I agree that infallibility is not required to recognize infallibility any more than one must be a dog to recognize dogs. However, you can't have it both ways. Either we are certain of the canon, in which case there was some kind of infallible discernment of canon at some point, or else there is absolutely no instance of infallible discernment, in which case that exactly means there is a real possibility that we could have gotten the canon wrong.
@@GinaFisher-w3r The Bible pretty clearly states the word of God is the final authority, which the Bible is one medium the word of God comes to us. God is the final authority, and the Bible is direct revelation from God. It's not that difficult. Also, Protestants don't believe the Bible is the ONLY authority, just the highest authority because it is verifiably direct revelation from God and therefore infallible. The Canon is not fallible, the list of the canon is fallible. How ever many books God ordained to be written is the canon and it is not fallible. We, who are fallible, do not know for certain how many books there are and do the best we can by comparing books that are in dispute to books that are not. That list is fallible. Protestants do not include the apocrypha for the same reasons Jerome did not. Their authorship is murky, they were written after the time the Jews believed revelation had ceased, and they contain content that potentially contradicts clear revelation. Maccabees is historical, but not considered inspired. Largely because the Jews considered anything from that time period not inspired. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There are a lot of Protestants who don't apply Daniel 11 to the Maccabean time. In fact, most of the original reformers didn't, they applied it to Rome.
You express yourself so eloquently and convey your thoughts in such an inspiring and delightful manner. As a young Christian, I truly admire you, especially for being openly Christian on social media and enduring so much criticism. I understand the plight. Keep going, brother. God is working through you to bring more people to Him. We're all cheering you on. Thank you for continuing to put yourself out there despite the intense backlash.
@@GeraldHunt-i5q Gavin loves his straw man arguments. The more I hear Gavin talk about EO, the more I know he has no clue about EO. I was protestant and became EO. From an EO we consider RC anathema and Protestants Heterodox. We know what the Church is and its up to God to decide who is in the Church outside of the Orthodox Catholic Church. As EO we also only recognise the Septugaint and not the corrupted Masoretic by Christ hating Jews.
Here’s a something for you to consider. Other than the book of Revelation, a warning for accuracy in writing and dissemination was never commanded in the gospels nor the epistles. As such that some of the gospels we have today contain verses that are maliciously and erroneously added to the original manuscripts. Some also have mistranslations deliberate or otherwise by numerous translators from the time of the masorites up to now. What you need to understand is that the word of God in these scriptures are the only infallible material. Not everything in the Bible, scriptures, gospels, epistles is the word of God hence to think they are infallible would be deceiving to one’s faith. Once you come into knowledge of the word of God in all of these written materials, you will easily be able discern the spirit in everything that is written whether they be within the scriptures, gospels, epistles or from out. It won’t matter whether they are in the Bible, OT nor NT nor apocrypha nor whatever translation. It won’t matter if it’s the didache, the letters of whomever church father. It won’t matter even if it is Paul’s epistles. The word of God in all these written materials will always be in congruity and for those who know it, the understanding of all truth is not limited by what’s included in any compilation of them. Bible or Not. If nothing else, take Christ’s words in the written gospels and worry about nothing else. You’d do well to only focus on them for they are the foundation from which the apostles and disciples built (see 1 Corinthians 3:10 to 11 for help in understanding this)
@@GeraldHunt-i5q most fundamentally, the RC/EO view is that Bible exists in the context of the Church instead of the Protestant view that churches exist in the context of the Bible. This means that interpretations of Scripture are done in light of Tradition, not according to individual interpretation. Therefore, this entire video is a whataboutism/ strawman of the RC/EO perspective for an issue that ONLY applies to the Protestant epistemology.
@@raphaelfeneje486are you all there perchance? Churches lead and inspired by Martin Luther and Calvin are all Protestant, including the Baptist church.
I’m just now getting to watch this video and wanted to comment this before I get any further. I appreciate that you quoted our position as articulated by Vatican I. I see people far too often say that the Catholic Church believes she gave authority to the Bible - when really, that’s not what the Church teaches at all.
Gavin, your work is extremely worthwhile. What you present to us is extraordinarily well researched and well explained/argued--and so understandable. Your graciousness to those with whom you disagree is very winsome and adds to your authenticity. And your pastoral heart for your listeners makes it so much more live-giving. Thank you for all you do and for helping me to have greater confidence in the Protestant tradition.
Thanks Gavin. As a Catholic, I do appreciate your videos and your charity. I think the main reason I was drawn to Catholicism after having been a protestant for so long is that when I read the church fathers I come away with an overwhelming sense that they truly believed in the real presence at the Eucharist and That they believed water baptism was necessary for salvation. This seemed to be the case all the way up to the reformation. Even reading the imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis in the 1420’s you come away with just how much the church cherished the Eucharist. The body of Christ in the Eucharist was for the unity in the body of Christ. Are participation in the body of Christ was our participation in the body of Christ. Our communion with the body of Christ was also our communion with the members of Christ. That all changed at the reformation. The second thing that troubles me is that Martin Luther was so ready to get rid of the book of James, Hebrews, Jude, and revelation, since he didn’t think they were as inspired as the rest of the books. He did include them as an 2nd Tier Cannon. Also adding the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 in his German translation to bolster his argument. That somewhat troubles me that the main protestant reformer is adding and subtracting from the established word of God. Again, thank you for constant charity, even in the midst of sometimes less than Christian comments.
I have a question for you: Can somebody be saved in their last moments on their death bed if they come to Jesus and accept him and repent? Even if they weren't baptized?
@@WrenPadget yea I agree. The OP said they chose Catholicism because they belive baptism being required for salvation but catholics don't actually belive that and it isn't required for salvation. For the record I think all Christians should be baptized I just recognize that someone can be saved even if they are not.
Taya, I'd just like to comment: I see a great majority of Catholics say that "after reading the church fathers"... Don't you find that a little curious? Reading the church fathers on the same level as the Bible?
Wonderfully put! I found the logical case combined with the historical case entirely convincing. As much as my fellow commenters might dislike the thought, I find the idea of a "Faillible list of infallible scriptures" entirely reasonable. Thank you!
Thank you so so much! I have been wrestling with this question for some time and you have cleared muddy waters generously and excellently! God Bless you🙏
The ultimate criteria for identifying books of divinely inspired Scripture is antiquity and general acceptance and liturgical use in all the churches. What Sproul maintained is that the unanimous judgement of the whole Church is never infallible, even if the all the churches rest and acquiesce in the judgement over a long period. In this he is contrary to Augustine's dictum "securus judicat orbis terrarum". If God was guiding the Church in recognising which books are of divine authorship, then the Church is by the gift of God infallible in that recognition.
I'm glad you made this video. The canon of scripture has been a difficult topic for me to handle as a protestant seeking historical roots of the Christian faith. I even hesitate to call myself a protestant considering I don't have anything against my Christian brethren in other traditions. But if I'm honest with myself I am kind of "protesting" because my conscience cant accept all the Marian dogmas, papal authority, purgatory, indulgences or venerating icons. I have been to a Catholic mass as well as Orthodox liturgy and while I do appreciate the reverence and beauty that is lacking in my local church if the priest or congregation told me to bow to/kiss an icon or pray towards a statue of Mary my conscience wouldn't allow it. Maybe my faith is weak or I'm just too stupid to understand the intricacies of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies despite listening to dozens of hours of debates and hours of reading theology books. Your final statement regarding a lack of an infallible authority outside of scripture doesn't mean we cant have confidence to live the Christian life is good enough for me for now.
You are absolutely not stupid sir. I too have spent the past couple months searching and studying church history. While I have decided to remain Protestant for now - for many of the valid reasons and concerns that you have stated- I am certainly becoming a more Classical Protestant. Which version however I cannot say. Nevertheless dear brother, let us fix our thoughts on Christ, the author and finisher of the faith delivered once and for all to the saints. God bless and much love!
I get what you mean there about not having anything against our RC and EO fellows but I think you well illustrate why we are in fact Protestant. Those other traditions bind the consciences of the faithful to bow to icons and to worship Mary. Apart form some, frankly, either highly disconnected or perhaps deceptive people today who try to act like these are not actually issues, any honest Catholic from the past, for example, would tell you that you will go to hell for failing to affirm the Marian dogmas. This is ample reason to "protest".
I know this is one of the number one things Protestants struggle with and hear constantly whenever they interact with RC/EO online. Thank you Gavin and well done!
Hey Gavin, I asked you on Twitter a question that you said this video would answer, but I am not sure this video hit the target to my question, which is fine because you were focusing on different questions. I agree with much of this video as a Catholic and I think that, unfortunately, many Catholics have set themselves up for failure by using the arguments that you responded to. In other words, I don't think the question to ask is: How can we have a fallible list of infallible books? I totally agree: the Church had a fallible list until Trent anyway. I think two problems remain that were not addressed: 1) It is not about whether we have a fallible list of infallible books. The question is: Is the canon revealed by God? If so, it is certainly not revealed in Scripture itself. It is revealed in tradition, which is problematic for the Protestant position. And 2), the fact that the Church didn't try to define an infallible list, while many manuscripts through the ages were missing Hebrews and some included the fake letter to the Laodicaeans, weakens the Protestant position (although I admit it does not disprove it wholly)... because it shows the Church is able to operate indefectibly for a long time without even using a valid canon universally. Regardless, I will try to make a response video and I hope you can give it a look when you can.
thanks for the reply! to respond briefly: (1), no, not directly and as such; (2) I don't see how this weakens the Protestant position. I do look forward to your video -- God bless
An answer to #1 1. Historic Protestants don't have a problem trusting and relying on tradition. So I grant the Canon is revealed in tradition by God, just like God's infallible meaning of every belief and practice is revealed in every scripture text. With that said, you still have not solved the problem of infinite regress if infallibility is needed, because now you need infallible knowledge of discerning the competing traditions. We can trust God's providential guiding if His church without requiring infallible knowledge. As a matter of fact, it is the essence of Christianty to live by faith, not infallible certainty.
"Is the canon revealed by God?" - Jesus is confident the Jews were given Scripture and nobody (RCC, EO, Magisterial) disagrees with the NT canon. So job done. The only issue is whether you believe a person who could read Hebrew (Jerome) or someone who couldn't (Augustine) over the Apocrypha.
@rickydettmer2003 No, they don't. You, as a human, not under divine inspiration, can never get to the point of infallible certainty on anything. You will always have to use your private fallible judgment, even to decide who is infallible. It is no wonder it is called the Christian "Faith", and we are called to walk by faith, not infallible certainty.
It is my understanding that, even to this day, no mechanism of infallibility within Eastern Orthodoxy has ever defined the cannon of scripture. At least the Catholics can appeal to Trent. But when Orthodox borrow the Catholic argument of needing an infallible act of an infallible church, it falls flat when that church has never acted infallibly on this matter. Even more strange, I find, is when Catholics and Orthodox will team up on Protestants about the cannon even though the two of them have a different old testament cannon between them.
@@JohnQTaxpayer. no, that’s wrong. Carthage approved the Hippo list and Carthage named the books. Trullo approved Carthage without naming the books. The 7th ecumenical council approved Trullo without naming the books. So you don’t know what you’re talking about.
@@zalmoxis3707 The Orthodox Study Bible admits that they have never officially committed itself to a single text and list of Old Testament books, and not just that, but Russian Orthodox affirm and approve a Protestant notion of the canon (St. Philaret of Moscow). Hippo never included Maccabees 3 either.
Thankful for your content Gavin 🤘 I would never be opposed to more content on the canon, I feel like it is a common area that people may consciously or subconsciously disregard a religion.
Haha was literally reading about this argument in your new book this morning. Whether publicly or privately I'd love to discuss with you an Orthodox perspective to the protestant canon conundrum. Much love Dr.Gavin! ☦️
I think Gavin should talk about it if you discuss as well with him your conundrum with your canon or I would argue multiple canons. Your epistemic uncertainty is at a higher wave length than protestants because you need to then access not only the bible, but history books to derive a reasonable fallible private judgment to assert what you think is infallible. You have as much of a burden for proof for your epistemic claims than protestants.
Well reasoned thoughts accompanied by references into research. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and journey of understanding. God has used old clay pots throughout history, and indeed deserves more thanks and glory than we can even imagine. Thanks be to the Lord Jesus.
Gosh, I miss R. C. Sproul. Thanks for expounding on his statement. We need the next generation of theologians that will carry the legacy of accessible teaching like Sproul.
Thanks for your content. As a Christian, I have faith that the Holy Spirit intervened and preserved the New Testament writings, in spite of our imperfections. I, personally, don't much care about the the controversy on Old Testament canon, for we are now responsible to be faithful to the New Covenant scripture, on which there has been little controversy since antiquity. ❤✝️♥️
This is the best and most genuine discussion on the protestant canon i have ever heard as a Catholic Christian. It made me pause when Gavin mentioned how Moses didn't himself have to be infallible to receive or recognise the infallible word of God. And i agree with that. However, the nuance for me is the following. I trust that God granted Moses to receive His word in a way that is not fallible as we wouldn't think that we have a fallible list of infallible commandments. Or in other words, we wouldn't think that the commandments are infallible because they are given by God, but the list of commandments itself is fallible because it was given to us by fallible Moses. We trust that God granted Moses the ability to receive the commandments in a way that is infallible. In the same way, as a Catholic Christian, I trust that God granted His church the ability to recognised the canon of Scriptures in an infallible way. "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13). I trust that the Church is able to infallibly recognise the canon, not because Catholic bishops are divine, but because God promised to lead us to all truth - and what other truth is higher than the word of God itself. The whole process can be organic, taking time, as it did, but i trust the Holy Spirit was guiding us in a way to infallibly recognise what is and what isn't the word of God. It is to be expected anyways as Christ didn't leave us with the Bible, He left us with His saving love present in the Holy Spirit.
