Response to Critics: Augustine on Scripture 

What were you before Protestant, if you don't mind me asking?

@@johnathanrhoades7751 just lost… not Roman Catholic

@@timcole2701 🙂 I'm glad you found Christ. He is wonderful and your path of union with him will be hard, sure, but oh so wonderful!

​@@johnathanrhoades7751 thank you brother

Concordo plenamente, Tim Cole! O Gavin tem uma capacidade ímpar de transitar pelos fatos históricos de forma sucinta e desmistificando uma série de falácias. Deus o abençoe ricamente! I completely agree, Tim Cole! Gavin has an unique ability to move through historical facts succinctly and demystifying a series of fallacies. God richly bless him!

Same. I have been devouring his stuff as some of the best pro-protestant stuff on RU-vid. I'm still leaning toward Orthodoxy, but Gavin is definitely making me have to wrestle with a bunch of questions.

Im glad to hear that others have been wresting in this way as I have

@@whiphess7658 wrestling is over for me. Headed to Orthodoxy.

How many times you have to read "idols bad, don't do it" in order for you to understand that orthodoxy is 1) just a marketing name, 2) a heresy. Is that easy to make you forget? You hear one of them saying "is not worship, is honoring the icon" and you just believe it and start thinking about switching? Really?

​​@@elyudekrane15 ugh... So it's decided. When are you going to start bowing down before Mary and asking for her intercession? How many more hurdles can you get in between you and God? I'm going to vomit.

Well stated. The Apostle Paul wrote "..but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ (Ephesians 4:15, NASB). Many on youtube want to speak the truth but we have to do it in love which I believe is the more difficult part.

Good fruits doesn't mean to act like a Ned Flanders, tolerating everything and holding hands with heretics. Good fruits means acts of repentance and preaching the gospel to make converts. I see many in this comment section often considering to change protestantism for orthodoxy (which is not orthodox at all, is just marketing, first church my ass). So we have hundreds of warnings against idolatry, but then they see a guy on long robes and a big beard doing the sacraments in a church full of icons/idols decked with gold and silver and precious stones everywhere, they hear that same guy saying "we are the first church... Tradition... Holiness... Icons have been accepted since the first century" and other bullshit and believe it. Careful with the RSV. Is a bad translation. But most protestants also don't care about this. They don't care about anything. I'm pissed.

James, I agree! The truth is no Protestant Pastor ever practices Scripture ALONE, as they place their own fallible interpretations above Holy Scripture! Augustine never taught Scripture ALONE, as Augustine confirms 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

"Also, let's for the sake of argument assume that Augustine believed in Protestant sola scriptura (which he didn't). The problem is, like William said, is that he believes in Catholic doctrines explicitly like penance, purgatory, prayers of the saints, faith and works, Eucharist, sacraments. So, clearly even if Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, he's coming to a conclusion that is completely contrary to Dr. Ortlund's. So, why should I trust Ortlund's interpeation over Augustine? After all, Dr. Ortlund's interpretation isn't infallible. Would he accept Augustine saying that according to the tradition of the apostles that it's impossible for someone to inherit eternal life apart from eating at the table of the Lord (Eucharist) and baptism?" -CTTO

Some Catholics go further, that the RCC wrote the scriptures as well. They say we would not have a bible if not for the Catholic church and only the Catholic church.

