly saved to begin with. Then end result is exactly the same "a person who loses salvation" but the way we describe it sounds wildly different.
As a Protestant, I would have to give points to Jimmy for the epic beard and admit to beard envy.
Joking aside, thank you for posting this really informative video. I hope to be as kind as both of you were here while firmly stating what you believe and where disagreements are.
On the topic of the development of the Canon, my bigger issue is not "the Church gave us the Bible and thus we must obey the Church," but rather that if we accept the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture - as the Church does - then many of the contested doctrines like purgatory, indulgences, veneration and intercession of the Saints, some of our Sacramental theology, and a bunch of other stuff becomes a foregone conclusion. As Calvin himself said, even just drawing from the wellspring of Sirach is sufficient to provide proof of most of these.
Excellent Jimmy. Please do a video every day!
This debate is amazing charity-wise and very interesting.
Fun video!! Thank you both!
So Gavin affirms sola scriptura by defying sola scriptura? How can you ground sola scriptura on an aggregate summation of scripture which is explicitly not sola scriptura, but yet affirm sola scriptura when it can’t be used to establish itself?
Very nice discussion. I shared with my 18 yo son.
One important point which I think gets lost in the discussion of Sola Scriptura is why the Scriptures, particularly the New Testament is considered by many the foundation and rule of their faith. That is because they uniquely contain the actual teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, the very teaching which Christians purport to believe and live by.
This is my question exactly. Why do we even believe the New Testament Bible if not for the Church putting it together and declaring that it is infallible? I am desperate for an answer on this question. Catholics say the Church put the Bible together. Protestants say “NO the Bible revealed itself." Protestants say "the Church no more gave us the Bible than Newton gave us gravity.” For me not growing up in a religious home I just read the Bible until I was convinced that it was not a myth. I read it carefully many times, so I know the contents pretty well. So to the question as to why we should trust anything the early Church did; this is what the Bible says: Jesus said 1) He was going to build a single Church. 2) He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 3) He said that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. 4) He said that He was going to send the "Spirit of Truth" to guide the Church in all truth. Then Paul says 5) the pillar and bulwark of truth is “the church.” Okay so let us look in church history at the Canon. In 382 AD the Church had the Council at Rome and determined that the canon was 73 books. They chose which books are infallible. That would be a radically important thing right? So the question is why would we trust those 73 books? Well, the answer is that Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the age. He also said he would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. So we should trust what he says right? So from 382 AD to 1520 AD the Church that operated on the earth had the 73 book canon. But then Protestants come along and around 1520 AD and they claim that the early Church got the 73 book canon wrong. I am not being rude or belligerent but I really would like someone to explain - calmly and in simple language because I am slow - Please tell me how that is not absurd to say the Church got the 73 book Canon wrong based on Jesus promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and to send the “Spirit of Truth” to guide the church in All TRUTH.
I am not being belligerent here really, I earnestly want to know. Did Jesus lie? Did He make a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make an error with the 73 book canon?
I cannot for the life of me believe that the church which is described as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” was not even on the earth from 382 To 1520. But then let’s move on; let’s say that the Protestants are right and the Church errored in the 73 Book canon. If the Church errored in the 73 book canon did God wait from 382 AD until 1520 before He restored the real truth? Are we really going to believe that for 1200 years the true Christian Church was not there? You could not say the true church was there if they could not even get the correct books in the canon. And I don’t see any other church in history declaring anything different than the 73 book canon. So the real church with the correct Bible was not on earth if the Protestant claim is true. Can that make any sense? I am just a guy who read the Bible very closely and came down on the Catholic side only recently but now I have Protestants telling me I am going to hell. I am not being rude or accusatory. But please tell me how it is not absurd that Jesus says he would create one Church. He would be with the Church to the end of the age. He would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in ALL TRUTH. But then for one of the most important issues in all of Christianity the early Church gets 73 book canon wrong and so the real truth on this issue is not there until 1520. If that is true that would make me question the Christian truth claims entirely. Just a reasoned answer from a Protestant without it have to be a nasty debate would be good.
To be Catholic is to agree(free will) with everything in the Bible with the confidence that the Church has a coherent and logical explaination.
Just a thought in esegesis of scripture, it is very apparent that transcribing from a source often many mistakes occurred. Such as missing or repeating lines of scripture. The Lord's prayer is an example when a scribe added a phrase after "but deliver us from evil" in his desire to glorify God. There have been many hands in selecting the canon of thr bible.
Just took in both parts. That was some good listening. Much more interesting and intellectually satisfying than all the snark that is so prevalent these days
Uh oh. He couldn’t get past that fact that the Old Testament was not final during Jesus time. That’s a big thing there. A glaring fact that Protestants cannot change. It is like how they try to change the location of the tomb. Try funny indeed.
