Hey, @thecatechumen, Great seeing you working with Suan on this. I know you've made some arguments against _Sola Scriptura,_ yourself. I'm wondering: Do they overlap with the "Non-Functioning Epistemic Paradigm" argument I described in another thread/post under this same video? Or are they distinct?
@@matthewoburke7202: Wellllll..... to be perfectly fair, the Scriptures definitely show us believers being baptized; and it _doesn't_ absolutely definitively show us any children who're too young to profess faith in any sense being baptized. So the baptism of believers is not an accretion; but the premise that infants who can't meaningfully profess their belief _might be._ Of course, I don't think it _is._ I have good reason to think otherwise: The early Christians' primary debate about baptism was: "If my baby is in danger of death, am I _required_ to wait until the 8th day after birth to baptize them? Or can I baptize them as soon as they're born?" Anyone who contemplates for a moment that _this_ was the "hot debate on baptism" will immediately see that infant baptism was the norm. And I understand that by "believer's baptism" you mean _the whole Zwinglian doctrine of believer's baptism,_ which carries more implications than the mere historical fact of the baptisms of adults who have come to believe. So, I agree with you. But, I can see how some of the Baptists I grew up with would say, "Hey, now, baptizing people who believe is obviously _not_ an accretion, but is apostolic!" ...and they'd be right, as far as that narrow point goes.
What is missing at 01:12:00 is that because of the medieval church, slavery have been abolished in most of Europe by 1500. No other great region on earth have been free of slavery. It was necessary that Christianity begins to quite popular before making a official condemnation, if not what would occurs is a rejection of the faith before the rejection of slavery. The slave trade begins with a very weak papal authority and many Europeans kings self-declaring them-selves popes. I've put actual data about the chronology between Christianity and slavery on youtube.
Fwiw the late atheist anthropologist David Graeber also acknowledged that the church (predominantly the Catholic Church I believe) caused the end of slavery in the West. [Of course all praise and honour to God]. This is in his book 5,000 years of Debt.
This was awesome, great work Suan. Your videos and arguments always hit the nail on the head. I love how you're willing to take on head first the dirty and dark parts of Christianity (slavery for ex.). Thanks for all the great work you do man, keep it up
Suan, your concept of ecclesial hermeneutics is very similar, yet so different, than the concept used in Literary Theory: interpretative communities by Stanley Fish. I had used the previous concept to understand the different interpretative communities that exist in interpreting the Bible. I like your definition better as it focuses on the authority to interpret, far beyond the sharing the interpretive tools or framework. Now, I would characterize protestant groups (Calvinist, Armenians, etc.) as interpretative communities, while the Catholic Church as doing ecclesial hermeneutics. Your argument that you need an authority to overturn what it not directed in the Bible that requires apostolic authority is on point. Dr. Douglass Beaumont makes a similar argument about monogamy. Since polygamy is not directly forbidden in the Bible, one needs an authority outside of the Bible with equally apostolic mandate to have it. In fact, I would not be surprised if more protestant groups start endorsing polygamy as currently, they can only appeal to tradition. Monogamy in Protestantism is by tradition, not by biblical mandate. Take care, Sincerely, MBU
Terrific video! Could you explain the possible understandings of the Bible being either a living or non-living authority? What does Hebrews 4:12 mean that says “the word of God is living and active…?” Around the 48-49:00 mark, you said that the Bible is living and almost saying don’t use it to defend slavery. But then Patheos (sp?) and other early Christians said it’s dead and needs a living authority. In confused by these points in light of the passage in Hebrews.Which is it? Can you help clarify?
@Intellectual Catholicism: Hey, Suan! I've been hoping to see you, or someone, flesh out the "Sola Scriptura is a (Non-Functioning) Epistemic Paradigm" argument I've been mucking about with. This is the argument wherein _Sola Scriptura_ is shown to be used by Protestants as an "epistemology of faith" rather than a "rule of faith," and then shown to be non-functioning in that role. (I just started listening to this video, so I have no idea whether that's where you're going with these new arguments. I guess I'll find out, as I listen....) The high-level structure of "epistemology of faith" argument is: - There is a difference between calling something a "rule of faith" and calling something an "epistemology of faith"; - A "rule of faith" can be defined in various ways; but _none_ of them fully-and-accurately describe how Protestants are _in practice_ using _Sola Scriptura,_ ...so, _Sola Scriptura_ is not, after all, being used as a "rule of faith"; - An "epistemology of faith" just means a set of _means_ (practices) by which a person may come to know the _required content_ of the Christian religion, and these means/practices are: (a.) Divinely-instituted, divinely-intended, or divinely-approved, (b.) Able, in principle, through correct usage, to distinguish essential doctrines (requiring us to eject dissenters as heretics) from non-essential matters of opinion/speculation (over which believers ought not separate from one another), (c.) Able, in principle, through correct usage, to provide teachers in the Church (who will be judged more strictly), to teach the doctrines of the Christian religion and _know,_ with high-and-well-founded confidence, that they are teaching divine truth and not human speculations; and, (d.) Able, in principle, through correct usage, to allow the Matthew 18 "church discipline process" to escape being nonsensical-or-toothless when Christians accuse one another of heresy. - The preceding item more-fully describes how _Sola Scriptura_ is actually used by Protestants, so they're actually trying to use it as an "epistemology of faith"; - As an "epistemology of faith," _Sola Scriptura_ must fulfill items (a.) through (d.), above; - As an "epistemology of faith," _Sola Scriptura_ fails, not only in practice, but in principle (such that no improved circumstances or more-careful usage could rescue it); - The only way to rescue _Sola Scriptura_ from these failures -- that is, to transform it into a more-fully-functioning "epistemology of faith" -- is by relying on implicit premises either invented from whole cloth, or else derived from Catholic authority (!), to prop it up; but, - "Patching Up" the non-functional epistemic paradigm of _Sola Scriptura_ with unacknowledged premises invented from whole-cloth without Scriptural warrant violates Sola _Scriptura_ itself, - "Patching Up" the non-functional epistemic paradigm of _Sola Scriptura_ with unacknowledged borrowings from Catholic authority is _precisely_ how Protestants manage to give _Sola Scriptura_ the illusion of functionality; and, - The Catholic Epistemic Paradigm (CEP) for coming to know the content of the Christian religion (Magisterium and Tradition, with Scripture being the most-important expression of Tradition) succeeds as an "epistemology of faith" in precisely the places where _Sola Scriptura_ fails, thus demonstrating the superiority of the CEP. - Therefore, it makes no sense for a Christian to hold to _Sola Scriptura,_ or to join any church-group which holds it; and it makes far more sense for them to hold the Catholic Epistemic Paradigm, and join the Catholic Church. If the argument succeeds, then _Sola Scriptura_ is shown to be inferior to the CEP. That much is obvious. Furthermore, if the argument succeeds, it shows that _Sola Scriptura_ makes the content of the Christian religion _unknowable_ for persons after some point in history. After that point (which I don't identify) we can only guess at the content of the Christian religion by "reconstructing" its original content from underdetermined data. This reduces _all_ modern Christians to speculative historians: No one is obeying Jesus; everyone is obeying a low-probability guess about what Jesus _might_ have intended. So, the alternative to the CEP is _not_ conservative Protestantism. The only real (logically-principled) alternative is liberal Protestant skepticism. Finally, if the argument succeeds, then it also proves one more thing. It proves that _Sola Scriptura_ is fundamentally _wrongheaded,_ and would _never_ have been proposed as a means for knowing the content of the Christian religion by an _omniscient_ God, or by a God who "knew men, and what was in the hearts of men." Therefore, either Jesus is not God, or Jesus did not propose _Sola Scriptura._ But, Jesus rose from the grave; therefore, Jesus is God. So, Jesus did not propose _Sola Scriptura._ ... Thoughts? Especially about items (a.) through (d.)?
I am Protestant and I think this is a super interesting argument. Thanks for taking the time to lay this out. I do have a question. Could you explain in more detail why sola Scriptura as an “epistemology of faith” fails points a)-d) in principle?
