Did Augustine Affirm Sola Scriptura?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лип 2024
- In this video I suggest that St. Augustine affirmed the essential content of the Protestant notion of sola Scriptura--that is, the view that the Bible alone is the infallible rule for Christian faith and practice. I first offer a plea not to caricature sola Scriptura, and then work through three passages in Augustine's writings. Finally, I point to similar support of sola Scriptura in John Chrysostom.
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY BOOKS:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
00:00 - Introduction
01:27 - 3 Framing Remarks
08:11 - Augustine Quote #1
11:07 - Augustine Quote #2
13:23 - Augustine Quote #3
18:01 - John Chrysotom on sola Scriptura
I have watched this and various associated videos multiple times. This is hands down the clearest and most helpful single unpacking of the issue that I have come across in my open minded, at times tremblingly so, 10+ year journey as a Protestant into the fathers and church history. Your preparatory comments alone were worth the price of admission. ;) Thank you, thank you, thank you!
As a Catholic, I have my opinions about sola scriptura obviously but I like the sense of thoughtfulness that Gavin's videos engender.
I mull about what he says. I'm in no hurry to respond and that's fine.
Because we're not trying to "triumph" in a debate.
We are trying to "come to the fullness of truth."
Yes, and that's wise and thoughtful then. Even though I don't expect that you might have come to agree w/ sola scriptura, the best hope for unity, grace and peace is that you'd understand why we do. It took me a looong time to understand how Catholics put tradition above or at least on par w/ scripture. I frankly didn't know this was the stance, then I was dumbfounded how any Christian could. Slowly, and understanding of how that could be unfolded.
St Augustine was no protestant. He was a Catholic Bishop who believed through his words of consecration, the bread and wine transformed into the Resurrected Christ. And, like St Jerome at his time, he deferred to the authority of the Church. An example of the "rule of faith" is that baptism is salvific as we receive the indwelling of God within us and sanctifying grace lost in the sin of Adam. The PLAIN passage of scripture below is 1 Pet 3: 21, _baptism now saves you._ That too is exactly what St Augustine believed .. scripture taught it and the Church believed it as well. So when ANYONE says otherwise, their fallible belief is rejected.
_“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.”_ Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).
What is this Church to which he speaks of:
_“Petilianus said: ‘If you declare that yon hold the Catholic Church, the word ‘catholic’ is merely the Greek equivalent for entire or whole. But it is clear that you are not in the whole, because you have gone aside into the part.’ Augustine answered: I too indeed have attained to a very slight knowledge of the Greek language, scarcely to be called knowledge at all, yet I am not shameless in saying that I know that means not ‘one,’ but ‘the whole;’ and that means “according to the whole:” whence the Catholic Church received its name, according to the saying of the Lord, ‘It is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in His own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole earth.’ Here you have the origin of the name ‘Catholic.’_ Augustine, Answer to Letters of Petilian, 2:38 [90] (A.D. 400).
_“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.”_ Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).
_“You think that you make a very acute remark when you affirm the name Catholic to mean universal, not in respect to the communion as embracing the whole world, but in respect to the observance of all Divine precepts and of all the sacraments, as if we (even accepting the position that the Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole truth, of which fragments here and there are found in some heresies) rested upon the testimony of this word’s signification, and not upon the promises of God, and so many indisputable testimonies of the truth itself, our demonstration of the existence of the Church of God in all nations.”_ Augustine, To Vincent the Rogatist, 93:7,23 (A.D. 403).
Note the bold below. St Augustine believed the gospel due to the authority of the Catholic Church. Scripture alone? No way. He didn't teach it or believe it.
_“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…-not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church…Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church… _*_For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church_*_ …for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you.”_ Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397).
The whole point of the Catholic Church was for unity amongst Christians (hence the word Catholic meaning Universal). Protestants have chosen to follow their own interpretation of scriptures and make emotional decisions as to why they dislike Christ's established church. The Protestants are just burdens at this point, leading people to damnation while Catholics have to continuously work to bring people back because of guys like Gavin being selective and cherry picking scriptures to "prove" their understanding of scripture and doctrines. @@saintejeannedarc9460
The Catholic faith is already the fullness of truth. We don't need the input of heretics to try and find the truth.
Orthodox = True Doctrine
Catholic = Universal
Protestant = Bear Witness
The Father gives the Law, The Son is the Universal Savior, The Holy Spirit bears witness and publically declares the gospel.
The Church over 2000 years has become a holy tree rooted in the true vine. Molded in the image of the Trinity.
God put this thought on me. You decide what to think.
Those quotes from John Chrysostom actually spoke directly to me, i feel that pressure to read scripture and judge things from scripture, pls pray so that the Holy Spirit guides me.
Who has the final authority to interpret "This is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26). Fallible Protestant Pastors add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Read more of John Chrysostom's work. Don't take him as a Sola Scriptura believer for granted already.
@@RockGTA i still have to judge things by scripture.
@@eduardoan777 I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean Sola Scriptura is correct.
@@RockGTA on the other hand it does not mean Sola Scriptura is incorrect.
What an absolute stunner of a quote from Chrysistom, this father speaking from of old into the same human propensity to choose wandering over finding.
Thank you Gavin. You are a gift to the Church.
Thanks Jay! Miss you man!
He is amazing. You should read more of St. John. ❤️❤️❤️❤️
One quote from a church father elevating SS does not SS make.
ua-cam.com/video/rhaBYLCMA2w/v-deo.html
Doing a deep dive on sola scriptura and of course I go to Dr. Ortlund for an explanation of the Protestant position. I love Dr. Ortlund’s content. I do have a genuine push-back on the Chrysostom quote specifically because I feel like that particular homily may not have been appropriately represented. Later in this homily (Homily 33 on Acts) Chrysostom judges his interpretation of Scripture by measuring it against the fact that his interpretation is in line with the Church and so verified. This entire conversation, of course, is nested within the context of there being one visible Church. I could be wrong, but here is the later party of the homily: Responding to an accusation about faulty interpretations he continues: “The others, say you, say the same thing about us (that our interpretation is faulty). How? For are we separated from the Church? Have we our heresiarchs? Are we called after men - as one of them has Marcion, another Manichæus, a third Arius, for the author and leader (of his sect)? Whereas if we likewise do receive an appellation from any man, we do not take them that have been the authors of some heresy, but men that presided over us, and governed the Church." He is using schism here as an indicator of heresy. So he is obviously using sacred scripture as the source material for doctrine, but using the Church as the bar which his interpretations must clear.
Gavin, this came at exactly the right time for me. It was an almost instantaneous answer to my prayer tonight. God Bless you and thank you so much for this, your best video yet.
Glad it was helpful!
Wow, that letter to Jerome is really all you need. Thanks for the thoughtful video, pastor!
For example…?
good stuff brother Gavin!
Great analysis and I like the tone, assertive and concrete.
Thankful for the content you put up here, always nuanced and irenic. This video is certainly an example of that!
ua-cam.com/video/rhaBYLCMA2w/v-deo.html
As a Catholic, I found your reasoning and explanation well done. Is it not interesting to follow Jesus? When I realized that Jesus chose twelve apostles/disciples, I realized they had different personalities, understanding and that we are to grown together learning from one another. Being a follower, a true Christian, representing our faith with one another, growing in faith and understanding. Lead by the Holy Spirit, the truth will always be present ...God bless
Check out the few quotes I posted that the good doctor never mentions
Where are they?
@@jackdaw6359 lol. Someone is worried. Hahaha
ua-cam.com/video/rhaBYLCMA2w/v-deo.html
Well, this was a beautiful post. Thank you. That was a blessing to read.
Great stuff Dr. Ortlund. Thanks!
Such an awesome video. The quote from St John was so relevant. Thank you for making this as a great recourse. 🙏❤️
ua-cam.com/video/rhaBYLCMA2w/v-deo.html
Gavin, I appreciate you stating the full force of what you think the evidence conveys. I’ve enjoyed listening to your videos, and my sense is that you are being very conscientious to be gracious and irenic. In such a case I think you need to be here stating the force of your convictions. I say this because I myself have tended to be the opposite, trying to make it’s clear where I think the evidence points, but I have some time a sacrificed being gracious. The order matters - if you have the greatest attitude first, you need to fear being bold!
So good!❤ I have no idea how that could be more clearly written.
ua-cam.com/video/rhaBYLCMA2w/v-deo.html
Thanks again Gavin. Very clear.
Wow. What a great video. Classical protestant perspective with nuanced and a kind approach.
Excellent! Thank you!
Boom. This is awesome.
God bless you for this video
Awesome,
Be encouraged,
this is easy to digest and I will contemplate what I’ve digested .
✌️
Be careful what you digest, Ortlund lied about the Church Fathers ua-cam.com/video/Ws1n_ViOaYM/v-deo.html
Another really excellent, thought provoking presentation by Pastor Gavin. Thank you!
ua-cam.com/video/rhaBYLCMA2w/v-deo.html
Great job on this. One of the things, of course, is the starting point of the observer. For example, the individual's view of the church and what that entails will by necessity affect their view of the validity of Sola Scriptura.
While John Chrysostom's homily on Acts 33 may suggest something like Sola Scriptura in a first look, I think it's important to be careful not to come to that conclusion before reading more of his work. The same John Chrysostom also taught about the tradition of the Church as worthy of credit:
"So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.
Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken." (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)
"Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, "whether by word or our Epistle" 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, Hold fast the form of sound words, which you have heard of me."
