Defining and DEFENDING Sola Scriptura (w/ Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer) 

I have a challenge for everyone who watches this video: don't make blanket statements asserting that sola scriptura is right or wrong and call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot or heretic. Instead, state your viewpoint and give a thoughtful argument defending it. This goes for people on both sides of the debate. :)

Looking forward to this! Dr. Vanhoozer is an excellent scholar. I'm really glad you invited him into these conversations!

Alrighty. Post-video megacomment. Point one: Caricatures and realities: As I noted in my "pre-game", there is a common complaint among Protestants that when Catholics critique Sola Scriptura, we are attacking a caricature which is called "Solo Scriptura" or "Nuda Scriptura." But as ya'll note at 22:30, it cannot be a caricature if there are people who operate in that mode. What's really going on is that Protestants want to defend an idealistic, theoretical form of Sola Scriptura. Catholics critique it for what inevitably becomes of it when implemented. By analogy: The designer of the Tacoma Narrow bridge may protest that his design envisioned a bridge which would stand tall. That's great, but moot compared to the historical fact that the things shook itself to pieces. The design inevitably led to that result. The criticisms are valid. The difference that makes the difference is what the doctor says at 17:26, that Scripture Alone(!) is the only wholly reliable authority for the Church's life and thought. That principle reflects what Martin Luther said at the Diet of Worms: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the SCriptures (for I do not trust in the pope or in councils alone, since they have often erred and contradicted), I am bound by the Scriptures which I have quoted..." A subscriber to Sola Scriptura can make overtures toward the importance of tradition and councils. He can praise it as an important ministerial authority, and a vital resources and reference. But it does not make a difference in the end if he does not grant that these authorities have exercized the capacity to permanently settle questions in a way Christians are obligated to obey. Without that, one is left with a system in which the tradition, however exalted, is nothing more than a suggestion which a person can set aside if he thinks it is wrong, Later on he mentions the Acts 15 council. The question needed to be asked, "Were the churches who recieved their ruling obligated before God to obey it? Or could they treat it as one entry into an ongoing conversation?" That's the difference which Sola Scriptura made. It took the authoritative decrees and made them into suggestions which need to be checked against Scripture by later generations. Once that change is made, there are no compliments to tradition which can keep the "caricature" from becoming the reality. The Sola Scriptura Protestants are in the same boat as the Nuda Scriptura Protestants, even if the former is in the part of the boat which is nearer to shore. Point Two: Divisions. In regard to the divisions in the Protestant world, his first move (37:03) is to say that Protestants are not as divided as one would think. And to support this, he points to a statement of faith he created... which he admits many refused to sign. Not a good start. The other thing he points to (at 40:00) is the concept of dogmatic rank. The claim being that Protestants ARE united on those things which are "first order doctrines" - and the "best Protestants" have table fellowship because they have agreed to disagree over their second order disagreements. I'm sorry, but no. When Luther and Zwingli disagreed about the Lord's Supper, Luther said Zwingli was on the side of the devil. John Calvin, in his Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper, said in the first paragraph that a proper understanding of the Lord's supper was necessary for salvation. When it cam to infant baptism, the early Protestants exacted capital punishment on the anabaptists and said they were worse than the Papists. The early Protestants were not sanguine about their disagreements, and the Lutherans and Calvinists did not have table fellowship. He also admits that there are some Protestants who don't agree (with him) on what counts as a first order doctrine. That shows a critical problem: How does one establish what constitutes a first order doctrine? Who decides? Not everyone is going to agree. In regard to the people who have a more expansive view of first order doctrines, he called them "Sub Protestant" and "Small minded". Does he call them that to their face? ! This can go over one's head because the doctor's voice is so jovial and kindly, but his response to such people is to demean them? Holy cow. I could go on about other issues, but that's probably enough. To conclude: He seems like a nice man who has a laudible ideal about Christian unity. But the key question is whether the tradition is authoritative in a way which commands obedience. And if it does not, how does the theory of Sola Scriptura avoid playing out as the caricature. Even after an hour of praising the traditions as an exalted, indispensible suggestion, the question is still left on the table.

As a former Protestant, I understand Sola Scriptura and I understand the position the reformers were in and why they developed it as a doctrine. The main problem is it ultimately makes every reader the arbiter of what is true doctrine. As powerful and important as the Scriptures are, they are not always explicit in their meaning and they don't directly answer every possible question of the faith. This is why well-educated, faithful and sincere Protestants from different backgrounds can disagree on basic questions like when is the appropriate time to baptize a person. In these cases you can't appeal to Scripture as the ultimate authority to prove that somebody is wrong, because they can make just as convincing an argument from Scripture as you can. This has further effects downstream, leading to the many schisms and literally thousands of denominations. The ultimate irony is that Protestants actually follow their own traditions, a thing they claim to be against. Their traditions consist of a line of theologians who interpreted the Scriptures in a particular way down through the centuries, and came to believe that certain practices and beliefs were correct. There is more than one line of tradition, and the different traditions can be seen in the divisions between denominations. All of them believe that they are adhering to Sola Scriptura and that they have come to the correct understanding, which demonstrates the flaw in the concept of Sola Scriptura. The reality is that the set of doctrines developed by the reformers, and passed down through the centuries through their churches and theologians, is in practice no different than the traditions of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. That is, Protestants have different beliefs than those churches, and believe the origin of those beliefs is different, but can't prove them beyond all question using the Scriptures, and are actually passing down the lived experience of their churches - which is exactly what the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions are.

This was a great interview. As a Catholic, I enjoyed it thoroughly and a lot of what he said made a lot of sense and I found myself nodding with his beliefs because I think we're on the same wavelength as well it's just a matter of different wording, or a different angle. I think my favorite analogy that he provided was how he equated tradition to the moon and how the moon only reflects light but doesn't actually create light but the sun, being the scriptures itself, is what creates the light. As Catholics, we have the exact same analogy when it comes to Mary. When we are accused of worshiping Mary we say the same thing that we don't worship Mary, but she is like the moon. She is the light in the darkness but the true light comes from the sun, which is Jesus. So she is a reflection and guides us back to the greater lightbringer. I thought that was pretty interesting. 😁

Thank you for having this discussion! I’m a lifelong Protestant who has encountered the Eastern Orthodox Church and have felt drawn to it. The “Sola Scriptura” difference was the most difficult hurdle to get over. While I do remain convinced that the Orthodox Church is the true preservation of the faith, I was happy to watch this discussion to hear out an articulate argument in defense of sola scriptura from your channel. I so appreciate all the civil discussion you do here! Stay humble, Austin!