So grateful for the end explanation regarding the need for the Holy Spirit's testimony in our hearts. I have had conversations where others try to convince me to leave my protestant church because it is not part of "the one true church". But why should I leave the place where the Holy Spirit is moving? God changed my heart through the biblical preaching of my Pastor and elders. God did the same for my family and friends, and this was done in ways that cannot be explained apart from being miraculous. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is still at work as daily I am called to put off sin and give everything over to the Lordship of Christ. Thank you for the explanation Gavin.
The thing is, people of all different denominations will make this same claim about how the Spirit working within them led them into the church they are in. How do you explain that? Are you the only one who is right, and all others are wrong? I seriously would like to hear your answer on this.
@@jzak5723 I'll provide a summary answer, but really UA-cam comments are not the right place. I would recommend finding a good, bible-believing church who's members are serious about holy living and speak with the elders and members there for a more complete answer. Also, please note that no protestant church that I am aware of makes the claim that they are right and all others wrong, but I understand your question. As to your question, there are many factors at play so I can only do so much. First, there are false churches that do not seek to be bound by Holy Scripture. Protestantism is an umbrella term, not an institution. We live in a free country, so there is nothing stopping anyone from starting their own church and labeling it "Protestant". Second, there are differences that do not compromise the gospel itself, commonly called "adiaphora". Paul speaks to this in Ro 14:1-10. No one on earth has perfect understanding of God's revelation. In other words, everyone has some level of misunderstandings, so there will always be disagreements just as there are differences within the Catholic or Orthodox church. But the fundamental difference is authority. The biblical view of church authority is as a delegated authority and thereby fallible. Other examples are state and parents. Using the state as an example, there are differences in U.S. law from Canadian law. The Catholic-style might be "which is right"? where the biblical answer is to submit to the country you are a part of. (Ro 13:1-7). The same is true in the church. I am a member of my local church and so I submit to its leadership (Heb 13:17). As much as I appreciate Gavin, he's not my pastor but rather belongs to a different church.
God knows we are 2000 years away from his son's resurrection and does not expect his children to play the roulette wheel with their eternal soul because 10 bajillion denominations scream they are the one true church. check what they preach with scripture and trust in the finished work of Jesus. i simply cannot trust in the traditions on men on the basis of "because we said so!"
@@trashgobbler5000 But this is the issue, as I said before, if we just say to check what the Bible says, we get hundreds of different churches saying that they are right according to the Bible. The JW"s and the Mormons both claim they are right according to Scripture and can show you. Now, you may disagree with them, but they will also disagree with you too, even if you show them why you believe what you do. This is why there has to be a single church which teaches the truth, not everyone in every denomination checking the Bible on their own to see what what the truth is, because you can get hundreds, if not thousands of different interpretations. Jesus established one church and gave to it the Holy Spirit to guide and teach it, and this church is the Catholic Church, it can be no other if you are honest about it.
@@jzak5723 I can't trust them. Maccabees straight up contradicts scripture. It glorifies suicide when the soldier stabs himself (fails) and then throws himself off the fort walls (survives) and then he just starts ripping his own intestines out. They use flowery language and make it sound so noble. Meanwhile the Catholics teach suicide is the sin unto death... I really have a hard time believing the duetercanical books. They can't make up their minds.
Because this isn’t the own you think it is. It’s just further delineates the arbitrary nature of the Protestant position broadly speaking. At least EO and RC can articulate 2,000 years of history more deeply and in a nuanced fashion. Hence the 3-4hr videos on the topics. You Protestants love your short, snappy answers. Makes you feel good to have the certainty and that pride of “knowing”. But that’s not how true knowledge works. Because true knowledge requires wisdom and discernment, which requires longer exposition and a thorough epistemology. Because Truth is a Person Who cannot be distilled into or contained within a book. His Body, the Church, is the LIVING organism of Christ in the world. To cut yourself off from the Church is to have “a form of godliness but deny its power”.
@@aaronwolf4211 What about anything discussed in the video would you consider an "own?" Gavin was giving a defense against a very common "own" thrown about by Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The entire video is an elaboration of the historical view of the canonicity scripture from a protestant perspective. No one was trying to "own" anyone. If you feel as though Gavin is trying to "own" you by giving a defense against a common argument, that seems like an issue that may require some self-reflection.
I think part of the issue people have with Sproul's statement is the tendency to confuse the categories of "infallible" and "inerrant." Sproul's point was not that the canon of Scripture is in doubt, or that anyone thinks it is in error. He was simply pointing out that having confidence in the canon of Scripture does not require us to assign infallibility to the Church. One does not need to be incapable of error in order to be without error in their judgments. Fallibility does not imply necessary error. Someone might object however: "but fallibility means that we MIGHT be in error." Well, yes. But three points stand out: 1) This is the reality we live with day by day in every aspect of our lives, and we do not require infallibility of ourselves to operate and function in life with confidence. 2) There is a reason that the Bible commends multiple counselors in decision making. The wisdom of many is better than the wisdom of an individual who may have blind spots. In the example of the canon, there were debates over certain books, but we believe that the truth won out. 3) God's providential guidance of his people to recognize his truth does not require him to instill said people with the quality of infallibility. In other words, to say "it is within the realm of possibility that as fallible human beings we might be wrong about X," is not the same thing as saying "there is any good reason to believe that we actually are wrong about X."
I agree with you. But I do feel like some types will simply not make any allowance for the idea that "It is within the realm of possibility that we could be wrong." I feel as if people that take that stance are setting themselves up for a great fall into skeptical agnosticism.
How good was God’s guidance if we cannot be sure whether the books in our Bibles are actually God’s Word? I don’t see how Sola scriptura can make any sense if there is real doubt about the canon. Sola scriptura implies that the scriptures are a secure source. It implies that the canon selection process was guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. Technically, this does not necessitate a doctrinally infallible Church, so I can give protestants that, but it definitely does point towards it.
@@trismegistus2881 If by "sure," you mean absolute certainly, without possibility of error, then no individual person possesses such certainty, regardless of if they appeal to an infallible institution. Let me see if I can explain: An institution's claim to infallibility cannot offer me as an individual any additional certainty on this question. Here's why: There are multiple institutions claiming to be instilled with the blessing of infallibility by God. Their infallible pronouncements disagree with one another. If I, as an individual, want to gain confidence on certain questions by means of appealing to the infallibility of a specific institution, then I must decide which "infallible" institution is, in fact, infallible. I cannot gain confidence from an institution's claim to infallibility if there are contradictory claims of infallibility still on the table. So I must choose who to believe. How will I do this? Typically, the means proposed are study, prayer, and weighing the various arguments proposed by each institution. Once I've done this to a degree that I feel like all has been heard, I make my decision. Maybe I choose Catholicism. Maybe Orthodoxy. Maybe Mormonism. Or some other "infallible" institution. Now I have confidence, right? Well, not any more than I did before. Why? Because, from the very beginning, I was seeking confidence from these institutional claims to infallibility because I recognized that I, as an individual was not infallible. But how did I choose among these institutional claims to infallibility? Was it not my own fallible judgment? Maybe I'd be willing to say "but I believe God guided me to the correct choice." Fair enough, but then I have admitted into the realm of possibility the idea that God can guide fallible people to make correct decisions without instilling them with the quality of infallibility. And if God could do this for my fallible recognition of an infallible institution, why couldn't he have done this for a fallible church's recognition of an infallible Bible?
Fallibility implies capability of error, which means you cannot know for certain which books there are. Calling a category of books "infallible" without infallibly defining what those books are means that you could be ascribing to God words that are not his, or ascribing to man the words of God. In the case in which you rely on scripture alone as the only infallible source of your knowledge, a vaguely-defined potentially correct canon is simply not acceptable. It would imply that God is capable of speaking, but is unwilling or incapable of telling you what he spoke, leaving you to blindly attempt to assign things that agree with your preconceived notions of what God *would* say as the speech of God, leaving you extremely open to unintentional blasphemy. Such a thing goes against the idea that God is Good, which we know He is. Q.E.D, if the canon of Scripture cannot be infallibly defined, then God is not good. God is good. Therefore, there must be a method of infallibly defining the canon of Scripture. Since an effect cannot be greater than its cause, a fallible man cannot infallibly define anything. Therefore, it requires a Spirit-led, infallible act to define the canon of Scripture. This would disprove the notion that Scripture alone is the only infallible source of your knowledge.
@@gardyloogubbins this, very much. Ecclesial infallibility is an epistemic quagmire. You have to assume infallibility in order to assume infallibility 🤓
Catholic authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the inerrant books which the CC codified as the bible in 382AD which was infallibly proclaimed in 1546 at Trent.
Excellent as always, Gavin. If I may add something, it's this: it is through Divine Providence that the fallible Church received the infallible Scriptures. Why would God inspire the books, and then not make sure through Providence that they be received by His Church? That wouldn't make sense, it seems. The Inspired Scriptures were always going to be received.
How did God give the church the infallible Scriptures in a way that didn't come down to them using their fallibility to decide on which books were inspired and which were not, which books were meant to be in the canon of the Bible? I agree with you, it was Divine Providence that gave us the correct canon of Scripture, but just admitting it doesn't solve the issue of HOW it came to be, which is really what is at stake. Do you believe that the Catholic church was the instrument that God used to do this, or did it happen in another way, and if so, how was it done?
So far, dr. Gavin gives better arguments than trent horn jimmy aikin or willy allbark! Great job, sir!! You are such a blessing to our protestant faith!😊😊😊
Gavin this has been an issue really heavy on my heart. I am a Protestant discerning Catholicism and orthodoxy and watch a lot of your videos. What I struggle with is that I think the Catholic and Orthodox paradigm are better suited to answer the cannon question because since they believe the church is also infallible they didn’t need to have a closed cannon because they can really on tradition. And just because you have an infallible means to decide something that does not mean that you should not think logically when making that decision. The fact that the Old Testament canon history is messy is what burdens me because the Old Testament canon was disputed all the way to the reformation and although there were some orthodox and Catholic theologians that held to the Protestant canon it was the minority view. That means when Protestants picked the canon it was the minority historical view, all the apostolic churches disagree, and we don’t have a magisterium or ability to gather together infallibly to decide the canon. And I think this matters more to Protestants because we rely on sola scriptura and for that to work we must also use tota scriptura to determine doctrine so if something like 2 Maccabees is scripture it changes everything. if we have a fallible list that goes against the majority view of believers, don’t have an infallible means to discern it with, and are more reliant on it then it seems like a less equipped paradigm. Please respond to this because I respect you a lot and this is really heavy on my heart
If Gavin is correct, then every tradition for the canon is fallible. This would include Catholicism and EO. And so Protestants also rely on fallible tradition, they just think their tradition has the evidence in its favor. So I dont see how either Rome of the EO have a better paradigm if they are no more infallible than Protestants are.
@@christianfontenot9435 I know I'm not Gavin, but I'll try to offer my thoughts on this conundrum. I personally can't see how an institution's claim to infallibility offers me as an individual any comfort on this question. Here's why: There are multiple institutions claiming to be instilled with the blessing of infallibility by God. Their infallible pronouncements disagree with one another. If I, as an individual, want to gain confidence on certain questions by means of appealing to the infallibility of a specific institution, then I must decide which "infallible" institution is, in fact, infallible. I cannot gain confidence from an institution's claim to infallibility if there are contradictory claims of infallibility still on the table. So I must choose who to believe. How will I do this? Typically, the means proposed are study, prayer, and weighing the various arguments proposed by each institution. Once I've done this to a degree that I feel like all has been heard, I make my decision. Maybe I choose Catholicism. Maybe Orthodoxy. Maybe Mormonism. Or some other "infallible" institution. Now I have confidence, right? Well, not any more than I did before. Why? Because, from the very beginning, I was seeking confidence from these institutional claims to infallibility because I recognized that I, as an individual was not infallible. But how did I choose among these institutional claims to infallibility? Was it not my own fallible judgment? Maybe I'd be willing to say "but I believe God guided me to the correct choice." Fair enough, but then I have admitted into the realm of possibility the idea that God can guide fallible people to make correct decisions without instilling them with the quality of infallibility. And if God could do this for my fallible recognition of an infallible institution, why couldn't he have done this for a fallible church's recognition of an infallible Bible?
@@gardyloogubbins everyone has to agree that you have to use fallible reasoning to discern things that are infallible. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that their paradigms are better suited to answer the question of the canon. My biggest hold up is if the Old Testament canon for Protestants wasn’t closed until the reformation that is troublesome because the 7 ecumenical councils already happened by then and things like the intercession of saints, icon veneration, episcopal church governance, baptismal regeneration, and etc were all dogmatic, practiced and accepted long before the Old Testament canon is closed. All the Catholic and orthodox scholars that we use to try to defend the Protestant canon all believed in these things so how can we use their tradition for the canon which is disputed and not for all these other traditions that were more widely accepted. That’s why I’m saying their paradigms are more equipped because they don’t even have to have a closed canon to determine doctrine where as we as Protestants do and the way they pick the canon is more historically consistent and defensible. This is the essence of my problem
@@christianfontenot9435 As one of those rare protestants that hold to a larger canon, here's my response: I think the idea that ecclesialists' paradigm (i.e. infallible church authority) is better suited to answer the question of canon is moot when one realizes that 1) Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics actually disagree on what is in the canon (in other words, how can a "better suited" mechanism still come up with different understandings of that canon?) and 2) Eastern Orthodox still actually do not have a defined canon (and neither did RC prior to Trent, as Gavin explains in the video). So despite the supposedly high concept of having a better mechanism, the actual reality has not born said fruit. As Protestants, we don't need to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". We don't need to see the acceptance of the marian dogmas as an a priori road to hell for all Catholics, simply BECAUSE we don't see those councils as infallible. Instead, we understand that mistakes could be made through history (or as Gavin puts it, accretions), but can also hold to the understanding that it is by grace we are saved through faith. Thus we can believe, of course, that Catholics and EO believers can still be in the church despite those mistakes, just as I believe that most protestants around me are still in the church despite holding to a smaller canon.