@@Seminarystudent99: Thanks for your reply. I come from a Protestant background, and took four years investigating these things before ultimately becoming a Catholic in 2010. On item (a.), divine institution: A Catholic or Orthodox Christian could logically (within the boundaries of his own epistemology-of-faith) claim that Jesus instituted an authoritative Magisterium of bishops united as a single Church, whose rulings on disputed matters created precedents clarifying the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. This tradition could be documented in Scripture, or merely among the Fathers (with nothing in Scripture contradicting it) and that would suffice because the Catholic epistemic paradigm allows for reliable and authoritative transmission of the Apostolic Deposit through a broader range of delivery-media. (Liturgical traditions are a particularly important witness, for example.) But as a practical matter, a Sola Scriptura-holding Protestant needs to find evidence of Sola Scriptura being instituted in the Scriptures themselves. No such passage exists. The closest equivalent is Paul's commendation of studying the Old Testament writings to Timothy. But, while Paul describes the Septuagint scrolls Timothy knew since childhood as useful for reproof and correction, sufficient to complete a man of God's preparedness for righteous deeds, Paul nowhere suggests (and Peter elsewhere denies) that anyone could reliably reconstruct all the basic doctrines of Christianity unambiguously in this way! Paul says only that a "man of God" -- someone like Timothy who already knows all the doctrines because he learned them from Paul -- can have his already-robust "equipping" completed through this Old Testament study. Aaaand, that's about it. The verse commending the Bereans is even less apropos. So, while Matthew 16 and Matthew 18, alongside other passages indicating divine assistance in judicial rulings, grant the Catholic epistemology-of-faith a plausible Dominical origin, there seems no comparable declaration from Jesus about the New Testament books constituting a special divinely protected resource. He doesn't tell us which books will make it up. He doesn't command it to be written. He gives no guidelines for distinguishing which orthodox writings should be especially revered, versus ones treated as private devotional works. When the Sadducees -- who only regard the Pentateuch as holy writ, ignoring the Prophets and the other Writings -- debate Him, He misses this perfect opportunity to school them that their canon is too small, and confines Himself to arguing from the five books they _do_ use. It's as if the matter of canonicity is too trivial for Him to bother with. That's hard to explain, on the view that He intends to institute a "Read Your Bible and figure out which church to join" policy. That's a partial explanation of (a.), although more could be said. I'll address (b.), (c.), and (d.) separately. NOTE: None of the above should be construed as a diss towards Holy Scripture! The Bible is all that Vatican II claims. But I hold it can only be used with perfect safety by the "man of God" who already knows the fundamentals of the faith quite well, as Paul said to Timothy. The "ignorant and unstable," as Peter puts it, tend to twist what they read to their own destruction, without knowing it. (They are ignorant that they are ignorant. Think of the silly conclusions derived by, say, the Watchtower Society on certain points!)
@@Seminarystudent99 : Regarding item (b.): I think the burden here is on the Protestant. Judicial rulings by bishops could certainly be issued which distinguish whether uniformity of belief is required on a particular topic: That's how Catholic or Orthodox epistemology would allow believers to distinguish between dogmas and matters of indifference. But does any verse, anywhere, offer a parallel mechanism for Protestant churches to distinguish between doctrines worth dividing over, and topics where diverse opinions are permissible? I can't think of a verse which establishes a standard for making such distinctions. To be sure, Protestants _do_ draw such distinctions on a regular basis, as a matter of necessity. But they do so in an _ad hoc_ way. They may say, "Oh, if it's about salvation, it's worth dividing over," for example. (Where does the Bible say that? And doesn't that beg the question? If man-bedders "will not inherit the kingdom of God," then isn't sexual ethics _also_ a matter of salvation?) I think we know as a matter of History that Protestants have never located a consistent and principled standard for distinguishing dogmas from matters of indifference. We know this because, in every church-split, the first thing that happens is that teachers disagree, and groups of supporters line up behind them. Next, one group is unable to convince the other. Next, some folk say, "Well, it isn't important enough to split over," to which the other group replies, "Oh yes it is!" ...and they split. Consider also the way that the list of items worth splitting over has changed dramatically from century to century. Luther and Calvin were stridently opposed to artificial contraception. Luther held that anyone holding the wrong views about Holy Communion could not possibly be saved. A century ago, dancing on the Sabbath was a sign of reprobation for Scottish Presbyterians. (You may notice this theme in the film "Chariots of Fire.") And so on. I think this suffices to demonstrate that Sola Scriptura offers no mechanism to distinguish matters of indifference from essentials of the faith.
@@Seminarystudent99: Regarding item (c.): To provide something that a Christian (especially a teacher, or a father of children who's obligated to teach his kids) can confidently teach, an Epistemology of Faith should be able, in principle, through correct usage, to provide high-and-well-founded confidence, that they are teaching divine truth and not human speculations. But what normally happens in the Protestant world is that we teach our kids whatever we've heard or concluded on our own, without benefit of any objective "ruler" we can measure against to double-check our beliefs. You see this in the way we pick a church: "Let's find a nearby church that we like, where they're faithful to Scripture." Sounds great, except, how do _we_ know, in advance, that someone who disagrees with us _isn't_ being faithful to Scripture? Maybe _we_ are the persons that Peter described as "ignorant and unstable" who're "twisting [the words of Paul, and other Scriptures] to [our] own destruction." Now, on some topics, let's freely admit that the Bible is crystal-clear. Did Jesus ever cry? "Jesus wept." Not a lot of gray area there. But just consider the gap between the church of my childhood, which taught "Once Saved Always Saved," and the church of the early Christians, where for several decades, _the_ hot religious debate was about "the doctrine of the second repentance." If that's unfamiliar to you, let me spell it out the situation: This is pre-Nicea. The whole Christian world saw Hebrews 10:26-27 ("If we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries") ...as meaning that serious, willful sins after baptism constituted the willful rejection of God's grace, the "throwing away of the gift of salvation," and thus potentially _damned_ the person who did them. But, there was a qualification on this teaching; namely, that if you _had_ seriously sinned after baptism, you could _repent_ of sin, confess the sin to your _bishop,_ and receive _absolution_ by the authority the bishop had inherited from the Apostles, in John 21:21-23: "And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'" After this absolution, you would be admitted into "the order of the penitent": You would sit/stand in a different part of the worship service, wear sackcloth or some other sign of penance, and you would not be eligible for Holy Communion for some number of months or years until your time of penance (assigned by your bishop) was concluded. All were agreed about that. But then, a debate arose: _How many times_ could the church grant absolution to the same person, for the same sin? Rigorists held that the answer to this question was: "Once, and only once." But pope held that the answer was: "Seventy times seven; that is, a potentially unlimited number of times, provided that the repentance and the intention to _not sin again_ was sincere." The rigorists held this position to be a complete collapse of the Christian call to holiness; they didn't even allow for a _second_ repentance. They thought that, just as baptism is a thing that happens _once,_ and confirmation is a thing that happens _once,_ so, too, is absolution a thing which happens _once._ Thus they rejected the idea of the "second repentance." All of that is by way of elucidating a historical example. With this example in mind, let us ask ourselves: "If _that_ was the topic of debate amongst the _early_ Christians, who had been taught Christianity by the direct apostles of the apostles, who in turn were taught by the apostles, who in turn were taught by Christ... if _that_ is what they debated about, so close to the living memory of the apostles themselves, _how on earth_ can we plausibly hold that the Bible teaches Once Saved Always Saved? Clearly, if its original readers had thought that, no debate about 'second repentance' would have ever emerged! And yet...I was raised in a church which thought OSAS was _obviously_ correct (and of course they had their favorite verses to back up the claim). Clearly, _someone_ is in the wrong, and yet, is utterly oblivious to that fact. They are ignorant, but don't know they are ignorant. They have twisted the Scriptures, but don't know they've twisted them." Now, the person who really viscerally confronts this should _immediately_ be concerned if he's teaching the faith to his children, or to a Sunday School class, or a whole local congregation. He certainly means well; but, how does he know he's not, well...a Rigorist Heretic? (Or a Lax-ist Heretic?) And yet, "in the church, some are called to be ...teachers...." But, "not everyone should presume to teach, because teachers will be held accountable more strictly." And, of course, fathers should teach their kids. They can't "bow out" from that. The only sensible way to react to this situation is, "Please God, give us a way to _know_ we're getting it right, so that we can avoid teaching error!" But that should lead us to the question: "Well...wouldn't He have anticipated this need, and given us a way-of-knowing (an epistemology) sufficient to the task?" The debate over the doctrine of the second repentance, and the clash between the second-century disputants about second repentance and the _wildly different_ teaching of the church of my childhood, means that _it's just not enough_ to wade in with a handful of your favorite Bible verses and say, "On the basis of my interpretation of these passages, I am _personally_ convinced that my view is correct, and I have no moral qualms about teaching it from a pulpit, or at the breakfast table." I'm sure the teachers in my Baptist Sunday School thought they were doing rightly. I don't hold them blameworthy. And _yet..._ isn't _salvation_ an important topic to get right? (This is _not_ a topic about which Christians can afford to be "indifferent.") But, let us suppose that the Church had (as Matthew 18 teaches) a _judicial authority_ which can issue rulings and have those rulings ratified by "Heaven," because "Heaven" had already made those binding decisions from eternity past, and was _issuing_ those rulings _through_ the Body of Christ? Well, in that case, all the disputants who're calling one another heretics can "take it to the Church" (Matthew 18:17) and have the matter resolved with certainty. And the judicial record of that case's resolution would constitute ...well, _not_ a new revelation, but merely a clarification of the actual correct meaning of what Christ already revealed, through the apostles. And anyone who wishes has recourse to that "case history" to help himself "color inside the lines" whenever he teaches others. _That_ appears to be a working epistemology.