I don't know, St. Augustine sure does sound Proto-Protestant to me. ________ On Apostolic Succession "[T]here are many other things that most justly keep me in her bosom [the Catholic Church]. 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, put in charge of feeding his sheep, down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" [Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5]. "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" [Letters 53:1:2]. "[I]f you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all" [Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 33:9; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 345]. "And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants" [On Baptism, 4, 24, 31; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 61]. ________ On the Papacy and the Roman See "This was thought to have been the case in him when he replied that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory, in which all doubt about this matter was removed . . . [T]he words of the venerable Bishop Innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council … What could be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the Apostolical See?" [Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 3:5; NPNF 1, Vol. V, 393-394]. "[T]he Catholic Church, by the mercy of God, has repudiated the poison of the Pelagian heresy. There is an account of the provincial Council of Carthage, written to Pope Innocent, and one of the Council of Numidia; and another, somewhat more detailed, written by five bishops, as well as the answer he [Pope Innocent] wrote to these three; likewise, the report to Pope Zosimus of the Council of Africa, and his answer which was sent to all the bishops of the world" [Letter to Valentine, Epistle 215; Deferrari, 32: 63-64]. ". . . the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished" [To Glorius et al, Epistle 43, 7; NPNF 1, Vol. I, 278]. "Argue with them when they speak against grace, and if they persist, bring them to us. You see, there have already been two councils about this matter, and their decisions sent to the Apostolic See; from there rescripts have been sent back here. The case is finished; if only the error were finished too, sometime! So, let us all warn them to take notice of this, teach them to learn the lesson of it, pray for them to change their ideas" [Sermon 131:10]. ________ On Church Authority "It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true" [Sermon 117:6]. "God has placed this authority first of all in his Church" [Explanations of the Psalms, Tract 103:8, PL 37:520-521; in Congar, 392]. "For in the belly of the Church truth abides. Whosoever has been separated from this belly of the Church must needs speak false things: . . ." [Expositions on the Psalms, 58:3 (58, 5)]. "We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Maccabees 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church, which is clear on this point, is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar, the commendation of the dead has its place" [Care to Be Had for the Dead 3]. "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church" [Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 131]. ________ "Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law," have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works" [A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapters 18; NPNF 1, Vol. V]. "Who is he that believes not that Jesus is the Christ? He that does not so live as Christ commanded. For many say, “I believe”: but faith without works saves not. Now the work of faith is Love, . . . " [Homilies on the First Epistle of John 10:1]. "And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope, and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces" [On Christian Doctrine, I, 39:43; NPNF 1, Vol. II, 534]. "[H]uman nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath - in a word, from punishment - except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ (the Eucharist)" [On Nature and Grace 2:3]. "Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord (the Eucharist) it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life?" [On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, 1:34; NPNF 1, V, 28]. "[To Boniface] Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice (the Eucharist), . . . daily among our congregations . . .?" [Letters 98:9]. "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . The bread you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in the chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" [Sermons 227]. "For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body" [Sermons 234:2]. "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But your faith obliges you to accept that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" [Sermons 272]. 10

@@systemdown4027 Regarding the real presence in the Eucharist and to see where I stand as a Protestant may I ask that you watch this. If you would like to comment after I would be happy to have a friendly discussion. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4OZOFZ9-QlE.html

@YAJUN YUAN ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-x1ZycIZXnns.html this is the final word. check it out Brother. I understand why Catholics will respond to this video immediately. I think Dr. Ortlund ignored the other meaning of the word "emendari". Just watch the video fam! God bless!

"Also, let's for the sake of argument assume that Augustine believed in Protestant sola scriptura (which he didn't). The problem is, like William said, is that he believes in Catholic doctrines explicitly like penance, purgatory, prayers of the saints, faith and works, Eucharist, sacraments. So, clearly even if Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura, he's coming to a conclusion that is completely contrary to Dr. Ortlund's. So, why should I trust Ortlund's interpeation over Augustine? After all, Dr. Ortlund's interpretation isn't infallible. Would he accept Augustine saying that according to the tradition of the apostles that it's impossible for someone to inherit eternal life apart from eating at the table of the Lord (Eucharist) and baptism?" -CTTO

@@systemdown4027 he wasn't saying that it was right because Augustine said it, as though he is an authority on all scriptural matters. The point is that Protestants are often critised for holding this view as though it is illogical & unhistorical, a complete innovation of the 16th century. Gavin's point is that these are false claims and if you actually rear the reformers you would see how often they supplement their claims with appeals to historic church figures such as Augustine. Gavin is not asking you to trust his interpretation of scripture, this video is simply demonstrating that Protestants have more support for their doctrines than is often claimed by Catholic and orthodox apologists.

white got demolished by every respectable catholic apologist; trent horn, jimmy aking, sungenis, dave armstrong etc. so no, he`s not boogyman for educated catholic.

@@kyriosbooks8400 Stay mad, bro.

I know two Christian apologists who went on record saying they left Protestantism after watching JW debates with Catholics. One of them even said he wanted JW to "crush" the Catholic.

