Did Augustine Affirm Sola Scriptura? Nope! 

@YAJUN YUAN another term for "supreme" is ultimate interpreter. Either way, the Bible doesn't interpret itself. The question is who has the final say on the meaning of scripture: you or the Church. Jesus clearly gives the apostles the authority of binding and loosing, which in a jewish framework, refers to the authority of interpreting scripture. this authority is continued on through the Church.

@YAJUN YUAN lol an inffalible and supreme INTERPRETER is a servant of the scripture. We know it because Christ promissed a church, not endless schisms in interpretations. Guess what...the pre prot schisms were wrong. And they were not near the number of modern sects. Augustine not increased it. Long before him the latin and north african church considered those books. We see that in Cyprian of carthage writings, donatists writers like Tyconius, or the cheltehan list. Way before Augustine these books were canonical in that part of the world. Augustine didn't force this on the local councils, pure non-sense.

@YAJUN YUAN The power of binding and loosing is not exclusive to discipline, but is primarily about teaching authority. This is obvious from the immediate context of Peter's confession of faith. A common example used in a jewish context of the phrase binding and loosing is what constituted "work" on the sabbath (e.g., lighting a fire, feeding animals, etc.), since the OT is not explicit in this regard. the power of binding and loosing is the power to provide the CORRECT interpretation of Scripture. I recommend reading suan sonna's article on academia, The Biblical Case for an Infallible Magisterium." //The ultimate interpreter must be your brain, otherwise you are admitting to blind obedience.// We might divide this in two ways: Christians and non-Christians. Before conversion, people have a moral duty of finding and accepting the truth. For example, the thessolonains misused their private judgement in rejecting the preaching of Paul, hence why he calls them of a less noble character than the Bereans. The thessolonains were not free from sin. After conversion, Christians are bound under pain of sin to follow whatever the apostles teach, regardless of their personal opinions. Conceding that the power of binding and loosing pertains to teaching authority, that means the Church can bind consciences under pain of sin. Here, we are not talking about producing new revelation but a proper interpretation of scripture.

@YAJUN YUAN //I recognise the need for organisational structure, but just because a hierarchy is useful does not mean we can conclude that they are infallible, even they self-claim to be.// Well, in this case, Jesus said the apostles were infallible, so they wouldn’t be claiming it for themselves. In the case of the Sanhedrin, they may or may not have been infallible; but in the case of the Apostles, Jesus certainly gave that authority. Now the question is, whether infallibility was extended beyond the life of the apostles. To that answer, Jesus says that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church within the very context of giving the apostles teaching authority. //Well according to Jesus, the Jews got wrong what constituted "work" on the sabbath, and they got it wrong big time. You are giving an example of a fallible power.// There were two different schools of thought: Hillel and Shamaei. The two differed on the matter. But none of them claimed the backing of heaven. Your quote from Irenaeus absolutely ignores what he says about apostolic succession and the role of apostolic tradition. //And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a significant number of the leading women.'// You are referring to a different time period. I’m certain the previous instance those Thessalonians used their private judgement in rejecting Paul. //I'm not seeing teaching authority, I see from the verses provided authority to bind and loose civil law judgements.// Read Acts 15. Also, the meaning of “binding and loosing” is used through Jewish literature to refer to the teaching authority.