You are awesome Jimmy Akins you nailed it
Sola Scriptura is a doctrine nowhere to be found until the 16th century … that’s all one needs to know.
This is how you have a reasonable discussion to flush out issues bringing us to a deeper understanding of truth
Who Made the Bible? - Fun Facts
1) In 382 AD, Pope Saint Damascus presided over the Council of Rome that determined the Canon - or official list of Sacred Scripture. He chose the Scriptures which thru Tradition considered genuine, ordered, and divinely revealed.
2) Between 397 and 467 AD, St. Jerome - aided by the Holy Spirit - translated holy Scripture for thirty years in a cave in Bethlehem. It was called the “Latin Vulgate.“
3) When St. Jerome had finished his works, he presented it to Pope Saint Siricius who called it the “Bible,” - which means ‘collection of books.’
4) In 200 AD, Tertullian - a prolific early Christian writer - gave the term ‘New Testament’ to the New Testament of the Holy Bible. Tertullian is also the oldest extant Latin writer to use the term “trinitas” or “Trinity.”
5) Archbishop Stephen Langton and Cardinal Hugo De Caro are both credited for creating Chapters and Verses in the Holy Bible.
For Gavin to say we don't pick and choose, but "discern" is basically rejecting Jimmy's very reasonable point that put world view may give weights to different passages. Nonsense on Gavins part
Hey Jimmy! Thanks so much for the thoughtful discussion. In your analysis of Matthew 15, it sounded to me like you actually did give scripture a place of primacy. Would you say that your position holds a ‘prima scriptura’ view? And are Catholic positions somewhat diverse on this issue-of how exactly to express the relationship between scripture and tradition?
This was great. My take away was that Gavin was saying pretty close to what you were saying. Especially when he brought up the statements of faith from the Presbyterian church. It seems like Gavin agrees but he's skeptical about Catholic authority
(He did come/Parousia in 70AD 👍🙌👍) Great videos! Really blessed by them! Thank you both 🙏
I love this sort of discussion, because it helps me greatly to guard myself against being uncharitable with my protestant brothers. If we don't fully understand the other side's views, it is hard to be charitable towards them even as people. Even if I know that Protestants are wrong (and they are), I would be an idiot if I thought they did not have a strong intellectual tradition to back their error. And it would be disrespectful on my part to act as if I can shrug off the work of thousands of great minds with a random half-thought out counterargument.
Thank you sir. And also the feeling is mutual i also know Roman Catholics are wrong and will also give them the same courtesy you gave us . I also respectfully say this
And that argument about it being critically important as to what is Scripture is what's leading me down this path of study. I've been researching what books are inspired, because, as a Protestant, if I dont have all the right books, my theology cannot be right. If the reformers threw out 7 books (plus the deutero portions of Daniel and Esther), then I cant have a right theology. And if, as so far my studying seems to be showing me, the Deuterocanon is inspired Scripture, then I'm in the wrong church.
But isn't it strange that Jesus never mentions these other texts but simply divides the scriptures up in to "the law (Torah) and the prophets" and only adds the 'writings' like the psalms and Daniel to that?
And isn't it strange that Mary quotes psalms 103:17 and 107:9 but never the apocrypha?
And Peter quotes Joel and the psalms but never apocrypha?
And Paul quotes psalms and law and writings but never apocrypha?
Etc
How does Ephesians 3:1-10 read to you?
@@stephenglasse9756 except that that line of reasoning leads to us tossing a good portion of the OT, since no one directly quotes from several OT books, and leads to the inclusion of such apocryphal works as the Book of Enoch. So, no, it isn't strange.
@@elizabethrene1320 but the Jews divided the OT into 'the Torah the prophets and the writings'. This is so today as well in which the OT ends with 2 Chronicles rather than Malachi. So Jesus himself agreed with that division. None of the NT figures inc Jesus, Mary, Peter and Paul ever cite an apocryphal text either by name or author
Hello. Jimmy. I've been trying to follow Catholicism's claims in order to understand the arguments of Rome. So far, I've come to this conclusion: Catholicism claims its origin and authenticity based on its presuppositional traditional epistemology in regard to the identity, origin and authority of the church within the history of the church :). Would that be a fair statement? I'm a Protestant. Thank you.
Howdy, Savedby_grace! I'm afraid that I wouldn't recognize that statement as a standard expression of Catholic thought. Catholic thought tends away from presuppositionalism, at least as that term is understood in Protestant circles, and typically proceeds along evidentialist lines. I hope this is helpful!
Can't wait for when Ortlund announces his conversion to the CC
I give Gavin a whole lot of credit doing the debate, he's a good guy. Gavin couldn't quite grasp the Bible came from the Church.
Really amazing conversation!