When I realized I bring my own prejudices to bear on the Bible and on my view of its meanings that forced me ask, "So how can I know what's right?" Because if I simply end up stopping my search and believing something because I'm comfortable with that belief, or because I agree with people that say that, or with what I think sounds most logical then I have become my own Pope. I have become the final authority and so therefore I have put myself above the Scriptures. Then I started wondering, "If the Bible is so clear to understand why are there 33,000 denominations; ALL of them claiming to be based on the Bible "alone?" (Sola Scriptura) I don't blame the Reformers. The Roman Church needed reform! But at the moment they started writing the Eastern Church Patriarchs for validation, and they weren't validated, they should have listened to correction and come back to that original Faith delivered once for all to the Saints. "By cutting the cords of Holy Tradition, and placing in its stead the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Protestants ensured theological divisiveness and fracture between themselves and their descendants and have only multiplied divisions, theories, and interpretations ad infinitum, with no end in view to this day. We may judge a tree by its fruit. The sola scriptura tree has borne the fruit of division and every conceivable heresy." (Father Josiah Trenham, "Rock and Sand" p. 275)

For someone (myself) looking to argue against sola scriptura, it is very helpful when you create videos like these so that I can try to interact with some of the best articulators of the doctrine. Thank you Austin for all of your content creation! God Bless.

I would really like to see more from the protestant side. I feel like this channel, for being hosted by a protestant, skews quite heavily towards Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Being Southern Baptist myself, I'd some of the people from the youtube channel Southern Seminary, would be great. Or someone like John MacArthur I find may also be great choices at explaining and defending Sola Scriptura.

As a relatively recent convert, I appreciate your engagement across differences in understanding what it means to be Christian. This helps me become a better reader of scripture and (hopefully) more faithful in my love for God and my neighbor. Humility about my own interpretation as well as assuming best intent on the part of other interpretations are evident in your discussions. Challenging viewpoints from a variety of perspectives is very helpful. Thank you!

While you say that Protestants agree on the "main things", who determines what is a "main thing" and what is a "secondary"? When two Protestants teach diametrically opposite things, you can't appeal to the Bible to resolve it. In fact, Jesus told us to "take it to the Church". He didn't say "take it to the Scriptures."

The Orthodox christians believe that Scripture carries the seal of infallibility and is divinely inspired. However we do not believe that it has divine power on its own. That actually reminds me of the pagan belief on runes. That reading or writing a certain language empowers someone in a magical way.

Thank you Austin & Dr. Vanhozer for thoughtfully trying to address this very needful conversation. I have come from a Far Eastern background - Budhist , Taoist & Confusionist background. As a young man, I converted to a Protestant "Born Again" faith & went on to Bible College to study Missiology. Although I have many fond affections towards my fellow professed Catholic & Protestant believers ( many of whom are very pious in their own right). There seems that perhaps one among issues I have is that with both approaches lack true reverent awe/ worship of the Blessed Living God. Please forgive me, but it seems that most of the discussion really didn't answer much. Lord knows the Eastern Orthodox have issues of their own that needs addressing. However, within the basic rubrics of the Church's Sacraments & Liturgy/Worship of God there is a sure foundation to wholeness & salvation. It seems to me that the focus needs to be in our union & proper worship to God which is first & foremost a mystery, grace filled & relational ( God is Love) this implies a revelatory relationship to His creation. "Blessed are the pure in heart... Blessed are you when you hunger & thirst. It seems that most of what the Protestant Reformers sought to rightly address became more of the same. We all have some practice/tradition the question is does our tradition have legitimacy. The Church invitation isn't necessarily come & accept certain dogmas ( as important as that is) but rather come live the life of Faith. May God grant us all His mercy, illumination & grace to glorify Him & be fully healed.

From my own experience, as a former heathen catechized in the Orthodox church, is that protestants treat the Bible in the same manner that Muslims treat the Qu'ran, or as their own personal grimoire. I know many who, when making a decision, just open the bible to a random page and read the text and then decide what to do based on that, instead of leaning on God through prayer. It reminded me of all the times we used to use Tarot cards before I eventually became a Christian. Some of the greatest people in my life are protestant, and they live exemplary lives of piety that are true inspirations to me, BUT.... Of all the denominations I've encountered and interacted with, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants, it was always the protestants that made me see the body of Christianity as a prideful, hypocritical mess. It was my interactions with Catholic and Orthodox Christians that ultimately convinced me to seriously investigate the Faith. I think there is a danger and inclination towards spiritual pride built into the fabric of Protestantism. This doesn't mean every protestant is spiritually prideful, not at all, but the total rejection of earthly authority, and the idea that each person is the center of his own spiritual authority can make us very vulnerable to prelest and deception...

Vanhoozer was my last lifeline before becoming Catholic. I just couldn't grab onto his theories concerning authority. I started to wonder at what point it was just sophistry, the Catholic position made much more sense of the Canon, authority and the history of the Church.

I suppose it’s only fair to have this discussion considering all the Roman Catholic and Orthodox investigation that has been done on this channel. Frankly however, I cannot imagine that anything new will be added to this debate. This is well worn ground. Many of us who were Protestants wanted Sola Scriptura to be true and were devastated when we realized we could no long defend it. I hope people will listen to this podcast and then put this uniquely Protestant doctrine to the test. This should be good.

57:13 there was already Church before the Old Testament was ever written. Abraham was the first Priest and Patriarch. For most of History, the word of God was oral. Then Moses came, and the Jews recognized both the first writings and Oral Tradition, with priests and judges. Then, as the Old Testament was being written, there was a Church with authority. Jesus, who recognized both the Oral Law and the Written, came and established his New Church, with new Patriarchs and Priests, but with genuine authority, an authority that did not go away, but as always, this New Church presided the New Writings. IT IS always the Church, then the Writings as Testaments of the Church. But the Church, the community, is the first breath of the word of God. Writing can disappear, the bibles can be burned, but the Church cannot collapse. After all, it is because of the Church that the Writings survived, not because of the community's nature, but because the community is holy and gracious, and the Holy Spirit protects it to pass down the Tradition, either orally or written,

In the first century the source of truth was Tradition passed on by the Apostles, both written and oral, as interpreted and applied by the teaching authority of the Church. What needs to be proved is that there was anywhere in the New Testament where Christ or the Apostles said that would change.

We all come with our own bias, but the Dr. said 3 things that just aren't true. 1. The councils created doctrine later, i.e. trinity. The church only made declarations at councils when it was forced to do so, by heretics. Councils only codified what Church always believed. 2. Irenaeus determined Gnosticism was heretical, not independently, but by seeking consensus of other churches founded by apostles. 3. As I presume he knows, the Old Testament is all about Christ and wasn't canonized as we know it, until the Church did it after Christ. In the end, as he said, I don't see Orthodox as only Christians. We're all in the same team.

I have a question? Whenever I read Church Fathers they all quote scripture and are students of the Bible. Right? They never start their writings by saying I write the revelation of Jesus Christ, as if they were inspired writings. Example: Paul writes in Romans 2:16 God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according TO MY GOSPEL. We all know the story of Paul being blinded by Jesus for three days and Jesus spoke to Paul and instructed him what to say and he wrote the gospels to the Gentiles. My point is which Church Father ever had that revelation, that we can say” this is doctrine,”for they all had their opinions and were in disagreements with each other. Besides the Bible say we are supposed to study the scriptures for ourselves 2TIMOTHY 2:15.

