Here's a Sola we can all feel good about. ONLY the name of Jesus. "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
Thanks for the very well explained video! I think, and i say this having been brought up non Catholic (some non denominational charismatic church and not been apart of any Church in the past 20 years), that ultimately, despite being very well explained, it doesn't fully add up for me. That isn't necessarily a critique against you or Protestant arguments on this, it very well may be, me. I simply may not have the IQ to understand it, i fully admit it. That being said, this seems like VERY long and ad hoc reasoning (to me) for the fact that Sola Scriptura doesn't really add up. True, I could make an infallible book, that includes things like "My name is...", "2+2=4", "triangles have 3 sides", "The North won the civil war" etc. But really, my book in a way had already been written, and I'd be forced to cite others like Euclid, Pythagoras, historians, Aristotle as well as my parents and the County Clerk in which I was born. Now, it is true, that all of these people are not infallible, but when they speak on THESE issues, seemingly, they are (which is why everything the pope utters is not considered "infallible", as thats an uninformed charicature many hold, nor presumably was every single thing the apostles may have written in their lifetimes assumd to be infallible). These people, (Euclid, Pythagoras, Aristotle, historians etc etc etc) are the people who had the knowledge and that will be cited, and who were cited for generation after generation as having the knowledge and authority to answer questions like "how do you know triangles must have 3 sides?", "how can it be that changing matter always takes on universal and repeatable characteristics?" etc etc. I think on ANY other issue we would not consider "because the math book alone is infallible" (even if it is) as an adequate answer, no matter how one arrived to it. How do WE know the math book is infallible, or the Bible is infallible? The only way one can reason as such is to cite the people who did the hard work of preserving it, meticulously copying it, translating it, preventing heretics from getting hold of one and "copying" it and distributing it, rittled with errors, from inserting bogus "gospels" (think the gnostics or whomever else) and then to discern what what belonged in it, and what didn't. To your point, unless the Bible floated down from heaven, literally, on golden tablets no less, then one MUST, by inference, impart upon the Catholic Church great power, authority, knowledge, divine guidance, and even with infallibility on matters such as assembling Bibles. No Protestant denomination had this distinction, and God literally chose and used the Catholic Church to do this. If what im saying is not correct, i have yet to hear an explanation that i can comprehend as to how any Protestant could ever rationally say "The Bible is the inspired Word of God", or some variation of that phrase. Again, I'm very open to the fact that im missing something, or missing a lot. Not sure. However very fascinating topic and I thank you for presenting a very top shelf explanation of this position for the layman. God bless!
I hear your point about the people who “did the hard work”, but I think it’s a huge leap in logic to equate said people with the institution of the Roman Catholic church. by the logic of the early part of your point, only the earliest New Testament writers and witnesses could bear to claim to be an infallible source on the topics written in scripture. a follower of Pythagoras could not be imputed the same infallibility on his theorem that Pythagoras himself did, because it was Pythagoras’s theorem. any infallibility that the follower could claim rests on the infallibility of what Pythagoras originally said. perhaps this is the logic people use to justify arguments for apostolic succession, but the second that the new generation(s) of followers modify or divert from the original teaching, they lose their right to claim the infallibility of the original. therefore, even if the original writers and assemblers of the canon could claim to be infallible people on the subject, their successive generations lose that claim to infallibility the second they change their tune, which is exactly what happened later in the Roman Catholic church with teachings like indulgences, purgatory, etc. Sincerely, A Protestant who was very intrigued by your comment and decided to think through it in a response to you instead of keeping it to myself
Love what you Doug. I am even a subscriber to Canon Press! However I would not consider a nonsensationist position to be charismatic. What about God warning people with a deep forboding in their spirit about something that might kill them. It happened to me. Had I not listened to the loudest inaudible warning I have ever encountered since in my 55 years, I would have been caught in the middle of a murder/suicide. The sterility of this position demands that I heard a demonic voice does it not? So Satan warned me to not be in the middle of a murder/suicide? I'm not a charismatic either and I understand the revulsion of charismatic theology!!! I went to a charismatic bible School only to be enrolled and finish school at Lancaster Bible College; a school with a plethora of reformed/covenant theological Profs! I am a skeptic but I believe God works miracles as He chooses.