Jimmy, man, give more time to your guest.
I agree that this is a concern, and it is one I share. I am conscious of the issue of trying to provide balanced time for both dialogue partners. Part of the issue is that I needed to summarize the points Gavin made in his initial video and provide a response before asking for his response in return. I then tried not to interrupt him EXCEPT to agree with him and support what he was saying. Some of Gavin's answers were shorter than I expected, and I would have been happy for him to speak more at length. However, I wish that there was more of a time balance, and I will work toward this in the future. The balance would have been closer in this one if we had a moderator who could have summarized points in Gavin's initial video before asking me for a response and then asking Gavin for his response in return. God bless you!
@@JimmyAkin Sorry for the blast. As I said in the other video, you're very kind and charitable but, like myself, long-winded, lol. Maybe that's why I was thinking "Hurry up already." It was a good discussion, though.
@@marcuswilliams7448 No problem! Like I said, it's a legitimate concern, and I hope to do better in the future!
08:40. Something interesting I just thought of is that if you look at the writings of the Apostolic Fathers compared to the writings of the Church Fathers onward, there is definitely a shift that takes place in tone.
The writings of the Apostolic Fathers like 1 Clement and Polycarp's letter and so forth sound like you're still reading the New Testament. I think 1 Clement almost made it into the New Testament for this reason.
But once you reach the Church Fathers like Irenaeus, it starts the age of the theologians and the apologists. They start developing concrete doctrine based on the writings and traditions of the Apostles and the Apostolic Fathers. Their writing no longer sounds like you're reading Scripture.
The Iranaeus "Jesus age" issue was simply Iranaeus speaking of the age of an elder. According to Jewish tradition, to an elder with authority to teach on scripture was over 30 to 50. Iranaeus was proving Jesus having to be over 30 for him to be an elder with authority. Many like to say he was saying Jesus was in his 50's but that's over reading into his main point.
Jimmy Akin, a wise man indeed.
Regarding 2Tim3:15-17, i noticed Prots stress the qualifiers attributed to the man of God ("complete" and "fully" and "every") but fail to stress the qualifer attributed to Scripture which is "All".
The qualifier "All" leaves open the possibility of other things being inspired of God. Stressing the qualities of the man of God does not teach Sola Scriptura.
Let me give you an example: All military documents and manuals are useful/profiitable for making a soldier complete, fully equiped for every military duty.
The above does not mean Sola Manual. Soldiers need Military leadership, training, battle field Intel and much more.
Prot's only source of Truth is Scripture and yet they don't even understand basic grammatical logic.
2 Pet 3:16
"as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
Thanks for all you do Jimmy.
Would love to see a digest from Mr Jimmy. I think i happened many times during the conversation a situation where Mr Gavin denied the reason given without providing any counter. I'm not sure i can grasp it, but I felt that in such cases Mr. Jimmy just moved on instead of confronting.
My poor Saint Irenaeus' always misunderstood when speaking about Jesus' age.
Seemed like Dr Ortlund was responding at 1:01:37 but it was redacted. Is the unedited version available somewhere?
His cell phone went off at that point, so I re-stated the point I was making and we went on from there to wrap up. No doctrinal material was omitted. The only things missing are him apologizing for his cell phone going off and me saying not to worry, that I'd remote it in the editing.
@@JimmyAkin Awesome. Thank you for clarifying.
I must say that after hearing both sides, if I wanted to follow the pattern set by first century Christians it seems much more plausible that the Catholic position makes more sense and would seem to fit God's plan for salvation. I also think Jimmy should have pointed out an important point. That is that Sacred Tradition works its way into the Catholic liturgy and also that Sacred Tradition cannot contradict Sacred Scripture. Why? The Holy Spirit ensures that God's truth whether oral or written remains true and thus, cannot contradict each other.
Scripture points to the sacraments. Jesus lived a sacramental life did he not ?
He lived following the Torah
Protestant = Salvation by Faith Only
Bible = You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone
I admire Dr. Ortlund because he's a gentle, humble role model. God blessed him with some virtues I crave. So I hope I'll be like him someday. But since I belong to the Catholic Traditionalist movement. I agree with pre-Vatican II popes when they teach that only Catholics are members of Christ's Mystical Body. There's no such thing as the Christian Church if that phrase stands for all Christians.
Being in the Catholic Church differs from being a member of it. Each Catholic is in the Catholic Church, but a non-Catholic can be in it as a nonmember. For example, baptism by desire or an implied intention to become Catholic can put someone into it. Dr. Ortlund may be in it now, but no Protestant is a member of it.
I'm telling you these things because it's a dogma that there's salvation in only the Catholic Church. If that dogma is true, the non-Catholic kinds of Christianity can't get anyone to heaven. On the other hand, the Holy Ghost can help particular people in those groups go there. Sadly, Vatican II suggests those groups are alternative "boats sailing to it.