Boogie man? 😂

@YAJUN YUAN geusssong Sam shamouin is one, anyway I throughly JW won or tied most of debates with Catholics I saw but I think the new Cath apologists are a lot stronger then t he older ones. JW has also done loads of debates and in some cases the only debates on a catholic issues is JW and someone else.

Amen!

St. Augustine: 397 A.D. "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so." "Tell us straight out that you do not believe in the Gospel of Christ; for you believe what you want in the Gospel and disbelieve what you want. You believe in yourself rather than in the Gospel."

Thank you this is exactly what I was thinking!!!!

I really like this thoughtful comment and assessment! As a protestant, this “major view” of Sola Scriptura is receiving some well-deserved scrutiny & from what I can tell the “minor form” is in fact the reformers view, as well as Chemnitz, Turretin, etc. I guess I could see the Anabaptists as being the first of the “major form” - so in theory the majority of Protestants could find (and ofcourse some do) heritage of their views in them. I know that the older traditions of Pentecostalism would consider the anabaptists as one strand of purity that they link to their lineage of a return to “first-century Christianity” - which I do not at all share in this

thank you so much of your response I love the honesty and the great insight! What do you think of William's response, I think him and his followers are disagreeing for no reason, perhaps they are anti-protestants or anti-reformed?

@@junkim5853 I don't know enough about the fella to say one way or the other.

@@actsapologist1991 would you like to watch William's response to Gavin's? Would love your opinion.

Gavin does talk about this in the first video and he acknowledged that others may define it differently based on experience. But he defined it based on the historic Protestant view articulated by the early Protestant leaders. He gave the example of "Catholics worship Mary" as an analogy - many people, maybe even the majority live out a Mary-idolizing lifestyle which may not reflect the actual Catholic doctrine on her.

They dared not operate as anything but in subjective to the church of that day. What we don't know is if they had more freedom to do so, would they have? I have to wonder about that to a degree. Overall, though, you are right that those fathers saw scripture as the ultimate authority, similar to some tenets of sola scriptura, but that they also put themselves under church authority. Many protestants who, who affirm sola scriptura also will submit to church authority as well though.

Right, Protestantism wasn’t just a return to scripture, but a reading of the fathers.

Exactly. William resorted to dozens of insults and personal attacks because the second he gives us Protestants an intellectual foothold, Roman Catholicism falls apart. Protestantism came out of an honest reading of the Bible and the Fathers, Catholics fear that more than anything

@@adamheida8549 their academics are way more fair & honest than their apologists & we should note that. That said, I continue to note on my channel that Newman & his development theory exists & their polemics is pretty insane in light of that.

I don't think I ever caught William's last name to be able to even look up his argument.

We are all fallible interpreters. Having an infallible magisterium doesn’t solve the problem of our fallibility, since now fallible humans have to interpret the infallible magisterium. There are many different interpretations on all the ecumenical councils, especially Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II. The ordinary magisterium, that is the discharge of the bishops day-to-day duties, is not considered infallible. For instance, papal bulls are not considered infallible. So for all the talk about needing infallibility to know what is moral, (ie birth control), the Roman Catholic Church has not made an infallible irreformable declaration on that topic or many others. Additionally, the Roman Catholic Church has not published an infallible Bible commentary or translation. What you have are the ecumenical councils and what the pope has declared Ex Cathedra after Vatican I, (ie the Marian Dogmas). These items are considered infallible declarations. As previously stated, people, even bishops, interpret the councils differently. So, what you are always left with in any situation is infallible revelation that must be received through fallible interpreters.

I'm not sure how us being fallible interpreters lessons the bible, which is infallible. I would say the only way to have an infallible interpreter is to have Jesus interpret all scripture for us. He left us w/ the truth, and sent the Holy Spirit w/in us to help us interpret it. To get it right sometimes and wrong sometimes is part of all of our struggles as we struggle w/ sinful flesh.

It has to be really tough trying to be so very intellectual about it all. Catholsism has a history that can be researched to openly see the evil of what is portrayed as God's church. The original Protesters that started dayb1 of the establishment of the RCC is evident in history along with the RCC pope's continued massacre of them, on and on. To consider wondering about joining such an institution would only take common sense. The RCC of history manipulation is overwhelming even today. To put one's trust solely in the Word of God can only be the only way to go. It is breathed by God alone & alive this very day. To read outside of that especially with things tainted by such evil as the RCC & Vatican is absolutely nuts and leads to doubt of which the author of confusion hopes. 300 years from now some supposed wannabe scholars will be having these same discussions on a supposed church father named Benny Hinn and all his book writings.