Also, the same John Chrysostom considered the Deuterocanonical books, at least some of them, as Scripture:
"Let us then repeat to ourselves soothing charms drawn from the holy Scripture, and say, "You are earth and ashes. Why is earth and ashes proud?" Sirach 10:9, and, "The sway of his fury shall be his destruction" Sirach 1:22: and, The wrathful man is not comely Proverbs 11:25, Septuagint;" (Homily 48 on the Gospel of John)
As a final quote, in his 3rd homily on the letter to the Phillipians, he goes as far as saying that the practice of praying for the dead comes from the apostles themselves:
"Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful Mysteries. They know that great gain results to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them? And this we do for those who have departed in faith, while the catechumens are not thought worthy even of this consolation, but are deprived of all means of help save one. And what is this? We may give to the poor on their behalf. This deed in a certain way refreshes them. For God wills that we should be mutually assisted; else why has He ordered us to pray for peace and the good estate of the world? Why on behalf of all men? Since in this number are included robbers, violaters of tombs, thieves, men laden with untold crimes; and yet we pray on behalf of all; perchance they may turn. As then we pray for those living, who differ not from the dead, so too we may pray for them." (Homily 3 on Philippians)
So, in my humble opinion, I think it's quite a long stretch to get a Sola Scriptura-believing John Chrysostom out of what he says in his 33rd homily on Acts, given all his other writings which show other things he believed and practiced that go against this principle and that resemble practices and beliefs of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy much more than those of Protestantism.
Matheus, excellent points! Unfortunately, So many Protestant Pastors like Dr. Ortlund and James White and Tony Costa, leave out the full works and writings of the Church Fathers to fit their own Theology! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@The Hesychast I respectfully disagree. Chrystostom and other early church fathers lived during a time period before the development of many Roman Catholic Ideas and doctrines, i.e immaculate conception was not an official doctrine, papal infallibility, and the very robust doctrine of indulgences. If those had been developed during his time period I believe you would have seen many church fathers push back on these ideas by appealing to scripture. I do not write this to sound disrespectful but rather adding to the dialogue.
@@carpediem5526 You may be right, you could of course be wrong.
We can't really tell, besides that they may or may not appeal to scripture against these teachings, this isn't something really new I guess.
This is normal, as the understanding of all these doctrines wasn't as in depth yet.
Besides the depth part, you also see appeal to tradition and to church authority.
@@sotem3608 yes the Christian churches, not a roman infallible church, that alone represents jesus on earth and overrides scripture, not even slightly
The point Gavin mentioned is that sola scriptura and tradition are not mutually exclusive, but tradition must be scrutinised by the authority of scripture. You are free to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, which to Protestants are unsubstantiated claims. But to insist upon it at the threat of anathema, that's unscriptural.
Easily your most interesting video yet! Thank you for your ministry and for taking the time to address issues like these, Gavin!
ua-cam.com/video/rhaBYLCMA2w/v-deo.html
If Augustine believed that councils were infallible by their nature, you would think that in the third quote from his letter to Jerome he would have said "...convincing my judgment of its truth either by these canonical writings themselves //or by church councils//, or by arguments addressed to my reason." It's seems so cut and dry!
Fascinating. Is there any chance that quote from the Letter to Jerome informed Luther's "scripture and plain reason" statement at Worms? It almost seems like a paraphrase.
I am not aware of any evidence for direct influence, but interesting connection nonetheless!
Even if Luther had no knowledge of Augustine’s letter to Jerome, can we say that Luther, as an Augustinian monk, likely was an heir to Augustine’s way of thinking about scripture?
That same thought ran through my mind. Now I need to investigate, ask around, ect.
@@mj6493 Augustine taught that if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures. Augustine also teaches that the oral teaching of the 7 Apostles who never wrote anything down, is ALSO the Word of God! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Highly recommend reading the whole homily on Acts (homily 33).
A quote from there in response to the question of why people don't necessarily see the truth of scripture straight away:
"'Then how is it they do not see it at a glance?' Many things are the cause of this: both preconceived opinion, and human causes (αἰτίαι). The others, say you, say the same thing about us. How? For are we separated from the Church? Have we our heresiarchs [leaders of heresy]? Are we called after men - as one of them has Marcion, another Manichæus, a third Arius, for the author and leader (of his sect)? Whereas if we likewise do receive an appellation from any man, we do not take them that have been the authors of some heresy, but men that presided over us, and governed the Church."
Another excellent video, Gavin. Thanks for your thoughtfulness and desire for clear ecumenical discussions. Refreshing and helpful.
ua-cam.com/video/rhaBYLCMA2w/v-deo.html
this was brilliant
Hi Gavin I appreciate your discussion of high regard that both Augustine and reformers have for scripture and emphasis on this.
If I agree that Augustine held sola scriptura as you defined it I come to four questions:
How does Augustine define scripture? (What is his canon?)
How does this inform our understanding of his view of scripture?
How is an understanding of canon arrived at?
How does the canon one accepts impact one's acceptance of or openness to a doctrine?
Perhaps a look at Augustine's and Calvin's view of prayer for the dead would be enlighting here as they both discuss this topic. It seems to bring the discussion to a very practical point of disagreement between two who have a high regard for scripture that could warrant another video. I am curious on your thoughts!
@@bersules8 hello! Thank you for the message and numerous quotations. I will for sure check them out. Maybe give the video another watch? You may have missed the arguments Gavin made. They are not quite so simple to be dismissed on the presentation of these quotes but I do appreciate the attempt as a kind of try at a full rebuttle of a claim that would have Augustine be a reformed protestant because for sure he is not. What you may be unaware of is that the reformes felt free to disagree with Augustine as being wrong on some points. It is similar in how the Eastern Orthodox disagree with Augustine at points. A question for you being, why should Augustine be more authoritative than the Holy Scriptures? For certain yes he should inform our understanding of the scriptures but is this to say he is wholly correct and having same views as modern Roman catholics? I recall Augustine in the beginning of his work on the Trinity being of a humble spirit and mentioning that should someone disagree and prove it from scripture he would be happy to be corrected. Seems awfully sola scriptura-esque to me. Perhaps you'd benefit from a reading of his intro there without the cherry picking of quotes from him and we might find ourselves in a better place to discuss?
To the first few minutes,I personally find Kevin Vanhoozer distinction between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura of much help!
Scripture is of course infallible on faith and morals but I disagree that’s it’s true interpretation can be understood outside the teaching of the church. All it becomes is your opinion of the Bible of which every man ends having his own opinion and which history has shown ends in what we have seen with the true belief being what I believe as opposed to what everybody in my church and indeed my family believe. And yes, John Chrysostom is wrong. The scriptures are not always clear.
Great video, thank you very much! Greetings from Germany!
I really enjoy your channel.
Do you ever have a call in show?
Thanks, will be doing more live Q+A down the road....
There is no disagreement between the Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox on the idea that scripture is entirely correct on all matters of faith and practice. The idea that it is the "only" source is where we disagree since Catholics/Orthodox both would say that Holy Tradition is the "only" source and that scripture is an enormous part of that Holy Tradition. So the quotes from Augustine here are not going against the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, they're just affirming one particular portion of Holy Tradition.
And that extra layer of tradition is where Sola Scriptura is lacking because when you limit the only source of reliable truth to the content of a book, you must solve the problem of how that truth gets off the pages into the hearts of the readers. Interpretation is taking place any time you read a text, letters are symbols, words are symbols, and meanings are fluid across time and cultures and even between people in the same place speaking the same language. There must be an authority in place, a righteous human authority, that can be called upon to play that role, to authoritatively move the words from the page to the person and maintain the unity of the Church.
I'm pretty sure Orthodox wouldn't agree with Augustine that plenary councils can be corrected by later ones, and are therefore not infallible. 9:54
Also, if you pay attention, what Augustine is saying is precisely that only the canonical texts are infallible. 13:45
Lastly, Sola Scriptura isn't that Scripture is the "only reliable source of Truth," but the only infallible rule for faith and practice. There's a big difference between reliable and infallible. And Sola Scriptura also doesn't say there aren't authorities on faith and practice outside of Scripture, even "reliable" ones, but that those authorities aren't infallible and can be corrected, just as Augustine says in the first quote.
@@christophekeating21
I didn't address it since it was not relevant to the video, but there are several items in those quotes from Augustine that are not consistent with Orthodox or Catholic doctrine, the most glaring one being the notion that the canon is closed (it's not, at least in the Orthodox Church). But I didn't mention those since I wanted to stay on topic.
Your description of Sola Scriptura:
"Sola Scriptura also doesn't say there aren't authorities on faith and practice outside of Scripture, even "reliable" ones, but that those authorities aren't infallible and can be corrected, just as Augustine says in the first quote."
is no different than the applied practice of Orthodox and Catholic churches. In all churches there is a way for later councils or decisions to override previous ones by undermining the authority (if needed/applicable) of those that participated in the original decision or declaration. It has happened many times throughout church history. And since scriptural interpretation is applied through those authorities, it's functionally the same as what you described, where the human authorities are fallible and scripture is not. Even if a pope speaks ex cathedra, for instance, it is only actually ex cathedra if his successors and later councils accept it as such (something most lay Catholics don't even know). The role of scripture and the presence of that mechanism means it is functionally the same.
But that isn't actually what is going in with Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is always applied under the assumption that the canonical text is more than just infallible, but also perspicuous and sufficient, neither of which is true.