Agree, agree, agree --- oh wait, sorry Doug, on your comment on charismatics I don’t think your conclusion works Biblically. In scripture we don’t see all prophesies recorded, as you note, referring to Acts 21:9 For the Holy Spirit to lead anyone to speak a word of Prophecy, Knowledge, an interpretation of tongues, etc, they are speaking words that affirm scripture, yet are not equal to scripture. Consider the following in 1 Corinthians 14: 29 - 32 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. Here Paul, has given instruction on how the gifts of tongues and prophecy should be presented in the Church, let’s take your assumption that all prophetic utterances are equal to scripture based on the reality that they come from God. What would see is that, there has been a dreadful negligence in the instructions given by Paul to the Church at Corinth and assumedly all the Churches in the collection and recording of all the prophetic statements that would be given by the Spirit when the congregations gathered together. Is it a fair assumption that God disposed of all the wisdom provided by the Spirit to the early Church? Or, would it be more reasonably assumed that these prophetic statements, words of knowledge, interpretations of tongues were treated as manna for the encouragement of the Church at that time or relating to an individual (Timothy for example), and not equal to the scriptures? Paul assumes that the Church will be able to rightly judge what to do with the interpretations and prophecies (1Cor14:29), cessationists who rightly fear the excesses of the charismatic movement, must wrestle with the approach of Paul and the other Apostles towards the voice gifts where words are spoken. The Apostles didn’t teach these as equal to scripture, and expected that the Churches were able to rightly divide, why can’t we also be expected to do the same?
But doesn't that assume that the tongues and prophecies that Paul was giving instruction on was anything but the content of Scripture before Scripture was completed and canonized? In which case, each prophetic utterance wouldn't need to be included in the Bible, because it already was... even if it may have not been inscripturated yet? Whereas now the NT canon has already been completed, so any prophetic utterances happening in our time that are essentially saying the same thing as Scripture would be unnecessary. Or if they are new, would need to be treated as further revelation. Thoughts?
@@chrisctlr Hi Chrisctlr, Do we have any scriptural evidence that tongues, prophecies, words of knowledge, etc, were the content of Scripture before Scripture was completed and canonised? I’m not saying they weren’t the content of scripture, in fact, I never in my time growing up in a Pentecostal Church heard any prophetic utterances or interpretations of tongues that could not easily be described as an illustration from scripture. In a way, the time within the Church service where tongues, interpretation of those tongues, and prophecies played a role of presenting scriptural concepts in a short 2-3minute spiel or sharing of revelation gifted by the Spirit from studies of the Scriptures. This seems to be the role these also were to play in 1 Corinthians 14 when Paul speaks on how these gifts were to function in the congregation (see all 1 Corinthians 14, noting in particular, 24-33). From scripture, I do not see that even if the utterances were Scripture verbatim, that it would remove the encouragement brought by the practice set out in 1 Cor 14. I do not see any statements in scripture that connect the function of these gifts to the New Testament Canon. If the interpretations and prophecies are not just a rehashing of scripture, but rather another form of revelation, we have the following choices: 1. Assume it was to be seen as equal to scripture by the Churches, though we must wrestle with why there doesn’t seem to be any attempt to treat the prophetic statements in Acts or in Corinthians in such a way. 2. Approach these as scripture says to - judging prophetic statements, seeing an interpretation of tongues and prophetic statements as edification for the Church. Please point out errors you see in my thinking and if I am missing scriptures that refute me, please bring them to my attention.
Agreed. In 1 Corinthians 14, for example, what’s revealed isn’t more of the plan of salvation, or God Himself, but the secrets of the heart of the unbeliever who comes into the gathering. I think “prophecy” or “words of knowledge” are about the Holy Spirit powerfully applying Canonical truths to particular circumstances in ways that would not otherwise be possible to do. Additionally, the Holy Spirit can reveal something about a specific, particular situation to help guide the church. But these are not universal eternal truths about God’s plan of salvation.