@YAJUN YUAN Where did I say that there would be no schisms? Do you even read what I wrote? I didn't say that there would be no schisms, but that there will be a true church that teach the orthodox interpretation, i.e., the true doctrine. The sects is in error according tho that one orthodoxy of faith, that the one true church teaches. Where did I denied the apostolic sucession of the "Orthodox"? Or the mono/mia-physites? Or the Assyrians? Its not a matter of just the validity of the holy orders. But at least they can be considered a "church", in error, but a church, we cannot say the same about the endless sects of the pretense reformation. ______________ Nowhere I said that catholics cannot interpret scripture and propose an interpretation, but we check that interpretation according to the Church, according to the councils and deffinitions of the magisterium, consensus of the fathers etc., even so there is very few verses that have an official interpretation attached to it. _________________ About the canon, in none of his books Augustine declare a new canon, he writes what was commonly use and considered canonical by christians in his region. As we can seen be used in the writings of the writers I mentioned. There is no list of Cyprian but we have a lot of his writings, where he called books like Tobit, Sirach, Maccabees and Wisdom as "Divine readings", "Holy Scripture", "Sacred Scripture" and even attribute phrases of the Wisdom of Solomon as the words of the Holy Spirit. As Augustine, Cyprian became a Christian and most probably received what scripture already were in that church, he didn't create anything new. The same pattern can be observed in the writings of Tyconius (that Augustine even reccomends), all from the latin/north african church And that is why I especifically said: "these books were [considered] canonical *in that part of the world* ", Why you've start mumbling about eastern fathers, lists and councils is beyond me. What I was saying is that what the Cheltenham list says: "our predecessors prove these books to be canonical" it is consistent with the evidence, and it proves that the western latin church held a different canon than the eastern one, and that list is older than Athanasius's letter or the Laodicean council (The authenticity of the 60th canon is doubtful BTW). Nowhere I denied that in the east people held to different ideas about the canon. Many of the Antiochian school affirmed a short OT canon and an short NT canon (22 books), even after the greeks received the "western five", Revelation continued to be an disputed issue, the Syriac Fathers received none of those books at all. __________ How a protestant can claim an orthodoxy of faith if it all depends only on his own interpretation? "The ultimate interpreter must be your brain". Okay, say that to people who approved divorce, sodomy, poligamy from their own bible interpretation, they will "follow their dictactes of conscience" to Hell. We can clearly see that this was not Augustine's thought, when the donatists splits, he didn't say: Ok guys! Follow your own conscience. But he said: You guys are in schism from the one Catholic Church!

Thank you, as always!

@@TheCordialCatholic Hi Keith ! I have just watched a conversion story of a Muslim to Catholicism. I am wondering you can kindly consider doing a video on the topic : Why some cradle Catholics simply give up their faith but others had it hard but still strive to become a Catholic ? Why some Catholics claim that they are not fed but many converts are. Thanks very much !!

He’s just fantastic!

@YAJUN YUAN The Catechism has infallible teachings with in it. The book itself is not infallible.

@YAJUN YUAN What the Catechism covers that is dogmatic is Infallible. Not everything in the Catechism is dogmatic.

Thanks for watching this and for your thoughtful comments. I haven’t stopped working on Augustine and these passages offered by Gavin and I’m happy to share that some fresh research is on the way. A researcher whom I’m collaborating with actually dug into the academic sources that Gavin relies on to find that even they don’t agree with his conclusions! I’m in the process of revisiting my arguments here so I can present an even stronger case.

The idea that plenary councils can be corrected is outside of the scope of my comments here but would make for an interesting discussion. Suffice to say, he doesn’t say they can err but be corrected when new information comes to light - this is an important distinction that you and Dr. Ortlund, I would argue, are overlocking.

@@TheCordialCatholic I would say, at first glance, being corrected with new information implies error. If one wants to argue otherwise, the burden of proof would be on them. Especially when he just talks about scripture being without error, it seems like he is implying everything else can err, and brings up plenary councils to say, look even this can err.

@@Qhaon If you want to hear this particular point discussed in a rigorous way go to the video at Reason and Theology. Since Mr. Lofton is writing his PHD on the magisterium, he has a very informed idea on what this means. Also, he then goes on to the next paragraph of On Baptism where Augustine affirms that a Plenary Council can bind you and settle a matter irrefutably - and what that means by necessity with respect to these matters. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zSPFqZgYe3s.html

Thanks Todd. That’s a great resource!

@@toddvoss52 sounds good I’ll check it out!

Thanks for your kind words!

What’s your point? None of that is related to this video.

Yeah, we're far too stupid for that. Only Catholics can read, obviously.

Thank you so much!

That’s a great point!

@YAJUN YUAN The qualifications for Bishops and deacons are listed in 1 Timothy, but it’s un-Biblical to believe that “the local community of believers” has the authority to make someone a Bishop. Paul is giving Timothy instructions on how to consecrate someone as a Bishop or Deacon, not on how to have a “community of believers” elect their own bishops. You have just put that idea into the text on your own accord, against the clear context of Paul’s instructions to Timothy. Better contextual exegesis will make simple questions like this more clear. You’re on the right track by referencing Holy Scripture, but I would warn against adding things into the text. Hope this helps!

