I don’t see how many don’t watch Gavin’s videos and see the clear dishonest tactics he uses. Maybe it’s just because I have a background in manipulation, but it’s obvious to me. The way he ignores some evidence purposely, while bringing up other evidence. Or the way he’ll speak with niceties that don’t really get to a point. Or how he’ll engage in the: “they were so evil” talk, in the middle of a video.
The Protestant canon is actually very easy to refute. You simply ask who had the authority to determine the canon after Christ? The Church or the Jews who rejected Christ? The Protestants accept the Hebrew canon which was determined by Jews after the time of Christ and who rejected him.
Former Protestant here, the reason why Protestantism falls flat on its face with regards to Canon of Scripture is because we all know there are way earlier churches like the Copts and Assyrians who long predate Luther and the Reformation. These churches all have 73 or even 74 books as Canon. So the accusation of the RCC removing 7 books is absolute nonsense.
No, not at all. For instance both of the churches you named had gospels they used which are non-canonical for instance the Gospel of Thomas which was very important in Egypt.
“These are questions he shouldn’t be asking” about Cameron sounds very much like the corollary to the Cardinal Newman Quote: “To cease to care about what Christianity actually is, is what Protestantism is.”
Of course Newman was also an apologist for slavery, writing: "That which is intrinsically and per se evil, we cannot give way to for an hour. That which is only accidentally evil, we can meet according to what is expedient, giving different rules, according to the particular case." Catholicism always viewed slavery as "accidentally evil"
There is something kinda funny about the number of times iv seen Protestants quote mine figures like Augustine to support their positions… when in fact Luther the guy who started their whole reformation just went “all these other guys? Ya they’re just wrong, I’m the only one who’s right!”
@MarkStein-v4j I'm not sure that quote necessarily proves what you think it does. It simply recognizes that St. John the Baptist prays for the Church and there's nothing that says "ask John," but ask for God to help us through the prayers that John and the other saints are offering. He's already praying for the bridegroom's blessings upon us. There's nothing wrong with that. Here's the thing, St. Augustine is quoted by Protestants because he has so much to say that supports the ancient Catholic Church that Protestantism is preserving (by protesting Roman abuses of Scripture, doctrine and practice) against the innovative errors of Rome: "He has become our justice, our sanctification, our redemption, so that, as it is written: Let him who glories glory in the Lord. Truth, then, has arisen from the earth: Christ who said, I am the Truth, was born of the Virgin. And justice looked down from heaven: because believing in this new-born child, man is justified not by himself but by God. Truth has arisen from the earth: because the Word was made flesh. And justice looked down from heaven: because every good gift and every perfect gift is from above. Truth has arisen from the earth: flesh from Mary. And justice looked down from heaven: for man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven. Justified by faith, let us be at peace with God: for justice and peace have embraced one another. Through our Lord Jesus Christ: for Truth has arisen from the earth. Through whom we have access to that grace in which we stand, and our boast is in our hope of God’s glory. He does not say: “of our glory”, but of God’s glory: for justice has not come out of us but has looked down from heaven. Therefore he who glories, let him glory, not in himself, but in the Lord." Justified by faith and by God alone through grace. The prayers of St. John the Baptist are mere drops of icing on the rich cake that is the Person and work of Christ for the Church.
@@ryandelaune139because it doesn't prove that protestantism is correct. You can find people all throughout early church history who don't describe perfect theology. None of that follows that Lutheranism, calvism, puritanism or baptists are more correct on theology. Cherry picking the one statement you agree with and stating it's an early seed of protestantism is not a strong argument.
Protestant apologetics is always uphill against history and trying to explain how the Bible is a sole infallible authority but being unable to satisfactorily explain how the church is not an infallible entity to even prescribe what scripture is even comprised of is such an undermining of their position. It’s necessary to justify being outside the apostolic church, but they don’t make a convincing argument in its own merits.
It seems they have to lean into revisionist history. The church was good but only for certain things, the church got tons of things wrong, but somehow got the Bible right, but only certain parts of the bible, which later had to be amended, but don't pay attention to Luther trying to remove NT books as well. Its a headache to follow all of it.
God gave moses stone tablets. The pharasees sat in Moses seat. God promised to write it in a book forever and ever. God promises the words would continue from thy seed and thy seed's seed and so on. Yet we see in New Testament that GOD uses people not in seat of authority at time and we even see Paul and others who are not of 12. He uses fisherman even and gives them authority. Further he even tells them FORBID him not when they see another who is NOT OF THEM preaching Jesus. So if it HAPPENED once already WITHOUT any of God's promises being broken they just claim it will happen again with the "falling away" that is said to be coming. Does that make sense? Again that is the general idea anyway.
Watch Suan on Gavin. He noticed what I did. Namely, Gavin says that Jesus commonly references the "law prophets and the writings." Gavin has been corrected multiple times but ignores it.
@@luxordfaith8506 Gavin says Jesus refers to the "writings" ... This is to imply other writings that are not Psalms, law or prophets, are lumped into Jesus' statement. For example, Proverbs is implied in writings. However, Jesus does not mention "the writings" in a general sense like that. Gavin does this because if he is using Jesus to support his canon, he needs a way to include other writings outside Psalms, or else they're neglected and he cannot claim Jesus was referring to them. He has been explicitly told he was quoting Jesus wrong, but continues to misquote.
Remember from the video: the Canon wasn't a magisterial declaration at first; plus either way, you NEED infallible certainty of the means of Salvation.
that’s called cherry picking. Why didn’t God, say, guide the Church to have the correct view on Baptism at this time, then? Or the correct view on sola scriptura itself. You see, you started with your own presupposition here in your own beliefs, and it’s just not intellectually honest
Don't know how actually Ortlund can cope with the fact that organically the Church decided the deuterocanonicals to be inspired and the same time their removal from this canonical status within protestantism was a top down sudden decision by the reformers. Actually, hard to find any theological claim by protestants wich wasn't a top down decision by a reformer originally.
@@ghostapostle7225 Yes they did. They knew the deuter were canonical. The 2cd century rabinic Jews had no high priest or sacrifice. The authority was passed on to the CC. Then the dead Sea scrolls were discovered and there's another canon ..
@@iggyantioch LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL What "authority" of Judaism passed on what "authority" to the Catholic Church and by what means? All the books of the Bible, OT and NT are about JEWS.
I suspect he just punts to God’s sovereignty. If Calvinists deny free will then I think it follows that they also deny that God would bind Himself to guiding one church hence the Protestant lower case invisible church made up of all believers instead of a visible church built on Peter that can bind and loose etc
Because he presupposes the value of the reformation as a God given act. To say otherwise is to immediately have to say I’m going to become catholic or I’m going to become orthodox.
The quote of Tertullian with the hypothetical situation of the Church falling into error is so striking when you consider wide spread moral crises like Arianism or Modernism. It seemed on the outside that the church was Arian, but when the crisis passed The Bride of Christ remained spotless. Its literally impossible for the Church to fail.
For anyone wanting to do the deep dive with Suan Sonna's excellent presentation on this subject: He did a long 4+ hour version in two livestreams on his own channel (Intellectual Catholicism) in December, 2024; but then tightened it down to about a 2 hour presentation on several channels as he has appeared on in January, 2025. I recommend either the Patristic Pillars/Apocrypha Apocalypse version or Michael Lofton Show version where he'd practiced the presentation a couple of times and articulated it well with responses to some initial criticism he received (Shout out to Pat Flynn/Philosophy for the People as well, who hosted Suan as well and had a great discussion on the topic).
Thank you Joe for your work. I take what I learn from you and Catholic answers and I apply with every day people I meet in the streets as I make to them the case for the Catholic Church.
One of the wild things about John Calvin is that while making fun of the question how do we know what books belong in the Canon, he simultaneously held to a ontological theory called Total depravity. He believed that we were so thoroughly corrupt that we couldn't actually tell the difference between good and evil, white and black etc. One of the reasons that much of the modern world has abandoned protestantism is because of this schizophrenic unreasonableness that's at its core. A lot of people end up scandalized by these logical contradictions and incongruities which results in them applying the shallow atheist rejection of all religion as ridiculous.
I actually think the Calvinists do have an internal method of determining canon, it just leads to a dark place. Because they believe in total depravity, but also unconditional election and irresistable grace. Meaning, the elect are called by God and are able to distinguish between good and evil because God has preordained them from before the beginning of the world. So for Calvinists, they, and only they, can rightly discern the canon because everyone else suffers total depravity.
@stefanielozinski Thank you! Yeah it's one that I had wrestled with quite a bit. It does present a major problem though for the calvinist position and the theory of total depravity. If you're totally depraved, how could you possibly recognize the Canon? The Mormons making that appeal actually makes far more sense than a calvinist does, because a calvinist believes in total depravity as well as limited atonement.
You just make the best holistic arguments with an extremely reasonably balanced approach appreciating the fullness of opposing views. Thanks mate for following God. You're a real blessing. Praise God.
If according to Protestants like Gavin God indeed was guiding "the Church," which church was he guiding exactly? It cannot be the "invisible" church, because an invisible church cannot render judgments about matters of faith and morals; if it did, it would cease to be invisible. On the other hand, if God is guiding the "visible" church, which church is this exactly and why *this* church and not another "visible" church? Would it be possible to locate this visible church which has rendered a judgment on the cannon?
Joe your logic and ability to speak right to the heart of the matter...must be in my opinion..."inspired"by the holy Spirit! It's great to be Catholic....thank you ❤
Let the coping begin by the prots jk. Suan did a phenomenal presentation on this on Patristic pillars channel on the canon in response to Gavin Outland 🙏🏾
@ and Suan went over the fact that u totally misunderstood him in that same video with William. This is why I said his name and where to go to see for their selfs to see what suan was actually trying to communicate. Regardless God bless
Finally! The sensus fidei is a HUGELY important part of the theory of infallibility. The emphasis on the papal and magisterial is understandable but too often overshadows the whole.
Using a Bible that teaches apostolic authority to preach against apostolic authority is impossible. Luke 10:16 [16] “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
@christopherneedham9584 Jesus was sent by the Father, the Apostles were sent by Jesus, and the Apostles sent the Elders, Overseers, and I forgot what Deacon means. Which obviously refer to the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.
@ elders and overseers are the same role. This is clear from its equivocation in the Greek. Even if the apostles did send bishops, priests and deacons, there is no evidence in scripture that suggests that those people have the same authority as is given to the apostles or to Jesus.
@christopherneedham9584 When I said that they were “sent”, I was actually referencing that the word “send” used in Greek literally denotes being sent with the authority of the sender. Like, how Christ was sent with the Authority of the Father, or the Apostles with the Authority of Christ, or the Bishops and Priests with the Authority of the Apostles (of course, the Apostles have some unique authorities that Bishops don’t have). Joe also did a whole video on how Bishops and elders are not the same thing, and I’d argue that it is persuasive. I hold the view, like most fathers including Augustine and Jerome, that the terms were interchangeable originally, but the offices were clearly different. As you can see for example with Timothy being told by Paul to make sure those with teaching authority aren’t teaching wrongly, clearly a higher office, or with how when administering Confirmation to the Samaritans, a Priest could not do it, but a Bishop was called over, it’s also clear that Priests cannot appoint Bishops, and that only Bishops can appoint Bishops, and that Timothy was appointed a Bishop by Paul, and appointed an elder by the elders, Paul also makes it clear that Timothy is the one deciding if the elders are paid, and Paul even tells Timothy to make sure to pay the elders, because it is cruel not too. Furthermore, we see Paul telling Timothy how to handle charges being made against Elders. Since33AD also provides some pretty irrefutable evidence given by the Fathers that there is a three tiered system by way of a logical argument, but I forgot it. He also shows how the Fathers speak of the three tiered system. Paul also gives Timothy and Titus the specific abilities to appoint elders by laying on of hands. It is also clear by the Letters of St Ignatius that the Church was not using the terms interchangeably afterwards. And it is clear from him, since he is a succesor of St. john, that they are indeed different offices with different authorities. And so, you are wrong.
A big problem for protestants when they argue that the church didn't need infallibility to declare the canon is that they usually actually agree with Catholics that the canon is now infallible - most protestants would never say that that the canon is still open to development like removing books whose authorship has been called into question. But if, in the protestant worldview, the only infallible teaching comes from Scripture alone, and Scripture does not teach the canon, where is the canon getting this infallible status from? Basically it doesn't work to just say that the canon developed organically, you have to explain why it stopped developing at the Reformation and achieved infallibility (especially since for most of its development it contained the Deuterocanonical books, so under the Protestant view, God must not have been concerned with giving Christians an infallible canon then).
protestants don't have a canon. they also don't have to agree with any list that is drawn up, they can add or subtract from it as they please. The so-called protestant canon is actually a list in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England primarily authored by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer Other Protestants simply agree with it, most probably don't even know about it.
most protestants understand the NT canon to be correct but not infallible. Where are you getting the idea that most of us believe the canon is infallible?