Hi Dudley. Just a word of encouragement. It is entirely Protestant to read Scripture in light of the testimony of the Fathers, as well as our own experience and reason. I as a Protestant make an effort to be as in line with the Fathers as Scripture allows me to be. Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture alone is the infallible source of doctrine. We don't rule out reading Scripture in light of tradition - in fact we encourage it! What we reject and Roman Catholics affirm, is that tradition is equally authoritative. I reject that Tradition is equal to Scripture for many reasons, and instead see Scripture as uniquely authoritative, in that it alone is infallible, God-breathed, and the norm for faith

@@adamheida8549 Good point. I think where that method goes wrong is that it places the Fathers and their relationship with Scripture in subjection to our own judgment of their orthodoxy rather than allowing ourselves to be judged by the teachings of the Fathers.

​@tonywallens217 The fathers are fallible, scripture is not. Gavin has made the point on several occasions that even the fathers don't agree on all topics and that church history is messy. So if we must read scripture in light of the fathers' teachings then how do we adjudicate when father A disagrees with gather B, C and D. It is why we protestants say sola or prima scriptura. Only scripture is infallible and traditions and all church teachings must be read in light of it. I honestly don't understand why this should be contended for.

Jim, William was not being disrespectful, just honest! Unfortunately, Dr. Ortlund was not being sincere and totally honest, as Dr. Ortlund does not provide the complete writings of Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine ALSO TEACHES the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Saint Augustine ALSO TEACHES the oral Teachings of 7 the Apostles who never wrote anything down ,is ALSO the Word of God! Augustine ALSO teaches that if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures! William was not being disrespectful at all, just honest. I wish Dr. Ortlund tries that in his future videos! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@JD Apologetics I sure dont possess all the knowledge u have but i also dont think Augustine made a difference between '' scripture'' and '' cannonical books'' I hope this person will be humble and communicate with you.... God bless

Dude, you literally laughed at me when I did nothing but try to defend Jimmy and Trent from a nasty personal attack against them. Also, you did this on Easter Sunday. It's so weird.... why would you spend your Easter that way?

​@@enshala6401 Dude?? What are you? You did nothing but? What a liar. You had the nasty personal attacks. Then you have the nerve to complain you were laughed at...what a baby and hypocrite. What better thing to do on Easter than witness to the lost and deceived (yes you).

@@joycegreer9391 Catholics have a very different attitude about their church than we do. It is part of their personal identity and the very crux of their faith. So any time we don't agree w/ their faith, which is completely in their church, they take that very personally. We seem to have a difference in that our denomination is very secondary to the bible and our ultimate head is Christ, and our identity is as Christians. It is not to say that Catholics are not Christians, they definitely are, but for many, maybe most, that isn't the pinnacle of their identity. It is more about their church, and being Catholic.

I don't think protestants are looking for early church unanimity on contentious issues. Rather, if some ancient saints agree with Reformation doctrines, then no one had a right to burn Huss and excommunicate Luther. The real question is, does the Pope have the right to suppress valid historical readings of scripture?

@@Mygoalwogel I appreciate your response! Forgive me for not seeing this comment earlier. I agree! I'm definitely not on board with burnings and such, just like I'm not in favor of the Hellenist widows being neglected at the daily distribution of bread in Acts 6 (I know those are two very different degrees of abuse, but just stating a baseline point about how there are abuses and neglects across various generations, even in the apostolic age). I think you're onto the right questions, because yes, there'll most certainly never be true universal consensus on most theological points . And sure, let's say for arguments sake that the Pope (more correctly, the Magesterium as a whole) doesn't have the "right" to "suppress" "valid" historical readings of Scripture. Ok, so then who does? Constantine? Augustine? Aquinas? Luther? Calvin? John Piper? You? Me? Each individual believer? What happens when they disagree on who has that "right", and on the methods of "suppressing" what is false, and on how to evaluate whether a reading is "valid" or not? It's an endless cycle approaching anarchy and relativity without the authority Christ himself seemingly bestows upon men he fully knew were broken, sinful, and human, yet who he'd soon lead personally through his very Spirit bind and loose his Church to and away from various practices and beliefs. That, in my estimate, is when the better questions begin leading to more substantial answers.

