I have watched this and various associated videos multiple times. This is hands down the clearest and most helpful single unpacking of the issue that I have come across in my open minded, at times tremblingly so, 10+ year journey as a Protestant into the fathers and church history. Your preparatory comments alone were worth the price of admission. ;) Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Those quotes from John Chrysostom actually spoke directly to me, i feel that pressure to read scripture and judge things from scripture, pls pray so that the Holy Spirit guides me.
Who has the final authority to interpret "This is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26). Fallible Protestant Pastors add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
What an absolute stunner of a quote from Chrysistom, this father speaking from of old into the same human propensity to choose wandering over finding. Thank you Gavin. You are a gift to the Church.
Doing a deep dive on sola scriptura and of course I go to Dr. Ortlund for an explanation of the Protestant position. I love Dr. Ortlund’s content. I do have a genuine push-back on the Chrysostom quote specifically because I feel like that particular homily may not have been appropriately represented. Later in this homily (Homily 33 on Acts) Chrysostom judges his interpretation of Scripture by measuring it against the fact that his interpretation is in line with the Church and so verified. This entire conversation, of course, is nested within the context of there being one visible Church. I could be wrong, but here is the later party of the homily: Responding to an accusation about faulty interpretations he continues: “The others, say you, say the same thing about us (that our interpretation is faulty). How? For are we separated from the Church? Have we our heresiarchs? Are we called after men - as one of them has Marcion, another Manichæus, a third Arius, for the author and leader (of his sect)? Whereas if we likewise do receive an appellation from any man, we do not take them that have been the authors of some heresy, but men that presided over us, and governed the Church." He is using schism here as an indicator of heresy. So he is obviously using sacred scripture as the source material for doctrine, but using the Church as the bar which his interpretations must clear.
Gavin, this came at exactly the right time for me. It was an almost instantaneous answer to my prayer tonight. God Bless you and thank you so much for this, your best video yet.
As a Catholic, I found your reasoning and explanation well done. Is it not interesting to follow Jesus? When I realized that Jesus chose twelve apostles/disciples, I realized they had different personalities, understanding and that we are to grown together learning from one another. Being a follower, a true Christian, representing our faith with one another, growing in faith and understanding. Lead by the Holy Spirit, the truth will always be present ...God bless
James, Augustine taught that if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures! Augustine ALSO teaches the oral teaching of the 7 Apostles who never wrote anything down, is ALSO the Word of God! Who has the final authority to interpret "This is My Body ", ( Matthew 26:26). Fallible Protestant Pastors add the words Symbol and represents to the words of Jesus! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Ha but we know God Himself calls His Word Inspired True and Infallible But never does He,never ever,say the same of tradition, Councils Mary , the Pope , the Magisterium or the Church. So tell me tell me who is the author, of say, the would be Dogma of Mary as a Mediator, name years in which he wrote the book in which he wrote it and where is it back by Scripture and how?
Fascinating. Is there any chance that quote from the Letter to Jerome informed Luther's "scripture and plain reason" statement at Worms? It almost seems like a paraphrase.
Even if Luther had no knowledge of Augustine’s letter to Jerome, can we say that Luther, as an Augustinian monk, likely was an heir to Augustine’s way of thinking about scripture?
@@mj6493 Augustine taught that if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures. Augustine also teaches that the oral teaching of the 7 Apostles who never wrote anything down, is ALSO the Word of God! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
It has always been a bit strange to me that those who hold oral tradition to be on the same level as Scripture, to the point that they would anathematize someone for not believing it, as not falling into the same folly as the Pharisees and Sadducees. They clearly stepped outside of Scripture and elevated manmade traditions then and Jesus called them out for it, and thus Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do the same and are none the wiser. That is not say that many within the Protestant church don’t do the same and they are clearly in error too (no pass for Protestants). If something is not clearly articulated in Scripture and becomes a dogma centuries later or eisegetically read back into Scripture, we can confidently say that the Holy Spirit did want us to practice such things. For example, Mary’s bodily assumption nor immaculate conception nor Transubstantiation are not clearly articulated in Scripture but became later interpretations by men many centuries later, the Christian is not bound to believe or endorse said dogmas. But even for Protestants, any practice not clearly laid out in Scripture can and should be rejected.
Hello Gavin, I am a former Catholic, now reformed Episcopal. The term "infallible" is a red flag for Catholics as they believe the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible when speaking "ex cathedra." I think Scriprure is "above all else" would be a better term.
I don’t understand why people think their doctrines, ideas, words, institutions, etc could be on the same level of Gods Word. Tradition can beautiful but it can also slide into error. His word is the Truth
@Curtis MH the issues is what do you put your authority in when tradition and scripture disagree, and how do you determine the correct tradition? Paul is writing directly to the Church of Thessalonica, do you have any evidence of what Paul orally taught there? Jesus routinely said “have you not read”. He defeated Satan’s temptation with the written word of God. The Pharisees had a very similar belief of tradition and scripture. Of oral law and written law. Jesus denounced them boldly
@Curtis MH Satan quotes scripture and misuses it to destroy peoples faith. What did Jesus do when confronted with the misuse of scripture? What did Jesus do when confronted with “oral law/oral tradition” with tradition of men? He used God’s word to combat false doctrine. What did the early church fathers use to combat early heresies? They used scripture. That’s sola scriptura not your straw man idea that non Catholics hold to solo scriptura. My doctrines and beliefs are far closer to the early church than the modern Roman Catholic Church. If you claim oral tradition and oral teachings as a guide equal to what the apostles wrote down but have no evidence of it, maybe you should rethink your position. A church isn’t a church because it’s old, and when looking at history the Catholic claims of the papacy fall apart, as do most of the distinctly Catholic doctrines. The visible Church is the coming together of local Christians to worship Jesus. The invisible Church is the whole group of Christians who put their faith in Jesus. We are the body of Christ and He is the head. Thankfully Gods grace is sufficient to forgave false theology and doctrines as long as we know who Jesus is and put our faith in Him.
@Curtis MH the book of Acts is scripture. ALL scripture is God breathed, inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach, reproof, to correct, and to train in righteousness. Circumcision was given as a sign of the Old covenant. Holy Communion is the sign of the new covenant. The inspiration of the Apostles was in alignment with the previous inspired words of God. The Jewish believers were trying to add just 1 thing to the gospel, ie circumcision. They were soundly rebuked. Paul condemns anyone and everyone that would add or subtract from the Gospel. Why does the Catholic Church add things to the Gospel? If it was literally established by Christ and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ then why does its teaching sway from Gods revelation to all men? FYI you have no evidence of some “oral tradition”, if so provide it. Otherwise turn to the Holy Bible
Highly recommend reading the whole homily on Acts (homily 33). A quote from there in response to the question of why people don't necessarily see the truth of scripture straight away: "'Then how is it they do not see it at a glance?' Many things are the cause of this: both preconceived opinion, and human causes (αἰτίαι). The others, say you, say the same thing about us. How? For are we separated from the Church? Have we our heresiarchs [leaders of heresy]? Are we called after men - as one of them has Marcion, another Manichæus, a third Arius, for the author and leader (of his sect)? Whereas if we likewise do receive an appellation from any man, we do not take them that have been the authors of some heresy, but men that presided over us, and governed the Church."
If Augustine believed that councils were infallible by their nature, you would think that in the third quote from his letter to Jerome he would have said "...convincing my judgment of its truth either by these canonical writings themselves //or by church councils//, or by arguments addressed to my reason." It's seems so cut and dry!
St Augustine was no protestant. Don't MISS USE Him ! He never taught anything about reading the bible on your own, believing that one can come up with their own truth led by the Holy Spirit, in contradiction to the faith handed down by the apostles !! He was a Catholic Bishop who believed through his words of consecration, the bread and wine transformed into the Resurrected Christ. And, like St Jerome at his time, he deferred to the authority of the Church. An example of the "rule of faith" is that baptism is salvific as we receive the indwelling of God within us and sanctifying grace lost in the sin of Adam. The PLAIN passage of scripture below is 1 Pet 3: 21, _baptism now saves you._ That too is exactly what St Augustine believed .. scripture taught it and the Church believed it as well. So when ANYONE says otherwise, their fallible belief is rejected. _“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.”_ Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397). What is this Church to which he speaks of: _“Petilianus said: ‘If you declare that yon hold the Catholic Church, the word ‘catholic’ is merely the Greek equivalent for entire or whole. But it is clear that you are not in the whole, because you have gone aside into the part.’ Augustine answered: I too indeed have attained to a very slight knowledge of the Greek language, scarcely to be called knowledge at all, yet I am not shameless in saying that I know that means not ‘one,’ but ‘the whole;’ and that means “according to the whole:” whence the Catholic Church received its name, according to the saying of the Lord, ‘It is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in His own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole earth.’ Here you have the origin of the name ‘Catholic.’_ Augustine, Answer to Letters of Petilian, 2:38 [90] (A.D. 400). _“Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.”_ Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393). _“You think that you make a very acute remark when you affirm the name Catholic to mean universal, not in respect to the communion as embracing the whole world, but in respect to the observance of all Divine precepts and of all the sacraments, as if we (even accepting the position that the Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole truth, of which fragments here and there are found in some heresies) rested upon the testimony of this word’s signification, and not upon the promises of God, and so many indisputable testimonies of the truth itself, our demonstration of the existence of the Church of God in all nations.”_ Augustine, To Vincent the Rogatist, 93:7,23 (A.D. 403). Note the bold below. St Augustine believed the gospel due to the authority of the Catholic Church. Scripture alone? No way. He didn't teach it or believe it. _“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…-not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church…Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church… _*_For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church_*_ …for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you.”_ Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397).
Thank you for the quotes. The protestants misuse Augustine and Chrysostom the same way they misuse scripture. Augustine and Chrysostom were defenders of the Catholic par excellence and would no doubt as vociferously denounce the protestants of today as they did the heretics and schismatics of their day.
Scripture is of course infallible on faith and morals but I disagree that’s it’s true interpretation can be understood outside the teaching of the church. All it becomes is your opinion of the Bible of which every man ends having his own opinion and which history has shown ends in what we have seen with the true belief being what I believe as opposed to what everybody in my church and indeed my family believe. And yes, John Chrysostom is wrong. The scriptures are not always clear.
