For those saying "which Scripture?" You need to demonstrate how this is a problem for Protestants when it wasn't a problem for every church on earth until the end of the medieval era (the first time infallible canon lists show up) or for the Jewish people during their entire history of reception of Scripture. Infallible canon lists were never a thing in redemptive history until 600 years ago.

@prosoblue

6 ай бұрын

There was more than one Hebrew canon. All versions of the Old Testament in early Christianity were just taken from the local form of the Hebrew canon. That's why the Ethiopians have a massive canon for example.

@jep6752

6 ай бұрын

The earliest lists of what was considered canonical scripture were even in disagreement with each other. That's why it was necessary for a magisterium to settle the matter. And no, the first time an infallible canon list showing up is not at the end of the medieval era. The Muratorian fragment, also known as the Muratorian Canon, is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. Even this list is missing books of the New Testament, and it contains the Wisdom of Solomon. The missing books are: Hebrews James 1 & 2 Peter So no, the Canon was not self-attesting, neither the OT nor the NT; they required the authority of the Church and Sacred Tradition to resolve this matter.

@shotinthedark90

6 ай бұрын

It wasn't a problem for the early church because it didn't believe in sola scriptura whereas Protestants do... Is the issue not obvious?

@TruthUnites

6 ай бұрын

@@jep6752 You claim that infallible canon lists come earlier than the late medieval era, what do you have in mind?

@michaelclay7822

6 ай бұрын

⁠​⁠@@TruthUniteswhere are either of you getting an infallible canon from? Also, to be fair, your first comment seems to be another example of why scripture itself couldn’t have been the sole or the supreme authority. Both for the Jews and for the early Christians, they existed before there was a completed set of scripture.

Love this concise and precise summary! Great job. Will definitely share and react to this!

@lawrencecastle2777

6 ай бұрын

Let’s go! Can’t wait for the video

@snakefrumpkin4271

6 ай бұрын

Oh dope…I’ve been waiting for you to react some of Gavin’s stuff. He’s next level!

@thespyer2k

6 ай бұрын

Cool seeing you here. Gavin is great

@TruthUnites

6 ай бұрын

thanks!

@theosophicalwanderings7696

6 ай бұрын

Oh dang Ruslan dropping in??

This was a blast to work on! Excited to see this go live 😊

@ottovonbaden6353

6 ай бұрын

Fantastic job!

@JoeThePresbapterian

6 ай бұрын

This one is fantastic! Thanks for making this.

@ClauGutierrezY

6 ай бұрын

Thank you Ryan for your professionalism. Awesome job!

@TheRoark

6 ай бұрын

@@ClauGutierrezY thanks Clau! Same to you 😃

@brianh2477

6 ай бұрын

Great animation… But I’m still confused. Where is there a verse in the bible that states the bible ALONE is the sole infallible source of authority?

This is the best explanation of Sola Scriptura! Please don't give up Dr. Ortlund! May God of the universe the Lord of Armies keep you and may he shine his face upon you!

@micahjakubowicz4172

6 ай бұрын

I still haven't heard where Sola Scriptura is taught in scritpure

@danielhaas9469

6 ай бұрын

@micahjakubowicz4172 what you must keep in mind is this. Let's say your parents verbally told you how you are to conduct yourself while they were away or you were away. But for safe guarding what they said to you they also wrote it down so that you could be reminded of what was said. Are you following? If you are, then God is acting no differently than this. God communicated to Moses all the pertinent aspects of the faith verbally at first but then Moses by God's inspiration wrote them down so that Israel would not forget the Lord nor his commands so that they had the law written. This remains true when the prophets were called by God. First it was verbally communicated and then written down so Isreal would know and be reminded AND be held accountable by it. Christ very clearly read from scripture and held the Sanadhren accountable for what was written. Therefore, of somebody came along and gave you something else to do that would draw you away from what was written, you had proof that it is not coming from God. Just as in the same way if a person came along and said your parents also said Y which is important; you could verify that assertion and say no actually they did not say that. Then that other person can say well it was verbally stated. You can say no they didn't because if this is important as you say; they would have written that down. Now that dosent mean as you could ask; not all aspects of how to live a good life as been duly written so are you telling me that it has to be written? Of course not, for in both scenarios except for the case of the Law we have flexibility to do good "works" that demonstrate you love your neighbor and God. For instance does the bible say to mow your neighbors lawn even if they are able? No, but if you do it out of love you are doing what is good and pleasing to God.

@fopdoodler9427

6 ай бұрын

@@Ben94729 Intercessions with Mary and saints aren't part of Reformed theology.

@danielhaas9469

6 ай бұрын

@micahjakubowicz4172 Would you pull doctrine from Harry Potter?