There are 4 different Baptist churches within 2 miles of my home. They all teach different things about salvation, faith, and the Christian Life. The fact that they have some teachings in common doesn't change the fact that they are fundamentally divided on some very important things. This can be extended into every aspect of protestantism. To imply that protestants aren't really divided, is a blatant denial of the reality we live in. Our divisions are divided.

I know I'm late on this, but one observation I've made is that one of the problems when Protestants/evangelicals say they are united on "first order doctrines" is the issue of baptismal regeneration. I've very commonly seen Protestants in the Baptist and Reformed traditions criticize those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation as "adding to the finish work of Christ" or promoting a "Jesus plus" doctrine. Usually they make that critique in the context of criticizing Catholic (and sometimes Orthodox) teaching but that dart hits confessional Lutherans and some Anglicans. Obviously the charge that baptismal regeneration adds to or diminishes Christ's work is a very serious charge and a first order doctrine. That's not to say every Baptist or Reformed holds this view but from what I've seen it's not uncommon.

This interview was so great! Listened to it last night, and I'm listening to it again. Thanks for making this happen!

Sola Scriptura is comically NOWHERE to be found in the Bible. Since it is extra-Biblical concept, it can be only one thing - men invented tradition. Ouch.!

In actuality who gets to define sola scriptura? there are at least 12 different schools on this. This was a solid presentation and the most acceptable of building a bridge to apostolic churches however many in the evangelical world would reject his interpretation of this doctrine making it a frustrating dialogue for we will be back were we started at from the Christians who don’t agree with him.

The solas have different meanings in each protestant fragmentation. ps if you dont have a TOTAL canon then how can you have sola scriptura?? So this video will be HIS definition of "Sola Scriptura" but it will not be the definition across the board AT ALL

The Church gave us the Bible, not the other way around. Without resorting to scriptural verses “volleyball”, I tend to look at the Early Church Fathers and take a consensus of their opinions on major matters, they never embraced, the Bible alone. It was an invention of Martin Luther because of his disagreements with the Hierarchy.

Hey guys, there's a lot of hate against Sola Scriptura going on here. If you have insensitive comments, it would be nice if you keep it to yourself. Austin is an amazing Christian for having catholics, orthodox, lutherans, and anglicans over to his channel. Not sure why he's getting so much hate for having a protestant over. please be more gracious.

Great discussion with Dr. Vanhoozer! He has a very generous spirit with regard to how he views Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters. I wish more Protestants understood and agreed with him! Unfortunately, those that disagree with him most vehemently are within Evangelicalism. Thank you for having him as a guest on your show!

51:30ish - he lost me when he talked about doctrines developing only when they need to be. He then likened the doctrine of the Trinity taking 300 years to develop to Sola Scriptura. He said Sola Scriptura was was shrouded in the midst and only needed to be defined at the reformation. This is confusing on so many levels, especially since the Trinity was defined by ecumenical councils whereas Sola Scriptura was not. And in fact it is opposite in many ways since Sola Scriptura is a principle which cannot help but lead to division.

Who had the authority to leave out Paul's letter to the Church of Laodicea and Paul's several letters to the Philippians? Ot the letters of Matthias and Gamaliel and Barnabas? Who has the final authority to interpret "My Flesh is True food and Blood True drink ", ( John6:53-55), and "This is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26).

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon those that believe but are outside of the church and deny or denigrate the eucharist. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on those who are a part of church and partake in the eucharist. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on those who are ill, who are persecuted, those who are starving and especially for all children suffering through such things. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, wretched man that I am, have mercy on me, a sinner.

How come the political purposes of the Solas are never a part of this discussion? I say purpose because power and politics is their purpose.

I am Orthodox but I found this a really good talk and got a very clear understanding from a very insightful theologian. Thank you for the talk and for our host and interviewer Austin . FYI I came across your channel via Father Seraphim of the Monastery of All Celtic Saints .

It's because of Sola Scriptura that we have thousands of denominations. It's because of Sola Scriptura that a church is easily divided. I'm talking about what I've seen in reality. A pastor who does not agree with the church can start his own using the Bible alone and nobody can tell him that he cannot do that. Looking at reality where we deal with ordinary people, I could say that nothing divided Christianity like Sola Scriptura. Christianity is not meant for the highly intellectuals only but for all. Please look at Sola Scriptura from ordinary people's view also.

The question that should have been asked was: did Jesus want His Church to look like present day protestantism? If so why did he wait over 1500yrs to reveal it? Were there no true Church for 1500yrs? Where was SS taught in Church history the same way protestants teach it today?

The discussion point I keep encountering again and again is you just need the right "version" of Sola Scriptura... Who is the arbiter of which version we ought to use? And how much tradition do we mix in with the practices we derive from Scripture alone? Is it okay if we don't use tradition? What's the point of tradition if it's being added TO Scripture? A lot of questions that need to be arbitrated by ordinary men that we put our trust in "getting it right."

Why do the catholics here get so upset when a viewpoint other than their own is shown on this channel. Can you just let Austin create the content he wants? I'm sure this video will be very interesting!

Sola Verbum Dei is a better principle because as the Apostles stated we have God given traditions and culture with the Bible being a part of that and at the forefront but there are other things in addition through tradition. ➕