@@jayrey1486 The NT Canon is set for the Orthodox. Please do not give false information.
As to the idea that 'plenary' councils can be corrected by later ones, I'm not sure we have sufficient information to determine what St. Augustine was referring to. Was he referring to discipline? Or ?
@@inbetweennames4438 Where did you learn the canon is closed for the Orthodox? That is new information to me.
@@jayrey1486 "it is only actually ex cathedra if his successors and later councils accept it as such" where do you get this? Of course functionally it may collapse this way, but where is the doctrine articulated this way?
Very well articulated
Hi Gavin, Love your work, everything you do. It is edifying. Thank you. I have a question, off topic to the video, if you are not too busy. I think i recall you saying before that you, unlike other Baptists, believe that there is more going on in the Eucharist than just a symbol. I believe the same. How would you deal with someone, in your church, who only believes that the Eucharist is symbolic? Would you let them receive the Eucharist? Do you believe from Scripture there is any perceived dangers from this? Thanks
Hey Gary! My next video is on the Eucharist, so I will try to address this question a bit then! Might be a few weeks. :)
@@TruthUnites Thank you so much.
So this church father did not appeal to Magisterium for theological clarity like some Roman Catholics do today, but to the Scripture itself.
James, Augustine taught that if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures! Augustine ALSO teaches the oral teaching of the 7 Apostles who never wrote anything down, is ALSO the Word of God! Who has the final authority to interpret "This is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26). Fallible Protestant Pastors add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 You are mistaken on whom I was talking about.
@@commencaterYou just need to learn history to fine out that he Church Fathers (i.e St Jerome, St Augustine) did infact appeal to the Church. 😊
Hello Gavin, I am a former Catholic, now reformed Episcopal. The term "infallible" is a red flag for Catholics as they believe the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible when speaking "ex cathedra."
I think Scriprure is "above all else" would be a better term.
Correct. Otherwise they rathole into, well which scripture? How do you know... Etc
I don’t understand why people think their doctrines, ideas, words, institutions, etc could be on the same level of Gods Word. Tradition can beautiful but it can also slide into error. His word is the Truth
@Curtis MH the issues is what do you put your authority in when tradition and scripture disagree, and how do you determine the correct tradition?
Paul is writing directly to the Church of Thessalonica, do you have any evidence of what Paul orally taught there?
Jesus routinely said “have you not read”. He defeated Satan’s temptation with the written word of God.
The Pharisees had a very similar belief of tradition and scripture. Of oral law and written law. Jesus denounced them boldly
@Curtis MH Satan quotes scripture and misuses it to destroy peoples faith. What did Jesus do when confronted with the misuse of scripture? What did Jesus do when confronted with “oral law/oral tradition” with tradition of men?
He used God’s word to combat false doctrine. What did the early church fathers use to combat early heresies? They used scripture.
That’s sola scriptura not your straw man idea that non Catholics hold to solo scriptura.
My doctrines and beliefs are far closer to the early church than the modern Roman Catholic Church.
If you claim oral tradition and oral teachings as a guide equal to what the apostles wrote down but have no evidence of it, maybe you should rethink your position.
A church isn’t a church because it’s old, and when looking at history the Catholic claims of the papacy fall apart, as do most of the distinctly Catholic doctrines.
The visible Church is the coming together of local Christians to worship Jesus. The invisible Church is the whole group of Christians who put their faith in Jesus. We are the body of Christ and He is the head.
Thankfully Gods grace is sufficient to forgave false theology and doctrines as long as we know who Jesus is and put our faith in Him.
@Curtis MH the book of Acts is scripture. ALL scripture is God breathed, inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach, reproof, to correct, and to train in righteousness.
Circumcision was given as a sign of the Old covenant. Holy Communion is the sign of the new covenant. The inspiration of the Apostles was in alignment with the previous inspired words of God.
The Jewish believers were trying to add just 1 thing to the gospel, ie circumcision. They were soundly rebuked. Paul condemns anyone and everyone that would add or subtract from the Gospel. Why does the Catholic Church add things to the Gospel? If it was literally established by Christ and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ then why does its teaching sway from Gods revelation to all men?
FYI you have no evidence of some “oral tradition”, if so provide it. Otherwise turn to the Holy Bible
Beautiful work sir. May the Father give you all the knowledge you desire.
ua-cam.com/video/rhaBYLCMA2w/v-deo.html
Would love to see a video on how a Christian has been historically defined! Specifically addressing your view of whether Catholics and Eastern Orthdox are simply misled brothers in Christ, or whether the doctrines they hold to generally disqualify them from the biblical faith.
Beautiful passage by Augustine from Sacred Scripture.
“For, if the thought of peace dwelt in his heart, he would not afterwards, at Carthage, in company with betrayers whom he had acquitted, have condemned of betrayal men who were absent and whom none had convicted. All the more should he have feared to break the peace of unity, because Carthage was a great and famous city, whence the evil might spread from the head through the whole body of Africa. Besides, it was in touch with the overseas countries, and enjoyed widespread fame. Certainly, it had a bishop of no ordinary authority, who was able to pay no attention to a crowd of hostile conspirators, which he saw that he was united by pastoral letters to the Church of Rome, where the primacy of the apostolic chair has always flourished, and to those other countries which the Gospel came to Africa, itself, and when arrangements were made for him to plead his case if his opponents should try to win over those churches from him.”
Augustine
Thank you Gavin! One question I have from this is:
Do you know why, given his stance here, Augustine still urged Jerome to include the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate? I’m curious if he gave reasons why. Especially if he felt this way about Scripture in contrast to all else.
Thank you for your videos!
ua-cam.com/video/rhaBYLCMA2w/v-deo.html
The reason is because Augustine appealed to church tradition. Hence Jerome included them.
"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men." Acts 17
Dennis, yet, Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was,,( Genesis 17:12), as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Hey, but do you see where the discussion REALLY ended? Wasn't that when James demonstrated that everything Peter said had scriptural confirmation? Do you think a verdict would be established without it? The words James quotes were not just permission, it was a prophecy, and they didn't need any man to confirm them, they were simply settled and would be fulfilled in the right moment. See what's in the letter: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit AND to us."
@@gabrielmarinho8232 I did see the end, but did you see the beginning? The matter was regarding circumcision, and it was Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). James used Holy Scripture to confirm Gentiles were foretold to come into the faith, but there was no Holy Scripture passage that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary. Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. James then affirms Peter's declaration and then simply gives food and sexual restrictions! Saint Augustine never taught the man made tradition of Scripture alone as Dr. Ortlund falsely claims! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Long before Peter, Joel had prophesied that in the last days "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Peter himself announced that the time for this prophecy had come, so I think that he was creating nothing by saying that circumcision of the flesh was no longer necessary. Again he confirmed the Scriptures, it's all about the Gospel.
@@gabrielmarinho8232 most inaccurate, as Joel and Isaiah foretold Gentiles coming into the Church! Yet, it was Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was to last for all generations. ( Genesis 17:12), as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! The same Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon of the new testament as to which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not! Saint Augustine never taught Scripture ALONE as Dr. Ortlund falsely teaches! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
This was a great overview. I really appreciate the nuance and fairness with which you treat these issues.
One question you didn't address that I often see come up is, "All Christians believe that the church established the canon of scripture guided by the Spirit. So shouldn't any reliance on sola scriptura lead to trusting that the Spirit continued to guide the same church in the development of doctrine and traditions?"
How would you respond to that objection?
The Church that supposedly canonized the scriptures is now divided among Papists, Union of Utrecht Catholic Church, Union of Catholic Apostolic Churches, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, Genuine Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church, Russian Old-Orthodox Church, ‘Nikonite’ Russian Patriarchate, Pomeranian Old-Orthodox Church, Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia, Old Calendar Orthodox Church, ‘New Calendar’ Church of Greece, Oriental Orthodox Church, Syrian Church of the East, Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East.
Each book of the canon was canonical as soon as the author wrote it. Other books were rejected by their intended audiences.
For example the Peshittas, which have no relationship to papism or even later councils, does not include the "gospel" of Thomas. Thomas and his immediate disciples did evangelize the Assyrian Church of the East, but he didn't author any "gospel" to them.
Hey Matthew, Thanks! That is a common argument but I don't personally find it compelling. It is too "all or nothing" with respect to church decisions, and relies on a vague definition of the word "church." As a Protestant, I would emphatically say I do trust the Spirit guiding the church, and see the Spirit doing precisely that with Hus, Wycliffe, the Waldensians, Reformers, etc. Trusting the "church" doesn't mean aligning with EVERYTHING a particular institutional church does. I'd also say that there are big differences between decisions of the church that are truly catholic and decisions that are distinctly un-catholic in that they differ from other branches of the church and earlier times in church history (e.g, the Marian dogmas and papacy for Catholicism, venerating icons for the Orthodox). Hope this helps.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the response Dr. Ortlund! I find myself in the same camp as you. To me it's just hard sometimes to feel confident in my ability to look back at Christian history and evaluate what changes were orthodox and what weren't. As a lay Christian who has only recently been binging church history, I've come to find there are very smart and solid Christians in every viewpoint, so it's hard to know who is "right".
That's a pretty broad concern, but I do appreciate how you steel man the arguments for each side. I think there's a lot to learn from many traditions.
@@TruthUnites I don't think the comment makes the definition of Church vague at all. Catholics do not define Church in exactly the same way as its broader, more diffuse use of the term by Protestants. The very unity of the Catholic Church (lacking in Protestantism) makes evident the value of how Scripture is viewed and applied by her Church.