@danielhaas9469

6 ай бұрын

@@micahjakubowicz4172 if I told you Jesus floated over Jerusalem with his arms outstretched in the sky during your Earthly ministry and say you must believe this to be saved what would you say?

Amen! Here's a very educational video that could be shown to even our teen children as an introduction to the topic. Thank you brother Gavin.

@the3rdchief

6 ай бұрын

Brainwashing the young ones, unfortunate

@micahjakubowicz4172

6 ай бұрын

Don't show this to teens. They're too smart to fall for this ridiculous argument.

@micktoss

6 ай бұрын

​@@micahjakubowicz4172elaborate?

This was a simple but beautiful animation and video. Covered all the important bases and gave a very good image of the position. Would love to see more of these short concise essays.

@TeamWilsonCT

6 ай бұрын

Awesome - please do 6 minute videos on the other 4 Solas

What a brilliant explanation. I will be coming back to this video time and again. Thank you for all that you do!

Fantastic video. Thank you for your ministry Dr. Ortlund. God has used you in my life to keep His word as my highest authority

God bless you. Amen. Praise God. He never fails us. This is a great short explanation and wow the animation is such an amazing addition to visualise your presentation.

@geoffjs

5 ай бұрын

Unbiblical and heretical

God bless you Gavin for this wonderful work.

Beautifully put, Dr Ortlund!

Hey Gavin, I wanted to share with you that this channel has become one of my go to sources on theoloical teaching which i commonly share with friends and follow believers!

@TruthUnites

6 ай бұрын

yahoo, so glad to hear its useful to you!

@kurtgundy

5 ай бұрын

Amen. I thank God for Gavin and this channel.

Fantastic! Thankyou Dr Ortlund and I am sure some will still misrepresent this simple explanation.

@geoffjs

5 ай бұрын

Unbiblical and heretical

Came for the quality animation, stayed and learned something interesting! Great job, Ryan :)

This was RIGHT ON! Thank you Gavin, and God bless you.

This is fantastic. I hope you make many more videos like this!!

Love the animations! Perfect for a short break in my day.

Killed it again, Gavin! Great work!!

Great video! Really renews my confidence in this doctrine. Also.. a great, short summary of an argument defending Sola Scripture I heard during a debate one time in Steubenville, OH…

That was an incredibly well put, and clear defense of Sola Scriptura. God bless you Gavin for your work.

@koppite9600

6 ай бұрын

Which scripture? Does it include the Epistle of Straw?

@micktoss

6 ай бұрын

@@koppite9600 nice one

@geoffjs

6 ай бұрын

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, indefensible and heretical and it explains the confusion of Protestantism. Can you see the benefit of the authority Matt 16 19 of the CC

@micktoss

6 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs nice statement. Referring to the Bible to make a claim from authority? Mark 7?

@koppite9600

5 ай бұрын

@@micktoss proper use of the bible by a Catholic. It's you who have overinflated the use of the bible resulting in infinite churches of christianities.

This is such a great video. Well done Ryan :)

Gavin, thank you for this, now we will have to sit through an avalanche of Catholic apologetics videos responding to this over the next two weeks. You might even cause a new book to be written. Big Apologetics needs a video like this every few months to keep the bills paid.

@rosem12514

6 ай бұрын

You don’t have to

Very brief and succinct. As a Catechuman I disagree entirely though. The fathers submitted to the authority of the church. Also we have pre council sources saying the apostles appointed successors

@triplea6174

6 ай бұрын

RCA or EO?

@Madokaexe

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, sola scriptura is saying that the church ordained by god started to be in error at some point and only when the reformation happened 1500 years later it started to be true again, would god really let his church be in error for so long?

@thederpyunicorn306

4 ай бұрын

@@Madokaexethat’s not what sola scriptura is saying at all, in fact before sola scriptura was even coined there were catholic theologians who questioned the infallibility of the church, aka the proto protestants

@Madokaexe

4 ай бұрын

@@thederpyunicorn306 I'm not a roman catholic Christian so I can't speak in their behalf, do you have a source for that claim? As an eastern orthodox Christian I'm curious to read, also, what's your definition of sola scriptura?

@kang7348

2 ай бұрын

@@Madokaexe he has no sourse, the idea that there were protestants in the early church is laughable.

Excellent as always Dr. Ortlund! This video will be a go-to for recommended watching whenever I see common RC and EO caricatures online.

Loved this video and the animation!