Seems like there's a bit of equivocation regarding the first century Christians' conception of authority as including scripture, tradition, and magisterium. Excepting the Old Testament, in their case those three all refer to the direct teaching of living apostles - i.e., their written teaching, verbal teaching, and their decision together at the council of Jerusalem. For us today, scripture is the only one of the three that still refers to the same thing.
To put it another way, you could equally characterize the first century Christian's understanding of authority as the Old Testament and teaching that came directly from the apostles. Maintaining that model of authority today when the apostles are no longer living would essentially result in a form of Sola Scriptura.
I don't think there is any equivocation going on. The typical definition given for sola scriptura is that scripture is the only infallible source of authority for Christians. However, this definition is undermined by the three-fold infallible authority that existed in the first century. If we are to accept sola scriptura on doctrinal grounds there should be some indication that a paradigmatic shift occurred after the first century, which I can't find any evidence of. The power of binding and loosing, which was given in perpetuity to the Church, also mitigates against such a view.
Furthermore, the teaching authority of the apostles was not strictly confined to handing on revelation. Not all of the apostles received or wrote down revelation, but they still retained the charism of infallibility through dignity of their office. This runs into issues with the uniquely protestant doctrine of private judgement. Private judgement, as an absolute principle, even with a full canon, couldn't have been operative within the first century, especially if you admit the the binding authority of the Apostles. Obviously, the Apostles couldn't have taught a doctrine which was contrary to their own authority.
@@contrasedevacantism6811 I guess I didn't quite convey my point clearly. When I say equivocation, I mean the that the meaning of the word changes in course of the argument. If we say "First century believers accepted the authority of tradition and the magisterium, therefore we should accept the authority of tradition and the magisterium," the meaning of the words has changed from the first half of the sentence to the second.
When we say the first century believers accepted the authority of tradition, we mean things the apostles told them in person rather than by letter. When we say they accepted the authority of the magisterium we mean the decision the apostles rendered as a group at the council of Jerusalem.
So, when we say that we should therefore accept the authority of tradition and the magisterium today, are we saying that we should accept the authority of the apostles direct verbal teaching, and any decisions rendered by a gathering of the apostles? No, instead, tradition means certain teachings of prominent Christian teachers over the last 2,000 years, as selected by the officials of the church of Rome, and the magisterium means the teaching of those same officials. That's what I mean by equivocation.
On the second point, I'm not sure what you mean by the protestant doctrine of private judgement. I'm a theologically inclined protestant and I've never heard of such a doctrine.
@@benjaminledford6111 I don't think you understand what Akin is arguing. Akin is not arguing that Protestants should accept the traditions and magisterium of Rome on the basis that it perpetuates the 1st century ecclesial model, but that the ecclesial model of the first century was so radically different from Protestant praxis of sola scriptura (i.e., private judgement), that we should see such a paradigmatic shift indicated in scripture. Private judgement simply means that any teaching proposed by the ecclesial hierarchy is to be checked with Scripture through the locus of the private individual. As Luther once said: “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!” However, private judgement (as defined above) was never operative within either the Jewish or Christian covenant community. This was the invention of Luther.
Regarding your understanding of the term magisterium, the term magisterium simply means teaching authority, and can be exercised by any bishop; it doesn't need to be a corporate act as in the context of a council.
Jesus in scripture seems to say go to the church. He doesn't say go to different churches of your choice
Good job guys . I really enjoyed the " The Church gave us the Bible" part I wish there was more said on that and it leaves me with a question . Would it be fair to ask Gavin if the process of recognizing scripture, as he put it ,has to be infallible itself ?
Hi Vincent, that's another area that I think could have been fleshed out more. I think generally the process of N.T. formation was a very organic process, that the body of believers in the first, second, third centures by and large were already aware of which books were authoritative. I believe there was some debate regarding a couple of the books in the final cannonisation process. Some Catholics (not all) would say that the Catholic Church decided what books were cannon and therefore the Roman Catholic church is authoritative, which I think is a misrepresentation of the process.
@@anthonywhitney634 To quote the (late) Protestant scholar. R.C. Sproul, “The Bible is a fallible list of infallible books.” How can a result be greater than its source? How can a fallible early Christian community (i.e. the Catholic Church, the only Christian Church in existence) determine an infallible Canon of Scripture? Differing lists of scripture were proposed by the early Catholic Christian community, but the official 73 book OT/NT canon we have today was defined by the Catholic Christian Bishops in union with the Pope in ecumenical Council in the late 4th century. Take it or leave it. It’s historical fact! The 73 book bible stood unchanged and unchallenged until the “reformers” in the 16th century deleted seven OT books. Why? Very faulty scholarship I’d say. They conformed their OT canon to the Jewish canon of the 2nd century. I’m a Christian and I don’t recognize any nonChristian authority.