There is no disagreement between the Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox on the idea that scripture is entirely correct on all matters of faith and practice. The idea that it is the "only" source is where we disagree since Catholics/Orthodox both would say that Holy Tradition is the "only" source and that scripture is an enormous part of that Holy Tradition. So the quotes from Augustine here are not going against the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, they're just affirming one particular portion of Holy Tradition. And that extra layer of tradition is where Sola Scriptura is lacking because when you limit the only source of reliable truth to the content of a book, you must solve the problem of how that truth gets off the pages into the hearts of the readers. Interpretation is taking place any time you read a text, letters are symbols, words are symbols, and meanings are fluid across time and cultures and even between people in the same place speaking the same language. There must be an authority in place, a righteous human authority, that can be called upon to play that role, to authoritatively move the words from the page to the person and maintain the unity of the Church.
I'm pretty sure Orthodox wouldn't agree with Augustine that plenary councils can be corrected by later ones, and are therefore not infallible. 9:54 Also, if you pay attention, what Augustine is saying is precisely that only the canonical texts are infallible. 13:45 Lastly, Sola Scriptura isn't that Scripture is the "only reliable source of Truth," but the only infallible rule for faith and practice. There's a big difference between reliable and infallible. And Sola Scriptura also doesn't say there aren't authorities on faith and practice outside of Scripture, even "reliable" ones, but that those authorities aren't infallible and can be corrected, just as Augustine says in the first quote.
@@christophekeating21 I didn't address it since it was not relevant to the video, but there are several items in those quotes from Augustine that are not consistent with Orthodox or Catholic doctrine, the most glaring one being the notion that the canon is closed (it's not, at least in the Orthodox Church). But I didn't mention those since I wanted to stay on topic. Your description of Sola Scriptura: "Sola Scriptura also doesn't say there aren't authorities on faith and practice outside of Scripture, even "reliable" ones, but that those authorities aren't infallible and can be corrected, just as Augustine says in the first quote." is no different than the applied practice of Orthodox and Catholic churches. In all churches there is a way for later councils or decisions to override previous ones by undermining the authority (if needed/applicable) of those that participated in the original decision or declaration. It has happened many times throughout church history. And since scriptural interpretation is applied through those authorities, it's functionally the same as what you described, where the human authorities are fallible and scripture is not. Even if a pope speaks ex cathedra, for instance, it is only actually ex cathedra if his successors and later councils accept it as such (something most lay Catholics don't even know). The role of scripture and the presence of that mechanism means it is functionally the same. But that isn't actually what is going in with Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is always applied under the assumption that the canonical text is more than just infallible, but also perspicuous and sufficient, neither of which is true.
@@jayrey1486 The NT Canon is set for the Orthodox. Please do not give false information. As to the idea that 'plenary' councils can be corrected by later ones, I'm not sure we have sufficient information to determine what St. Augustine was referring to. Was he referring to discipline? Or ?
@@jayrey1486 "it is only actually ex cathedra if his successors and later councils accept it as such" where do you get this? Of course functionally it may collapse this way, but where is the doctrine articulated this way?
I love that video and it's exactly because of sola scripture that trinity won against arrianism. The Fathers always defended their position saying "what I teach is what scriptures teach". Scriptures are our infalible rule of doctrine.
@@nathanmagnuson2589 dude when you read the apologies of the trinitarians you always see they are supporting their beliefs in scriptures. Of course holy tradition is a very good support. But in the case of arrianism and trinitarism there was a time were both have their own tradition that it was imposible to argue with tradition. And I don't say they were Nuda Scriptura (just with scripture) but Sola Scriptura (scriptures as the higher authority)
While John Chrysostom's homily on Acts 33 may suggest something like Sola Scriptura in a first look, I think it's important to be careful not to come to that conclusion before reading more of his work. The same John Chrysostom also taught about the tradition of the Church as worthy of credit: "So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours. Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken." (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV) "Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, "whether by word or our Epistle" 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, Hold fast the form of sound words, which you have heard of me." Also, the same John Chrysostom considered the Deuterocanonical books, at least some of them, as Scripture: "Let us then repeat to ourselves soothing charms drawn from the holy Scripture, and say, "You are earth and ashes. Why is earth and ashes proud?" Sirach 10:9, and, "The sway of his fury shall be his destruction" Sirach 1:22: and, The wrathful man is not comely Proverbs 11:25, Septuagint;" (Homily 48 on the Gospel of John) As a final quote, in his 3rd homily on the letter to the Phillipians, he goes as far as saying that the practice of praying for the dead comes from the apostles themselves: "Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful Mysteries. They know that great gain results to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them? And this we do for those who have departed in faith, while the catechumens are not thought worthy even of this consolation, but are deprived of all means of help save one. And what is this? We may give to the poor on their behalf. This deed in a certain way refreshes them. For God wills that we should be mutually assisted; else why has He ordered us to pray for peace and the good estate of the world? Why on behalf of all men? Since in this number are included robbers, violaters of tombs, thieves, men laden with untold crimes; and yet we pray on behalf of all; perchance they may turn. As then we pray for those living, who differ not from the dead, so too we may pray for them." (Homily 3 on Philippians) So, in my humble opinion, I think it's quite a long stretch to get a Sola Scriptura-believing John Chrysostom out of what he says in his 33rd homily on Acts, given all his other writings which show other things he believed and practiced that go against this principle and that resemble practices and beliefs of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy much more than those of Protestantism.
Matheus, excellent points! Unfortunately, So many Protestant Pastors like Dr. Ortlund and James White and Tony Costa, leave out the full works and writings of the Church Fathers to fit their own Theology! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@The Hesychast I respectfully disagree. Chrystostom and other early church fathers lived during a time period before the development of many Roman Catholic Ideas and doctrines, i.e immaculate conception was not an official doctrine, papal infallibility, and the very robust doctrine of indulgences. If those had been developed during his time period I believe you would have seen many church fathers push back on these ideas by appealing to scripture. I do not write this to sound disrespectful but rather adding to the dialogue.
@@carpediem5526 You may be right, you could of course be wrong. We can't really tell, besides that they may or may not appeal to scripture against these teachings, this isn't something really new I guess. This is normal, as the understanding of all these doctrines wasn't as in depth yet. Besides the depth part, you also see appeal to tradition and to church authority.
The point Gavin mentioned is that sola scriptura and tradition are not mutually exclusive, but tradition must be scrutinised by the authority of scripture. You are free to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, which to Protestants are unsubstantiated claims. But to insist upon it at the threat of anathema, that's unscriptural.
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy WORD is truth." John 17:17 This is the bottom line for me. Jesus never pointed people to "tradition". He always pointed them to the word of God..."It is written..."It is written". "Scripture cannot be broken".
"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men." Acts 17
Dennis, yet, Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was,,( Genesis 17:12), as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Hey, but do you see where the discussion REALLY ended? Wasn't that when James demonstrated that everything Peter said had scriptural confirmation? Do you think a verdict would be established without it? The words James quotes were not just permission, it was a prophecy, and they didn't need any man to confirm them, they were simply settled and would be fulfilled in the right moment. See what's in the letter: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit AND to us."
@@gabrielmarinho8232 I did see the end, but did you see the beginning? The matter was regarding circumcision, and it was Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). James used Holy Scripture to confirm Gentiles were foretold to come into the faith, but there was no Holy Scripture passage that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary. Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. James then affirms Peter's declaration and then simply gives food and sexual restrictions! Saint Augustine never taught the man made tradition of Scripture alone as Dr. Ortlund falsely claims! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Long before Peter, Joel had prophesied that in the last days "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Peter himself announced that the time for this prophecy had come, so I think that he was creating nothing by saying that circumcision of the flesh was no longer necessary. Again he confirmed the Scriptures, it's all about the Gospel.
@@gabrielmarinho8232 most inaccurate, as Joel and Isaiah foretold Gentiles coming into the Church! Yet, it was Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was to last for all generations. ( Genesis 17:12), as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! The same Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon of the new testament as to which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not! Saint Augustine never taught Scripture ALONE as Dr. Ortlund falsely teaches! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Quote mine. Nice job. Why don’t you quote mine his view on holy communion? Or how the fathers believed that Sacred Tradition had within itself Scripture? And that the oral teaching of the apostles preserved in the church fathers or Liturgy, etc, was also spoken of as in the same ways? Very deceiving and or ignorant of Protestants. Augustine appealed to the councils and what was concluded against the Donatists. At this one point he hadn’t appealed to Scripture alone, but the councils. Stop your quote mining and deception.
Do you agree with Augustine when he states if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures. Augustine also called Mary without sin, a pure dwelling place, and Augustine prayed for the dead, those undergoing final sanctification, and Augustine teaches of the Lord's Supper, " He held His own body in His hands, and gave it to them to eat ". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Daniel Smith The point is, Holy Scripture never teaches Scripture alone, nor did Jesus Christ, nor His Apostles. 7 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down. Again, Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Daniel SmithThankfully, God shall have the final say on who is the ignorant one! Jesus Christ taught that the faithful should adhere to all that was taught them by the chair of Moses, an oral teaching authority of the Holy Scripture! In the old testament itself, it states one should obey the priest. Holy Scripture is indeed authoritative, but Scripture ALONE is a man made tradition, and Saint Augustine never taught the man made tradition of Scripture alone. Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12), as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! The same Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon as to which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not! 7 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Did Augustine (really) affirm Sola Scriptura? The ANSWER is simple: NO! However, He ( just like all Catholics) held the Sacred Scripture in high esteem and venerated them as an inerrant authority for the Church.
2:44 I think it's important to note why it's the "rule" or "standard." We believe that Jesus is the authority, so the testimony of Jesus is the standard to build and refer upon. Putting it another way, The Word of God became flesh, so we reference his living example and teachings through the scriptures given to us by his direct witnesses.
Hi Gavin I appreciate your discussion of high regard that both Augustine and reformers have for scripture and emphasis on this. If I agree that Augustine held sola scriptura as you defined it I come to four questions: How does Augustine define scripture? (What is his canon?) How does this inform our understanding of his view of scripture? How is an understanding of canon arrived at? How does the canon one accepts impact one's acceptance of or openness to a doctrine? Perhaps a look at Augustine's and Calvin's view of prayer for the dead would be enlighting here as they both discuss this topic. It seems to bring the discussion to a very practical point of disagreement between two who have a high regard for scripture that could warrant another video. I am curious on your thoughts!