@YAJUN YUAN It's pretty fun to be getting into the issue of apostolic succession, and I'm so grateful that you are interested. Naming the successors each of the Apostles is not necessary for apostolic succession to be legitimate, and it is important to remember that some Apostles like Peter consecrated multiple bishops, while others like Thomas died in foreign lands far from the recorders of history. Rather than creating a list of early bishops (which, if you like can be found in the wonderful "History of Christendom" series by Warren H. Carroll), I will just suggest a thought from the great early Church father, St. Cyprian (AD 200-258): "The Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock that adheres to it's pastor. Thus, you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop; and if anyone be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church; and that those who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some, flatter themselves in vain; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another." God's peace be with you!

@YAJUN YUAN Regarding a list of the earliest successors, the most prominent and well known are the successors to the Bishop of Rome. The first 4 are as follows: Peter the Apostle Linus Anacletus Clement I Clement I was consecrated by Peter himself and knew the apostles. His epistle, "The Letter of Clement" was probably written before 70 AD. This was before the death of John the Apostle and before the last Gospel was even written. In this letter, he says: "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those presbyters already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry." Here is strong support for Apostolic Succession. As far as de-legitimizing other churches, or saying that only apostolic churches can be the 'true church'. I will simply say what the Catholic Church says in the Catechism, namely that our protestant brothers and sisters rightly have the name of Christian, though they be separated from us, and that also, to some degree, they are all whether they know it or not, in a mystical way linked to the one True Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church. For further excellent reading in a short article, I would recommend: www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession All God's Peace to You!

Why is it so absurd that an early church father would actually believe that scripture is above the church in authority and infallibility?

​@@saintejeannedarc9460Augustine didn't.

He's got his CV online. The thesis title is "The Doctrine of Heaven in Anselm of Canterbury's Proslogion"

That’s a great idea. I’d be open to a discussion!

@@TheCordialCatholic I'll moderate it😁

Thanks for watching!

That would be terrible to have other Christians, being led in revelation of scriptures, by the Holy Spirit, as scriptures say will happen. It should only be Catholics who interpret scriptures however they want. That's rather convenient, isn't it?

​@saintejeannedarc9460 Jesus said the Church, not individuals, would be led by the Holy Spirit.

This is some interesting critical feedback. I’d be interested in your perspective on whether or not my interlocutor conceded even a small point either. I don’t think this is a feature unique to Catholicism.

@@TheCordialCatholic Gavin did on a number of points though. After his first video on Augustine's quotes,there was all manner of red herrings. That Gavin thought Augustine was protestant, that he thought he was baptist, that he didn't believe in the authority of his church, that he was some sort of renegade. that he was like Martin Luther. Gavin never claimed any of that, and made sure to state that. He also said that Augustine was Catholic in his beliefs. The claim was modest, only that Augustine held scripture as the highest authority and stated this unequivocally. I have yet to see one Catholic admit that Augustine held this view. In my own discussions, I've taken the more inflammatory term of sola scriptura out of the equation, because really seems to get the backs of Catholics up. There seems to be a misunderstanding of conflating it into all sorts of things we don't really mean when the term is used. So I just say that Augustine held the scriptures as the highest authority, which is what he says. Nope, apparently that's not enough concession either.

​@@saintejeannedarc9460Augustine said he believed Scripture because the Catholic Church said so.