Maybe Gavin will move more toward catholic positions, and find even more light. He should ask convert baptists about what finally got them convinced about catholic doctine instead of their own.
Thank you for the peaceful way that this was discussed. I really wish Christianity was not so divided. But one thing did not come up in this debate that I thinks strikes at the hear of the issue and if some Protestant could offer me a reasoned explanation on this one issue I would appreciate it. I am desperate for an answer on this one question. Regarding the topic of this debate Sola Scriptura; The question comes down to how can we trust the Bible? Catholics say the Church put the Bible together. Gavin says “NO the Bible revealed itself." He said said "the Church no more gave us the Bible than Newton gave us gravity.” For me not growing up in a religious home I just read the Bible until I was convinced that it was not a myth. I read it carefully many times, so I know the contents pretty well but not so much the interpretation. So to the question as to why we should trust anything the early Church did; this is what the Bible says: Jesus said 1) He was going to build a single Church. 2) He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 3) He said that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. 4) He said that He was going to send the "Spirit of Truth" to guide the Church in all truth. Then Paul says 5) the pillar and bulwark of truth is “the church.” Okay so let us look in church history at the Canon. In 382 AD the Church had the Council at Rome and determined that the canon was 73 books. They chose which books are infallible. That would be a radically important thing right? So the question is why would we trust those 73 books? Well, the answer is that Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the age. He also said he would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. So we should trust what he says right? So from 382 AD to 1520 AD the Church that operated on the earth had the 73 book canon. But then Protestants come along and around 1520 AD and they claim that the early Church got the 73 book canon wrong. I am not being rude or belligerent but I really would like someone to explain - calmly and in simple language because I am slow - Please tell me how that is not absurd to say the Church got the 73 book Canon wrong based on Jesus promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and to send the “Spirit of Truth” to guide the church in All TRUTH.
I am not being belligerent here really, I earnestly want to know. Did Jesus lie? Did He make a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make an error with the 73 book canon?
I cannot for the life of me believe that the church which is described as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” was not even on the earth from 382 To 1520. But then let’s move on; let’s say that the Protestants are right and the Church errored in the 73 Book canon. If the Church errored in the 73 book canon did God wait from 382 AD until 1520 before He restored the real truth? Are we really going to believe that for 1200 years the true Christian Church was not there? You could not say the true church was there if they could not even get the correct books in the canon. And I don’t see any other church in history declaring anything different than the 73 book canon. So the real church with the correct Bible was not on earth if the Protestant claim is true. Can that make any sense? I am just a guy who read the Bible very closely and came down on the Catholic side only recently but now I have Protestants telling me I am going to hell. I am not being rude or accusatory. But please tell me how it is not incoherent that Jesus says he would create one Church. He would be with the Church to the end of the age. He would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in ALL TRUTH. But then for one of the most important issues in all of Christianity the early Church gets 73 book canon wrong and so the real truth on this issue is not there until 1520. If that is true that would make me question the Christian truth claims entirely. Just a reasoned answer to this question would really help me.
In John, Jesus said that the Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth. Not the church.
No one saw the council of Rome’s canon as binding. That’s why the Eastern Orthodox have a different canon, and why many Catholics at the time of the Reformation (and before it) rejected some or all of the deuterocanonical books.
Jesus said that hades would not prevail against the church, but all that statement requires is that the church not compromise the gospel. It doesn’t at all imply that the church will always infallibly teach every doctrine. You can be a church victorious over hades even if you are wrong on some doctrinal points, like the veneration of the saints. The same is true of the church being the pillar of the truth.
@@bmide1110 What is your evidence that "no one saw the Council of Rome as binding?" That is how the early Church determined the doctrine of the Trinity in 325 AD and the Doctrine of the Incarnation in 431 AD. Were those councils binding? The Church said the canon was the 73 books listed in the Council of Rome. The same 73 books were confirmed in the council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397. There is no evidence I see anywhere to back your claim that "no one" saw the council of Rome as binding. Can you sight some evidence of that somewhere? Let us take these issues one at a time. For your other claims
1. That the Holy Spirit guiding in all truth was only meant for the apostles not the Church. So the apostles who Jesus used to start the church were guided in all truth - - so are you saying that the Apostolic Fathers like Ignatius, Clement, and Polycarp were they all making major mistakes already in their time? If you think that Jesus promise to send the Holy Spirit was only for the apostles, what about Jesus promise to be with the Church until the end of time. If Jesus was with the church are you saying that it was okay with Jesus that different groups could have different "doctrinal points."