@@bersules8 hello! Thank you for the message and numerous quotations. I will for sure check them out. Maybe give the video another watch? You may have missed the arguments Gavin made. They are not quite so simple to be dismissed on the presentation of these quotes but I do appreciate the attempt as a kind of try at a full rebuttle of a claim that would have Augustine be a reformed protestant because for sure he is not. What you may be unaware of is that the reformes felt free to disagree with Augustine as being wrong on some points. It is similar in how the Eastern Orthodox disagree with Augustine at points. A question for you being, why should Augustine be more authoritative than the Holy Scriptures? For certain yes he should inform our understanding of the scriptures but is this to say he is wholly correct and having same views as modern Roman catholics? I recall Augustine in the beginning of his work on the Trinity being of a humble spirit and mentioning that should someone disagree and prove it from scripture he would be happy to be corrected. Seems awfully sola scriptura-esque to me. Perhaps you'd benefit from a reading of his intro there without the cherry picking of quotes from him and we might find ourselves in a better place to discuss?
Test everything by the word of God. His word is True, hold on to tradition that is grounded in His word and reform those that stray from the Truth. Walk in faith by grace to glorify Him who eternally saved us from justified damnation!
Hi, Gavin. I’m going to defend the Catholic position here. I was a hard-core Calvinist for about 45 years before I was confirmed in the Catholic Church in April. I will just mention one point at a time. Point first: You took pains to define “Sola Scriptura,” which I greatly appreciate. Defining terms is extremely helpful in these conversations. However, I’d like to suggest that you went too far. You stated you were giving the “official” Protestant definition of “Sola Scriptura.” This, I think, is inaccurate and perhaps even misleading, since there is no “official” central Protestant authority that can define anything. The best the Protestant world has is what I refer to as a, “consensus of the moment,” represented, perhaps, by contributors to The Gospel Coalition, Desiring God, etc. That lack of central, defining authority leads to no end of interpretation of Scripture itself, even on the two Sacraments that most Protestants retain - baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Denominations and independent churches end up practicing de facto sacred traditions of their own, especially in regard to eligibility, mode, and meaning of baptism. Definitions must be backed by authority, and authority is what Luther, Calvin, and others rejected…and then claimed for themselves. Is consensus enough? And if so, what is the biblical justification? Thank you.
Hi Gavin. Thank you for the video. While scripture is, undoubtedly the highest authority, how can you be sure that the way you were interpreting them is the correct way? We can take baptism, for example. I read through the lectures on Christian sacraments and the apostolic tradition by Saint Cyril and Saint Hippolytus. Both affirm that baptism is a new birth, and washes away sins, and this was common catechetical teaching for new Christians. This is obviously different from a modern interpretation of baptism. The crux of the issue is that if we are so far removed from the culture, and nuance of these authors, how can we be sure that we have captured the correct meaning of scripture? Whereas when you have a church father, that is one or 2 degrees of separation away from the apostle, and is able to expound on something like baptism and communion, wouldn’t that be convincing for a need of a Tradition to supplement interpretation? Thanks, Confused Protestant
Interesting that Augustine also says, "subsequent to apostolic times" as if there was an apostolic age and it ended. That doesn't seem to indicate apostolic succession.
Oh, that is an interesting catch. I'll have to go back and examine that more. Protestantism wasn't a brand new thing, never conceived of by any Christian before, as Catholics like to claim. The views were always around, and the more looking into church fathers, the more we see them. Edit: Are you quoting that from another writing of Augustine, because I could not find it in Gavin's presentation here?
Interesting video. Its overwhelming how nuanced all of this is. I appreciate the quote from John Chrysostom. I'm wrestling with converting to the RCC. I guess the heart of what John meant was to continue to read the scriptures? My one question is if scripture is only infallible source, what about later things that arent in scripture such as birth control? How should a Christian approach things like that?
Hi Will, I think you are more concerned with the sufficiency of Scripture, and not Sola Scriptura. I would start my research there. Practically though, I think the answer to your question is prayer, prayer in community, wisdom through the Scriptures, and submission to the church leaders where God has you. Finally, trust. Trust God is in control. You don’t need every matter to be adjudicated on infallibly. The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t have that. When you actually dig in, you’ll find there is very little that is truly irreformable. For instance, the RCC took the stance for hundreds of years that capital punishment was/is a morally acceptable form of punishment. There are articles by RCC apologists from the early 2,000s talking about how that stance will never, and can never change. Yet, it has. The Pope single handedly reformed that moral stance a few years ago. That means, the issue of birth control is reformable, since it was not/is not addressed through an Ex Cathedra pronouncement nor in an ecumenical council. Roman Catholics 10 years ago were absolutely certain of the church’s moral stance on capital punishment, but today, it took a 180 degree turn. What will the coming years bring regarding other moral positions?
Augustine and Chrysostom certainly believed in the truth of Scripture. As do all Christians. The separation of Tradition and Scripture is a false dichotomy. Scripture is Tradition and is the Tradition by which all others are judged. Your use of Augustine's quote on the Catholic Church and truth is telling. I can't imagine that either he or Chrysostom would see the Scriptures as being something outside of the Catholic faith. These were men of the Church. Augustine condemned movements that were schismatic. You are correct that neither man saw the need for an infallible magisterium but they both certainly believed in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And they would have understood these terms as Nicea ment them. So no, Augustine did not believe in the 16th century humanist notion of Sola Scriptura. That would be reading history backwards rather than forward.
Not picking on you Fr. I just like interacting with your comments. Was the treasury of merit prevalent in the early church? I only ask because it seems like it is easy to say, Sola Scriptura is a 16th century advent, without proving the case. No… certainly we don’t find the doctrine well articulated until the 16th century, but we don’t find the doctrine of substitutionary atonement articulated very well until Anselm. That does not mean Christians prior to Anselm did not have some view of substitutionary atonement that was consistent with later theological clarifications. That also doesn’t mean other views of atonement were not Center-stage for much of history prior to Anselm, to include heretical forms of ransom theory. For that matter, the doctrine of Transubstantiation can certainly find some early support, but we don’t see the doctrine clearly articulated until much later. It would be real easy to call that doctrine a medieval novelty by Aquinas who overly relied on Muslim philosophers who resurrected Aristotelian thinking. As for tradition. Its not a question as to whether Scripture is tradition, as if Protestants are allergic to tradition, it’s a question of whether it is the only infallible, (that is unreformable), tradition we have. I’m not sure why you think Dr. Ortlund implied that Scripture is outside the Catholic (universal) faith. Unless you are now importing 16th century views of division on the 4th and 5th century. He is simply saying these men believed Scripture stood above all else within the faith as that which is God-breathed.
Nick. No problem. I believe you are under the impression that I am Roman Catholic. I am not. I'm aware of a plethora of ideas all over the history of the Church. Many of which end up being over articulated and removed from balance. Scripture is true and the yard stick by which all other measurements are taken. But Scripture outside of the context of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church looses it's balance. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. These must be balanced and in their proper place. There are no Solas because God gave us much to rely on. Nothing need be separated from the other. The Church and Scripture are one united entity. Both are God breathed (read John 20).
The Word Catholic does not mean universal. It means whole. As in "the whole faith" with nothing missing. When I say Catholic I mean what Ignatius ment, that nothing was lacking. If a church is Catholic it possesses the whole faith, not a part of it. "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." -Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
@@fr.davidbibeau621 Sorry, I did assume you were Roman Catholic. Usually only Protestants and Roman Catholics are interested in Augustine. My sincere apologies if I offended you. I don’t think Dr. Ortlund would disagree with you regarding your position on Scripture being the yard stick by which everything needs to be measured, but I’m also not sure why you think Sola Scriptura is removed from the context of the church. Perhaps because Protestants are not in your church, and you don’t consider Protestant churches to be a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Still, I’ll make an argument assuming otherwise. Sola Scriptura does not mean “me and my Bible alone,” it simply means Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. The Protestant reformers listened to the church fathers and respected the church’s history. Certainly many modern Protestants have abandoned their history, but bad practice does not negate the idea that Scripture is the only thing we have that is God Breathed. The Apostles who Jesus breathed on in John 20 were the ones entrusted with the infallible message which they handed down to the church through letters. Surely you would not say the Apostles’ offices are not unique in redemptive history? Were their offices infallible? Or their letters? To prove the church continued as God breathed beyond the Apostles you would need to prove the successors had the same authority in both word and power… without error or doctrinal division of any kind. That didn’t happen. I would reject the notion that God breaths errors or doctrinal division, which means only Scripture is God breathed, and everyone else is just trying to be faithful to God through it. There is a substantial difference in anything produced following the Apostles, That’s what Augustine was saying. Being Holy Spirit in dwelt does not equal Holy Spirit inspired. John 17 draws a distinction between those immediate followers (ie Apostles) who Jesus asked for to be “sanctified in truth,” (v17) and those who would believe through their words (v20). Only the first generation is sanctified in truth, all others believe through their words… though the church is one, she needs always to remember to look to the sources of truth for truth. The church is not truth… the church is the pillar that holds truth up (1 Tim 3:15) Now we can probably save ourselves some time and I’ll concede that my ecclesiology is vastly different from yours, but I don’t disagree that Scripture cannot be rightly interpreted apart from the church, and I doubt Dr.Ortlund would disagree either. We just probably conceive of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church as manifested much differently than you… and I suppose, in the end, that is your real reason for rejecting Sola Scriptura as a novelty.
There is no offence. Why would you know where I go to church. This is RU-vid. I happen to love Augustine. Although I do sometimes disagree with him. You are correct. I do not interpret One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in any other way but the way it was ment. I do my best to be faithful to how the Fathers of the ecumenical councils ment things rather than how I hear them. So no, there are not many vastly different theological organizations or non organizations that mystically make up an invisible, universal body of believers. There is One Church. As far as being God breathed. I give the Church, the Apostles themselves and their successors as much grace as I do the text of Scripture. There are human errors but the teaching is intact. The teaching of THE Church is that what the Scriptures teach is true and we are to judge all others by them. The Bible in my hand has issues, I trust that scholars are doing their best to make sure the printed Bible I have is as close as possible to the original. It's mistakes (whether I'm holding the UBS 3,4 or 5, the RSV, ESV, NIV, KJV NASB) do not constitute a denial of the Truth of Scripture. I expect the same from the successors of the Apostles. That they do their best to be as close to the original as possible. Despite their mistakes it does not constitute a denial of their role as the successors of the Apostles. THANK GOD He gave us more than just one way to see and hear the Gospel.
This was a great overview. I really appreciate the nuance and fairness with which you treat these issues. One question you didn't address that I often see come up is, "All Christians believe that the church established the canon of scripture guided by the Spirit. So shouldn't any reliance on sola scriptura lead to trusting that the Spirit continued to guide the same church in the development of doctrine and traditions?" How would you respond to that objection?