Another great discussion, Austin. I would love to see Dr. Vanhoozer have a dialogue with a Catholic theologian on this topic. Here are a few thoughts on what I still found lacking in Dr. Vanhoozer's presentation. (Part 1 of 2) *Few initial points*: - Everyone agrees that scriptures are the word of God. - Everyone agrees that since scriptures are the Word of God they are supremely authoritative. - Saying these things do not get to the heart of the disagreement, nor are they challenges to the Catholic view of scriptures in any way (see Dei Verbum). - I think it would be very helpful for Protestants to acknowledge that Catholics emphatically teach that nothing in Church teaching can contradict scriptures. Of course, many will say that Catholics do hold to teachings that contradict scriptures, but that is going to part of the later stages of the debate. Initially, I believe that if we first have agreement that Catholics do not believe they have the authority to change scriptures or teaching something contrary to scriptures, then we can move past so many misunderstandings and get to the key disagreements. *First problem*: The Bible can't give you the Canon Around 18 minutes "scriptures alone are what the Church has recognized as the Word of God." We already have a strike against sola scriptura in that we have an authority other than the Bible that tells us what is considered part of the Bible. There is already the acknowledgment here that the Church authoritatively declared what books are in the scriptures. This isn't to say the Church created the Bible, God obviously did, but the Church did give us the epistemological knowledge of what is God's Word and what is not. How can anyone think they have any theological certainty on any teaching in the Bible if we can't be sure whether the book they are deriving that teaching from is actually scripture or not? *Second problem*: Inconsistent Historical Method The same standards that you would use to argue for the 27 book New Testament will also get you the magisterium. This is to say that in looking for the historical consensus of the early Church in deciding what books should be in the Bible will also give you consesus on the existence of an ecclesial community established by God to authoritatively interpret scripture and declare dogma and doctrine. To accept one while rejecting the other is simply inconsistent. *Third Problem*: nuda/solo scriptura vs. the sola scriptura distinction is a distinction without a difference Around 19 min: The nuda/solo scriptura vs. the sola scriptura distinction seems like a distinction that is impossible to maintain. I used to think this was true too when I was Lutheran. But then, I listened to how much disagreement there is over moral issues in the Christian world and I saw no one actually lives out this distinction in practice. For just one example, the teleological view of the moral law clearly shows that contraception is intrinsically wrong. Here, we have an example of God's authority outside the Bible (the natural moral law) that is clearly teaching one thing, and yet, I heard again and again in the Lutheran church that since contraception isn't explicitly in the Bible (adiaphora), this is a matter of Christian freedom of conscience. This is just one quick example, but can multiplied almost beyond belief. This seems like another strong piece of evidence for authority the living magisterium of the Catholic Church which can declare doctrine and dogma that isn't explicitly in scripture as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible and has solid reasons backing up the teaching. I would also argue that everything taught by the Catholic Church is implicitly in scripture, but that is a side issue and not necessary for the main problem. *Fourth problem*: The authoritative interpretation problem 23 min: "The Reformers did not advocate just holding themselves up in their closets and reading the Bible without any other guidance, that is solo scriptura and they repudiated it, they read with the Church." Also 29 minutes and the discussion of perspicuity of scriptures The Reformers did indeed selectively quote the Church Fathers to try and make their case stronger. However, they also rejected so many things from the Church Fathers that went against their case. This isn't actually the problem as the Catholic Church does the same thing too! They read the Church Fathers to see what is good and reject the bad. There is an infinite difference, though. The real problem is the denial that the Catholic Church was given the authority by Jesus to do this. They have the authority from God to make dogma and doctrine that is binding for all Christians and in the process are documenting a collection of Christian teaching that are within the bounds of acceptable belief. In the Protestant world, without this binding authority, you can never, and I repeat, never, have any binding or authoritative doctrine in matters of dispute. It always comes down to what an individual believes the Bible says or which Church community's interpretation they decide to align their beliefs with. Note: I am not implying that there are not very clear things in the Bible that all can come to know without the magisterium (e.g. Jesus rose from the dead). However, there are countless core doctrines of the Church that one could never have any theological certainty without an interpretive authority (e.g. Trinity, hypostatic union, baptismal regeneration, etc.). Scriptures do not interpret themselves. *Fifth problem*: material vs. formal sufficiency of scripture problem Around 30 minutes, Dr. Vanhoozer states that he thinks the Bible contains both the ingredients and the recipe, hence saying it is both materially and formally sufficient for all Christians and their salvation. This seems empirically false. This ties in immediately with the canon problem in that you don't know from scriptures what the ingredients are (books of the canon). Also, just as discussed above with the interpretation problem, there are countless divisions in the Protestant world over essential/first order doctrine (e.g. baptismal regeneration, real presence in Eucharist, etc.). If the Bible is formally sufficient for our salvation, how is it that many Protestants hold contradictory views over essential doctrine? Also, there will always be endless division over what even counts as essential doctrine! *Sixth Problem*: Individualism problem Around 37 min, I was very happy to hear Dr. Vanhoozer acknowledge the individualism problem. I still haven't come across a sola scriptura argument that overcomes this problem, though. To simply say that you read the Bible in light of tradition doesn't overcome the problem. Every individual can read more things other than the Bible and apply their own take on it. The same problem exists about interpretive authority, you are just throwing in more resources to interpret. The Catholic Church isn't prone to the same objection because they are making an entirely different ontological claim. They are the living magisterium of God that can settle dispute whenever it arises. If something previously declared becomes disputed again, the Church has the authority to further clarify the matter. The written word of the Bible can never further clarify itself. 45 min: Dr. Vanhoozer said he was sad that the Reformers couldn't work out difference over the Lord's Supper but he is happy that they were still able to still fellowship with one another and share the Lord's Supper. Umm.. I don't know what Dr. Vanhoozer is trying to get at with this one. The disagreement over the Lord's Supper fractured the early Protestant groups that were trying to find their way apart from the Catholic Church. They did not maintain fellowship with one another after this. Conservative Lutherans, to this day, will not let someone who is not a part of their particular brand of Lutheranism to partake in communion (i.e. closed communion). Don't get me wrong, I think excluding those of different beliefs from the Eucharist is the right thing to do (1 Corinthians 11:29). The fact there is not table fellowship among Protestants, is yet another example of the fallout from the hermeneutical chaos that exists apart from the Catholic Church.

You know I think the way we're going about defining earthly authority when we start talking about Sola Scriptura and tradition is backwards because in both cases the arguments become about defending out own authority rather than acknowledging God's. Realistically, both the Bible and traditions are secondary to his will and we need to be humbling ourselves and seeking his will. That should mean that while we value both and that neither should ever really have any more primacy than the other since God has the ultimate authority. Frankly I think any person really trying to follow Jesus understands that this is a relationship and anything we come up with is subject our human limits that need constant input from God. I think if we approached this discussion from that angle you start to notice other things like that you need some sort of interpretation to know what scripture is really saying and Jesus is the way not the Bible itself (heck, it'd be terrible to loose the Bible but I believe even if that theoretical situation were to happen we'd be fine because we have God). Those things seem obvious but I think if we are all being honest with ourselves we forget them when this discussion ends up happening and instead it becomes more a defense of our own earthly way of saying who has authority and that can be done well when we remember the humility bit of all that but without it just leads to everyone being defensive.

No offence, but this guy like all Protestants that talk about Orthodoxy has not taken the time to understand the difference between patristic theology and their own systematic theology.

The purpose of the doctrine of "sola scriptura" was and has been just to take authority from The Church, this makes it completely unbiblical doctrine according to the bible. 1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." It is pretty obvious why Lutero invented it.

Even scripture says the Church is the pillar of truth, not Scripture (1 Tim 3:15). Even scripture talks about “holding fast to the traditions you were taught by word or epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15) Church holds the scriptures, so She has the right to interpret them by divine inspiration, same as the scriptures were divinely inspired. It’s why apostolic succession/tradition is so important - it’s the lens by which the scriptures are interpreted. Scriptures are impossible to read without interpretation - if there was, there would only be one Protestant denomination instead of thousands. I was Protestant my whole life, the serious examination of church history, especially in the first few centuries, changed that. Am now Orthodox.