When you say that when Jesus said that the hades would not prevail against the church it only means that the church would not compromise the gospel. How do you know that? Where does it say that? How do you know when the gospel has been compromised if there are no infallible doctrine? How can I choose who was right out of Martin Luther, or John Calvin, or Ulrich Zwingli, or John Smyth who all disagreed with each other and started separate churches? How could I know which ones compromised the gospel and which do not as they all taught things that directly contradict each other. Then what about Joseph Smith's claim? How can you tell who compromised the gospel or not if there is no standard.
Jesus also said he wanted the church to be unified.
My question was how is it not absurd that the Bible says all of this
1. The Church will not fail
2. The spirit of truth will guide the apostles (or church) in all truth.
3. Jesus would be with the church to the end of the age.
4. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth
5. Paul said that the church should agree on everything!
Can you really think in light of these passages that it doesn't matter if different churches teach doctrines that are diametrically opposed to each other?
@@stevenwall1964 You said that you "earnestly want to know" the answer to these questions. I answered them. But your response does not to me show much earnestness to really discuss the points I raised. I could be wrong--truly, forgive me if I am--but it seems to me you already have strong convictions on these points, and you do not earnestly want to hear the Protestant perspective.
@@bmide1110 I want to hear the Protestant perspective. But you saying that "no one believed that the Council of Rome was binding," strikes me as odd. And all I asked is what is your evidence that makes you think that no one believed the Council of Rome was binding regarding the 73 Book Canon. All the evidence I see is that the entire Church did hold it as Canon. So that we don’t talk past each other maybe we could label this a Response 1. So just taking the one issue of the canon of scripture. Both Athanasius and Augustine proposed this 73 book canon. The Council of Rome determined these were the 73 Canonical books. The Council of Hippo in 393 confirmed this 73 Book Canon. Then the Council of Carthage in 397 AD confirmed this same 73 book canon. You claimed that no one took the Council of Rome to be binding. Can you show me any evidence of that? Maybe so we don't talk past each other we could label that Question 1.
My question was in light of what the Bible says about the Church. It seems absurd to me that the church would not even be able to give me the correct list of infallible documents I am supposed to live by; especially if I am supposed to believe in Sola Scriptura. The Catholic Church’s official opinion through the Council of Rome, Hippo, Carthage and Trent is the same 73 book Canon. If they were wrong and the Luther’s 66 Book canon is the real truth; then aren’t you saying that the real and complete truth was not there until the 1500’s?
Question 2 - You put your spin on what you think Jesus meant when He said he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the church in all truth. You claim that Jesus only made the promise to the apostles. But the apostles are the ones that Jesus entrusted to start the Church. If you think that the promise was that the Holy Spirit would only guide the apostles, then that means Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth - - and then after they died - - the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church in all truth. Do you really believe that? Do you believe that Jesus would promise to be with the Church until the end of time; and that he would also promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth and then once the apostles were dead, then the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church? That just doesn’t make any sense to me. If the Holy Spirit was not guiding the early Church, why should I trust anything they did? I thought we trusted the doctrine of the Trinity because the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church in the Council of Nicaea in 350 AD. I thought we trusted the doctrine of the Incarnation because the Holy Spirit was guiding the church at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD in which the doctrine was fully established.
I find your view amazing that Jesus would give the promise to the apostles but not to His very own church that he said he would establish. If you could explain your reason for believing that it would help me because I don’t see that view in any of the Church Fathers.
I used to be an atheist and it was by evidence that I began to believe in God and the Bible. But when I read the Bible and the early Church with no preconceived notions, I was looking at evidence. I came down on something closer to Catholicism. I did not know anything about the Reformation. I just knew the Bible and the early Church. I knew it inside and out because I was making a decision for or against Jesus and his Church, but I only looked at the first 1000 years or so to see if Jesus demand that the Church be unified really happened or not. When I looked at the early Church and the way it held councils and determined doctrine as well as rejected heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism, I was convinced that Jesus was guiding the Church. There was only one Church just as he predicted. That was one of the things that sold me on the Bible and the Church being true. I only saw one Church for 1000 years. I didn't really look past that because I was satisfied. But when I got out in the world of going to Christian churches, I was stunned by claims that I was going to hell for being Catholic. Since I only based my original decision on evidence of the Bible and the evidence of the early Church that I poured through I was just befuddled when I look at Protestant claims that the canon is only 66 books and the very early councils of the Church were errors. I am just asking for some evidence for the Protestant claims and not be charged with not wanting to know the truth. So if you could just answer those 2 questions directly I would appreciate it and maybe we could discuss it from there.
@@stevenwall1964 "no one believed that the Council of Rome was binding,"
This response just cracks me up because you have come back with so many facts to the contrary.
