The first few minutes of the video shows. This man either is trying to get people to the orthodox faith but in an unorthodox way. Or is deceived. Below is proof. He start by quoting below. ‘So then brothers. Hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter’ 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Literally confirming scripture and tradition. Read it again if you don’t believe me and if you hold to Solar scriptura then even more reason to read it again. Following he then quotes the opposition. Notice how he doesn’t read it aloud. But instead give his interpretation of what he thinks it reads. But find out for yourself. It’s a poetic similarity of the above biblical reference having the same meaning using different words. It begs the question should we only listen to what is written by Paul or should we also listen to what Paul said. Because based on this if you solar scriptura and believe in Jesus you either gotta throw the book out because Jesus wrote non of it or throw Jesus out because he said things which others wrote down. Now if non of this makes sense. Chew your food. Take your time. Enjoy your meal. Don’t try and eat it Whole like a seagull. Finally ask the question to yourself, how many friends you think you’ll lose or life opportunities that will change and opinions of others would flip if you actually started to live outside of the Protestant church. Then ask scripture if it says anything about life change, people rejecting you. Then check your spirit are you at peace knowing that fosho the fruits are with you and you are not angered by my words 🕊️☦️❤️🔥🫡🛐
It's also "LITERALLY IN THE BIBLE" that tradition is not to be placed above the word of God in authority. Meaning that wherever tradition conflicts with God's word, Scripture is the ultimate overriding rule. This is literally how the scism between Roman Catholicism, and the reformers came about. The whole point was to "reform" the traditions of the Catholic Church which did not conform to Scripture. The Church, i.e. the Pope, pridefully refused to be held under the Infallible authority of the word of God, and that's how we ended up here, with an ever twisting and self-contradicting Catholic dogma still tieing itself in knots trying to argue against the word of God to defend the pride it has inherited.
@@vinceplanetta8415 You ever find it even the least bit concerning that you basically have to resort to making atheistic arguments in order to support your position? Just something to think about. Sola Scriptura are Latin words, which were used by the reformers to describe a concept which is clearly taught in Scripture. Congratulations on discovering that the Bible was not written in Latin, and thus never contained the words "Sola Scriptura"..."bUt iT's NoT iN tHe BiBlE!"... yeah, neither is the word Trinity, but the Bible very clearly teaches one God in three persons, which is what the word "trinity" describes. You know what else the Bible contains? Jesus Himself rebuking the Pharisees precisely for putting tradition above Scripture. Pro Tip: When you find yourself using the arguments of atheists, it's time to rethink your position, because you've lost.
@@bruhmingo did you see Gavin’s last video on the “fallible list of infallible books”? You’re telling me a fallible list is an infallible witness to the apostolic deposit?
@@zalmoxis3707The canon is not an authoritative list of books, it’s a list of authoritative books, so yes, the fallible list is an infallible witness.
@@paulnash6944Right, but when it comes down to discerning what you call the only infallible way of knowing the apostolic deposit, we don’t have a reliable way of knowing which texts are infallible and which ones aren’t.
The word ALONE was inserted by the Reformers to emphasise and correct the Roman Catholic teaching of faith and works; Scripture and tradition; No the word does not exist in the Bible but it is definitely insinuated. The word alone is implicit in Scripture if not explicit. The reason Catholics make such a fuss about it is because they do not like being corrected. They rely on fallible traditions of men and they believe Jesus is not capable of saving anyone without a bit of human help and assistance
I was in a debate with an Eastern Orthodox, and he presented the following scenario: "Suppose you were in the first century, and St. Paul came to your church, and called the church out for miss-using the Eucharist, and disbelieving it is the literal body and blood." I responded with: "This is not a hypothetical, but something I can go to in scripture. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul does exactly that: he addresses the miss-uses they are having regarding the Lord's Supper. His complaints are: 1.) They are not distributing it equally (some are hungry and some are drunk) (20-22), 2.) they are taking without examining themselves (27-31). What Paul did not feel an issue to address was: 1.) Is it actual wine, 2.) is it unleavened bread, and 3.) is it the actual body and blood of Jesus. He addressed the heart and not the theology." Paul did end this with saying there were "remaining matters" that he would address in person, so perhaps that was the Real Presence, but the obvious problems Paul saw an urgent matter to address were the greed and carelessness of the Eucharist, not the substance. We can debate what Paul's "remaining matters" are, but we cannot say that it is reliably documented to the first Century. Calling somebody a heretic for disagreeing on this issue Paul saw as unnecessary to write about is not being open to charitable conversation. It's assuming your position is right, and that St. Paul would agree with you. Why don't we base what St. Paul believed off of what he actually wrote?
You are correct. And Paul went a step further. He called the consecrated element which we eat, "bread." Not just once, but three times. If he thought it was literal flesh, he would have said, "so eat of the flesh" instead of, "so eat of the bread." 😊
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?" Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God? Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15). Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation. Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants. Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7). Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture. Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9). Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?" Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God? Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15). Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation. Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants. Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7). Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture. Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9). Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
The verse is to hold fast to the traditions that were taught by US, whether spoken or written. Never alludes to holding fast to the traditions that others will claim the apostles taught.
@@GeraldHunt-i5q It's actually a very good argument when you take into consideration the context of the verse. Paul is telling them to hold fast to what they received directly from him precisely because they were false teachings in the Church that claimed to have come from him.
Luke begins his gospel explaining why he is writing: “that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” So, Theophilis received good oral teaching, but something about it lacked certainty… Therefore, God inspired Luke to write. Maybe the scriptures are recognizing the “telephone” problem early on?
The point is not exclusionary. Tradition in and of itself is not bad/wrong. But when tradition overbears and contradicts Scripture that is the issue Christ is contending with.
@@orthodoxymatters ST. BERNARD (1090-1153) to Pope Eugenius: “What profit does the flock derive from magnificent pageants, with you, the supreme shepherd of the flock advancing majestically in gilded clothing? Do you think that Saint Peter loved to surround himself with this pomp and display, or Saint Paul? No. In all things that belong to earthly magnificence, you have succeeded not Peter, but the Emperor Constantine!”
It would be great to see like a chart enumerating the different ways in which Sola Scriptura can be defined or explained, right next to the traditional Protestant position in relation to that other column. Because most of the debates and dialogues and discussions of this topic are possible just because one of the sides misunderstands the traditional understanding of the doctrine itself. In that chart one can see whether “Protestant” agrees with X definition of Sola Scriptura or not. It can also be done with the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the relationship between the Church and the Scriptures. Gavin, do it!!! You’re the man for that.
@13:14 - Origen taught a heterodox view of the pre-existing soul and universalism. This would directly affect his views on the immaculate conception (of Mary), and his teachings were anathematized. The entire concept of the immaculate conception relies on Augustinian traducianism, which is also unorthodox. Studying up on St. John Cassian may give some additional perspective.
This was very helpful in a way I had not considered before. Thank you. This is the hardest part of the debate with Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants: how do we know which traditions were handed down from Paul and the Apostles within the first 300 years of the church?
Thank you, Gavin, for addressing this topic with clarity and thoughtfulness. I’d like to offer a Catholic perspective on some of the points you raised about Sola Scriptura and Tradition. 1. Apostolic Tradition in Scripture and Beyond The Catholic Church sees Scripture and Tradition as complementary, not contradictory. Both flow from the same source of divine revelation and together communicate God’s truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2 reflect this unity-Paul is exhorting the faithful to hold fast to both written and oral apostolic teaching. The Church, as the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), has the divinely given role of preserving and transmitting this deposit of faith. 2. “Telephone Game” Argument The analogy of oral tradition as a “telephone game” misunderstands the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church (John 16:13). Far from being fallible, the Church has faithfully safeguarded the apostolic teaching through the centuries. Historical continuity-evident in doctrines like the Trinity and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist-demonstrates the reliability of this Spirit-guided process. 3. What Is Apostolic Tradition? You distinguish between oral apostolic teaching (first-century instruction) and post-apostolic claims of Tradition. While it’s true we don’t know every specific “tradition” Paul referred to, the Church’s role has been to preserve both Scripture and the living Tradition faithfully handed down. The early Church Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus, affirmed this when they appealed to apostolic succession as a marker of authentic doctrine (Against Heresies 3.24.1). 4. The Role of Scripture and Tradition Sola Scriptura presupposes a completed canon of Scripture, yet the canon itself was discerned through the Church’s authoritative Tradition. Without an infallible guide, how can one determine the boundaries of Scripture? Protestant theologian Alister McGrath acknowledges this: “The New Testament as we know it did not exist at the time of the early Church...it was the Church itself that determined what the New Testament was” (Christianity’s Dangerous Idea). 5. The Immaculate Conception and Development of Doctrine The Immaculate Conception is an example of doctrinal development-not an invention, but a deepening understanding of the truths implicit in Scripture and Tradition. Typological readings of Genesis 3:15 (Mary as the New Eve) and Luke 1:28 (“full of grace”) provide a biblical basis. As St. John Henry Newman explained, development of doctrine involves unpacking the deposit of faith, not adding to it-similar to how the Church articulated the Trinity. In conclusion, Sola Scriptura struggles to account for the Church’s role in safeguarding and interpreting divine revelation. The Catholic view of Scripture and Tradition as two aspects of one deposit of faith, preserved through the Spirit-guided Church, provides a more coherent and historically rooted framework for understanding Christian belief. Thank you again for engaging with these important topics. I hope this adds to the conversation and fosters deeper understanding! God bless.
I've been researching this topic and have made some notes and jotted some questions that have come up as I've read and also quoted some of the early Church Fathers on this topic: The Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic traditions (these are different from man made traditions). Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them, as the following quotations show… Iranaus wrote in AD 189, “As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2). In AD 225 Origen wrote, “Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2). Basil the Great wrote in AD 375, “Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66). John Chysostom wrote in AD 402, “[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians). From the year of Christ’s Resurrection until roughly 100, the New Testament itself was not completely written. And in the view of many nothing was written prior to the year 50. Yet this was a period of tremendous growth for the Church. How could it have grown intact, with the same teachings being passed on orally and consistently, unless the Holy Spirit was safeguarding the transmission of Sacred Tradition? How were so many converted without the aid of the Bible as we know it today, if not with the aid of Sacred Tradition? If God can providentially use fallible human beings to write the word of God without error, why couldn't He providentially use fallible human beings to transmit the word of God in a non written form without error also? Dei Verbum, which is the dogmatic constitution of divine revelation for the Catholic Church states in paragraph 9, “Hence there exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” It is stated that Scripture contains all truths necessary for salvation while Tradition contains the orthodox way of understanding Scripture. “There is not a single point of belief the Catholic Church holds by Tradition alone without any reference to Scripture, just as there is not a single dogma that is derived from Scripture alone without being explained by Tradition.” (Meaning of Tradition by Yves Congar pg 39-40)
The best example of how oral transmission is unreliable is the fact Paul had to write many of his letters to correct what churches were screwing up on after he had visited and taught them.
"Tradition" is usually the orally received teaching of the Jewish rabbis. (Matt. 15:2 et al.) Jesus was critical of tradition when it went contrary to the word of God. But Paul speaks of "tradition" in a more positive light (1st Corinthians 11:12; 2nd Thess. 2:15, et al.) Traditions were not habitual practices. They were teachings, and they were either good or bad depending on whether they agreed with the revelation of God through the Lord Jesus and the prophets and apostles.
@@thadofalltrades The first century Christians would not agree. They still had the testimony of those who were Apostles or who had known the Apostles. Their word ("tradition") was more valuable to them than the written revelation. Why? For the same reason the spoken word of a witness in court is more valuable than a written testimony. The oral testimony can be probed by the attorneys. But we have only the written testimony ("traditions") So there is no possibility to choose.
@@doncamp1150 I can agree with that, the written word came to preserve the tradition since you and I can't go talk to Paul like they could. That's essentially the whole purpose of Luke's works.
@@thadofalltrades We do not have the tradition the New Testament speaks of. It was orally transmitted teaching. So, the debate between the two is moot. We do have the tradition written down. It is easily identified in Mark who transcribed the oral tradition of Perter. biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2022/09/according-to-mark.html
While I always appreciate Dr. Ortlund's thoughtful and thorough engagement with these questions, I as a Protestant actually do not find this argument particularly compelling. The core question here is an epistemological one with regards to what constitutes apostolicity. But it takes as given that the scriptures are known to be apostolic without acknowledging that this too demands some epistemological explanation. I know Dr. Ortlund has addressed questions of the canon, but they seem to take as given that the text is properly discerned to have been apostolic while likewise presuming that the apostolicity of tradition cannot ever be properly discerned. I think as a result it's easy enough to pick on certain contemporarily defined dogmas from the Roman Catholics as obvious accretions but the premises are then applied to considerably more ancient traditions like apostolic succession, claiming them to be being equally unverifiable in apostolicity. The more central question I think is the epistemology behind how we know what is and is not apostolic and then utilizing that same methodology to how we address issues of both determining the canon of scripture and the content of extra-biblical apostolic tradition (if there is any).