I'm looking forward to listening to this video. The question that's been on my mind lately is this: at what precise moment in history did Sola Scriptura manifest? For instance, it couldn't have been legitimate at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 because we'd all have to be circumcised.
Except Jesus didn't tell them to circumcise from the start. It was Jews trying to add on Jewish customs to Christianity. The council just refuted what was already known.
I would love to see Gavin address this. I generally hold to an Anglican view myself (prima scriptura), but I will be honest. The argument based on slavery has given me some pause for thought. It would be the best explanation for slavery in the Bible in defense against antitheism, but that would bring some implications with it that are troubling for the Protestant position. Please pray for me as I discern this.
This is a helpful presentation, but as a Protestant I still have questions. When the magisterium decided that slavery was immoral in all circumstances, did they derive this conclusion from Scripture? Does this new argument reject the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture? If yes, does that mean that the Catholic Church created new revelation? If no, how? Maybe I am confused on what an Ecclesial Hermeneutic is, but how does the Ecclesial Hermeneutic differ from the historical grammatical in practice? It seems to me that anti-slavery proponents (whether Catholic or Protestant) are both saying the Bible teaches slavery is wrong. Do they not both come to this conclusion, whether they call it a historical grammatical or Ecclesial hermeneutic, because they believe the Bible lays out higher principles that are ultimately incompatible with the morality of slavery? In other words, if the Ecclesial hermeneutic can get to the interpretation that slavery is immoral, why can't the grammatical historical? Personally, I think there is a great Redemptive-Historical argument, which is a subset of a grammatical historical argument, that slavery should be abolished. In other words, the justification for the abolition of slavery is already present in the original deposit of Scripture, but it only through the progressive illumination (notice that I did not say progressive revelation: there is no longer any "new" revelation) of the Holy Spirit that the Church came to understand this. Nonetheless, all the necessary principles for abolishing slavery are found in Scripture. It seems to me that the Ecclesial Hermeneutic must concede this as well. If the Ecclesial Hermeneutic concedes this, then I do not really see a big advantage to the Ecclesial Hermeneutic. Is the Ecclesial Hermeneutic trying to teach that, "the Bible does lay down principles that logically entail the abolition of slavery, but only the magisterium can see how that is derived from Scripture. Therefore, you must trust the magisterium that the Bible does entail the abolition of slavery, even though the magisterium won't tell you the specific exegetical and scriptural argument for why this is the case"? I guess I am wondering how your argument here does not also militate against the idea of material sufficiency as well as formal sufficiency.
Your presentation and thesis were very good, thanks. I've always found it puzzling why R. Catholics stop short of asserting that the Church's proclamations merely interpret or present the original deposit, rather than constituting new revelation equivalent to scripture. This role was entrusted to the apostles, and as their successor, the Church should possess the same.
Because that's not how God ordained it to be; we carry the faith of the Apostles, but not the authority of them. Even the word bishop is from the word for overseer.
@@ultimateoriginalgod Except for your first line, I agree. It's plain to see from the structure of the biblical church that the authority of the Apostles was both critical and transferable. Where the sealing keys reside, there too is God's revelatory authority.
Would this be an instance of doctrinal development? Also slavery is a broader concept than we typically understand it. Chattel vs indentured servitude etc. as well as modern labor practices.
Considering the use to which the Holy Ghost put the concept of slavery in Sacred Scripture.... Slavery shows us Barabas; the Cross shows us the Father in the Son.
Followers of sola scriptura (Protestants& gnostics) need to convert to the ONE TRUE FAITH immediately Go to your nearest church and sign up for RCIA classes 🇻🇦
Re: the question, "Why wasn't slavery eliminated by the Roman Catholic Church in the first couple of centuries?": Well, first, let's get our timeline right: The Christians had _zero_ political power until _after_ "the first couple of centuries." Even under Constantine they had _legalization and tolerance,_ but Christianity was not yet _the religion of the empire._ So, the Church _couldn't_ eliminate slavery in that time period. But, with the reign of Theodosius around the start of the 5th century, Christians had genuine political influence. So, the earliest that they could have outlawed slavery would be around that time. Why not then? Well, has anyone thought seriously about what the alternative was? Remember, slaves were often-as-not captured enemies from border wars (or children born to them). There were no gigantic prisons to house these persons; nor funds to feed them; nor such things as prisoner exchanges (except in the form of slaves awaiting ransom, which implies the existence of slavery). So the only known and historically practiced alternative to slavery was to _execute every captive, man, woman, or child._ Would that be better? Also, recall that the Church _did_ immediately start imposing restrictions on how slaves were treated, with the ultimate goal of transforming the experience of slavery into something rather like serfdom or indentured servitude: A sort of long-term contract for menial labor, usually associated with harvesting a plot of land. In that period of time, nobody yet knew of any other way to ensure the feeding of a country's populace, and certainly agricultural technology had not yet advanced to the point of providing alternatives! Were they expected to abolish the structures which stood between them and national starvation? All at once? With no idea what alternative systems or practices might be invented to replace the thing being abolished ...IF anything could replace it? This is why the initial focus was on abolishing the _kidnapping_ of slaves and the _trade_ in slaves and the _mistreatment_ of slaves. But private farmholders contributing independently to their surrounding community had to _start existing_ before they could be contemplated as a real alternative to the existing system of Feudal Landlords and Land-Bound Serfs. (And, please note: The serfs owned their homes and kept some part of their own harvests: They did _not_ consider themselves slaves. They thought of themselves as paying a tax-in-produce to their feudal lord so that that lord's knights would defend them against bandits, and that lord's courts would defend their rights against thieving neighbors.) So, in the end, I think that the Church was... (a.) moving as fast as could reasonably be expected, given how unimaginable it was that the world could exist and _not have slaves,_ and still avoid starvation; (b.) transforming the _experience_ of being a slave into the experience of being a serf with rights, and thence into being a private smallholding farmer with rights, such that the word "slave" in the modern sense just would no longer be accurate. Maybe they should have moved faster, but, hey: You and I weren't there. Before we accuse, we should try walking in their shoes.