@@christianfontenot9435 We have a situation, looking at history, of disagreement within the body concerning whether the additional books should be accorded the same weight as all the others. Along comes Luther who has the same concern, and when he translated the books of the Bible into German language he did not bother to translate the additional books. Meanwhile in England, the same concern existed about the additional books (whether they should be accorded the same weight), but the English nonetheless included the additional books in the printed copies of the KJV, and they continued to be read, but the English clergy taught folks that the additional books were read "as Jerome hath said, for example of life and instruction of manners" and not to establish any additional doctrine. So in both mainland Europe and in the British isles, the teaching of the Protestant Christians was fully consistent with the long-standing view of many within the church: since there has always been some doubt and disagreement as to whether the additional books carry the same weight of divine inspiration as all the others, let's be cautious with them. Eventually (in the 1800s, I believe) the publisher of the KJV ceased inclusion of the additional books in their bindings. This fact has certainly affected the outlook of the "low-church" Protestant denominations the most. The Anglicans (and perhaps the Lutherans and Presbyterians as well, I'm not sure) still include some of the additional books in their lectionaries. But in recent years it has been stated that the additional books contain errors of historical fact and/or errors pertaining to Christian doctrine; if these statements are true (I have not studied the issue much), this evidence would tend to confirm the correctness in the cautious attitude that those Christians showed throughout the history of the church toward the additional books. Frankly, I view this difference of opinion as a 'tempest in a teapot' since the additional books really don't establish any extra doctrine. The closest one could come to 'finding an extra doctrine' would be the claim that 2 Maccabees 12 supports a belief in Purgatory. But all we have in that book is a record that a certain military commander and his fighters _held out hope_ that prayers for their fallen comrades might be effectual toward their denouement in the afterlife. We don't normally build a doctrine upon such flimsy evidence; the Bible often records (accurately and infallibly) what some person said or did, but the fact that the person said it or did it does not necessarily prove that the person spoke or acted correctly. We have no evidence that the commander was acting on the basis of any sound, established doctrine being taught at the time, nor do we have supportive documents showing that either the Israelites or the Apostolic church evinced a belief in Purgatory.
Love this video. Thank you! “ My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me” John 10:27 God’s people have always been able to recognize His voice and can tell the difference between which books have His voice in them and which ones don’t. God made it so the creation of His people and the writing of His word are inextricably bound together, and I am so thankful for that.
It baffles me how many Catholics think Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were ecumenical councils. As you said, it is just a matter of fact canonization did not happen in the way internet polemics argue it did.
That's not the argument though, the canon wasn't authoritative until the council of Florence which also explains why the EO have an extended one, but even that is 100 years before the reformation.
The argument is that the church needs the magisterium to tell them with confidence what books are in and which are out. The response is that this was not the attitude of the early church and that the DC books being placed in a secondary status with varying liturgical uses was normal and accepted. You're right that Florence was the first time it showed up in an ecumenical council, tough still not as authoritative in the same way it was at Trent (according to Catholic theologians, not my opinion) The argument isn't being misrepresented by Gavin. This is the debate actual scholars and theologians are discussing. And I have encountered many people who think Rome, Hippo, and Carthage are authoritative, or mistake them for ecumenical councils. That’s what my comment was about, the misunderstanding of the argument at the popular level. PS: I'm sorry if this comes off as rude. Typing is hard, I don't mean any disrespect
@@AB-dw2op Florence is obviously authoritative (as the previous councils were even if not ecumenical), the fact it wasn't declared dogmatically until Trent doesn't mean you can freely desagree with it as a catholic. You have no idea how the magisterium works, so don't try to pretend you can debate this. And I, as catholic, never knew or saw a catholic claiming these (Rome, Hippo and Carthage) were ecumenical councils. Either way they're more authoritative than random guy (who wasn't even a bishop) by himself saying what books we should accept as cannonical or not.
@@ghostapostle7225 You're arguing with a point I never made. I am very aware of how the magisterium works because I actually read scholarship, I don't need to pretend because I am formally trained. I am glad you weren't as misinformed as some others!
@@AB-dw2op But this goes back to the anachronism of demanding dogmas to be defined within the first 4 centuries. We could have lived to this day with a similar form of innocuous ambiguity about the boundaries of the deuterocanon, but we can't do that anymore because sola scriptura came about in the 16th century, so _now_ you need a definition of what actually pertains to the canon or not. About Hippo and Carthage, I see people going back and forth over calling them councils or synods but that's about it, it's plausible to say they may not understand what constitutes an ecumenical council but that would be mind reading. Not that it matters, since both of them were ratified by the pope so to argue their authority is a non starter.
RC Sproul's statement involves the fallacy of special pleading when he said 👇🏼 👉🏻“Each book that is found is the Bible is an infallible book. But the historical process undone by the church, was a historical process that was done by a church that is not infallible.”👈🏻 The special pleading fallacy occurs when someone applies principles or standards to others while exempting themselves or their own case without adequate justification. What’s the problem with RC Sprouls assertion: Sproul’s special pleading arises because it is inconsistent to claim that an infallible collection of texts was recognized by a fallible authority, without explaining how a fallible Church could have reliably determined an infallible canon.
@@clivejungle6999 1.) It is true that St. Peter made mistakes, as seen in Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul confronts Peter for acting inconsistently in how he related to Gentile Christians. However, Peter’s mistake was one of personal conduct, not a doctrinal error. a.) The Catholic Church acknowledges that popes and Church leaders are human and can sin or act imprudently in their personal lives. b.) Papal infallibility, as defined by Pastor Aeternus, does not mean that the pope is sinless or perfect in all his actions. c.) Infallibility applies specifically to official teachings on faith and morals when proclaimed ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter), not to personal behavior or opinions. d.) Peter’s error in Antioch did not constitute a doctrinal teaching, and his leadership as the first pope remained intact. 2.) Subordinationism, the belief that the Son is subordinate to the Father in the Trinity was never established as orthodox doctrine by the Church. a.) While certain early theologians struggled to articulate the relationship within the Trinity, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, ultimately rejected subordinationism as heretical at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. b.) This process reflects the Church’s growth in understanding and clarifying doctrines over time. c.) Doctrinal development does not mean that the Church held errors as official dogma but that the Church, through ecumenical councils and theological reflection, comes to a clearer expression of the truth. 3.) The Church teaches that it is protected from error when it defines doctrines of faith and morals under specific conditions (e.g., in an ecumenical council or through a papal ex cathedra statement). a.) This does not mean the Church never encounters challenges or controversies in the process of defining and clarifying teachings. b.) Throughout history, the Church has faced theological disputes and heresies, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit has preserved the core truths of the faith. c.) The Church’s infallibility in teaching does not eliminate the possibility of debate, struggle, or even errors in theological opinions prior to official definitions. It ensures that, in the end, the truth will be proclaimed. 4.) The fact that Church leaders, including popes, have made personal mistakes does not undermine the Church’s divine mission. a.) Christ promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against His Church (Matthew 16:18), indicating that despite human weakness, the Church will be protected from falling into doctrinal error. b.) The Church’s authority is not based on the perfection of its leaders but on Christ’s assurance that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13).
This is the best argument I’ve heard in response to the “canon problem.” I especially appreciate how you highlight that certain forms of the canon problem can be turned against Catholics and Orthodox. I still think this argument struggles for the same reason your (again, excellent) argument for Sola Scriptura struggles: the lack of universality in the canon lists among the Christian faithful. The 7 books the Catholics accept bring with them serious theological implications (it’s really hard to argue against Purgatory when 2 Maccabees is accepted as Scripture), and some of the Orthodox accept even more books. These aren’t tiny sects which can just be ignored either; between the two of them, we’re talking close to 2 billion Christians who accept books as divine scripture many (not all) Protestants don’t. If there was near-uniformity of opinion on the canon of Scripture, I think this would be a much stronger argument. I also think this is a big or small problem dependent on one’s view of the early Church. If one takes the view of the invisible Church of believers, then this isn’t a huge issue. If one accepts there was a visible structure with a functional hierarchy, then the canon problem can be quite problematic.
The problem begins & ends with sola Scriptura which is unbiblical, unless as I always ask Protestants, you can prove! Always the same crickets! The books of Sacred Scripture were written by inspired authors which the CC then codified in 382 & that Canon was infallibly proclaimed at Trent in response to the Reformation & its attack on scripture. The apocrypha were included in the Greek Septuagint that Jesus & His apostles used. The Catholic view is that Sacred Tradition which existed from the time of Christ, combined with Sacred Scripture comprises the Deposit of Faith bearing in mind that not everything is in the bible Jn 21:25 under the unifying authority of the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit to arrive at an objective & reliable outcome. The three legged stool compared to the Protestant one legged sola Scriptura which doesn’t stack up!
I'm sorry, but if you think that Gavin has solved all the problems with the Protestant epistemological approach to the canon, then you haven't looked very deeply into the issue. I invite you to listen carefully to what competent Catholics say about these issues, because you will find that Gavin misses the target here - no knowledgeable Catholic takes the view that we need an infallible declaration to know what the canonical boundaries of Scripture are.
Everything Ortlund does is special pleading. He rejects Catholicism because it's not "infallible" in a literalist and fundamentalist sense, yet he embraces Scripture as infallible, even though, as evidenced by his rejection of YEC, he doesn't consider Scripture to be infallible in the literalist and fundamentalist sense. So, what you basically have is a Protestant Apologist playing irrelevant word games with "infallibility" for the sake of maintaining division
From an Orthodox perspective, the process Gavin describes is infallible, because infallibility belongs to the Church as a whole. The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth. This doesn't merely take the form of Ecumenical Councils, but also the writings of the Church Fathers, the liturgy, the lives of the Saints, etc. All of these are mechanisms of the the Holy Spirit's witness to the Church. Gavin seems to assume that infallibility works the same in Orthodoxy as it does in Catholicism.
Being a former protestant myself, I would embrace you as a friend also Gavin despite the many disagreements we might have. God grant you many years ☦️🙏🏻
Thanks. Great job. We can also ask how the early fathers determined the authoritative books apart from any council telling them. How did Polycarp know what to quote in his letter to Philippians How did author of Didache know to quote the baptismal formula from Matthew, Clement is replete with quotes from Paul and gospels, Ignatius, Ireneaus,... et al. All lived before councils address the canon and represent the church's ear to discern the voice of the Shepherd. Respect.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Well, I dont think the other side would say scriptures had no influence on the early church I just dont believe they are taking note of the history that the fathers determined the authoritative books very early, without the aid of a council.
Kruger’s work on this topic is fantastic. And if you need some other infallible source to tell you what is infallible then you need some other infallible source to verify that source. It’s an infinite regress. The sheep hear the Shepard’s voice.
The infallible teaching Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit combines Sacred Tradition which existed from the time of Christ with Sacred Tradition to arrive at an objective & inspired outcome!
@@geoffjs your “infallible magisterium” that is nowhere in scripture and essentially made up, sorry-it’s the truth, didn’t define their cannon until the 16th century. Your magisterium is anything but objective. To say something like that is to either be completely ignorant of history or willfully ignoring it. Not to mention, I see you never addressed the initial objection, because you can’t. You made a fallible choice to place your trust in what you call an infallible magisterium. They aren’t. The only infallible source is the word of God, the rest is subservient. The claim that you need an infallible source to tell you what scripture is, then you need an infallible source to affirm that infallible source and so on. If you are going to arbitrarily choose a point in which you can choose the infallible source, then you are in the same boat, you just decided to go with the traditions of men, we decided to go with the word of God. To each their own
It's not an infinite regress, although that's likely an (unconscious) strawman of a claim that EO or RC would claim. The claim is that it takes an infallible agent (the Church) to make an infallible decision (close the canon). But actually, for the EO, no closed canon is even necessary, but it is required for the Protestant worldview, and sola scriptura, to make any sense. Without being infallibly certain of the contents of the Bible, who can say what's in it? Without being infallibly certain about the Bible's interpretation with respect to core doctrine, who can say what one ought to believe? The issue ultimately is with Protestant epistemology. In order for the Protestant worldview to make any sense the Protestant has to account for the intelligibility of the canon of Scripture and the intelligibility of the right interpretation of those Scriptures with respect to core doctrine. Protestants can do neither of those. It's ultimately subjective.
@@SaltyApologistYou sound very confused, see Mt 16:19 & Lk 10:16. it is not possible to provide biblical support for sola Scriptura! The CC in 382, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit codified the bible containing inspired inerrant books which canon was infallibly proclaimed, in response to the Reformation, in 1746 at the Council of Trent. Without structure, hierarchy & unifying authority, no entity from family to corporates & govt can survive. Without these attributes, Protestantism is unsustainable which is evidenced by the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who will unity Jn 17:11-23. The many “truths” resulting from personal interpretation have resulted in the modern day scourge of relativism with Protestant support for contraception, abortion, IVF, divorce, LGBGT, SSM, Transgenderism etc
Disillusioned, Joshua Schooping - Chapter 9, pg. 180 In other words, if there are reasons which show that the Scriptures are intrinsically authoritative, then those same reasons ought to induce us to agree that they are intrinsically authoritative. The Church's authority is thus shown to be extraneous in settling the matter. But if those arguments themselves depend upon the authority of the Church, then the authority of the Scriptures, i.e. their canonical status, is consequently shown to be dependent upon the Church's logically prior authority. This means the Church has elevated itself above God's Word in order to render Scripture authoritative, and not in a way based on rational considerations but on ecclesiological authority. For if there were arguments that would induce the canon to be known to the Church, then those same arguments ought to enable anyone to concur on the strength of those arguments, not bare authority, thus showing that the Church lends no formal authority to the authenticity of the canon. But since the Word of God is by its very nature the self-attesting precondition of certain knowledge, as an inbreaking of the infinite mind and will of God, it does not depend upon any arguments from some other authority. Therefore, the Church itself must submit to the self-evidently authoritative nature of the Scriptures as the Word of God, otherwise they make god's Word dependent upon the testimony and word of the Church, which in doing the Church takes authority over God's Word and so makes the Creator's authority subservient to the creature's, which is absurd and blasphemous. Tragically, the Eastern Orthodox Presuppositionalist position, in asserting their hyper-ecclesiology, functionally denies the self-attesting and authoritative nature and status of God's Word.