Textual criticism and historical analysis show clearly the New Testament goes back to the apostles. Either the scripture is reliable, or nothing is. Again, what you articulate is a very postmodern way of viewing things.
@@bruhmingo Textual criticism doesn't do much to confirm authorship (in fact it more often than not calls traditional authorship into question), which is why I find its utility in affirming apostolicity somewhat limited. Historical analysis absolutely helps us determine the pedigree of the reception of the New Testament among early Christians, and I would definitely confirm it demonstrates a predominant recognition of apostolicity for the majority of the NT from an early period. My question is why that historical methodology is sufficient for establishing which texts were genuinely apostolic but is insufficient to establish which traditions were genuinely apostolic? (Especially when we consider than some traditions have broader and earlier pedigree for apostolicity than even some books of scripture.) And of course, the possibility that there are genuine non-biblical apostolic traditions makes no claim on the reliability of scripture. Scripture is of course reliable and should be savored by every Christian. This post is not some effort to undermine scripture but a critique of Dr. Ortlund's argumentation.
Your videos have been incredibly impactful in my journey of faith thank you for all you do. I know you're busy, and your plate is surely overflowing but I would greatly appreciate a video that specifically addresses how to refute some of the key beliefs held by Jehovah's Witnesses. A kind couple recently visited my home, and I feel led to witness to them, but I'm a bit nervous and want to be well prepared for when they return. Any insights or guidance you could share would be invaluable.
Much of the theology hints around Jesus not being God, but being a created being. In John, it says that everything that came into being was created by Jesus. So, if Jesus created all things that came into being, what does that require that Jesus be? Uncreated. That's one of the places to take a look at.
Take them to Revelation and show them in the 1st chapter where God is speaking and says "I died ...", then ask them when God died if not in God, the 2nd person of the Trinity, as Jesus. They logically can't respond with anything else.
It’s literally impossible to say tradition is equal to Scripture… whose tradition? This Scripture verse is used incorrectly to attempt to justify doctrine that is not supported by Scripture… This Scripture verse can only be understood in the same way all Scripture must be understood, and that is in the context of its meaning…
@@Truth_not_deception1 what this verse simply means is that what the apostles taught is authoritative no matter if they said it or if they wrote it down. Protestants instead believe that only what was written down is authoritative. Once more, Scripture refutes Protestantism.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Sola Scriptura wasn't even taught by the True Church. Christianity cannot be divorced from its history. Since Jesus was incarnated in history, the body of Christ (the Church), is also in history.
@@thejerichoconnection3473no. That verse says to hold to the traditions given orally OR written. I.e., either or. What’s been given by oral testimony cannot contradict what’s been written. The traditions of Rome and Constantinople contradict the scripture and add to the gospel. It’s false. You also cannot show me a single statement made by Christ or the apostles outside of scripture.
The Orthodox Church teaches that the same Spirit instructed and guided the Apostles also instructed and guided the early Church and us now. Since it’s the same Spirit, the Spirit infallibly transmits the same Tradition at every time of the Church, regardless of how well individuals hold onto the received Tradition. It’s odd to me charismatics who claim that the Spirit works the same as it did in Apostolic times, (the alleged speaking in tongues) reject this view of the Spirit’s transmission of Tradition.
I was thinking that same thought today about Evangelical non denominational Charismatics/Pentacostals rejecting tradition. I think there is a great inconsistency in their thinking.
Comparing oral transmission with telephone game is classic. It does work for games, as the name indicates. In John 16:13 Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide His disciples in truth, including THINGS TO COME. Jesus did not give them empty words or lip service to boost their moral - He will and is able to keep His promise. Unlike telephone game played by humans, the Holy Spirit will guide them regardless the time and duration of unwritten tradition. The Holy Spirit did not mute Himself or became inactive after the death of the last apostle or after the last book of Scripture was written. - why would He? Dr. Ortlund differentiates between "apostolic tradition" and "non-apostolic tradition". He has no problem with the former but he claimed that we do not know it and he has no problem for not knowing it. But did Paul write "to stand firm and hold to tradition"? How does he know which is apostolic and which one is non-apostolic? His answer is using Scripture, i.e. His presumption that Scripture is the final authority.
And your thoughts about teachings that occur in the teachings of the apostles in the Didache, dated to the early 2nd century or even more likely into the first century, so the time of the apostles. The teachings confirm much of the teachings of the Bible but also expand into areas of praying three times a day and fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays for example. These traditions developed and were put down for the early church and were held by many early church fathers as practical teachings for Christians.
Thank you Dr. Portland for being a clear voice for Protestantism. All I keep seeing on UA-cam is catholics telling me I'm in the wrong church and I need to come home.
I don't disagree with you fully. We should be clear about the meaning of Sola Scriptura, but also the practical application of it. One issue I think still needs to be addressed is that the apostolic tradition that was passed down is what brought us scripture in the first place. But it brought us more than the 66 books of the protestant canon. The word canon is even an issue because that is almost the wrong way to think about it. Christ didn't start a canon, He started a Church. The Holy Spirit didn't take a vacation and allow the Way of Christ and the apostolic deposit to lapse. The claim sounds like, "There was a faithful transmission of apostolic tradition which at least resulted in us accepting scripture as the infallible authority, but we get to decide when and how that faithful transmission stopped, and we get to determine the meaning of scripture without the apostolic tradition, based on our own interpretations now." I believe the broader point Fr. Trenham was making was about the lack of perspicuity of Sola Scriptura. We are claiming Sola Scriptura, but then practicing entirely different things (women not as pastors vs women as pastors, LGBTQ+ affirming vs not, abortion affirming vs condemning, the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ as Luther thought or it is symbolic as Zwingli thought, etc.). Tradition thus holds a necessary seat in the conversation, and it confuses me how the Holy Spirit would lapse this egregiously. Or, the tradition which brought us the apostle's creed, Nicea 1, etc. is correct, and there is a discernable path forward to interpret scripture and lead the church with authority that comes from scripture and correct tradition. For example, the reason Chrysostom could talk about Mary's vainglory is because the correct tradition understands original sin in a different way than the Roman Catholic Church and resultant Protestants. The correct tradition is that Adam's sin resulted in the consequence of death for human nature. And that the Second Adam, Christ, heals that nature and brings life. Mary does not have to be 'immaculate' because she wasn't personally guilty of Adam's original sin, so she doesn't need an extra backstory to create a workaround to an incorrect interpretation. Chrysostom understands original sin differently than Roman Catholics and also differently than you do. He is pointing out that Christ heals the vainglory in His actions to honor her. Though her request was unseasonable, this is not him saying she did personally commit a sin. Chrysostom is teaching this passage to inform us on redemptive love, transforming grace, and warning us of the danger of vainglory (one of his frequent topics). This is not necessarily a good example to use to bolster your position, but I understand that you may have a different concept of original sin that confuses this topic.
@10:18 - Protestants are saying YOU have to look at them instead of WE... once there is a "WE have to look at them," a new tradition is born. This is a fundamental difference - Biblical interpretation is always done in light of tradition (and should be done in light of Tradition). Post-enlightenment thought encourages Tradition to be subject to the INDIVIDUAL's interpretation of Scripture. It's a broken hermeneutic.
From my own Protestant exploration of this topic. I find this kind of apostolic argument to be missing the forest for the trees. It is The Holy Spirit who authors, empowers, anoints, and interprets. The tradition of the apostles ultimately still belongs to the Spirit and the Spirit is promised to guide the church until the very end. In the end splitting hairs like this doesn’t convince me Catholics are any less circular by demanding infallible interpretation with infallible scripture as we are demanding only infallible scripture.
Regarding the date of Easter, my understanding was that the argument was over when to celebrate it, not the actual, specific date Jesus was raised. If I am rememberng corrctly, then couldn't you have two legitimate traditions from two different apostles? It would just mean that the way of calculating when to celebrate Easter is not necessarily binding on Christians.
There is no Biblical injunction to celebrate Easter at all! Except to "celebrate" Communion/Eucharist/the Lord's Table - which most churches do on a regular basis (weekly/monthly).
Which ancient and diametrically opposed tradition are we to submit to? There are multiple ones, and they don't agree on much beyond the Apostles' Creed.
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?" Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God? Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15). Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation. Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants. Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7). Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture. Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9). Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund! Have you see the debate between Scholastic Lutherans and Two Orthodox (one a priest) about this subject? The Lutherans go through Chemnitz’ treatment of the different meanings of tradition. He is one of the great Lutheran theologians. Lord’s blessings
Fun fact, Chemnitz’s Examination is featured in every new Truth Unites video! If only visually-it’s the beautiful set of books behind and to the left of Gavin!
Where in Scripture does it say that only in Scripture is the Apostolic Tradition to be found? Which books are Scripture are part of the Apostolic Tradition. As for the "telephone game" argument, I would suggest you read Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" response to the Telephone game arguments against the reliability of the Gospels.
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?" Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God? Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15). Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation. Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants. Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7). Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture. Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9). Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
Now ask for an infallible DEFINITION of tradition. Some Roman Catholic apologists will define it as the authoritative interpretation of Scripture while others will assert it is the word of God not written down and passed on through the church. You cannot get both definitions from 2 Thessalonians 2:15. I have an entire chapter on this subject in a book I hope to publish in 2025.
I would say that another way we can know what apostolic tradition is, is by referencing the church fathers and researching how they interpreted certain passages of Scripture and how they practiced their Christianity. Some of them were taught by the apostles themselves, and so I think it's very credible to look to them as a source for tradition. It's exciting to know that we have these references to see how they practiced the Lord's Supper or what they thought about baptismal regeneration, etc.
Why should we believe that the church fathers were these irregularly knowledgeable men who were able to interpret Scripture in ways that we today cannot? Yes they were taught by the apostles, but were the apostles themselves incapable of committing doctrinal error? In Galatians 2 11-16, Paul corrects Peter on his erroneous teaching. This is, of course, Peter, who the RCC tells us was the first Pope and Christ’s representative on Earth. Yet here he is being corrected by an apostle who was never taught by Christ. On top of that, we see Peter deny Christ just before his crucifixion, and then the apostles all flee afterwards. This does not look to me like a group of men with unshakable faith nor infallible knowledge of doctrine. Should we heed the words of their disciples, having been directly taught by the apostles themselves? Of course, but they were still very much in the process of learning what the words of Jesus meant just like we still do today. To put their interpretation of Scripture as absolute seems ridiculous to me, we possess today the accumulation of two thousand years of Christian thought that we may lean on in understanding Scripture, something they did not have. Their beliefs about baptismal regeneration, for example, do carry weight to me when I’m weighing out the evidence, but they do not cause me to throw out what I believe to be the clear meaning of Scripture in teaching against their beliefs.
@@shanezarcone5401 I would suggest the Apostles were totally reliable! They were with Jesus and wrote under and taught under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! But just because they taught someone does not mean the person they taught was reliable! Paul chastised people in Churches he taught in for being false teachers. So the same goes for the church fathers - they could have been taught by an Apostle yet not teach the truth themselves. The Apostles are reliable - no one after them is infallible!
Great point, which is why protestants reject dogma such as the immaculate conception, and papal in fallibility. Mainly, the first two of which aren’t only not found within the earliest church tradition, but is also spoken against
Here's what I'm wrestling with: when Scripture, which is infallible, is interpreted by Christians in different ways (some believe that baptism now saves you as 1 Peter 3:21 says, and others believe that baptismal regeneration is a heresy and adds to the Gospel), how are we to get to the truth? I think that a very reliable way to get to the truth is by researching what the early church fathers believed and practiced on the subject. I'm not sure that we can draw any conclusions from that, but it does seem that looking at the tradition / practices of the early church fathers is at least very helpful (maybe even necessary) to help us correctly interpret written tradition (Scripture). So we have this written tradition from the apostles but we don't necessarily know how some of these things looked in practice, and so looking at the early Christians and how they practiced their faith, especially when they were alive at the same time as the apostles, is very compelling to how we should correctly interpret passages of scripture that are debated by Christians today.
One of the reasons the early church started to affirm writings as "Canon" was the competing traditions. Even the Gnostics claimed to have sacred tradition handed on to them by the apostles. The Early church used writings that later became the agreed upon New Testament to measure which Traditions came from the Apostles and which were heretical or man made. Tradition and Scripture in the early church both affirmed the "deposit of faith". Nothing was in Scripture that wasn't part of the "Tradition" and nothing was in "Tradition" that wasn't in Scripture. If a Tradition was taught that wasn't in scripture then it was rejected. If an interpretation of Scripture was taught that wasn't part of "Tradition" then that interpretation was rejected. It wasn't until later, around the 3rd- 4th Century, that Scripture and Tradition were separated. That is also when we start to see new "Traditions" emerge. Traditions became "Whatever we say it is" as the Scriptures ceased to be the rule by which Traditions were judged.
@@First_Rock To "prevail" means to overcome to the point of submission, to be victorious. As long as people are living in faith through grace and are on mission for Christ to share the Gospel, then the gates of hell have not prevailed.