Test everything by the word of God. His word is True, hold on to tradition that is grounded in His word and reform those that stray from the Truth. Walk in faith by grace to glorify Him who eternally saved us from justified damnation!
Thanks Gavin, do you have a link to your sources? That would be great.
off topic, but where’d you get your church schaff fathers set!? I’ve been looking everywhere and can’t find a good price
It has always been a bit strange to me that those who hold oral tradition to be on the same level as Scripture, to the point that they would anathematize someone for not believing it, as not falling into the same folly as the Pharisees and Sadducees. They clearly stepped outside of Scripture and elevated manmade traditions then and Jesus called them out for it, and thus Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do the same and are none the wiser. That is not say that many within the Protestant church don’t do the same and they are clearly in error too (no pass for Protestants). If something is not clearly articulated in Scripture and becomes a dogma centuries later or eisegetically read back into Scripture, we can confidently say that the Holy Spirit did want us to practice such things. For example, Mary’s bodily assumption nor immaculate conception nor Transubstantiation are not clearly articulated in Scripture but became later interpretations by men many centuries later, the Christian is not bound to believe or endorse said dogmas. But even for Protestants, any practice not clearly laid out in Scripture can and should be rejected.
Dr. Ortlund, is it not the case that even ecumenical counsels sometimes state things that are not understood by Catholics to be infallible? Such as decrees regarding church government, etc? Either way, can you please explain?
So what do you do with the line “or by arguments addressed to my reason”?
Thank you!
Interesting video. Its overwhelming how nuanced all of this is. I appreciate the quote from John Chrysostom. I'm wrestling with converting to the RCC. I guess the heart of what John meant was to continue to read the scriptures? My one question is if scripture is only infallible source, what about later things that arent in scripture such as birth control? How should a Christian approach things like that?
Hi Will, I think you are more concerned with the sufficiency of Scripture, and not Sola Scriptura. I would start my research there.
Practically though, I think the answer to your question is prayer, prayer in community, wisdom through the Scriptures, and submission to the church leaders where God has you. Finally, trust. Trust God is in control. You don’t need every matter to be adjudicated on infallibly. The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t have that. When you actually dig in, you’ll find there is very little that is truly irreformable. For instance, the RCC took the stance for hundreds of years that capital punishment was/is a morally acceptable form of punishment. There are articles by RCC apologists from the early 2,000s talking about how that stance will never, and can never change. Yet, it has. The Pope single handedly reformed that moral stance a few years ago. That means, the issue of birth control is reformable, since it was not/is not addressed through an Ex Cathedra pronouncement nor in an ecumenical council. Roman Catholics 10 years ago were absolutely certain of the church’s moral stance on capital punishment, but today, it took a 180 degree turn. What will the coming years bring regarding other moral positions?
It amazes me that he doesn't quote some critical texts
2:44 I think it's important to note why it's the "rule" or "standard." We believe that Jesus is the authority, so the testimony of Jesus is the standard to build and refer upon. Putting it another way, The Word of God became flesh, so we reference his living example and teachings through the scriptures given to us by his direct witnesses.
True. Good point.
When we get to this level of complexity with our Lord, I think we sometimes hurt things rather than help/clear up. The gospel message is for children, people who maybe aren't very intellectual, people who are disabled. It's easy enough and precious enough that all of the above can understand plainly. I get nerding out, I do the same, but there are times when I feel like God just tells me "be quiet and rest in me."
Frankly, what Augustine or any of the church fathers say, if it's contrary to the message of the cross delivered plainly in scripture, it needs to be disregarded. I think sometimes people can overanalyze things to death (including the fathers) and do the original message a great disservice. Just my two cents. Peace and blessings to all here.
@Eucharist Angel Maturing doesn't necessarily consist of overthinking things to death, to the place where you end up doing God a disservice. Overanalyzing everything to death and not simply resting in the Lord can be a detriment.
@Bb Dl What does that have to do with false teachings? Listen, I get it, I'm a nerd too.... but not everyone is. I think looking at the church fathers it's plain to see how bizarro ideas can pop up if you overanalyze things to death. Infant damnation? Mary right up there with Christ (no matter what they say)? I think false teachings arise from people sitting around, overanalyzing everything to death. I'm not saying we can't talk about this stuff, I'm just saying I feel like we can take it too far. Sometimes it's good to take a break, rest in Jesus, and focus on the gospel.
@The Hesychast That's not true. Jesuit thinkers and Orthodox thinkers have been pondering these issues for centuries as well. I don't have a denomination, and trust me, I understand the frustration with so many differences, BUT, just because in your system you all hold to the same standards, doesn't make you 100% correct either... neither does the age of your system. The reformers got some things right, and some things wrong... just like all of the church fathers. This is why Augustine said that scripture is our only golden standard.
What is written defines many simple truths, definitely enough for a man to get saved and fall in love with the Lord outside of ANY system of men. The complexities? I hate to tell you, but we ALL - ALL systems - get some of that stuff wrong. No one has perfect theology and neither is it required for entrance into the kingdom of our Lord.
@@78LedHead Well said, but Catholics don't like to hear that their church could ever have gotten anything wrong. We have all erred though. I think the scriptures make that plain. The apostles made mistakes too. The very apostle said to start the RCC, erred a number of times and had to be corrected by other apostles. I still can't fathom how the Catholic church thinks they have no error, ever, when they read the same scripture as we do.
The issue I have with this is that
1) Augustine was not Sola Scriptura.
2) he was undeniably Catholic, and submitted to Rome.
Not a Catholic.
I love that video and it's exactly because of sola scripture that trinity won against arrianism. The Fathers always defended their position saying "what I teach is what scriptures teach". Scriptures are our infalible rule of doctrine.
I’m sorry but no, sola scriptura is not the reason why Orthodox belief defeated Arianism. Not even close. Arians argued from Scripture.
@@nathanmagnuson2589 dude when you read the apologies of the trinitarians you always see they are supporting their beliefs in scriptures. Of course holy tradition is a very good support. But in the case of arrianism and trinitarism there was a time were both have their own tradition that it was imposible to argue with tradition.
And I don't say they were Nuda Scriptura (just with scripture) but Sola Scriptura (scriptures as the higher authority)
@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790 great comment. I prefer Prima Scriptura - scripture first (in authority)
If you are lookin for a concise review and additional references for your scholarship on this subject, listen to today's (November 8, 2021) podcast "Called to Communion" by Dr. David Anders. It's somewhere around the 15 minute mark.
Dr. David Anders, I am pretty sure, has read everything Augustine wrote, I think I will go with his response :)
Hi Dr. Ortlund are there any church Fathers than St. Augustine that teach something other than Sola Scriptura? If so, did other Church Fathers take issue with St. Augustine teaching Sola Scriptura? If no one called out St. Augustine (or vice versa) how do you account for that?
Hello, Dr.Ortlund. You quoted St.Augustine who says:,,who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; ...but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? (On Baptism 2.3.4).
The Local Councils can be fallible and this is a part of the belief of the Church. That is why only some Local Council are ratified by the Ecumenical Councils. But the Ecumenical Councils where the whole Church is gathered (in relation with Acts 15:22,28), cannot be fallible. Here he does not refute the infallibility of the Ecumenical (Plenary) Councils when he says that the ones that follow the previous, correct the previous because if we go through the acts and Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, we will see that no subsequent Ecumenical Council has refuted what a previous one has declared. That is relevant also for the time of St.Augustine when only two Ecumenical Councils had been gathered - the first in Nicaea (325) and the Second, in Constantinople (381). When the Second added to the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it did not correct the Council of Nicaea but only added to the Creed which had explicit articles about the Father and the Son. The Second one only complemented the First one.
When St.Augustine says ,,there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. (Reply to Faustus 11.5)'', he refers to the authority of the Scripture which is undisputable but he does not reject the infallibility of the Church.
The Ecumenical Councils gave the right interpretation of Scripture when heresies arose. So when we say that they are infallible, we do not mean that they add something to the Scripture but that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Who works in the conciliarity of the Church regarding the better definition of the right faith in the encounters with the different heresies. An interpretation which is infallible is not in contradiction with the infallibility of the Holy Scripture. When the whole Church is gathered, the decisions are from the holy Spirit:,,Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, a and Silas, leading men among the brethren. ...28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: † 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. a If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. The Decree Received in Antioch.'' (Acts 15:22, 28, Orthodox Study Bible). That is why the Ecumenical Coucnils are infallible and the local are not until they were ratified by an Ecumenical Council.
,,It behooves those who preside over the churches, every day but especially on Lord's days, to teach all the clergy and people words of piety and of right religion, gathering out of Holy Scripture meditations and determinations of the truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, nor varying from the tradition of the God-bearing fathers. And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill they may have departed from what was fitting. For through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of what is good and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying their minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment.“
Canon 19, Quinisext Ecumenical Council, of Trullo (692 CE).
Of course, the acceptance of the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils is related to the issue of the acceptance of the infalliblity of the Church which in turn is related to the issue of the acceptance of the apostolic succession of the episcopacy which I suggest, you still reject as not having a divine origin.