The Church that supposedly canonized the scriptures is now divided among Papists, Union of Utrecht Catholic Church, Union of Catholic Apostolic Churches, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, Genuine Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church, Russian Old-Orthodox Church, ‘Nikonite’ Russian Patriarchate, Pomeranian Old-Orthodox Church, Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia, Old Calendar Orthodox Church, ‘New Calendar’ Church of Greece, Oriental Orthodox Church, Syrian Church of the East, Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East. Each book of the canon was canonical as soon as the author wrote it. Other books were rejected by their intended audiences. For example the Peshittas, which have no relationship to papism or even later councils, does not include the "gospel" of Thomas. Thomas and his immediate disciples did evangelize the Assyrian Church of the East, but he didn't author any "gospel" to them.
Hey Matthew, Thanks! That is a common argument but I don't personally find it compelling. It is too "all or nothing" with respect to church decisions, and relies on a vague definition of the word "church." As a Protestant, I would emphatically say I do trust the Spirit guiding the church, and see the Spirit doing precisely that with Hus, Wycliffe, the Waldensians, Reformers, etc. Trusting the "church" doesn't mean aligning with EVERYTHING a particular institutional church does. I'd also say that there are big differences between decisions of the church that are truly catholic and decisions that are distinctly un-catholic in that they differ from other branches of the church and earlier times in church history (e.g, the Marian dogmas and papacy for Catholicism, venerating icons for the Orthodox). Hope this helps.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the response Dr. Ortlund! I find myself in the same camp as you. To me it's just hard sometimes to feel confident in my ability to look back at Christian history and evaluate what changes were orthodox and what weren't. As a lay Christian who has only recently been binging church history, I've come to find there are very smart and solid Christians in every viewpoint, so it's hard to know who is "right". That's a pretty broad concern, but I do appreciate how you steel man the arguments for each side. I think there's a lot to learn from many traditions.
@@TruthUnites I don't think the comment makes the definition of Church vague at all. Catholics do not define Church in exactly the same way as its broader, more diffuse use of the term by Protestants. The very unity of the Catholic Church (lacking in Protestantism) makes evident the value of how Scripture is viewed and applied by her Church.
I don't really have a problem with this being Augustine's view. Let's say it is. Who was wrong when people disagreed? In St. Augustines time it seems a plenary council could be called and doctrine determined. The Church would then go forward holding to said doctrine. Those who didn't were out. In St. Augustines time when using Scripture to decide what's right and wrong did anyone get the final say? Or did they just split when they disagreed? Many councils were held throughout Church history which bound the faithful to faith and morals. When was the first time the baptist churches bound all the faithful to something? Is canonical Scripture reformable? St. Augustine held the deuterocanpn to be Scripture. So shouldn't his statments of it's authority apply to the deuterocanon as well. Augustine seemed to think only the Church infallibly recognize Scripture. When was the deuterocanon officially said not to be Scripture? St John Chrysostom questions sincerity if they cannot see the truth. Which of us is the insincere one? Also there is a lot of overlap in St. Augustines and St John Chrysostoms doctrine that sounds very Catholic/Orthodox. It seems Protestants want to find Scripture alone in the father's so they can throw out any other Catholic/Orthodox doctrine.
Hello, Dr.Ortlund. You quoted St.Augustine who says:,,who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; ...but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? (On Baptism 2.3.4). The Local Councils can be fallible and this is a part of the belief of the Church. That is why only some Local Council are ratified by the Ecumenical Councils. But the Ecumenical Councils where the whole Church is gathered (in relation with Acts 15:22,28), cannot be fallible. Here he does not refute the infallibility of the Ecumenical (Plenary) Councils when he says that the ones that follow the previous, correct the previous because if we go through the acts and Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, we will see that no subsequent Ecumenical Council has refuted what a previous one has declared. That is relevant also for the time of St.Augustine when only two Ecumenical Councils had been gathered - the first in Nicaea (325) and the Second, in Constantinople (381). When the Second added to the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it did not correct the Council of Nicaea but only added to the Creed which had explicit articles about the Father and the Son. The Second one only complemented the First one. When St.Augustine says ,,there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. (Reply to Faustus 11.5)'', he refers to the authority of the Scripture which is undisputable but he does not reject the infallibility of the Church. The Ecumenical Councils gave the right interpretation of Scripture when heresies arose. So when we say that they are infallible, we do not mean that they add something to the Scripture but that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Who works in the conciliarity of the Church regarding the better definition of the right faith in the encounters with the different heresies. An interpretation which is infallible is not in contradiction with the infallibility of the Holy Scripture. When the whole Church is gathered, the decisions are from the holy Spirit:,,Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, a and Silas, leading men among the brethren. ...28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: † 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. a If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. The Decree Received in Antioch.'' (Acts 15:22, 28, Orthodox Study Bible). That is why the Ecumenical Coucnils are infallible and the local are not until they were ratified by an Ecumenical Council. ,,It behooves those who preside over the churches, every day but especially on Lord's days, to teach all the clergy and people words of piety and of right religion, gathering out of Holy Scripture meditations and determinations of the truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, nor varying from the tradition of the God-bearing fathers. And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill they may have departed from what was fitting. For through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of what is good and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying their minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment.“ Canon 19, Quinisext Ecumenical Council, of Trullo (692 CE). Of course, the acceptance of the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils is related to the issue of the acceptance of the infalliblity of the Church which in turn is related to the issue of the acceptance of the apostolic succession of the episcopacy which I suggest, you still reject as not having a divine origin.
That's a long comment. I admit that I didn't read all of it, but I felt like I should mention that the motive for adding the filioque to the Nicene Creed was because it better aligns with Scripture, and the reason for not changing the Creed was because of the view that tradition holds a higher place than the Bible. This is where the church split
@@auggieeasteregg2150 Thank you for the reply. The Filioque is untrue. As the Holy Spirit descended after Jesus prayed by his human will to the Father, so that the Spirit may descend (Luke 3.21-22), then since the Son prayed the Father to send the Spirit here (Luke 3.21-22) and the Holy Spirit did not come to proceed through the human nature of the Son but descended from heaven, that means that if the Filioque is true, here (Luke 3.21-22) the Spirit was sent by the Father to proceed temporally through the Hypostasis of the Son. But if by divinity the Spirit already proceeds eternally through the Hypostasis of the Son, He could not begin to proceed temporally through the Person of the Son. Therefore, here (Luke 3.21-22) the Father directly sent the Spirit from Himself, hence by origin the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone and directly. Otherwise, if both the Filioque and its rejection are true, there would be two eternal processions of the Spirit - from the Father and from the Father through the Son but that would lead to two Spirits which is impossible.
Well-made video with important arguments that deserve attention. One small point I'll make here. If Augustine intended to equate "plenary council" with "ecumenical council", then how can he say the earlier are "**often** corrected by those which follow them" (emphasis mine)? After all, at the time of this writing, there had only been two ecumenical councils (Nicaea and Constantinople). So, at most, Augustine would have only seen an ecumenical council "correcting" another one time. So, why would he say they are *often* corrected? It strikes me as much more plausible that Augustine's use of "plenary council" does not map on to "ecumenical council" as the term is understood by Catholics. With that in view, it doesn't follow from this quote that Augustine thinks ecumenical councils can err in their solemn teaching.
Thanks for the kind comments, and good observation! The answer is that Augustine is speaking of what "is liable" to happen, not what has already transpired in his lifetime. Plenary does mean ecumenical. He also calls them "formed for the whole Christian world." As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "The ecumenical councils or synods of the Universal Church are called plenary council by St. Augustine (C. illa, xi, Dist. 12), as they form a compete representation of the entire Church." See here: www.newadvent.org/cathen/12164c.htm
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the reply and citation. That Catholic Encyclopedia article shows there is a lot of nuance in how different kinds of councils have been construed that I would like to explore further. If it’s granted that Augustine had in view what Catholics call ecumenical councils, and if it’s granted that he’s speaking in that clause about what is likely to happen (not what has happened), there are still a few options available from within a Catholic paradigm: (1) Augustine is using “corrected” in a broader sense (as Taylor noted below), such that as “things are brought to light,” they can be refined, clarified, or applied to new situations, but not necessarily to correct errors/falsehoods. This would comport with Augustine’s comment later in book II, chapter 7 where he speaks of a plenary Council having “the judgment delivered with an *infallible voice* ” as well as the idea in the section you quoted where Augustine says provincial councils must yield “beyond *all possibility of doubt* ” to plenary Councils. (2) Another option is to make a distinction within the teachings of an ecumenical Council. After all, in the Catholic paradigm, it is true that an ecumenical council can have errors/defects, but in its *solemn judgments concerning faith and morals* , the council is protected from error. So, if “corrected” is taken as “correcting errors” then the scope of the correction would be limited to those elements which are not solemn judgments on faith and morals. (3) Finally, another possibility within the Catholic paradigm is that Augustine was mistaken on this point about plenary Councils likely to be “often corrected” by those which follow them, though Augustine did recognize the authority of councils to answer questions “beyond all possibility of doubt.” Nonetheless, I have strayed from the main topic of your video which is whether Augustine taught sola scriptura, and not whether what he says is compatible with a Catholic understanding of conciliar matters.
@@JohnDeRosa1990 These are great points. These are the kinds of details that get missed when you are not seeing things from a Catholic paradigm. It can be hard for Protestants to know and that is why it might seem that a Church Father is saying something that he isn't.
@@stacystevens1763 Augustine was saying exactly what we think he was saying. He was very explicit and detailed to put scripture above all bishops and councils. All that I see in this discourse amounts to, but he didn't really mean any of it, because Catholic authority is never wrong, all doctrine is perfect and we just don't make mistakes like the rest of you humans. You can say Augustine is wrong, that's your only real recourse here.
@@antoniogarcia259 thanks Gavin 🙄 I don't think you even watched the whole thing as he addressed that comment from Augustine on the Church. Let Gavin reply please. Take your comments somewhere else.
@@TruthUnites I can see problems emerging for sola scriptura if the Canon you are affirming leads you to different doctrines. In the case of Augustine, if he affirms the deuterocanon on the basis of the authority of the church, wouldn't it be the case that he affirms the authority of the church on matters concerning Doctrine, faith and morals? Hence his quote on his belief in the Gospel.
@@StayFaithful13 it seems to me they are simply distinct issues. One concerns which books are in the Bible. The other concerns the level of authority the Bible has. We all agree that the church has role in discerning the canon (the first question). I don't see why differing positions on that question would be determinative for the extent of their authority (the second question). Whether there are 66, 73, or 1000 books in the canon, it remains a separate question as to the extent of their authority in relation to the church. I'm not saying Augustine is not at odds with the Protestant canon. I'm just saying that doesn't undermine his affirmation of sola Scriptura. So it seems to me, anyway.