2:22 Is written transmission more accurate than oral transmission when we have so many manuscripts that don't fully agree because they were copied by people? If you like writing and a high majority of early Christian writings say the Mass is a sacrifice even though they are far away from each other, and also all Christian denominations before Protestantism believed it was a sacrifice, isn't it extremely likely the Apostles believed it was a sacrifice even if it doesn't explicitly say that in the Bible? I get suspicious, Gavin, wondering why if early Christians followed sola scriptura why there were no Christian denomination that followed it until Protestantism. I get suspicious when all Christian Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on something with a lot of backing from early Christian writers and Protestants don't.
GM! yes, it is extremely lunikely that the apostles believe in the Lord's supper as a sacrifice. In the early years of the church, there was no need to articulate the idea of Sola Scriptura bc it was implicit. Nobody thought of extracting doctrine from any place else.
@@Maranatha99The first Mass was the last supper with the Holy Mass been offered ever since. See Mal 1:11. Every Catholic priest offers Mass most days in all places at all times as perpetual propitiatory sacrifice
@geoffjs Hello, Geoffrey: After Jesus died for us, no more propitiatory sacrifices are necessary bc His sacrifice was once & for all: "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all." Hebrews 10,10 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 1 Hebrews 10, 22 "For by one sacrifice, he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." Hebrews 10, 14 The idea of a perpetual propitiatory sacrifice does not come from God. Jesus is in no sacrificial altar. He is resurrected, glorified, & at the right hand of God the Father. No human can reenact Jesus's sacrifice. That is basically an aberration. That verse in Malachi has nothing to do with a Mass.
@geoffjs Hello, Malachi 1, 11 is not about the Mass. God is reminding Israel that He will be properly worshipped, even if that worship comes from those outside of Israel. It's about God being honored by the Gentiles.
@@geoffjs Hello! Malachi 1, 11 is not about the Mass. God is reminding Israel that He will be properly worshipped, even if that worship comes from those outside of Israel. God will be honored by the Gentiles. Incense is often a symbol of prayers.
Yes...Amen. I think all earnest Christians including Catholics just want to practice the faith that is most in line with what the apostles taught. In my own journey I have setlled on Anglican Lutheran and Presbyterian to be representative of that along with things we can learn from the Roman Catholic church but not submit to newer dogmas from the RC church that we don't see in the early church. I favor the Anglicans the most at this time.
The New testiment ASSUMES some tradations about reading the old testiment. Moses being followed by a rock, There being 2 adams in genesis, moses fighting with Jambres , Moses body being fought over by the devil. Angels bound in a pit. Isaiah dying being cut in half. The New testiment affirms these jewish tradations of old testiment yet arent in old testiment. But they are completly missing from OT.
There are at least two distinct ways to understand Sola Scriptura. The extreme view is that we can only do what the Bible specifically prescribes. So then, an absence of mention of something in the Bible is tantamount to a prohibition. That extreme view is what the Orthodox and Catholic churches attack, because it's a weaker view. The more moderate view is that the Scripture is the final arbiter in theological and ecclesiological disputes, and that in matters where there is no clear teaching of Scripture, either freedom or tradition can dictate. Nothing wrong with having some church traditions. As a Protestant I'd argue that they are often good, but they cannot be allowed to contradict Scriptural teaching. That last part is the crucial difference. Sola Scriptura isn't perfect, as it allows every yahoo with basic literacy to opine on church matters. But long term it's great for scrubbing churches of accretions that denigrate God's Word, however inadvertently.
Long term sola scriptura has led to more division and less unity. Scripture cannot teach that baptism saves and regenerates a person and that it doesn’t do that, but if you think it doesn’t while belonging to a church that does just split and start your own church that actually follows the Scriptures instead of staying with that church that follows an antibiblical accretion.
@@christopherneedham9584 I live in the same county with tens of thousands of Amish who ride horses instead of driving cars, ostensibly for Scriptural reasons.
@@Pedro-bk1ic if the scriptures teach to pray to Mary and statues then why would they need to escape it? Shouldn’t they leave their church and start a new one that follows the scriptures that say to pray to Mary?
A fuller exploration of this might include a comparison of the use and abuse of tradition in the Old Testament context, with the Jewish religious leaders. Then also some questions to the RCC that I think are fair; if by tradition it is meant the RCC possesses additional extra-biblical apostolic traditions/teachings, in what nature do they possess them - are they written down somewhere? If so where, and why have they not been made public, and why would dogma taken explicitly from those teachings not be made dogma right from the get go? If not, why? Or, does 'tradition' mean something other than that the RCC possesses actual, verbatim, teachings of the Apostles?
Well... Actually we can. The tradition of the liturgy goes back to the churches Paul founded. (Or any of the other apostles). Also the tradition of the Church having the authority to arbitrate issues to retain unity. That goes back to the apostles.
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?" Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God? Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15). Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation. Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants. Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7). Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture. Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9). Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
@Jesus_is_the_only_savior-7 Some are and some aren't. They claim tradition, but can't trace much back to the first century. If one wants to believe Mary was a perpetual virgin good for you, but don't claim to curse me with anathema because I disagee.
@@chrisazure1624 Its super easy to prove that the Church can arbitrate issues going back to the apostles. It's also super easy to find Mary's perpetual virginity among the Church Fathers, (including Origen.) So the Church arbitrates that Mary is perpetually a virgin. Seems straight forward.
@@haronsmith8974 That's the legend your priests and popes tell you, but you can't find it in the historical record until the latter part of the second century onward. (Origin - c. 185 - c. 253). The Assumption of Mary was not dogma until 1950! Are you one that claims Revelation 12 is talking about Mary? If so, don't forget it mentions the "rest of her offspring" in v17. I know your popes and priests twist Matthew 1:25, but it only claims she was a virgin until after Jesus was born. Then she had Jesus' brother and sisters which has to be edited out of the bible with twisting the words to mean cousins.
In I Corinthians 11:2 our Apostle Paul is referring to the doctrines that he preached that Jesus Christ gave to him by divine revelation. In Galatians 1:12 Paul refers to the gospel of the grace of God that he received by divine revelation from Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:12 - For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
There's nothing ironic about it. If scripture itself says that it is not the only source of spiritual truth, then those holding to Sola Scriptura must be wrong by their own argument.
Fantastic message here. You can even point to the two great traditions of Romanism and Eastern Ortho. How can each of them prove their traditions to an outsider?
This is overall a good addressing of the topic. I'm not qualified nor care to give a rebuttal; I'll just point out some things I thought about. The fundamental issue here is simply the question of "what is Tradition?" As Gavin points out, Tradition is somewhat tricky to define. As a former Evangelical it took me years of immersion in and study of Eastern Orthodoxy to even begin to understand what "Tradition" even refers to. Evangelicals seem to interpret the non Protestant concept of Tradition simply as instructions and propositional statements not provided in Scripture. My understanding is that what is meant by "Tradition" is something more like the culture of Christianity. These are not exactly the same thing, so when Protestants critique "Tradition", they often aren't critiquing the right thing, which is unfortunate as discussing these issues is good. Protestants always talk about Scripture and Tradition as if they are two completely distinct things, categorical reasoning being the norm in western Christianity; however, the distinction between the two is, I think, rather blurry, and here is a good example: the singing of the Psalms. The Psalms are in the Bible, and the phrase "for the music director" at the beginning of many of them is a strong indication of what they are FOR, namely, singing as worship songs, which is a tradition. It is a tradition which the Evangelicals have tragically lost and are missing out on; they don't even sing the canticles. His point about how even the ancient Christians didn't always agree on the dictates of Tradition is fair, but his example concerning the date of Easter is somewhat ironic as modern Evangelicals barely even observe Easter anymore. Perhaps that is an uncharitable thing to say, but in Eastern Christianity Easter is like a second Christmas, which is awesome. Everyone wants a second Christmas. Well, except the Jehovah's Witnesses.
This rise in EO converts is just a LARP that is reasonable given the state of prots in North America. They MUST convince themselves that the doctrine is sound to escape Liberal Prots.
Slightly off topic but funny nonetheless.😂 Your thumbnail pics: In one if your vids that I watched recently, you mentioned that someone else chooses the thumbnail pic for each video that's uploaded. I immediately knew which one is your BEST EVER😂 but I can't attach it to this comment 😢. So to describe it, it's your expression in the "Megan Basham's Shepherds for sale: Problems with this book" video.
“We should obey tradition.” “But there are no apostolic traditions like this.” “Well that’s because of doctrinal development.” “The early church didn’t believe in doctrinal development.” “Well that’s because it hadn’t developed yet.” “Then in what way are you following tradition?”
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?" Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God? Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15). Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation. Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants. Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7). Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture. Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9). Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
@@Jesus_is_the_only_savior-7 bro you use the catholic bible to debunk the catholic church Just give us the true bible cause you ll agree à bad tree can not give good fruits
Oh man! Thank you for this comment-- the paradox of following tradition vs. following development... Sometimes I also find it encouraging to observe there were already conflicts of practice in the New Testament church...
Yes, we are told to hold to tradition so long as it follows the truth of God’s word. The problem was that many Greek pagan teachings were taught by some of the early church fathers. One was the introduction of Neoplatonism or the immortal soul, second the reliance on icons and statues to convey the gospel, third, though not necessarily Greek in origin, was the abandonment of the Sabbath for Sunday. The Roman church felt it had the right to abrogate and change things as they saw fit and these became entrenched traditions within church culture! Paul wrote that grievous wolves would enter the church that men will bring false teachings into the church and this was exactly what happened!
All of the Fathers held that apostolic succession was absolutely essential to the Church. Whoever rejects apostolic succession rejects the Fathers and the Scriptures.
In matters of faith and doctrine. Jesus promissed them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. So, yes, they were infallible in matters of faith and doctrine.
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?" Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God? Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15). Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation. Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants. Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7). Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture. Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9). Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
Its not on topic, but am i the only one who feels like when we talk about theological disagreements especially on topics directly about God, generally speaking, with an unkind demeanor it feels more like gossiping about God rather than discussion of God?
Not always, but I sometimes do conclude that, especially when it ends up being more about oneself being right and provjng their intellectual superiority than following God.
Catholics like to point out the passage in Thessalonians 2:15 &3:6 as evidence for the future apostlolic succession…but tradition in that passage can only refer to the present or the past ….Paul is not referring to any future tradition at least not in those 2 references…
@@dherpin4874 yes, giving instructions about the traditions given in the past…..already given to them…most of it we will never know….but the practice of Paul’s lifestyle and possibly his prayer life and other such things is a good guess, but it could not have possibly been a command for some Apostolic succession given for future churches, that is so contrived !!
Sola Scriptura is not a formal dogma but a principle that rejects teachings and traditions that cannot be validated by the Bible. It upholds the written Word of God as the final authority. This principle encourages believers to test all teachings against the light of God’s written Word to ensure they do not deviate from the gospel message.
@@ANGELMartin-n4y thank you! That's why we say it doesn't have to "pass it's own test." One way I like to look at it is that it's the necessary presupposition.
I read Rock and Sand right before I left Orthodoxy, and I have to say that I don't think Fr. Trenham is being intellectually honest in his understanding of Sola Scriptura and I say that because he is a former Presbyterian and was even ordained by the PCA. He knows that Sola Scriptura does not mean SOLO Scriptura. I hope the Orthobros don't come for me on that one, but I expect they will. One of the last conversations I had with a mentor of mine within the Greek Orthodox church is that Christ said His followers would be known by their love, not the "correctness" of their rubrics and liturgical practices. Haven't heard from him since.
Amen. That quote from Josiah Trenham is so ridiculously fallible. “So you just don’t obey what they say, only what they write?” No.. But we only know what they said based off what they write. What they don’t understand is during the apostolic time they didn’t have all the canon yet. They relied heavily upon what every apostle said. I’m convinced and sure that the Holy Spirit got all the apostolic instruction written down for us to upkeep (Jude 3). No one’s disobeying apostolic instruction, we just don’t know what they said, only what they wrote. That’s why he literally tells us what he said when he writes down head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. “Keep the traditions. And those are head coverings and short hair for men.” So no one’s disobeying, we just aren’t claiming apostles said something they never said. Which I think many church fathers and councils have been guilty of. Using tradition to promote accretions, that they came up with.
The church fathers, since they were ordained by the apostles historically, were teaching the Scriptural interpretation handed down from their teachers. Thusly, these men are **exactly** the record of the oral traditions/teachings on baptisms etc. Paul speaks of in multiple epistles. (I combined verses there; each side of the / is referring to one of those verses)
St. Ignatius of Antioch believed in the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist and he was the 3rd bishop in line after St. Peter. The early church fathers were all very Catholic/Orthodox in their understanding of church and sacraments because that's what they were taught. Same with Polycarp. We have the historical writings of the church fathers to determine the context and interpretation of scripture. Basically without Patristic Exegesis everyone ends up making up their own framework and traditions that interpret scripture. The question for Protestants is, who's more trustworthy: James White, RC Sproul, etc. Or Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Ignatius and Iraneaeus? The church fathers were not infallible, but that's why ecumenical councils were held to determine what to hold to vs. What's a personal opinion. Despite that, without the writings of the church fathers you can't understand scripture properly because the historical and contextual insight is invaluable.