That's a long comment. I admit that I didn't read all of it, but I felt like I should mention that the motive for adding the filioque to the Nicene Creed was because it better aligns with Scripture, and the reason for not changing the Creed was because of the view that tradition holds a higher place than the Bible. This is where the church split
@@auggieeasteregg2150 Thank you for the reply. The Filioque is untrue. As the Holy Spirit descended after Jesus prayed by his human will to the Father, so that the Spirit may descend (Luke 3.21-22), then since the Son prayed the Father to send the Spirit here (Luke 3.21-22) and the Holy Spirit did not come to proceed through the human nature of the Son but descended from heaven, that means that if the Filioque is true, here (Luke 3.21-22) the Spirit was sent by the Father to proceed temporally through the Hypostasis of the Son. But if by divinity the Spirit already proceeds eternally through the Hypostasis of the Son, He could not begin to proceed temporally through the Person of the Son. Therefore, here (Luke 3.21-22) the Father directly sent the Spirit from Himself, hence by origin the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone and directly. Otherwise, if both the Filioque and its rejection are true, there would be two eternal processions of the Spirit - from the Father and from the Father through the Son but that would lead to two Spirits which is impossible.
Well-made video with important arguments that deserve attention. One small point I'll make here. If Augustine intended to equate "plenary council" with "ecumenical council", then how can he say the earlier are "**often** corrected by those which follow them" (emphasis mine)? After all, at the time of this writing, there had only been two ecumenical councils (Nicaea and Constantinople). So, at most, Augustine would have only seen an ecumenical council "correcting" another one time. So, why would he say they are *often* corrected? It strikes me as much more plausible that Augustine's use of "plenary council" does not map on to "ecumenical council" as the term is understood by Catholics. With that in view, it doesn't follow from this quote that Augustine thinks ecumenical councils can err in their solemn teaching.
Thanks for the kind comments, and good observation! The answer is that Augustine is speaking of what "is liable" to happen, not what has already transpired in his lifetime. Plenary does mean ecumenical. He also calls them "formed for the whole Christian world." As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "The ecumenical councils or synods of the Universal Church are called plenary council by St. Augustine (C. illa, xi, Dist. 12), as they form a compete representation of the entire Church." See here: www.newadvent.org/cathen/12164c.htm
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the reply and citation. That Catholic Encyclopedia article shows there is a lot of nuance in how different kinds of councils have been construed that I would like to explore further. If it’s granted that Augustine had in view what Catholics call ecumenical councils, and if it’s granted that he’s speaking in that clause about what is likely to happen (not what has happened), there are still a few options available from within a Catholic paradigm:
(1) Augustine is using “corrected” in a broader sense (as Taylor noted below), such that as “things are brought to light,” they can be refined, clarified, or applied to new situations, but not necessarily to correct errors/falsehoods. This would comport with Augustine’s comment later in book II, chapter 7 where he speaks of a plenary Council having “the judgment delivered with an *infallible voice* ” as well as the idea in the section you quoted where Augustine says provincial councils must yield “beyond *all possibility of doubt* ” to plenary Councils.
(2) Another option is to make a distinction within the teachings of an ecumenical Council. After all, in the Catholic paradigm, it is true that an ecumenical council can have errors/defects, but in its *solemn judgments concerning faith and morals* , the council is protected from error. So, if “corrected” is taken as “correcting errors” then the scope of the correction would be limited to those elements which are not solemn judgments on faith and morals.
(3) Finally, another possibility within the Catholic paradigm is that Augustine was mistaken on this point about plenary Councils likely to be “often corrected” by those which follow them, though Augustine did recognize the authority of councils to answer questions “beyond all possibility of doubt.” Nonetheless, I have strayed from the main topic of your video which is whether Augustine taught sola scriptura, and not whether what he says is compatible with a Catholic understanding of conciliar matters.
@@JohnDeRosa1990 These are great points. These are the kinds of details that get missed when you are not seeing things from a Catholic paradigm. It can be hard for Protestants to know and that is why it might seem that a Church Father is saying something that he isn't.
@@stacystevens1763 Augustine was saying exactly what we think he was saying. He was very explicit and detailed to put scripture above all bishops and councils. All that I see in this discourse amounts to, but he didn't really mean any of it, because Catholic authority is never wrong, all doctrine is perfect and we just don't make mistakes like the rest of you humans. You can say Augustine is wrong, that's your only real recourse here.
To be clear, Constantinople was not recognized as ecumenical while St. Augustine was alive.
Hi Dr Gavin. Love your work that you commit for Christ, all Glory to God in Heaven! I am on my way to Augustine's quote part of the vid, and I must say that I am trying my best to understand what Sola Scriptura means, like what are the words used, and what is its essence and what it is not. I know that you did quite a few vids on Sola Scriptura, as well as others, but was wondering if you had book recommendations on this topic other than the Historical Protestant writers like Martin Chemnitz (which are quite pricey). Maybe a book that was written in this century? Is Matthew Barrett's "God's Word Alone" book a good one, or is there a better book? Would really like to read it in my hands than constantly searching on the internet, which can be very tiring. Once again, thanks for your work, Christ be with you always :D
Thanks Jeremiah! I always find the historical sources most helpful, but a good contemporary book is: www.amazon.com/Shape-Sola-Scriptura-Keith-Mathison/dp/1885767749
@@TruthUnites thanks so much for the recommendation Dr Gavin. Now I am curious which historical sources do you go to😂 like is there a specific range of books by this author, maybe any specific historical book? Sorry for the many questions btw😬
@@TruthUnites really good book! Now I know where you found that quote from Saint Cyril of Jerusalem during your dialogue with Jimmy Akin. 😂😂
@@michaeljennings8221 actually got it reading through Cyril a few months ago. Haven’t read mathison in about 5 years.
@@TruthUnites ah ok. Well Matheison used that same quote you mentioned to Akin in that very book.
Can you make a video on suggested reading material on specific subjects
From how its portrayed by my non-Protestant close friends… i honestly would’ve never thought to expect such clear and precise language by Augustine or any other church father for that matter on a subject that is the crux of such modern distinctions such as scripture and tradition. Love this content.
What you said about the church fathers that “they don’t fit neatly” is what I’m most comfortable admitting. I think it’s accurate and frames our retrieval from them in a honest manner and gives us more clear direction on what we should expect to glean from them.
One thing to keep in mind is that St. Augustine is a Doctor of the Church (St. John Chrysostom as well), the Church doesn't define any Doctor as infallible, but the do define them as having a special title that defines their teaching and writings as having "... advanced the knowledge of God through their writing on theology, spirituality, mysticism, or through their defense of the faith in the face of heresy and schism" (USCCB). As with anything you have to look at someones entire catalog of scholarship before coming to a conclusion on a certain subject. With all of all the resources availably to the Church, do you think they would name Saint Augustine a Doctor if he had definitively taught for the heresy of Sola Scriptura, especially against the doctrine on how Divine Revelation is transferred? The Church teaches that Divine Revelation is transferred via the "one common source" of Scripture and Tradition. (CCC 80) This fact alone would make me want to delve much deeper into this subject than what Dr. Ortlund has given in this video.
@@MrTheKing537 I really appreciate this. But what do you make of these quotes? They’re so plain that they’d almost need to be a part of an inquisition or explicitly contradicted in Augustine’s writing to come to a different conclusion besides that he saw a formal distinction between the potential for error in post-apostolic ecumenical tradition that the Roman church doesn’t admit & that of the scriptures themselves.
@@MrTheKing537 And again we aren’t saying that he taught it definitively in precisely the details the reformers did. We are saying however that he did seem to hold to the fundamental thrust of Sola Scriptura. Augustine was facing entirely seperate issues and was clarifying answers to questions obviously different than those of the reformers-so we expect a difference, but it is convincing that his principles are close to identical.
And ofcourse, you’ll only find encouragement to ‘dive deeper’ and test these across the whole sweep of Augustine’s thought and literature but the point is what he has said here would essentially have to be contradicted. And we of all camps are most ready to admit the church fathers are not incapable of error in their own writing-which are precisely the words of Augustine himself!
@@cole141000 I think the easiest way to state what I’m talking about is the difference between Truth and the Fullness of Truth. In the writings that Dr Ortlund reviewed you do find Augustine’s view of Sacred Scripture in a pronounced manner, but picking passages out of his entire body of work is like saying that John 3:16 is the Fullness of Truth and the rest of Scripture can be done away with. It just doesn’t work that way. Plus you’re putting the scholarship of one man and his preparation of a 20 minute video over a 1000 plus years of people reviewing and analyzing ever single word that Augustine wrote.
@@MrTheKing537 I don’t think you recognize the nature of an exclusive claim.
And no, that example is not at all accurate or relative to the point in discussion.
How are we to take his multiple quotes from non-cannonical books? E.g. Wisdom of Solomon etc. Did Augustine include those in his conception of Sola Scriptura?
Interesting that Augustine also says, "subsequent to apostolic times" as if there was an apostolic age and it ended. That doesn't seem to indicate apostolic succession.
Oh, that is an interesting catch. I'll have to go back and examine that more. Protestantism wasn't a brand new thing, never conceived of by any Christian before, as Catholics like to claim. The views were always around, and the more looking into church fathers, the more we see them.
Edit: Are you quoting that from another writing of Augustine, because I could not find it in Gavin's presentation here?
Sincere question, as a Protestant pastor how do you keep your bias in check? Meaning you’re naturally inclined to see theology from Protestant pov as your job/life depend on it. Curious what tactics work for you?
Whatever it is. It sure isn't working. Seeing as he neglected quotes about the church authority... Weird
20:13, 21:14, 22:13, 22:53 - John Chrysostom
25:25 - “Reasonability”
Hi, Gavin. I’m going to defend the Catholic position here. I was a hard-core Calvinist for about 45 years before I was confirmed in the Catholic Church in April.