I think interpreting "the word" as "the bible" is wrong. None of the writers of the bible thought they where writing a holy book (with the possible exception of Moses and some others I cannot recall who where explicitly told to write stuff down by God). I think "the word" which does not return void rather is the Logos - Christ. God has spoken the whole world into being, when God speaks things happen. IDK just rambling late on a friday, have fun ya'll.

The one issue that I have, here, is that, as much as he may contend that Protestants believe and should believe that the Bible should be intimately connected to the church, but from day 2, that just dissolved and is now a small minority opinion among Protestants. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans/Episcopalians, and a few others. They are about the only ones who have really stuck to that 😔 And even they can't agree on some crucial issues (like the Eucharist)

As someone who was raised protestant, and still technically a protestant, I have to admit Sola Scriptura is a weakly established doctrine. I was utterly on team sola scriptura, because thats what I was raised on, while completely ignoring any other view point. However, when looking into the arguments for and against sola scriptura, the arguments “for” all seem rather feeble. Scripture is still the prime authority, but it just isn’t the sole authority, that is, if we’re trying to be as biblical as possible. Early Church history and the reality of the historic Christian faith is a mountain every reformed Christian must summit; if we don’t really know where we come from, our claim to the hope of faith we have is weakened. Us Protestants believe that we are more like the early church than the “puffed up,” “rich,” and “strange” Catholic church, except, when you read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and the other Early Church Fathers, their theology doesn’t really sound like Protestant theology...rather, it sounds a lot like Catholic and Orthodox theology. How do we reconcile that fact? I don’t think its possible.

Hey @Gospel Simplicity just wanted to thank you for another great video. If I were a fraction as mature in college as you are, I might be making a difference in the world. I am blown away by the great work you do and how you do it. Also, in the video on Baptismal Regeneration with Dr. Cooper- did you cut your hair? Lookin' sharp and keeping it real with the Solae! I've been finding myself moving more toward the Lutheran position. While I have enjoyed my time with the people in the Orthodox Church, I am struggling with things that seem idolatrous to me (invoking saints, view of the Theotokos, etc) so I have been speaking with a wonderful Lutheran Pastor and it is a positive thing. I guess I share because the amount of time spent learning from your videos, I've come to see you as a classmate in life and a friend. So thanks! God bless you and your nearest and dearest!

I realize that most Protestants will assert the Sola Scriptura vs "Solo Scriptura" distinction as a way of defending the Protestant tradition. However, in actual practice the distinction is truly an example of what is often called a distinction without a difference. If the ultimate sole rule of faith is Scripture Alone, then no Christian can be required to accept as authoritative any view except that which is consistent with his own interpretation of Scripture. This prevents many Christians from growing in Holiness and at times it has lead to situations which put in danger their eternal salvation. For example before his death, R.C. Sproul spoke out against a movement among American Evangelicals who claimed that Scripture taught that living lives free of the sin of fornication was not required of Christians. R.C. Sproul used his own interpretation to argue against that view, but they had their own Chapter and verse in hand to trump his arguments and those of all the FALLIBLE Reformers who came before Sproul. It happens all the time. I met a hospital chaplain who was once a Evangelical Minister who lost his congregation because they didn't want to hear him preach on what he had been taught in seminary to be the proper way to interpret the Infallible Word of God. For as long as Sola Scriptura is accepted, the final authority in practice will be one's own sensibilities & fallible judgement. That is how sinners will often remain slaves to temptation and blind to the healing power of the Gospel. The alternative is to find the Visible Body of Christ which is the Institutional Church and Assembly of Believers Christ founded and gave Authority to Preach to the World, an authority which included the Authority to write the New Testament and Proclaim to the World the Canon of Texts God Inspired to be the Norm of all other Norms (Canon of Both OT & NT). You can try to avoid the logical necessity of this paradigm in order to justify remaining part of the Protestant tradition, but your logic will always fail. Sorry, it's just the truth.

This guy pretty much danced around the question the entire time and took a position that is very ambiguous and undecided. A very “academic” approach that reminds me of Jordan’s Peterson’s no mans land of relativity and ultimately confusion.

I think the challenge here is that while yes, there is certainly a more nuanced view of Sola Scriptura that respects other sources, the fathers etc., my own experience as a former Protestant/Evangelical and my ongoing observations of most Protestants I engage with, would suggest this is a minority view. It might not be hyperbole to say an exceedingly small minority view. Most hold the idea of 'solo scriptura' in practice.

I have missed your channel for a while because of numerous life events. I saw you’re engaged, congratulations, but you were getting into The Catholic Church a lot... what’s your status there? You’re a good man and God bless you and your fiancé.

So, here's my thing as a Catholic. Dr. Vanhooser presumably believes that the canon is closed and that the Son is homoousious with the Father. He makes statements saying as much. Now, he also says "it took 300 something years before the Son was definitively understood to be homoousious" and "theology is the crystallization of what scripture says" (those are rough quotes but hopefully accurately represents his position. If he is committed to those doctrines as unchangeable, then he implicitly believes that it is "the Church" (however one defines the Church) that definitively settled those theological debates. And if the Church can definitively settle theological debates, whether by council and/or pope as Catholics believe, or by a gradual distillation as Protestants believe, it seems that both groups hold to ecclesial authority which seems to contradict sola scriptura. Thoughts on that line of argumentation?

I'm enjoying this talk, he seems understand the arguments mostly. I do find it concerning how protestants replace Christ with the Bible as the Word of the Lord. Isaiah 55:11 is talking about Christ, and Christ is the Sun that both scripture and tradition reflect, using Dr. Vanhoozer's analogy. The scriptures do not have life unto themselves, which I also hear many protestants saying, saying John 6 is about the red text. The gospel isn't the first 4 books in the New Testament, it is the good news of the work of Christ. The scriptures are an attestation to Christ and His conquering of death

Great conversation!! I thought the explanation of what authority is and his breakdown of “Sola not solo” was super helpful.

Oh boy THIS is going to be a goodie

Dr. Vanhoozer is very charitable and gives his perspective in good faith. With that said, it’s important to understand that the Bible is not a rubix cube. Christ did not leave us in the dark. Christ left us His Church.

Actually there are no Sola's per se, none stand alone and if there was one it would be Christ Alone!...but actually he and his work is never alone. Solar Scriptura, not only is unbiblical, but actually dangerous. The fruit of the Protestant Reformation alone makes my point clear, but think of this topic from another perspective...so we have fallible man interpreting an infallible book. This logically is an impossibility and a recipe for disaster! What we do have to guide us comes from the Living Spirit Empowered Church...which is the Magisterium, the Tradition and the Apostolic Epistles & Writings (the New Testament). New Addition: The Church doesn't usurp the Scripture, plus Scripture doesn't strong arm the Church. By Faith we believe in the Inspired New Testament. Though with said how do we know that...it is from The Church who in the 4th Century clarified and codified the New Testament Canon. We must be careful not to create a false antithesis between the NT & the Church. After all the New Testament Scriptures came from the Church, not the Church from the Scriptures. Though please keep in mind Scripture Old and New Covenant guide, edify the Church this is why we must embrace, teach and promote The Whole Council of God as St. Paul proclaimed.