@@gabrieln3836 Glad you agree the sword ought not to have become a way to suppress the Gospel. The Pope's church actually stopped using murder and torture before the pompous sees of Constantinople, Moscow, and Axum did. They continued to arrest, torture and execute Old Believers, Old Calendarists, and Stephanites into the 20th century. It was the communists, Turks, and fascists who finally stopped them, not the Holy Spirit. So you have that to your credit. Your question about who has the right to suppress in other ways is more difficult. Over time, more and more pieces of the Lutheran Book of Concord have become acceptable to the Papal magisterium. Maybe the Holy Spirit Himself can actually bring about unity as rebellious "Christians" draw further and further away from the creeds and as honest believing Christians continue to ask (pray), seek (truly face the scriptures) and knock (visit and dialogue)?

@@Mygoalwogel Agreed again, although I wouldn't discredit the Creeds themselves, but rather the people who misuse them, just as I don't don't discredit Scripture in any way, just the people who (as Peter said) twist them to their own destruction. The Spirit takes what is word and gives it flesh! I'm right there with you praying for that unity to incarnate in its fullness someday soon.

@@gabrieln3836 I'm not discrediting the creeds, but those who abandon them, moving further and further away from mutual reconciliation. That was my point.

Were you acting like one on his channel?

@David V I dissagree. even with all the schism, the still are very close to each other on the core teaching and the reason to that is that they dont follow sola scriptura the way protestant do. Also some orthodox churches came back to comunion with Rome after the schism. this shows it is possible for all them to be in comunion at some point. the same cant be said for protestants.

@David V that's ok. it is just my opinion anyway.

22:02 book recommendation by Muller to go back to

23:00 John the Baptist as pointing to Christ, as analog picture of Traditions witnessing to Scripture

I think he'd say that was a development....tbh its starting to look like a q anon conspiracy theory.

It seems to have become universal at some point in the 4th century, but we should note that major bishops like Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa were baptized as adults, despite being the children of believers. If it had been universal, why were they baptized later? Between that, Tertullian's arguments for adult baptism, the Didache not even having a notion of infant baptism, and Origen calling it a hotly debated issue, I (a Reformed Baptist, to make clear my bias) believe infant baptism was a development which took hold in the 4th century

@@adamheida8549 Hi Adam-a lot of people even in Anglicanism wait to baptize their children because they want their child to be able to remember their baptism, trusting that the child is saved chiefly through the faith of the parent and only baptized in the faith of the parents. As Anglicans, we would argue we’ve preserved that belief. And this is also true with the examples of children who died who were baptized far after their births from sickness, in early Christian burial sites. Tertullian, while arguing for adult baptism, acknowledges the widespread practice of infant baptism by the second century. Origen, while acknowledging disagreement, doesn’t seem to portray the issue as “hotly debated”-he thinks most of the church accepts it as received by the apostles. And the Apostolic constitutions by Hippolytus seem almost certainly to confirm infant baptism as a practice.

Hi brother! Thank you for the comment. It appears you may be misinformed on the nature of the canon prior to Augustine. Will try to gather some items together for you and post here soon. As a initial response, it is beyond doubt some of the apostolic fathers quoted freely from the books of the dueterocanon and called them scripture. Also one of the earliest most complete Christian bibles we have contain them in the typical catholic/orthodox order. Will supply more specifics as I have time. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and offering one of your own.