On your question, "Is slavery intrinsically evil"? We can afford to ask this question now, in the 21st century, Western context but I wonder how the answer would go if we were living in Baghdad when Khan was closing in, Antioch with the Crusaders at the gates or S America watching the conquistador atrocities tha De Las Casas reported to the pope. Which is the more humane answer: extermination or accepting terms of surrender and consequent enslavement. Its just an ugly truth. We all, myself and my tribe included, are capable of the grossest of evil and evidence of such is that we sometimes are left with a choice of a lesser evil rather than a greater. Is it intrinsically evil to take a second wife (may be considered houseslave in some cases, parts of world) if it rescues her from prostitution. Just saying, this world is a complicated place if thats hard to imagine maybe thats proof of how easy we have it here and now and not a reflection of the way most of the world is? The rest of your argument sounds like the old 'private judgment' back and forth so I dont feel compelled to repeat. P.S.- I lived in the M. East for 8 years. Interesting what questions trouble Westerners that never or seldom occur to others. Thanks for your thoughts, respect.
Suan, besides the first argument, what about polly-gamy (PG)? Is it also useful to further prove the falsehood of sola scripture? Its a shameful fact that Martin Luther cannot find divine law condemning PG in the bible. I found this in corcordia Journal of Theology
PG was licit under the Old Covenant. It is forbidden to Christians because if a Christian attempts to marry a second person, the second marriage will not be valid (this we know from tradition interpreting scripture), so it will just be adultery. But before Christ, the second marriage was really valid, so it was not adultery, though it was not ideal. There is no contradiction: PG, while not being gravely contrary to the natural law, is a defection from the supernatural gifts God intended for man. It could licitly be practiced before the Gospel, but not after.
@@AppalachianPaisano Ok, so your question is, Is the Canon of Scripture IN Scripture? You can answer your own question yourself by asking yourself how can the Canon of Scripture possible be Mentioned in Scripture before the individual Scriptures were even discovered so that they CAN be Canonized? The Canon of Scripture IS the Scripture Canonized. If you’re asking me if The Scriptures that have been Canonized and complied in the Bible are true, the answer is yes.
@@randym.7238 So you must be compiling your list from something other than Scripture. It is amazing to think how the Church could have possibly operated before the canon was complete.
Seems to me like this argument really just collapses back into the basic problem of how you determine what the authority(ies) is/are. You make the argument that we have to have ecclesial authority to establish that slavery is wrong because the Bible doesn’t get you there, but slavery being ethical is “unacceptable.” But then the only way you know slavery is wrong is through the ecclesial authority, and then you still have to answer the questions of how you know there is one at all and how to identify it assuming there is one. And by the way, I am perfectly happy to say that some limited forms of slavery are ethical, and so are you whether you realize it or not. Unless you’re for the total abolition of prisons (to say nothing of prison labor) that is, and I very seriously doubt that.
- It's curious that you put quotation marks around "unacceptable." - I never said that the only way I know slavery is wrong is through ecclesial authority. I have independent moral intuitions and my own moral theory. I am saying that for those Christians, particularly conservative Protestants who treat the Bible in a certain way, the text alone or even in its original historical intent will not get you the abolition of slavery. - Moreover, whether or not you accept limited forms of slavery is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation, because we are dealing with slavery as practiced and endorsed by the Bible which involves selling women for the use of their reproductive faculties and potentially owning foreigners (as opposed to fellow Israelites) forever without the possibility of freedom. - The wrong-making property of slavery is that a person is placed in the same category as material property: whether permanent or temporary, a financial value can be assigned on their lives and they can be or are consciously transferred or exchanged as or along with other goods. There are perhaps other things I can add. When prisons and prison labor approximate slavery, then I do think that is problematic and should be condemned. On the other hand, I think there is a fundamentally legitimate practice of punishment for the sake of restoration or rehabilitation, and so prisons in themselves are not immoral. Slavery consciously puts people into the category of objects and material property, and so must be immediately and unequivocally condemned.
@@intellectualcatholicism 1. Why curious? I’m literally quoting the word you used; isn’t that what quotation marks are for? 2. Are you saying you can be *certain* slavery is wrong based on these other things? Because if so, I don’t see how your argument has any force; Protestants can say the same thing on the same grounds. But if not, my point stands-you can’t be *certain* slavery is wrong apart from an ecclesial authority, even if you have a pretty good moral theory for that. Your argument hinges on needing that certainty, it seems to me. 3. Actually it’s entirely relevant, because the Bible doesn’t endorse all forms of slavery, so the question becomes at what point do you draw the line, and on what basis. But the fact that you used the term “endorse” is interesting. If the Bible “endorses” slavery then claiming all slavery is unethical (or any type of slavery endorsed by the Bible) is to ascribe unethical behavior to God, who after all is the Author of the Bible. For instance, I’d never say the Bible “endorses” divorce, merely allows for it. So you might need to clarify what you mean here. 4. Funny, I never get the idea from the Bible that slavery is the treating of a person as if he/she were property. The slavery allowed in the OT among the Hebrews was for the paying of debts, and time-limited, which seems pretty clearly to state that what the owner owns is not the person but their labor, up to the point the debt is paid. Thus, the value placed on him is the value of the debt, not the value of their lives (which incidentally we still do all the time in, e.g., wrongful death suits). Foreigners are different in terms of not being time-limited but only to the extent they are war captives who are not converts, who thus can’t, according the laws regarding land always staying in families, ever really be free in Israel anyway. But that’s no reason to assume their “lives” have a monetary value as distinct from the labor they might be able to perform. I.e., you’re reading certain assumptions into the text to make slavery mean something that the Bible doesn’t actually say it means.
If I am correct your ‘two new arguments’ aren’t exactly ‘new.’ Essentially, you have taken Robinson’s argument’s against Sola Scriptura (c.f., Energetic Procession blog) and made them your own. You have even used the same Supreme Court analogy as him as well.
Perry's arg wasn't new either, the SC analogy can be found in 19th century RC apologetic literature. And the gist of the private judgment critique his essay builds on has been around since the counter reformation. Suans arg of slavery tied to the GHM thus requiring an ecclesial hermeneutic is pretty fresh though I believe.
@@cronmaker2 Really? Care to give a reference on the distinction between the doctrine of the right or private judgment and normative ecclesial judgments in 19th century Catholic literature?
@@EnergeticProcession it comes up frequently in anglican-RC polemics you can find in full on google books and internet archive in disputes over infallibility. I'm not dismissing your essay, it's very useful and insightful.
@@cronmaker2 Well while I have not read all of that literature, I have read a good amount. What specific work do you have in mind that makes the distinction as I present it and use the Supreme Court analogy? I write this because I asked for a specific reference.
Nobody said they were the _same topic._ But, IF Christianity obliges Christians to oppose the existence of slavery as an institution, THEN _Sola Scriptura_ is false (since opposing institutional slavery cannot be authoritatively derived from the Bible alone). And, IF Christianity does _not_ oblige Christians to oppose the existence of slavery as an institution, then THEN _Sola Scriptura_ might possibly still be true (if it isn't falsified in some other way); but, there's nothing wrong with a Christian believing that institutional slavery should be preserved. Nobody can be justly excluded from communion, or from being hired as a pastor or Sunday School Teacher, for professing such a view. That's the logical connection between the topics.
@@Justas399 That's actually not true, by most definitions. Sola Scriptura is normally about Scripture being a rule of faith, which is to say that it is applicable to how we live as Christians. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is actually primarily about how Scripture is applied, and only relates to the nature of Scripture in supporting that application
Thanks for coming on the show, Suan!
Hey, @thecatechumen,
Great seeing you working with Suan on this. I know you've made some arguments against _Sola Scriptura,_ yourself. I'm wondering: Do they overlap with the "Non-Functioning Epistemic Paradigm" argument I described in another thread/post under this same video? Or are they distinct?
Dear Gavin Ortlund: Sola Scriptura is an ACCRETION!
EXACTLY!
And so is "believers baptism" lol
@@matthewoburke7202:
Wellllll..... to be perfectly fair, the Scriptures definitely show us believers being baptized; and it _doesn't_ absolutely definitively show us any children who're too young to profess faith in any sense being baptized.
So the baptism of believers is not an accretion; but the premise that infants who can't meaningfully profess their belief _might be._
Of course, I don't think it _is._ I have good reason to think otherwise: The early Christians' primary debate about baptism was: "If my baby is in danger of death, am I _required_ to wait until the 8th day after birth to baptize them? Or can I baptize them as soon as they're born?" Anyone who contemplates for a moment that _this_ was the "hot debate on baptism" will immediately see that infant baptism was the norm.