Excellent work, Gavin. That how Protestant ideas should be defended: with Scripture itself. God gave us what we need and what is necessary to defend the truth. Your presentation was flawless. I would argue that a video explaining the protestant Canon (again, focused on the Scripture, when it says that the Old Canon would be given by the Jews, Jesus saying the components of the Hebrew Bible etc...) would be an excellent choice. God bless you. Hugs from Brazil.

Praise God for your ministry and excellent teaching

This is beautifully animated and very well explained! Thanks again Dr. Ortlund for the amazing work you are doing!

Thank you for the beautiful video Dr. Ortuland! Your work is indeed helping me to be more confident on my protestant position while keeping me humble when interacting with those who think differently. God bless you brother!

Thank you for what you do Gavin! You have no idea how much you're helping people during these denominationally confusing times

Amazing video! Thank you for your work!

This was really good! Thank you!

Always love your work Gavin! God bless your family

Always doing great work Gavin! Very concise and just generally helpful.

About 45 seconds in I had my questions answered. I had the wrong idea, thinking that everything non-scriptural was discounted, but that wasn't the case at all. While I think there is still some room for debate, I greatly appreciate men of God like Gavin for all that they do in bringing understanding and healthy debate. His defense of Sola Scriptura is compelling and difficult to disagree with.

Wow, this was wonderful! Super concise, easy to understand, and very based on it’s main points. Thank you, brother!

Another great video Ortlund, concise and clear.

Another beautiful infographic animation, bravo! I love these animations! Only infallible rule of faith for all Christians! Pls read Psalms 119 and be sanctified by the word of God. God bless you for continuing to defend our Protestant beliefs Dr. Ortlund!

@unitewithch

6 ай бұрын

Amen!

@marksmale827

6 ай бұрын

It's just a shame that Christians disagree on so many things, given the importance of Scripture across all traditions.

@micahjakubowicz4172

6 ай бұрын

@hexproofproject8199 "I ask...that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us" "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all"

@geoffjs

5 ай бұрын

@@marksmale827the division and confusion of Satan, thanks to the reformers. In addition, Protestantism has damaged society by relativism causing contraception, which was denied by all denominations until 1930, abortion, IVF, LGBT+, socialism, freemasonry etc

@geoffjs

5 ай бұрын

@@marksmale827the fruit of personal interpretation which led to the damage caused to society by the relativism of Protestantism contraception, denied by all denominations before 1930, abortion, SSM, IVF, LGBT+ socialism, freemasonry etc

Absolutely excellent video, and easy to understand.

Yet another PHENOMENAL concise presentation on an important topic, Gavin. Well done 👏

This is fire. Thank you Gavin for helping to teach people about Protestantism. It makes sense. God bless you!

@toddupchurch1028

6 ай бұрын

Yes, it is fire. Hell fire.

@NATAR160

6 ай бұрын

​@@toddupchurch1028No it's purgatory. Maybe we shd pay to the RC to release his soul from purgatory wen he dies so that the RC cld make more money.

@geoffjs

5 ай бұрын

Makes no sense at all

Excellent, thank you Gavin. The best explanation of Sola Scriptura I have heard. God bless you

@geoffjs

5 ай бұрын

Doesn’t change its unbiblical and heretical nature

What a great quick explanation on Sola Scriptura, Gavin you really are one of the best theological sources for Protestants on KZread!

@geoffjs

6 ай бұрын

Sola Scriptura is self defeating as it is unbiblical and heretical. Ironic for Protestants to claim anything else

Incredible videooo. Well done

Awesome video! Super helpful!

It's a cool new type of info on your channel!

Excellent video!

Fantastic video!

Simple, but very compelling!!! Much appreciated!

This is a great summary of Sola Scriptura! One of the best parts is that which distinguishes the oral teaching of the apostles from the latter transmission of this teaching.

@geoffjs

5 ай бұрын

Unbiblical and heretical, look at the fruits of Protestantism

@SugoiEnglish1

Ай бұрын

@@geoffjs Like more people getting to here the general call? Like that fruit?

I already know some rubuttals are already being recorded

@TheRoark

6 ай бұрын

But are they being animated??

@morghe321

6 ай бұрын

3 hour rebuttals. 😅

Good video. I disagree with it but appreciate you giving a quick talk on what your views are on this doctrine you believe in.

❤❤❤❤❤❤ great work

Thanks Gavin. Don't let people get to you about the local flood video, while you gave me things to think about within that video, I do not think you harmed the church by explaining the position for the local flood.

Masterful work.

@micahjakubowicz4172

6 ай бұрын

What part of this is masterful?

@tigertian1251

6 ай бұрын

@@micahjakubowicz4172 Animation, Clear concise argument. You can tell Gavin is a master at his craft: Apologetics

@geoffjs

5 ай бұрын

@@tigertian1251doesn’t justify what is unbiblical and heretical

@tigertian1251

5 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs Could you be more specific?