Is this case closed for the Protestant tenant of Sola Sriptura? Remember, in context, Augustine is responding to the group of believers who are affirming an understanding of baptism and holding up Cyprian, a bishop, and his comments at a Council, as the support for their position. Rather than answering a question put to him like, “Are the Scriptures the sole infallible rule for Christian faith and morals?” Augustine is answering a question more like, “Should the writing of one Bishop serve as the infallible rule for faith and morals above other sources?” And his answer is, clearly, no. Instead, he outlines a kind of chain of authority which, when carefully studied, does not seem to affirm the Protestant position on Sola Scriptura. Augustine first outlines two principles about Scripture, that it is “confined within its own limits” and “stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops” in a way that there can be “ no manner of doubt or disputation” that what is in Scripture is right and true. In other words, Scripture is so far above the letters (or arguments) of a single bishop (like Cyprian) that while these may be wrong, what the Scriptures say is right and true. He then goes on the write, “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,” and then begins to show a chain of authority to demonstrate how a letter of a bishop may be, as it were, overruled. First, other more learned bishops may write something which is closer to the truth, or perhaps a regional Council may rule on a matter or, he says, a plenary (or ecumenical) Council may make a decision or, finally, he says, a subsequent plenary council may even overrule an earlier plenary council when “things are brought to light which were before concealed.” This chain of command, which Dr. Ortlund sees as having Scripture at its head, is held forth as evidence for the claim that Augustine affirms Ortlund’s view of Sola Scriptura, but is this what Augustine was really saying? It’s obvious, from a close reading of this quote, that Augustine places Scripture over the letter of a bishop but then he turns to demonstrate what else is superior to the letter of a bishop, namely, wiser bishops, then regional councils, and then plenary councils. The chain is clearly not Scripture over everything; it is Scripture over the letter of a bishop and then onto what else is superior to a letter of a bishop. Notice, upon careful reading, that he doesn’t then go on to say, “and Scripture over plenary councils.” If this is what Augustine meant - that Scripture was over even plenary councils - wouldn’t he have said that? Instead, we find him indicating that Scripture is “absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops,” and going on to indicate, in a chain of authority, what else is superior to bishops’ letters in a chain which ends in the plenary council. Rather than a kind of chain of authority ending with Scripture, as Dr. Ortlund asserts Augustine as presenting, these are two distinct chains. One of Scripture over bishops’ letters and another as what else is over the letter of a bishop. In fact, what does Augustine ultimately return to to settle the dispute with the Donatists but plenary councils. Using Paul’s correcting of Peter as an example he writes, “Wherefore, if Peter, on doing this, is corrected by his later colleague Paul, and is yet preserved by the bond of peace and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how much more readily and constantly should we prefer, either to the authority of a single bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule that has been established by the statutes of the universal Church?” (2.1.2) It is to the “statutes of the universal church” established, as we know, at the first plenary council in the Book of Acts, that Peter, a single bishop, submitted to, thus preserving church unity. Later, he writes of Cyprian, “Nor should we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself would unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this question had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council.” (2.4.5) If Augustine is affirming Dr. Ortlund’s tenant of Sola Scriptura, shouldn’t we expect to find him appealing to the ultimate authority of Scripture, rather than the “unanimous authority of the whole Church” which has been placed “beyond dispute” through the decree of a plenary Council. Most damning, I think, of Ortlund’s thesis is Augustine’s use of the phrase “beyond dispute” to describe the decree of a plenary council. While recognizing, earlier, that subsequent councils can “correct” earlier councils when something new comes to light, he applies this same phrase, you’ll recall, to Scripture, saying that, “no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true.” If Augustine is establishing a hierarchy of authority, on which Dr. Ortlund rests his thesis here, how can both Scripture and the plenary council be beyond dispute. And if the authority of Scripture, in the framework of Sola Scriptura, rests on its being beyond dispute, what does this framework make of Augustine’s deference towards the councils? One more quotation clarifies Augustine’s understanding of the authority of councils here, “Wherefore let the Donatists consider this one point, which surely none can fail to see, that if the authority of Cyprian is to be followed, it is to be followed rather in maintaining unity than in altering the custom of the Church; but if respect is paid to his Council, it must at any rate yield place to the later Council of the universal Church, of which he rejoiced to be a member, often warning his associates that they should all follow his example in upholding the coherence of the whole body. For both later Councils are preferred among later generations to those of earlier date; and the whole is always, with good reason, looked upon as superior to the parts.” (2.9.14) In other words, the letter or words of a bishop are deferential to a universal, or plenary, council and that universal councils are superior to regional councils and that later councils, as Augustine has already noted, are preferred to earlier councils. To revisit the argument as a whole. Dr. Ortlund asserts that, in his letter to the Donatists, Augustine is placing Scripture as the sole, infallible rule for Christian faith and morals in a way that should be crystal clear to the reader. I think, based on my arguments here, that this is far from clear and, in fact, misunderstands Augustine’s view of authority. What Augustine is clearing up is a teaching of the Donatists which they anchor to the words of a single bishop. The words of any bishop, says Augustine, is subservient to the Scripture. That much we can agree upon. But does Augustine then say that Scriptures are the sole rule of faith above all else? No. He goes on to say, “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” by other bishops, regional councils, or plenary councils - and that plenary councils can be corrected by later ones when new things come to light. Augustine is arguing the Scripture is above the letter of a single bishop and that other bishops, councils, and ultimately plenary councils are also above the letter of a bishop. These are two distinct chains of authority, both called beyond dispute. What’s more, if Augustine is truly signaling that Scripture is above all else by calling it beyond dispute, we should expect him to rest his final dispute with the Donatists on Scripture, shouldn’t we? Instead, he returns to the councils showing, again and again, that the Donatists should yield to the authority of the plenary councils above a single bishop; a council which he calls, like Scripture, “beyond dispute.” If nothing else, Dr. Ortlund has shown that Augustine views Scripture as beyond dispute and superior to the authority of all bishops’ letters but, beyond that, as proof that Augustine sees Scripture as also being above the authority of plenary councils, and the sole rule of faith and morals this piece of evidence seems wanting.