You are correct, (s)he has to back up the statement, and they aren't doing that. All (s)he is doing is pulling the rip cord and saying you don't want to hear it, when all they offer is their own opinion not based on much. Of course you would absolutely love to hear the justification (me too), but (s)he can't do it, because it isn't there.
The history really speaks for itself.
“To Be Deep in History Is to Cease to Be Protestant.”
Here’s what it means to go off the rails:
The Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to allow same-gender marriages on 19 June 2014 during its 221st General Assembly, making it one of the largest Christian denominations in the world to openly accept same-sex unions.
What is deficient in the view that Christ in John 14:26 reveals how the Apostles will write the Scriptures and that the magisterium's finalized teachings, such as mentioned in Acts 15 end up being the Scripture itself? By way of analogy all of the deliberations of our constitutional convention were important for the framing of the constitution, but Madison's records of their deliberations cannot supplant what was, in its finality, enshrined in the completed document. This is my basic view. Perhaps it is lacking something.
Would Dr. Ortlund say that no one on earth can possibly know the proper interpretation of who is the rock in Matthew 16, as no outside source according to his view, can confirm the infallible interpretation?
If Scripture ALONE is infallible, why not go with the infallible Holy Scriptures alone that confirms, "this IS MY BODY ", ( Matthew 26:26).
When Jesus said "I am the door" in John 10:7, is he saying he is literally a door?
@@grantgooch5834 When Jesus Christ said He is Greater than the Temple, did He really mean it?
So, again, for those who teach Scripture ALONE, can one possibly know for certain what Jesus Christ meant when He said, "this is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26), as no other source or interpretation is infallible? God's grace and peace to you!
Did Christians in the early Church reading Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea, know it was not Holy Scripture?
Was Peter's ruling that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was, not the word of God? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
If there is no authoritative church that is infallible in matters of faith and morals, then it seems as if belonging to a church is not necessary. Actually, it makes churches seem pointless. What greater authority does a non apostolic, non authoritative church have over myself? I have a Theology degree. Absent an authority to tell me otherwise, why is my Biblical/ Christian perspective wrong but pastor (x) from denomination (y) is right? Am I missing something?
Can you define the mission of the church Scripturally?
have a question for you.
Do Jews at the time of Jesus name their children their own name.
Like I'm a Jew and my name is Judah and I gave birth to a son. Is it in the tradition of the Jews to name the child my name Judah
Thank you for the helpful conversation. I'd love to have a transcript. Is that available anywhere?
Thank you very much! I'm afraid that, since this conversation was done live and unscripted, we don't have a transcript of it, but if one becomes available, I'll let you know. Some of the material I cover in the discussion is found in my book The Bible Is a Catholic Book and on my website Jimmy Akin Dot Com. Gavin may have material that he drew on available as well.
Thank you!
@@JimmyAkin
🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT):
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of seeming facetious, any person who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron.
Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise he wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept and therefore has no influence on the eternal, timeless Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The ONLY omni-property which comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since the Absolute knows absolutely everything (i.e. Itself).
The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted simultaneously with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I'm sure most everyone would indicate the head, at least in the first instance, agreed?
Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God or The Goddess), which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion.
Of course, the more INTELLIGENT theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely not a person in the etymological sense, and not even a person in the common-usage of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent “entity” as being a person? The mere fact that theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person require gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague and undefined term.
Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal which possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I am planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals).
Many otherwise intelligent theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a radical Indian cult first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s by a truly delusional retired pharmacist named Mr. A. C. De), HONESTLY believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna manages to incorporate relative time into the timeless realm (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades or sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher himself.
Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must NECESSARILY transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. Neither Eternal Beingness, Unlimited Consciousness, nor Blissful Quietude (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit) necessitate personality. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from (Absolute) Truth.
The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for theists referring to the Absolute as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of MIND (by which they really mean some degree of Universal, Infinite Consciousness). However, it is indeed possible (and in fact, is the case) that the Ground of Being is Pure Consciousness Itself. Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa” or “brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristicss of Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated awareness, et cetera, and we humans are, quintessentially, of the same Nature. In other words, you are, fundamentally, “God” (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
Most arguments for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. As explicated elsewhere, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a a legitimate contention, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness.
There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity):
1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
Cont...
2. Because they may have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self. The Real Self is synonymous with “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field” and “The Source of All”.
3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is inherently PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism. We atheists are patiently awaiting the time when the Perfectly-Loving God will publically show Himself to His beloved creatures, rather than merely sending imperfect representatives to this planet, under the pretence that they are “fully divine”. This is known as the “Problem of Divine Hiddenness”.
Of course, this will never ever occur, because, as I think that I have sufficiently demonstrated, a Supreme Personal God is a logical impossibility.
4. Because they may have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analytical skills, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source, no matter how unreliable. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life.
Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the famous South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed.
As an aside or adjunct, it seems that virtually every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit).
It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God which created the Universe.
“God is greater than God.”
*************
“Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.”
*************
“Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.”
*************
“There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.”
*************
“The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.”
*************
“The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”
Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart),
German Roman Catholic Priest.
“God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself. The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.”
*************
“Worshippers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.”
*************
“Each person’s apparently stable separate identity, each human’s sense of independent authorship of their actions, is part of the plan. It is how God plays, how God rolls, how God roles. God ‘dresses up’ as each person with their quirks, puts them in boring or interesting settings, and then experiences what happens. Far from being a screw up in need of fixing, it is how the universe experiences itself.”
Ramesh S. Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
Jimmy- What are you talking about when you say "doctrinal diversity"? This phrase has a completely different context within Catholicism. There's only Magisterial Doctrine and everything else is heresy. Whereas, within the heresy of Protestantism, doctrinal diversity is the rule not the exception. It's a feature, not a bug.
This is a model of how a husband and a wife ought to talk to each other. Could you imagine?
Revelation 22:18 states the Bible is a finished work of God and shouldn't be added to with dire consequences for those that do.
Great discussion. I think if it was a debate it would have been cordial as well but the discussion allowed for a depth of conversation that wouldn’t be allowed otherwise.
I really like how you laid out how Catholics view the 1st Century Church structure and how that was more coherent with the structure of the Church today. Gavin really didn’t put much to argument against that or even put a vision of how sola scriptura would exist in the first Century. Just a very lukewarm argument to why it is plausible.
However, to me, Sola Scriptura has always seemed absurd or extremely implausible. Gavin is a smart and cordial man but I do think he is beholden to more liberal views. And that’s basically how I view Protestantism, Proto Liberalism.
It’s weird that Gavin didn’t like the individualistic criticism because I have heard protestants say that much as a positive. Cameron Bertuzzi, another likeable Protestant, from Capturing Christianity, has argued that it is a benefit to the Protestant that he can pick and choose (im pretty sure he used that wording too) doctrine whereas the Catholic has to believe a set of doctrines.
He says you can be beholden to Protestant traditions but, like why?
You mean that tradition that is incredibly more new and novel and revolted against the Church of their day?
It also seems so bizarre to a Protestant to reject the Church’s Tradition but then also go to their tradition that is extremely novel. Like if a churchmen at your place of worship interrupted the sermon, said actually he’s very smart and read the Bible correctly and started his own church. Why not go from the older tradition?
I think Gavin was really picking his battles in this discussion. A protestant would say that Catholics are more beholden to liberal views in that they feel the Roman Catholic church departs from scriptural teaching. Just giving you some perspective.
@@anthonywhitney634 To your first point, I think if sola scriptura isn’t proven in the 1st century (or first three) then it is devastating to its case. So it imperative that Dr Ortlund answers it.
Secondly the “no you’re liberal” doesn’t work at all. Historically, philosophically, theologically etc… To make an American example, it’s like a Democratic claiming to be “more conservative” because they understand The Constitution “better”, without any regard to the historical record. I understand the claim, but it’s not based on anything, just pure conjecture.
@@stcolreplover it's not pure conjecture. Look at things like the Marian Dogmas, Purgatory, the Papacy, praying to saints etc. All things with little to no biblical support. Smacks of liberalism.
@@anthonywhitney634 you keep using that word but not understanding what it means. Liberalism isn’t “personal things I do not like” it a political and philosophical term with a historical context.
Reading the Bible and making claims about it doesn’t make someone conservative the same way a progressive “christian” making claims about the bible doesn’t make them conservative. Context matters, and making claims without arguments or evidence to back those claims is, simply put, stupid.
@@stcolreplover I stand by my statements. Those beliefs I mentioned are later accretions to the faith, that in many cases go against the scriptures. I could have also included indulgences, confessing to priests, etc, also accretions. Protestants have gone back to the first century, what the scriptures really taught. It's a bit rich a Roman Catholic stating that Protestantism is inherently liberal, when if anything it's the other way around.
Jimmy, your definitely a cyborg from the future send by God to defend the catholic faith ✊️.. thank you for strengthening our faith God bless 🙏
"He who listens to you, (the disciples) listen to me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and the Father who sent "......
The first century Christians did not have the new testament. In fact Scripture only existed in individual books, and the first compiled Bible came a few hundred years later with St Jerome. ... I think it was Paul who said something "as taught by word or our epistle". My interpretation of by word being the apostle preaching in person. And their epistle being the letters written to the churches". ...
Yes the Bible is able to save us if we live it. But living it would lead us to the Church, where we "eat the body and blood of the Lord".....The word of God in paper and ink is to lead us to the word of God in flesh and blood in the Eucharist.