Sorry, what do you mean that he was "not solo scripture"?. The second point seems fairly irrelevant. Are we not attempting to understand what that means by looking at what they themselves defined their beliefs as?
Here is the thing. Just like when Roman Catholics find the references of the word pope to prove papal supremacy, in the same fashion you protestants seek references of scripture to prove scripture alone. Every single church father believes in scripture being infallible rule of faith, but in the same time they say that traditions are also infallible, in so much they also say that every bishop is equal and there is no supreme bishop. Yes you are right, many fathers used the word sola scriptura, as well as sola fide, but what they mean by that is totally not the same as how majority of protestants think it is. I am not going to tell you all what they meant to say, because you can read it all in the context by yourself.
I’m not referencing Augustine’s assertion that scripture is infallible. I’m referencing his explicit assertion that it’s the only thing that is infallible, and that in fact even plenary councils are fallible.
It seems like when protestants "read wrongly" the fathers, what they are doing is finding contradictory statements in the fathers. Now there's 2 options from there, 1. is to admit that they might say one thing and then mean another because the fathers never changed positions and they would never contradict or 2. to say that its OK for the fathers to contradict since they aren't an inspired source. If you take option 1, you'd have to elevate their writings to the level of Scripture, but I don't even think RCCs do this. For what else/who else is ever non contradictory? If you take option 2, then "well why not rely then on the inspired source that we do have?" Either way, you're left with "here's what a godly man said about the Bible, and here's what the Bible says about the Bible". The Bible calls only itself as θεόπνευστος
But without an infallible interpreter you are left with opinions. The Protestant mindset is as long as you agree on the "rules" (the Bible alone as the infallible rule of faith) it doesn't matter if you get other things wrong. But even then, those "other things" differ among different groups. know non-Trinitarians who claim they are only going by what is in the inspired Scriptures. Without the Church, the Arians would have succeeded because they too argued from the Scriptures.
When we get to this level of complexity with our Lord, I think we sometimes hurt things rather than help/clear up. The gospel message is for children, people who maybe aren't very intellectual, people who are disabled. It's easy enough and precious enough that all of the above can understand plainly. I get nerding out, I do the same, but there are times when I feel like God just tells me "be quiet and rest in me." Frankly, what Augustine or any of the church fathers say, if it's contrary to the message of the cross delivered plainly in scripture, it needs to be disregarded. I think sometimes people can overanalyze things to death (including the fathers) and do the original message a great disservice. Just my two cents. Peace and blessings to all here.
@Eucharist Angel Maturing doesn't necessarily consist of overthinking things to death, to the place where you end up doing God a disservice. Overanalyzing everything to death and not simply resting in the Lord can be a detriment.
@Bb Dl What does that have to do with false teachings? Listen, I get it, I'm a nerd too.... but not everyone is. I think looking at the church fathers it's plain to see how bizarro ideas can pop up if you overanalyze things to death. Infant damnation? Mary right up there with Christ (no matter what they say)? I think false teachings arise from people sitting around, overanalyzing everything to death. I'm not saying we can't talk about this stuff, I'm just saying I feel like we can take it too far. Sometimes it's good to take a break, rest in Jesus, and focus on the gospel.
@The Hesychast That's not true. Jesuit thinkers and Orthodox thinkers have been pondering these issues for centuries as well. I don't have a denomination, and trust me, I understand the frustration with so many differences, BUT, just because in your system you all hold to the same standards, doesn't make you 100% correct either... neither does the age of your system. The reformers got some things right, and some things wrong... just like all of the church fathers. This is why Augustine said that scripture is our only golden standard. What is written defines many simple truths, definitely enough for a man to get saved and fall in love with the Lord outside of ANY system of men. The complexities? I hate to tell you, but we ALL - ALL systems - get some of that stuff wrong. No one has perfect theology and neither is it required for entrance into the kingdom of our Lord.
@@78LedHead Well said, but Catholics don't like to hear that their church could ever have gotten anything wrong. We have all erred though. I think the scriptures make that plain. The apostles made mistakes too. The very apostle said to start the RCC, erred a number of times and had to be corrected by other apostles. I still can't fathom how the Catholic church thinks they have no error, ever, when they read the same scripture as we do.
Gavin, I appreciate you stating the full force of what you think the evidence conveys. I’ve enjoyed listening to your videos, and my sense is that you are being very conscientious to be gracious and irenic. In such a case I think you need to be here stating the force of your convictions. I say this because I myself have tended to be the opposite, trying to make it’s clear where I think the evidence points, but I have some time a sacrificed being gracious. The order matters - if you have the greatest attitude first, you need to fear being bold!
Hi Gavin, Love your work, everything you do. It is edifying. Thank you. I have a question, off topic to the video, if you are not too busy. I think i recall you saying before that you, unlike other Baptists, believe that there is more going on in the Eucharist than just a symbol. I believe the same. How would you deal with someone, in your church, who only believes that the Eucharist is symbolic? Would you let them receive the Eucharist? Do you believe from Scripture there is any perceived dangers from this? Thanks
Thanks, Gavin! I’m a Catholic and these Augustine quotes really got me thinking. If Augustine held to the doctrine of sola scriptura, though, how did he have all these other beliefs like Baptismal Regeneration, Real Presence, the Papacy, Perpetual Virginity etc. is it possible for a Christian to hold these views along with the doctrine of sola scriptura? If so, why aren’t these prominent among Protestants? Why does it always seem as though sola scriptura precedes some doctrine of deriving all doctrine directly from the Bible as you’re adamant this is not part of the doctrine? Thanks for making these videos!
Augustine like many other Catholics throughout history have held to material sufficiency of Scripture. That does not exclude the belief in the infallibility of the Magisterium
The problem is how one defines Sola Scriptura. Who defines it? I grew up Methodist. They have one version. The Brethren movement has another. The Church of Christ another..... We can keep going.
Do all Roman Catholics agree on how to interpret Papal Infallibility? If no, do the various opinions produce various disagreements about what is indeed infallible doctrine in the church? I only ask these questions to suggest that a plurality of interpretation on a given doctrine does not disprove the doctrine.
Yes Roman Catholics do have differing views on the Papacy. They often float between monarchism to synodal. I believe they are actually having a wider discussion about this right now. You are correct it does not disprove it. There is always diversity of opinion. But Dr. Ortland is incorrect. Sola Scriptura is not ancient.
Very good. Seems the only sensible stance. Interesting he didn't mention papal infallibility as being an exception. Have you raised that with any Catholic apologists?
@@TruthUnites Intriguing. Maybe if you have time and it fits into whatever discussion you have with Trent we could see what he says because I can't imagine any other way. Generally I think with regard to sola scriptura I like your definition as I think it's the most accurate version of what protestants are actually saying, and also I find that orthodox and catholics tend to affirm the same thing, which means the disagreement potentially becomes another example of an observer effect and no real block to unity. I also think greater acknowledgment that tradition should be correctable and that bishops can be mistaken will be healthy for non protestants. It isn't technically an issue but it can be in practice. But I really cannot see why Augustine would be so emphatic that scripture is the ONLY infallible source and point out how church fathers and bishops aren't to be taken as such without mentioning an exception if one existed. That disagreement is not just an observer effect, it seems like a deliberate political power play by bishops who did not check their pride and is largely responsible for disunity with the east and with those in the west who protested it. Just my relatively ignorant opinion of course, and subject to change, but that's the impression I'm getting. If accurate then real unity will require a saintly act of humility by a bishop of rome at some point, while speaking ex cathedra to undo this but it will constitute a major disturbance event initially. Hard to imagine it happening but all it takes is the truth to be spoken widely and for God to ordain the right person and guide them there.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 great thoughts. My one observation would be that Catholic and Orthodox Christians do *not* agree with this definition of sola Scriptura, since the explicitly affirm infallibility within tradition. So I don't see the differences as the observer effect. Again, great thoughts!
@@TruthUnites But the orthodox I have heard do not mind the fact that church fathers disagree or that corrections have occured and are expected to. Their view of infallibility (not that I've seen them use that word, correct me if wrong) seems to be more that the Holy Spirit guides the whole process from a point of view higher than we can perceive so like Joseph's brothers' error was allowed and corrected later for a higher purpose, so can councils and debate amongst people attempting to follow the Spirit take us through bumpy terrain allowing for temporal mistakes.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 yeah it's definitely more nuanced for the Orthodox but I think they still have a different view of tradition than Protestants and would not affirm "only infallible rule" for Scripture, at least to my awareness.
Beautiful passage by Augustine from Sacred Scripture. “For, if the thought of peace dwelt in his heart, he would not afterwards, at Carthage, in company with betrayers whom he had acquitted, have condemned of betrayal men who were absent and whom none had convicted. All the more should he have feared to break the peace of unity, because Carthage was a great and famous city, whence the evil might spread from the head through the whole body of Africa. Besides, it was in touch with the overseas countries, and enjoyed widespread fame. Certainly, it had a bishop of no ordinary authority, who was able to pay no attention to a crowd of hostile conspirators, which he saw that he was united by pastoral letters to the Church of Rome, where the primacy of the apostolic chair has always flourished, and to those other countries which the Gospel came to Africa, itself, and when arrangements were made for him to plead his case if his opponents should try to win over those churches from him.” Augustine
Did augustine affirm the eucharist and baptism for salvation? Then he isnt sola scriptura. He would be debating the real presence because its not solae scriptura.
@@tuomassalo6102 the point is you cannot hold to the real presence because you can argue against the Lutheran position from scripture. And since scripture is the final authority it would be impossible to say that the real presence or baptismal regeneration are de fide.
@@EricAlHarb The fact that you can argue something doesn't prove anything. Listen the chrysostom quote again :) I think your argument is just lazy. Or do you think that the bible is in contradiction with itself?
@@tuomassalo6102 I don’t think the bible is self clarifying and we need an authority that is clarifying that speaks infallibly to make what the bible says, like Acts 15. Or else you will debate baptism, as Protestants do ad infinitum. Do you know Gavin doesn’t hold to the Lutheran position on baptism? Yet both him and the Lutheran claim to be solae scriptura.