And I understand that by "believer's baptism" you mean _the whole Zwinglian doctrine of believer's baptism,_ which carries more implications than the mere historical fact of the baptisms of adults who have come to believe.
So, I agree with you. But, I can see how some of the Baptists I grew up with would say, "Hey, now, baptizing people who believe is obviously _not_ an accretion, but is apostolic!" ...and they'd be right, as far as that narrow point goes.
What is missing at 01:12:00 is that because of the medieval church, slavery have been abolished in most of Europe by 1500. No other great region on earth have been free of slavery. It was necessary that Christianity begins to quite popular before making a official condemnation, if not what would occurs is a rejection of the faith before the rejection of slavery. The slave trade begins with a very weak papal authority and many Europeans kings self-declaring them-selves popes. I've put actual data about the chronology between Christianity and slavery on youtube.
Fwiw the late atheist anthropologist David Graeber also acknowledged that the church (predominantly the Catholic Church I believe) caused the end of slavery in the West. [Of course all praise and honour to God]. This is in his book 5,000 years of Debt.
That’s not historically factual
@@fabbeyonddadancer Sources?
This was awesome, great work Suan. Your videos and arguments always hit the nail on the head. I love how you're willing to take on head first the dirty and dark parts of Christianity (slavery for ex.). Thanks for all the great work you do man, keep it up
The leaders of the RCC did nothing about slavery for centuries. That shows the failure of it because it didn’t eliminate slavery.
A masterful presentation. In a just world this would have a couple million views. One day God willing
@@TEAMGETHELP touché
Loved this presentation!
Thanks for the deep and serious intellectual engagement with these ideas Mr. Sonna! Very helpful and informative
Suan, your concept of ecclesial hermeneutics is very similar, yet so different, than the concept used in Literary Theory: interpretative communities by Stanley Fish.
I had used the previous concept to understand the different interpretative communities that exist in interpreting the Bible.
I like your definition better as it focuses on the authority to interpret, far beyond the sharing the interpretive tools or framework.
Now, I would characterize protestant groups (Calvinist, Armenians, etc.) as interpretative communities, while the Catholic Church as doing ecclesial hermeneutics.
Your argument that you need an authority to overturn what it not directed in the Bible that requires apostolic authority is on point.
Dr. Douglass Beaumont makes a similar argument about monogamy. Since polygamy is not directly forbidden in the Bible, one needs an authority outside of the Bible with equally apostolic mandate to have it.
In fact, I would not be surprised if more protestant groups start endorsing polygamy as currently, they can only appeal to tradition.
Monogamy in Protestantism is by tradition, not by biblical mandate.
Take care,
Sincerely,
MBU
Terrific video!
Could you explain the possible understandings of the Bible being either a living or non-living authority? What does Hebrews 4:12 mean that says “the word of God is living and active…?”
Around the 48-49:00 mark, you said that the Bible is living and almost saying don’t use it to defend slavery. But then Patheos (sp?) and other early Christians said it’s dead and needs a living authority. In confused by these points in light of the passage in Hebrews.Which is it? Can you help clarify?
Really appreciate this video..
@Intellectual Catholicism:
Hey, Suan! I've been hoping to see you, or someone, flesh out the "Sola Scriptura is a (Non-Functioning) Epistemic Paradigm" argument I've been mucking about with. This is the argument wherein _Sola Scriptura_ is shown to be used by Protestants as an "epistemology of faith" rather than a "rule of faith," and then shown to be non-functioning in that role.
(I just started listening to this video, so I have no idea whether that's where you're going with these new arguments. I guess I'll find out, as I listen....)
The high-level structure of "epistemology of faith" argument is:
- There is a difference between calling something a "rule of faith" and calling something an "epistemology of faith";
- A "rule of faith" can be defined in various ways; but _none_ of them fully-and-accurately describe how Protestants are _in practice_ using _Sola Scriptura,_ ...so, _Sola Scriptura_ is not, after all, being used as a "rule of faith";
- An "epistemology of faith" just means a set of _means_ (practices) by which a person may come to know the _required content_ of the Christian religion, and these means/practices are:
(a.) Divinely-instituted, divinely-intended, or divinely-approved,
(b.) Able, in principle, through correct usage, to distinguish essential doctrines (requiring us to eject dissenters as heretics) from non-essential matters of opinion/speculation (over which believers ought not separate from one another),
(c.) Able, in principle, through correct usage, to provide teachers in the Church (who will be judged more strictly), to teach the doctrines of the Christian religion and _know,_ with high-and-well-founded confidence, that they are teaching divine truth and not human speculations; and,
(d.) Able, in principle, through correct usage, to allow the Matthew 18 "church discipline process" to escape being nonsensical-or-toothless when Christians accuse one another of heresy.
- The preceding item more-fully describes how _Sola Scriptura_ is actually used by Protestants, so they're actually trying to use it as an "epistemology of faith";
- As an "epistemology of faith," _Sola Scriptura_ must fulfill items (a.) through (d.), above;
- As an "epistemology of faith," _Sola Scriptura_ fails, not only in practice, but in principle (such that no improved circumstances or more-careful usage could rescue it);
- The only way to rescue _Sola Scriptura_ from these failures -- that is, to transform it into a more-fully-functioning "epistemology of faith" -- is by relying on implicit premises either invented from whole cloth, or else derived from Catholic authority (!), to prop it up; but,
- "Patching Up" the non-functional epistemic paradigm of _Sola Scriptura_ with unacknowledged premises invented from whole-cloth without Scriptural warrant violates Sola _Scriptura_ itself,
- "Patching Up" the non-functional epistemic paradigm of _Sola Scriptura_ with unacknowledged borrowings from Catholic authority is _precisely_ how Protestants manage to give _Sola Scriptura_ the illusion of functionality; and,
- The Catholic Epistemic Paradigm (CEP) for coming to know the content of the Christian religion (Magisterium and Tradition, with Scripture being the most-important expression of Tradition) succeeds as an "epistemology of faith" in precisely the places where _Sola Scriptura_ fails, thus demonstrating the superiority of the CEP.
- Therefore, it makes no sense for a Christian to hold to _Sola Scriptura,_ or to join any church-group which holds it; and it makes far more sense for them to hold the Catholic Epistemic Paradigm, and join the Catholic Church.
If the argument succeeds, then _Sola Scriptura_ is shown to be inferior to the CEP. That much is obvious.
Furthermore, if the argument succeeds, it shows that _Sola Scriptura_ makes the content of the Christian religion _unknowable_ for persons after some point in history. After that point (which I don't identify) we can only guess at the content of the Christian religion by "reconstructing" its original content from underdetermined data. This reduces _all_ modern Christians to speculative historians: No one is obeying Jesus; everyone is obeying a low-probability guess about what Jesus _might_ have intended.
So, the alternative to the CEP is _not_ conservative Protestantism. The only real (logically-principled) alternative is liberal Protestant skepticism.
Finally, if the argument succeeds, then it also proves one more thing. It proves that _Sola Scriptura_ is fundamentally _wrongheaded,_ and would _never_ have been proposed as a means for knowing the content of the Christian religion by an _omniscient_ God, or by a God who "knew men, and what was in the hearts of men."
Therefore, either Jesus is not God, or Jesus did not propose _Sola Scriptura._
But, Jesus rose from the grave; therefore, Jesus is God.
So, Jesus did not propose _Sola Scriptura._
...
Thoughts? Especially about items (a.) through (d.)?
Very nice argument!
I am Protestant and I think this is a super interesting argument. Thanks for taking the time to lay this out. I do have a question. Could you explain in more detail why sola Scriptura as an “epistemology of faith” fails points a)-d) in principle?
@@Seminarystudent99: Thanks for your reply. I come from a Protestant background, and took four years investigating these things before ultimately becoming a Catholic in 2010.