@@joshenderson315 I believe in sticking in line with them. But how does that prove that claims Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have made since then? Those churches have definitely been leavened. Protestantism has one major advantage. Ridding leaven.
@@giovannivarlí Can you specify what claims in the Orthodox church are an innovation on what the apostles taught? Orthodoxy has changed very little in 2000 years. The Roman Catholic Church, however, since the schism of 1054 A.D., has been apostate and has made conflicting and heretical stances in their councils, which is why the Reformation happened.
@@joshenderson315 Such an over simplified statement of what's actually happened. This is Orthodox cathechism that is such a generalization of real history. The debate is way more dramatic than the way you've put it. I'm not going to write a lot here, but I would recommend the channel "Joshua Schooping." He was a former EO priest. He's produced a lot of content. It's ecclesiology, mariology, soterioloogy, icon veneration.
I love Garvin's arguements. Always very logical and soothing to Protestants and Catholics too i must say. But how do we trust a God who gives us so much headaches on what to and what not to believe, as Garvin suggests. Do we think God just wants us to seek so much deep knowledge for us to know his truth, when infact he has revealed it to "mere children". Do we not think, that God, like he did in the OT by authorizing the High Priests unto religious teachings, would provide for us in this new covenant, people whom he has authorized to teach the faithful all truth? We can dwell for centuries on arguments for or against catholicism and protestantism, it will get us nowhere. In the end, God isn't an author of confusion, his teachings are clear and the means to getting them, even clearer, through the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Scrutinising all Apostolic teaching through the lens of Scripture largely dominated by Paul, who himself wasnt an Apostle in the true sense, but an evangelist, is like removing keeping Christians aways from the fullness of teaching carried forth by other apostles, especially those who never wrote anything.
They don't teach Transubstantiation, which arose much later, see the book the History of Papal Transubstantiation. Reformed Protestants don't teach the Lord's Supper are 'symbols only.' Neither do lutherans, anglicans, 1688 Baptists, etc. Show me a Protestant Confession of Faith from the Reformation that taught symbols only.
Talking about Sola Scriptura caricatures, this is the quote from one of my protestant friends(and I know that the majority of evangelicals share this way of thinking): "What difference does it make to me what some dude wrote in the third century when I have the Bible?"
this is how i feel generally. i got really scared about many claims about such and such church "being the one true church" and by the time i listen to what they have to say i get really terrified that i am listening to traditions of man rather than God and going off a "because we said so" basis... and then i go right back to the word of God...because he's you know... God, and i know he won't let me down. all i know is that i need Jesus to pay that sin dept and he did, and i trust that he knows that i am terrified to commit to any "one true church" because there's like a million of them shrieking at the top of their lungs that if i don't get the denomination stamp of approval, i will not be in heaven because Jesus sure loves labels more than people, am i right? right now i managed to squeeze into a church in the Tennessee valley, a independent Baptist church. they trust wholly in what is promised for believing in Jesus and i have not seen such trust before. i am out here questioning my salvation 24/7 (former alcoholic) and these guys in overalls just completely take what is said in the Bible at face value. some folks will call this "low church" but they know that book back to back. broke down crying singing "when we all get to heaven" and got baptized as a adult. sometimes God uses people in patchy overalls rather than robes. i Genuinely think that God understands that i am 2000 years after Jesus rose from the dead, and there's a smorgasbord of denominations screaming that they are the only way to heaven, and he does not expect me to play the roulette wheel with my eternal soul. i just need to see if the church teaching lines up with scripture.
One example of a tradition most certainly dating back to apostolic times, is the concept of having one baptism, one altar, one bishop, one church, and one Eucharist. Since Protestants do not share this view of the church, we can confidently conclude that their perspective is incorrect.” "Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons" Saint Ignatius of Antioch
Where is this verse in Scripture! Alters were done away with once the Temple was destroyed. Bishop just means an elder - not your man prancing around in red hats and black gowns etc. as for your interpretation of the Lord’s supper - it is blasphemous!
@@mikekayanderson408oldest church in the world is in India, goes back to 63 AD, and was built by St. Thomas himself. It has an altar. Was St. Thomas a “blasphemer?”
@@mikekayanderson408 St. Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch and a disciple of the Apostle John around 100 AD, succeeded St. Evodius, who followed St. Peter as the first bishop. It is highly improbable that Ignatius was introducing a new concept when he referred to the altar. The Church's understanding of bishops as successors to the apostles was a well-established and widely accepted practice in the early Church. Adopting a sola scriptura approach while disregarding early post-biblical evidence, especially before the New Testament was even recognized as sacred scripture, seems illogical to me.
@@mikekayanderson408 St Paul references an altar in Hebrews: "We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat." The Jews had an altar and a priesthood. So do Christians. The Jewish priests have no right to eat at this altar, the Christian altar, as they did the Jewish altar. It's hard to say this is some spiritual altar since St Paul is specifically comparing the Christian altar to the Jewish one. They, the Jewish priests, could eat at that one, but not this Christian one.
@@JohnMaximovich-r8xthat's Hebrews 13:10. If read in context, the author is comparing the implements and sacrifices of the tabernacle worship to their greater fulfilment in Christ. As in most of Hebrews, the natural illustration is referenced first, then the greater spiritual meaning is shown fulfilled in Christ.
@@markwebb7576 The quote marks reference both the title and the Protestant understanding of tradition with the implied modifier “of man”. SS certainly is not based on apostolic authority. What is it based on? I’ll answer my own question…it’s based on necessity because the reformation divorced itself from apostolic authority.
2:35 -- Dear Dr. Ortlund - Isn't the first TELEPHONE GAME of this type documented in the Bible on John 21:22-23 when our Lord Jesus says: v22: “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” but the followers got it wrong like this: v23: "So the saying SPREAD abroad among the brothers that this disciple WAS NOT TO DIE; yet Jesus DID NOT SAY to him that he was not to die, BUT, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” -- What do you think? --thank you!!!
The Catholic Church itself is the foundation dummy. How did Christians exist before the NT was written? Apostolic oral teaching came BEFORE the bible. It gave us the bible. It continues to teach to this day. Jesus established a church not a book. When will prots ever understand this? Why would God put a book above the Body of Christ? The book is simply a tool to be used by the Body of Christ.
@philipmarchalquizar7741 That's not the Bible said about itself. 2Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
"Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter." From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. Let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it Tradition?:Seek no further. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians, IV.
In keeping a tradition implies continuing to hand down an assertion, or deposit of assertions Just like many denominations interprete consistently across generation based on a deposit, that deposit of afirmations was also kept just like any other denomination, with the difference that this Church has the guaranteed guidence and binding and loosing across generations
Exactly. People of our time are so used to written conversations they can’t imagine cultures who appreciate the value of oral traditions. Which leads Protestants to be legalists and those who constantly divide.
In fact, I would argue that Tradition being handed down aren't assertions (which are simply cognitive) but a way of living. It's easier to see how Tradition can be handed down and kept faithfully when you view that Tradition as a way of living your entire life. It's hard to get it wrong when you do the same thing, day after day, week after week, consistently. You pick it up intuitively as a child when your parents live a certain way. It becomes a part of who you are. And the whole community participates. Whereas passing down oral assertions/ideas/arguments is merely cognitive and be easily forgotten or corrupted, even without any malicious intent in doing so.
You mentioned that early Christians appealed to apostolic tradition and came to opposing conclusions, but certainly that also applies to reading Scripture and coming to opposing conclusions.
there is a difference between possessing apostolic instruction and disagreeing how to interpret it vs. disagreeing on whether the entity being interpreted is apostolic instruction at all
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the reply/clarification, Gavin. Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm wondering how we deal with written apostolic tradition from Scripture that is interpreted in different ways by Christians. For example, is baptism salvific or is Jesus present in the Eucharist? I think it makes a lot of sense to look at tradition of the early Christians to see if there is a consensus, especially from early Christians who were alive at the same time as some of the apostles. I believe that doing so will help us to interpret written tradition from Scripture correctly, the way that the apostles intended. I could be missing something. I'd love to hear your thoughts about that.
I think exactly like you! I think oral tradicional was always used in a time that writing things were not usual since was too expensive and even before when there was not writing yet! If we don't accept oral tradition how we believe pentateuc of Moses as a word of God since he wrote things that happened thousands of years before him, probably through oral tradition? Questions that I would like to have answers! 🤷♀️
The Word of God was ALWAYS meant to be recorded in the form of literature. The Ten Commandments are quite literally, literature. Passing on the Gospel through written and spoken means, but Scripture was always meant to be recorded in a physical form so that it can be passed around and distributed more widely in its recordings than by word. We preach and teach by word, but also through what is written, and if this was not meant to be the case then Christ would have made that clear, but He did not because He personally stated "It is WRITTEN". Not just spoken, but WRITTEN.
This was exactly the argument I brought in my shower fight against imaginary opponents. I am glad that I am sane for bringing that up.
Did they change their mind?
We need to know, did it work?
@@fundamentality @jordand5732 they were awfully quiet after I brought it up.
@@empo2085 Major W
I was there, I witnessed the whole debate
Your gift of clarity is truly a gift, Dr. Ortlund.
The first few minutes of the video shows. This man either is trying to get people to the orthodox faith but in an unorthodox way. Or is deceived. Below is proof.
He start by quoting below.
‘So then brothers. Hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter’ 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Literally confirming scripture and tradition. Read it again if you don’t believe me and if you hold to
Solar scriptura then even more reason to read it again.
Following he then quotes the opposition. Notice how he doesn’t read it aloud. But instead give his interpretation of what he thinks it reads. But find out for yourself. It’s a poetic similarity of the above biblical reference having the same meaning using different words. It begs the question should we only listen to what is written by Paul or should we also listen to what Paul said. Because based on this if you solar scriptura and believe in Jesus you either gotta throw the book out because Jesus wrote non of it or throw Jesus out because he said things which others wrote down.
Now if non of this makes sense. Chew your food. Take your time. Enjoy your meal. Don’t try and eat it Whole like a seagull. Finally ask the question to yourself, how many friends you think you’ll lose or life opportunities that will change and opinions of others would flip if you actually started to live outside of the Protestant church. Then ask scripture if it says anything about life change, people rejecting you. Then check your spirit are you at peace knowing that fosho the fruits are with you and you are not angered by my words 🕊️☦️❤️🔥🫡🛐
It's also "LITERALLY IN THE BIBLE" that tradition is not to be placed above the word of God in authority. Meaning that wherever tradition conflicts with God's word, Scripture is the ultimate overriding rule. This is literally how the scism between Roman Catholicism, and the reformers came about. The whole point was to "reform" the traditions of the Catholic Church which did not conform to Scripture. The Church, i.e. the Pope, pridefully refused to be held under the Infallible authority of the word of God, and that's how we ended up here, with an ever twisting and self-contradicting Catholic dogma still tieing itself in knots trying to argue against the word of God to defend the pride it has inherited.
Well said!
Which verse are you referring to?
Mark 7:1-13 and the parallel account recorded in Matthew 15:1-9
Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men
@@vinceplanetta8415 You ever find it even the least bit concerning that you basically have to resort to making atheistic arguments in order to support your position? Just something to think about.
Sola Scriptura are Latin words, which were used by the reformers to describe a concept which is clearly taught in Scripture. Congratulations on discovering that the Bible was not written in Latin, and thus never contained the words "Sola Scriptura"..."bUt iT's NoT iN tHe BiBlE!"... yeah, neither is the word Trinity, but the Bible very clearly teaches one God in three persons, which is what the word "trinity" describes. You know what else the Bible contains? Jesus Himself rebuking the Pharisees precisely for putting tradition above Scripture.
Pro Tip: When you find yourself using the arguments of atheists, it's time to rethink your position, because you've lost.
The sola scriptura position really needs to be rephrased as scripture being the only infallible witness to the apostolic deposit.
@@bruhmingo did you see Gavin’s last video on the “fallible list of infallible books”? You’re telling me a fallible list is an infallible witness to the apostolic deposit?
@@zalmoxis3707The canon is not an authoritative list of books, it’s a list of authoritative books, so yes, the fallible list is an infallible witness.
@@paulnash6944 each book is used to interpret the other books and you don’t have the right list of books. You don’t have the apostolic deposit.
@@paulnash6944Right, but when it comes down to discerning what you call the only infallible way of knowing the apostolic deposit, we don’t have a reliable way of knowing which texts are infallible and which ones aren’t.
The word ALONE was inserted by the Reformers to emphasise and correct the Roman Catholic teaching of faith and works; Scripture and tradition; No the word does not exist in the Bible but it is definitely insinuated. The word alone is implicit in Scripture if not explicit.
The reason Catholics make such a fuss about it is because they do not like being corrected. They rely on fallible traditions of men and they believe Jesus is not capable of saving anyone without a bit of human help and assistance
You are my favourite protestant apologotist! God bless you!❤😄
Very well articulated. Thank you, Gavin.