@@mikekukovec4386 What does that mean. The NT is correct but not infallible? If its correct, then it is correct...isn't it? if it can be incorrect, then it is not correct.
@@dave_ecclectic I'm not sure this argument holds any meaning. The list can be infallibly *defined*, but the list can't be infallible. It's an adjective that can't logically be applied to that noun. The list doesn't have to be infallibly defined to be correct.
With the level of modern scholarship that their is today, much of the Bible wouldn’t survive quite literally without the Catholic Church, I actually don’t understand why Gavin do this knowing that he absolutely needs the church to keep his Bible
@MarkStein-v4j Paul doesn't know any of the details of the life of Jesus and he is considered by everyone Christian and secular, to have written the first documents of the NT
@MarkStein-v4j Paul traveled with Luke who researched & wrote a gospel, one of the most complete in regards to Jesus’ life. I would imagine Luke shared stories of Jesus with Paul.
@MarkStein-v4j "He mentions that after his conversion hr went to Jerusalem to meet Paul and learn about Christ. " No he says that opposite that he learned nothing from the disciples. "He says in one of his letters to the Corinthian that he decided not to tell them about anything of Christ besides his death and resurrection" That's not a true statement either. "It’s a stupid assumption to conclude that the 1% of things the mentions in the letters are supposed to be all that was in his brain" It's stupid to be as totally ignorant of the NT as you are and yet respond to me.
All Marian apparitions and private revelations since the resurrection of Our Lord has been to poor, uneducated humble people and mainly to children. God uses those at the bottom to reveal His truth to those at the top who are honest enough to accept, interpret and institute these truths.
Belief in the inspiration of the scriptures always presumes the inspired authors are infallible. The canon question must always bring an infallible church into the mix somewhere. The Protestants must affirm the church was for a time infallible and then became feasible without any biblical warrant.
The canonization of scripture and sola scripture are what is driving me away from protestant Christianity. I just can't get over it. The catholic church put the bible together. My mind gets stuck in a loop trying to figure out how protestants argue their side in good faith.
I have a simple answer for you: it was the Early Church that got the Bible together, not the Roman Catholic church. To view the canonization process as entirely a result of Rome, and viewing the Early Church as also entirely Roman, is not a good way to look at church history. But even if you do think it was primarily the Roman Catholic church who compiled the canon (not true at all), you can look at how the Old Testament worked. How can you accept the OT from the pharisees but then not submit to their authority on interpreting/adding on to it? The same way I can be comfortable with the Roman church being a big part of the canonization process, and then not submit to their authority to interpret it and add to it.
@@mikekukovec4386 I am trying to learn and understand in good faith here, so bear with me. If you are correct, when did the catholic church form? Was it after the Bible was canonized? Was the "early church", as you put it, fundamentally different on key topics, compared to the Catholic church of the 6th century?
@@KeepItPG123 it's tough to say when the RCC formed because it's identity has changed so much. Catholics will of course tell you they've been around since 33AD, but the Eastern Orthodox will say the same thing. So who is right? It's complicated. Certainly there was a bishop of Rome fairly early on, including during the canonization process. But this version of the church in Rome looks a lot different than the modern RCC because of a fundamental difference on a key topic (you're right to ask about that). At this time the Early Church was made up of 5 major churches (called the Pentarchy). This included Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria. It wasn't until the 500s (ish) with Leo the Great when Rome really started laying down the "supreme bishop" stuff and separated itself from the other 4. This is around the point where I'd consider the church in Rome to no longer be "one of the five major churches in the Early Church" and more of an entity on their own, "the Roman Catholic Church". Does this make sense? If all 5 of these major churches are playing roles in the canonization process, it's wrong to just say "Rome gave us the Bible, we need to trust Rome" as so many do. Hope I was clear, happy to keep discussing if you want
@@mikekukovec4386Inheriting the Old Testament from the Jews is a very different matter from inheriting the New Testament from the Catholic Church/early Church (for the sake of the argument, I will just say “Church” to be ambiguous). There is no reason to believe that the Jews are infallible on what is or is not scripture, whereas there is reason to believe the Church is infallible or what is or is not scripture. If we are unsure of the fallibility of the Jews and the Church, there are four possibilities. They can both be infallible, one be infallible, or both be fallible. The first option is not rationally possible since there is disagreement between the two. The last option raises a very important issue in that there is no reason to trust the canon of Scripture as we know it. The Jews being solely infallible raises a similar issue for Christians because while it’s nice to know the Old Testament for certain, that leaves us lost on the New Testament. The only option which does not lead to incoherence or theological crisis is that the Church is infallible on the canon. It is of no consequence if the Jews are fallible in determining Scripture because the Church is not and can determine that for the faithful. As Joe lays out in the video, there isn’t a coherent way to arrive at the canon unless you trust that the Church could not have erred in assembling the canon. And if the Church could not err on the canon, then why would someone say that they clearly erred on the rest of their beliefs? The point is that Protestants will often accept how the Church arrived at the canon, but then imagine that’s the only thing we know the early Church determined.
Wow, that Luther commentary on Genesis is mind-blowing and new to me! Seeds of "restorationist" sects like Mormonism there, which Protestantism is not technically too far off from. Please make clip of this section.
For me, even which “books” does not address the issue. It is about which writings are canonical. Because there is an issue that only part of a writing might be inspired.
"Logical, philosophical appeals are one thing, but here is where it becomes decisive, the historical argument." Uh...if your argument cannot stand up even logically, we can throw it out before we even get to any type of evidence. Logic is pure mathematical true. History is subject to misrecording, misinterpretting, erasure, etc. You cannot trust history as much as pure logic.
I think that even if we called the NT canon a "fallible list of infallible books" all that would prove is that each of the 27 books of the NT belong there. But that wouldn't answer the question of whether or not there were other books that should also have been included but weren't. If the list is fallible, meaning it is capable of being mistaken, then there could be other infallible books that failed to be included in the fallible list by mistake. The result would be a New Testament canon that is flawed by the omission. But how could we know, let alone remedy the flaw, without an infallible authority able to recognize the flaw and authorize the correct remedy?
Hey Joe! First thank you for this video I’m very grateful to have talented apologists like you defend the faith. Second, (not out of doubt but rather difficulty) I wanted to ask if we can trust the guiding of the whole Church by the Holy Spirit into truth, then what do we say about saints like Athanasius who’s nickname (I think!) was Athanasius contra mundum? How would we explain his defense of orthodoxy against the widespread (possibly consensus?)acceptance of anti-nicene arianism during his time? I admit i am not too well read in the topic, but your wisdom would be appreciated. Thank you and God Bless you. (P.S. I am a catechumen in the Catholic Church and your videos helped a ton with my conversion to the Catholic faith.)
Good question! I was thinking the same but concerning the large group of sedevacanists in today’s Church. Welcome home! I’m a fellow convert, 10 years ago. I’ve been an OCIA/RCIA sponsor for the last 5 years. I highly recommend this ministry for converts. Cling to the Magisterium. God will not allow the Pope to lead the Church astray on faith & morals. If it appears he has taught error make an effort to really understand what the Pope is teaching. You’ve probably misunderstood or misinterpreted what he actually said. God bless you 🙏❤️
The canon question is about everything else, except Sola Scriptura apparently. The canon is not an article of faith, but it somehow is to be simply assumed to create articles of faith. Christianity in Protestantism requires faith in Christ and faith in the Protestant canon - because any demand for a rational explanation of the canon is the fault with the Catholic daring to ask such a trivial thing.
The section starting near the 30 minute mark (in the later 20s) reminds me of Gamaliel's point. If the early church really went full heretic, they wouldn't be so united.
Codex Sinaiticus oldest complete manuscript of the Bible in Greek from 4th Century has most of the Deuteroncanonical books. Its available online at the British library of London for everyone to see. How is this even a discussion in this day an age, how much longer are we going to tolerate lies and heresy for the sake of "Ecumenism"?
@ji8044 Hermas and the Epistles of Barnabas were quoted as Scriptures by several church Fathers, but indeed, these were not included in the canon in Rome, Carthage and Hippo. This was mostly due to the influence of the Eastern Churches. It took time for this to settled and be universally accepted in later Codexes of the 5th century and the Latin Vulgate which oldest copy is the Codex Amiatinus you would not find Hermas Barnabas or Clement at all. What you won't find is complete manuscripts lacking the Deuterocanonical books. Please can you produce a single COMPLETE manuscript from the first 1500 years of Christianity that rejected or exclude the Deuterocanonical books. If your hypothesis is true then you should be able to produce something. Please go ahead show me one complete manuscript that had 66 books
You realize the "newer versions" that use such things REMOVE from New Testament? Is cannon open now? And they contradict each other thousands of times in gospels alone? Sinaiticus and vaticanus contradict I mean.
@@AlexisHernandez-f7s I didn't address the Deuterocanonical books. I pointed out your error in attempting to use Codex Sinaiticus as the definitive Bible.
You know what, before you said that, I hadn’t really realized that it is a trust issue. They only trust themselves to be guided by themselves, and so to be guided by a church is just a bridge too far. Gavin, without realizing it is promoting the idea that God can’t be trusted in a way to establish a church for his people once and for all time.
@@Jerome616 That's because Gavin is a false teacher whose only goal, as most protestant pastors sadly, is to fight against the Catholic Church, no matter what it takes, even if that means betraying God in the process or just blatantly rejecting truth.
@@Jerome616 The worst part of it is that its a mistrust that isn't entirely misplaced. There were and are abuses and corruptions in the church that would make people want to distrust it and rely on their own inclinations and understandings. Our conduct has a very real part to play in whether or not they respond to the church. I keep thinking of Rehoboam, Solomon's son. If he had just listened to his wise advisors and relented on the harsh conditions he put the people under then 10 whole tribes of Israel might not have broken off, formed their own kingdom and ultimately end up destroyed and scattered. That decision had devastating consequences for everyone involved and led to a whole lot of division and evil. But just like the reality of the divided kingdom didn't mean god ripped his promise from the Tribe of Judah and the line of David, the bad things that happen in the church don't make god rip his promise of protection away from her. So we have to pray they they ultimately see the light and return to mother church and that we also do as well as we can so they have even less of an excuse to stay away.
In that case, doesn't the same thing apply to quite a lot of Catholics as well? They are so eager to have Protestants coming back to the Catholic in church and refuse to consider the idea that, even though these people live and die as Protestants, they've been saved by Jesus Christ according to His way.
Protestant confusion over the sources of Catholic authority sometimes reminds me of people from civil code countries (most of the non-English speaking world) trying to understand the Common Law system. They are baffled how settled law can derive from constitutions and legislation and regulation and tradition and judicial precedent and established legal ethics and superior court judgements. It's all too messy and confusing for those trained to find everything in a legal code. Sola scriptura, as it were.
Is John 7:53-8:11(Woman caught in Adultery) inspired/Biblical? As a Catholic I can easily say yes. As a Protestant idk how I would agree, as this doesn't appear in original. St Augustine and St Jerome were also aware of this but weren't scandalized.
some clever cookie on the wes huff apologia video (on kjvO) said that he was glad to have modern translations wherefrom he could choose which parts of scripture were "gods word" and which weren't. he then went on to claim that the longer ending of mark and the pericope adulterae were gnostic insertions. prots gonna prot
@MarkStein-v4j you are correct, we don't have Original manuscripts. That doesn't mean these verses in question are supposed to be there. As with long ending of Mark. There are some Christians that don't believe they are Inspired.
@MarkStein-v4j "My statement that you can’t claim to be original as we don’t have the originals? " No Biblical scholar would talk about "originals" because ancient writings don't have originals. There are only early and later manuscripts. Any or all of these gospels could have been pieced together from different parts. The OT is similar for instance the two accounts of creation in Genesis. John's Gospel starts twice as well.
@shamelesspopery As a Protestant, I've got to say that in my own subjective, non-canonical opinion, this was one of your best videos. The consensus of the church is a great arguement for establishing the canon of scripture, but....... is the consensus of the church also used to establish papal infallibility and its dogmas? The reason I ask is because the consensus of the whole church was not in favor of papal infallibility or a lot of the dogmas. If it was, then we wouldn't still have a schism or even many Protestants left today. The second question I have is why would the consensus of the church not be enough to establish papal infallibility or the dogmas if it was good enough to establish God's divine Holy Word? This particular issue is a huge barrier for me becoming Catholic. Also, I would like to highly recommend you offering a free PDf download of all your screenshots to e-mail subscribers so we can reflect upon them and use them as personal references for your videos. Screenshotting them all is getting real tedious, but it's still worth it in order to properly digest your meaty videos!