@@Noah-1999 Pastor Schooping is a great resource on these things. I also recommend a gentleman whose channel is named “Faith of our Fathers” he has an interesting video on leaving Orthodoxy.
And you deny the Pentecost and the Word of God where it says the church is the ground and pillar of truth. This is evident by the hundreds of Protestant sects.
This was very helpful thank you Gavin, I’ve struggled as a member of a restoration church . It’s so difficult to discuss this among other members of my church it seems like a forbidden subject almost like your questioning the doctrine of your church . Thank you 🙏. Can you recommend any good reading resources on the canon .
Hi Gavin, when you say the Holy Spirit gives existential certainty about the canon, or any theological issue, how is that different than the Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture and that we can know because of a burning in our hearts?
The late Sproul explained what he meant with his statement "fallible collection of infallible books": We can perhaps illustrate the difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic positions by imagining that God gave us ten books, five of which were infallible and five of which were fallible, containing errors. Then He charged us to separate and identify the infallible books. If we were fallible, we might correctly select four of the five infallible books. However, we also might identify one of those fallible books as infallible. Our decisions, of course, would not change the nature of the books. The one infallible book we did not select would still be infallible, even though we failed to include it in our “canon”. Likewise, the fallible book we picked would not therefore be infallible. Our decisions would have no effect in this way because we are fallible. Sproul: Are We Together, page 22-23 Questions: 1. For sure "10" and "5" in what Sproul wrote are just illustration. But why would God give "ten" books of which five are infallible (inspired) and the rest are fallible and let us choose, without any guidance? 2. How do we know "ten" of which only "five" are infallible? Or how do we know there are X number of inspired books out of Y number of books given by God (Y > X)? 3. In the above explanation Sproul admitted that Protestant's "canon" could miss infallible book(s) and may contain "fallible" book(s). If the Holy Spirit is able to guide the writers of the books of the Bible, why can't He guide others to recognize infallibly which books are inspired? All criteria Dr. Ortlund proposed to "recognize" Scripture are not found in Scripture either. For example "orthodoxy": how do we define orthodoxy in the first place? Either (1) we pre-chose books as inspired and then define orthodoxy based on those pre-chosen books or (2) we pre-defined orthodoxy and then choose books that meet our pre-defined orthodoxy.
Brilliant video! Thank you Gavin! I’ve been thinking about this and I also reached this conclusion. It makes sense from the historical data that we have. To add to your infinite regress argument: you also need infallibility to define which is the true infalible church. How can you tell which one it is, if you are not infalible yourself? Is there any infalible way to tell which church is the one true and infalible church? There isn’t.
Your questions hinge on the assumption that at the end of the day, all anyone has is their own sole arbitrary position of defining "what is". This is from the devil, for if you are correct, then no true things exist. There are just fallible opinions. And if no true things exist, then nothing is true not even the christ that you claim with your mouth. Your confusing existential certitude with normative authority. Faith alone dogma rips God the father of his revelation to us and replaces it with man's reasoning. What body of people in the 3rd 4th 5th centuries do you think your with? Has christianity been the truth for all generations or is it just true for your generation?
As a Protestant looking into this my husband and I honestly are struggling with the Protestant (RC Sproule) view. Thank you Gavin for attempting to help answer such a complex and difficult topic. If Scripture is the only sufficient, infallible and certain authority in a Christians life, as Protestants claim, then the canon of Scripture is of utmost and great importance. Again back to sola Scriptura, if we are to look to Scripture alone, does Scripture itself tell us exactly what books we are to base our whole life as a Christian upon? Well there definitely isn't a list of books in Scripture saying these alone are Scripture. Some scholars say it does by referencing OT books in NT writing, but what we found was much more complex than that. It was apparent that we would have to look beyond Scripture to figure out which books were truly to guide our life as Christians making up the OT and NT of the Bibles we hold in our hands. Without an infallible Church deciding this I think it would make it easy for different groups to add to or subtract from the Bible at any time. Luther rejected the deuterocanonical books but he also questioned Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. What if he had removed those from the Bible? This is what we found in our studies: Lists written by Jerome and Augustine found in the late third century add some questions to this possibly, but in our best effort to accurately and historically study how the canon of the Bible came to be we found that in 382 AD Pope Damascus 1 held the council of Rome which established the first canon of scripture. This same canon is reaffirmed in the council of Hippo in 393 AD and council of Carthage in 397 AD and 419 AD (both of which sent their judgements to Rome for the Pope’s approval). These were regional councils so not infallible. The canon of Scripture, as was decided upon in the before mentioned councils with all the books of the Old and New Testament we as Protestants are familiar with but also including the deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees and sections out of Daniel and Esther, was definitively and infallibly reaffirmed by the ecumenical councils of Second Nicaea in 787, Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1546. All Christians accepted these 73 books for over 1,000 years. The first printed Bible in 1455 was the Gutenberg Bible and it contained all 73 books, as did the original 1611 King James Bible. There were actually 80 total books originally listed in the table of contents of the 1611 KJV Bible (39 OT Books, 14 deuterocanonical books, 27 NT books). There is a picture of the original table of contents of the 1611 King James Bible that historians keep in a museum in London. Some of those 80 books were combined or titled differently and the result was 73 total books given during each of the councils of the Church. Luther rejected the deuterocanonical books but he also questioned Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Protestants were not willing to go as far as Luther and question the books from the New Testament, but they were willing to separate the seven deuterocanonical books and have them put in a section either in the appendix or between the OT and NT until around the 1830s. Printers finally dropped the deuterocanonical books out of their Bibles for certain denominations because they discovered they could save money. The councils of Second Nicaea, Florence and Trent didn’t add anything to the Bible as some Protestants argue, it simply reaffirmed the canon the Church had used for centuries going all the way back to the Council of Rome in 382 AD. Even the oldest, most complete manuscripts of the Bible, which typically come from the fourth and fifth centuries called a codex or codices, which are unlike scrolls because they contained bounded pages, do contain all of the deuterocanonical books and they were not in an appendix, they were next to the other protocanonical books. The earliest one, the Codex Vaticanus (330- 325 AD) lacks only first and second Maccabees, yet this same Codex lacks the letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon. Like Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus (330- 360 AD) is missing only two deuterocanonical books, but also lacks Joshua, Samuel and Kings. Codex Alexandrinus (A.D. 400-A.D. 440) does contain all of the deuterocanonical books. Seemed to us that Tradition in a sense and a “Magisterium” led by the Holy Spirit were given the task of determining which books we would base our salvation and life as followers of Christ upon. This list was infallibly determined later on that only reinforced the earlier non fallible councils. We believe because of the unity of the church for the first 1000 years there was no need for an infallible decision, only when things began to become more decisive was it ruled in an infallible way to safeguard the Scriptures. The Dei Verbum of the Catholic Church states that, “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or spoken, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully. In accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed” (Dei Verbum paragraph 10).
Catholicism doesn’t teach that scripture is the only sufficient, infallible & certain authority as sola Scriptura is not biblical. Scripture can only ever be inerrant as infallibility only applies to an agent making decisions. Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21 Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective Reason & Faith should complement rather than contradict, two wings soaring to the Truth What did Christians do for the first 1500 yrs of Christianity until the bible was mass printed & even then, most people were illiterate until recent centuries. So for 90% of church history, people heard the bible read at Holy Mass & relied on Sacred Tradition which was handed down from the time of Jesus, St Paul 2 Thes 2:15. Don’t forget that not everything is in the bible Jn 21:25. All Sacred Tradition is not written in down in Sacred Scripture Protestants have an incomplete bible & lack of understanding of the Deposit of Faith & the unifying authoritative interpreter role of the Magisterium. No entity from family to corporates & govt can function properly without hierarchy & authority. The lack of these qualities explains the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects that are not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23. It is illogical to claim that personal interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit if there is more than one Protestant “church” ie Lutheran.
Hey, you! Thank you for this fascinating dive into church history/Christian History. I definitely didn't know about the contents of those ancient bibles.
Bruce Metzger on the Canon: Neither individuals nor councils created the canon; instead they came to recognize and acknowledge the self-authenticating quality of these writings, which imposed themselves as canonical upon the church. The New Testament, Its Background, Growth and Content, Abington Press, 2003, p. 318.
@@justfromcatholic did you watch the video? If I were you, I’d watch the video again or read the source from Bruce Metzger, I dropped in the comments. But just as a quick teaser, there’s several rules and one of them would be no internal contradictions, and a consistent intertextuality, especially as a refers to old testament prophecy and New Testament/historical fulfillment.
@@ryanparris1021 I did watch and Dr. Ortlund did not mention the name Bruce Metzger. I am fully aware that Dr. Metzger was well-known scholar. I have two of his books: "The Canon of the New Testament" and "The Text of the New Testament". You wrote "there are several rules and one of them would be no internal contradiction". Where and how did you get those rules? "No internal contradiction": Well, who bought the tomb from the sons of Hamor in Shechem? It is Abraham (Acts 7:16) or Jacob (Jos. 24:32)?
Thinking that the Scriptures are inerrant in the first place is an irrational dead end. It is much more reasonable to say, along the lines of Dei Verbum, that in our listening to the Scriptures through the Spirit, we may discern the truth that God has placed in them and in us for the sake of our salvation- that is, Jesus Christ.
So the answer is tradition? By the time a common canon was recorded in history we also have prayers to Mary and the saints as well as the Eucharist (among other things) Catholics still do all these practices and so feel comfortable standing on both tradition and infallibility. Orthobros stand on tradition and also don't have the same understanding of canon. The problem with protestants is that they rejected tradition and using it for ONLY this issue is very inconsistent.
You have a gift for articulating complex ideas simply yet comprehensively.
I agree that infallibility is not required to recognize infallibility any more than one must be a dog to recognize dogs. However, you can't have it both ways. Either we are certain of the canon, in which case there was some kind of infallible discernment of canon at some point, or else there is absolutely no instance of infallible discernment, in which case that exactly means there is a real possibility that we could have gotten the canon wrong.
@@LuciusClevelandensis were the authors of Scripture able to recognize the voice of God?
@@thadofalltrades Is anyone able? If so, in what way?
@@GinaFisher-w3r The Bible pretty clearly states the word of God is the final authority, which the Bible is one medium the word of God comes to us. God is the final authority, and the Bible is direct revelation from God. It's not that difficult. Also, Protestants don't believe the Bible is the ONLY authority, just the highest authority because it is verifiably direct revelation from God and therefore infallible. The Canon is not fallible, the list of the canon is fallible. How ever many books God ordained to be written is the canon and it is not fallible. We, who are fallible, do not know for certain how many books there are and do the best we can by comparing books that are in dispute to books that are not. That list is fallible. Protestants do not include the apocrypha for the same reasons Jerome did not. Their authorship is murky, they were written after the time the Jews believed revelation had ceased, and they contain content that potentially contradicts clear revelation.
Maccabees is historical, but not considered inspired. Largely because the Jews considered anything from that time period not inspired. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. There are a lot of Protestants who don't apply Daniel 11 to the Maccabean time. In fact, most of the original reformers didn't, they applied it to Rome.
Why do you not have a million followers? Seriously. Just found you during the whole best-seller book debacle and so glad I did!!!
Most people are not looking for deep dive into history content
Same here, thank you Meghan hhhhh very happy!
It's good to see the attempt to slander him only made him more known, I'm glad others are finding this channel.
Agree he should have a million subscribers!!!
@@lifewasgiventous1614 yeah Mindshift is awesome! Loads of new subscribers thanks to his sensible and caring approach!
You express yourself so eloquently and convey your thoughts in such an inspiring and delightful manner. As a young Christian, I truly admire you, especially for being openly Christian on social media and enduring so much criticism. I understand the plight. Keep going, brother. God is working through you to bring more people to Him. We're all cheering you on. Thank you for continuing to put yourself out there despite the intense backlash.
You're absolutely correct Dr. Ortlund, in my humble view! This video is really timely and appropo to the online RC, Orthodox, Protestant discussion.
@@JW_______ it's a straw man. Catholicism doesn't say we need an infallible list of infallible books.
@@GeraldHunt-i5q Gavin loves his straw man arguments. The more I hear Gavin talk about EO, the more I know he has no clue about EO. I was protestant and became EO. From an EO we consider RC anathema and Protestants Heterodox. We know what the Church is and its up to God to decide who is in the Church outside of the Orthodox Catholic Church. As EO we also only recognise the Septugaint and not the corrupted Masoretic by Christ hating Jews.