@@jeremytibballs6972 I guess I don't have an issue, per se, with granting that the gift of tongues included revelation that wasn't explicitly Scripture (however, I do believe that a big part of the gift of tongues was to be used in conjunction with prophecy to communicate to people of different languages God's word until it was inscriputrated/canonized). But even the tongues that weren't explicitly Scripture, it could be argued were temporary for the purposes of fulfilling prophetic judgement on unbelieving Jews 1 Cor. 14:21 (Cf. Isa. 28:11). So in that sense, Doug could argue that all revelation *today* would need to be included in Scripture, whereas there were Scriptural reasons for certain kinds of revelation to not be included in the Bible in the first century church. Thoughts?
@@ChristKirk Hi @Christ Church! Thanks for your reply. I was just "internetting" and it didn't think anyone would reply. Which, I get. Anyways, Pastor Doug (who, though I am emphatically not Reformed, I highly respect, appreciate, and listen to often) asserted that in order to believe in charismatic gifts today, such as the gift of prophecy (not to be confused with preaching as Scripture doesn't equate the two generally), word of wisdom, word of knowledge, etc. is to ipso facto believe in additional canonical revelation. This is patently untrue. Lots of accounts in Scripture show revelatory prophetic utterances being shared in a non-doctrinal, canonical way. And surely Pastor Doug knows beyond any doubt that fellow Calvinists who are also Charismatic, such as John Piper, Sam Storms, Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Terry Virgo, just to name a handful, do not believe that Charismatic utterances somehow add canonical, binding revelation. Again, thanks for your kind reply! God bless you guys! I look forward to your reply if you have one and if not it's all good. God bless you all!
This definitely deserves a follow up because it really hinders the entire (otherwise sound) video that such a rigid stance on scriptural gifts is taken.
![[UA] Team Vitality проти NAVI | IEM Cologne 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wttO1zVRTC0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much Mr. Wilson or should I say uncle Wilson bless you in Jesus.
I love these videos. So well done. Please keep them coming!
And now it's over 😢
But no worries - we can still listen, on our schedule!
Doug Wilson! Thank you!
Thanks, Doug.
I LOVE IT,truth beautifully and simply told without dilluting.-Nyandarua County,KENYA
Here's a Sola we can all feel good about. ONLY the name of Jesus.
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
I would be interested to hear your response to the Roman Catholic belief that the Apocrypha is part of the canon.
Your new riend from south
Honest question: where does the bible say that the spiritual gifts stopped after the apostolic age?
Thanks for the very well explained video!
I think, and i say this having been brought up non Catholic (some non denominational charismatic church and not been apart of any Church in the past 20 years), that ultimately, despite being very well explained, it doesn't fully add up for me. That isn't necessarily a critique against you or Protestant arguments on this, it very well may be, me. I simply may not have the IQ to understand it, i fully admit it.
That being said, this seems like VERY long and ad hoc reasoning (to me) for the fact that Sola Scriptura doesn't really add up.
True, I could make an infallible book, that includes things like "My name is...", "2+2=4", "triangles have 3 sides", "The North won the civil war" etc. But really, my book in a way had already been written, and I'd be forced to cite others like Euclid, Pythagoras, historians, Aristotle as well as my parents and the County Clerk in which I was born. Now, it is true, that all of these people are not infallible, but when they speak on THESE issues, seemingly, they are (which is why everything the pope utters is not considered "infallible", as thats an uninformed charicature many hold, nor presumably was every single thing the apostles may have written in their lifetimes assumd to be infallible). These people, (Euclid, Pythagoras, Aristotle, historians etc etc etc) are the people who had the knowledge and that will be cited, and who were cited for generation after generation as having the knowledge and authority to answer questions like "how do you know triangles must have 3 sides?", "how can it be that changing matter always takes on universal and repeatable characteristics?" etc etc.
I think on ANY other issue we would not consider "because the math book alone is infallible" (even if it is) as an adequate answer, no matter how one arrived to it. How do WE know the math book is infallible, or the Bible is infallible? The only way one can reason as such is to cite the people who did the hard work of preserving it, meticulously copying it, translating it, preventing heretics from getting hold of one and "copying" it and distributing it, rittled with errors, from inserting bogus "gospels" (think the gnostics or whomever else) and then to discern what what belonged in it, and what didn't.