On item (a.), divine institution: A Catholic or Orthodox Christian could logically (within the boundaries of his own epistemology-of-faith) claim that Jesus instituted an authoritative Magisterium of bishops united as a single Church, whose rulings on disputed matters created precedents clarifying the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. This tradition could be documented in Scripture, or merely among the Fathers (with nothing in Scripture contradicting it) and that would suffice because the Catholic epistemic paradigm allows for reliable and authoritative transmission of the Apostolic Deposit through a broader range of delivery-media. (Liturgical traditions are a particularly important witness, for example.)
But as a practical matter, a Sola Scriptura-holding Protestant needs to find evidence of Sola Scriptura being instituted in the Scriptures themselves. No such passage exists. The closest equivalent is Paul's commendation of studying the Old Testament writings to Timothy. But, while Paul describes the Septuagint scrolls Timothy knew since childhood as useful for reproof and correction, sufficient to complete a man of God's preparedness for righteous deeds, Paul nowhere suggests (and Peter elsewhere denies) that anyone could reliably reconstruct all the basic doctrines of Christianity unambiguously in this way! Paul says only that a "man of God" -- someone like Timothy who already knows all the doctrines because he learned them from Paul -- can have his already-robust "equipping" completed through this Old Testament study.
Aaaand, that's about it. The verse commending the Bereans is even less apropos.
So, while Matthew 16 and Matthew 18, alongside other passages indicating divine assistance in judicial rulings, grant the Catholic epistemology-of-faith a plausible Dominical origin, there seems no comparable declaration from Jesus about the New Testament books constituting a special divinely protected resource. He doesn't tell us which books will make it up. He doesn't command it to be written. He gives no guidelines for distinguishing which orthodox writings should be especially revered, versus ones treated as private devotional works. When the Sadducees -- who only regard the Pentateuch as holy writ, ignoring the Prophets and the other Writings -- debate Him, He misses this perfect opportunity to school them that their canon is too small, and confines Himself to arguing from the five books they _do_ use. It's as if the matter of canonicity is too trivial for Him to bother with.
That's hard to explain, on the view that He intends to institute a "Read Your Bible and figure out which church to join" policy.
That's a partial explanation of (a.), although more could be said. I'll address (b.), (c.), and (d.) separately.
NOTE: None of the above should be construed as a diss towards Holy Scripture! The Bible is all that Vatican II claims. But I hold it can only be used with perfect safety by the "man of God" who already knows the fundamentals of the faith quite well, as Paul said to Timothy. The "ignorant and unstable," as Peter puts it, tend to twist what they read to their own destruction, without knowing it. (They are ignorant that they are ignorant. Think of the silly conclusions derived by, say, the Watchtower Society on certain points!)
@@Seminarystudent99 :
Regarding item (b.): I think the burden here is on the Protestant.
Judicial rulings by bishops could certainly be issued which distinguish whether uniformity of belief is required on a particular topic: That's how Catholic or Orthodox epistemology would allow believers to distinguish between dogmas and matters of indifference.
But does any verse, anywhere, offer a parallel mechanism for Protestant churches to distinguish between doctrines worth dividing over, and topics where diverse opinions are permissible?
I can't think of a verse which establishes a standard for making such distinctions.
To be sure, Protestants _do_ draw such distinctions on a regular basis, as a matter of necessity. But they do so in an _ad hoc_ way. They may say, "Oh, if it's about salvation, it's worth dividing over," for example. (Where does the Bible say that? And doesn't that beg the question? If man-bedders "will not inherit the kingdom of God," then isn't sexual ethics _also_ a matter of salvation?)
I think we know as a matter of History that Protestants have never located a consistent and principled standard for distinguishing dogmas from matters of indifference. We know this because, in every church-split, the first thing that happens is that teachers disagree, and groups of supporters line up behind them. Next, one group is unable to convince the other. Next, some folk say, "Well, it isn't important enough to split over," to which the other group replies, "Oh yes it is!" ...and they split.
Consider also the way that the list of items worth splitting over has changed dramatically from century to century. Luther and Calvin were stridently opposed to artificial contraception. Luther held that anyone holding the wrong views about Holy Communion could not possibly be saved. A century ago, dancing on the Sabbath was a sign of reprobation for Scottish Presbyterians. (You may notice this theme in the film "Chariots of Fire.") And so on.
I think this suffices to demonstrate that Sola Scriptura offers no mechanism to distinguish matters of indifference from essentials of the faith.
@@Seminarystudent99:
Regarding item (c.): To provide something that a Christian (especially a teacher, or a father of children who's obligated to teach his kids) can confidently teach, an Epistemology of Faith should be able, in principle, through correct usage, to provide high-and-well-founded confidence, that they are teaching divine truth and not human speculations.
But what normally happens in the Protestant world is that we teach our kids whatever we've heard or concluded on our own, without benefit of any objective "ruler" we can measure against to double-check our beliefs. You see this in the way we pick a church: "Let's find a nearby church that we like, where they're faithful to Scripture." Sounds great, except, how do _we_ know, in advance, that someone who disagrees with us _isn't_ being faithful to Scripture? Maybe _we_ are the persons that Peter described as "ignorant and unstable" who're "twisting [the words of Paul, and other Scriptures] to [our] own destruction."
Now, on some topics, let's freely admit that the Bible is crystal-clear. Did Jesus ever cry? "Jesus wept." Not a lot of gray area there.
But just consider the gap between the church of my childhood, which taught "Once Saved Always Saved," and the church of the early Christians, where for several decades, _the_ hot religious debate was about "the doctrine of the second repentance."
If that's unfamiliar to you, let me spell it out the situation: This is pre-Nicea. The whole Christian world saw Hebrews 10:26-27 ("If we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries") ...as meaning that serious, willful sins after baptism constituted the willful rejection of God's grace, the "throwing away of the gift of salvation," and thus potentially _damned_ the person who did them.
But, there was a qualification on this teaching; namely, that if you _had_ seriously sinned after baptism, you could _repent_ of sin, confess the sin to your _bishop,_ and receive _absolution_ by the authority the bishop had inherited from the Apostles, in John 21:21-23: "And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'" After this absolution, you would be admitted into "the order of the penitent": You would sit/stand in a different part of the worship service, wear sackcloth or some other sign of penance, and you would not be eligible for Holy Communion for some number of months or years until your time of penance (assigned by your bishop) was concluded.
All were agreed about that. But then, a debate arose: _How many times_ could the church grant absolution to the same person, for the same sin? Rigorists held that the answer to this question was: "Once, and only once." But pope held that the answer was: "Seventy times seven; that is, a potentially unlimited number of times, provided that the repentance and the intention to _not sin again_ was sincere." The rigorists held this position to be a complete collapse of the Christian call to holiness; they didn't even allow for a _second_ repentance. They thought that, just as baptism is a thing that happens _once,_ and confirmation is a thing that happens _once,_ so, too, is absolution a thing which happens _once._ Thus they rejected the idea of the "second repentance."
All of that is by way of elucidating a historical example.
With this example in mind, let us ask ourselves: "If _that_ was the topic of debate amongst the _early_ Christians, who had been taught Christianity by the direct apostles of the apostles, who in turn were taught by the apostles, who in turn were taught by Christ... if _that_ is what they debated about, so close to the living memory of the apostles themselves, _how on earth_ can we plausibly hold that the Bible teaches Once Saved Always Saved? Clearly, if its original readers had thought that, no debate about 'second repentance' would have ever emerged! And yet...I was raised in a church which thought OSAS was _obviously_ correct (and of course they had their favorite verses to back up the claim). Clearly, _someone_ is in the wrong, and yet, is utterly oblivious to that fact. They are ignorant, but don't know they are ignorant. They have twisted the Scriptures, but don't know they've twisted them."
Now, the person who really viscerally confronts this should _immediately_ be concerned if he's teaching the faith to his children, or to a Sunday School class, or a whole local congregation. He certainly means well; but, how does he know he's not, well...a Rigorist Heretic? (Or a Lax-ist Heretic?)
And yet, "in the church, some are called to be ...teachers...."
But, "not everyone should presume to teach, because teachers will be held accountable more strictly."
And, of course, fathers should teach their kids. They can't "bow out" from that.