@kyrptonite1825 Thank you for your reply. I do understand how it can go either way. But in the instance of discerning the very Words of God, Joe is saying that a consensus of the church was enough. But when it came to finally declaring papal infallibility as a dogma, there were a lot of catholics that even protested such a decision, and yet the general consensus of the church somehow didn't matter. This seems inconsistent and confusing, considering how Joe kept emphasizing how important a general consensus of the Church was in determining the Holy Scriptures.
That Luther quote was wild. I don't know how people can think that he had good intentions when his ego drips from his writing. Its, frankly, disgusting.
I would ask Gavin, if God was guiding the church organically in the way he views it in order to arrive at the proper canon, why does he then think God bailed afterwards and let people interpret those books in thousands of different ways? What does he think God was doing? What purpose would God guide us only to the canon and not through the canon? He doesn't believe in any future or lasting infallibility, which is just the same protection of God, yet he believes in this temporary protection even though that temporary protection is utterly meaningless without lasting protection. That doesn't sound like God to me. That just isn't fitting. To me, it makes far more sense that he guided the church to the canon, and he continues to guide the church through the canon. He did not guide the church to the canon just so we can have a perfect book displayed on our book cases, but derive the entirely wrong meaning from it everytime we touch it.
this is a good question, but it assumes that Roman Catholics agree on everything in the Bible which they definitely do not. Look at any discussion today surrounding the current bishop of Rome. He interprets the Bible and church teachings one way, lots of others think that's wrong. So the same question goes back to you: why did God "bail" on the Roman Catholic church and let everyone have a thousand different interpretations of scripture/tradition?
@mikekukovec4386 the premise is incorrect. We don't actually disagree on anything that has been authoritatively defined by the church. If random laity disagree with a defined matter, it just makes them in error. Nothing says people can't be in error, but we can know that they are objectively in error because we have the standard. Outside of defined matters, we can agree, disagree and utilize that disagreement to come to further conclusions. Francis has not undone nor altered any interpretation on defined matters. We can disagree with him on managerial, political and all kinds of other things, but he hasn't changed any interpretation or alrered any defined matter so your premise is just incorrect. If anything, Francis further proves the protection of God on faith and morals in his church because if any pope ever would walk back church teaching and destroy the argument of the Catholic church, it would have been Francis. If anyone were to change an interpretation to submit to the world, to ordain women or bless same sex unions, it would have been Francis. Even he can't do it though, and that itself is a work of God.
@@mikekukovec4386church authority is for alleviating and resolving disputes that cause issues in the church. We can disagree on certain things without causing theological or heretical error... And if the church authority thinks a dispute is leading to error, she steps in and resolves the dispute with dogmatic teaching. I'm free to think the tree of life is an almond tree while everyone else thinks it's a fig tree because at the end of the day, it has absolutely no bearing on anything of theological value.
@@gainsofglory6414 if I ask ten different priests what they think "No Salvation Outside the Church" means, I'm going to get 10 different answers. So why did God bail on them and let people interpret that doctrine so many different ways? if I ask ten different Roman Catholics what they think about the death penalty, I'm going to get ten different answers. So why did God bail on them and let people interpret that idea so many different ways? you're using one standard for protestants and then moving the goalposts for roman catholics. You say "protestants interpret the Bible all different ways", but then when I point out that roman catholics do to, you say "well, they don't disagree about infallibly defined things". Trust me, roman catholics disagree all over the place about how to interpret infallible dogmas. According to you, that means God bailed on the church because obviously God can't be guiding people if they disagree.
@mukekukovec4386 We do agree on everything, except for small cases where we aren’t needed to agree on everything. If they disagree with the Magisterium, then they simply aren’t in communion with the Catholic Church. You are simply wrong here.
Hold on, isn't Ortlund a baptist? His idea of "we can trust that God guided the Church without it being in an infallible mechanism" doesn't really seem to jive well at all with Calvinistic ideas like irresistible grace.
Loved the presentation. So I could argue from Matthew 16 and Matthew 18, along with John 16 for both the authority of the Church and the work of the Holy Spirit to lead the apostles and their followers into truth resulting in the veracity of Acts, the epistles and Revelation. But to get from there to the Canon, I have to have the promise of the Holy Spirit to a.) protect the Church from error in deciding which books were inspired (Matthew 16), and b.) that he would lead them into all truth both to the necessity of a New Testament collection of books for the teaching of the Church, and secondly, that He would also lead them in the selection of those books that were in use in the various churches as to which specific books should be included or excluded in the collection that would be considered as divinely inspired scripture. I also need to be convinced that it is solely the authority of the Church to make the pronouncement of the doctrinal or dogmatic truth of the Canon, while the place I look for such authority is within the text of the very books that are being promoted as the Canon for that authority. I do believe, but I can see where some might argue that the method is circular. Similarly, you alluded to the consistent belief within the Church (synodality). In today's Church, I don't think that is a valid test because there is evidence of so much disunity in a common belief on many core teachings of the Church throughout its history - i.e. contraception, abortion, ordination of women, same sex marriage, etc., to name just a few. Just using the US Church as an example, a majority of those who identify as Catholics would take stands contrary to the long held positions of the Church. Why would I want them having a vote on what the Church should teach on those issues today?
Canon lists were diverse for centuries. Council of Rome differed from Athanasius, Cyril excludes Book of Revelation- Athanasius accepts it, Pope Gregory writes that 1 Maccabees is noncanonical a century after Council of Carthage includes it as canon... The process was quite fallible even as the men involved were. The fact that it was quided by an infallible God doesn't ensure a completely infallible process. See the history of Old Testament Israel. Respect.
This isn’t a critique, I just want to point out that it’s kind of amazing that this episode, which had a lot of great thoughts and arguments, didn’t once mention the Vulgate commissioned by the pope and translated by a doctor of the church. I don’t think it was necessary to bring it up, but I think it would’ve been helpful and worth talking about. If the pope commissions an official Bible to be promulgated, I’d argue that’s a pretty important thing to note. If I was illiterate on church history, I might walk away from this video with the idea that there was a grassroots movement in Christianity to formalize the cannon, and everybody just sort of came to the same conclusion on their own, and eventually the bishops defended it. This is clearly not the case. But anyways, I don’t think Joe did anything wrong in this episode, and he brought up a ton of great points.
Jerome's agenda was truth. He came to accept the Deuterocanon and quoted from them. His Vulgate is warmer and more human than the rather flat "committee" bibles.
@@HAL9000-su1mz I learned the Vatican re-translated and updated the Vulgate, but doesn't want this new version to be sold in other languages, since there are local, approved Bibles in the vernacular. But I'd LOVE to get a copy of the new Vulgate in English. Oh well.
@@MikePasqqsaPekiM Never heard that. I would be delighted with a complete version of the 1941-1969 Confraternity Bible. They USCCB killed it in favor of the horrid NAB. That did not age well.
@@MikePasqqsaPekiM This is called the Nova Vulgata. It is a latin translation, made in the 1970s, with 2 goals : - have a latin translation made with modern critical appreciation of sources - using a more "classical latin" than Jerome's The idea is to have an "common reference latin text" for the Liturgy and from which to quote in official texts of the Church. It is not an "official" Bible in the sense that would be the official, canonical text to use in the whole Church. It is not even the mandatory source text for liturgical vernacular translations. Bible translations always have to underlying difficulties : - what is the "source" text you are translating - how do you make choices when some wordings are typical of a language, but hard to translate in another langage. So it is a modern translation of the Bible, done in the same way as any other scientific translations are made. Having an English translation of the Nova Vulgata would be similar to having an English translation of the French Liturgical translation (the most recent "official" translation in French, for use in the liturgy). I can understand you'd LOVE to have this kind of thing, but its use would actually be quite limited : it is not very useful for Bible studies, and as a translation it doesn't have a "greater authority". Its aim is just to be a common reference for day-to-day use, not for doctrinal dispute.
1. Scripture is of a supernatural object 2. This means that Scripture’s Inspiration must be revealed 3. This revelation must be inside of Scripture, if sola scriptura is true 4. It is not 5. Not all revelation is found inside Scripture. And therefore, sola scriptura is wrong. It doesn’t even make logical sense, without even getting to the issue of the canon.
It's amazing that a branch of Christianity that claims to care so much about 'The Bible,' cares so little about the nature and process of the Canon of Scripture.
I am a Protestant who supports Capturing Christianity financially. This video was very helpful for me! I thought you presented the issues very clearly and it was easy for me to follow. I think your response to Gavin's objection about the church not having a top-down infallible authority for the books in the NT makes a lot of sense. One thing that struck me as odd was saying we only know that the Gospels have apostolic authority is because church tradition associates individuals with apostolic authority. But I've always thought exactly the reverse; even if we did not know the names of the authors, the Gospels are full of content that establish their apostolic ties, like containing eyewitness details that only an apostle could know. So you might not be able to say John in particular wrote the Gospel of John without church tradition, but you can affirm the Gospel is apostolic regardless. Perhaps you might say that approach would only make the Gospels trustworthy, not inspired. But I do think that's significant; the main reason why you want to know which books are inspired is precisely *because* inspiration entails trustworthiness. Like, we don't just want to know the canon list for funsies, we want to know it because we want to say "that's our Scriptures that we can use for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". I think you kinda have to go this initial trustworthiness route too. You can't say the early church got it right because Jesus told us the Holy Spirit would guide us in all truth, because that's a saying in the Gospel of John, and you need the Gospel of John to have a reliable statement from Jesus there for the church to get it right. IF that's correct, I don't think the orthodoxy criterion can be defeated just by saying "well how do you know what's orthodox"? If you can establish the Gospels, Acts, and most of the letters of Paul as trustworthy, you've got a body of literature that you can say is "orthodox". I still don't think the orthodox criterion is going to carry the Protestant here; just because Hebrews aligns with orthodoxy doesn't automatically mean it gets in, because there are other books that align with orthodoxy that didn't get in. But I don't think it's so easily brushed aside. The issue of the NT canon was my introduction to Christian apologetics, and although I've come to the conclusion that the NT canon in front of me is inspired, I want to honor the Lord with my mind and justify my thinking. Videos like these help me a lot. Thank you for your contribution!
Why would an Inspired New Testament writing have to be Apostolic in the first place? What constitutes Apostolic? Is the didache Apostolic? Is Luke Apostolic? Is 1 Clement Apostolic? How do we know that God didn’t create more Apostles? How do we know that revelation ended? What about traditions that are historically accurate but found in works that aren’t Inspired? What if someone just makes up traditions? Are you referring to higher textual criticism? Well, what about all the higher criticism against the Bible? There are differing opinions and the data is always changing. Furthermore, what about parts of Books? For example, the woman caught in adultery, or 1 John 5:7-8, or the longer ending of Mark, or the miraculous catch of fish in John 21, or Luke 22:17-2? 2. And then once you get the Gospels, you are going to Paul. Most of his works are Scriptural. Maybe you can include Acts and the Gospels. Is this really enough to conclude what is Orthodoxy? I don’t really think so. There are some things outside of Paul’s Letters and Acts and the Gospels that are settled by other Books. And why would something being Orthodox or even Orthodox and claiming to be Scripture, part of the Bible? This still does not give us Hebrews as Scripture or not. Neither does it do it for 2 Peter. Neither does it do it for Revelation. Neither for 1 and 2 John. Neither for 1 Clement. Neither for the Shepard of Hermas. Etc. 3. Plus, what if the Gospels are compilations of traditions, written or even edited by later authors? What if in reality the truth was gnosticism but the texts were perverted? That’s why Apostolic continuity is important.
@@kyrptonite1825 How does one know what is orthodox and not, based on the reading of the bible alone? Who would Gavin Ortlund invite to his Church, to preach on any of the topics below in the first 1000 years that adhered to his beliefs, believing that he held the "Orthodox" view? - a symbolic only Lord's Supper (the bread and wine do NOT transform into the resurrected body and blood of Christ) - rejection of the sacrifice of the Mass? - a symbolic only baptism (not regenerative)? - baptism of infants delayed to the age of reason? - salvation by faith alone? - sola scriptura? - rejection of intercessory prayer When he cites early Christians, he's citing Catholics, many times Catholic priests and bishops, but also theologians. Interesting, the Church didn't debate the topics above in the first 1000 years. There was no debate as to what was Orthodox or not. All held to the Catholic teaching.
Petersen has his hang ups but if he converts u will know it to be genuine. God uses his very one to enact his will which we see with someone like Petersen who helps draw people at the least to considering Christianity or adopting the moral law
Catholic here. I'm quite confused. If the antilegomena books were disputed, how come it is the sensus fidei to include them in the final canon? How much unanimity is required for a teaching/doctrine to be considered "sensus fidei"?
This exactly what the Council of Trent claims. The Bible was received from the 4th century, "Old Vulgate" and did not restrict it to only these books but at least these books
Another point is that even though the early councils that declared the canon of scripture were local, the church and the Pope did not refute them or declare them heretical - hence again we have confirmation, albeit by 'silent' consensus of the whole Church, that the declaration of the canon was in fact truthful.