I will just mention one point at a time. Point first: You took pains to define “Sola Scriptura,” which I greatly appreciate. Defining terms is extremely helpful in these conversations. However, I’d like to suggest that you went too far. You stated you were giving the “official” Protestant definition of “Sola Scriptura.” This, I think, is inaccurate and perhaps even misleading, since there is no “official” central Protestant authority that can define anything. The best the Protestant world has is what I refer to as a, “consensus of the moment,” represented, perhaps, by contributors to The Gospel Coalition, Desiring God, etc. That lack of central, defining authority leads to no end of interpretation of Scripture itself, even on the two Sacraments that most Protestants retain - baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Denominations and independent churches end up practicing de facto sacred traditions of their own, especially in regard to eligibility, mode, and meaning of baptism.
Definitions must be backed by authority, and authority is what Luther, Calvin, and others rejected…and then claimed for themselves.
Is consensus enough? And if so, what is the biblical justification? Thank you.
Amen!
Thank you Gavin... this is progress toward an answer I keep looking for regarding Sola Scriptura and the arguments I get from Catholics. However, it still needs to be taken further.
If a teaching magisterium is not called for, then how can we truly know the proper interpretation of scripture. MANY denominations have deep and rational arguments for their point of view, and they are not secondary differences... Lutherans and others argue for baptismal regeneration, while Baptists and others do not. There are many other examples. Did God leave it up to us to debate without any authoritative resource? Are Lutherans or Baptists doomed because they didn't interpret correctly?
I do not believe that the Catholic magisterium is authoritative, however, I have not found satisfying answers to these questions. Continued progress down this road is MUCH appreciated!
I can never figure out why people assume there is a need for infallible interpretation. The Jews never had that throughout the Old Testament. We live in a finite and fallen world and see through a glass darkly as Paul says in I Cor 13. I don’t know why people would expect infallible interpretations. As I listen to the church fathers I don’t get the sense that they believed in an infallible teaching office, either. Maybe you can help me understand where this is coming from.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the reply... I was never concerned about it, until I realized I don't have a good answer about who's right about fundamental questions of how you become a Christian. I, like you, firmly believe it's when we put our trust in Christ for our salvation. However, Catholics, Lutherans, and others claim we become Christians when we're baptized, whether as infants or adults. So someone is right, and someone is wrong. Salvation is in dispute. Would God have left such a fundamental question as a matter of debate? Both sides claim scripture gives clear teaching to support their claim. I have confidence in my salvation through faith in Christ. Are we not going to know God's definitive answer until it's too late for those that were on the wrong side? We coexist and support different views, but they are foundational to Christianity.
@@harryurschel4230 I hear ya. It seems to me that we can have a confident answer short of an infallible teaching office, but I definitely agree that we need to have a good answer to those who question this.
This is a big part as to why I became Catholic. Separating the Bible from the Church is like taking a fish out of their fishbowl. Although I was well schooled in the Bible and even have a degree in Theology, I find that as a Catholic, I am truly a "Bible Christian".
@@harryurschel4230 I'll throw my 2 cents in. If baptism saves then it would be the consistent teaching throughout the entire bible. Its not. Faith is the norm for believing in God and being made just. Paul made a distinction between baptism and the gospel. A person will read their theology into the bible but if its not consistent with scripture i wouldn't put a lot of stock into it. Salvation by faith in the o.t. Salvation by faith in the n.t. There is one gospel. I know you weren't looking for specifics here since you are confident in your salvation. Again, just my 2 cents.
I appreciate the clarification on what the idea of Sola Scriptura represents. Even protestant teaching can be influenced by leaders, tradition etc…. but the idea is that only scripture is infallible. As I listen I find the same idea presented by many of the Catholic apologist that I listen too. One of the thinks that I have learned is that Catholics do have a have esteem for scripture and that tradition does not invalidate scripture. As a Protestant I find that while, yes there are different perspectives, I am finding more consistency in the respect for the Holy Scripture.
Weird..
Then we said, sometimes
after the *ordination of Maiorinus* whom they wickedly raised up against Caecilian, setting *altar against altar* , and rending the unity of Christ with frightful divisions, that they had requested Constantine, then emperor to appoint bishops as judges to arbitrate the differences that had arisen to break the bond of peace in Africa. But, when this was granted, in the presence of Caecilian and those who had gone abroad to appear against him, Melchiades, Bishop of Rome, acting as judge, with his colleagues whom the emperor had sent at the request of the Donatists, had decided that nothing could be proved against Caecilian, that he was thereby confirmed in his Bishopric, and that Donatus, who had appeared against him, was censured.”
Thanks, Gavin! I’m a Catholic and these Augustine quotes really got me thinking. If Augustine held to the doctrine of sola scriptura, though, how did he have all these other beliefs like Baptismal Regeneration, Real Presence, the Papacy, Perpetual Virginity etc. is it possible for a Christian to hold these views along with the doctrine of sola scriptura? If so, why aren’t these prominent among Protestants? Why does it always seem as though sola scriptura precedes some doctrine of deriving all doctrine directly from the Bible as you’re adamant this is not part of the doctrine?
Thanks for making these videos!
Augustine like many other Catholics throughout history have held to material sufficiency of Scripture. That does not exclude the belief in the infallibility of the Magisterium
ua-cam.com/video/zSPFqZgYe3s/v-deo.html
@@jackdaw6359who established the infallibility of the Magisterium?
@@Tanjaicholan Our Lord did.
The catholic apologists defend those doctrines from scripture
is there a book where we can read the church fathers letters to follow into this subject?
Facts
Yep clearly for Augustine the bible is supreme and pretty much he is teaching something we would call “sola scriptura”. Thanks again pastor Gavin!
Do you agree with Augustine when he states if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures.
Augustine also called Mary without sin, a pure dwelling place, and Augustine prayed for the dead, those undergoing final sanctification, and Augustine teaches of the Lord's Supper, " He held His own body in His hands, and gave it to them to eat ". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Daniel Smith The point is, Holy Scripture never teaches Scripture alone, nor did Jesus Christ, nor His Apostles.
7 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down. Again, Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Daniel SmithThankfully, God shall have the final say on who is the ignorant one! Jesus Christ taught that the faithful should adhere to all that was taught them by the chair of Moses, an oral teaching authority of the Holy Scripture! In the old testament itself, it states one should obey the priest. Holy Scripture is indeed authoritative, but Scripture ALONE is a man made tradition, and Saint Augustine never taught the man made tradition of Scripture alone.
Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12), as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! The same Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon as to which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not! 7 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Howdy!
Great video(as always).
I am a Catholic convert from the Baptist/reformed tradition.
I actually became Catholic approaching the doctrines from a scripture alone perspective.
I dont know if this is covered elsewhere in the comments but Augustines quotes got me thinking about the deuterocanon. If the argument is that Scripture cannot err but councils can, what do you do with a set of scriptures that is believed to be in error by the majority of the "900 million" protestants? Does that undercut a protestants perspective? Is it ok to use his quotes to affirm a particular doctrine but then reject his perspective on the boundaries of that doctrine?
Thanks for your hard work!
Peace.
Check out some quotes I posted here from Augustine. Dr Ortlund is misleading his audience. Secondly. You are right that material sufficiency is a thing to believe by Catholics. As we can find the seeds od all our doctrine and dogma in the Holy Word of God. This does not take away the infallibile interpreter.
@@jackdaw6359 Posted where? I looked at your channel because I thought you may have put them there, but there’s nothing there.
ua-cam.com/video/rhaBYLCMA2w/v-deo.html
Well, I would say that canon belongs to the Lord. It’s not a democracy. THAT SAID, at Hippo in the 4th C., the council said that the apocrypha was “deutero”canon. That means secondary. Even if you include them in your Bible, that doesn’t mean they were intended to be on the level of canon. They were known to be secondary. The Jews never and still don’t lay those books up with OT Scripture. They were never equal until very recently in history
@@KristiLEvans1
The Jews you changed the Old Testament and left out the so called apocrypha to destroy the catholic faith and Protestants choose to believe the same Jews who crucified Jesus.
Also the Septuagint was divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit and the Jews deny that too.
But as Luther claimed when he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church, l am my own pope and council, and ever since all Protestants are their own pope and council and that is why there is 40 thousand plus Protestant denominations
I think the point here is that sola scriptura has its roots in Augustine, contrary to popular Catholic objections that it's a late invention. In any case, scripture infallibility certainly was discussed and approved of by church fathers much earleir than papal infallibility, which is evidently a later invention.
Sola scriptura is not anti-tradition, but is the yardstick by which tradition is measured.
Sola scriptura might, and most likely does, have its roots earlier than Augustine, but Augustine did seem to support it. It is an erroneous claim that it was unheard of before the reformers. That's a convenient argument, for a church that had amassed huge power and wealth, expressly through a doctrine of their tradition being equal or superior to scripture. Then they had all control of the people. It just wasn't convenient to the RCC to concede to scripture first, too much loss of power.
Nope! Check out William Albrecht's response to this video.
Yeah William made it undeniably clear that the plenary councils talked about by Augustine aren't ecumenical.