Amen! This is the best most succinct explanation of sola scriptura. I hope this aids in us finally coming out of this age of misunderstanding between Catholics and magisterial Protestants. And for the clarification of the difference between the magisterial protestants who hold to true sola scriptura and others who happen to fall under the umbrella term Protestant who hold to a solO scriptura and confuse the two.

@dailyDorc

6 ай бұрын

It's certainly a more coherent and acceptable view of Sola Scriptura but who are the magisterial Protestants? I'm pretty ignorant of most groups but I have seen the Lutheran Church in America fragment like 3 times in the last 15 years and suddenly there's another magisterium. And just as a casual observation I just wonder how a magisterium that can be easily relocated and therefore easily have its authority ignored can be considered a magisterium in the first place

@fuuzug777

6 ай бұрын

I agree with. the problem with a lot of Protestants is that we tend to go Solo Scriptura instead of Sola. I have been to churches who dont even know what the council of Nicaea is and generally the theology at the very least is a complete mess. Most protestant have a very shallow knowledge of Church history and this needs to change

@hjc1402

6 ай бұрын

@@dailyDorc the magisterial protestants were those of the conservative reformation- Lutherans, anglicans, and the reformed including later Arminian Methodists and Calvinist Presbyterians. Magisterial means the emphasis on the teaching authority of the church. They still hold to the authority of the creeds, confessions, councils of the church and church fathers. They truly did not want to split from the RCC. They rejected those of the radical reformation such as the anabaptists and quakers, who desired to throw everything out and actually wanted to spilt from the RCC. You can Google it for more information.

@geoffjs

5 ай бұрын

The Catholic Church will never accept sola Scriptura which is unbiblical and heretical

@otineyskciderf

3 ай бұрын

1) For the first 300 years of Christianity, NOBODY had a bible. I am not saying there were no God-breathed inspired texts; but they were not codified into a single source called a bible during that time. The idea of what was and was not an inspired text was also a little fluid during that time as well. The Early Church Fathers often drew on texts to develop doctrine and theology, which eventually did not make it into the bible as sacred scripture; yet were treated as much as so. Texts like the Didache, the Letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Book of Enoch, the writings of Ireneaus, Polycarp (who was taught directly by St. John the beloved disciple) and many more. But a recognized inerrant, infallible, universal God-inspired single book called a bible did not exist. 2) To muddy the waters even more during those 300 years; many more texts emerged as the thirst for new Christian 'scripture' became a lucrative market, or heretical groups like the gnostics produced their own material. Hundreds more texts claiming inspired origins also circulated among the various and distant communities. Texts like the gospels of Thomas, Mary, Peter, Judas, Barnabas, or the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. etc. 3) Since there was no recognized bible, it goes without saving that the principle of Sola Scriptura was unheard of, never a part of authenticate Christianity, and would not even be known until invented by a mentally disturbed catholic monk in the 1500's in the form of a new heresy. 4) The Chrisitan Church was formed and led by living men who received their offices from the Apostles. Just as the office of Judas was given to Mathais, each Apostle recognized they held a specific office that could be transferred or shared in Apostolic Succession. Each Christian community recognized the Apostles or their successors as having that leadership and teaching Authority as being from Jesus directly. 5) By 385AD-400AD the successors of those Apostles realized the written texts they used in Liturgy and to form doctrine and theology were being lost, degraded, and infiltrated by forgeries, bad copies, and crafted but not God-inspired texts. The problem was, over 300 years out from the First Apostles and witnesses; there was no one alive who could vouch for what texts were inspired and what wasn't. For example; to this day, NO ONE knows who the author of the Letter to the Hebrews was. You can make an educated guess; but no one knows for sure. We don't know who wrote Matthew or Mark; it is only by tradition that it is their testimony which someone recorded; but that is hearsay at best. Luke and Acts was written by Luke the Physician and NOT Luke the Apostle, and is a record of what he remembers from following Peter and Paul at certain points. At some point during the discussions, the Letters of Clement were considered as scripture; while the Apocalypse of John was not finding much support. So by 400AD, here is the situation. No first edition leather bound Bible signed and handed out by Jesus ever existed. None of the Apostles made a bible, nor did they leave behind any written clues or instructons for a bible or what should be in it. Even the current bible by itself can not give us a table of contents of itself. By 385AD, there were about 5000 different texts, scripts, parchments, fragments o writings put before them all claiming they should be considered scripture. So the Catholic Faith through the claimed Teaching Authority the Catholic Bishops held by their Succession to the original 11 Apostles plus Paul; assembled from the 5000 texts, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit the 73 books which would form the Inerrant Infallible Bible for all Christians henceforth. The truth and reliability of these 73 books were then sealed by the approval of the Chair of Peter held then by Pope Honorius. It was ONLY by this process did an infallible Bible form for Christians of the True Faith for the next 1100 years until a wolf in sheeps clothing decided upon his own authority that he alone could decipher the true bible from those 5000 pieces; and created his own 66 book version. He was then the inspiration for others who thought he mucked it up, so they then took a stab at it and made their own bibles on their own authority. Even the KJV was invented by this method. The question then is 'will the real bible please stand up'? Should it be the ecumenical bible compiled by the valid successors to the Apostles in 400AD and agreed upon by 99.999% of Christianity? Or is it the result of individuals, 1500 years separated from the Apostles, motivated by greed, fear, or self-agrandizing aspirations who invented a 66 book mimic? Which story do you think better fits the history and logic of Christianity? Who has the better claim to Authority and the working of God? For me, it is either the Catholic claim or nothing. The protestant claim is so ridiculous and late to the game that it just defeats itself. If the Catholic Church aint it; then there is no church, and the whole thing is a farce anyway. So that is why I am a Catholic and will always be.