Bottom line is Authority. regardless of what are the categories that determines the canonicity of a book/writings to be included in the bible. All boils down to the question is to what is the authority of the person/institution that decide what are the categories that determine the canonicity of the bible. Just like any country or state lawmakers create laws. In to the question why lawmakers have the authority to create laws. Because they are mandated by the people to do so. Same with christianity the question is who decided what are the rules of canonicity and to who's authority He can declare those rules are valid?
I also want to point out Suan’s point in his recent responses to Gavin and that is that an ecumenical council led to canon lists. That is after the council of Nicea Christians knew enough of what the orthodoxy of faith was to start proposing books that could be part of the canon. So its was a bottom up and top down process.
Maybe I have a simplified understanding of infallibility. But I understand it as simply the assurance from Christ that, when it comes down to it, the Holy Spirit will not let the Church get essential doctrine wrong. That said, there are a lot of things we can debate and disagree on. Occasionally, some of those disagreements reach a fever pitch in which souls are at stake such that the church sees need to settle the matter. And when she does so, the Holy Spirit will not let her get it wrong.
Here’s my issue with Calvinists like Dr. Ortlund when they address this topic: 1. Dr. Orlund, in agreement with John Calvin, believes that God does not merely allow that which comes to pass, but in His sovereignty, DECREES or ORDAINS all it comes to pass. 2. Dr. Ortlund himself has written books, in which he believes everything he has said is true. 3. If Dr. Ortlund believes that what he wrote is both true, and that it came to pass, and that all things that come to pass are ordained by God, what meaningful distinction does he make between his own true and sovereignly ordained writing, and say, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians? Why is Paul’s letter infallible, and not Dr. Ortlund’s book, or James White’s book, as he believes that they are true, and also that all things that come to pass, including their writing, to be ordained by God?
I differ slightly from Joe on this matter. The Church's top hierarchy played a significant role in the Bible's canonization. For instance, it was only after the Council of Nicaea that various lists (canons) of biblical books emerged. This is because the council, by establishing orthodox doctrines on Christ, became a benchmark of orthodoxy in the canonization process. Suan Sonna's response to Gavin highlights this well.
Not saying I disagree with you, but have you considered that Roman Catholic dogma and common ways of speaking is also very narcissistic? A few examples: Rome is the one true church, no one else. Rome has the fullness of the faith, everyone else is only getting bits and pieces. Telling protestants to "come home to Rome" as if their Protestant church can't be their home. Then we have the "infallibly" defined dogmas: "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." But yeah, Luther is the one with the narcissism problem. "No one, howsoever much almsgiving he has done, even if he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church". We'll still call Protestants our brothers, but they can't be saved unless they become Catholic.
@mikekukovec4386 No, you cannot. Lutheranism is named after Martin Luther. The Catholic Church has a visible link back to the Apostles starting with the Apostolic Fathers. Lutheranism does not. And as Saint Athanasius says, a group that names itself after its founder, instead of Christ, is likely a h3r3sy.
@mikukovec4386 No, you can’t. Rome can be visibly linked back to the Apostles starting with the Apostolic Fathers. Can you do this with Lutheranism? Please show me!
I find it amazingly hypocritical when I see a loud "conservative" out there when tslking "politics", legislation, Law etc yet when it comes to religious topics the same individual is more often than not a WOKE fool (aka "protestant"). They apply traditional Christian values to some things, yet at the same time they trump Gods Word and Authority when it doesn't comply to their feelings and opinions. An absolutely amazing level of hypocrisy.
It feels like when people are looking for an "infallible operation" they're looking for something to happen without explanation. In other words, they present a false dichotomy between infallibility and scripture/logical argumentation. It's a loaded question with only two options: If something is declared logically, it is not infallible. If something is declared infallibly it is illogical.
I really don't see it stressed enough in this argument how you don't need an infallible canon if you have the indefectible Church. *BUT* as a Protestant for Sola scriptura you NEED an Infallible Canon. We don't have the same authority structure (living vs static) so we did not have to meet the same standards/requirements protestants are held to intrinsically once they declare the static authority of scripture alone is Infallible
This was a great video Joe! I wonder if Protestants would appeal to God guiding the Church in a fallible way in the same way that Catholics think that ordinary magisterium documents are guided in non infallible ways. We Catholics think that the ordinary magisterium of the Church has to be accepted in a similar way that the 70 being sent out by Christ had to be accepted, "he who hears you, hears me" (Luke 10), however, because the 70 were not infallible, Jesus was giving binding authority to Christian witnesses who could err. Likewise, perhaps a Protestant could say that the Church's consensus (whichever way we circumscribe who is a part of the Church) is binding, but Christians who have a serious problem with Hebrews or 2nd Peter, or whatever, are allowed to dissent on their scriptural status. I think that if something is known fallibly, and not obvious like 2+2=4 (the canon is not self evident or obvious!), then there should be room for dissent because otherwise something that is not intrinsically certainly known through the historical critical method or through appeal to divine authority cannot be immune from being brought into question at all. Now of course, this way of thinking about the canon is not the practice of protestants today, and itbalso makes the doctrine of the table of contents NOT an object of faith to be believed with divine assent, which begs the question of whether the content of the books that are not believed to be scripture with divine assent can be given the divine assent of faith, but it is a way to preserve sola scriptura. I think making a positive case for the sensus fidelium from scripture (like Ephesians 4:1-16) and from an analysis of the Church fathers using a historical critical method to argue that the apostles probably believed the sensus fidelium may be a good way to reach this kind of Christian. Another way is to show that Jesus and St. Paul's exhortation to Christian unity would be impossible if one could dissent privately from the whole Church because there is no way to bind the conscience of the Christian to accept either the dissenting view or the consensus view, so I think it's better to say that God infallible guides the while Church (again, whatever you take the Church to be). I think the smart move for a Protestant is to deny sola scriptura and be something like an Anglican who seeks to hold to the sensus fidelium as a rule of faith but not Papal infallibility.
Surely it's been pointed out before, but I haven't seen it if it has. I keep waiting for someone to mention that having a fallible list of infallible X (books, ex cathedra statements, etc.) only becomes a problem if one insists such a static list is the sole rule of authority. Yes, the canon wasn't *infallibly* defined until Trent, and that wasn't a problem because Scripture wasn't held forth as the only metric by which everything must be judged. Likewise, there may be some fuzzy edges to current magisterial teaching, but it's not a problem because we're not precluding the possibility of it being further clarified by the Church.
@1984SheepDog I'm glad it's out there in the discussion, but I wonder why it isn't emphasized more. It's frustrating to see so much effort go into defending against an argument that should only have force against the other side of the debate. It's like atheists trying to use fine tuning against theists. That particular argument only cuts against one side of the discussion, so we should simply point that out rather than letting them get away with trying to pin it on us.
LDS, JW's, SDA's, and Protestants all hold the same: the Church which God calls the Pillar of truth, the Bulwark of Truth, Where the manifold wisdom of God is made known, that Jesus PROMISED to lead to ALL TRUTH ... somehow errored and errored universally early on and didn't know it. All these groups have the same belief in a great apostasy, corruption. And all these groups believe someone 1500-2000 years later was needed to set the record straight. They all make Jesus out to be undependable and a liar. He failed and failed miserably to lead his Church, of which he is the head and promised to never leave it, to ALL TRUTH. (yet somehow this corrupted Church got the New Testament canon right, 27 writings, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings, all the while they were in the middle of a great corruption)
The other option is to not accept that there's a canon at all. Many (likely all) christians pick and choose the books that they give more weight and authority including extra biblical writings or oral teachings.
I do not believe the case of the canon of Scripture is a case of the people of God's infallibility. Most people at the time the matter was being discussed were illiterate and had scarce access to the whole Bible. It's much more likely that the bishops talked this out among themselves and the consensus emerged from the middle down, the episcopate was in the position to make the judgement (not necessarily alwats in solemn instances). Yes I agree catholics over focus on infallibility when talking about many issues, the crux is who has the authority to reject authoritative yet noninfallible teachings. Protties say everyone, catholics say only theologians, and even then it must be on an exceptional basis, after having tried and failed to find a hermeneutic of continuity. As far as I understand, the infallibility of the whole people of God is only recognized as used for the canonization of saints before the process included an investigation. It's useless, earnest unanimity is impossible to determine in the distant past.
Trent Horn needs to step up his sweater game.
Joe is running away with the win!
Pinning this to troll Trent.
@@shamelesspopery 🤣
Came for the canon, stayed for the sweater 🎄
Joe is out here giving graduate-level presentations on a bi-weekly basis. Wow./
So true!
Catholic UA-cam is a blessing beyond understand.
Is the sweater that fuels his wisdom spark.
That’s why I’m such a fan of this channel! It’s incredibly impressive!
Thanks, you guys! Glad you are enjoying it.
Nobody can defend removing 7 books from the bible
Well, oBviOuSLy the church wasn't done discerning the Canon of Scriptures. It's a fallible process, after all.😜
especially when you find out how and who removed them.
Of course, you can. Just like the various churches can defend their canons.
I don’t see how many don’t watch Gavin’s videos and see the clear dishonest tactics he uses. Maybe it’s just because I have a background in manipulation, but it’s obvious to me. The way he ignores some evidence purposely, while bringing up other evidence. Or the way he’ll speak with niceties that don’t really get to a point. Or how he’ll engage in the: “they were so evil” talk, in the middle of a video.
The Protestant canon is actually very easy to refute. You simply ask who had the authority to determine the canon after Christ? The Church or the Jews who rejected Christ? The Protestants accept the Hebrew canon which was determined by Jews after the time of Christ and who rejected him.
Former Protestant here, the reason why Protestantism falls flat on its face with regards to Canon of Scripture is because we all know there are way earlier churches like the Copts and Assyrians who long predate Luther and the Reformation. These churches all have 73 or even 74 books as Canon. So the accusation of the RCC removing 7 books is absolute nonsense.
@MarkStein-v4j oh, this is one of my favorite mistakes. So often I accidentally say that 4-2=6. 😂😂
@MarkStein-v4j Lutero removeu 7 livros.
You realize that they have different cannon in Orthodox?
Great point
No, not at all. For instance both of the churches you named had gospels they used which are non-canonical for instance the Gospel of Thomas which was very important in Egypt.
“These are questions he shouldn’t be asking” about Cameron sounds very much like the corollary to the Cardinal Newman Quote:
“To cease to care about what Christianity actually is, is what Protestantism is.”
Is this an actual quote from him?
Exactly, which is why I say only Catholics are Christians.
@ “corollary” is “follows from something already proved.” His statement was “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Of course Newman was also an apologist for slavery, writing:
"That which is intrinsically and per se evil, we cannot give way to for an hour. That which is only accidentally evil, we can meet according to what is expedient, giving different rules, according to the particular case."
Catholicism always viewed slavery as "accidentally evil"
@@ji8044 the single reason anyone sees what you are projecting as wrong is because The Church is against it.
There is something kinda funny about the number of times iv seen Protestants quote mine figures like Augustine to support their positions… when in fact Luther the guy who started their whole reformation just went “all these other guys? Ya they’re just wrong, I’m the only one who’s right!”
@MarkStein-v4j did paul quote Epimenides?
How is it at all controversial to say that I agree with Augustine in one sense and disagree with him in another? It’s really not that complicated
@@ryandelaune139 If the majority of what he says upsets you, you can't cite him as a Church authority.
@MarkStein-v4j I'm not sure that quote necessarily proves what you think it does. It simply recognizes that St. John the Baptist prays for the Church and there's nothing that says "ask John," but ask for God to help us through the prayers that John and the other saints are offering. He's already praying for the bridegroom's blessings upon us. There's nothing wrong with that. Here's the thing, St. Augustine is quoted by Protestants because he has so much to say that supports the ancient Catholic Church that Protestantism is preserving (by protesting Roman abuses of Scripture, doctrine and practice) against the innovative errors of Rome:
"He has become our justice, our sanctification, our redemption, so that, as it is written: Let him who glories glory in the Lord.
Truth, then, has arisen from the earth: Christ who said, I am the Truth, was born of the Virgin. And justice looked down from heaven: because believing in this new-born child, man is justified not by himself but by God.
Truth has arisen from the earth: because the Word was made flesh. And justice looked down from heaven: because every good gift and every perfect gift is from above.
Truth has arisen from the earth: flesh from Mary. And justice looked down from heaven: for man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven.
Justified by faith, let us be at peace with God: for justice and peace have embraced one another. Through our Lord Jesus Christ: for Truth has arisen from the earth. Through whom we have access to that grace in which we stand, and our boast is in our hope of God’s glory. He does not say: “of our glory”, but of God’s glory: for justice has not come out of us but has looked down from heaven. Therefore he who glories, let him glory, not in himself, but in the Lord."