@YAJUN YUAN „Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. “ This is why it's important. If the bread and wine truly are his flesh and blood then protestants have a problem.

@YAJUN YUAN don't bear false witness. Augustine clearly teaches the manna refers to the eucharist we receive at the altar: 11. I am, says He, the bread of life. And what was the source of their pride? Your fathers, says He, did eat manha in the wilderness, and are dead. What is it whereof you are proud? They ate manna, and are dead. Why they ate and are dead? Because they believed that which they saw; what they saw not, they did not understand. Therefore were they your fathers, because you are like them. For so far, my brethren, as relates to this visible corporeal death, do not we too die who eat the bread that comes down from heaven? They died just as we shall die, so far, as I said, as relates to the visible and carnal death of this body. But so far as relates to that death, concerning which the Lord warns us by fear, and in which their fathers died: Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phinehas ate manna, and many ate manna, who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why? Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually, tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. How many do receive at the altar and die, and die indeed by receiving? Whence the apostle says, Eats and drinks judgment to himself. 1 Corinthians 11:29 For it was not the mouthful given by the Lord that was the poison to Judas. And yet he took it; and when he took it, the enemy entered into him: not because he received an evil thing, but because he being evil received a good thing in an evil way. See ye then, brethren, that you eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual sense; bring innocence to the altar.

@YAJUN YUAN don't be dishonest. read the previous passage I cited. Augustine clearly believed the manna was a figure for the eucharist.

@YAJUN YUAN listen, stop taking passages out of context. you are embarrassing yourself. take the time to read the entirety of his commentary on chapter 6. 15. But that which they ask, while striving among themselves, namely, how the Lord can give His flesh to be eaten, they do not immediately hear: but further it is said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you will have no life in you. How, indeed, it may be eaten, and what may be the mode of eating this bread, you are ignorant of; nevertheless, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you will not have life in you...The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord's table in some places daily, in some places at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord's table it is taken, by some to life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall have been a partaker thereof.

@YAJUN YUAN the unity of Christians is effected by the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is also the body and blood of Christ.

@Jeremy Lee. PhD in heresy

Really? You find Mormons quoting from the Early Church Fathers?

@@TheCordialCatholic oh yeah, church fathers is the flavor of the week and everyone is trying to justify their beliefs by saying it’s what the church fathers taught and was lost over time v

Well it only shows that one book can have multiple interpretations.

@@Mila-kz8tt well yes but actually no. While we can take anything out of context to say whatever we want that doesn’t mean that what we’re saying is correct. Case and point this video: does the writings of Augustine support the teachings of Sola Scriptura? Yes, yes it does. Did Augustine write this to teach Sola Scriptura? No he didn’t. So who is correct? Augustine. Augustine’s writings accomplished their purpose & now all we’re left with is how to make them applicable. Now I support the Protestant view because it seems to be the one that follows Augustine’s teachings the closest & the teachings of the Apostles’. This Catholic has to do a lot of work to try and explain that his view is best and he seems to accidentally and unintentionally affirm the Protestant view in the process.

@@ameribeaner “flavour of the week”? These dudes were bishops. Bishops in the Catholic Church. They even say so. How this can even be debatable is utterly beyond me. The centuries Protestant propaganda makes it even seem like St Augustine wasn’t a bishop of the church, just some pastor with his own opinions. This is utterly an ahistorical view.