As a Catholic I applaud this video for being both robust and pithy. While I don’t think I’ll ever again be convinced of SS, I think this is the best expression of such.

@TruthUnites

6 ай бұрын

thanks for saying so!

@fantasia55

6 ай бұрын

Protestants do not follow the original biblical canon, from AD 382, yet claim whichever version and translation of Scriptura they choose to follow is Sola.

@jonathanpenduka7420

6 ай бұрын

My question is if Jesus Himself being God in flesh used scripture as the rule stick, what makes you differ with Him and if you differ with Him are you still in the Same body of believers He established ?

@callum4337

6 ай бұрын

Do we?

@the3rdchief

6 ай бұрын

​@@jonathanpenduka7420Where did Jesus use Scripture as the rule stick in scripture?

Doing a project on this topic, Thanks for the video

I think all you need is a video on how Protestants account for the canon and a video on “who gets to interpret” from a Protestant perspective and you pretty much answer all the main Roman/EO objections! Theres really nothing else beyond those three.

@billybobbenny9997

6 ай бұрын

Absolutely this!!

@EricAlHarb

5 ай бұрын

Lol. The Church is infallible because it is the Church which is entrusted with the charge to make disciples of all nations. It cannot do so if it can be wrong. It cannot be corruptible because the body of Christ is not corruptible. I am Orthodox.

@turkeybobjr

5 ай бұрын

​@@EricAlHarb Which verses state this?

@EricAlHarb

5 ай бұрын

@@turkeybobjr Go make disciples of all nations!

@turkeybobjr

5 ай бұрын

@@EricAlHarb What does that have to do with ecclesial infallibility?

Concise, well-done. Thank you.

Wonderful explanation! Thank you!

Beautifully done.

Amen! I needed this video! Glory to to our Lord Jesus alone!🙏✝️

Great video. Many thanks.

Wow! This is the best explanation of Sola Scriptura I've heard.

This reminded be of crash course!!! Great job!

I'm very thankful for the Scriptures. Even when I find them difficult. Great video!!

Very helpful and brief summary. Thank you Gavin.

I love these animated videos you do, Dr Ortlund. This was one of the better explanations I’ve heard for Solo Scriptura. When explained like this, I understand much better why Protestants believe in SS. Excellent video, God Bless!

God bless you immensely for this. The caricature on sola scriptura is really terrible. God bless your ministry and family 🙏❤️✝️

@fantasia55

6 ай бұрын

Protestants do not follow the original biblical canon, from AD 382, yet claim whichever version and translation of Scriptura they choose to follow is Sola.

@raphaelfeneje486

6 ай бұрын

@@fantasia55 You're confused, right?? Can you tell me what has that got to do with sola scriptura?? Does Roman Catholic follow the same Bible from the onset?? What about Eastern orthodox??

@fantasia55

6 ай бұрын

@@raphaelfeneje486 Yes, the Catholic Church follows the original biblical canon.

@raphaelfeneje486

6 ай бұрын

​@@fantasia55 Still waiting

@fantasia55

6 ай бұрын

@raphaelfeneje486 Catholics follow the original biblical canon, but do not claim it to be the sole authority. How can anyone believe in Bible Alone with so much variation in canons and translation? Which is the Bible version that is Alone?

I love the conciseness of this video. Very helpful in explaining what this Doctrine is.

I love the animation!

This serves the body of Christ well. This is something the everyday church-goer who is looking to grow in their faith can make sense of, process and respond to. Thanks Gavin.