Justified by faith and by God alone through grace. The prayers of St. John the Baptist are mere drops of icing on the rich cake that is the Person and work of Christ for the Church.
@@ryandelaune139because it doesn't prove that protestantism is correct. You can find people all throughout early church history who don't describe perfect theology. None of that follows that Lutheranism, calvism, puritanism or baptists are more correct on theology. Cherry picking the one statement you agree with and stating it's an early seed of protestantism is not a strong argument.
Protestant apologetics is always uphill against history and trying to explain how the Bible is a sole infallible authority but being unable to satisfactorily explain how the church is not an infallible entity to even prescribe what scripture is even comprised of is such an undermining of their position. It’s necessary to justify being outside the apostolic church, but they don’t make a convincing argument in its own merits.
It seems they have to lean into revisionist history.
The church was good but only for certain things, the church got tons of things wrong, but somehow got the Bible right, but only certain parts of the bible, which later had to be amended, but don't pay attention to Luther trying to remove NT books as well.
Its a headache to follow all of it.
God gave moses stone tablets. The pharasees sat in Moses seat. God promised to write it in a book forever and ever. God promises the words would continue from thy seed and thy seed's seed and so on. Yet we see in New Testament that GOD uses people not in seat of authority at time and we even see Paul and others who are not of 12. He uses fisherman even and gives them authority. Further he even tells them FORBID him not when they see another who is NOT OF THEM preaching Jesus. So if it HAPPENED once already WITHOUT any of God's promises being broken they just claim it will happen again with the "falling away" that is said to be coming. Does that make sense? Again that is the general idea anyway.
The Bible is an infallible authority bc it comes from God. It's inspired.
But churches are made up of fallible humsns.
@@Maranatha99 You would think God would know when his own birthdate was and not have it given as two different years in the gospels then.
@ji8044 what are the 2 dates, pls?
Watch Suan on Gavin. He noticed what I did. Namely, Gavin says that Jesus commonly references the "law prophets and the writings." Gavin has been corrected multiple times but ignores it.
He doesn't even tries to argue that "psalms = writing" he just completly misquote Jesus and plays along. lol
Suan is a sharp cookie.
@@MeanBeanComedy Love Suan!
What exactly was the misquote? I'm looking at Luke 24:44 and it says exactly that, the Psalms, law, and prophets.
@@luxordfaith8506 Gavin says Jesus refers to the "writings" ... This is to imply other writings that are not Psalms, law or prophets, are lumped into Jesus' statement. For example, Proverbs is implied in writings. However, Jesus does not mention "the writings" in a general sense like that.
Gavin does this because if he is using Jesus to support his canon, he needs a way to include other writings outside Psalms, or else they're neglected and he cannot claim Jesus was referring to them. He has been explicitly told he was quoting Jesus wrong, but continues to misquote.
If God guided the authors to write infallible texts, why couldn't He guide leaders to infallibly pick a canonical list?
"Because they don't have the canon I want."
Remember from the video: the Canon wasn't a magisterial declaration at first; plus either way, you NEED infallible certainty of the means of Salvation.
Few hold the books are infallible.
that’s called cherry picking. Why didn’t God, say, guide the Church to have the correct view on Baptism at this time, then? Or the correct view on sola scriptura itself. You see, you started with your own presupposition here in your own beliefs, and it’s just not intellectually honest
@@kyrptonite1825the HS will guide the Church into all truth - I swear that’s in there somewhere
Don't know how actually Ortlund can cope with the fact that organically the Church decided the deuterocanonicals to be inspired and the same time their removal from this canonical status within protestantism was a top down sudden decision by the reformers. Actually, hard to find any theological claim by protestants wich wasn't a top down decision by a reformer originally.
@@ghostapostle7225
Yes they did. They knew the deuter were canonical.
The 2cd century rabinic Jews had no high priest or sacrifice. The authority was passed on to the CC. Then the dead Sea scrolls were discovered and there's another canon ..
@@iggyantioch LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL What "authority" of Judaism passed on what "authority" to the Catholic Church and by what means? All the books of the Bible, OT and NT are about JEWS.
organically huh? How can he trust this “organic” decision?
I suspect he just punts to God’s sovereignty. If Calvinists deny free will then I think it follows that they also deny that God would bind Himself to guiding one church hence the Protestant lower case invisible church made up of all believers instead of a visible church built on Peter that can bind and loose etc
Because he presupposes the value of the reformation as a God given act. To say otherwise is to immediately have to say I’m going to become catholic or I’m going to become orthodox.
You got 100% on this, plus bonus points, plus extra credit for clarity and style.
The quote of Tertullian with the hypothetical situation of the Church falling into error is so striking when you consider wide spread moral crises like Arianism or Modernism. It seemed on the outside that the church was Arian, but when the crisis passed The Bride of Christ remained spotless. Its literally impossible for the Church to fail.
Even when the Church murders people?
@@ji8044
Is murdering a dogma of the Church?
I love all these recent videos!
He’s been on a roll lately.
For anyone wanting to do the deep dive with Suan Sonna's excellent presentation on this subject: He did a long 4+ hour version in two livestreams on his own channel (Intellectual Catholicism) in December, 2024; but then tightened it down to about a 2 hour presentation on several channels as he has appeared on in January, 2025.
I recommend either the Patristic Pillars/Apocrypha Apocalypse version or Michael Lofton Show version where he'd practiced the presentation a couple of times and articulated it well with responses to some initial criticism he received (Shout out to Pat Flynn/Philosophy for the People as well, who hosted Suan as well and had a great discussion on the topic).
Joe here is adding value on top of Suan's work ❤
Original Win Productions! Is that you? Where have you been? You just deleted your channel and disappeared.
@@computationaltheist7267 No, sorry. Different John Fisher.
Thank you Joe for your work. I take what I learn from you and Catholic answers and I apply with every day people I meet in the streets as I make to them the case for the Catholic Church.
One of the wild things about John Calvin is that while making fun of the question how do we know what books belong in the Canon, he simultaneously held to a ontological theory called Total depravity. He believed that we were so thoroughly corrupt that we couldn't actually tell the difference between good and evil, white and black etc.
One of the reasons that much of the modern world has abandoned protestantism is because of this schizophrenic unreasonableness that's at its core.
A lot of people end up scandalized by these logical contradictions and incongruities which results in them applying the shallow atheist rejection of all religion as ridiculous.
@MarkStein-v4j indeed
I actually think the Calvinists do have an internal method of determining canon, it just leads to a dark place. Because they believe in total depravity, but also unconditional election and irresistable grace. Meaning, the elect are called by God and are able to distinguish between good and evil because God has preordained them from before the beginning of the world. So for Calvinists, they, and only they, can rightly discern the canon because everyone else suffers total depravity.
I never really thought about the canon as it relates to “total depravity”. Really great point, I’ll have to chew on that.
@stefanielozinski Thank you! Yeah it's one that I had wrestled with quite a bit. It does present a major problem though for the calvinist position and the theory of total depravity. If you're totally depraved, how could you possibly recognize the Canon? The Mormons making that appeal actually makes far more sense than a calvinist does, because a calvinist believes in total depravity as well as limited atonement.
You just make the best holistic arguments with an extremely reasonably balanced approach appreciating the fullness of opposing views.
Thanks mate for following God. You're a real blessing. Praise God.
Doesn’t Joe have a law degree? He’s no slouch!
Thanks! You seem not that ignorant yourself!
@shamelesspopery haha. Cheers.
Another great one, Joe. May this video get to all seekers of the truth.
If according to Protestants like Gavin God indeed was guiding "the Church," which church was he guiding exactly? It cannot be the "invisible" church, because an invisible church cannot render judgments about matters of faith and morals; if it did, it would cease to be invisible. On the other hand, if God is guiding the "visible" church, which church is this exactly and why *this* church and not another "visible" church? Would it be possible to locate this visible church which has rendered a judgment on the cannon?
The Bible only church that made the Bible! Makes sense, right? Right?
Good video. Gonna start reading the deuterocanonical books soon.
Joe your logic and ability to speak right to the heart of the matter...must be in my opinion..."inspired"by the holy Spirit! It's great to be Catholic....thank you ❤
Let the coping begin by the prots jk. Suan did a phenomenal presentation on this on Patristic pillars channel on the canon in response to Gavin Outland 🙏🏾
I see you are a man of culture as well.
I feel uncultured and pedestrian now. And not the highbrow pedestrian.
There's that humble Catholic spirit of charity I keep hearing about.
A brief response to Suan's video:
ua-cam.com/video/mn4fVTNOQ3Q/v-deo.htmlsi=s-60fXefnWKqw4V2
@ and Suan went over the fact that u totally misunderstood him in that same video with William. This is why I said his name and where to go to see for their selfs to see what suan was actually trying to communicate. Regardless God bless
Love the sweater, Joe. Also, good work on the video.
Finally! The sensus fidei is a HUGELY important part of the theory of infallibility. The emphasis on the papal and magisterial is understandable but too often overshadows the whole.
Love the Christmas sweater. Merry Christmas 🎉
Using a Bible that teaches apostolic authority to preach against apostolic authority is impossible.
Luke 10:16
[16] “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
The thing is, many Protestants will read this and think it's talking to them personally.
@@jesseshooter4403 I mean, clearly its talking about the people that Jesus is talking to, which is the apostles.
@christopherneedham9584 Jesus was sent by the Father, the Apostles were sent by Jesus, and the Apostles sent the Elders, Overseers, and I forgot what Deacon means. Which obviously refer to the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.
@ elders and overseers are the same role. This is clear from its equivocation in the Greek.
Even if the apostles did send bishops, priests and deacons, there is no evidence in scripture that suggests that those people have the same authority as is given to the apostles or to Jesus.
@christopherneedham9584 When I said that they were “sent”, I was actually referencing that the word “send” used in Greek literally denotes being sent with the authority of the sender. Like, how Christ was sent with the Authority of the Father, or the Apostles with the Authority of Christ, or the Bishops and Priests with the Authority of the Apostles (of course, the Apostles have some unique authorities that Bishops don’t have). Joe also did a whole video on how Bishops and elders are not the same thing, and I’d argue that it is persuasive. I hold the view, like most fathers including Augustine and Jerome, that the terms were interchangeable originally, but the offices were clearly different. As you can see for example with Timothy being told by Paul to make sure those with teaching authority aren’t teaching wrongly, clearly a higher office, or with how when administering Confirmation to the Samaritans, a Priest could not do it, but a Bishop was called over, it’s also clear that Priests cannot appoint Bishops, and that only Bishops can appoint Bishops, and that Timothy was appointed a Bishop by Paul, and appointed an elder by the elders, Paul also makes it clear that Timothy is the one deciding if the elders are paid, and Paul even tells Timothy to make sure to pay the elders, because it is cruel not too. Furthermore, we see Paul telling Timothy how to handle charges being made against Elders. Since33AD also provides some pretty irrefutable evidence given by the Fathers that there is a three tiered system by way of a logical argument, but I forgot it. He also shows how the Fathers speak of the three tiered system. Paul also gives Timothy and Titus the specific abilities to appoint elders by laying on of hands. It is also clear by the Letters of St Ignatius that the Church was not using the terms interchangeably afterwards. And it is clear from him, since he is a succesor of St. john, that they are indeed different offices with different authorities. And so, you are wrong.
A good cosmic sweater is what should be canonically necessary to settle all division. 😅 A spark of cozy wisdom
Wow! Rockin’ that Christmas sweater!!!
Got it on sale after December 25th. That's the benefit of our Christmas starting when everybody else's ends...
New subscriber here from Manila Philippines ❤❤❤❤
Another excellent video. Keep up the good work, Joe!
A big problem for protestants when they argue that the church didn't need infallibility to declare the canon is that they usually actually agree with Catholics that the canon is now infallible - most protestants would never say that that the canon is still open to development like removing books whose authorship has been called into question. But if, in the protestant worldview, the only infallible teaching comes from Scripture alone, and Scripture does not teach the canon, where is the canon getting this infallible status from?
Basically it doesn't work to just say that the canon developed organically, you have to explain why it stopped developing at the Reformation and achieved infallibility (especially since for most of its development it contained the Deuterocanonical books, so under the Protestant view, God must not have been concerned with giving Christians an infallible canon then).
protestants don't have a canon. they also don't have to agree with any list that is drawn up, they can add or subtract from it as they please.
The so-called protestant canon is actually a list in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England primarily authored by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer
Other Protestants simply agree with it, most probably don't even know about it.
most protestants understand the NT canon to be correct but not infallible. Where are you getting the idea that most of us believe the canon is infallible?
@@mikekukovec4386 If it is not up for any debate then it is infallible. Do protestants consider the Canon to be debeatable? No
@@mikekukovec4386
What does that mean. The NT is correct but not infallible?
If its correct, then it is correct...isn't it? if it can be incorrect, then it is not correct.