Here’s a something for you to consider. Other than the book of Revelation, a warning for accuracy in writing and dissemination was never commanded in the gospels nor the epistles. As such that some of the gospels we have today contain verses that are maliciously and erroneously added to the original manuscripts. Some also have mistranslations deliberate or otherwise by numerous translators from the time of the masorites up to now. What you need to understand is that the word of God in these scriptures are the only infallible material. Not everything in the Bible, scriptures, gospels, epistles is the word of God hence to think they are infallible would be deceiving to one’s faith. Once you come into knowledge of the word of God in all of these written materials, you will easily be able discern the spirit in everything that is written whether they be within the scriptures, gospels, epistles or from out. It won’t matter whether they are in the Bible, OT nor NT nor apocrypha nor whatever translation. It won’t matter if it’s the didache, the letters of whomever church father. It won’t matter even if it is Paul’s epistles. The word of God in all these written materials will always be in congruity and for those who know it, the understanding of all truth is not limited by what’s included in any compilation of them. Bible or Not. If nothing else, take Christ’s words in the written gospels and worry about nothing else. You’d do well to only focus on them for they are the foundation from which the apostles and disciples built (see 1 Corinthians 3:10 to 11 for help in understanding this)
@@GeraldHunt-i5q most fundamentally, the RC/EO view is that Bible exists in the context of the Church instead of the Protestant view that churches exist in the context of the Bible. This means that interpretations of Scripture are done in light of Tradition, not according to individual interpretation. Therefore, this entire video is a whataboutism/ strawman of the RC/EO perspective for an issue that ONLY applies to the Protestant epistemology.
@@GeraldHunt-i5q It's not remotely a strawman. It's a go-to argument for Roman Catholic apologists seeking to debunk sola scriptura.
Yay, Gavin! Can't wait to tune in!
God bless you immensely, Gavin Ortlund. Thanks for being a blessing to the Protestant side❤️✝️
His babtist
@@MrMonchis04 Your point being??
@@raphaelfeneje486 He follows Calvinism, which is 5 points of accretion.
@@fantasia55 Is he a Protestant??
@@raphaelfeneje486are you all there perchance? Churches lead and inspired by Martin Luther and Calvin are all Protestant, including the Baptist church.
Thank you for all the work you have done on subjects like these. They have helped me find more secure footing in my beliefs.
I’m just now getting to watch this video and wanted to comment this before I get any further. I appreciate that you quoted our position as articulated by Vatican I. I see people far too often say that the Catholic Church believes she gave authority to the Bible - when really, that’s not what the Church teaches at all.
Gavin this helps so much!
I have been feeling so much angst and frustration about this exact topic!
Thank you so much!
great conclusion, gavin
A wonderful and much needed video! Thank you for addressing this and hopefully moving the discussion forward.
Gavin, your work is extremely worthwhile. What you present to us is extraordinarily well researched and well explained/argued--and so understandable. Your graciousness to those with whom you disagree is very winsome and adds to your authenticity. And your pastoral heart for your listeners makes it so much more live-giving. Thank you for all you do and for helping me to have greater confidence in the Protestant tradition.
Gavin’s “whew” in the beginning was hilarious 😂😂😂😂😂
And ends with a whistle 😂
Gave me a laugh too! 😂
Well said brother! Putting this in my playlist right alongside my own video on it, keep doing the good work!
God bless you Gavin! Thanks for the upcoming videos and your continued work in the Kingdom of God!
Thanks Gavin. As a Catholic, I do appreciate your videos and your charity. I think the main reason I was drawn to Catholicism after having been a protestant for so long is that when I read the church fathers I come away with an overwhelming sense that they truly believed in the real presence at the Eucharist and That they believed water baptism was necessary for salvation. This seemed to be the case all the way up to the reformation. Even reading the imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis in the 1420’s you come away with just how much the church cherished the Eucharist. The body of Christ in the Eucharist was for the unity in the body of Christ. Are participation in the body of Christ was our participation in the body of Christ. Our communion with the body of Christ was also our communion with the members of Christ. That all changed at the reformation.
The second thing that troubles me is that Martin Luther was so ready to get rid of the book of James, Hebrews, Jude, and revelation, since he didn’t think they were as inspired as the rest of the books. He did include them as an 2nd Tier Cannon. Also adding the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 in his German translation to bolster his argument. That somewhat troubles me that the main protestant reformer is adding and subtracting from the established word of God.
Again, thank you for constant charity, even in the midst of sometimes less than Christian comments.
I have a question for you: Can somebody be saved in their last moments on their death bed if they come to Jesus and accept him and repent? Even if they weren't baptized?
Yes all Catholics believe this. Look at the thief on the cross. God has the power to do anything🙏@@nickNcar
@@WrenPadget yea I agree. The OP said they chose Catholicism because they belive baptism being required for salvation but catholics don't actually belive that and it isn't required for salvation.
For the record I think all Christians should be baptized I just recognize that someone can be saved even if they are not.
@@nickNcar there’s baptism by spirit
Taya, I'd just like to comment: I see a great majority of Catholics say that "after reading the church fathers"...
Don't you find that a little curious? Reading the church fathers on the same level as the Bible?
Wonderfully put! I found the logical case combined with the historical case entirely convincing. As much as my fellow commenters might dislike the thought, I find the idea of a "Faillible list of infallible scriptures" entirely reasonable. Thank you!
So you deny the Pentecost. You deny Scripture saying that the Church is the ground and pillar of Truth.
Thank you for this thoughtful video. I learned a lot!
I was waiting eagerly for this! ❤
Thank you so so much! I have been wrestling with this question for some time and you have cleared muddy waters generously and excellently! God Bless you🙏
The ultimate criteria for identifying books of divinely inspired Scripture is antiquity and general acceptance and liturgical use in all the churches. What Sproul maintained is that the unanimous judgement of the whole Church is never infallible, even if the all the churches rest and acquiesce in the judgement over a long period. In this he is contrary to Augustine's dictum "securus judicat orbis terrarum".
If God was guiding the Church in recognising which books are of divine authorship, then the Church is by the gift of God infallible in that recognition.
Excellent work Dr Ortlund. Very grateful for your ministry.
“You don’t need to be infallible to discern that which is infallible.”
That's the critical flaw in his argument -- you *do* need to be infallible to discern what's infallible.
@@joeoleary9010 Then answer how fallible people of the past were able to identify the infallible voice of God and the infallible word of God.
@@joeoleary9010nope
@@joeoleary9010then every Christian is infallible lol
@@joeoleary9010No it’s not. Dr Ortlund literally covered why it isn’t in the video.
I'm glad you made this video. The canon of scripture has been a difficult topic for me to handle as a protestant seeking historical roots of the Christian faith. I even hesitate to call myself a protestant considering I don't have anything against my Christian brethren in other traditions. But if I'm honest with myself I am kind of "protesting" because my conscience cant accept all the Marian dogmas, papal authority, purgatory, indulgences or venerating icons. I have been to a Catholic mass as well as Orthodox liturgy and while I do appreciate the reverence and beauty that is lacking in my local church if the priest or congregation told me to bow to/kiss an icon or pray towards a statue of Mary my conscience wouldn't allow it. Maybe my faith is weak or I'm just too stupid to understand the intricacies of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies despite listening to dozens of hours of debates and hours of reading theology books. Your final statement regarding a lack of an infallible authority outside of scripture doesn't mean we cant have confidence to live the Christian life is good enough for me for now.
You are absolutely not stupid sir. I too have spent the past couple months searching and studying church history. While I have decided to remain Protestant for now - for many of the valid reasons and concerns that you have stated- I am certainly becoming a more Classical Protestant. Which version however I cannot say. Nevertheless dear brother, let us fix our thoughts on Christ, the author and finisher of the faith delivered once and for all to the saints.
God bless and much love!
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyclassical protestant. I like that. Exactly where I stand. Same story, but from a Pentecostal/charismatic background.
I hear you. For a lot of the same reasons you listed I ultimately couldn’t become Eastern Orthodox but became Anglican instead.
Much love to you brother. I feel completely the same.
I get what you mean there about not having anything against our RC and EO fellows but I think you well illustrate why we are in fact Protestant. Those other traditions bind the consciences of the faithful to bow to icons and to worship Mary. Apart form some, frankly, either highly disconnected or perhaps deceptive people today who try to act like these are not actually issues, any honest Catholic from the past, for example, would tell you that you will go to hell for failing to affirm the Marian dogmas. This is ample reason to "protest".
keep it up gavin. dont always agree but appreciate your takes and honesty
The whole video was helpful, but I needed your pastoral encouragement on why we know Christianity is true this evening. Thank you brother!
I know this is one of the number one things Protestants struggle with and hear constantly whenever they interact with RC/EO online. Thank you Gavin and well done!
Keep doing what you're doing Gavin.. God bless you!
Hey Gavin, I asked you on Twitter a question that you said this video would answer, but I am not sure this video hit the target to my question, which is fine because you were focusing on different questions.
I agree with much of this video as a Catholic and I think that, unfortunately, many Catholics have set themselves up for failure by using the arguments that you responded to. In other words, I don't think the question to ask is: How can we have a fallible list of infallible books? I totally agree: the Church had a fallible list until Trent anyway.
I think two problems remain that were not addressed: 1) It is not about whether we have a fallible list of infallible books. The question is: Is the canon revealed by God? If so, it is certainly not revealed in Scripture itself. It is revealed in tradition, which is problematic for the Protestant position. And 2), the fact that the Church didn't try to define an infallible list, while many manuscripts through the ages were missing Hebrews and some included the fake letter to the Laodicaeans, weakens the Protestant position (although I admit it does not disprove it wholly)... because it shows the Church is able to operate indefectibly for a long time without even using a valid canon universally. Regardless, I will try to make a response video and I hope you can give it a look when you can.
thanks for the reply! to respond briefly: (1), no, not directly and as such; (2) I don't see how this weakens the Protestant position. I do look forward to your video -- God bless
An answer to #1
1. Historic Protestants don't have a problem trusting and relying on tradition. So I grant the Canon is revealed in tradition by God, just like God's infallible meaning of every belief and practice is revealed in every scripture text. With that said, you still have not solved the problem of infinite regress if infallibility is needed, because now you need infallible knowledge of discerning the competing traditions. We can trust God's providential guiding if His church without requiring infallible knowledge. As a matter of fact, it is the essence of Christianty to live by faith, not infallible certainty.
"Is the canon revealed by God?" - Jesus is confident the Jews were given Scripture and nobody (RCC, EO, Magisterial) disagrees with the NT canon. So job done. The only issue is whether you believe a person who could read Hebrew (Jerome) or someone who couldn't (Augustine) over the Apocrypha.
These two questions are fantastic. It shows the limitations of sola scriptura
@rickydettmer2003 No, they don't. You, as a human, not under divine inspiration, can never get to the point of infallible certainty on anything. You will always have to use your private fallible judgment, even to decide who is infallible. It is no wonder it is called the Christian "Faith", and we are called to walk by faith, not infallible certainty.
Amen. Thank you Dr Gavin for all the work you do. God bless
It is my understanding that, even to this day, no mechanism of infallibility within Eastern Orthodoxy has ever defined the cannon of scripture.
At least the Catholics can appeal to Trent. But when Orthodox borrow the Catholic argument of needing an infallible act of an infallible church, it falls flat when that church has never acted infallibly on this matter.
Even more strange, I find, is when Catholics and Orthodox will team up on Protestants about the cannon even though the two of them have a different old testament cannon between them.
The seventh ecumenical council ratified the council of Trullo which ratified the Carthage councils which approved the canon list.
@@zalmoxis3707 You still have an open canon list. There were multiple canon lists in these councils.
@@JohnQTaxpayer. no, that’s wrong. Carthage approved the Hippo list and Carthage named the books. Trullo approved Carthage without naming the books. The 7th ecumenical council approved Trullo without naming the books. So you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“The Orthodox don’t have a canon”
“The Orthodox have a different canon than the Catholics”
???
@@zalmoxis3707 The Orthodox Study Bible admits that they have never officially committed itself to a single text and list of Old Testament books, and not just that, but Russian Orthodox affirm and approve a Protestant notion of the canon (St. Philaret of Moscow). Hippo never included Maccabees 3 either.
Thankful for your content Gavin 🤘 I would never be opposed to more content on the canon, I feel like it is a common area that people may consciously or subconsciously disregard a religion.
I really like the Canon video you made with John Meade! You do good work Gavin
You hit the nail on the head man, im subscribing to your channel now! God bless you🙏🏾
Just phenomenal, thank you so much!
Haha was literally reading about this argument in your new book this morning. Whether publicly or privately I'd love to discuss with you an Orthodox perspective to the protestant canon conundrum.
Much love Dr.Gavin! ☦️
I think Gavin should talk about it if you discuss as well with him your conundrum with your canon or I would argue multiple canons. Your epistemic uncertainty is at a higher wave length than protestants because you need to then access not only the bible, but history books to derive a reasonable fallible private judgment to assert what you think is infallible. You have as much of a burden for proof for your epistemic claims than protestants.
Do it!!!
Thanks for being genuine dudes. I enjoy your dialogues!!
@@JohnQTaxpayer.We don't have a canon of books, we have a canon of Faith. This is not a problem to traditional Christianity.
@@issaavedra can you explain the difference for us?
Can't wait to see you on Ruslan. Great explanation on this topic.
Thanks a lot, Gavin. God bless u & r family
Well reasoned thoughts accompanied by references into research. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and journey of understanding. God has used old clay pots throughout history, and indeed deserves more thanks and glory than we can even imagine. Thanks be to the Lord Jesus.
Thank you, and well done.
Great video!
Got your book in the mail just before a 24hr flight! ✈️ never read a book in one sitting but I will now!
Gosh, I miss R. C. Sproul. Thanks for expounding on his statement. We need the next generation of theologians that will carry the legacy of accessible teaching like Sproul.
Excellent vid!
Thanks for your content.
As a Christian, I have faith that the Holy Spirit intervened and preserved the New Testament writings, in spite of our imperfections. I, personally, don't much care about the the controversy on Old Testament canon, for we are now responsible to be faithful to the New Covenant scripture, on which there has been little controversy since antiquity. ❤✝️♥️
This is the best and most genuine discussion on the protestant canon i have ever heard as a Catholic Christian. It made me pause when Gavin mentioned how Moses didn't himself have to be infallible to receive or recognise the infallible word of God. And i agree with that. However, the nuance for me is the following. I trust that God granted Moses to receive His word in a way that is not fallible as we wouldn't think that we have a fallible list of infallible commandments. Or in other words, we wouldn't think that the commandments are infallible because they are given by God, but the list of commandments itself is fallible because it was given to us by fallible Moses.