This is fantastic!

Great Video! Thank you!

Another really good compact Christian topic. Also been watching your many rebuts with Trent Horn on Sola Scriptura

Hey Dr. Ortlund, are you still writing a book on the case for protestantism? If so, will it be out soon?

@TruthUnites

6 ай бұрын

yes, see my community tab for a recent update. releases in august.

@geoffjs

5 ай бұрын

Is there a case?

Very good!

Love this explanation!

Incoming response videos. Good luck Gavin

So good!!!

Beautiful explanation. Thank you.

Well done Dr. Thank you

I think it is awesome how Peter calls Paul’s writings Scripture as well as reminds that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

@alyu1129

5 ай бұрын

That is one possible support for Sola Scriptura. But that is a slender branch to hang a huge doctrine on. You place so much weight on that passing mention because you presume that Peter's writing is authoritative scripture. What about Peter's own writing? Any scriptural basis for regarding HIS writing as authoritative scripture?

@macesune

5 ай бұрын

@@alyu1129 I don’t hang the whole doctrine on this. Like you said it is one possible support. This is simply a supplementary support of on top of everything that Gavin shared in his video

@alyu1129

5 ай бұрын

@@macesune Authoritative "Scriptural" support. Gavin's list are from human reason. They're good and plausible but not authoritative scriptural support unlike what you referred to.

@macesune

5 ай бұрын

@@alyu1129 when did I require authoritative scriptural support? I just pointed out one potential supplement to what Gavin said

Beautifully done. Simple yet clear and comprehensive. I love how it tries to head off all the typical caricatures of the doctrine up front.

Wow this is an amazing video. In only six minutes the video makes a summary of centuries of doctrine. Sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gracia, solo Christus!

Excellent explanation!!

So good

Fantastic!

Excellent. Thank you so very much.

The issue with sola scriptura isn't that we need to use scripture to measure against the councils and confessions, it is that new people will use their own "interpretation" of scripture and claim it as God's word, and then measure that against the former councils and confessions. What instead needs to be done is understand how the historic church understood scripture. If I were to compare a "pastor billy bob" vs St. Ignatius/Clement/Polycarp, I would go with the latters' "interpretation". If scripture was really that clear, then should there be a clear denomination within Protestantism which conveys the gospel truth and clearly understands Christology, Soteriology, role of ordinances/sacraments, etc etc. Heck, protestant churches can't even decide if they want women pastors or not, let alone fundamental, mere Christianity

Every time I see non-protestants mischaracterizing Sola Scriptura, I will post this link. And likewise, every time I see Protestants misusing and misquoting sola Scriptura, I will also post this link. Thank you Dr. Ortlund.