@@dave_ecclectic I'm not sure this argument holds any meaning. The list can be infallibly *defined*, but the list can't be infallible. It's an adjective that can't logically be applied to that noun. The list doesn't have to be infallibly defined to be correct.
With the level of modern scholarship that their is today, much of the Bible wouldn’t survive quite literally without the Catholic Church, I actually don’t understand why Gavin do this knowing that he absolutely needs the church to keep his Bible
@MarkStein-v4j Paul doesn't know any of the details of the life of Jesus and he is considered by everyone Christian and secular, to have written the first documents of the NT
I would really like to see all the documents that the church has in the Vatican Library.
@MarkStein-v4j Paul traveled with Luke who researched & wrote a gospel, one of the most complete in regards to Jesus’ life. I would imagine Luke shared stories of Jesus with Paul.
@@TrixRN Utter nonsense, Luke's gospel comes mostly from Mark and then embellishing it with Gentile inventions like the infancy narrative.
@MarkStein-v4j "He mentions that after his conversion hr went to Jerusalem to meet Paul and learn about Christ. "
No he says that opposite that he learned nothing from the disciples.
"He says in one of his letters to the Corinthian that he decided not to tell them about anything of Christ besides his death and resurrection"
That's not a true statement either.
"It’s a stupid assumption to conclude that the 1% of things the mentions in the letters are supposed to be all that was in his brain"
It's stupid to be as totally ignorant of the NT as you are and yet respond to me.
I find it interesting that Augustine references the Book of Wisdom since that book is not found in the Protestant Bible.
Good video. The process from true premises can only be taken in basis of the authority of the person in question.
Hopefully you’ll see this Joe! The audio version for Tuesday’s episode was not uploaded!!
Thank you! I think it's fixed now.
All Marian apparitions and private revelations since the resurrection of Our Lord has been to poor, uneducated humble people and mainly to children. God uses those at the bottom to reveal His truth to those at the top who are honest enough to accept, interpret and institute these truths.
Marian Apparitions are another reason that I could never be Protestant
Great video! This was one of the biggest reasons I couldn't stay protestant.
I love how catholics have each other's back like that. Gavin never defends James White and vice versa. But Joe is already Cameron's big brother!
Belief in the inspiration of the scriptures always presumes the inspired authors are infallible. The canon question must always bring an infallible church into the mix somewhere. The Protestants must affirm the church was for a time infallible and then became feasible without any biblical warrant.
The canonization of scripture and sola scripture are what is driving me away from protestant Christianity. I just can't get over it. The catholic church put the bible together. My mind gets stuck in a loop trying to figure out how protestants argue their side in good faith.
I have a simple answer for you: it was the Early Church that got the Bible together, not the Roman Catholic church. To view the canonization process as entirely a result of Rome, and viewing the Early Church as also entirely Roman, is not a good way to look at church history.
But even if you do think it was primarily the Roman Catholic church who compiled the canon (not true at all), you can look at how the Old Testament worked. How can you accept the OT from the pharisees but then not submit to their authority on interpreting/adding on to it? The same way I can be comfortable with the Roman church being a big part of the canonization process, and then not submit to their authority to interpret it and add to it.
@mikekukovec4386 precisely. they always confuse catholic as in universal church with the Roman catholic institutional church
@@mikekukovec4386 I am trying to learn and understand in good faith here, so bear with me. If you are correct, when did the catholic church form? Was it after the Bible was canonized? Was the "early church", as you put it, fundamentally different on key topics, compared to the Catholic church of the 6th century?
@@KeepItPG123 it's tough to say when the RCC formed because it's identity has changed so much. Catholics will of course tell you they've been around since 33AD, but the Eastern Orthodox will say the same thing. So who is right? It's complicated.
Certainly there was a bishop of Rome fairly early on, including during the canonization process. But this version of the church in Rome looks a lot different than the modern RCC because of a fundamental difference on a key topic (you're right to ask about that). At this time the Early Church was made up of 5 major churches (called the Pentarchy). This included Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria. It wasn't until the 500s (ish) with Leo the Great when Rome really started laying down the "supreme bishop" stuff and separated itself from the other 4.
This is around the point where I'd consider the church in Rome to no longer be "one of the five major churches in the Early Church" and more of an entity on their own, "the Roman Catholic Church". Does this make sense? If all 5 of these major churches are playing roles in the canonization process, it's wrong to just say "Rome gave us the Bible, we need to trust Rome" as so many do.
Hope I was clear, happy to keep discussing if you want
@@mikekukovec4386Inheriting the Old Testament from the Jews is a very different matter from inheriting the New Testament from the Catholic Church/early Church (for the sake of the argument, I will just say “Church” to be ambiguous). There is no reason to believe that the Jews are infallible on what is or is not scripture, whereas there is reason to believe the Church is infallible or what is or is not scripture.
If we are unsure of the fallibility of the Jews and the Church, there are four possibilities. They can both be infallible, one be infallible, or both be fallible. The first option is not rationally possible since there is disagreement between the two. The last option raises a very important issue in that there is no reason to trust the canon of Scripture as we know it. The Jews being solely infallible raises a similar issue for Christians because while it’s nice to know the Old Testament for certain, that leaves us lost on the New Testament. The only option which does not lead to incoherence or theological crisis is that the Church is infallible on the canon. It is of no consequence if the Jews are fallible in determining Scripture because the Church is not and can determine that for the faithful. As Joe lays out in the video, there isn’t a coherent way to arrive at the canon unless you trust that the Church could not have erred in assembling the canon. And if the Church could not err on the canon, then why would someone say that they clearly erred on the rest of their beliefs? The point is that Protestants will often accept how the Church arrived at the canon, but then imagine that’s the only thing we know the early Church determined.
Wow, that Luther commentary on Genesis is mind-blowing and new to me! Seeds of "restorationist" sects like Mormonism there, which Protestantism is not technically too far off from. Please make clip of this section.
Calvin wasn’t correct on that, obviously
Thank you for your knowledge Joe. God bless you. ❤
Martin Luther just gets more evil the more I know about him.
He wasn't evil as much as a nut job. He 'had issues.' 😜
For me, even which “books” does not address the issue. It is about which writings are canonical. Because there is an issue that only part of a writing might be inspired.
Good catch! I think you have the different versions of Esther and Daniel in mind?
So do you understand the "newer versions" being pushed REMOVE verses as well openly.
Longer ending of Mark, woman caught in adultery
"Logical, philosophical appeals are one thing, but here is where it becomes decisive, the historical argument."
Uh...if your argument cannot stand up even logically, we can throw it out before we even get to any type of evidence. Logic is pure mathematical true. History is subject to misrecording, misinterpretting, erasure, etc. You cannot trust history as much as pure logic.
Have you been following Suan Sonna's UA-cam tour answering Ortlund on the canon?
Another amazing video, Joe!
Really appreciate this video.
Gavin contunues to not understand the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
I think that even if we called the NT canon a "fallible list of infallible books" all that would prove is that each of the 27 books of the NT belong there. But that wouldn't answer the question of whether or not there were other books that should also have been included but weren't. If the list is fallible, meaning it is capable of being mistaken, then there could be other infallible books that failed to be included in the fallible list by mistake. The result would be a New Testament canon that is flawed by the omission. But how could we know, let alone remedy the flaw, without an infallible authority able to recognize the flaw and authorize the correct remedy?
Hey Joe! First thank you for this video I’m very grateful to have talented apologists like you defend the faith.
Second, (not out of doubt but rather difficulty) I wanted to ask if we can trust the guiding of the whole Church by the Holy Spirit into truth, then what do we say about saints like Athanasius who’s nickname (I think!) was Athanasius contra mundum? How would we explain his defense of orthodoxy against the widespread (possibly consensus?)acceptance of anti-nicene arianism during his time? I admit i am not too well read in the topic, but your wisdom would be appreciated. Thank you and God Bless you.
(P.S. I am a catechumen in the Catholic Church and your videos helped a ton with my conversion to the Catholic faith.)
Good question! I was thinking the same but concerning the large group of sedevacanists in today’s Church.
Welcome home! I’m a fellow convert, 10 years ago. I’ve been an OCIA/RCIA sponsor for the last 5 years. I highly recommend this ministry for converts.
Cling to the Magisterium. God will not allow the Pope to lead the Church astray on faith & morals. If it appears he has taught error make an effort to really understand what the Pope is teaching. You’ve probably misunderstood or misinterpreted what he actually said. God bless you 🙏❤️
The canon question is about everything else, except Sola Scriptura apparently. The canon is not an article of faith, but it somehow is to be simply assumed to create articles of faith. Christianity in Protestantism requires faith in Christ and faith in the Protestant canon - because any demand for a rational explanation of the canon is the fault with the Catholic daring to ask such a trivial thing.
The section starting near the 30 minute mark (in the later 20s) reminds me of Gamaliel's point. If the early church really went full heretic, they wouldn't be so united.
I think your support of Capturing Christianity is great! I am happy to see you all support each other
Codex Sinaiticus oldest complete manuscript of the Bible in Greek from 4th Century has most of the Deuteroncanonical books. Its available online at the British library of London for everyone to see. How is this even a discussion in this day an age, how much longer are we going to tolerate lies and heresy for the sake of "Ecumenism"?
Codex Sinaiticus in fact contains non-canonical books too. Didn't you know that?
@ji8044 Hermas and the Epistles of Barnabas were quoted as Scriptures by several church Fathers, but indeed, these were not included in the canon in Rome, Carthage and Hippo. This was mostly due to the influence of the Eastern Churches. It took time for this to settled and be universally accepted in later Codexes of the 5th century and the Latin Vulgate which oldest copy is the Codex Amiatinus you would not find Hermas Barnabas or Clement at all. What you won't find is complete manuscripts lacking the Deuterocanonical books. Please can you produce a single COMPLETE manuscript from the first 1500 years of Christianity that rejected or exclude the Deuterocanonical books. If your hypothesis is true then you should be able to produce something. Please go ahead show me one complete manuscript that had 66 books
You realize the "newer versions" that use such things REMOVE from New Testament? Is cannon open now? And they contradict each other thousands of times in gospels alone? Sinaiticus and vaticanus contradict I mean.
@@AlexisHernandez-f7s I didn't address the Deuterocanonical books. I pointed out your error in attempting to use Codex Sinaiticus as the definitive Bible.
@@ji8044 can you provide physical evidence, any complete manuscript of the early church, that matches your 66 book canon? Yes or no
All Sola Scriptura doctrine is always, at bottom, a lack of [refusal to] trust in Jesus Christ to save us in His way.
You know what, before you said that, I hadn’t really realized that it is a trust issue. They only trust themselves to be guided by themselves, and so to be guided by a church is just a bridge too far. Gavin, without realizing it is promoting the idea that God can’t be trusted in a way to establish a church for his people once and for all time.
@@Jerome616 That's because Gavin is a false teacher whose only goal, as most protestant pastors sadly, is to fight against the Catholic Church, no matter what it takes, even if that means betraying God in the process or just blatantly rejecting truth.
@@Jerome616 The worst part of it is that its a mistrust that isn't entirely misplaced. There were and are abuses and corruptions in the church that would make people want to distrust it and rely on their own inclinations and understandings. Our conduct has a very real part to play in whether or not they respond to the church.
I keep thinking of Rehoboam, Solomon's son. If he had just listened to his wise advisors and relented on the harsh conditions he put the people under then 10 whole tribes of Israel might not have broken off, formed their own kingdom and ultimately end up destroyed and scattered. That decision had devastating consequences for everyone involved and led to a whole lot of division and evil.
But just like the reality of the divided kingdom didn't mean god ripped his promise from the Tribe of Judah and the line of David, the bad things that happen in the church don't make god rip his promise of protection away from her. So we have to pray they they ultimately see the light and return to mother church and that we also do as well as we can so they have even less of an excuse to stay away.
@@Jerome616 Jesus Christ was there IN PERSON and told them to SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES. Jesus Christ is the Living Word!
In that case, doesn't the same thing apply to quite a lot of Catholics as well? They are so eager to have Protestants coming back to the Catholic in church and refuse to consider the idea that, even though these people live and die as Protestants, they've been saved by Jesus Christ according to His way.
Protestant confusion over the sources of Catholic authority sometimes reminds me of people from civil code countries (most of the non-English speaking world) trying to understand the Common Law system. They are baffled how settled law can derive from constitutions and legislation and regulation and tradition and judicial precedent and established legal ethics and superior court judgements. It's all too messy and confusing for those trained to find everything in a legal code. Sola scriptura, as it were.
Is John 7:53-8:11(Woman caught in Adultery) inspired/Biblical? As a Catholic I can easily say yes. As a Protestant idk how I would agree, as this doesn't appear in original. St Augustine and St Jerome were also aware of this but weren't scandalized.
some clever cookie on the wes huff apologia video (on kjvO) said that he was glad to have modern translations wherefrom he could choose which parts of scripture were "gods word" and which weren't. he then went on to claim that the longer ending of mark and the pericope adulterae were gnostic insertions. prots gonna prot
@MarkStein-v4j you are correct, we don't have Original manuscripts. That doesn't mean these verses in question are supposed to be there. As with long ending of Mark. There are some Christians that don't believe they are Inspired.