We trust that God granted Moses the ability to receive the commandments in a way that is infallible. In the same way, as a Catholic Christian, I trust that God granted His church the ability to recognised the canon of Scriptures in an infallible way. "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13). I trust that the Church is able to infallibly recognise the canon, not because Catholic bishops are divine, but because God promised to lead us to all truth - and what other truth is higher than the word of God itself. The whole process can be organic, taking time, as it did, but i trust the Holy Spirit was guiding us in a way to infallibly recognise what is and what isn't the word of God. It is to be expected anyways as Christ didn't leave us with the Bible, He left us with His saving love present in the Holy Spirit.
amen and thanks for the background
This was great!❤
So grateful for the end explanation regarding the need for the Holy Spirit's testimony in our hearts. I have had conversations where others try to convince me to leave my protestant church because it is not part of "the one true church".
But why should I leave the place where the Holy Spirit is moving? God changed my heart through the biblical preaching of my Pastor and elders. God did the same for my family and friends, and this was done in ways that cannot be explained apart from being miraculous. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is still at work as daily I am called to put off sin and give everything over to the Lordship of Christ.
Thank you for the explanation Gavin.
The thing is, people of all different denominations will make this same claim about how the Spirit working within them led them into the church they are in. How do you explain that? Are you the only one who is right, and all others are wrong? I seriously would like to hear your answer on this.
@@jzak5723 I'll provide a summary answer, but really UA-cam comments are not the right place. I would recommend finding a good, bible-believing church who's members are serious about holy living and speak with the elders and members there for a more complete answer.
Also, please note that no protestant church that I am aware of makes the claim that they are right and all others wrong, but I understand your question.
As to your question, there are many factors at play so I can only do so much. First, there are false churches that do not seek to be bound by Holy Scripture. Protestantism is an umbrella term, not an institution. We live in a free country, so there is nothing stopping anyone from starting their own church and labeling it "Protestant".
Second, there are differences that do not compromise the gospel itself, commonly called "adiaphora". Paul speaks to this in Ro 14:1-10. No one on earth has perfect understanding of God's revelation. In other words, everyone has some level of misunderstandings, so there will always be disagreements just as there are differences within the Catholic or Orthodox church.
But the fundamental difference is authority. The biblical view of church authority is as a delegated authority and thereby fallible. Other examples are state and parents. Using the state as an example, there are differences in U.S. law from Canadian law. The Catholic-style might be "which is right"? where the biblical answer is to submit to the country you are a part of. (Ro 13:1-7). The same is true in the church. I am a member of my local church and so I submit to its leadership (Heb 13:17). As much as I appreciate Gavin, he's not my pastor but rather belongs to a different church.
God knows we are 2000 years away from his son's resurrection and does not expect his children to play the roulette wheel with their eternal soul because 10 bajillion denominations scream they are the one true church. check what they preach with scripture and trust in the finished work of Jesus. i simply cannot trust in the traditions on men on the basis of "because we said so!"
@@trashgobbler5000
But this is the issue, as I said before, if we just say to check what the Bible says, we get hundreds of different churches saying that they are right according to the Bible. The JW"s and the Mormons both claim they are right according to Scripture and can show you. Now, you may disagree with them, but they will also disagree with you too, even if you show them why you believe what you do. This is why there has to be a single church which teaches the truth, not everyone in every denomination checking the Bible on their own to see what what the truth is, because you can get hundreds, if not thousands of different interpretations. Jesus established one church and gave to it the Holy Spirit to guide and teach it, and this church is the Catholic Church, it can be no other if you are honest about it.
@@jzak5723 I can't trust them. Maccabees straight up contradicts scripture. It glorifies suicide when the soldier stabs himself (fails) and then throws himself off the fort walls (survives) and then he just starts ripping his own intestines out. They use flowery language and make it sound so noble. Meanwhile the Catholics teach suicide is the sin unto death... I really have a hard time believing the duetercanical books. They can't make up their minds.
Wow excellent, very clarifying.👍🏼
God bless Gavin Ortlund
Perfectly said. Now queue up the hundred, 4hr response videos from the EOs and RCs. 😂
You beat me to it 😂
LOL
Because this isn’t the own you think it is. It’s just further delineates the arbitrary nature of the Protestant position broadly speaking. At least EO and RC can articulate 2,000 years of history more deeply and in a nuanced fashion. Hence the 3-4hr videos on the topics.
You Protestants love your short, snappy answers. Makes you feel good to have the certainty and that pride of “knowing”. But that’s not how true knowledge works. Because true knowledge requires wisdom and discernment, which requires longer exposition and a thorough epistemology. Because Truth is a Person Who cannot be distilled into or contained within a book. His Body, the Church, is the LIVING organism of Christ in the world. To cut yourself off from the Church is to have “a form of godliness but deny its power”.
@@aaronwolf4211 What about anything discussed in the video would you consider an "own?" Gavin was giving a defense against a very common "own" thrown about by Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. The entire video is an elaboration of the historical view of the canonicity scripture from a protestant perspective. No one was trying to "own" anyone. If you feel as though Gavin is trying to "own" you by giving a defense against a common argument, that seems like an issue that may require some self-reflection.
@@aaronwolf4211 Notice how you have no argument. If Gavin is wrong, show how.
I think part of the issue people have with Sproul's statement is the tendency to confuse the categories of "infallible" and "inerrant." Sproul's point was not that the canon of Scripture is in doubt, or that anyone thinks it is in error. He was simply pointing out that having confidence in the canon of Scripture does not require us to assign infallibility to the Church. One does not need to be incapable of error in order to be without error in their judgments. Fallibility does not imply necessary error.
Someone might object however: "but fallibility means that we MIGHT be in error."
Well, yes. But three points stand out: 1) This is the reality we live with day by day in every aspect of our lives, and we do not require infallibility of ourselves to operate and function in life with confidence. 2) There is a reason that the Bible commends multiple counselors in decision making. The wisdom of many is better than the wisdom of an individual who may have blind spots. In the example of the canon, there were debates over certain books, but we believe that the truth won out. 3) God's providential guidance of his people to recognize his truth does not require him to instill said people with the quality of infallibility.
In other words, to say "it is within the realm of possibility that as fallible human beings we might be wrong about X," is not the same thing as saying "there is any good reason to believe that we actually are wrong about X."
I agree with you. But I do feel like some types will simply not make any allowance for the idea that "It is within the realm of possibility that we could be wrong." I feel as if people that take that stance are setting themselves up for a great fall into skeptical agnosticism.
How good was God’s guidance if we cannot be sure whether the books in our Bibles are actually God’s Word? I don’t see how Sola scriptura can make any sense if there is real doubt about the canon. Sola scriptura implies that the scriptures are a secure source. It implies that the canon selection process was guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. Technically, this does not necessitate a doctrinally infallible Church, so I can give protestants that, but it definitely does point towards it.
@@trismegistus2881 If by "sure," you mean absolute certainly, without possibility of error, then no individual person possesses such certainty, regardless of if they appeal to an infallible institution. Let me see if I can explain:
An institution's claim to infallibility cannot offer me as an individual any additional certainty on this question. Here's why:
There are multiple institutions claiming to be instilled with the blessing of infallibility by God. Their infallible pronouncements disagree with one another. If I, as an individual, want to gain confidence on certain questions by means of appealing to the infallibility of a specific institution, then I must decide which "infallible" institution is, in fact, infallible. I cannot gain confidence from an institution's claim to infallibility if there are contradictory claims of infallibility still on the table. So I must choose who to believe.
How will I do this? Typically, the means proposed are study, prayer, and weighing the various arguments proposed by each institution. Once I've done this to a degree that I feel like all has been heard, I make my decision. Maybe I choose Catholicism. Maybe Orthodoxy. Maybe Mormonism. Or some other "infallible" institution. Now I have confidence, right?
Well, not any more than I did before. Why? Because, from the very beginning, I was seeking confidence from these institutional claims to infallibility because I recognized that I, as an individual was not infallible. But how did I choose among these institutional claims to infallibility? Was it not my own fallible judgment?
Maybe I'd be willing to say "but I believe God guided me to the correct choice." Fair enough, but then I have admitted into the realm of possibility the idea that God can guide fallible people to make correct decisions without instilling them with the quality of infallibility. And if God could do this for my fallible recognition of an infallible institution, why couldn't he have done this for a fallible church's recognition of an infallible Bible?
Fallibility implies capability of error, which means you cannot know for certain which books there are. Calling a category of books "infallible" without infallibly defining what those books are means that you could be ascribing to God words that are not his, or ascribing to man the words of God. In the case in which you rely on scripture alone as the only infallible source of your knowledge, a vaguely-defined potentially correct canon is simply not acceptable. It would imply that God is capable of speaking, but is unwilling or incapable of telling you what he spoke, leaving you to blindly attempt to assign things that agree with your preconceived notions of what God *would* say as the speech of God, leaving you extremely open to unintentional blasphemy. Such a thing goes against the idea that God is Good, which we know He is. Q.E.D, if the canon of Scripture cannot be infallibly defined, then God is not good. God is good. Therefore, there must be a method of infallibly defining the canon of Scripture. Since an effect cannot be greater than its cause, a fallible man cannot infallibly define anything. Therefore, it requires a Spirit-led, infallible act to define the canon of Scripture. This would disprove the notion that Scripture alone is the only infallible source of your knowledge.
@@gardyloogubbins this, very much. Ecclesial infallibility is an epistemic quagmire. You have to assume infallibility in order to assume infallibility 🤓
Perhaps a video dedicated to the modern desire for epistemic certainty that has no possibility of being wrong.
I love the pastoral encouragement at the end.
Wow!! So every twitter post saying "Catholics MaDe the Bible!!" is not even what catholicism teaches!!
Catholic authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the inerrant books which the CC codified as the bible in 382AD which was infallibly proclaimed in 1546 at Trent.
We can trust God. Thanks for the video, very informative and helpful.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Excellent as always, Gavin. If I may add something, it's this: it is through Divine Providence that the fallible Church received the infallible Scriptures. Why would God inspire the books, and then not make sure through Providence that they be received by His Church? That wouldn't make sense, it seems. The Inspired Scriptures were always going to be received.
How did God give the church the infallible Scriptures in a way that didn't come down to them using their fallibility to decide on which books were inspired and which were not, which books were meant to be in the canon of the Bible? I agree with you, it was Divine Providence that gave us the correct canon of Scripture, but just admitting it doesn't solve the issue of HOW it came to be, which is really what is at stake. Do you believe that the Catholic church was the instrument that God used to do this, or did it happen in another way, and if so, how was it done?
good conclusion bro
So far, dr. Gavin gives better arguments than trent horn jimmy aikin or willy allbark!
Great job, sir!! You are such a blessing to our protestant faith!😊😊😊
Gavin this has been an issue really heavy on my heart. I am a Protestant discerning Catholicism and orthodoxy and watch a lot of your videos. What I struggle with is that I think the Catholic and Orthodox paradigm are better suited to answer the cannon question because since they believe the church is also infallible they didn’t need to have a closed cannon because they can really on tradition. And just because you have an infallible means to decide something that does not mean that you should not think logically when making that decision. The fact that the Old Testament canon history is messy is what burdens me because the Old Testament canon was disputed all the way to the reformation and although there were some orthodox and Catholic theologians that held to the Protestant canon it was the minority view. That means when Protestants picked the canon it was the minority historical view, all the apostolic churches disagree, and we don’t have a magisterium or ability to gather together infallibly to decide the canon. And I think this matters more to Protestants because we rely on sola scriptura and for that to work we must also use tota scriptura to determine doctrine so if something like 2 Maccabees is scripture it changes everything. if we have a fallible list that goes against the majority view of believers, don’t have an infallible means to discern it with, and are more reliant on it then it seems like a less equipped paradigm. Please respond to this because I respect you a lot and this is really heavy on my heart
If Gavin is correct, then every tradition for the canon is fallible. This would include Catholicism and EO. And so Protestants also rely on fallible tradition, they just think their tradition has the evidence in its favor. So I dont see how either Rome of the EO have a better paradigm if they are no more infallible than Protestants are.
@@christianfontenot9435 I know I'm not Gavin, but I'll try to offer my thoughts on this conundrum.
I personally can't see how an institution's claim to infallibility offers me as an individual any comfort on this question. Here's why:
There are multiple institutions claiming to be instilled with the blessing of infallibility by God. Their infallible pronouncements disagree with one another. If I, as an individual, want to gain confidence on certain questions by means of appealing to the infallibility of a specific institution, then I must decide which "infallible" institution is, in fact, infallible. I cannot gain confidence from an institution's claim to infallibility if there are contradictory claims of infallibility still on the table. So I must choose who to believe.
How will I do this? Typically, the means proposed are study, prayer, and weighing the various arguments proposed by each institution. Once I've done this to a degree that I feel like all has been heard, I make my decision. Maybe I choose Catholicism. Maybe Orthodoxy. Maybe Mormonism. Or some other "infallible" institution. Now I have confidence, right?
Well, not any more than I did before. Why? Because, from the very beginning, I was seeking confidence from these institutional claims to infallibility because I recognized that I, as an individual was not infallible. But how did I choose among these institutional claims to infallibility? Was it not my own fallible judgment?
Maybe I'd be willing to say "but I believe God guided me to the correct choice." Fair enough, but then I have admitted into the realm of possibility the idea that God can guide fallible people to make correct decisions without instilling them with the quality of infallibility. And if God could do this for my fallible recognition of an infallible institution, why couldn't he have done this for a fallible church's recognition of an infallible Bible?