@@EricAlHarb Yes I know that and I still respect him on this and many things. The misconception you have on Sola scriptura is that for it to work all Christians who hold to Sola scriptura would have to automatically agree on everything. We are still fallible sinners and we are still able to misunderstand just like you're misunderstanding Sola scriptura :) and Lutherans aren't against tradition etc. Lutherans consider themselves to be the western catholic church just cleansed from few misunderstandings
Ah, the ever irascible Jerome. Church history's most endearing curmudgeon. Richard Hanson had a quote you would appreciate, Dr. O: "Jerome himself, of course, was a presbyter and (mercifully for the peace of the church) not a bishop."--The Christian Priesthood Examined, pg. 67
I think the point here is that sola scriptura has its roots in Augustine, contrary to popular Catholic objections that it's a late invention. In any case, scripture infallibility certainly was discussed and approved of by church fathers much earleir than papal infallibility, which is evidently a later invention. Sola scriptura is not anti-tradition, but is the yardstick by which tradition is measured.
Sola scriptura might, and most likely does, have its roots earlier than Augustine, but Augustine did seem to support it. It is an erroneous claim that it was unheard of before the reformers. That's a convenient argument, for a church that had amassed huge power and wealth, expressly through a doctrine of their tradition being equal or superior to scripture. Then they had all control of the people. It just wasn't convenient to the RCC to concede to scripture first, too much loss of power.
Howdy! Great video(as always). I am a Catholic convert from the Baptist/reformed tradition. I actually became Catholic approaching the doctrines from a scripture alone perspective. I dont know if this is covered elsewhere in the comments but Augustines quotes got me thinking about the deuterocanon. If the argument is that Scripture cannot err but councils can, what do you do with a set of scriptures that is believed to be in error by the majority of the "900 million" protestants? Does that undercut a protestants perspective? Is it ok to use his quotes to affirm a particular doctrine but then reject his perspective on the boundaries of that doctrine? Thanks for your hard work! Peace.
Check out some quotes I posted here from Augustine. Dr Ortlund is misleading his audience. Secondly. You are right that material sufficiency is a thing to believe by Catholics. As we can find the seeds od all our doctrine and dogma in the Holy Word of God. This does not take away the infallibile interpreter.
Well, I would say that canon belongs to the Lord. It’s not a democracy. THAT SAID, at Hippo in the 4th C., the council said that the apocrypha was “deutero”canon. That means secondary. Even if you include them in your Bible, that doesn’t mean they were intended to be on the level of canon. They were known to be secondary. The Jews never and still don’t lay those books up with OT Scripture. They were never equal until very recently in history
@@KristiLEvans1 The Jews you changed the Old Testament and left out the so called apocrypha to destroy the catholic faith and Protestants choose to believe the same Jews who crucified Jesus. Also the Septuagint was divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit and the Jews deny that too. But as Luther claimed when he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church, l am my own pope and council, and ever since all Protestants are their own pope and council and that is why there is 40 thousand plus Protestant denominations
Dr Ortlund, Augustine makes reference to tradition that is not written in Scripture which he calls 'apostolic'. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book V.23.13) Would it be fair to say that 'apostolic' is a synonym for 'infallible' as I can't imagine that Augustine would have thought the apostles could err in matters faith.
Personally I love reading the Bible. The words of Holy Scripture are so comforting. I read it and ask what is the overall story here? What is the story of Gods people and Gods promise to His people. I just love to read Gods word "I have hidden your word in my heart so that I might not sin against you" Psalms 119:11 Thank you Dr Ortlund for making these videos. Very helpful to find good church fathers to read
From how its portrayed by my non-Protestant close friends… i honestly would’ve never thought to expect such clear and precise language by Augustine or any other church father for that matter on a subject that is the crux of such modern distinctions such as scripture and tradition. Love this content. What you said about the church fathers that “they don’t fit neatly” is what I’m most comfortable admitting. I think it’s accurate and frames our retrieval from them in a honest manner and gives us more clear direction on what we should expect to glean from them.
One thing to keep in mind is that St. Augustine is a Doctor of the Church (St. John Chrysostom as well), the Church doesn't define any Doctor as infallible, but the do define them as having a special title that defines their teaching and writings as having "... advanced the knowledge of God through their writing on theology, spirituality, mysticism, or through their defense of the faith in the face of heresy and schism" (USCCB). As with anything you have to look at someones entire catalog of scholarship before coming to a conclusion on a certain subject. With all of all the resources availably to the Church, do you think they would name Saint Augustine a Doctor if he had definitively taught for the heresy of Sola Scriptura, especially against the doctrine on how Divine Revelation is transferred? The Church teaches that Divine Revelation is transferred via the "one common source" of Scripture and Tradition. (CCC 80) This fact alone would make me want to delve much deeper into this subject than what Dr. Ortlund has given in this video.
@@MrTheKing537 I really appreciate this. But what do you make of these quotes? They’re so plain that they’d almost need to be a part of an inquisition or explicitly contradicted in Augustine’s writing to come to a different conclusion besides that he saw a formal distinction between the potential for error in post-apostolic ecumenical tradition that the Roman church doesn’t admit & that of the scriptures themselves.
@@MrTheKing537 And again we aren’t saying that he taught it definitively in precisely the details the reformers did. We are saying however that he did seem to hold to the fundamental thrust of Sola Scriptura. Augustine was facing entirely seperate issues and was clarifying answers to questions obviously different than those of the reformers-so we expect a difference, but it is convincing that his principles are close to identical. And ofcourse, you’ll only find encouragement to ‘dive deeper’ and test these across the whole sweep of Augustine’s thought and literature but the point is what he has said here would essentially have to be contradicted. And we of all camps are most ready to admit the church fathers are not incapable of error in their own writing-which are precisely the words of Augustine himself!
@@cole141000 I think the easiest way to state what I’m talking about is the difference between Truth and the Fullness of Truth. In the writings that Dr Ortlund reviewed you do find Augustine’s view of Sacred Scripture in a pronounced manner, but picking passages out of his entire body of work is like saying that John 3:16 is the Fullness of Truth and the rest of Scripture can be done away with. It just doesn’t work that way. Plus you’re putting the scholarship of one man and his preparation of a 20 minute video over a 1000 plus years of people reviewing and analyzing ever single word that Augustine wrote.
@@MrTheKing537 I don’t think you recognize the nature of an exclusive claim. And no, that example is not at all accurate or relative to the point in discussion.
I think St. Thomas Aquinas agrees: "Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8
@LEEK I disagree, I think St. Augustine did indeed believe that the scriptures were the only infallible authority, although you may find that conclusion to be unacceptable.
Agree Leek. Interestingly enough I once extracted that entire back and forth argument between Augustine and Jerome that spanned a number of years if not over a decade if I recall . The issue in question was whether Paul had “pretended” so to speak to be an observant Of the mosaic law or whether he had actually been observant . Augustine was concerned that Jerome’s argument was potentially undermining both Paul’s honesty and the inerrancy of scripture .
H E, "if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, I would not know the Holy Scriptures". Augustine taught Mary the Mother of God, was a perpetual virgin! Dr. Ortlund states Holy Scripture doesn't teach this. So much for Scripture ALONE AS the authority of Augustine! Plus, Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@LEEK Dr. Ortlund tends to leave out the full quotations unfortunately! Awesome work LEEK! I have asked Dr. Ortlund a dozen times and he has never responded to the question. " Can one know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", ( Matthew 26:26), as only Holy Scripture is infallible as he claims. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Holding to doctrines that are not found in the Bible is not necessarily inconsistent with sola scriptura. Here it might be helpful to compare the regulative versus the normative principles of worship. Those who hold to the normative principle of worship hold that anything is allowed, except that which is forbidden by scripture. Peace to you too brother.
Thank you Gavin... this is progress toward an answer I keep looking for regarding Sola Scriptura and the arguments I get from Catholics. However, it still needs to be taken further. If a teaching magisterium is not called for, then how can we truly know the proper interpretation of scripture. MANY denominations have deep and rational arguments for their point of view, and they are not secondary differences... Lutherans and others argue for baptismal regeneration, while Baptists and others do not. There are many other examples. Did God leave it up to us to debate without any authoritative resource? Are Lutherans or Baptists doomed because they didn't interpret correctly? I do not believe that the Catholic magisterium is authoritative, however, I have not found satisfying answers to these questions. Continued progress down this road is MUCH appreciated!
I can never figure out why people assume there is a need for infallible interpretation. The Jews never had that throughout the Old Testament. We live in a finite and fallen world and see through a glass darkly as Paul says in I Cor 13. I don’t know why people would expect infallible interpretations. As I listen to the church fathers I don’t get the sense that they believed in an infallible teaching office, either. Maybe you can help me understand where this is coming from.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the reply... I was never concerned about it, until I realized I don't have a good answer about who's right about fundamental questions of how you become a Christian. I, like you, firmly believe it's when we put our trust in Christ for our salvation. However, Catholics, Lutherans, and others claim we become Christians when we're baptized, whether as infants or adults. So someone is right, and someone is wrong. Salvation is in dispute. Would God have left such a fundamental question as a matter of debate? Both sides claim scripture gives clear teaching to support their claim. I have confidence in my salvation through faith in Christ. Are we not going to know God's definitive answer until it's too late for those that were on the wrong side? We coexist and support different views, but they are foundational to Christianity.
@@harryurschel4230 I hear ya. It seems to me that we can have a confident answer short of an infallible teaching office, but I definitely agree that we need to have a good answer to those who question this.
This is a big part as to why I became Catholic. Separating the Bible from the Church is like taking a fish out of their fishbowl. Although I was well schooled in the Bible and even have a degree in Theology, I find that as a Catholic, I am truly a "Bible Christian".
@@harryurschel4230 I'll throw my 2 cents in. If baptism saves then it would be the consistent teaching throughout the entire bible. Its not. Faith is the norm for believing in God and being made just. Paul made a distinction between baptism and the gospel. A person will read their theology into the bible but if its not consistent with scripture i wouldn't put a lot of stock into it. Salvation by faith in the o.t. Salvation by faith in the n.t. There is one gospel. I know you weren't looking for specifics here since you are confident in your salvation. Again, just my 2 cents.
Thank you Gavin! One question I have from this is: Do you know why, given his stance here, Augustine still urged Jerome to include the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate? I’m curious if he gave reasons why. Especially if he felt this way about Scripture in contrast to all else. Thank you for your videos!