To your point, unless the Bible floated down from heaven, literally, on golden tablets no less, then one MUST, by inference, impart upon the Catholic Church great power, authority, knowledge, divine guidance, and even with infallibility on matters such as assembling Bibles. No Protestant denomination had this distinction, and God literally chose and used the Catholic Church to do this.
If what im saying is not correct, i have yet to hear an explanation that i can comprehend as to how any Protestant could ever rationally say "The Bible is the inspired Word of God", or some variation of that phrase. Again, I'm very open to the fact that im missing something, or missing a lot. Not sure.
However very fascinating topic and I thank you for presenting a very top shelf explanation of this position for the layman.
God bless!
I hear your point about the people who “did the hard work”, but I think it’s a huge leap in logic to equate said people with the institution of the Roman Catholic church. by the logic of the early part of your point, only the earliest New Testament writers and witnesses could bear to claim to be an infallible source on the topics written in scripture. a follower of Pythagoras could not be imputed the same infallibility on his theorem that Pythagoras himself did, because it was Pythagoras’s theorem. any infallibility that the follower could claim rests on the infallibility of what Pythagoras originally said. perhaps this is the logic people use to justify arguments for apostolic succession, but the second that the new generation(s) of followers modify or divert from the original teaching, they lose their right to claim the infallibility of the original. therefore, even if the original writers and assemblers of the canon could claim to be infallible people on the subject, their successive generations lose that claim to infallibility the second they change their tune, which is exactly what happened later in the Roman Catholic church with teachings like indulgences, purgatory, etc.
Sincerely,
A Protestant who was very intrigued by your comment and decided to think through it in a response to you instead of keeping it to myself
@7:39 You misspelled "AUTHORITY"
Love what you Doug. I am even a subscriber to Canon Press! However I would not consider a nonsensationist position to be charismatic. What about God warning people with a deep forboding in their spirit about something that might kill them.
It happened to me. Had I not listened to the loudest inaudible warning I have ever encountered since in my 55 years, I would have been caught in the middle of a murder/suicide.
The sterility of this position demands that I heard a demonic voice does it not? So Satan warned me to not be in the middle of a murder/suicide?
I'm not a charismatic either and I understand the revulsion of charismatic theology!!!
I went to a charismatic bible School only to be enrolled and finish school at Lancaster Bible College; a school with a plethora of reformed/covenant theological Profs!
I am a skeptic but I believe God works miracles as He chooses.
Agree, agree, agree --- oh wait, sorry Doug, on your comment on charismatics I don’t think your conclusion works Biblically.
In scripture we don’t see all prophesies recorded, as you note, referring to Acts 21:9
For the Holy Spirit to lead anyone to speak a word of Prophecy, Knowledge, an interpretation of tongues, etc, they are speaking words that affirm scripture, yet are not equal to scripture.
Consider the following in 1 Corinthians 14: 29 - 32
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
Here Paul, has given instruction on how the gifts of tongues and prophecy should be presented in the Church, let’s take your assumption that all prophetic utterances are equal to scripture based on the reality that they come from God. What would see is that, there has been a dreadful negligence in the instructions given by Paul to the Church at Corinth and assumedly all the Churches in the collection and recording of all the prophetic statements that would be given by the Spirit when the congregations gathered together.
Is it a fair assumption that God disposed of all the wisdom provided by the Spirit to the early Church? Or, would it be more reasonably assumed that these prophetic statements, words of knowledge, interpretations of tongues were treated as manna for the encouragement of the Church at that time or relating to an individual (Timothy for example), and not equal to the scriptures?
Paul assumes that the Church will be able to rightly judge what to do with the interpretations and prophecies (1Cor14:29), cessationists who rightly fear the excesses of the charismatic movement, must wrestle with the approach of Paul and the other Apostles towards the voice gifts where words are spoken. The Apostles didn’t teach these as equal to scripture, and expected that the Churches were able to rightly divide, why can’t we also be expected to do the same?
But doesn't that assume that the tongues and prophecies that Paul was giving instruction on was anything but the content of Scripture before Scripture was completed and canonized? In which case, each prophetic utterance wouldn't need to be included in the Bible, because it already was... even if it may have not been inscripturated yet? Whereas now the NT canon has already been completed, so any prophetic utterances happening in our time that are essentially saying the same thing as Scripture would be unnecessary. Or if they are new, would need to be treated as further revelation. Thoughts?