I always come back to the same point. Sola Scriptura doesn't exist. What actually exists is Sola Hermeneutica. The Constitution is not the final arbiter of the laws of our republic, its the Supreme Court. Similarly, the Bible cannot be the final authority, but the Church. The Bible cannot interpret itself, therefore the Church must interpret it. If not then it boils down to the Hermeneutics of individuals. It doesn't matter whether you call it Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura, its still wrong. The Bible clearly states that: "the Church is the bulwark and foundation of the truth."

A few thoughts. I think that the Catholic position practically/functionally is Sola Ecclesia. To be clear, “practically/functionally” are the key markers in that sentence. When Catholics raise the objection that Protestants are shooting in the dark when they affirm the NT canon, it’s a false complaint. Suppose we found the mythical inspired table of contents, the 28th book of the NT. That wouldn’t be enough for consistent Catholics. They are already operating with the presupposition that no manuscript can be self authenticating. It’s an endless regress. Any thoughts from my Catholic brothers/sisters?

As an Orthodox Christian I found this video informative. Reasonable dialog is always profitable.

His statement about Scripture being the only means which truth was handed down by the Apostles isn't Scruptural. 2 Thess. 2:15 states that it was handed down by oral and written means. Sadly this was the only unscriptural statement that I detected in an otherwise valiant attempt to defend SS. As a Lutheran, I must be prepared to always admit reality and be unafraid of facts as I question what I believe and why. It is my view that this is how we all ought to be, as Dr Vanhoozer said, and done so humbly.

Sola Scriptura basically replaces God with the Bible. St. Paul in Hebrews says that God spoke to his people at various times and in many ways through his prophets and in the present times through his Son Jesus. This itself shows that Scriptura cannot be Sola. Also the phrase present times means us today also. The kingdom of God is a work in progress it didn't start with and doesn't end with the Bible. Though Scripture cannot be set aside, If I may dare say it is a manual to a gadget say a new computer, it only tells you about the hardware and where the buttons are but the real thing is the gadget and the wonderful experience of exploring it. Don't be hung up on Scripture. There's more to Christianity than Scripture, there is Tradition, there is Authority and thereby forgiveness of sins, there is Service to others, there is Worship, there is denial of oneself for the kingdom of God, last but not the least there is Martyrdom. And yes there is Eternal Life.

Still working through the latest "Apostolic Rumble" video, but I thought I'd pregame this one: Here's the four hurdles which I think he needs to clear: 1) The origin / self-refutation problem: IF it is true that the Christian faith contains a doctrine which stipulations that all doctrines must be derived from the sacred text, then that doctrine must itself be taught by the sacred text. So where does it do that? 2) The Canon Conundrum: If it is true that the Christian faith has a doctrine of the canon of Scripture, or has an authoritative list of books from which people are not permitted to dissent, then that list must also be spelled out in Scripture. It isn't enough to state, "God makes the books inspired, not the Church". The Church is nonetheless responsible for discerning and promulgating the list as a teaching. 3) The "whose interpretation" problem: If it is true that everything must be checked against Scripture (as is often said), then who is tasked with doing the checking? Credit may be paid to councils and commentaries, but if they are not authoritative as such - in a way which binds believers, then they are merely human suggestions. Thus, even if one wants to honor the witness of Councils in regulating Christian doctrine, for lack of a magisterium, the final interpretive authority will always boil down to each individual, making unity and certainty impossible. 4) The historical problem: If the New Testament documents were not finished being composed until around 70AD, then how would Christians practice Sola Scriptura at the dawn of the Christian age? How would this doctrine be anything other than massive shift away from the founding model? This problem is compounded when one considers that the list of books was still in dispute in the year 325AD. I look forward to seeing this interview, and I'll have my notepad ready!!

Thanks for the great, informative, positive, Christian interview! I really appreciate the emphasis on unity and humble spirit.

Sola Scripturas weakness is that it puts God in a box or in this case God in a book. God transcends our human ideas of who He is and what we think he is based on our interpretation of Scripture. A good lesson to learn from is How pious Jews who knew all about the Tora and studied it day and night still managed to miss God when he was right in front of them. Christian's on all sides make the same mistake today. God wants to be loved with our free will and we Love him by loving the people He create in His image. Especially the forgotten, the poor and the suffering, the homosexual who is hated and disowned, the refugee seeking a home. It is when we begin to see God in everyone, those different then us that we can begin to love him. God is not gonna ask us about our theology He will know if we Loved.

I recently have transitioned from a Solo Scriptura to a broader viewpoint. As cosmic watermelon challenged, I won't make blanket statements or call names. I will state what led me to my position, and maybe some people want to enter an epic discussion. First, I want to say that I have high respect for scripture, that it is the word of God, and profitable for whatever it says it is in 1 Ti 3:16 (Teaching, correction, reproof, sound doctrine, training and instruction in righteousness, completion of the man of God.) The environment I was raised in was Solo as opposed to Sola Scriptura. It was defended in this way, "The Bible is the word of God, but the Catholics have nullified it with their traditions and the baptists are stupid because they don't interpret correctly." As a kid that was easy to swallow. I assumed that if everyone thought clearly, they would come to the conclusions we do. Obviously, this is not what the guy in the video holds at all, and this is not the blanket view people have (I hope anyway). Eventually, though I came to the realization that people approach with baggage, and that includes myself, and my group. I came to the realization that I got things wrong when I read the Bible. I am a bible fanatic and have hour-long discussions with our preacher, which we both enjoy. At the same time, I realized that the Bible was powerful, or much better put, that God is powerful. His word creates. So my view of the Bible switched from a rule book/blueprint of how to generate the perfect theologically correct Christian, to God creating me. I still hold this viewpoint. So the issue wasn't the Scriptura it was the Solo. Now on to Sola scriptura. The issue boils down to authority. Not who has authority Christ or the body of Christ? But who has authority Christ and me by myself? or Christ and his body? I would agree that the body of Christ can't (or better put won't) override scripture, but is it possible that if I disagree with the church that the Body is wrong, and I am right? will I become a new body of Christ, and the three people who agree with me almost completely? I have read the bible enough where I get the sense it is pointing to a church. Not an invisible phantom church, or a platonic ideal, but an actual body. Scripture also suggests being part of the body is vital. Because of external circumstances where people would leave the congregation over disagreements I came to a question, "When is it OK to leave the congregation and start a church?" The thing was that when I looked in the scripture, I didn't find that in the new testament. I found churches with Jezabel teaching, churches where sexual immorality was boasted about, churches where Diotrephes ran the church like a herd of cattle. Churches I would have left the moment I walked in the door, and yet nowhere was anyone told to leave, except sometimes to the heretic. So I figured, if my congregation has a disagreement with me, at what point do I leave? I didn't find anything in the book that permitted me to do so. I also studied enough history to know that the only viable candidates are the RCC and the EO and the Oriental Orthodox. I haven't yet made up my mind on which one is the right one, but it seems to me that EO has the strongest case in my studies so far. So how does this go against Sola Scriptura? Only because all those groups do not hold to it. They have immense respect for it, But they don't hold to Sola Scriptura. Does scripture create us? Absolutely. Does scripture alone? Absolutely not. Is scripture the sole *infallible* rule of faith and practice. I do not find that in scripture. As for faith, that is rooted in Christ. As for practice, one of the things I found is that it is far easier to be a hearer than a doer. I see practice occurring in the Church, with the Apostles setting rules, including obedience of the Presbyters. One of the weakest criticisms is that it creates disunity. On the contrary, Sola Scriptura creates tremendous unity between small groups of people. It is nice to be the only ones right, the only enlightened, the ones who see the obvious meaning no one else does. If it is non-denom, it also creates unity by denying that one interpretation is the sole rule. I do think that a member cut off from the body is dead, and here is how my understanding of history went. After a while, either the OO or the RCC/EO schismed at Chalcedon, I haven't figured out which. That means that one of them is in trouble. If the OO is the original, then I need to be part of the OO which does not hold to Sola Scriptura. If the RCC/EO is correct, then you have 1054. If the EO is the body, then I need to be part of that. If the RCC is the body, then you have the issue of the reformation. Luther got excommunicated, as well as the other reformers. That means they were no longer in communion, which means whatever the start is not the body of Christ. That means those who hold to Sola Scriptura are at best a step removed from the body of Christ, at worst, four steps removed. That is kinda where I am at. I hope that isn't too harsh, that is just how I am working through it. This is not to say that Protestants (which I technically am) are evil, they are sincere people many of whom I expect to meet in heaven. There are a lot of people who have come to some correct conclusions by themselves, but there is no one who came to a correct conclusion against the one holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. When a council affirms an understanding, is that infallible? Sola scriptura says it is important, not infallible, but the original church says if it is a legitimate counsel it is.