I am watching this video late, but I am desperate for an answer on this question. Let me just take one disagreement between Catholic and Protestant. The question is how can we trust the Bible. Catholics say the Church put the Bible together. Protestants say “NO the Bible revealed itself. Protestants say "the Church no more gave us the Bible than Newton gave us gravity.” For me not growing up in a religious home I just read the Bible until I was convinced that it was not a myth. I read it carefully so I know the contents pretty well. So to the question as to why we should trust anything the early Church did; this is what the Bible says: Jesus said 1) He was going to build a single Church. 2) He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 3) He said that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. 4) He said that He was going to send the "Spirit of Truth" to guide the Church in all truth. Then Paul says 5) the pillar and bulwark of truth is “the church.” Okay so let us look in church history at the Canon. In 382 AD the Church had a council and determined that the canon was 73 books. They chose which books are infallible. That should be radically important right? So the question is why would we trust them? Well, the answer is that Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the age. He also said he would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. So from 382 AD to 1520 the Church that operated on the earth had the 73 book canon. But then Protestants come along and say in 1520 or so that the Church got the 73 book canon wrong. Please tell me how that is not absurd based on Jesus promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and to send the Spirit of Truth to guide the church in All TRUTH. I am not being belligerent here really, I earnestly want to know. Did Jesus lie? Did He make a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make an error with the 73 book canon? I cannot for the life of me believe that the church which is described as the pillar and bulwark of truth was not even on the earth from 382 To 1520. But then let’s move on; let’s say that the Protestants are right and the Church errored in the 73 Book canon. If the Church errored in the 73 book canon did God wait from 382 AD until 1520 before He restored the real truth? Are we really going to believe that for 1200 years the true Christian Church was not there? Can that make any sense? I am just a guy who read the Bible very closely and came down on the Catholic side only recently but now I have Protestants telling me I am going to hell. I am not being rude or accusatory. But please tell me how it is not absurd that Jesus says he would create one Church. He would be with the Church to the end of the age. He would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in ALL TRUTH. But then for one of the most important issues in all of Christianity the early Church gets 73 book canon wrong and so the truth is not there until 1520. That would make me question the Christian claims. Just a reasoned answer to this question would really help me.
What you are saying makes sense to me. I come from a Protestant background, but have been looking into the Orthodox Church. Thank you for your thoughts on this topic.
If you are lookin for a concise review and additional references for your scholarship on this subject, listen to today's (November 8, 2021) podcast "Called to Communion" by Dr. David Anders. It's somewhere around the 15 minute mark.
I suggest you go look at the ENTIRETY of both Augustine and Chrysostom's careers. Those are the contexts within which the quotes you picked are to made intelligible. Both were bishops of the undivided Catholic church and defenders and apologists of the Church and its authority par excellence. To use a few of their quotes to undermine the very Church they spent their entire lives defending is disingenuous. That is why there was never a battle over sola scriptura in their day like those over Christological controversies or on the question of which books belong to the canon. It can be guaranteed that neither one of them would have backed down if they had thought that SS was a core Christian belief or in any shape or form thought the same way about SS as Luther et al. That SS battle had to wait a thousand years more for a Renaissance era European to have his own light bulb moment. The reformation WAS a part and product of the renaissance and its intellectual foment and rejection of authority - far in time, place and culture from the sources of Christianity. You quote Augustine. So here's another one from him: “For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…-not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church.... .....we read in the Acts of the Apostles; Acts 1:26 which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me.... For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichćus, how can I but consent? …for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you.” Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397).
In the New Saint Joseph’s Baltimore Catechism St. Augustine is listed as one of the writers of Divine Tradition [in the Catholic faith]. The odd thing is that St. Augustine’s own quotes positions him in opposition to the very concept of “Divine” tradition which the Catholic Church attributes to him.
We have to keep in mind that both Augustine (d. 430) and Chrysostom (d. 407) were bishops thoroughly faithful to the Catholic Church. They were, in a very real sense, defenders of the the faith par excellence. They would with absolutely no doubt consider protestants to be heretics and schismatics and would be shocked that their writings would be used by them in this way centuries later. For instance, in 388, Augustine completed his apology "On the Holiness of the Catholic Church." Both considered Doctors of the Church in Catholicism and saints in Orthodoxy. Ardent defenders of the Catholic Church par excellence are being used to buttress the key foundation of Protestantism namely Sola Scriptura. If they were alive they would be the most vociferous opponents of protestants of today as intensely as they denounced the heretics and schismatics of their day. You have pointed out that they had certain opinions about this and that.. What you have to prove is that Sola Scriptura was the teaching of the Church to which they belong and defended very admirably. So tell us what the Church of the time was saying about SS. Can you claim that Sola Scriptura was the guiding principle of the Catholic Church at that time? What about the first three ecumenical councils ( years 325, 381, 431) was Sola Scriptura evident in how they argued and sifted through the issues? That in my mind is much more important than showing that there were various streams of "pious opinions" held by a variety of people over the centuries - many of great standing. After all, at that time, even the canon of scripture that they allude to was still being worked out with one saint or church believing this or that.
There is no claim that Sola Scriptura was the guiding principle of the church at that time. The term didn't really exist. The only claim in these videos is that Augustine clearly laid out that he believed in this principle. Of course he believed in tradition also, and of course he was a bishop of the Catholic church. None of that is in dispute. I don't understand these big leaps, far beyond the scope of what is simply claimed?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Well, the thing is, Gavin calls Protestantism "a historical retrieval." While that is unspoken here, I think that claim is present in this discussion. So I felt it important to restate that Augustine was Catholic through and through and not somehow standing apart representing an early, truer tradition of the Church. A defender of the Catholic Church par excellence is being used to buttress the key foundation of Protestantism namely Sola Scriptura. The reformers likewise sought to claim Augustine as proof that a foundational Protestant distinctive not only existed in the early Church but was held by a Church Father not for its own sake because its interesting, but to buttress the claim that Protestantism is not a late medieval European accretion or heresy but is in fact the retrieval of a purer, earlier form of Christianity.
@@AL_YZ When the reformation happened, it was certainly an attempt at a purer form of Christianity. Augustine was Catholic, but he certainly held scripture as the highest authority. Someone thought a better and less loaded term to use for the way Augustine sounded in those quotes was sola prima. that could well be.
These quotes from Saint Augustine read like a wilderness with no signposts pointing towards Papal Authority, and most certainly, the concept of infallibility seems to be a foreign land yet to be discovered.
The retreat to: 'Well, Augustine could be wrong', I believe has to be weighed by how much we would expect a bishop of the Church not to be wrong concerning the infallibility of plenary councils. It is not enough to say that was possibly was ignorant of this matter of authority. One has to argue why this is more likely the case, than the alternative which is that Augustine as a bishop probably did have an as-yet permitted view to have in the Church at the time, or perhaps even the general consensus of bishops at the time. A modest claim can be that even if false, somwthing like sola scriptura was a permitted view of bishops at the time of Augustine. This modest claim survives even if he was theologically incorrect.
There is no such thing as official definition of Sola Scriptura. The Westminster Confession's is just one possible description. No one can say another person's idea of sola scriptura is wrong. Instead of saying someone else's definition of sola scriptura is wrong, he should say "for me" or "the definition I accept" or "most reformers thought" or "our working definition is" or "our consensus opinion is." No one has authority to define it as if has become biblical truth. It is not. That must be made clear. It is not like the basics of the Christian faith to be believed. In other words, you don't have to be believe in Sola Scriptura in order to be a Christian because it is not a foundational Christian truth. Indeed, the term is a late Medieval European protestant principle and Christianity existed way before then. It is a manmade framework constructed in order to allow Christians who have rejected a magisterial church to have a logical, consistent way of limiting the number of appropriate ways of approaching revelation and defining doctrine and practice. It is not a doctrine itself. You call another person's definition a caricature but that is just a roundabout way of saying his definition is wrong and mine is right.
You clearly don't believe any element of sola scritpura. So to go on to claim that it has no definition, is a relativistic approach and makes no sense. Just because you hold the notion in contempt, does not mean it doesn't have a clear definition to those that do hold it as clear and dear. We hold the bible above all church tradition. It's pretty clear, it's pretty simple.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I cetainly don't claim SS has no definition but that there are definitionS. Plural. Gavin went into some effort to say what the "official definition " is, what it is and what it is not, acknowledging that even many Protestants actually have a broader defacto definition of SS. In fact the definition you provided at the end is a simpler version of the definition Gavin discussed. That's your version. Gavin's is much more nuanced. That is why I pointed out that there are in fact narrower and broader forms of SS. And I also pointed out that it not is on par with a biblical truth that a Christian must accept in order to be considered to be one. It is rather an approach defined in the 16th century designed to be a better alternative to the older infallible magisterial church authority model.
@@AL_YZOk, you weren't quite saying what I thought you were, and I hope I wasn't too sharp in my initial answer. Some treat the whole notion w/ contempt. You're right that it's not a thing that we all have to accept to be a Christian. It's not like the Catholic church model. Our salvation rests solely on Christ. It's not that there can't be a more nuanced explanation of it. He was striving to define it for those that don't understand it. Here's the thing though, I knew what it was, long before I had ever heard the term. I really only ran into a lot, where people were throwing it around, just several years ago. I have Christian friends who if I mention it to them, they ask me what that is. They agree w/ it, but don't use the term.
Except Roman Catholics do worship Mary. This is dogma. The difference is they call it dulia (worship of saints) not latria (worship of God). It’s a distinction with no real difference. I know they claim it’s ok because it’s not latria, but this practice leads to people crawling on their bloody hands and knees to kiss statues of Mary, prayers to Mary, etc etc. it opens the door to all kinds of heresy. Idolatry is whatever takes primary position in your heart. What replaces God. People have a tendency to do this. As Calvin said, the heart is a non-stop idol factory. But when it is dogma in your religion to offer worship of any kind to anyone but God, then it’s a problem. It’s promoting what we should be turning from.
Your mentioning of John Chrysostom greatly intrigued me, so I also read his Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles. However, I was very disappointed to see that you didn't include the last part of his Homily. John Chrysostom stated that the heathen should seek answers from God. He should also, if he doesn't have preconceived opinions or prejudices, be able to easily detect the person who measures falsely. John Chrysostom and his congregation are in THE Church because they have one Master that is in Heaven. However, the others say the same, yet their name accuses them. e.g. Marcion, Manichaeus, Arius. I'm wondering why you didn't include this in your video? Forgive me, but it seemed disingenuous of you to exclude it. Perhaps I'm missing something though.