I was in a debate with an Eastern Orthodox, and he presented the following scenario: "Suppose you were in the first century, and St. Paul came to your church, and called the church out for miss-using the Eucharist, and disbelieving it is the literal body and blood."
I responded with: "This is not a hypothetical, but something I can go to in scripture. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul does exactly that: he addresses the miss-uses they are having regarding the Lord's Supper. His complaints are: 1.) They are not distributing it equally (some are hungry and some are drunk) (20-22), 2.) they are taking without examining themselves (27-31). What Paul did not feel an issue to address was: 1.) Is it actual wine, 2.) is it unleavened bread, and 3.) is it the actual body and blood of Jesus. He addressed the heart and not the theology."
Paul did end this with saying there were "remaining matters" that he would address in person, so perhaps that was the Real Presence, but the obvious problems Paul saw an urgent matter to address were the greed and carelessness of the Eucharist, not the substance. We can debate what Paul's "remaining matters" are, but we cannot say that it is reliably documented to the first Century. Calling somebody a heretic for disagreeing on this issue Paul saw as unnecessary to write about is not being open to charitable conversation. It's assuming your position is right, and that St. Paul would agree with you. Why don't we base what St. Paul believed off of what he actually wrote?
You are correct. And Paul went a step further. He called the consecrated element which we eat, "bread." Not just once, but three times. If he thought it was literal flesh, he would have said, "so eat of the flesh" instead of, "so eat of the bread." 😊
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?"
Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?
Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).
Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.
Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).
Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.
Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).
Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).
Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.
Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).
Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.
Many other examples could be given.
These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
This was a very succinct and well-put breakdown of the different kinds of tradition. Thank you!
If something ties in with Scripture accept it. If it doesn’t then reject it! Be a Berean
@@mikekayanderson408 Indeed! We can accept much that is outside of scripture, but nothing that is contrary to it.
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?"
Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?
Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).
Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.
Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).
Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.
Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).
Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).
Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.
Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).
Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.
Many other examples could be given.
These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
The verse is to hold fast to the traditions that were taught by US, whether spoken or written. Never alludes to holding fast to the traditions that others will claim the apostles taught.
In other words, what evolved into the New Testament.
This is a really dumb argument. It doen't illude to what you think either.
That's right, and at the time, these traditions were not written Yet.
@@GeraldHunt-i5q It's actually a very good argument when you take into consideration the context of the verse. Paul is telling them to hold fast to what they received directly from him precisely because they were false teachings in the Church that claimed to have come from him.
oh yeah totally! The oral Apostolic traditions were completely forgotten and ceased to bind around AD 100. Im convinced
I appreciate the sensitiveness you have to the question that people would have even as you are making a point.
Really thoughtful video to something I've been wrestling with. Thank you!
Dr. Ortlund brings a wonderful gift of clarity to these discussions. ❤
Yes... Division
@@philipmarchalquizar7741 Sometimes the truth divides.
Luke begins his gospel explaining why he is writing: “that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.”
So, Theophilis received good oral teaching, but something about it lacked certainty… Therefore, God inspired Luke to write.
Maybe the scriptures are recognizing the “telephone” problem early on?
Thanks!
JESUS, MARK 7:13: "You nullify the Word of God for the sake of your traditions."
The point is not exclusionary. Tradition in and of itself is not bad/wrong. But when tradition overbears and contradicts Scripture that is the issue Christ is contending with.
@@orthodoxymatters ST. BERNARD (1090-1153) to Pope Eugenius:
“What profit does the flock derive from magnificent pageants, with you, the supreme shepherd of the flock advancing majestically in gilded clothing? Do you think that Saint Peter loved to surround himself with this pomp and display, or Saint Paul? No. In all things that belong to earthly magnificence, you have succeeded not Peter, but the Emperor Constantine!”
This was incredibly edifying. Thank you. Dane
Knocked it out of the park Gavin! I’m loving reading your new book and listening to these videos which align with it.
Another excellent presentation, Dr O. Thank you.
Helpful as always Dr Ortlund. God bless.
This is such an excellent and really helpful analysis and response to the claim of Protestants ignoring tradition - thank you so much Dr Ortlund!
looking forward to the Apostles Creed video
It would be great to see like a chart enumerating the different ways in which Sola Scriptura can be defined or explained, right next to the traditional Protestant position in relation to that other column. Because most of the debates and dialogues and discussions of this topic are possible just because one of the sides misunderstands the traditional understanding of the doctrine itself. In that chart one can see whether “Protestant” agrees with X definition of Sola Scriptura or not. It can also be done with the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the relationship between the Church and the Scriptures. Gavin, do it!!! You’re the man for that.
thanks for the Southern Illinois shout out!
A well-made case, Gavin! God bless
All goes back to Ecclesiastes what was Solomons conclusion
“Fear God; keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” Ecc 12:13
YES! hold firm to the tradition that was taught, not every new thing under the son!
@13:14 - Origen taught a heterodox view of the pre-existing soul and universalism. This would directly affect his views on the immaculate conception (of Mary), and his teachings were anathematized. The entire concept of the immaculate conception relies on Augustinian traducianism, which is also unorthodox. Studying up on St. John Cassian may give some additional perspective.
This was very helpful in a way I had not considered before. Thank you. This is the hardest part of the debate with Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants: how do we know which traditions were handed down from Paul and the Apostles within the first 300 years of the church?
Absolutely brilliant!
Thank you, Gavin, for addressing this topic with clarity and thoughtfulness. I’d like to offer a Catholic perspective on some of the points you raised about Sola Scriptura and Tradition.
1. Apostolic Tradition in Scripture and Beyond
The Catholic Church sees Scripture and Tradition as complementary, not contradictory. Both flow from the same source of divine revelation and together communicate God’s truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2 reflect this unity-Paul is exhorting the faithful to hold fast to both written and oral apostolic teaching. The Church, as the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), has the divinely given role of preserving and transmitting this deposit of faith.
2. “Telephone Game” Argument
The analogy of oral tradition as a “telephone game” misunderstands the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church (John 16:13). Far from being fallible, the Church has faithfully safeguarded the apostolic teaching through the centuries. Historical continuity-evident in doctrines like the Trinity and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist-demonstrates the reliability of this Spirit-guided process.
3. What Is Apostolic Tradition?
You distinguish between oral apostolic teaching (first-century instruction) and post-apostolic claims of Tradition. While it’s true we don’t know every specific “tradition” Paul referred to, the Church’s role has been to preserve both Scripture and the living Tradition faithfully handed down. The early Church Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus, affirmed this when they appealed to apostolic succession as a marker of authentic doctrine (Against Heresies 3.24.1).
4. The Role of Scripture and Tradition
Sola Scriptura presupposes a completed canon of Scripture, yet the canon itself was discerned through the Church’s authoritative Tradition. Without an infallible guide, how can one determine the boundaries of Scripture? Protestant theologian Alister McGrath acknowledges this: “The New Testament as we know it did not exist at the time of the early Church...it was the Church itself that determined what the New Testament was” (Christianity’s Dangerous Idea).
5. The Immaculate Conception and Development of Doctrine
The Immaculate Conception is an example of doctrinal development-not an invention, but a deepening understanding of the truths implicit in Scripture and Tradition. Typological readings of Genesis 3:15 (Mary as the New Eve) and Luke 1:28 (“full of grace”) provide a biblical basis. As St. John Henry Newman explained, development of doctrine involves unpacking the deposit of faith, not adding to it-similar to how the Church articulated the Trinity.
In conclusion, Sola Scriptura struggles to account for the Church’s role in safeguarding and interpreting divine revelation. The Catholic view of Scripture and Tradition as two aspects of one deposit of faith, preserved through the Spirit-guided Church, provides a more coherent and historically rooted framework for understanding Christian belief.
Thank you again for engaging with these important topics. I hope this adds to the conversation and fosters deeper understanding! God bless.
catholic tradition is not scripture, it is man-made and lies .
The unwritten tradition is the problem ~ no one can pinpoint it anywhere!
they do not
Which the Catholic Church has not done a good job at. Having traditions that go against scripture
I've been researching this topic and have made some notes and jotted some questions that have come up as I've read and also quoted some of the early Church Fathers on this topic: The Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic traditions (these are different from man made traditions). Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them, as the following quotations show…
Iranaus wrote in AD 189, “As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2).
In AD 225 Origen wrote, “Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2).
Basil the Great wrote in AD 375, “Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66).
John Chysostom wrote in AD 402, “[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians).
From the year of Christ’s Resurrection until roughly 100, the New Testament itself was not completely written. And in the view of many nothing was written prior to the year 50. Yet this was a period of tremendous growth for the Church. How could it have grown intact, with the same teachings being passed on orally and consistently, unless the Holy Spirit was safeguarding the transmission of Sacred Tradition? How were so many converted without the aid of the Bible as we know it today, if not with the aid of Sacred Tradition? If God can providentially use fallible human beings to write the word of God without error, why couldn't He providentially use fallible human beings to transmit the word of God in a non written form without error also?
Dei Verbum, which is the dogmatic constitution of divine revelation for the Catholic Church states in paragraph 9, “Hence there exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”
It is stated that Scripture contains all truths necessary for salvation while Tradition contains the orthodox way of understanding Scripture. “There is not a single point of belief the Catholic Church holds by Tradition alone without any reference to Scripture, just as there is not a single dogma that is derived from Scripture alone without being explained by Tradition.” (Meaning of Tradition by Yves Congar pg 39-40)
Thank you sister! I actually hadn't seen most of these quotes b4 and will save them.
Where is the assumption of Mary in Scripture?
The best example of how oral transmission is unreliable is the fact Paul had to write many of his letters to correct what churches were screwing up on after he had visited and taught them.
"Tradition" is usually the orally received teaching of the Jewish rabbis. (Matt. 15:2 et al.) Jesus was critical of tradition when it went contrary to the word of God. But Paul speaks of "tradition" in a more positive light (1st Corinthians 11:12; 2nd Thess. 2:15, et al.) Traditions were not habitual practices. They were teachings, and they were either good or bad depending on whether they agreed with the revelation of God through the Lord Jesus and the prophets and apostles.
Agreed, that's why tradition must be subordinate to written revelation
@@thadofalltrades The first century Christians would not agree. They still had the testimony of those who were Apostles or who had known the Apostles. Their word ("tradition") was more valuable to them than the written revelation. Why? For the same reason the spoken word of a witness in court is more valuable than a written testimony. The oral testimony can be probed by the attorneys.
But we have only the written testimony ("traditions") So there is no possibility to choose.
@@doncamp1150 I can agree with that, the written word came to preserve the tradition since you and I can't go talk to Paul like they could. That's essentially the whole purpose of Luke's works.
@@thadofalltrades We do not have the tradition the New Testament speaks of. It was orally transmitted teaching. So, the debate between the two is moot. We do have the tradition written down. It is easily identified in Mark who transcribed the oral tradition of Perter. biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2022/09/according-to-mark.html
2 tim 2.2 tells us how Paul's words got transmitted. "What you hace heard from me, teach to faithfully witnesses who will teach it to others "
While I always appreciate Dr. Ortlund's thoughtful and thorough engagement with these questions, I as a Protestant actually do not find this argument particularly compelling. The core question here is an epistemological one with regards to what constitutes apostolicity. But it takes as given that the scriptures are known to be apostolic without acknowledging that this too demands some epistemological explanation. I know Dr. Ortlund has addressed questions of the canon, but they seem to take as given that the text is properly discerned to have been apostolic while likewise presuming that the apostolicity of tradition cannot ever be properly discerned.
I think as a result it's easy enough to pick on certain contemporarily defined dogmas from the Roman Catholics as obvious accretions but the premises are then applied to considerably more ancient traditions like apostolic succession, claiming them to be being equally unverifiable in apostolicity. The more central question I think is the epistemology behind how we know what is and is not apostolic and then utilizing that same methodology to how we address issues of both determining the canon of scripture and the content of extra-biblical apostolic tradition (if there is any).
Textual criticism and historical analysis show clearly the New Testament goes back to the apostles. Either the scripture is reliable, or nothing is. Again, what you articulate is a very postmodern way of viewing things.
@@bruhmingo Textual criticism doesn't do much to confirm authorship (in fact it more often than not calls traditional authorship into question), which is why I find its utility in affirming apostolicity somewhat limited. Historical analysis absolutely helps us determine the pedigree of the reception of the New Testament among early Christians, and I would definitely confirm it demonstrates a predominant recognition of apostolicity for the majority of the NT from an early period.
My question is why that historical methodology is sufficient for establishing which texts were genuinely apostolic but is insufficient to establish which traditions were genuinely apostolic? (Especially when we consider than some traditions have broader and earlier pedigree for apostolicity than even some books of scripture.)
And of course, the possibility that there are genuine non-biblical apostolic traditions makes no claim on the reliability of scripture. Scripture is of course reliable and should be savored by every Christian. This post is not some effort to undermine scripture but a critique of Dr. Ortlund's argumentation.
@@bruhmingo Show one textual critic that demonstrates the apostolicity of any one of the NT books.
Great video. Precise clarification!
Yep. Everything that is Necessary now, is in the scriptures
Great video!
Another W video by the brother G.O.