@@gardyloogubbins everyone has to agree that you have to use fallible reasoning to discern things that are infallible. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that their paradigms are better suited to answer the question of the canon. My biggest hold up is if the Old Testament canon for Protestants wasn’t closed until the reformation that is troublesome because the 7 ecumenical councils already happened by then and things like the intercession of saints, icon veneration, episcopal church governance, baptismal regeneration, and etc were all dogmatic, practiced and accepted long before the Old Testament canon is closed. All the Catholic and orthodox scholars that we use to try to defend the Protestant canon all believed in these things so how can we use their tradition for the canon which is disputed and not for all these other traditions that were more widely accepted. That’s why I’m saying their paradigms are more equipped because they don’t even have to have a closed canon to determine doctrine where as we as Protestants do and the way they pick the canon is more historically consistent and defensible. This is the essence of my problem
@@christianfontenot9435 As one of those rare protestants that hold to a larger canon, here's my response:
I think the idea that ecclesialists' paradigm (i.e. infallible church authority) is better suited to answer the question of canon is moot when one realizes that 1) Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics actually disagree on what is in the canon (in other words, how can a "better suited" mechanism still come up with different understandings of that canon?) and 2) Eastern Orthodox still actually do not have a defined canon (and neither did RC prior to Trent, as Gavin explains in the video). So despite the supposedly high concept of having a better mechanism, the actual reality has not born said fruit.
As Protestants, we don't need to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". We don't need to see the acceptance of the marian dogmas as an a priori road to hell for all Catholics, simply BECAUSE we don't see those councils as infallible. Instead, we understand that mistakes could be made through history (or as Gavin puts it, accretions), but can also hold to the understanding that it is by grace we are saved through faith. Thus we can believe, of course, that Catholics and EO believers can still be in the church despite those mistakes, just as I believe that most protestants around me are still in the church despite holding to a smaller canon.
@@christianfontenot9435 We have a situation, looking at history, of disagreement within the body concerning whether the additional books should be accorded the same weight as all the others. Along comes Luther who has the same concern, and when he translated the books of the Bible into German language he did not bother to translate the additional books. Meanwhile in England, the same concern existed about the additional books (whether they should be accorded the same weight), but the English nonetheless included the additional books in the printed copies of the KJV, and they continued to be read, but the English clergy taught folks that the additional books were read "as Jerome hath said, for example of life and instruction of manners" and not to establish any additional doctrine.
So in both mainland Europe and in the British isles, the teaching of the Protestant Christians was fully consistent with the long-standing view of many within the church: since there has always been some doubt and disagreement as to whether the additional books carry the same weight of divine inspiration as all the others, let's be cautious with them.
Eventually (in the 1800s, I believe) the publisher of the KJV ceased inclusion of the additional books in their bindings. This fact has certainly affected the outlook of the "low-church" Protestant denominations the most. The Anglicans (and perhaps the Lutherans and Presbyterians as well, I'm not sure) still include some of the additional books in their lectionaries. But in recent years it has been stated that the additional books contain errors of historical fact and/or errors pertaining to Christian doctrine; if these statements are true (I have not studied the issue much), this evidence would tend to confirm the correctness in the cautious attitude that those Christians showed throughout the history of the church toward the additional books.
Frankly, I view this difference of opinion as a 'tempest in a teapot' since the additional books really don't establish any extra doctrine.
The closest one could come to 'finding an extra doctrine' would be the claim that 2 Maccabees 12 supports a belief in Purgatory. But all we have in that book is a record that a certain military commander and his fighters _held out hope_ that prayers for their fallen comrades might be effectual toward their denouement in the afterlife. We don't normally build a doctrine upon such flimsy evidence; the Bible often records (accurately and infallibly) what some person said or did, but the fact that the person said it or did it does not necessarily prove that the person spoke or acted correctly. We have no evidence that the commander was acting on the basis of any sound, established doctrine being taught at the time, nor do we have supportive documents showing that either the Israelites or the Apostolic church evinced a belief in Purgatory.
Good arguments!
Gavin, as always, is a true gift to us in the Church today - even when some twisted social media commentators might prefer he not post at all.
Love this video. Thank you! “ My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me” John 10:27 God’s people have always been able to recognize His voice and can tell the difference between which books have His voice in them and which ones don’t. God made it so the creation of His people and the writing of His word are inextricably bound together, and I am so thankful for that.
It baffles me how many Catholics think Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were ecumenical councils.
As you said, it is just a matter of fact canonization did not happen in the way internet polemics argue it did.
That's not the argument though, the canon wasn't authoritative until the council of Florence which also explains why the EO have an extended one, but even that is 100 years before the reformation.
The argument is that the church needs the magisterium to tell them with confidence what books are in and which are out.
The response is that this was not the attitude of the early church and that the DC books being placed in a secondary status with varying liturgical uses was normal and accepted.
You're right that Florence was the first time it showed up in an ecumenical council, tough still not as authoritative in the same way it was at Trent (according to Catholic theologians, not my opinion)
The argument isn't being misrepresented by Gavin. This is the debate actual scholars and theologians are discussing.
And I have encountered many people who think Rome, Hippo, and Carthage are authoritative, or mistake them for ecumenical councils. That’s what my comment was about, the misunderstanding of the argument at the popular level.
PS: I'm sorry if this comes off as rude. Typing is hard, I don't mean any disrespect
@@AB-dw2op Florence is obviously authoritative (as the previous councils were even if not ecumenical), the fact it wasn't declared dogmatically until Trent doesn't mean you can freely desagree with it as a catholic. You have no idea how the magisterium works, so don't try to pretend you can debate this.
And I, as catholic, never knew or saw a catholic claiming these (Rome, Hippo and Carthage) were ecumenical councils. Either way they're more authoritative than random guy (who wasn't even a bishop) by himself saying what books we should accept as cannonical or not.
@@ghostapostle7225 You're arguing with a point I never made.
I am very aware of how the magisterium works because I actually read scholarship, I don't need to pretend because I am formally trained.
I am glad you weren't as misinformed as some others!
@@AB-dw2op
But this goes back to the anachronism of demanding dogmas to be defined within the first 4 centuries. We could have lived to this day with a similar form of innocuous ambiguity about the boundaries of the deuterocanon, but we can't do that anymore because sola scriptura came about in the 16th century, so _now_ you need a definition of what actually pertains to the canon or not.
About Hippo and Carthage, I see people going back and forth over calling them councils or synods but that's about it, it's plausible to say they may not understand what constitutes an ecumenical council but that would be mind reading. Not that it matters, since both of them were ratified by the pope so to argue their authority is a non starter.
RC Sproul's statement involves the fallacy of special pleading when he said 👇🏼
👉🏻“Each book that is found is the Bible is an infallible book. But the historical process undone by the church, was a historical process that was done by a church that is not infallible.”👈🏻
The special pleading fallacy occurs when someone applies principles or standards to others while exempting themselves or their own case without adequate justification.
What’s the problem with RC Sprouls assertion:
Sproul’s special pleading arises because it is inconsistent to claim that an infallible collection of texts was recognized by a fallible authority, without explaining how a fallible Church could have reliably determined an infallible canon.
The Church makes mistakes. Peter made a mistake and had to be called out by Paul. Subordinationism was also orthodoxy for a time.
@@clivejungle6999 1.) It is true that St. Peter made mistakes, as seen in Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul confronts Peter for acting inconsistently in how he related to Gentile Christians. However, Peter’s mistake was one of personal conduct, not a doctrinal error.
a.) The Catholic Church acknowledges that popes and Church leaders are human and can sin or act imprudently in their personal lives.
b.) Papal infallibility, as defined by Pastor Aeternus, does not mean that the pope is sinless or perfect in all his actions.
c.) Infallibility applies specifically to official teachings on faith and morals when proclaimed ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter), not to personal behavior or opinions.
d.) Peter’s error in Antioch did not constitute a doctrinal teaching, and his leadership as the first pope remained intact.
2.) Subordinationism, the belief that the Son is subordinate to the Father in the Trinity was never established as orthodox doctrine by the Church.
a.) While certain early theologians struggled to articulate the relationship within the Trinity, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, ultimately rejected subordinationism as heretical at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
b.) This process reflects the Church’s growth in understanding and clarifying doctrines over time.
c.) Doctrinal development does not mean that the Church held errors as official dogma but that the Church, through ecumenical councils and theological reflection, comes to a clearer expression of the truth.
3.) The Church teaches that it is protected from error when it defines doctrines of faith and morals under specific conditions (e.g., in an ecumenical council or through a papal ex cathedra statement).
a.) This does not mean the Church never encounters challenges or controversies in the process of defining and clarifying teachings.
b.) Throughout history, the Church has faced theological disputes and heresies, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit has preserved the core truths of the faith.
c.) The Church’s infallibility in teaching does not eliminate the possibility of debate, struggle, or even errors in theological opinions prior to official definitions. It ensures that, in the end, the truth will be proclaimed.
4.) The fact that Church leaders, including popes, have made personal mistakes does not undermine the Church’s divine mission.
a.) Christ promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against His Church (Matthew 16:18), indicating that despite human weakness, the Church will be protected from falling into doctrinal error.
b.) The Church’s authority is not based on the perfection of its leaders but on Christ’s assurance that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13).
@@johnmendez3028 So how can you infallibly know which part of the magisterium to follow if even St Peter can make mistakes?
Great presentation
This is the best argument I’ve heard in response to the “canon problem.” I especially appreciate how you highlight that certain forms of the canon problem can be turned against Catholics and Orthodox. I still think this argument struggles for the same reason your (again, excellent) argument for Sola Scriptura struggles: the lack of universality in the canon lists among the Christian faithful. The 7 books the Catholics accept bring with them serious theological implications (it’s really hard to argue against Purgatory when 2 Maccabees is accepted as Scripture), and some of the Orthodox accept even more books. These aren’t tiny sects which can just be ignored either; between the two of them, we’re talking close to 2 billion Christians who accept books as divine scripture many (not all) Protestants don’t. If there was near-uniformity of opinion on the canon of Scripture, I think this would be a much stronger argument.
I also think this is a big or small problem dependent on one’s view of the early Church. If one takes the view of the invisible Church of believers, then this isn’t a huge issue. If one accepts there was a visible structure with a functional hierarchy, then the canon problem can be quite problematic.
The problem begins & ends with sola Scriptura which is unbiblical, unless as I always ask Protestants, you can prove! Always the same crickets!
The books of Sacred Scripture were written by inspired authors which the CC then codified in 382 & that Canon was infallibly proclaimed at Trent in response to the Reformation & its attack on scripture. The apocrypha were included in the Greek Septuagint that Jesus & His apostles used.
The Catholic view is that Sacred Tradition which existed from the time of Christ, combined with Sacred Scripture comprises the Deposit of Faith bearing in mind that not everything is in the bible Jn 21:25 under the unifying authority of the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit to arrive at an objective & reliable outcome. The three legged stool compared to the Protestant one legged sola Scriptura which doesn’t stack up!
Excellent, this video is the end of the canon conundrum.
I'm sorry, but if you think that Gavin has solved all the problems with the Protestant epistemological approach to the canon, then you haven't looked very deeply into the issue.
I invite you to listen carefully to what competent Catholics say about these issues, because you will find that Gavin misses the target here - no knowledgeable Catholic takes the view that we need an infallible declaration to know what the canonical boundaries of Scripture are.
@chairofpeter832
Do you know who those knowledgeable Roman Catholics are? We may also need the list for that.
Yes!
@@Presbapterian 😆
Everything Ortlund does is special pleading. He rejects Catholicism because it's not "infallible" in a literalist and fundamentalist sense, yet he embraces Scripture as infallible, even though, as evidenced by his rejection of YEC, he doesn't consider Scripture to be infallible in the literalist and fundamentalist sense. So, what you basically have is a Protestant Apologist playing irrelevant word games with "infallibility" for the sake of maintaining division
From an Orthodox perspective, the process Gavin describes is infallible, because infallibility belongs to the Church as a whole. The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth. This doesn't merely take the form of Ecumenical Councils, but also the writings of the Church Fathers, the liturgy, the lives of the Saints, etc. All of these are mechanisms of the the Holy Spirit's witness to the Church. Gavin seems to assume that infallibility works the same in Orthodoxy as it does in Catholicism.
As Dean of NT textual criticism Bruce Metzger said, "the cannon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books.”
What work was this from? I want to read some of his work!
well, that's to concede the point, no?
Yes, indeed, it is ALL ABOUT FAITH! A person will NEVER KNOW if they have salvation UNTIL JUDGEMENT BY GOD
R.C. Sproul was spot on. Very simple to understand.
Being a former protestant myself, I would embrace you as a friend also Gavin despite the many disagreements we might have. God grant you many years ☦️🙏🏻
Thanks. Great job. We can also ask how the early fathers determined the authoritative books apart from any council telling them.
How did Polycarp know what to quote in his letter to Philippians
How did author of Didache know to quote the baptismal formula from Matthew,
Clement is replete with quotes from Paul and gospels,
Ignatius, Ireneaus,... et al.
All lived before councils address the canon and represent the church's ear to discern the voice of the Shepherd. Respect.
@@darewan8233 Yes! To say the scriptures had no influence on the early church is historical revisionism.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Well, I dont think the other side would say scriptures had no influence on the early church I just dont believe they are taking note of the history that the fathers determined the authoritative books very early, without the aid of a council.
Kruger’s work on this topic is fantastic. And if you need some other infallible source to tell you what is infallible then you need some other infallible source to verify that source. It’s an infinite regress. The sheep hear the Shepard’s voice.
The infallible teaching Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit combines Sacred Tradition which existed from the time of Christ with Sacred Tradition to arrive at an objective & inspired outcome!