The only sensible way to react to this situation is, "Please God, give us a way to _know_ we're getting it right, so that we can avoid teaching error!"
But that should lead us to the question: "Well...wouldn't He have anticipated this need, and given us a way-of-knowing (an epistemology) sufficient to the task?"
The debate over the doctrine of the second repentance, and the clash between the second-century disputants about second repentance and the _wildly different_ teaching of the church of my childhood, means that _it's just not enough_ to wade in with a handful of your favorite Bible verses and say, "On the basis of my interpretation of these passages, I am _personally_ convinced that my view is correct, and I have no moral qualms about teaching it from a pulpit, or at the breakfast table."
I'm sure the teachers in my Baptist Sunday School thought they were doing rightly. I don't hold them blameworthy. And _yet..._ isn't _salvation_ an important topic to get right?
(This is _not_ a topic about which Christians can afford to be "indifferent.")
But, let us suppose that the Church had (as Matthew 18 teaches) a _judicial authority_ which can issue rulings and have those rulings ratified by "Heaven," because "Heaven" had already made those binding decisions from eternity past, and was _issuing_ those rulings _through_ the Body of Christ?
Well, in that case, all the disputants who're calling one another heretics can "take it to the Church" (Matthew 18:17) and have the matter resolved with certainty. And the judicial record of that case's resolution would constitute ...well, _not_ a new revelation, but merely a clarification of the actual correct meaning of what Christ already revealed, through the apostles. And anyone who wishes has recourse to that "case history" to help himself "color inside the lines" whenever he teaches others.
_That_ appears to be a working epistemology.
I'm looking forward to listening to this video.
The question that's been on my mind lately is this: at what precise moment in history did Sola Scriptura manifest?
For instance, it couldn't have been legitimate at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 because we'd all have to be circumcised.
Except Jesus didn't tell them to circumcise from the start. It was Jews trying to add on Jewish customs to Christianity. The council just refuted what was already known.
@@ninjason57 huh, wasn't Abraham circumcised? Who told him to do that?
I would love to see Gavin address this. I generally hold to an Anglican view myself (prima scriptura), but I will be honest. The argument based on slavery has given me some pause for thought. It would be the best explanation for slavery in the Bible in defense against antitheism, but that would bring some implications with it that are troubling for the Protestant position. Please pray for me as I discern this.
This is a helpful presentation, but as a Protestant I still have questions. When the magisterium decided that slavery was immoral in all circumstances, did they derive this conclusion from Scripture? Does this new argument reject the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture? If yes, does that mean that the Catholic Church created new revelation? If no, how?
Maybe I am confused on what an Ecclesial Hermeneutic is, but how does the Ecclesial Hermeneutic differ from the historical grammatical in practice?
It seems to me that anti-slavery proponents (whether Catholic or Protestant) are both saying the Bible teaches slavery is wrong. Do they not both come to this conclusion, whether they call it a historical grammatical or Ecclesial hermeneutic, because they believe the Bible lays out higher principles that are ultimately incompatible with the morality of slavery? In other words, if the Ecclesial hermeneutic can get to the interpretation that slavery is immoral, why can't the grammatical historical?
Personally, I think there is a great Redemptive-Historical argument, which is a subset of a grammatical historical argument, that slavery should be abolished. In other words, the justification for the abolition of slavery is already present in the original deposit of Scripture, but it only through the progressive illumination (notice that I did not say progressive revelation: there is no longer any "new" revelation) of the Holy Spirit that the Church came to understand this.
Nonetheless, all the necessary principles for abolishing slavery are found in Scripture. It seems to me that the Ecclesial Hermeneutic must concede this as well. If the Ecclesial Hermeneutic concedes this, then I do not really see a big advantage to the Ecclesial Hermeneutic. Is the Ecclesial Hermeneutic trying to teach that,
"the Bible does lay down principles that logically entail the abolition of slavery, but only the magisterium can see how that is derived from Scripture. Therefore, you must trust the magisterium that the Bible does entail the abolition of slavery, even though the magisterium won't tell you the specific exegetical and scriptural argument for why this is the case"? I guess I am wondering how your argument here does not also militate against the idea of material sufficiency as well as formal sufficiency.
Your presentation and thesis were very good, thanks. I've always found it puzzling why R. Catholics stop short of asserting that the Church's proclamations merely interpret or present the original deposit, rather than constituting new revelation equivalent to scripture. This role was entrusted to the apostles, and as their successor, the Church should possess the same.
Because that's not how God ordained it to be; we carry the faith of the Apostles, but not the authority of them. Even the word bishop is from the word for overseer.
@@ultimateoriginalgod Except for your first line, I agree. It's plain to see from the structure of the biblical church that the authority of the Apostles was both critical and transferable. Where the sealing keys reside, there too is God's revelatory authority.
Suan, this was genius!
Is there a pdf for this ?
Would this be an instance of doctrinal development? Also slavery is a broader concept than we typically understand it. Chattel vs indentured servitude etc. as well as modern labor practices.
Why do I feel like Suan will end up becoming an agnostic?
Considering the use to which the Holy Ghost put the concept of slavery in Sacred Scripture....
Slavery shows us Barabas; the Cross shows us the Father in the Son.
🇻🇦THERE'S ONLY 1 HOLY CATHOLIC & APOSTOLIC CHURCH🇻🇦
Followers of sola scriptura (Protestants& gnostics) need to convert to the
ONE TRUE FAITH immediately
Go to your nearest church and sign up for RCIA classes
🇻🇦
Re: the question, "Why wasn't slavery eliminated by the Roman Catholic Church in the first couple of centuries?":
Well, first, let's get our timeline right: The Christians had _zero_ political power until _after_ "the first couple of centuries." Even under Constantine they had _legalization and tolerance,_ but Christianity was not yet _the religion of the empire._ So, the Church _couldn't_ eliminate slavery in that time period.
But, with the reign of Theodosius around the start of the 5th century, Christians had genuine political influence. So, the earliest that they could have outlawed slavery would be around that time. Why not then?
Well, has anyone thought seriously about what the alternative was? Remember, slaves were often-as-not captured enemies from border wars (or children born to them). There were no gigantic prisons to house these persons; nor funds to feed them; nor such things as prisoner exchanges (except in the form of slaves awaiting ransom, which implies the existence of slavery). So the only known and historically practiced alternative to slavery was to _execute every captive, man, woman, or child._ Would that be better?
Also, recall that the Church _did_ immediately start imposing restrictions on how slaves were treated, with the ultimate goal of transforming the experience of slavery into something rather like serfdom or indentured servitude: A sort of long-term contract for menial labor, usually associated with harvesting a plot of land. In that period of time, nobody yet knew of any other way to ensure the feeding of a country's populace, and certainly agricultural technology had not yet advanced to the point of providing alternatives! Were they expected to abolish the structures which stood between them and national starvation? All at once? With no idea what alternative systems or practices might be invented to replace the thing being abolished ...IF anything could replace it?
This is why the initial focus was on abolishing the _kidnapping_ of slaves and the _trade_ in slaves and the _mistreatment_ of slaves. But private farmholders contributing independently to their surrounding community had to _start existing_ before they could be contemplated as a real alternative to the existing system of Feudal Landlords and Land-Bound Serfs. (And, please note: The serfs owned their homes and kept some part of their own harvests: They did _not_ consider themselves slaves. They thought of themselves as paying a tax-in-produce to their feudal lord so that that lord's knights would defend them against bandits, and that lord's courts would defend their rights against thieving neighbors.)
So, in the end, I think that the Church was...
(a.) moving as fast as could reasonably be expected, given how unimaginable it was that the world could exist and _not have slaves,_ and still avoid starvation;
(b.) transforming the _experience_ of being a slave into the experience of being a serf with rights, and thence into being a private smallholding farmer with rights, such that the word "slave" in the modern sense just would no longer be accurate.
Maybe they should have moved faster, but, hey: You and I weren't there. Before we accuse, we should try walking in their shoes.
On your question, "Is slavery intrinsically evil"?