I always see "First Baptist," Churches, but never "Second Baptist," Churches. Can't figure it out.

great interview, as always! Dr. Vanhoozer is one of my favorites!

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...

Interesting that the moment he begins talking about unity he sets in differentiating “small” Protestants, “idealistic” Protestants, “paradigmatic” Protestants, and so on. Unity discourse takes a form of identity through differences.

Taken from Chapter 2 of St. Vincent of Lerins' Commonitorium, written in 434: "But here some one perhaps will ask, since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason --- because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novation expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."

Prima Scriptura within the integral triumverite of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Teaching Magisterium.

Maybe it is naive because the Bible pressuposed the Church. Also, as there are different interpretations of the same data (the books of the Bible), without the guidance of the Church who produced it, and was driven by the Holy Spirit, we fall to the illusion of personal interpretations. Since the Bible is not "self-evident", it necessarily pressuposes the Church, that is the Orthodox Church. But I have to admit, I am not well read at all about Protestantism. Feel free to enlgihten me.

It is a sound argument to say that scripture is the authority, and that God is the author ultimately, speaking through the Spirit. But he would still be wrong to say that sola scriptura could be anything other than scripture alone. You all need to drop the saying itself, or replace it with Scriptura Primus. Even then, you would be wrong, as authority must always take into account the wisdom of the elders in the decisions they must take to fulfill mercy and justice by understanding the spirit of the times (1 Chronicles 12:32), which a handbook can never be of better use than a person who understands the "handbook" of faith and applies the authority of the Church to the prominent issues of our age .

Great interview Austin I really appreciated the Professor’s time and humility. I’m Orthodox so obviously a bunch of objections leaped into my mind. However I was surprised that you didn’t raise the objection that Sola Scriptura isn’t taught in the scriptures themselves. I would liked to have heard his response to that question.

Austin, thanks for a good discussion on Sola Scriptura. The most important principle of interpretation that Martin Luther used was “Scripture interprets Scripture.” The tools for properly interpreting the Bible are contained in the Bible itself. Thus, he delved into the New Testament to see how Jesus and the apostles had interpreted Scripture. There he found a valuable tool. He discovered that many Old Testament people and institutions were to be understood as types or patterns that foreshadowed and proclaimed the Christ, who would surpass them and fulfill them(Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant). Thus, in his Preface to the Psalter, Luther wrote, “The true, the only sense of the Psalms is the Christ-sense.” This has led to the current Protestant principles of interpreting Scripture. 1. No binding authority but the Bible alone. Sola Scriptura. 2. No official binding, interpreter or interpretation-You’re your own Pope. 3. The Bible is precipices, easy to understand. (Not According to 2 Peter3:15-16) 4. As an individual I can and should read the Bible and interpret it myself. These principles have led and continue to lead to nothing but division, now near 30,000 different sects. It shows just how unworkable, Sola Scriptura is and is but an icon for what Martin Luther came to regret at the end of his life:“There are almost as many sects, division and factions and beliefs as there are heads. This one will not admit baptism. This one rejects the Sacrament of the Altar. Some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual however clownish he maybe, does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and who does not put forth his prophecy to his own ravings and dreams.”

I see you’ve added to your collection of icons! Please post a picture !

Think about this; Christ didn't write a single word down (unlike Mohammed). So what did he do? Well He spent every day of his 3 year ministry trying to delegate authority to His disciples (the Church).

This was an excellent interview and I learned more about what "Sola Scriptura" means - or at least what Dr. Vanhoozer means in its defense. I truly respect his scholarship and thoughtful explanations. As I listened, however, I kept wondering who or what he was referring to when he talked about "the Church". Toward the end, he suggested that he feels part of the Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant Church. On a spiritual level, I do not disagree that all who follow Christ in good faith are "the Church". However, without common and agreed upon leadership, I still sense some "anarchy" in earthly practice - primary issues of dogma are left without authoritative definition.

"Attenuated" might be better than "abbreviated."

Properly defining "sola Scriptura" is important, but defining the doctrine is one thing; defending it is another. Vanhoozer spends a lot of time defining but not defending. Does the book actually offer a defense of the doctrine? If so, can anyone sum up the main lines of argument in its defense?

This was a really well-articulated and useful discussion. I am catholic and fully - respectfully - disagree. If you love the game, if you really respect the game, then you love the presence of an umpire, or a “living voice” to resolve the disputes. Without that, christianity devolves into constant bickering ( = 30,000 protestant denominations in the world ). Luther had a pious reaction, motivated by good reasons, but unfortunately he went beyond what was righteous when he created a schism. There are and always have been very harsh critics of the Church who still respected the role of the Church and of the papacy (for example, Dante). The concept of a “consensus of the majority” clearly doesn’t work, just look at the wild disparity between all these 30,000 interpretations. No political system has ever worked and provided unity by listening to 30,000 decision-makers.