I don't really have a problem with this being Augustine's view. Let's say it is. Who was wrong when people disagreed? In St. Augustines time it seems a plenary council could be called and doctrine determined. The Church would then go forward holding to said doctrine. Those who didn't were out. In St. Augustines time when using Scripture to decide what's right and wrong did anyone get the final say? Or did they just split when they disagreed? Many councils were held throughout Church history which bound the faithful to faith and morals. When was the first time the baptist churches bound all the faithful to something? Is canonical Scripture reformable? St. Augustine held the deuterocanpn to be Scripture. So shouldn't his statments of it's authority apply to the deuterocanon as well. Augustine seemed to think only the Church infallibly recognize Scripture. When was the deuterocanon officially said not to be Scripture?
St John Chrysostom questions sincerity if they cannot see the truth. Which of us is the insincere one?
Also there is a lot of overlap in St. Augustines and St John Chrysostoms doctrine that sounds very Catholic/Orthodox. It seems Protestants want to find Scripture alone in the father's so they can throw out any other Catholic/Orthodox doctrine.
Dr Ortlund, Augustine makes reference to tradition that is not written in Scripture which he calls 'apostolic'. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book V.23.13)
Would it be fair to say that 'apostolic' is a synonym for 'infallible' as I can't imagine that Augustine would have thought the apostles could err in matters faith.
Love your humility 🙏
I often think... Scriptures are not an end in themselves; we Honour them as the Word of God, but we do not Worship the Bible or believe it miraculously fell out of heaven ! Its contents are a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church - both old and new - coming into being through the Church, and properly understood (experienced) within it.
There is a 'synergistic' relationship between the Lord and the authors of Scripture. As Christ was both God and Man (the 'Hypostatic Union') - neither his divinity or humanity being 'overridden' or 'lost' in the other, so the Church has always seen something similar at work regarding the Divine origin and the Human and Divine authorship of both the Old and New Testaments. They are indeed 'inspired and infallible' - "God breathed" - in as much as they Wonderfully reveal Him Who is The Word of God - Jesus Christ - Who's Spirit inspired the human writers of them - the self same Spirit by Whom we now come to know God (particularly through the scriptures) in a personal and intimate way, Who has revealed Himself in a way we can understand.
Jesus is the truth
The Spirit is the Spirit of truth
His word is truth
His Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the truth
The Catholic Ancient Churches always saw the authoritative primacy of Scripture... But...
Does God meticulously determine all and save and sanctify via monergism?
Are the 5 "Doctrines of grace" a viable interpretation?
Augustine would agree with some of it... Chrisostom would have none of it.
The Eastern Church was guided, and it maintained and encapsulates in its worship, the Ante-Nicene view of the nature of human "free" will and Divine Providence, and the reality of synergy (I'm not Orthodox so I can say that I'm not sure about the 100% infallibility of the Church, but I can see that - unlike the West - following on from SOME of the blessed Augustine's later in life ideas, the East had largely reflected the infallibility of Christ the Living Head in speaking with one voice regarding Trinitarian theology, Christology, the Sacrements and Soteriology, and the nature of our participation in Him X
Where's the links
Ver. 15 "So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours." Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. -St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Second Thessalonians, Homily 4
Which stance are you hoping to support by this quote? St. Chrysostom sounds like an Anglican or a Lutheran to me here.
Very good. Seems the only sensible stance. Interesting he didn't mention papal infallibility as being an exception. Have you raised that with any Catholic apologists?
Right. Yes, there are various answers given, but to me they feel like maneuvering around the most straightforward way of reading Augustine.
@@TruthUnites Intriguing. Maybe if you have time and it fits into whatever discussion you have with Trent we could see what he says because I can't imagine any other way.
Generally I think with regard to sola scriptura I like your definition as I think it's the most accurate version of what protestants are actually saying, and also I find that orthodox and catholics tend to affirm the same thing, which means the disagreement potentially becomes another example of an observer effect and no real block to unity. I also think greater acknowledgment that tradition should be correctable and that bishops can be mistaken will be healthy for non protestants. It isn't technically an issue but it can be in practice.
But I really cannot see why Augustine would be so emphatic that scripture is the ONLY infallible source and point out how church fathers and bishops aren't to be taken as such without mentioning an exception if one existed. That disagreement is not just an observer effect, it seems like a deliberate political power play by bishops who did not check their pride and is largely responsible for disunity with the east and with those in the west who protested it. Just my relatively ignorant opinion of course, and subject to change, but that's the impression I'm getting.
If accurate then real unity will require a saintly act of humility by a bishop of rome at some point, while speaking ex cathedra to undo this but it will constitute a major disturbance event initially. Hard to imagine it happening but all it takes is the truth to be spoken widely and for God to ordain the right person and guide them there.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 great thoughts. My one observation would be that Catholic and Orthodox Christians do *not* agree with this definition of sola Scriptura, since the explicitly affirm infallibility within tradition. So I don't see the differences as the observer effect. Again, great thoughts!
@@TruthUnites But the orthodox I have heard do not mind the fact that church fathers disagree or that corrections have occured and are expected to. Their view of infallibility (not that I've seen them use that word, correct me if wrong) seems to be more that the Holy Spirit guides the whole process from a point of view higher than we can perceive so like Joseph's brothers' error was allowed and corrected later for a higher purpose, so can councils and debate amongst people attempting to follow the Spirit take us through bumpy terrain allowing for temporal mistakes.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 yeah it's definitely more nuanced for the Orthodox but I think they still have a different view of tradition than Protestants and would not affirm "only infallible rule" for Scripture, at least to my awareness.
I think St. Thomas Aquinas agrees: "Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8
@LEEK I disagree, I think St. Augustine did indeed believe that the scriptures were the only infallible authority, although you may find that conclusion to be unacceptable.
Agree Leek. Interestingly enough I once extracted that entire back and forth argument between Augustine and Jerome that spanned a number of years if not over a decade if I recall . The issue in question was whether Paul had “pretended” so to speak to be an observant Of the mosaic law or whether he had actually been observant . Augustine was concerned that Jerome’s argument was potentially undermining both Paul’s honesty and the inerrancy of scripture .
H E, "if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, I would not know the Holy Scriptures". Augustine taught Mary the Mother of God, was a perpetual virgin! Dr. Ortlund states Holy Scripture doesn't teach this. So much for Scripture ALONE AS the authority of Augustine!
Plus, Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@LEEK Dr. Ortlund tends to leave out the full quotations unfortunately! Awesome work LEEK!
I have asked Dr. Ortlund a dozen times and he has never responded to the question. " Can one know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", ( Matthew 26:26), as only Holy Scripture is infallible as he claims. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Holding to doctrines that are not found in the Bible is not necessarily inconsistent with sola scriptura. Here it might be helpful to compare the regulative versus the normative principles of worship. Those who hold to the normative principle of worship hold that anything is allowed, except that which is forbidden by scripture. Peace to you too brother.
Augustine and Chrysostom certainly believed in the truth of Scripture. As do all Christians. The separation of Tradition and Scripture is a false dichotomy. Scripture is Tradition and is the Tradition by which all others are judged. Your use of Augustine's quote on the Catholic Church and truth is telling. I can't imagine that either he or Chrysostom would see the Scriptures as being something outside of the Catholic faith. These were men of the Church. Augustine condemned movements that were schismatic. You are correct that neither man saw the need for an infallible magisterium but they both certainly believed in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And they would have understood these terms as Nicea ment them. So no, Augustine did not believe in the 16th century humanist notion of Sola Scriptura. That would be reading history backwards rather than forward.
Not picking on you Fr. I just like interacting with your comments. Was the treasury of merit prevalent in the early church?
I only ask because it seems like it is easy to say, Sola Scriptura is a 16th century advent, without proving the case. No… certainly we don’t find the doctrine well articulated until the 16th century, but we don’t find the doctrine of substitutionary atonement articulated very well until Anselm. That does not mean Christians prior to Anselm did not have some view of substitutionary atonement that was consistent with later theological clarifications.
That also doesn’t mean other views of atonement were not Center-stage for much of history prior to Anselm, to include heretical forms of ransom theory.
For that matter, the doctrine of Transubstantiation can certainly find some early support, but we don’t see the doctrine clearly articulated until much later. It would be real easy to call that doctrine a medieval novelty by Aquinas who overly relied on Muslim philosophers who resurrected Aristotelian thinking.
As for tradition. Its not a question as to whether Scripture is tradition, as if Protestants are allergic to tradition, it’s a question of whether it is the only infallible, (that is unreformable), tradition we have.
I’m not sure why you think Dr. Ortlund implied that Scripture is outside the Catholic (universal) faith. Unless you are now importing 16th century views of division on the 4th and 5th century.
He is simply saying these men believed Scripture stood above all else within the faith as that which is God-breathed.
Nick. No problem. I believe you are under the impression that I am Roman Catholic. I am not. I'm aware of a plethora of ideas all over the history of the Church. Many of which end up being over articulated and removed from balance. Scripture is true and the yard stick by which all other measurements are taken. But Scripture outside of the context of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church looses it's balance. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. These must be balanced and in their proper place. There are no Solas because God gave us much to rely on. Nothing need be separated from the other. The Church and Scripture are one united entity. Both are God breathed (read John 20).
The Word Catholic does not mean universal. It means whole. As in "the whole faith" with nothing missing. When I say Catholic I mean what Ignatius ment, that nothing was lacking. If a church is Catholic it possesses the whole faith, not a part of it.
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." -Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
@@fr.davidbibeau621 Sorry, I did assume you were Roman Catholic. Usually only Protestants and Roman Catholics are interested in Augustine. My sincere apologies if I offended you.