@MarkStein-v4j That's false, the earliest manuscripts don't contain either the later ending of Mark or the adultery interpolation.
@MarkStein-v4j "My statement that you can’t claim to be original as we don’t have the originals? "
No Biblical scholar would talk about "originals" because ancient writings don't have originals. There are only early and later manuscripts. Any or all of these gospels could have been pieced together from different parts. The OT is similar for instance the two accounts of creation in Genesis. John's Gospel starts twice as well.
@ji8044 and what if in 20 years we find an early version of the woman at the well story? Sola Scriptura is untenable.
@shamelesspopery
As a Protestant, I've got to say that in my own subjective, non-canonical opinion, this was one of your best videos.
The consensus of the church is a great arguement for establishing the canon of scripture, but.......
is the consensus of the church also used to establish papal infallibility and its dogmas?
The reason I ask is because the consensus of the whole church was not in favor of papal infallibility or a lot of the dogmas. If it was, then we wouldn't still have a schism or even many Protestants left today.
The second question I have is why would the consensus of the church not be enough to establish papal infallibility or the dogmas if it was good enough to establish God's divine Holy Word?
This particular issue is a huge barrier for me becoming Catholic.
Also, I would like to highly recommend you offering a free PDf download of all your screenshots to e-mail subscribers so we can reflect upon them and use them as personal references for your videos.
Screenshotting them all is getting real tedious, but it's still worth it in order to properly digest your meaty videos!
sorry, I was wrong. We can go from bottom up or top down. Papal Infallibility would be from top down
@kyrptonite1825 Thank you for your reply.
I do understand how it can go either way.
But in the instance of discerning the very Words of God, Joe is saying that a consensus of the church was enough.
But when it came to finally declaring papal infallibility as a dogma, there were a lot of catholics that even protested such a decision, and yet the general consensus of the church somehow didn't matter.
This seems inconsistent and confusing, considering how Joe kept emphasizing how important a general consensus of the Church was in determining the Holy Scriptures.
@wonderingpilgrim I wonder what would actually constitute universal consesus
That Luther quote was wild. I don't know how people can think that he had good intentions when his ego drips from his writing. Its, frankly, disgusting.
He even admitted that he once contemplated throwing the book of James on the stove to burn it because it goes against sola fide.
@Harrison_SamsonCertified It blows my mind that people think he is some great theologian. Really explains Protestantism.
Joe, you should do a video to respond to Wesley Huff on Joe Rogan’s Podcast!
I would ask Gavin, if God was guiding the church organically in the way he views it in order to arrive at the proper canon, why does he then think God bailed afterwards and let people interpret those books in thousands of different ways?
What does he think God was doing? What purpose would God guide us only to the canon and not through the canon?
He doesn't believe in any future or lasting infallibility, which is just the same protection of God, yet he believes in this temporary protection even though that temporary protection is utterly meaningless without lasting protection.
That doesn't sound like God to me. That just isn't fitting. To me, it makes far more sense that he guided the church to the canon, and he continues to guide the church through the canon. He did not guide the church to the canon just so we can have a perfect book displayed on our book cases, but derive the entirely wrong meaning from it everytime we touch it.
this is a good question, but it assumes that Roman Catholics agree on everything in the Bible which they definitely do not. Look at any discussion today surrounding the current bishop of Rome. He interprets the Bible and church teachings one way, lots of others think that's wrong. So the same question goes back to you: why did God "bail" on the Roman Catholic church and let everyone have a thousand different interpretations of scripture/tradition?
@mikekukovec4386 the premise is incorrect. We don't actually disagree on anything that has been authoritatively defined by the church. If random laity disagree with a defined matter, it just makes them in error. Nothing says people can't be in error, but we can know that they are objectively in error because we have the standard.
Outside of defined matters, we can agree, disagree and utilize that disagreement to come to further conclusions.
Francis has not undone nor altered any interpretation on defined matters. We can disagree with him on managerial, political and all kinds of other things, but he hasn't changed any interpretation or alrered any defined matter so your premise is just incorrect.
If anything, Francis further proves the protection of God on faith and morals in his church because if any pope ever would walk back church teaching and destroy the argument of the Catholic church, it would have been Francis. If anyone were to change an interpretation to submit to the world, to ordain women or bless same sex unions, it would have been Francis. Even he can't do it though, and that itself is a work of God.
@@mikekukovec4386church authority is for alleviating and resolving disputes that cause issues in the church.
We can disagree on certain things without causing theological or heretical error... And if the church authority thinks a dispute is leading to error, she steps in and resolves the dispute with dogmatic teaching.
I'm free to think the tree of life is an almond tree while everyone else thinks it's a fig tree because at the end of the day, it has absolutely no bearing on anything of theological value.
@@gainsofglory6414 if I ask ten different priests what they think "No Salvation Outside the Church" means, I'm going to get 10 different answers. So why did God bail on them and let people interpret that doctrine so many different ways?
if I ask ten different Roman Catholics what they think about the death penalty, I'm going to get ten different answers. So why did God bail on them and let people interpret that idea so many different ways?
you're using one standard for protestants and then moving the goalposts for roman catholics. You say "protestants interpret the Bible all different ways", but then when I point out that roman catholics do to, you say "well, they don't disagree about infallibly defined things". Trust me, roman catholics disagree all over the place about how to interpret infallible dogmas. According to you, that means God bailed on the church because obviously God can't be guiding people if they disagree.
@mukekukovec4386 We do agree on everything, except for small cases where we aren’t needed to agree on everything. If they disagree with the Magisterium, then they simply aren’t in communion with the Catholic Church. You are simply wrong here.
Joe, if you could, can you please provide more detailed citations in your video descriptions so we can easily look your citations up? Thanks!
Thanks Joe. You can’t avoid the reality of the early church. New convert as of Easter 2024. Glad I left the convoluted and confusing Protestant world.
Hold on, isn't Ortlund a baptist? His idea of "we can trust that God guided the Church without it being in an infallible mechanism" doesn't really seem to jive well at all with Calvinistic ideas like irresistible grace.
Loved the presentation. So I could argue from Matthew 16 and Matthew 18, along with John 16 for both the authority of the Church and the work of the Holy Spirit to lead the apostles and their followers into truth resulting in the veracity of Acts, the epistles and Revelation. But to get from there to the Canon, I have to have the promise of the Holy Spirit to a.) protect the Church from error in deciding which books were inspired (Matthew 16), and b.) that he would lead them into all truth both to the necessity of a New Testament collection of books for the teaching of the Church, and secondly, that He would also lead them in the selection of those books that were in use in the various churches as to which specific books should be included or excluded in the collection that would be considered as divinely inspired scripture. I also need to be convinced that it is solely the authority of the Church to make the pronouncement of the doctrinal or dogmatic truth of the Canon, while the place I look for such authority is within the text of the very books that are being promoted as the Canon for that authority. I do believe, but I can see where some might argue that the method is circular. Similarly, you alluded to the consistent belief within the Church (synodality). In today's Church, I don't think that is a valid test because there is evidence of so much disunity in a common belief on many core teachings of the Church throughout its history - i.e. contraception, abortion, ordination of women, same sex marriage, etc., to name just a few. Just using the US Church as an example, a majority of those who identify as Catholics would take stands contrary to the long held positions of the Church. Why would I want them having a vote on what the Church should teach on those issues today?
Canon lists were diverse for centuries. Council of Rome differed from Athanasius, Cyril excludes Book of Revelation- Athanasius accepts it, Pope Gregory writes that 1 Maccabees is noncanonical a century after Council of Carthage includes it as canon...
The process was quite fallible even as the men involved were. The fact that it was quided by an infallible God doesn't ensure a completely infallible process. See the history of Old Testament Israel. Respect.
This isn’t a critique, I just want to point out that it’s kind of amazing that this episode, which had a lot of great thoughts and arguments, didn’t once mention the Vulgate commissioned by the pope and translated by a doctor of the church. I don’t think it was necessary to bring it up, but I think it would’ve been helpful and worth talking about. If the pope commissions an official Bible to be promulgated, I’d argue that’s a pretty important thing to note. If I was illiterate on church history, I might walk away from this video with the idea that there was a grassroots movement in Christianity to formalize the cannon, and everybody just sort of came to the same conclusion on their own, and eventually the bishops defended it. This is clearly not the case. But anyways, I don’t think Joe did anything wrong in this episode, and he brought up a ton of great points.
Jerome's agenda was truth. He came to accept the Deuterocanon and quoted from them. His Vulgate is warmer and more human than the rather flat "committee" bibles.
@@HAL9000-su1mz I learned the Vatican re-translated and updated the Vulgate, but doesn't want this new version to be sold in other languages, since there are local, approved Bibles in the vernacular. But I'd LOVE to get a copy of the new Vulgate in English. Oh well.
@@MikePasqqsaPekiM Never heard that. I would be delighted with a complete version of the 1941-1969 Confraternity Bible. They USCCB killed it in favor of the horrid NAB. That did not age well.
@@MikePasqqsaPekiM This is called the Nova Vulgata.
It is a latin translation, made in the 1970s, with 2 goals :
- have a latin translation made with modern critical appreciation of sources
- using a more "classical latin" than Jerome's
The idea is to have an "common reference latin text" for the Liturgy and from which to quote in official texts of the Church.
It is not an "official" Bible in the sense that would be the official, canonical text to use in the whole Church. It is not even the mandatory source text for liturgical vernacular translations.
Bible translations always have to underlying difficulties :
- what is the "source" text you are translating
- how do you make choices when some wordings are typical of a language, but hard to translate in another langage.
So it is a modern translation of the Bible, done in the same way as any other scientific translations are made. Having an English translation of the Nova Vulgata would be similar to having an English translation of the French Liturgical translation (the most recent "official" translation in French, for use in the liturgy). I can understand you'd LOVE to have this kind of thing, but its use would actually be quite limited : it is not very useful for Bible studies, and as a translation it doesn't have a "greater authority". Its aim is just to be a common reference for day-to-day use, not for doctrinal dispute.
1. Scripture is of a supernatural object
2. This means that Scripture’s Inspiration must be revealed
3. This revelation must be inside of Scripture, if sola scriptura is true
4. It is not
5. Not all revelation is found inside Scripture. And therefore, sola scriptura is wrong.
It doesn’t even make logical sense, without even getting to the issue of the canon.
The very notion of the “New Testament” as a collection of Christian texts containing the Word of God is a tradition of the Church.
Great video Joe!
It's amazing that a branch of Christianity that claims to care so much about 'The Bible,' cares so little about the nature and process of the Canon of Scripture.
I am a Protestant who supports Capturing Christianity financially. This video was very helpful for me! I thought you presented the issues very clearly and it was easy for me to follow. I think your response to Gavin's objection about the church not having a top-down infallible authority for the books in the NT makes a lot of sense.
One thing that struck me as odd was saying we only know that the Gospels have apostolic authority is because church tradition associates individuals with apostolic authority. But I've always thought exactly the reverse; even if we did not know the names of the authors, the Gospels are full of content that establish their apostolic ties, like containing eyewitness details that only an apostle could know. So you might not be able to say John in particular wrote the Gospel of John without church tradition, but you can affirm the Gospel is apostolic regardless. Perhaps you might say that approach would only make the Gospels trustworthy, not inspired. But I do think that's significant; the main reason why you want to know which books are inspired is precisely *because* inspiration entails trustworthiness. Like, we don't just want to know the canon list for funsies, we want to know it because we want to say "that's our Scriptures that we can use for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". I think you kinda have to go this initial trustworthiness route too. You can't say the early church got it right because Jesus told us the Holy Spirit would guide us in all truth, because that's a saying in the Gospel of John, and you need the Gospel of John to have a reliable statement from Jesus there for the church to get it right.
IF that's correct, I don't think the orthodoxy criterion can be defeated just by saying "well how do you know what's orthodox"? If you can establish the Gospels, Acts, and most of the letters of Paul as trustworthy, you've got a body of literature that you can say is "orthodox". I still don't think the orthodox criterion is going to carry the Protestant here; just because Hebrews aligns with orthodoxy doesn't automatically mean it gets in, because there are other books that align with orthodoxy that didn't get in. But I don't think it's so easily brushed aside.
The issue of the NT canon was my introduction to Christian apologetics, and although I've come to the conclusion that the NT canon in front of me is inspired, I want to honor the Lord with my mind and justify my thinking. Videos like these help me a lot. Thank you for your contribution!