@otineyskciderf

3 ай бұрын

1) For the first 300 years of Christianity, NOBODY had a bible. I am not saying there were no God-breathed inspired texts; but they were not codified into a single source called a bible during that time. The idea of what was and was not an inspired text was also a little fluid during that time as well. The Early Church Fathers often drew on texts to develop doctrine and theology, which eventually did not make it into the bible as sacred scripture; yet were treated as much as so. Texts like the Didache, the Letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Book of Enoch, the writings of Ireneaus, Polycarp (who was taught directly by St. John the beloved disciple) and many more. But a recognized inerrant, infallible, universal God-inspired single book called a bible did not exist. 2) To muddy the waters even more during those 300 years; many more texts emerged as the thirst for new Christian 'scripture' became a lucrative market, or heretical groups like the gnostics produced their own material. Hundreds more texts claiming inspired origins also circulated among the various and distant communities. Texts like the gospels of Thomas, Mary, Peter, Judas, Barnabas, or the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. etc. 3) Since there was no recognized bible, it goes without saving that the principle of Sola Scriptura was unheard of, never a part of authenticate Christianity, and would not even be known until invented by a mentally disturbed catholic monk in the 1500's in the form of a new heresy. 4) The Chrisitan Church was formed and led by living men who received their offices from the Apostles. Just as the office of Judas was given to Mathais, each Apostle recognized they held a specific office that could be transferred or shared in Apostolic Succession. Each Christian community recognized the Apostles or their successors as having that leadership and teaching Authority as being from Jesus directly. 5) By 385AD-400AD the successors of those Apostles realized the written texts they used in Liturgy and to form doctrine and theology were being lost, degraded, and infiltrated by forgeries, bad copies, and crafted but not God-inspired texts. The problem was, over 300 years out from the First Apostles and witnesses; there was no one alive who could vouch for what texts were inspired and what wasn't. For example; to this day, NO ONE knows who the author of the Letter to the Hebrews was. You can make an educated guess; but no one knows for sure. We don't know who wrote Matthew or Mark; it is only by tradition that it is their testimony which someone recorded; but that is hearsay at best. Luke and Acts was written by Luke the Physician and NOT Luke the Apostle, and is a record of what he remembers from following Peter and Paul at certain points. At some point during the discussions, the Letters of Clement were considered as scripture; while the Apocalypse of John was not finding much support. So by 400AD, here is the situation. No first edition leather bound Bible signed and handed out by Jesus ever existed. None of the Apostles made a bible, nor did they leave behind any written clues or instructons for a bible or what should be in it. Even the current bible by itself can not give us a table of contents of itself. By 385AD, there were about 5000 different texts, scripts, parchments, fragments o writings put before them all claiming they should be considered scripture. So the Catholic Faith through the claimed Teaching Authority the Catholic Bishops held by their Succession to the original 11 Apostles plus Paul; assembled from the 5000 texts, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit the 73 books which would form the Inerrant Infallible Bible for all Christians henceforth. The truth and reliability of these 73 books were then sealed by the approval of the Chair of Peter held then by Pope Honorius. It was ONLY by this process did an infallible Bible form for Christians of the True Faith for the next 1100 years until a wolf in sheeps clothing decided upon his own authority that he alone could decipher the true bible from those 5000 pieces; and created his own 66 book version. He was then the inspiration for others who thought he mucked it up, so they then took a stab at it and made their own bibles on their own authority. Even the KJV was invented by this method. The question then is 'will the real bible please stand up'? Should it be the ecumenical bible compiled by the valid successors to the Apostles in 400AD and agreed upon by 99.999% of Christianity? Or is it the result of individuals, 1500 years separated from the Apostles, motivated by greed, fear, or self-agrandizing aspirations who invented a 66 book mimic? Which story do you think better fits the history and logic of Christianity? Who has the better claim to Authority and the working of God? For me, it is either the Catholic claim or nothing. The protestant claim is so ridiculous and late to the game that it just defeats itself. If the Catholic Church aint it; then there is no church, and the whole thing is a farce anyway. So that is why I am a Catholic and will always be.

@logofreetv

Ай бұрын

@@otineyskciderf Given that Gavin showed the CC has contradicted itself in the last 500 years, much of your own logic points right back at you, only worse.

The fundamental problem with the thesis in the video is the misunderstanding of infallibility. Inerrancy is not infallibility. The Bible is inerrant (contains no errors), but it is not infallible. The video confuses the terms (an almost universal problem with advocates of sola scriptura). Infallibility is the inability to decide something erroneously. Infallibility requires an active agent, one capable of making a decision, whether rightly or wrongly. The Bible is not an active agent at all. It is static. No book, not even an inspired book, is an active agent. No book, not even the Bible, can make a decision about anything. People who read the Bible make decisions when they interpret what it says. In theory it is possible that someone, or some group of someones, possesses the charism of infallibility and can decide with absolute certainty what the Bible means, but that is not a charism that anyone reading this has. And it is not a charism that even the Bible has, since, as I said, the Bible is not an active agent. Bottom line: The Bible is not infallible. It is inerrant. The words are not synonyms. The Bible's inerrancy doesn't guarantee that it always will be understood properly by fallible people like us. Either there exists an interpretative authority that can function at times infallibly (such as an ecumenical council), or there exists no such authority. In the latter case, one must be satisfied with a probability or possibility of correct interpretation but not a guarantee of it.

@461weavile

6 ай бұрын

I like your point, but it's a tough sell, because some people won't even agree on the definitions of the words "church," "worship," or "prayer" when Jesus Himself says them. We are a long ways off from getting people to understand what "inerrancy" means.

@rexlion4510

6 ай бұрын

The active agent who makes the Bible infallible is the Holy Spirit, for He divinely inspired and guided the people who held the quills. But you make a valid distinction, which becomes valuable when we consider the Councils. No Council is infallible, but it is possible for some Councils to act inerrantly at times. The Council happened to act in an error-free manner when it listed the Canon of Scripture. But it was not the listing of the Canon which made the Scriptures infallible; that act was accomplished by God and we all accept it (the infallibility of Scripture) as a matter of faith. 🙂