I don’t think Dr. Ortlund would disagree with you regarding your position on Scripture being the yard stick by which everything needs to be measured, but I’m also not sure why you think Sola Scriptura is removed from the context of the church. Perhaps because Protestants are not in your church, and you don’t consider Protestant churches to be a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Still, I’ll make an argument assuming otherwise.
Sola Scriptura does not mean “me and my Bible alone,” it simply means Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. The Protestant reformers listened to the church fathers and respected the church’s history. Certainly many modern Protestants have abandoned their history, but bad practice does not negate the idea that Scripture is the only thing we have that is God Breathed.
The Apostles who Jesus breathed on in John 20 were the ones entrusted with the infallible message which they handed down to the church through letters. Surely you would not say the Apostles’ offices are not unique in redemptive history?
Were their offices infallible? Or their letters?
To prove the church continued as God breathed beyond the Apostles you would need to prove the successors had the same authority in both word and power… without error or doctrinal division of any kind. That didn’t happen. I would reject the notion that God breaths errors or doctrinal division, which means only Scripture is God breathed, and everyone else is just trying to be faithful to God through it.
There is a substantial difference in anything produced following the Apostles, That’s what Augustine was saying. Being Holy Spirit in dwelt does not equal Holy Spirit inspired.
John 17 draws a distinction between those immediate followers (ie Apostles) who Jesus asked for to be “sanctified in truth,” (v17) and those who would believe through their words (v20). Only the first generation is sanctified in truth, all others believe through their words… though the church is one, she needs always to remember to look to the sources of truth for truth. The church is not truth… the church is the pillar that holds truth up (1 Tim 3:15)
Now we can probably save ourselves some time and I’ll concede that my ecclesiology is vastly different from yours, but I don’t disagree that Scripture cannot be rightly interpreted apart from the church, and I doubt Dr.Ortlund would disagree either. We just probably conceive of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church as manifested much differently than you… and I suppose, in the end, that is your real reason for rejecting Sola Scriptura as a novelty.
There is no offence. Why would you know where I go to church. This is UA-cam. I happen to love Augustine. Although I do sometimes disagree with him. You are correct. I do not interpret One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in any other way but the way it was ment. I do my best to be faithful to how the Fathers of the ecumenical councils ment things rather than how I hear them. So no, there are not many vastly different theological organizations or non organizations that mystically make up an invisible, universal body of believers. There is One Church.
As far as being God breathed. I give the Church, the Apostles themselves and their successors as much grace as I do the text of Scripture. There are human errors but the teaching is intact. The teaching of THE Church is that what the Scriptures teach is true and we are to judge all others by them. The Bible in my hand has issues, I trust that scholars are doing their best to make sure the printed Bible I have is as close as possible to the original. It's mistakes (whether I'm holding the UBS 3,4 or 5, the RSV, ESV, NIV, KJV NASB) do not constitute a denial of the Truth of Scripture. I expect the same from the successors of the Apostles. That they do their best to be as close to the original as possible. Despite their mistakes it does not constitute a denial of their role as the successors of the Apostles. THANK GOD He gave us more than just one way to see and hear the Gospel.
The problem is how one defines Sola Scriptura. Who defines it? I grew up Methodist. They have one version. The Brethren movement has another. The Church of Christ another..... We can keep going.
Do all Roman Catholics agree on how to interpret Papal Infallibility? If no, do the various opinions produce various disagreements about what is indeed infallible doctrine in the church?
I only ask these questions to suggest that a plurality of interpretation on a given doctrine does not disprove the doctrine.
Yes Roman Catholics do have differing views on the Papacy. They often float between monarchism to synodal. I believe they are actually having a wider discussion about this right now. You are correct it does not disprove it. There is always diversity of opinion. But Dr. Ortland is incorrect. Sola Scriptura is not ancient.
Methodist believe in prima Scriptura
@@jenex5608 methodists believe what ever they want.
@@fr.davidbibeau621 my point is they don't subscribe fully to Sola Scriptura. So ur arguing a strawman here.
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy WORD is truth." John 17:17
This is the bottom line for me. Jesus never pointed people to "tradition". He always pointed them to the word of God..."It is written..."It is written". "Scripture cannot be broken".
Imagine protestants going back to the Church Fathers and discovering that Catholics have been misrepresenting them out of context all these years? Oh.. wait...!
"I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not bid me to do so."
St. Augustine of Hippo
@@systemdown4027 Thank you for proving my point
Well presented and very helpful. Thanks.
It seems like when protestants "read wrongly" the fathers, what they are doing is finding contradictory statements in the fathers. Now there's 2 options from there, 1. is to admit that they might say one thing and then mean another because the fathers never changed positions and they would never contradict or 2. to say that its OK for the fathers to contradict since they aren't an inspired source.
If you take option 1, you'd have to elevate their writings to the level of Scripture, but I don't even think RCCs do this. For what else/who else is ever non contradictory?
If you take option 2, then "well why not rely then on the inspired source that we do have?"
Either way, you're left with "here's what a godly man said about the Bible, and here's what the Bible says about the Bible". The Bible calls only itself as θεόπνευστος
But without an infallible interpreter you are left with opinions. The Protestant mindset is as long as you agree on the "rules" (the Bible alone as the infallible rule of faith) it doesn't matter if you get other things wrong. But even then, those "other things" differ among different groups. know non-Trinitarians who claim they are only going by what is in the inspired Scriptures. Without the Church, the Arians would have succeeded because they too argued from the Scriptures.
@Daniel Smith Remember, Latin used to be the vernacular. Skepticism only ensnares those who stop trusting the Church.
@Daniel Smith No, it's called faith.
@Daniel Smith Are you Catholic?
@Daniel Smith Thanks for that background. Do you think God is a delusion or do you believe God exists?
I think it's important to remember that St. Augustine doesn't write that decisions of councils can be changed by individual interpretation of scripture, but by another council. I'm not aware of any pan-Protestant council that decided to reject any of the councils. That all came down to individual beliefs.
That's a good point. But fundamentally, he's drawing a distinction between the authority of councils and the holy scriptures. The conclusion seems to be that the councils de facto, are not binding on the conscience of believers in the same way the holy scriptures are. Therefore, this is much closer to the protestant view of scripture and tradition than it is either EO or RC.
The big problem is that later you have the popes, antipopes, and blatant simony (selling of indulgences) supported by the majority of the Catholic Church. What do you do in this case when the authority to appeal to is hopelessly corrupt?
I have to give it to Cajetan that he understood the problems Luther brought up and chose to only focus on what he felt were the most serious problems in the Theses. Cajetan was somewhat alone in this though. The Reformation was probably inevitable. And what’s funny is that the Catholic Church needed the Reformation as much as the Protestants, because the provoked counter reformation ended up reforming the worst practices from Catholicism, some of which Luther pointed out (especially indulgences).
I think Jehovah's Witnesses are being sincere and that John Chrysostom was naive to think otherwise.
The real question is, "In the Mid 5th Century, What Bible did Augustine have?" There were so many papyri, uncials and texts found after 4- 5th century, that changed the text to what we have today." Its astounding to see how Christians so early were doing exegetical work on Jesus Words and the NT.
Glad I follow the scriptures, that’s why I’m a Catholic 🙏
Where does scripture teach you to worship Mary as below:
"My queen and my mother,
I give myself entirely to you;
and to show my devotion to you,
I consecrate to you this day,
my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart,
my whole being without reserve.
Wherefore, good mother,
as I am your own,
keep me, guard me,
as your property and possession.
Amen.
@@Mygoalwogel where in scripture does it teach you that we are to go by scripture alone?
Where in scripture does it teach that everything is taught in scripture?
You just assume your "it has to be in scripture" position by default and then measure everything by it.
This already assumes you being right.
@@sotem3608 Nope. @Paul claimed he is Papist BECAUSE he follows Scripture. I directly addressed his claim. You are introducing a new topic. This is not about Sola Scriptura, but about @Paul's claim.
@@Mygoalwogel I understand, perhaps you can explain your reasoning then for your comment, I may have misunderstood the point you where trying to make.
All blessings in Christ!
So I think here we have to define infallibility. If we mean the scriptures are infallible when it comes to the rule and doctrine of salvation, yes. So then one asked what about those who did not have the New Testament but either lived during the time or before a full canon?
I would say the oral teachings of those time are a reflection of what became scripture. Because scripture is God breathed , that means as the apostles went out , their doctrine was given to them by God the son. They spoke God breathed doctrines , scripture. This become affirmation of when the canons are gathered in councils because they say the scriptures are the apostolic deposit.
Personally I’m more comfortable with prima scriptura. But if sola scriptura is presented more like this , I can affirm that as well
Angry Catholics shouting that Gavin riped Augustine out of context in 3, 2, 1...
Lol. Poor Church Fathers! Not one of them Protestant! Until of course, The Protestants make them so! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
:D
Not angry , not shouting but see Leek’s discussion of its context above . You also have to take into account Augustine’s other assertions about the authority of the Church and then make sense of it all.
@@matthewbroderick6287 you know Newman is a thing, right?
@@aGoyforJesus You mean the guy from Seinfeld?😁 oh yes, the Anglican that converted to Catholicism, yes, I know him. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Hi Gavin,
I've done some checking on what the Church Fathers, including Augustine, say about 2Tim3:16. You should see for yourself. None of them ever say anything about sola scriptura even though it is supposedly key text for it. Why?