Really helpful and clear.
Your videos have been incredibly impactful in my journey of faith thank you for all you do. I know you're busy, and your plate is surely overflowing but I would greatly appreciate a video that specifically addresses how to refute some of the key beliefs held by Jehovah's Witnesses. A kind couple recently visited my home, and I feel led to witness to them, but I'm a bit nervous and want to be well prepared for when they return. Any insights or guidance you could share would be invaluable.
The Cultish show on Apologia youtube channel has some resources for that. Hope Gavin doesn't mind me mentioning it here.
Much of the theology hints around Jesus not being God, but being a created being. In John, it says that everything that came into being was created by Jesus. So, if Jesus created all things that came into being, what does that require that Jesus be? Uncreated.
That's one of the places to take a look at.
@@Rolan18111 Yes and their version NWT of the Bible says “All OTHER things were created”.
Take them to Revelation and show them in the 1st chapter where God is speaking and says "I died ...", then ask them when God died if not in God, the 2nd person of the Trinity, as Jesus. They logically can't respond with anything else.
@@keelyemerine-mix1051 Is this not Jesus speaking? Which verse are you referring to?
It’s literally impossible to say tradition is equal to Scripture… whose tradition?
This Scripture verse is used incorrectly to attempt to justify doctrine that is not supported by Scripture…
This Scripture verse can only be understood in the same way all Scripture must be understood, and that is in the context of its meaning…
@@Truth_not_deception1 what this verse simply means is that what the apostles taught is authoritative no matter if they said it or if they wrote it down.
Protestants instead believe that only what was written down is authoritative.
Once more, Scripture refutes Protestantism.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Sola Scriptura wasn't even taught by the True Church. Christianity cannot be divorced from its history. Since Jesus was incarnated in history, the body of Christ (the Church), is also in history.
@@LaRevolution0Great points.
How do we realistically know what someone SAID 2000+ years ago?
Answer: we don’t
@@thejerichoconnection3473no. That verse says to hold to the traditions given orally OR written. I.e., either or. What’s been given by oral testimony cannot contradict what’s been written. The traditions of Rome and Constantinople contradict the scripture and add to the gospel. It’s false. You also cannot show me a single statement made by Christ or the apostles outside of scripture.
Great points! Sola scriptura ❤!!😊 ty dr. Ortlund!😊
Nicely explained! Thank You! 🙏
The Orthodox Church teaches that the same Spirit instructed and guided the Apostles also instructed and guided the early Church and us now. Since it’s the same Spirit, the Spirit infallibly transmits the same Tradition at every time of the Church, regardless of how well individuals hold onto the received Tradition.
It’s odd to me charismatics who claim that the Spirit works the same as it did in Apostolic times, (the alleged speaking in tongues) reject this view of the Spirit’s transmission of Tradition.
I was thinking that same thought today about Evangelical non denominational Charismatics/Pentacostals rejecting tradition. I think there is a great inconsistency in their thinking.
Respectful, I think you need to do more research on charismatics/Pentecostal view of Pneumatology.
Comparing oral transmission with telephone game is classic. It does work for games, as the name indicates. In John 16:13 Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide His disciples in truth, including THINGS TO COME. Jesus did not give them empty words or lip service to boost their moral - He will and is able to keep His promise.
Unlike telephone game played by humans, the Holy Spirit will guide them regardless the time and duration of unwritten tradition. The Holy Spirit did not mute Himself or became inactive after the death of the last apostle or after the last book of Scripture was written. - why would He?
Dr. Ortlund differentiates between "apostolic tradition" and "non-apostolic tradition". He has no problem with the former but he claimed that we do not know it and he has no problem for not knowing it. But did Paul write "to stand firm and hold to tradition"? How does he know which is apostolic and which one is non-apostolic? His answer is using Scripture, i.e. His presumption that Scripture is the final authority.
Yep, telephone game is a straw man argument...
And your thoughts about teachings that occur in the teachings of the apostles in the Didache, dated to the early 2nd century or even more likely into the first century, so the time of the apostles. The teachings confirm much of the teachings of the Bible but also expand into areas of praying three times a day and fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays for example. These traditions developed and were put down for the early church and were held by many early church fathers as practical teachings for Christians.
I think some Orthodox still pray and fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.
Thank you Dr. Portland for being a clear voice for Protestantism. All I keep seeing on UA-cam is catholics telling me I'm in the wrong church and I need to come home.
Early Christianity would not have recognized Ortlundism as Christian at all, merely a bizarre gnostic sect.
@@fantasia55Where is your Catholic love and charity
@@fantasia55Don't even know what you talking about
@@murilolinsdacruz4110they just love to yap when their dogmas are challenged
@@southcalifkid29 You need to come home, you are in the wrong sect.
Upholding Scriptural traditions is just that, holding to the Scriptures.
We got this video a day early!!!! YAY
I don't disagree with you fully. We should be clear about the meaning of Sola Scriptura, but also the practical application of it. One issue I think still needs to be addressed is that the apostolic tradition that was passed down is what brought us scripture in the first place. But it brought us more than the 66 books of the protestant canon. The word canon is even an issue because that is almost the wrong way to think about it. Christ didn't start a canon, He started a Church. The Holy Spirit didn't take a vacation and allow the Way of Christ and the apostolic deposit to lapse. The claim sounds like, "There was a faithful transmission of apostolic tradition which at least resulted in us accepting scripture as the infallible authority, but we get to decide when and how that faithful transmission stopped, and we get to determine the meaning of scripture without the apostolic tradition, based on our own interpretations now."
I believe the broader point Fr. Trenham was making was about the lack of perspicuity of Sola Scriptura. We are claiming Sola Scriptura, but then practicing entirely different things (women not as pastors vs women as pastors, LGBTQ+ affirming vs not, abortion affirming vs condemning, the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ as Luther thought or it is symbolic as Zwingli thought, etc.). Tradition thus holds a necessary seat in the conversation, and it confuses me how the Holy Spirit would lapse this egregiously. Or, the tradition which brought us the apostle's creed, Nicea 1, etc. is correct, and there is a discernable path forward to interpret scripture and lead the church with authority that comes from scripture and correct tradition.
For example, the reason Chrysostom could talk about Mary's vainglory is because the correct tradition understands original sin in a different way than the Roman Catholic Church and resultant Protestants. The correct tradition is that Adam's sin resulted in the consequence of death for human nature. And that the Second Adam, Christ, heals that nature and brings life. Mary does not have to be 'immaculate' because she wasn't personally guilty of Adam's original sin, so she doesn't need an extra backstory to create a workaround to an incorrect interpretation. Chrysostom understands original sin differently than Roman Catholics and also differently than you do. He is pointing out that Christ heals the vainglory in His actions to honor her. Though her request was unseasonable, this is not him saying she did personally commit a sin. Chrysostom is teaching this passage to inform us on redemptive love, transforming grace, and warning us of the danger of vainglory (one of his frequent topics). This is not necessarily a good example to use to bolster your position, but I understand that you may have a different concept of original sin that confuses this topic.
Always nice to hear a Chicagoan acknowledge the existence of Southern Illinois :)
@10:18 - Protestants are saying YOU have to look at them instead of WE... once there is a "WE have to look at them," a new tradition is born. This is a fundamental difference - Biblical interpretation is always done in light of tradition (and should be done in light of Tradition). Post-enlightenment thought encourages Tradition to be subject to the INDIVIDUAL's interpretation of Scripture. It's a broken hermeneutic.
From my own Protestant exploration of this topic. I find this kind of apostolic argument to be missing the forest for the trees. It is The Holy Spirit who authors, empowers, anoints, and interprets. The tradition of the apostles ultimately still belongs to the Spirit and the Spirit is promised to guide the church until the very end. In the end splitting hairs like this doesn’t convince me Catholics are any less circular by demanding infallible interpretation with infallible scripture as we are demanding only infallible scripture.
Regarding the date of Easter, my understanding was that the argument was over when to celebrate it, not the actual, specific date Jesus was raised. If I am rememberng corrctly, then couldn't you have two legitimate traditions from two different apostles? It would just mean that the way of calculating when to celebrate Easter is not necessarily binding on Christians.
There is no Biblical injunction to celebrate Easter at all! Except to "celebrate" Communion/Eucharist/the Lord's Table - which most churches do on a regular basis (weekly/monthly).
Which ancient and diametrically opposed tradition are we to submit to? There are multiple ones, and they don't agree on much beyond the Apostles' Creed.
Gavin, i love you my brother
Good stuff.
Hey Gavin can you do women in ministry . Got questions from a skeptic today .
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?"
Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?
Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).
Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.
Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).
Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.
Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).
Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).
Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.
Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).
Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.
Many other examples could be given.
These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund! Have you see the debate between Scholastic Lutherans and Two Orthodox (one a priest) about this subject? The Lutherans go through Chemnitz’ treatment of the different meanings of tradition. He is one of the great Lutheran theologians.
Lord’s blessings
Fun fact, Chemnitz’s Examination is featured in every new Truth Unites video! If only visually-it’s the beautiful set of books behind and to the left of Gavin!
Where in Scripture does it say that only in Scripture is the Apostolic Tradition to be found? Which books are Scripture are part of the Apostolic Tradition. As for the "telephone game" argument, I would suggest you read Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" response to the Telephone game arguments against the reliability of the Gospels.
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?"
Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?
Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).
Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.
Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).
Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.
Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).
Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).
Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.
Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).
Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.
Many other examples could be given.
These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
@@Jesus_is_the_only_savior-7
The only thing that matters is apostolic succession.
The hierarchy has the authority to teach and govern.
You do not.
Now ask for an infallible DEFINITION of tradition. Some Roman Catholic apologists will define it as the authoritative interpretation of Scripture while others will assert it is the word of God not written down and passed on through the church. You cannot get both definitions from 2 Thessalonians 2:15. I have an entire chapter on this subject in a book I hope to publish in 2025.
I would say that another way we can know what apostolic tradition is, is by referencing the church fathers and researching how they interpreted certain passages of Scripture and how they practiced their Christianity. Some of them were taught by the apostles themselves, and so I think it's very credible to look to them as a source for tradition. It's exciting to know that we have these references to see how they practiced the Lord's Supper or what they thought about baptismal regeneration, etc.
Why should we believe that the church fathers were these irregularly knowledgeable men who were able to interpret Scripture in ways that we today cannot? Yes they were taught by the apostles, but were the apostles themselves incapable of committing doctrinal error?
In Galatians 2 11-16, Paul corrects Peter on his erroneous teaching. This is, of course, Peter, who the RCC tells us was the first Pope and Christ’s representative on Earth. Yet here he is being corrected by an apostle who was never taught by Christ. On top of that, we see Peter deny Christ just before his crucifixion, and then the apostles all flee afterwards. This does not look to me like a group of men with unshakable faith nor infallible knowledge of doctrine.
Should we heed the words of their disciples, having been directly taught by the apostles themselves? Of course, but they were still very much in the process of learning what the words of Jesus meant just like we still do today. To put their interpretation of Scripture as absolute seems ridiculous to me, we possess today the accumulation of two thousand years of Christian thought that we may lean on in understanding Scripture, something they did not have. Their beliefs about baptismal regeneration, for example, do carry weight to me when I’m weighing out the evidence, but they do not cause me to throw out what I believe to be the clear meaning of Scripture in teaching against their beliefs.
@@shanezarcone5401 I would suggest the Apostles were totally reliable! They were with Jesus and wrote under and taught under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! But just because they taught someone does not mean the person they taught was reliable! Paul chastised people in Churches he taught in for being false teachers. So the same goes for the church fathers - they could have been taught by an Apostle yet not teach the truth themselves. The Apostles are reliable - no one after them is infallible!
Great point, which is why protestants reject dogma such as the immaculate conception, and papal in fallibility. Mainly, the first two of which aren’t only not found within the earliest church tradition, but is also spoken against
Here's what I'm wrestling with: when Scripture, which is infallible, is interpreted by Christians in different ways (some believe that baptism now saves you as 1 Peter 3:21 says, and others believe that baptismal regeneration is a heresy and adds to the Gospel), how are we to get to the truth? I think that a very reliable way to get to the truth is by researching what the early church fathers believed and practiced on the subject. I'm not sure that we can draw any conclusions from that, but it does seem that looking at the tradition / practices of the early church fathers is at least very helpful (maybe even necessary) to help us correctly interpret written tradition (Scripture). So we have this written tradition from the apostles but we don't necessarily know how some of these things looked in practice, and so looking at the early Christians and how they practiced their faith, especially when they were alive at the same time as the apostles, is very compelling to how we should correctly interpret passages of scripture that are debated by Christians today.
@@timmleonard111 Isn't me and my bible alone in my closet the pillar and foundation of truth? ;)
One of the reasons the early church started to affirm writings as "Canon" was the competing traditions. Even the Gnostics claimed to have sacred tradition handed on to them by the apostles. The Early church used writings that later became the agreed upon New Testament to measure which Traditions came from the Apostles and which were heretical or man made. Tradition and Scripture in the early church both affirmed the "deposit of faith". Nothing was in Scripture that wasn't part of the "Tradition" and nothing was in "Tradition" that wasn't in Scripture. If a Tradition was taught that wasn't in scripture then it was rejected. If an interpretation of Scripture was taught that wasn't part of "Tradition" then that interpretation was rejected.