I took the host advise and listened to the whole interview. The distinction he made of some groups being biblicists rings true from personal experience. But, generally I winced at his presentation because of his fuzziness and his longing for some kind of unity. I have former Roman Catholic friends who see Protestantism creeping into Catholicism. After 500 years, the only thing he has to cling to is his longings. He appeals to orthodoxy and Orthodoxy yet a book: Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession

I like the idea and specifics of dialogic virtues

The Bible doesn’t say it is the final or sole or supreme authority, so Sola Scriptura is unBiblical. The Bible says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...” So, useful, but not supreme authority. And Paul would have been talking about the scriptures he knew at the time: the Jewish scriptures before the New Testament was written or compiled by the Catholic Church. But the Bible does indicate where to go for a final authority. Paul tells Timothy also, “so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.” Now, “pillar and foundation of truth” sounds authoritative, not just “useful”. So, to be Biblical is to NOT believe in Sola Scriptura. Another place where Paul gives instructions as to how to decipher the truth when there is different ideas in the Church is found in 2 Thessalonians 2, when Paul says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” So Paul says that the final authority to go to are the traditions passed down and the words shared by word of mouth or by letter from the apostles of the Church. And since what Protestants call “The Bible” didn’t exist as a thing called The Bible until the 4th Century, the early Church clearly didn’t have the Bible as their final authority. The Bible doesn’t really say anything. Only persons say things. And every person can disagree with another about what they think the words in the Bible mean. The early Church didn’t know if non-Jewish believers, and in Act 15 what did they do? Called a council of the apostles of the Church to decide what the final authority would be just as this teacher admits. So, clearly, the Church apostles were given the final word on what was true. There really is no way to hold onto Protestantism once Sola Scriptura is shown to be self-contradictory and against certain scriptures and historical moments in the early Church. The writings from Eusebius that Protestants need to wrestle with are the ones tracing the lineage of the papacy back to Peter. The words of Christ about a house divided against itself not standing, Paul’s description of a body where parts do not listen to the head, and Christ’s prayers that His Church would “be One as He and His Father are One” should be enough for all followers of Christ to drop their own interpretations and join the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”. We cannot be divided and the only place we can come together and have the full authority of the 2000 year history since Christ is in Rome. Quit dawdling and causing divisions and cross the Tiber. The world is falling apart because we are not United.

Thanks for this! Sorry if I missed this in one of the 500+ comments: can I have a link to the EO person who wrote about a Sola Scriptura-like idea in Irenaeus? Thanks in advance.

Why does the host keep looking down repeatedly around the 12 min. mark? Is he looking at a chat session or notes ? I've noticed this in a number of these dialogues and it's very strange and distracting. Is he looking at notes? What is going on there? And then he comes up and gives a wry smile and a head nod. This pattern repeats. It's weird.

If God can inspire authorship, can he not also inspire a living/active interpretation? It seems to me to be pleasing to God to work through living human beings to bring forth His truth - he has always worked through active/living voices. Protestants & Catholics BOTH exercise interpretive authority - i.e. how they interpret the Eucharist or Baptism or the sacraments in general - neither then truly accepts Sola Scriptura precisely because both exercise interpretive authority. And it takes authority to claim Sola Scriptura as THE truth and then tradition to hand that belief down to the next generation. Authority & Tradition.

Great interview my only criticism is that we missed out on getting into the nitty gritty of what Scripture says about Sola Scriptura (cue Catholics/Eastern Orthodox swooping in to say that it isn't in Scripture). What I loved was the careful explanation that while there are wings of Protestantism which take Sola Scriptura too far, the historical line has always been that Scripture is the ultimate authority but not the only authority. As Protestants we should be careful to digest this and think it through. Taking Scripture and sitting in our rooms and developing our own theology without reference to anyone else is how sects/cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Wells have come about. Scripture very clearly teaches that churches are to have Elders who are demonstrably wise not just in practical terms but theologically as well. That can only come from interacting with Scripture and others as they interact with Scripture.

53:00 Quoting an Orthodox quoting a Church Father to bolster the case for Sola Scriptura - and then having to point out that the quote itself is actually a misquoting of I Tim 3:15... Interesting... My take on Sola Scriptura is that after all the terms are defined and all the qualifications are made, there is very little practical difference between Catholics and Protestants on how scripture functions.

There’s a lot I can get behind here, but I’m still left with the question of vagueness: authority rests in God and because scripture is God breathed it is our first authority. Yes, but that still does not resolved the initial problem. How can we all be Biblical and radically different. I’d even say liberal Christians are biblical in that they derive there authority from scripture but of course define that scripture the way they see fit. So how do you define scripture correctly? Can this be done? This is why Holy Tradition is necessary.

I am curious how Dr. Vanhoozer deals with the reality of mass illiteracy up until the mid 19th century. There appears to be an unspoken assumption that modern literacy has been a historical constant when in fact the opposite is true. How can the scripture be "clear" and "accessible" if most cannot read it? And how can sola scriptura be lurking in the shadows if most Christians have not access?

Scripture is a traditioned text. It was sub-created by Orthodox Tradition, synergistic and cooperative with God, guided by The Holy Spirit. It’s also strange to me that a Christian doesn’t can’t understand how 2 things (scripture and tradition) could hold the #1 spot (supreme) given that we are Trinitarian. “I find it kinda funny. I find it kinda sad.”

If we read with the church, we would have affirmed all seven of the ecumenical councils. If my interpretation differs from their's, then it is I and not they that is in error.

45:00 Uh.. Luther wanted to stick a shiv in Zwingli.

Isaiah 55:11 is about Jesus not the New Testament.

Dr. Vanhoozer calls the Bible "the speech of God". Not sure that is correct. The speech (word) of God, is Christ Himself, God Himself. This Word, Logos, is pre-eternal, whereas the Bible is clearly not. Maybe he meant to say that the Bible is the "written speech of God", but even that is too limiting because it implies that God's entire speech (word/Word) can be limited into a text of fixed length. God Bless!

​ @Catholic Truth But Jesus said, “It is written, 'Man is not to live on bread only. Man is to live by every word that God speaks.'” “It is written also, ‘You must not tempt the Lord your God.’” “Get away, Satan. It is written, ‘You must worship the Lord your God. You must obey Him only.’” YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP! It seems like the devil would be an excellent catholic preach!, teaching people that the answers are anywere else that were he was defeated by Jesus!

Yes, it is defective because it is not complete. Faith alone without action is dead. Saying you love God but not putting it into action. Your love is only on the surface this is why Protestants can not dig deeper. You can never understand until you do what God is actually telling you.......On the other hand, Catholicism is so complete is so deep and loving God has no limit. Time for all of you to become Catholic the ONE TRUE CHURCH that JESUS FOUNDED. Don't be fooled by false teachings and false prophets. Thousands of Protestant denominations show how defective it is.