@@chrisctlr Hi Chrisctlr,
Do we have any scriptural evidence that tongues, prophecies, words of knowledge, etc, were the content of Scripture before Scripture was completed and canonised?
I’m not saying they weren’t the content of scripture, in fact, I never in my time growing up in a Pentecostal Church heard any prophetic utterances or interpretations of tongues that could not easily be described as an illustration from scripture. In a way, the time within the Church service where tongues, interpretation of those tongues, and prophecies played a role of presenting scriptural concepts in a short 2-3minute spiel or sharing of revelation gifted by the Spirit from studies of the Scriptures. This seems to be the role these also were to play in 1 Corinthians 14 when Paul speaks on how these gifts were to function in the congregation (see all 1 Corinthians 14, noting in particular, 24-33).
From scripture, I do not see that even if the utterances were Scripture verbatim, that it would remove the encouragement brought by the practice set out in 1 Cor 14. I do not see any statements in scripture that connect the function of these gifts to the New Testament Canon.
If the interpretations and prophecies are not just a rehashing of scripture, but rather another form of revelation, we have the following choices:
1. Assume it was to be seen as equal to scripture by the Churches, though we must wrestle with why there doesn’t seem to be any attempt to treat the prophetic statements in Acts or in Corinthians in such a way.
2. Approach these as scripture says to - judging prophetic statements, seeing an interpretation of tongues and prophetic statements as edification for the Church.
Please point out errors you see in my thinking and if I am missing scriptures that refute me, please bring them to my attention.
Agreed. In 1 Corinthians 14, for example, what’s revealed isn’t more of the plan of salvation, or God Himself, but the secrets of the heart of the unbeliever who comes into the gathering. I think “prophecy” or “words of knowledge” are about the Holy Spirit powerfully applying Canonical truths to particular circumstances in ways that would not otherwise be possible to do. Additionally, the Holy Spirit can reveal something about a specific, particular situation to help guide the church. But these are not universal eternal truths about God’s plan of salvation.
@@jeremytibballs6972 I guess I don't have an issue, per se, with granting that the gift of tongues included revelation that wasn't explicitly Scripture (however, I do believe that a big part of the gift of tongues was to be used in conjunction with prophecy to communicate to people of different languages God's word until it was inscriputrated/canonized). But even the tongues that weren't explicitly Scripture, it could be argued were temporary for the purposes of fulfilling prophetic judgement on unbelieving Jews 1 Cor. 14:21 (Cf. Isa. 28:11). So in that sense, Doug could argue that all revelation *today* would need to be included in Scripture, whereas there were Scriptural reasons for certain kinds of revelation to not be included in the Bible in the first century church. Thoughts?
His assessment of charismatic and Pentecostals is absurdly false. He should and probably does know better. Not cool Pastor Doug.
Thanks for watching, Jordan. What specifically did you disagree with in his assessment? Blessings!
@@ChristKirk Hi @Christ Church! Thanks for your reply. I was just "internetting" and it didn't think anyone would reply. Which, I get. Anyways, Pastor Doug (who, though I am emphatically not Reformed, I highly respect, appreciate, and listen to often) asserted that in order to believe in charismatic gifts today, such as the gift of prophecy (not to be confused with preaching as Scripture doesn't equate the two generally), word of wisdom, word of knowledge, etc. is to ipso facto believe in additional canonical revelation. This is patently untrue. Lots of accounts in Scripture show revelatory prophetic utterances being shared in a non-doctrinal, canonical way. And surely Pastor Doug knows beyond any doubt that fellow Calvinists who are also Charismatic, such as John Piper, Sam Storms, Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Terry Virgo, just to name a handful, do not believe that Charismatic utterances somehow add canonical, binding revelation. Again, thanks for your kind reply! God bless you guys! I look forward to your reply if you have one and if not it's all good. God bless you all!
This definitely deserves a follow up because it really hinders the entire (otherwise sound) video that such a rigid stance on scriptural gifts is taken.