It wasn't until later, around the 3rd- 4th Century, that Scripture and Tradition were separated. That is also when we start to see new "Traditions" emerge. Traditions became "Whatever we say it is" as the Scriptures ceased to be the rule by which Traditions were judged.
So you are saying the gates of hell did prevail, contrary to Jesus's words?
@@First_Rock To "prevail" means to overcome to the point of submission, to be victorious. As long as people are living in faith through grace and are on mission for Christ to share the Gospel, then the gates of hell have not prevailed.
2:22 Is written transmission more accurate than oral transmission when we have so many manuscripts that don't fully agree because they were copied by people? If you like writing and a high majority of early Christian writings say the Mass is a sacrifice even though they are far away from each other, and also all Christian denominations before Protestantism believed it was a sacrifice, isn't it extremely likely the Apostles believed it was a sacrifice even if it doesn't explicitly say that in the Bible? I get suspicious, Gavin, wondering why if early Christians followed sola scriptura why there were no Christian denomination that followed it until Protestantism. I get suspicious when all Christian Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on something with a lot of backing from early Christian writers and Protestants don't.
GM! yes, it is extremely lunikely that the apostles believe in the Lord's supper as a sacrifice.
In the early years of the church, there was no need to articulate the idea of Sola Scriptura bc it was implicit. Nobody thought of extracting doctrine from any place else.
@@Maranatha99The first Mass was the last supper with the Holy Mass been offered ever since. See Mal 1:11. Every Catholic priest offers Mass most days in all places at all times as perpetual propitiatory sacrifice
@geoffjs Hello, Geoffrey: After Jesus died for us, no more propitiatory sacrifices are necessary bc His sacrifice was once & for all:
"And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all."
Hebrews 10,10
But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 1
Hebrews 10, 22
"For by one sacrifice, he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
Hebrews 10, 14
The idea of a perpetual propitiatory sacrifice does not come from God. Jesus is in no sacrificial altar. He is resurrected, glorified, & at the right hand of God the Father.
No human can reenact Jesus's sacrifice. That is basically an aberration.
That verse in Malachi has nothing to do with a Mass.
@geoffjs Hello, Malachi 1, 11 is not about the Mass.
God is reminding Israel that He will be properly worshipped, even if that worship comes from those outside of Israel. It's about God being honored by the Gentiles.
@@geoffjs Hello! Malachi 1, 11 is not about the Mass.
God is reminding Israel that He will be properly worshipped, even if that worship comes from those outside of Israel.
God will be honored by the Gentiles.
Incense is often a symbol of prayers.
Have you put up any videos on head coverings yet?
Yes. This is excellent. Thank you for sharing!
5:40 sola scriptura is not the rejection of tradition
Yes...Amen. I think all earnest Christians including Catholics just want to practice the faith that is most in line with what the apostles taught. In my own journey I have setlled on Anglican Lutheran and Presbyterian to be representative of that along with things we can learn from the Roman Catholic church but not submit to newer dogmas from the RC church that we don't see in the early church. I favor the Anglicans the most at this time.
The New testiment ASSUMES some tradations about reading the old testiment. Moses being followed by a rock, There being 2 adams in genesis, moses fighting with Jambres , Moses body being fought over by the devil. Angels bound in a pit. Isaiah dying being cut in half. The New testiment affirms these jewish tradations of old testiment yet arent in old testiment. But they are completly missing from OT.
There are at least two distinct ways to understand Sola Scriptura. The extreme view is that we can only do what the Bible specifically prescribes. So then, an absence of mention of something in the Bible is tantamount to a prohibition. That extreme view is what the Orthodox and Catholic churches attack, because it's a weaker view.
The more moderate view is that the Scripture is the final arbiter in theological and ecclesiological disputes, and that in matters where there is no clear teaching of Scripture, either freedom or tradition can dictate. Nothing wrong with having some church traditions. As a Protestant I'd argue that they are often good, but they cannot be allowed to contradict Scriptural teaching. That last part is the crucial difference.
Sola Scriptura isn't perfect, as it allows every yahoo with basic literacy to opine on church matters. But long term it's great for scrubbing churches of accretions that denigrate God's Word, however inadvertently.
I don't think anyone actually holds to your first view of sola scriptura. Otherwise driving would be a prohibition.
Long term sola scriptura has led to more division and less unity. Scripture cannot teach that baptism saves and regenerates a person and that it doesn’t do that, but if you think it doesn’t while belonging to a church that does just split and start your own church that actually follows the Scriptures instead of staying with that church that follows an antibiblical accretion.
@@TheKj85 True. But it's also led many Christians to be able to escape pernicious teaching like praying to Mary and statues.
@@christopherneedham9584 I live in the same county with tens of thousands of Amish who ride horses instead of driving cars, ostensibly for Scriptural reasons.
@@Pedro-bk1ic if the scriptures teach to pray to Mary and statues then why would they need to escape it? Shouldn’t they leave their church and start a new one that follows the scriptures that say to pray to Mary?
A fuller exploration of this might include a comparison of the use and abuse of tradition in the Old Testament context, with the Jewish religious leaders. Then also some questions to the RCC that I think are fair; if by tradition it is meant the RCC possesses additional extra-biblical apostolic traditions/teachings, in what nature do they possess them - are they written down somewhere? If so where, and why have they not been made public, and why would dogma taken explicitly from those teachings not be made dogma right from the get go? If not, why? Or, does 'tradition' mean something other than that the RCC possesses actual, verbatim, teachings of the Apostles?
I have had Catholics try to use that before. I ask what traditions they can demonstrate go back to Paul. Answer: they can't.
Well... Actually we can. The tradition of the liturgy goes back to the churches Paul founded. (Or any of the other apostles).
Also the tradition of the Church having the authority to arbitrate issues to retain unity. That goes back to the apostles.
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?"
Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?
Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).
Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.
Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).
Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.
Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).
Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).
Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.
Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).
Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.
Many other examples could be given.
These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
@Jesus_is_the_only_savior-7 Some are and some aren't. They claim tradition, but can't trace much back to the first century.
If one wants to believe Mary was a perpetual virgin good for you, but don't claim to curse me with anathema because I disagee.
@@chrisazure1624 Its super easy to prove that the Church can arbitrate issues going back to the apostles. It's also super easy to find Mary's perpetual virginity among the Church Fathers, (including Origen.) So the Church arbitrates that Mary is perpetually a virgin. Seems straight forward.
@@haronsmith8974 That's the legend your priests and popes tell you, but you can't find it in the historical record until the latter part of the second century onward. (Origin - c. 185 - c. 253). The Assumption of Mary was not dogma until 1950!
Are you one that claims Revelation 12 is talking about Mary? If so, don't forget it mentions the "rest of her offspring" in v17.
I know your popes and priests twist Matthew 1:25, but it only claims she was a virgin until after Jesus was born. Then she had Jesus' brother and sisters which has to be edited out of the bible with twisting the words to mean cousins.
In I Corinthians 11:2 our Apostle Paul is referring to the doctrines that he preached that Jesus Christ gave to him by divine revelation. In Galatians 1:12 Paul refers to the gospel of the grace of God that he received by divine revelation from Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:12 - For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
consider the face-palming irony of using scripture to prove or disprove sola scriptura
Yes =D
Google: vimeo russell's paradox librarian
Above is the reason that set theory leads to Taoism.
Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu Chapter 1, Darkness born from Darkness
ua-cam.com/video/YsZKCGlRu7g/v-deo.htmlsi=aPuKop6fiickwXJc
There's nothing ironic about it. If scripture itself says that it is not the only source of spiritual truth, then those holding to Sola Scriptura must be wrong by their own argument.
Then there's the even worse irony of using Catholic Tradition to prove or disprove Catholic Tradition!
Fantastic message here. You can even point to the two great traditions of Romanism and Eastern Ortho. How can each of them prove their traditions to an outsider?
This is overall a good addressing of the topic. I'm not qualified nor care to give a rebuttal; I'll just point out some things I thought about. The fundamental issue here is simply the question of "what is Tradition?" As Gavin points out, Tradition is somewhat tricky to define. As a former Evangelical it took me years of immersion in and study of Eastern Orthodoxy to even begin to understand what "Tradition" even refers to.
Evangelicals seem to interpret the non Protestant concept of Tradition simply as instructions and propositional statements not provided in Scripture. My understanding is that what is meant by "Tradition" is something more like the culture of Christianity. These are not exactly the same thing, so when Protestants critique "Tradition", they often aren't critiquing the right thing, which is unfortunate as discussing these issues is good.
Protestants always talk about Scripture and Tradition as if they are two completely distinct things, categorical reasoning being the norm in western Christianity; however, the distinction between the two is, I think, rather blurry, and here is a good example: the singing of the Psalms. The Psalms are in the Bible, and the phrase "for the music director" at the beginning of many of them is a strong indication of what they are FOR, namely, singing as worship songs, which is a tradition. It is a tradition which the Evangelicals have tragically lost and are missing out on; they don't even sing the canticles.
His point about how even the ancient Christians didn't always agree on the dictates of Tradition is fair, but his example concerning the date of Easter is somewhat ironic as modern Evangelicals barely even observe Easter anymore. Perhaps that is an uncharitable thing to say, but in Eastern Christianity Easter is like a second Christmas, which is awesome. Everyone wants a second Christmas. Well, except the Jehovah's Witnesses.
This rise in EO converts is just a LARP that is reasonable given the state of prots in North America. They MUST convince themselves that the doctrine is sound to escape Liberal Prots.
I found this helpful. Thanks
Slightly off topic but funny nonetheless.😂
Your thumbnail pics:
In one if your vids that I watched recently, you mentioned that someone else chooses the thumbnail pic for each video that's uploaded.
I immediately knew which one is your BEST EVER😂 but I can't attach it to this comment 😢.
So to describe it, it's your expression in the "Megan Basham's Shepherds for sale: Problems with this book" video.
“We should obey tradition.”
“But there are no apostolic traditions like this.”
“Well that’s because of doctrinal development.”
“The early church didn’t believe in doctrinal development.”
“Well that’s because it hadn’t developed yet.”
“Then in what way are you following tradition?”
Ah yes Newman’s infamous hypothesis.
So you should not use the bible nor pray in churches
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?"
Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?
Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).
Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.
Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).
Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.
Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).
Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).
Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.
Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).
Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.
Many other examples could be given.
These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
@@Jesus_is_the_only_savior-7 bro you use the catholic bible to debunk the catholic church
Just give us the true bible cause you ll agree à bad tree can not give good fruits
Oh man! Thank you for this comment-- the paradox of following tradition vs. following development...
Sometimes I also find it encouraging to observe there were already conflicts of practice in the New Testament church...
Yes, we are told to hold to tradition so long as it follows the truth of God’s word. The problem was that many Greek pagan teachings were taught by some of the early church fathers. One was the introduction of Neoplatonism or the immortal soul, second the reliance on icons and statues to convey the gospel, third, though not necessarily Greek in origin, was the abandonment of the Sabbath for Sunday.
The Roman church felt it had the right to abrogate and change things as they saw fit and these became entrenched traditions within church culture!
Paul wrote that grievous wolves would enter the church that men will bring false teachings into the church and this was exactly what happened!
All of the Fathers held that apostolic succession was absolutely essential to the Church.
Whoever rejects apostolic succession rejects the Fathers and the Scriptures.
I love your work Gavin. But this left me with a question: are you saying that the apostles were themselves infallible?
In matters of faith and doctrine.
Jesus promissed them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. So, yes, they were infallible in matters of faith and doctrine.
Question: "Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical?"
Answer: The issue concerning any church and its practices should be "Is this Biblical?" If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus' apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid-there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?
Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).
Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation.
Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).
Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.
Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).
Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the "lay people," whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).
Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.
Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).
Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men.
Many other examples could be given.
These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: "What does Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
In the Bible we sometimes find the word ‘tradition’, which means nothing other than divine tradition (1 Cor 11:2). This is not about human tradition, as in some other passages of the Word of God.
Apostles are not fallible but their letter are infallible. For example, Peter was a fallible man. But his letters are infallible
Its not on topic, but am i the only one who feels like when we talk about theological disagreements especially on topics directly about God, generally speaking, with an unkind demeanor it feels more like gossiping about God rather than discussion of God?
Not always, but I sometimes do conclude that, especially when it ends up being more about oneself being right and provjng their intellectual superiority than following God.
Catholics like to point out the passage in Thessalonians 2:15 &3:6 as evidence for the future apostlolic succession…but tradition in that passage can only refer to the present or the past ….Paul is not referring to any future tradition at least not in those 2 references…
Also 1 Corinthians 11:2 would be the same as a reference to what Paul has already given them in the past…
@@charlesadair73 in both your reference Paul is actively giving instruction, so he could not possibly be only referring to the past.