We can afford to ask this question now, in the 21st century, Western context but I wonder how the answer would go if we were living in Baghdad when Khan was closing in, Antioch with the Crusaders at the gates or S America watching the conquistador atrocities tha De Las Casas reported to the pope.
Which is the more humane answer: extermination or accepting terms of surrender and consequent enslavement.
Its just an ugly truth. We all, myself and my tribe included, are capable of the grossest of evil and evidence of such is that we sometimes are left with a choice of a lesser evil rather than a greater.
Is it intrinsically evil to take a second wife (may be considered houseslave in some cases, parts of world) if it rescues her from prostitution.
Just saying, this world is a complicated place if thats hard to imagine maybe thats proof of how easy we have it here and now and not a reflection of the way most of the world is?
The rest of your argument sounds like the old 'private judgment' back and forth so I dont feel compelled to repeat.
P.S.- I lived in the M. East for 8 years. Interesting what questions trouble Westerners that never or seldom occur to others. Thanks for your thoughts, respect.
Suan, besides the first argument, what about polly-gamy (PG)? Is it also useful to further prove the falsehood of sola scripture? Its a shameful fact that Martin Luther cannot find divine law condemning PG in the bible. I found this in corcordia Journal of Theology
PG was licit under the Old Covenant. It is forbidden to Christians because if a Christian attempts to marry a second person, the second marriage will not be valid (this we know from tradition interpreting scripture), so it will just be adultery. But before Christ, the second marriage was really valid, so it was not adultery, though it was not ideal. There is no contradiction: PG, while not being gravely contrary to the natural law, is a defection from the supernatural gifts God intended for man. It could licitly be practiced before the Gospel, but not after.
How can one go wrong by Following Scripture alone? All a Believer needs is there.
Is the canon of Scripture in Scripture?
@@AppalachianPaisano Think about what you’re asking me. Then ask yourself, could there be a more stupid question?
@@randym.7238 There is. Asking if Scripture alone is true. Also you didn't answer.
@@AppalachianPaisano Ok, so your question is, Is the Canon of Scripture IN Scripture? You can answer your own question yourself by asking yourself how can the Canon of Scripture possible be Mentioned in Scripture before the individual Scriptures were even discovered so that they CAN be Canonized? The Canon of Scripture IS the Scripture Canonized. If you’re asking me if The Scriptures that have been Canonized and complied in the Bible are true, the answer is yes.
@@randym.7238 So you must be compiling your list from something other than Scripture. It is amazing to think how the Church could have possibly operated before the canon was complete.
Hebrew 4:12
Pope Francis should issue some additional Anathemas.
Seems to me like this argument really just collapses back into the basic problem of how you determine what the authority(ies) is/are. You make the argument that we have to have ecclesial authority to establish that slavery is wrong because the Bible doesn’t get you there, but slavery being ethical is “unacceptable.” But then the only way you know slavery is wrong is through the ecclesial authority, and then you still have to answer the questions of how you know there is one at all and how to identify it assuming there is one. And by the way, I am perfectly happy to say that some limited forms of slavery are ethical, and so are you whether you realize it or not. Unless you’re for the total abolition of prisons (to say nothing of prison labor) that is, and I very seriously doubt that.
- It's curious that you put quotation marks around "unacceptable."
- I never said that the only way I know slavery is wrong is through ecclesial authority. I have independent moral intuitions and my own moral theory. I am saying that for those Christians, particularly conservative Protestants who treat the Bible in a certain way, the text alone or even in its original historical intent will not get you the abolition of slavery.
- Moreover, whether or not you accept limited forms of slavery is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation, because we are dealing with slavery as practiced and endorsed by the Bible which involves selling women for the use of their reproductive faculties and potentially owning foreigners (as opposed to fellow Israelites) forever without the possibility of freedom.
- The wrong-making property of slavery is that a person is placed in the same category as material property: whether permanent or temporary, a financial value can be assigned on their lives and they can be or are consciously transferred or exchanged as or along with other goods. There are perhaps other things I can add. When prisons and prison labor approximate slavery, then I do think that is problematic and should be condemned. On the other hand, I think there is a fundamentally legitimate practice of punishment for the sake of restoration or rehabilitation, and so prisons in themselves are not immoral. Slavery consciously puts people into the category of objects and material property, and so must be immediately and unequivocally condemned.
@@intellectualcatholicism 1. Why curious? I’m literally quoting the word you used; isn’t that what quotation marks are for?
2. Are you saying you can be *certain* slavery is wrong based on these other things? Because if so, I don’t see how your argument has any force; Protestants can say the same thing on the same grounds. But if not, my point stands-you can’t be *certain* slavery is wrong apart from an ecclesial authority, even if you have a pretty good moral theory for that. Your argument hinges on needing that certainty, it seems to me.
3. Actually it’s entirely relevant, because the Bible doesn’t endorse all forms of slavery, so the question becomes at what point do you draw the line, and on what basis. But the fact that you used the term “endorse” is interesting. If the Bible “endorses” slavery then claiming all slavery is unethical (or any type of slavery endorsed by the Bible) is to ascribe unethical behavior to God, who after all is the Author of the Bible. For instance, I’d never say the Bible “endorses” divorce, merely allows for it. So you might need to clarify what you mean here.
4. Funny, I never get the idea from the Bible that slavery is the treating of a person as if he/she were property. The slavery allowed in the OT among the Hebrews was for the paying of debts, and time-limited, which seems pretty clearly to state that what the owner owns is not the person but their labor, up to the point the debt is paid. Thus, the value placed on him is the value of the debt, not the value of their lives (which incidentally we still do all the time in, e.g., wrongful death suits). Foreigners are different in terms of not being time-limited but only to the extent they are war captives who are not converts, who thus can’t, according the laws regarding land always staying in families, ever really be free in Israel anyway. But that’s no reason to assume their “lives” have a monetary value as distinct from the labor they might be able to perform. I.e., you’re reading certain assumptions into the text to make slavery mean something that the Bible doesn’t actually say it means.
If I am correct your ‘two new arguments’ aren’t exactly ‘new.’ Essentially, you have taken Robinson’s argument’s against Sola Scriptura (c.f., Energetic Procession blog) and made them your own. You have even used the same Supreme Court analogy as him as well.
Perry's arg wasn't new either, the SC analogy can be found in 19th century RC apologetic literature. And the gist of the private judgment critique his essay builds on has been around since the counter reformation. Suans arg of slavery tied to the GHM thus requiring an ecclesial hermeneutic is pretty fresh though I believe.
@@cronmaker2 Really? Care to give a reference on the distinction between the doctrine of the right or private judgment and normative ecclesial judgments in 19th century Catholic literature?
@@EnergeticProcession it comes up frequently in anglican-RC polemics you can find in full on google books and internet archive in disputes over infallibility. I'm not dismissing your essay, it's very useful and insightful.
@@cronmaker2 Well while I have not read all of that literature, I have read a good amount. What specific work do you have in mind that makes the distinction as I present it and use the Supreme Court analogy?
I write this because I asked for a specific reference.
Profound insights into flawed Sola x, y, z logic.
👌🏻
👍🙏
Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with slavery.
What in the world is your point?
Nobody said they were the _same topic._
But, IF Christianity obliges Christians to oppose the existence of slavery as an institution, THEN _Sola Scriptura_ is false (since opposing institutional slavery cannot be authoritatively derived from the Bible alone).
And, IF Christianity does _not_ oblige Christians to oppose the existence of slavery as an institution, then THEN _Sola Scriptura_ might possibly still be true (if it isn't falsified in some other way); but, there's nothing wrong with a Christian believing that institutional slavery should be preserved. Nobody can be justly excluded from communion, or from being hired as a pastor or Sunday School Teacher, for professing such a view.
That's the logical connection between the topics.
@@cw-on-ytthat doesn’t follow. Sola Scriptura is about the nature of Scripture. It’s not about how to apply the Scriptures.
@@Justas399 That's actually not true, by most definitions. Sola Scriptura is normally about Scripture being a rule of faith, which is to say that it is applicable to how we live as Christians. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is actually primarily about how Scripture is applied, and only relates to the nature of Scripture in supporting that application
?