Why would an Inspired New Testament writing have to be Apostolic in the first place? What constitutes Apostolic? Is the didache Apostolic? Is Luke Apostolic? Is 1 Clement Apostolic? How do we know that God didn’t create more Apostles? How do we know that revelation ended? What about traditions that are historically accurate but found in works that aren’t Inspired? What if someone just makes up traditions? Are you referring to higher textual criticism? Well, what about all the higher criticism against the Bible? There are differing opinions and the data is always changing. Furthermore, what about parts of Books? For example, the woman caught in adultery, or 1 John 5:7-8, or the longer ending of Mark, or the miraculous catch of fish in John 21, or Luke 22:17-2?
2. And then once you get the Gospels, you are going to Paul. Most of his works are Scriptural. Maybe you can include Acts and the Gospels. Is this really enough to conclude what is Orthodoxy? I don’t really think so. There are some things outside of Paul’s Letters and Acts and the Gospels that are settled by other Books. And why would something being Orthodox or even Orthodox and claiming to be Scripture, part of the Bible? This still does not give us Hebrews as Scripture or not. Neither does it do it for 2 Peter. Neither does it do it for Revelation. Neither for 1 and 2 John. Neither for 1 Clement. Neither for the Shepard of Hermas. Etc.
3. Plus, what if the Gospels are compilations of traditions, written or even edited by later authors? What if in reality the truth was gnosticism but the texts were perverted? That’s why Apostolic continuity is important.
@@kyrptonite1825 How does one know what is orthodox and not, based on the reading of the bible alone?
Who would Gavin Ortlund invite to his Church, to preach on any of the topics below in the first 1000 years that adhered to his beliefs, believing that he held the "Orthodox" view?
- a symbolic only Lord's Supper (the bread and wine do NOT transform into the resurrected body and blood of Christ)
- rejection of the sacrifice of the Mass?
- a symbolic only baptism (not regenerative)?
- baptism of infants delayed to the age of reason?
- salvation by faith alone?
- sola scriptura?
- rejection of intercessory prayer
When he cites early Christians, he's citing Catholics, many times Catholic priests and bishops, but also theologians.
Interesting, the Church didn't debate the topics above in the first 1000 years. There was no debate as to what was Orthodox or not. All held to the Catholic teaching.
Gavin is like Jordan Peterson he can't commit too the truth even with all the evidence in the world in front of him
Excellent observation.
The result of a darkened intellect
This baffles me about Dr Ortland. Smart man, deeply educated, loves God, but rejects truth. Even blatantly obvious truth he just rejects.
its a nineveh for both of them They are plugging the ears and sleeping below deck. But we all have our ninevehs
Petersen has his hang ups but if he converts u will know it to be genuine. God uses his very one to enact his will which we see with someone like Petersen who helps draw people at the least to considering Christianity or adopting the moral law
Catholic here. I'm quite confused. If the antilegomena books were disputed, how come it is the sensus fidei to include them in the final canon?
How much unanimity is required for a teaching/doctrine to be considered "sensus fidei"?
This exactly what the Council of Trent claims.
The Bible was received from the 4th century, "Old Vulgate" and did not restrict it to only these books but at least these books
Nice sweater btw
Another point is that even though the early councils that declared the canon of scripture were local, the church and the Pope did not refute them or declare them heretical - hence again we have confirmation, albeit by 'silent' consensus of the whole Church, that the declaration of the canon was in fact truthful.
Bottom line is Authority. regardless of what are the categories that determines the canonicity of a book/writings to be included in the bible. All boils down to the question is to what is the authority of the person/institution that decide what are the categories that determine the canonicity of the bible. Just like any country or state lawmakers create laws. In to the question why lawmakers have the authority to create laws. Because they are mandated by the people to do so. Same with christianity the question is who decided what are the rules of canonicity and to who's authority He can declare those rules are valid?
This is one of those Shameless Popery episodes where Joe really cooks
I also want to point out Suan’s point in his recent responses to Gavin and that is that an ecumenical council led to canon lists. That is after the council of Nicea Christians knew enough of what the orthodoxy of faith was to start proposing books that could be part of the canon. So its was a bottom up and top down process.
Thank you for making this response. I saw Gavin ortlund's response and I thought it was quite laughable.
Hahahaha ... the "Darth Vader" argument ... this is brilliant. LOL
Joe, have you seen Suan Sonna's presentation on this?
Joe what Bible translation and publication of it do you recommend for devotional and prayerful reading?
Maybe I have a simplified understanding of infallibility. But I understand it as simply the assurance from Christ that, when it comes down to it, the Holy Spirit will not let the Church get essential doctrine wrong. That said, there are a lot of things we can debate and disagree on. Occasionally, some of those disagreements reach a fever pitch in which souls are at stake such that the church sees need to settle the matter. And when she does so, the Holy Spirit will not let her get it wrong.
RC bless sodomy and send blasphemy on HG saying He has compound proceeding
Spend time in silence in Christ's presence. Priceless.
Here’s my issue with Calvinists like Dr. Ortlund when they address this topic:
1. Dr. Orlund, in agreement with John Calvin, believes that God does not merely allow that which comes to pass, but in His sovereignty, DECREES or ORDAINS all it comes to pass.
2. Dr. Ortlund himself has written books, in which he believes everything he has said is true.
3. If Dr. Ortlund believes that what he wrote is both true, and that it came to pass, and that all things that come to pass are ordained by God, what meaningful distinction does he make between his own true and sovereignly ordained writing, and say, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians? Why is Paul’s letter infallible, and not Dr. Ortlund’s book, or James White’s book, as he believes that they are true, and also that all things that come to pass, including their writing, to be ordained by God?
Nice perspective. He is trying to write scripture. His time is running and he is in a corner of his own making.
I differ slightly from Joe on this matter. The Church's top hierarchy played a significant role in the Bible's canonization. For instance, it was only after the Council of Nicaea that various lists (canons) of biblical books emerged. This is because the council, by establishing orthodox doctrines on Christ, became a benchmark of orthodoxy in the canonization process. Suan Sonna's response to Gavin highlights this well.
Contributions came from both bottom-up and top-down approaches.
The new Noah? What a narcissist Luther was. I’ve noticed this trait among protestants-especially the tongue-babbling “spirit-filled” ones.
Not saying I disagree with you, but have you considered that Roman Catholic dogma and common ways of speaking is also very narcissistic? A few examples: Rome is the one true church, no one else. Rome has the fullness of the faith, everyone else is only getting bits and pieces. Telling protestants to "come home to Rome" as if their Protestant church can't be their home.
Then we have the "infallibly" defined dogmas: "we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." But yeah, Luther is the one with the narcissism problem.
"No one, howsoever much almsgiving he has done, even if he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church". We'll still call Protestants our brothers, but they can't be saved unless they become Catholic.
@mikekulovec4386 Rome has history to back it up
@@kyrptonite1825 Lutheranism has history to back itself up as correct on doctrine. You can say that for any tradition you want.
@mikekukovec4386 No, you cannot. Lutheranism is named after Martin Luther. The Catholic Church has a visible link back to the Apostles starting with the Apostolic Fathers. Lutheranism does not. And as Saint Athanasius says, a group that names itself after its founder, instead of Christ, is likely a h3r3sy.
@mikukovec4386 No, you can’t. Rome can be visibly linked back to the Apostles starting with the Apostolic Fathers. Can you do this with Lutheranism? Please show me!
I find it amazingly hypocritical when I see a loud "conservative" out there when tslking "politics", legislation, Law etc yet when it comes to religious topics the same individual is more often than not a WOKE fool (aka "protestant").
They apply traditional Christian values to some things, yet at the same time they trump Gods Word and Authority when it doesn't comply to their feelings and opinions.
An absolutely amazing level of hypocrisy.
It feels like when people are looking for an "infallible operation" they're looking for something to happen without explanation. In other words, they present a false dichotomy between infallibility and scripture/logical argumentation.
It's a loaded question with only two options: If something is declared logically, it is not infallible. If something is declared infallibly it is illogical.
I really don't see it stressed enough in this argument how you don't need an infallible canon if you have the indefectible Church. *BUT* as a Protestant for Sola scriptura you NEED an Infallible Canon.
We don't have the same authority structure (living vs static) so we did not have to meet the same standards/requirements protestants are held to intrinsically once they declare the static authority of scripture alone is Infallible
Can't wait to check this out
You need to do a video on the LXX being superior to Masoretic text.
Good enough for Jesus, good enough for the Bereans, good enough for me.
This was a great video Joe!
I wonder if Protestants would appeal to God guiding the Church in a fallible way in the same way that Catholics think that ordinary magisterium documents are guided in non infallible ways. We Catholics think that the ordinary magisterium of the Church has to be accepted in a similar way that the 70 being sent out by Christ had to be accepted, "he who hears you, hears me" (Luke 10), however, because the 70 were not infallible, Jesus was giving binding authority to Christian witnesses who could err. Likewise, perhaps a Protestant could say that the Church's consensus (whichever way we circumscribe who is a part of the Church) is binding, but Christians who have a serious problem with Hebrews or 2nd Peter, or whatever, are allowed to dissent on their scriptural status. I think that if something is known fallibly, and not obvious like 2+2=4 (the canon is not self evident or obvious!), then there should be room for dissent because otherwise something that is not intrinsically certainly known through the historical critical method or through appeal to divine authority cannot be immune from being brought into question at all.
Now of course, this way of thinking about the canon is not the practice of protestants today, and itbalso makes the doctrine of the table of contents NOT an object of faith to be believed with divine assent, which begs the question of whether the content of the books that are not believed to be scripture with divine assent can be given the divine assent of faith, but it is a way to preserve sola scriptura.
I think making a positive case for the sensus fidelium from scripture (like Ephesians 4:1-16) and from an analysis of the Church fathers using a historical critical method to argue that the apostles probably believed the sensus fidelium may be a good way to reach this kind of Christian.
Another way is to show that Jesus and St. Paul's exhortation to Christian unity would be impossible if one could dissent privately from the whole Church because there is no way to bind the conscience of the Christian to accept either the dissenting view or the consensus view, so I think it's better to say that God infallible guides the while Church (again, whatever you take the Church to be).
I think the smart move for a Protestant is to deny sola scriptura and be something like an Anglican who seeks to hold to the sensus fidelium as a rule of faith but not Papal infallibility.
Also I am NOT on the Gavin Ortlund hate train.
Surely it's been pointed out before, but I haven't seen it if it has. I keep waiting for someone to mention that having a fallible list of infallible X (books, ex cathedra statements, etc.) only becomes a problem if one insists such a static list is the sole rule of authority. Yes, the canon wasn't *infallibly* defined until Trent, and that wasn't a problem because Scripture wasn't held forth as the only metric by which everything must be judged. Likewise, there may be some fuzzy edges to current magisterial teaching, but it's not a problem because we're not precluding the possibility of it being further clarified by the Church.
I have heard Jimmy Akin say this in a debate setting before. I think it was with the other paul.
@1984SheepDog I'm glad it's out there in the discussion, but I wonder why it isn't emphasized more. It's frustrating to see so much effort go into defending against an argument that should only have force against the other side of the debate. It's like atheists trying to use fine tuning against theists. That particular argument only cuts against one side of the discussion, so we should simply point that out rather than letting them get away with trying to pin it on us.
Wow! You went there! The burning of the bosom Bible canon! You can see where LDS is a natural outgrowth of the Protestantism of Smith's day.
LDS, JW's, SDA's, and Protestants all hold the same: the Church which God calls the Pillar of truth, the Bulwark of Truth, Where the manifold wisdom of God is made known, that Jesus PROMISED to lead to ALL TRUTH ... somehow errored and errored universally early on and didn't know it. All these groups have the same belief in a great apostasy, corruption. And all these groups believe someone 1500-2000 years later was needed to set the record straight. They all make Jesus out to be undependable and a liar. He failed and failed miserably to lead his Church, of which he is the head and promised to never leave it, to ALL TRUTH. (yet somehow this corrupted Church got the New Testament canon right, 27 writings, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings, all the while they were in the middle of a great corruption)
The other option is to not accept that there's a canon at all. Many (likely all) christians pick and choose the books that they give more weight and authority including extra biblical writings or oral teachings.
I do not believe the case of the canon of Scripture is a case of the people of God's infallibility. Most people at the time the matter was being discussed were illiterate and had scarce access to the whole Bible. It's much more likely that the bishops talked this out among themselves and the consensus emerged from the middle down, the episcopate was in the position to make the judgement (not necessarily alwats in solemn instances).
Yes I agree catholics over focus on infallibility when talking about many issues, the crux is who has the authority to reject authoritative yet noninfallible teachings. Protties say everyone, catholics say only theologians, and even then it must be on an exceptional basis, after having tried and failed to find a hermeneutic of continuity.
As far as I understand, the infallibility of the whole people of God is only recognized as used for the canonization of saints before the process included an investigation. It's useless, earnest unanimity is impossible to determine in the distant past.
Looks like We’d Huff has stepped into the ring of apologetics about the canon. This will be interesting