@@geoffjs your “infallible magisterium” that is nowhere in scripture and essentially made up, sorry-it’s the truth, didn’t define their cannon until the 16th century. Your magisterium is anything but objective. To say something like that is to either be completely ignorant of history or willfully ignoring it. Not to mention, I see you never addressed the initial objection, because you can’t. You made a fallible choice to place your trust in what you call an infallible magisterium. They aren’t. The only infallible source is the word of God, the rest is subservient. The claim that you need an infallible source to tell you what scripture is, then you need an infallible source to affirm that infallible source and so on. If you are going to arbitrarily choose a point in which you can choose the infallible source, then you are in the same boat, you just decided to go with the traditions of men, we decided to go with the word of God. To each their own
It's not an infinite regress, although that's likely an (unconscious) strawman of a claim that EO or RC would claim. The claim is that it takes an infallible agent (the Church) to make an infallible decision (close the canon). But actually, for the EO, no closed canon is even necessary, but it is required for the Protestant worldview, and sola scriptura, to make any sense. Without being infallibly certain of the contents of the Bible, who can say what's in it? Without being infallibly certain about the Bible's interpretation with respect to core doctrine, who can say what one ought to believe?
The issue ultimately is with Protestant epistemology. In order for the Protestant worldview to make any sense the Protestant has to account for the intelligibility of the canon of Scripture and the intelligibility of the right interpretation of those Scriptures with respect to core doctrine. Protestants can do neither of those. It's ultimately subjective.
@@SaltyApologistYou sound very confused, see Mt 16:19 & Lk 10:16. it is not possible to provide biblical support for sola Scriptura!
The CC in 382, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit codified the bible containing inspired inerrant books which canon was infallibly proclaimed, in response to the Reformation, in 1746 at the Council of Trent.
Without structure, hierarchy & unifying authority, no entity from family to corporates & govt can survive. Without these attributes, Protestantism is unsustainable which is evidenced by the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who will unity Jn 17:11-23. The many “truths” resulting from personal interpretation have resulted in the modern day scourge of relativism with Protestant support for contraception, abortion, IVF, divorce, LGBGT, SSM, Transgenderism etc
The example of John the Baptist clinched it for me, the rest was a great reinforcement.
Its a great summary of dr Krugers’ book about the canon
Disillusioned, Joshua Schooping - Chapter 9, pg. 180
In other words, if there are reasons which show that the Scriptures are intrinsically authoritative, then those same reasons ought to induce us to agree that they are intrinsically authoritative. The Church's authority is thus shown to be extraneous in settling the matter. But if those arguments themselves depend upon the authority of the Church, then the authority of the Scriptures, i.e. their canonical status, is consequently shown to be dependent upon the Church's logically prior authority. This means the Church has elevated itself above God's Word in order to render Scripture authoritative, and not in a way based on rational considerations but on ecclesiological authority. For if there were arguments that would induce the canon to be known to the Church, then those same arguments ought to enable anyone to concur on the strength of those arguments, not bare authority, thus showing that the Church lends no formal authority to the authenticity of the canon.
But since the Word of God is by its very nature the self-attesting precondition of certain knowledge, as an inbreaking of the infinite mind and will of God, it does not depend upon any arguments from some other authority. Therefore, the Church itself must submit to the self-evidently authoritative nature of the Scriptures as the Word of God, otherwise they make god's Word dependent upon the testimony and word of the Church, which in doing the Church takes authority over God's Word and so makes the Creator's authority subservient to the creature's, which is absurd and blasphemous. Tragically, the Eastern Orthodox Presuppositionalist position, in asserting their hyper-ecclesiology, functionally denies the self-attesting and authoritative nature and status of God's Word.
The pastoral epistles are clear forgeries of a man pretending to be Paul… that is self attesting?
@@Noah-1999 Pastor Schooping is a great resource on these things. I also recommend a gentleman whose channel is named “Faith of our Fathers” he has an interesting video on leaving Orthodoxy.
And you deny the Pentecost and the Word of God where it says the church is the ground and pillar of truth. This is evident by the hundreds of Protestant sects.
Awesome, thanks!!!!!
You are the man Gavin
This was very helpful thank you Gavin, I’ve struggled as a member of a restoration church . It’s so difficult to discuss this among other members of my church it seems like a forbidden subject almost like your questioning the doctrine of your church . Thank you 🙏. Can you recommend any good reading resources on the canon .
Hi Gavin, when you say the Holy Spirit gives existential certainty about the canon, or any theological issue, how is that different than the Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture and that we can know because of a burning in our hearts?
The late Sproul explained what he meant with his statement "fallible collection of infallible books":
We can perhaps illustrate the difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic positions by imagining that God gave us ten books, five of which were infallible and five of which were fallible, containing errors. Then He charged us to separate and identify the infallible books. If we were fallible, we might correctly select four of the five infallible books. However, we also might identify one of those fallible books as infallible. Our decisions, of course, would not change the nature of the books. The one infallible book we did not select would still be infallible, even though we failed to include it in our “canon”. Likewise, the fallible book we picked would not therefore be infallible. Our decisions would have no effect in this way because we are fallible.
Sproul: Are We Together, page 22-23
Questions:
1. For sure "10" and "5" in what Sproul wrote are just illustration. But why would God give "ten" books of which five are infallible (inspired) and the rest are fallible and let us choose, without any guidance?
2. How do we know "ten" of which only "five" are infallible? Or how do we know there are X number of inspired books out of Y number of books given by God (Y > X)?
3. In the above explanation Sproul admitted that Protestant's "canon" could miss infallible book(s) and may contain "fallible" book(s).
If the Holy Spirit is able to guide the writers of the books of the Bible, why can't He guide others to recognize infallibly which books are inspired? All criteria Dr. Ortlund proposed to "recognize" Scripture are not found in Scripture either. For example "orthodoxy": how do we define orthodoxy in the first place? Either (1) we pre-chose books as inspired and then define orthodoxy based on those pre-chosen books or (2) we pre-defined orthodoxy and then choose books that meet our pre-defined orthodoxy.
old truths very well presented
Brilliant video! Thank you Gavin!
I’ve been thinking about this and I also reached this conclusion.
It makes sense from the historical data that we have.
To add to your infinite regress argument: you also need infallibility to define which is the true infalible church. How can you tell which one it is, if you are not infalible yourself? Is there any infalible way to tell which church is the one true and infalible church?
There isn’t.
Your questions hinge on the assumption that at the end of the day, all anyone has is their own sole arbitrary position of defining "what is". This is from the devil, for if you are correct, then no true things exist. There are just fallible opinions. And if no true things exist, then nothing is true not even the christ that you claim with your mouth. Your confusing existential certitude with normative authority. Faith alone dogma rips God the father of his revelation to us and replaces it with man's reasoning. What body of people in the 3rd 4th 5th centuries do you think your with? Has christianity been the truth for all generations or is it just true for your generation?
Great video :)
The historical, and chronologically catholic (making sense of the whole of church history), argument that you make is fantastic.
listened 2x.. very good treatment
Well done Gavin!
It's not like he discovered electricity. 😅😅
Wake up babe, a new Gavin Ortlund video just dropped 🗣️🙌🏽
As a Protestant looking into this my husband and I honestly are struggling with the Protestant (RC Sproule) view. Thank you Gavin for attempting to help answer such a complex and difficult topic. If Scripture is the only sufficient, infallible and certain authority in a Christians life, as Protestants claim, then the canon of Scripture is of utmost and great importance. Again back to sola Scriptura, if we are to look to Scripture alone, does Scripture itself tell us exactly what books we are to base our whole life as a Christian upon? Well there definitely isn't a list of books in Scripture saying these alone are Scripture. Some scholars say it does by referencing OT books in NT writing, but what we found was much more complex than that. It was apparent that we would have to look beyond Scripture to figure out which books were truly to guide our life as Christians making up the OT and NT of the Bibles we hold in our hands. Without an infallible Church deciding this I think it would make it easy for different groups to add to or subtract from the Bible at any time. Luther rejected the deuterocanonical books but he also questioned Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. What if he had removed those from the Bible?
This is what we found in our studies: Lists written by Jerome and Augustine found in the late third century add some questions to this possibly, but in our best effort to accurately and historically study how the canon of the Bible came to be we found that in 382 AD Pope Damascus 1 held the council of Rome which established the first canon of scripture. This same canon is reaffirmed in the council of Hippo in 393 AD and council of Carthage in 397 AD and 419 AD (both of which sent their judgements to Rome for the Pope’s approval). These were regional councils so not infallible. The canon of Scripture, as was decided upon in the before mentioned councils with all the books of the Old and New Testament we as Protestants are familiar with but also including the deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees and sections out of Daniel and Esther, was definitively and infallibly reaffirmed by the ecumenical councils of Second Nicaea in 787, Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1546. All Christians accepted these 73 books for over 1,000 years. The first printed Bible in 1455 was the Gutenberg Bible and it contained all 73 books, as did the original 1611 King James Bible. There were actually 80 total books originally listed in the table of contents of the 1611 KJV Bible (39 OT Books, 14 deuterocanonical books, 27 NT books). There is a picture of the original table of contents of the 1611 King James Bible that historians keep in a museum in London. Some of those 80 books were combined or titled differently and the result was 73 total books given during each of the councils of the Church. Luther rejected the deuterocanonical books but he also questioned Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Protestants were not willing to go as far as Luther and question the books from the New Testament, but they were willing to separate the seven deuterocanonical books and have them put in a section either in the appendix or between the OT and NT until around the 1830s. Printers finally dropped the deuterocanonical books out of their Bibles for certain denominations because they discovered they could save money.
The councils of Second Nicaea, Florence and Trent didn’t add anything to the Bible as some Protestants argue, it simply reaffirmed the canon the Church had used for centuries going all the way back to the Council of Rome in 382 AD. Even the oldest, most complete manuscripts of the Bible, which typically come from the fourth and fifth centuries called a codex or codices, which are unlike scrolls because they contained bounded pages, do contain all of the deuterocanonical books and they were not in an appendix, they were next to the other protocanonical books. The earliest one, the Codex Vaticanus (330- 325 AD) lacks only first and second Maccabees, yet this same Codex lacks the letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon. Like Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus (330- 360 AD) is missing only two deuterocanonical books, but also lacks Joshua, Samuel and Kings. Codex Alexandrinus (A.D. 400-A.D. 440) does contain all of the deuterocanonical books.
Seemed to us that Tradition in a sense and a “Magisterium” led by the Holy Spirit were given the task of determining which books we would base our salvation and life as followers of Christ upon. This list was infallibly determined later on that only reinforced the earlier non fallible councils. We believe because of the unity of the church for the first 1000 years there was no need for an infallible decision, only when things began to become more decisive was it ruled in an infallible way to safeguard the Scriptures.
The Dei Verbum of the Catholic Church states that, “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or spoken, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully. In accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed” (Dei Verbum paragraph 10).
Catholicism doesn’t teach that scripture is the only sufficient, infallible & certain authority as sola Scriptura is not biblical. Scripture can only ever be inerrant as infallibility only applies to an agent making decisions.
Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21
Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective
Reason & Faith should complement rather than contradict, two wings soaring to the Truth
What did Christians do for the first 1500 yrs of Christianity until the bible was mass printed & even then, most people were illiterate until recent centuries. So for 90% of church history, people heard the bible read at Holy Mass & relied on Sacred Tradition which was handed down from the time of Jesus, St Paul 2 Thes 2:15. Don’t forget that not everything is in the bible Jn 21:25. All Sacred Tradition is not written in down in Sacred Scripture
Protestants have an incomplete bible & lack of understanding of the Deposit of Faith & the unifying authoritative interpreter role of the Magisterium. No entity from family to corporates & govt can function properly without hierarchy & authority. The lack of these qualities explains the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects that are not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23. It is illogical to claim that personal interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit if there is more than one Protestant “church” ie Lutheran.
Hey, you! Thank you for this fascinating dive into church history/Christian History. I definitely didn't know about the contents of those ancient bibles.
Good video. Arguments were sound.
Well said
Bruce Metzger on the Canon: Neither individuals nor councils created the canon; instead they came to recognize and acknowledge the self-authenticating quality of these writings, which imposed themselves as canonical upon the church. The New Testament, Its Background, Growth and Content, Abington Press, 2003, p. 318.
Yes!
How do you define "self authenticating"? Even Scripture does not define it. It is circular argument.
@@justfromcatholic did you watch the video? If I were you, I’d watch the video again or read the source from Bruce Metzger, I dropped in the comments. But just as a quick teaser, there’s several rules and one of them would be no internal contradictions, and a consistent intertextuality, especially as a refers to old testament prophecy and New Testament/historical fulfillment.
@@ryanparris1021 I did watch and Dr. Ortlund did not mention the name Bruce Metzger. I am fully aware that Dr. Metzger was well-known scholar. I have two of his books: "The Canon of the New Testament" and "The Text of the New Testament".
You wrote "there are several rules and one of them would be no internal contradiction". Where and how did you get those rules? "No internal contradiction": Well, who bought the tomb from the sons of Hamor in Shechem? It is Abraham (Acts 7:16) or Jacob (Jos. 24:32)?
Self-Authentication is an Islamic doctrine brought into Protestantism. Muslims view the Quran as self-authenticating.
Thinking that the Scriptures are inerrant in the first place is an irrational dead end. It is much more reasonable to say, along the lines of Dei Verbum, that in our listening to the Scriptures through the Spirit, we may discern the truth that God has placed in them and in us for the sake of our salvation- that is, Jesus Christ.
Sproul and you are 100% correct. Great video, sir.
The testimony of the Holy Spirit in your heart
Complete desparation + Prayer
That is how you know Christianity is true
💯💯💯💯💯
So the answer is tradition? By the time a common canon was recorded in history we also have prayers to Mary and the saints as well as the Eucharist (among other things) Catholics still do all these practices and so feel comfortable standing on both tradition and infallibility. Orthobros stand on tradition and also don't have the same understanding of canon. The problem with protestants is that they rejected tradition and using it for ONLY this issue is very inconsistent.
What books do you have on the shelf behind you? Examination of the Council of Trent? Turretin? Creeds and Confessions?