@@dherpin4874 yes, giving instructions about the traditions given in the past…..already given to them…most of it we will never know….but the practice of Paul’s lifestyle and possibly his prayer life and other such things is a good guess, but it could not have possibly been a command for some Apostolic succession given for future churches, that is so contrived !!
There is no way you can prove your particular interpretation is true.
@@dankmartin6510 agreed
Sola Scriptura is not a formal dogma but a principle that rejects teachings and traditions that cannot be validated by the Bible. It upholds the written Word of God as the final authority. This principle encourages believers to test all teachings against the light of God’s written Word to ensure they do not deviate from the gospel message.
@@ANGELMartin-n4y thank you! That's why we say it doesn't have to "pass it's own test." One way I like to look at it is that it's the necessary presupposition.
Who told you the bible is from god
Do you believe the koran to be of god
I read Rock and Sand right before I left Orthodoxy, and I have to say that I don't think Fr. Trenham is being intellectually honest in his understanding of Sola Scriptura and I say that because he is a former Presbyterian and was even ordained by the PCA. He knows that Sola Scriptura does not mean SOLO Scriptura. I hope the Orthobros don't come for me on that one, but I expect they will. One of the last conversations I had with a mentor of mine within the Greek Orthodox church is that Christ said His followers would be known by their love, not the "correctness" of their rubrics and liturgical practices. Haven't heard from him since.
God bless you brother
Amen. That quote from Josiah Trenham is so ridiculously fallible. “So you just don’t obey what they say, only what they write?” No.. But we only know what they said based off what they write. What they don’t understand is during the apostolic time they didn’t have all the canon yet. They relied heavily upon what every apostle said. I’m convinced and sure that the Holy Spirit got all the apostolic instruction written down for us to upkeep (Jude 3). No one’s disobeying apostolic instruction, we just don’t know what they said, only what they wrote. That’s why he literally tells us what he said when he writes down head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. “Keep the traditions. And those are head coverings and short hair for men.” So no one’s disobeying, we just aren’t claiming apostles said something they never said. Which I think many church fathers and councils have been guilty of. Using tradition to promote accretions, that they came up with.
The church fathers, since they were ordained by the apostles historically, were teaching the Scriptural interpretation handed down from their teachers. Thusly, these men are **exactly** the record of the oral traditions/teachings on baptisms etc. Paul speaks of in multiple epistles. (I combined verses there; each side of the / is referring to one of those verses)
St. Ignatius of Antioch believed in the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist and he was the 3rd bishop in line after St. Peter. The early church fathers were all very Catholic/Orthodox in their understanding of church and sacraments because that's what they were taught. Same with Polycarp. We have the historical writings of the church fathers to determine the context and interpretation of scripture. Basically without Patristic Exegesis everyone ends up making up their own framework and traditions that interpret scripture. The question for Protestants is, who's more trustworthy: James White, RC Sproul, etc. Or Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Ignatius and Iraneaeus? The church fathers were not infallible, but that's why ecumenical councils were held to determine what to hold to vs. What's a personal opinion. Despite that, without the writings of the church fathers you can't understand scripture properly because the historical and contextual insight is invaluable.
@@joshenderson315 I believe in sticking in line with them. But how does that prove that claims Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have made since then? Those churches have definitely been leavened. Protestantism has one major advantage. Ridding leaven.
@@giovannivarlí Can you specify what claims in the Orthodox church are an innovation on what the apostles taught? Orthodoxy has changed very little in 2000 years. The Roman Catholic Church, however, since the schism of 1054 A.D., has been apostate and has made conflicting and heretical stances in their councils, which is why the Reformation happened.
@@joshenderson315 Such an over simplified statement of what's actually happened. This is Orthodox cathechism that is such a generalization of real history. The debate is way more dramatic than the way you've put it. I'm not going to write a lot here, but I would recommend the channel "Joshua Schooping." He was a former EO priest. He's produced a lot of content. It's ecclesiology, mariology, soterioloogy, icon veneration.
I love Garvin's arguements. Always very logical and soothing to Protestants and Catholics too i must say.
But how do we trust a God who gives us so much headaches on what to and what not to believe, as Garvin suggests. Do we think God just wants us to seek so much deep knowledge for us to know his truth, when infact he has revealed it to "mere children". Do we not think, that God, like he did in the OT by authorizing the High Priests unto religious teachings, would provide for us in this new covenant, people whom he has authorized to teach the faithful all truth?
We can dwell for centuries on arguments for or against catholicism and protestantism, it will get us nowhere. In the end, God isn't an author of confusion, his teachings are clear and the means to getting them, even clearer, through the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Scrutinising all Apostolic teaching through the lens of Scripture largely dominated by Paul, who himself wasnt an Apostle in the true sense, but an evangelist, is like removing keeping Christians aways from the fullness of teaching carried forth by other apostles, especially those who never wrote anything.
So Ireneaus, clement and ignatius saying the Eucharist is the real presence in writing doesn’t count? Didn’t they learn from at least one apostle?
How about what they say about baptism?
Many Protestants accept real presence in the Eucharist.
@@QCMPMany protestants accept homosexual marriage as valid. It doesn't matter what "many" Protestants accept.
@@QCMPbut do they accept what the fathers taught -- that it is the real flesh of Christ?
Some do.
Most do not.
They don't teach Transubstantiation, which arose much later, see the book the History of Papal Transubstantiation. Reformed Protestants don't teach the Lord's Supper are 'symbols only.' Neither do lutherans, anglicans, 1688 Baptists, etc. Show me a Protestant Confession of Faith from the Reformation that taught symbols only.
Talking about Sola Scriptura caricatures, this is the quote from one of my protestant friends(and I know that the majority of evangelicals share this way of thinking):
"What difference does it make to me what some dude wrote in the third century when I have the Bible?"
this is how i feel generally. i got really scared about many claims about such and such church "being the one true church" and by the time i listen to what they have to say i get really terrified that i am listening to traditions of man rather than God and going off a "because we said so" basis... and then i go right back to the word of God...because he's you know... God, and i know he won't let me down. all i know is that i need Jesus to pay that sin dept and he did, and i trust that he knows that i am terrified to commit to any "one true church" because there's like a million of them shrieking at the top of their lungs that if i don't get the denomination stamp of approval, i will not be in heaven because Jesus sure loves labels more than people, am i right?
right now i managed to squeeze into a church in the Tennessee valley, a independent Baptist church. they trust wholly in what is promised for believing in Jesus and i have not seen such trust before. i am out here questioning my salvation 24/7 (former alcoholic) and these guys in overalls just completely take what is said in the Bible at face value. some folks will call this "low church" but they know that book back to back. broke down crying singing "when we all get to heaven" and got baptized as a adult. sometimes God uses people in patchy overalls rather than robes.
i Genuinely think that God understands that i am 2000 years after Jesus rose from the dead, and there's a smorgasbord of denominations screaming that they are the only way to heaven, and he does not expect me to play the roulette wheel with my eternal soul. i just need to see if the church teaching lines up with scripture.
One example of a tradition most certainly dating back to apostolic times, is the concept of having one baptism, one altar, one bishop, one church, and one Eucharist. Since Protestants do not share this view of the church, we can confidently conclude that their perspective is incorrect.” "Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons" Saint Ignatius of Antioch
Where is this verse in Scripture! Alters were done away with once the Temple was destroyed. Bishop just means an elder - not your man prancing around in red hats and black gowns etc. as for your interpretation of the Lord’s supper - it is blasphemous!
@@mikekayanderson408oldest church in the world is in India, goes back to 63 AD, and was built by St. Thomas himself. It has an altar. Was St. Thomas a “blasphemer?”
@@mikekayanderson408 St. Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch and a disciple of the Apostle John around 100 AD, succeeded St. Evodius, who followed St. Peter as the first bishop. It is highly improbable that Ignatius was introducing a new concept when he referred to the altar. The Church's understanding of bishops as successors to the apostles was a well-established and widely accepted practice in the early Church. Adopting a sola scriptura approach while disregarding early post-biblical evidence, especially before the New Testament was even recognized as sacred scripture, seems illogical to me.
@@mikekayanderson408 St Paul references an altar in Hebrews: "We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat." The Jews had an altar and a priesthood. So do Christians. The Jewish priests have no right to eat at this altar, the Christian altar, as they did the Jewish altar. It's hard to say this is some spiritual altar since St Paul is specifically comparing the Christian altar to the Jewish one. They, the Jewish priests, could eat at that one, but not this Christian one.
@@JohnMaximovich-r8xthat's Hebrews 13:10. If read in context, the author is comparing the implements and sacrifices of the tabernacle worship to their greater fulfilment in Christ. As in most of Hebrews, the natural illustration is referenced first, then the greater spiritual meaning is shown fulfilled in Christ.
How does the Didache and the current Halachic or Jewish tradition of the Apostolic Era fit into this discussion in your opinion?
And the 16th century "tradition" of sola scriptura is based on ... ?
Right
Who are you quoting from?
@@markwebb7576 The title.
@@First_Rock no, I mean the word tradition. You put it in quote marks. Who were you quoting when you called Sola Scriptura a "tradition".
@@markwebb7576 The quote marks reference both the title and the Protestant understanding of tradition with the implied modifier “of man”. SS certainly is not based on apostolic authority. What is it based on? I’ll answer my own question…it’s based on necessity because the reformation divorced itself from apostolic authority.
Do you have any planned conversations or a debate with Josiah Trenham in the future?
These last few videos have been really sad. "we don't know, and it's fine"? I don't think complacency is helpful
2:35 -- Dear Dr. Ortlund - Isn't the first TELEPHONE GAME of this type documented in the Bible on John 21:22-23 when our Lord Jesus says:
v22: “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!”
but the followers got it wrong like this:
v23: "So the saying SPREAD abroad among the brothers that this disciple WAS NOT TO DIE; yet Jesus DID NOT SAY to him that he was not to die, BUT, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”
-- What do you think? --thank you!!!
The Catholic church used the same verse to justify their doctrines when it comes to traditions. You just destroyed their foundation
The Catholic Church itself is the foundation dummy. How did Christians exist before the NT was written? Apostolic oral teaching came BEFORE the bible. It gave us the bible. It continues to teach to this day. Jesus established a church not a book. When will prots ever understand this? Why would God put a book above the Body of Christ? The book is simply a tool to be used by the Body of Christ.
The bible itself comes from the Holy Traditions. Try to open your eyes my friend.
@@philipmarchalquizar7741 What?
@philipmarchalquizar7741 That's not the Bible said about itself.
2Tim. 3: 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
@@leopoldodah9346 that's a really sharp sword lol
"Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter." From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written.
Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. Let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it Tradition?:Seek no further.
St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians, IV.
In keeping a tradition implies continuing to hand down an assertion, or deposit of assertions
Just like many denominations interprete consistently across generation based on a deposit, that deposit of afirmations was also kept just like any other denomination, with the difference that this Church has the guaranteed guidence and binding and loosing across generations
Exactly. People of our time are so used to written conversations they can’t imagine cultures who appreciate the value of oral traditions. Which leads Protestants to be legalists and those who constantly divide.
In fact, I would argue that Tradition being handed down aren't assertions (which are simply cognitive) but a way of living. It's easier to see how Tradition can be handed down and kept faithfully when you view that Tradition as a way of living your entire life. It's hard to get it wrong when you do the same thing, day after day, week after week, consistently. You pick it up intuitively as a child when your parents live a certain way. It becomes a part of who you are. And the whole community participates. Whereas passing down oral assertions/ideas/arguments is merely cognitive and be easily forgotten or corrupted, even without any malicious intent in doing so.
We can also trust that much of the oral teachings of the Apostles is commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures.
You mentioned that early Christians appealed to apostolic tradition and came to opposing conclusions, but certainly that also applies to reading Scripture and coming to opposing conclusions.
there is a difference between possessing apostolic instruction and disagreeing how to interpret it vs. disagreeing on whether the entity being interpreted is apostolic instruction at all
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the reply/clarification, Gavin. Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I'm wondering how we deal with written apostolic tradition from Scripture that is interpreted in different ways by Christians. For example, is baptism salvific or is Jesus present in the Eucharist? I think it makes a lot of sense to look at tradition of the early Christians to see if there is a consensus, especially from early Christians who were alive at the same time as some of the apostles. I believe that doing so will help us to interpret written tradition from Scripture correctly, the way that the apostles intended. I could be missing something. I'd love to hear your thoughts about that.
I think exactly like you! I think oral tradicional was always used in a time that writing things were not usual since was too expensive and even before when there was not writing yet! If we don't accept oral tradition how we believe pentateuc of Moses as a word of God since he wrote things that happened thousands of years before him, probably through oral tradition? Questions that I would like to have answers! 🤷♀️
The Word of God was ALWAYS meant to be recorded in the form of literature. The Ten Commandments are quite literally, literature. Passing on the Gospel through written and spoken means, but Scripture was always meant to be recorded in a physical form so that it can be passed around and distributed more widely in its recordings than by word. We preach and teach by word, but also through what is written, and if this was not meant to be the case then Christ would have made that clear, but He did not because He personally stated "It is WRITTEN". Not just spoken, but WRITTEN.