I actually do think that Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture. It's in Matthew 22:23-29, read in a certain tenor: Matthew 22:23-29 23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection [or, INSERT ANY TEACHING OPPOSED TO SCRIPTURE], came to [Jesus] with a question ... . . . ...29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." +++ That's Jesus our Lord teaching Sola Scriptura. The Sadducees are in error because they don't know Scripture, not because they don't know Tradition. But because they promote a belief (no resurrection) that they would not promote if they knew that SCRIPTURE taught the exact opposite. Jesus is using Scripture as the *authority* against which any sect's tradition or doctrine must be judged. Why? Because Scripture is the sole infallible authority. The episcopate is an authority, for sure. Just not the infallible one.
The OT scriptures were sufficient for the Jews to accept Christ (John 5:39-40) but many still rejected him because they did not have eyes to see or ears to hear. Jesus supernaturally opened the minds of his apostles and brought them to remembrance all that he had told them IN PERSON (John 14:26) and he opened their minds to understand the scriptures (Luke 24:45) speaking of the OT of course. NOTHING they spoke went against scriptures (the OT) as Paul explicitly says in 1 Corinthians 4:6. This was demonstrated after the Boreans tested the words of the apostles against scripture (Acts 17:11) and they were commended as “noble” for doing so. There is ZERO indication that the ability to speak infallibly was passed down from the apostles to anyone else. Paul also makes it very clear that when he leaves the church at Ephesus, NOT to listen to the words of man because they will come "speaking twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves" (Acts 20:29-30). The above explanation I've given explains how the NT is two things: 1) The divine and infallible testimony that the true Christ has come 2) The divine and infallible interpretation of the New Covenant as laid out by the Old Testament. We don't need the RCC to interpret scripture because the apostles ALREADY DID! Paul tells Christians "I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say." (1 Corinthians 10:15). Jesus said to his apostles "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see!" (Luke 10:23). What he DIDN'T say is "blessed are the eyes that blindly follow what men say is the correct interpretation of scripture." Many will read scripture and come up with incorrect interpretations, I AGREE WITH THAT FACT, but for the RCC to teach that they are the only infallible source of interpretation is a dangerous lie. A lie that has roots from the beginning of time. The first deception in the Garden started with the question "Did God ACTUALLY say...?" Satan went to Eve (who hadn't received the word directly from God but through Adam) with his interpretation of God's word to deceive her. The RCC has taken the role of the serpent claiming that their traditions and interpretations are divine, when in reality the scriptures from the apostles and prophets are the ONLY divine words and traditions we have. The apostles aren’t physically with us anymore, but thank God they wrote everything down!!! Many will say that interpreting scripture with scripture is “circular reasoning.” It’s not circular reasoning because God wrote the scriptures through 40 authors over the course of 1600 years. Jesus used scripture to interpret scripture in the desert when Satan tried to tempt him. Satan used his twisted version of God’s word (that’s his M.O.) and then Jesus used scripture to combat his deception! The word of God is a sword (Ephesians 6:17) to be used in defense! The word of God is good for correction (2 Timothy 3:16) which implies that error is not only possible BUT LIKELY to arise among men!!! When our foundation is a solid rock, we cannot be defeated. The word of God is our only solid foundation on this earth.
If I pray to Mary, don’t I imply she has some sort of divine attribute? How can she hear my prayer along with another 1 billion other at the same time?
Technically speaking Martin Chemnitz is not a Protestant. "Lutherans" are catholic. Evangelical catholic. Luther referred to the Protestants as radicals.
Catholicism doesn't say that EVERYTHING a pope or council says is infallible. Where did you get that idea? There are only certain limited statements of the magisterium that are infallible. You try but you cannot think like a catholic and so you get the fathers very wrong. Funny how you try to make a protestant out of Augustine who believed in apostolic succession. Here Augustine appeals to traditon for infant baptism and not scripture. "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants [is] certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except Apostolic." Your comments pit scripture against indvidaul magesteri, not tradition. Much more I could say but let me sumarize. You will never understand the bible and you will never understand the Church Fathers unless you see them through the lens of Catholicism. Terrible video Gavin.
Imagine protestants going back to the Church Fathers and discovering that Catholics have been misrepresenting them out of context all these years? Oh.. wait...!
Lol. Poor Church Fathers! Not one of them Protestant! Until of course, The Protestants make them so! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Not angry , not shouting but see Leek’s discussion of its context above . You also have to take into account Augustine’s other assertions about the authority of the Church and then make sense of it all.
@@aGoyforJesus You mean the guy from Seinfeld?😁 oh yes, the Anglican that converted to Catholicism, yes, I know him. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Matt 28 is"The Great Commission" It says to go and teach. It also applies to SHARE. It is a shame that this great teacher only has 46K subscribers. If we acted like Christians and duplicate ourselves, the world will be enriched. Share w someone in your church. (not related to Dr Gavin😀)
Hey Saint Basil, do you think Augustine advocated sola scriptura? “Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]). Ok, thanks for that! Did Augustine cite Basil in his works? I think you'll find the answer is yes. Goes to show you that Augustine pretty much endorsed Basil's views.
We have to keep in mind that both Augustine (d. 430) and Chrysostom (d. 407) were bishops thoroughly faithful to the Catholic Church. They were, in a very real sense, defenders of the the Catholic faith par excellence. They would with absolutely no doubt consider protestants to be heretics and schismatics and would be shocked that their writings would be used by them in this way centuries later. For instance, in 388, Augustine completed his apology "On the Holiness of the Catholic Church." Both are considered Doctors of the Church in Catholicism and saints in Orthodoxy. Both were ardent defenders of the Catholic Church par excellence. They would be dismayed to know that they are being used to buttress the key foundation of Protestantism namely Sola Scriptura. If they were alive they would be the most vociferous opponents of protestants of today as intensely as they denounced the heretics and schismatics of their day. You have pointed out that they had certain opinions about this and that.. What you have to prove is that Sola Scriptura was the teaching of the Church to which they belong and defended very admirably. So tell us what the Church of the time was saying about SS. Can you claim that Sola Scriptura was the guiding principle of the Catholic Church at that time? What about the first three ecumenical councils ( years 325, 381, 431) was Sola Scriptura evident in how they argued and sifted through the issues? That in my mind is much more important than showing that there were various streams of "pious opinions" held by a variety of people over the centuries - many of great standing. After all, at that time, even the canon of scripture that they allude to was still being worked out with one saint or church believing this or that.
Hi Gavin, I've done some checking on what the Church Fathers, including Augustine, say about 2Tim3:16. You should see for yourself. None of them ever say anything about sola scriptura even though it is supposedly key text for it. Why?
Augustine believed in Sola Ecclesiae and that the Bible was established and is to be interpreted within the Catholic Church, by the Church for the Church with the authority and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He also believed and wrote that heretics, by questioning the authority of the Catholic Church, blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.
As a very conservative Baptist, I am willing to admit that the historical doctrine of Sola Scriptura and Anti-traditionalism (or better, wariness toward tradition) are not identical concepts. The Protestant reformers who defined and were willing to die for the Soli, passed down plenty of traditions which their current incarnations carry forward. I am more than able to dialog coherently concerning the terminology. And I would encourage others in the same boat to be able to make the historical and doctrinal distinctions necessary to a useful conversation on the matter. I would, however, argue that we should go beyond Sola Scriptura in that sense to "All doctrine can only come from the Bible," and yes, I can find that as well as Sola Scriptura in the Bible. There's no contradiction. People saying, "Sola Scriptura isn't in the Bible," are using the same logic as those who say, "The Trinity isn't in the Bible." Of course it is. Perhaps the better phrase is "taught in/by the Bible." No, it's not spelled out and defined in a couple of verses, but the principles are present, and the Bible simply doesn't make sense without it. It emerges directly from and is logically necessary to the coherence of the Biblical text. For example, the Bible says: 1. There is only one eternal Deity. 2. The Father is the One. 3. The Son is somehow distinct from the Father and Spirit, and yet is the One. 4. The Spirit is somehow distinct from the Father amd Son, and yet is the One. It is easy to support these points from Scripture, and that essentially is the concept of Trinity whether or not the word is ever used. To make any sense in context, some kind of Trinitarian doctrine is necessary. I believe the same can be said of both Sola Scriptura as well as the more expansive doctrine I have espoused. To me, and I can back this up Biblically, if it is not taught in/necessitated by Scripture, it is, by definition, not doctrine. Now, lest someone take me incorrectly on this, not everything *must* be governed by a direct doctrine. Biblical necessity counts for doctrine, but *only* doctrine. There are the "Things Indifferent," etc. I am not like those who say that musical instruments are prohibited because the Bible doesn't actively support their use. To me, that issue does not rise to the level of doctrine. We have no Biblical teaching on instruments, therefore, it's a matter of preference. But if someone *did* want to force a doctrinal position on the issue, for or against, they would be required to provide the clear Biblical precedent. All that said, I understand that this more restrictive measure is not what is historically meant by Sola Scriptura, which is in itself a point all Protestants and/or Evangelicals should be able to understand correctly and rally behind in these kinds of ecumenical discussions.
Hmmmm... This is in Scripture? (I believe the seeds of it are) "There are many other things which most justly keep me in the bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her *authority*, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The *succession of priests* keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church …no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion…. For my part I should not believe the gospel except the authority of the Catholic Church moved me. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you - If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at *the command of the Catholics* that I believed the gospel.”
Dr. Ortlund, isn’t the Chrysostom quote referring to the heathen not being able to adjudicate the truth of the gospel and the way of Christ from the other perspectives that use scripture to support their view? Otherwise why would he list Jews alongside the others? I think that is unintentionally misleading from your initial point in this video. In that, the homily from Chrysostom is not addressing the sola scriptura position of us as Protestants but the confusion of an inquirer into the way of Christ vs others that would claim to be similar (heresies or Judaism) using similar scriptures. Additionally, I may be mistaken but doesn’t Catholic teaching hold that sacred scripture is of the highest authority in informing faith and practice, and that the magisterium is only infallible in as much as making plain what scripture has already provided? This is a genuine question of mine. I don’t see a contradiction on the Catholic side based on either Augustine’s writings or those of Chrysostom.
You say it is "ok for people to disagree with what Augustine is saying." What if they do not agree with your interpretation or take on what Augustine is saying? Also, and thankfully, nothing you have said militates against Reason or Tradition. Rather, it seems to seek to give primacy to scripturich I have found few Catholics would argue with. I would also suggest that none of what you say, here, invalidates the Magisterium since it works in concert with and not independent of this deposit of faith given to it in Scripture. I would be more interested in hearing how you would define Reason and Tradition as the argument about Sola Scriptura presented, here, seems rather redundant.