@461weavile

6 ай бұрын

@@rexlion4510 No, I think you misunderstood his comment. The Bible is not infallible, it is inerrant. The Bible can't be described as either infallible or not because it does not make decisions. That means the adjective is not appropriately defined to modify the particular noun in this instance. To make a mistake, you have to have choices and make a decision. Something which is infallible is something that cannot choose mistakenly. Something which is inerrant is something which cannot have the quality of wrongness. Now, if we substitute the word "inerrant" into your comment, which may have been your intent, and I simply have no clue why you responded to this particular comment, we could have a different response, which is this: Yes, the Bible is inerrant because of God, but a more pertinent (perhaps not more important, but certainly more pertinent) question is how we know which passages are inerrant. We know the passages in the Bible are inerrant from various sources which I'm sure you and I would agree on but are too complicated for this forum. What we need to know is which passages are in the Bible. Is there a way to know with certainty that the passages we think are in the Bible are correctly named to be in the Bible? I only know of one way, and that's if there is someone to tell us which passages they are and be known to not be wrong. If a regular human claimed to know which books are in the Bible, should we trust him? Is there anybody who might have a particular ability to not be wrong about this matter? It is our faith in God, and particularly in God the Holy Spirit, that allows us to know that the list of the canon delineates the books which are part of the inerrant works of scripture, and does so without mistake. I suppose there is a third possibility here, and that would be that you're making a joke about confusing the terms "infallible" and "inerrant," and that's why you're replying to this comment in particular. If so, I'm a goof and I missed it.

@sweetpea11

2 ай бұрын

@@461weavileisn’t that literally why we have the Holy Spirit with us? To lead us to the right path of thinking? God gave his word, people who believe in his word have the Holy Spirit, therefore they can understand it and it isn’t because of the understanding of man but the discernment of the Holy Spirit? God’s word alone is infallible because we believe in him and we are given the Holy Spirit because of our belief in him and his Son that we are able to understand scripture. His word is then infallible, and the highest authority. The Holy Spirit that dwells within us has higher authority than man, whose heart we cannot know. Jesus was able to discern and interpret the scriptures because was one with the Father. Does it not also make sense that those who believe and have the Holy Spirit within them also have the ability to understand the scriptures? Why would I trust man when I can trust God?

@461weavile

2 ай бұрын

@@sweetpea11 Two things come to mind. The first is that it depends on who you mean by "us." The second is that believing God's word is not enough to have the Holy Spirit within you. I would also nit-pick that learning and understanding is not the reason we receive the Holy Spirit and it's more like a beneficial side effect, but I don't think that plays an important role in your comment. Lastly, your comparison to Jesus's knowledge on account of His oneness with the Father to the oneness of the Holy Spirit with the Father misses the mark because a person who receives the Holy Spirit doesn't also receive that oneness with the Father. We will only receive that oneness if we receive our eternal inheritance which is heaven.

Thank you Matthew! This was a very encouraging as someone who has struggled with this on and off for the last few years. As someone who wants to please the Lord it can be overwhelming when I see so many different views on things I believe us brothers/sisters in Christ should believe in. In my mind, the way to reconcile that is to spend more time with people who have spent time expositing scripture because they are more “trustworthy” than what I could gain by reading the Bible. This cycle inevitably takes me farther from God since I’m putting my faith in human works rather than the divine. I will be taking this message to heart and would love to be free from this worry.

Great & to the point!

If two Christians, acting in good faith, have conflicting interpretations of scripture, to what normative authority do they turn to determine which, if either, interpretation is correct?

@TheStockCarStig

6 ай бұрын

The same can be said between a modern Catholic and a Sedevecantist Catholic. Both are appealing to, in their view, authentic Catholic teaching.

@hjc1402

6 ай бұрын

That’s when they can turn to the other authorities of the church- the creeds, councils, etc. Remember, as mentioned in the video, sola scriptura is not a denial of other real authorities in the church. It just claims that only one of those authorities is infallible.

@cassidyanderson3722

6 ай бұрын

@@TheStockCarStig I’m not a Catholic and don’t know enough about it or the other group to understand how that is even responsive to the question.

@FalconOfStorms

6 ай бұрын

It's simple. Using the conflicting interpretations of which church is the #OneTrueChurchTM you can interpret either the Roman Catholic Church, one of the Orthodox churches, or one of the Mormon churches to have the correct teaching, and can then begin delving in to the conflicting interpretations of that organization's teachings.

@FalconOfStorms

6 ай бұрын

@@RexMattos Wait until you learn that the shape of the Earth has multiple interpretations too!

Right so the scripture that comes from the church you're in protest with is the only authority. Gotcha, Sola scriptura is self-defeating.

@British_loyalist

4 ай бұрын

The church came from scripture, not the other way around

@ethanbunn1948

4 ай бұрын

@British_Protestant So the Bible dropped out of the sky magically and wasn't formed and brought together by a magisterium? Hmm someone doesn't understand history. And the church was well established before scripture was even written so no you're wrong.

Can you continue these? The information was so easy to digest

God bless u brother this video is a great reflection of the true word of God❤🙏🏻

To God be the glory.