@YAJUN YUAN Hi brother! Had a few moments to dig up a few references for you in the spirit of establishing the broad use of deuterocanonical books on the basis several witnesses in conjunction with a few other items to reinforce the point. The extensive use of the deuterocanonical books as scripture is evident in many early writers prior to Augustine (354-430). Below are samples from Barnabas (70-132), Clement of Alexandria (150-210) and Eucebius (260-339) who quotes an earlier figure Melitos (c.180). In addition to these quotations there is the existence of both Codex Vaticanus (300-325) and Codex Siniaticus (330-360) which contain deuterocanonical works along with other well known OT works. Add to this the broad observation that the Septuagint (LXX) was used by the early church and the case appears to be beyond doubt. I share this because I very much love the Bible and so my study has lead me to dig in deep to its history and transmission out of love for God. It is my firm conviction that Truth should stand against all manner of scrutiny. This simply shows the acceptance and use of deuterocanon before Augustine. Barnabas (70-132) in his letter quotes from the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom Barnabas 6 For the prophet speaks against Israel, “Woe to their soul, because they have counselled an evil counsel against themselves,[60] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us.”[61] [61] Wisdom ii. 12. This apocryphal book is thus quoted as Scripture, and intertwined with it. Source en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/The_Epistle_of_Barnabas Clement of Alexandria (150-215) in his work The Instructor calls the deuterocanonical book of Baruch scripture Clement of Alexandria Excellently, therefore, the Divine Scripture, addressing boasters and lovers of their own selves, says, “Where are the rulers of the nations, and the lords of the wild beasts of the earth, who sport among the birds of heaven, who treasured up silver and gold, in whom men trusted, and there was no end of their substance, who fashioned silver and gold, and were full of care? There is no finding of their works. They have vanished, and gone down to Hades.”[93] [93] Baruch iii. 16-19. Source en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_II/The_Instructor/Book_II Eucebius (260-339) relays in his church history the canon of Melitos (? - 180) which includes the book of Wisdom Melitos canon list as relayed by Eucebius Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus,[35] Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David,[36] the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also,[37] Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book[38]; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.[39] From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito. Source en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_I/Church_History_of_Eusebius/Book_IV/Chapter_26 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melito%27s_canon?wprov=sfla1

@YAJUN YUAN appreciate the response!! Good to hear from you.. I'll be looking into your comments more but a quick question: why should lists be more important than usage? They seem the same weight to me. If I say scripture says thus and quote Enoch, seems about the same as saying I consider Enoch scripture. Let me know as you have a moment!

@YAJUN YUAN Appreciate the further explanation but I'm afraid the dilemma we face with the list of Melito brings to the forefront that lists are in fact not unambiguous. I interpreted "Wisdom also" as "also the Wisdom [of Solomon]", you interpreted it as a redundant reference to Proverbs (“the proverbs of Solomon, [namely] also [called] Wisdom). Who can arbitrate between us on this point? Melito and God only know. It would appear lists are not quite so unambiguous as we might think. Add to that many other canonical lists also require some degree of interpretation by the reader to parse and I would actually argue that ancient canon lists are far from unambiguous and the interpretation of them typically reveals a theological bias.I do think there is a case to be made for the …possibility… that Melito’s list does not admit the deuterocanon but it can’t be taken as fact. And quite simply Melito’s list is the only one I know of by a church father. In otherwards to me your original assertion rests on one piece of questionable evidence. I know of another list by Origen that is more explicit in mentioning Maccabees but I think this could only be used to… support… the case for Melito’s list including a deuterocanonical reference since both Melito’s list and Origen’s come from the same author, Eusebius. For sure there are early Jewish lists but we need to be aware that even in the second century Justin Martyr spoke of scriptures not admitted by the Jews which Christians held. What those are, God and Justin only know. I suspect they could be some or all of the deuterocanonical books. Personally for me, I don’t have any problem with viewing a canonical list as admitting deuterocanon as I don’t view them as ineligible for deriving doctrine. I’m not operating in a protestant framework that demands a 66 book view and I have yet to find the scripture verse that gives me an explicit canonical list. I would guess this opinion of mine is a minority position from someone who admittedly is a protestant but one that sits me quite more comfortably in the company of people like Augustine, Clement of Alexandria and Barnabas. It is my conviction that the ancients operated in a broader hermeneutical framework than that in which most protestants are instructed in which becomes more evident the more of the ancient church one reads. This is a place where I think our protestant tradition functions as a kind of minimizing tunnel vision that can wrongly restrict the meaning of scriptural texts in name of the safety of minimalism. I suppose this is my fear and my dread regarding sola scriptura which was expressed as a joke in my original comment to Gavin. Sola scriptura sounds very scientific and sure until one learns just how much variety there is within the semantic range of words and the variety of interpretations by God fearing men. In my thinking sola scriptura has been utterly shattered to be every bit as scriptural as the catholic and orthodox view of the importance of tradition. It’s for this reason I have little reason to be upset with my catholic brother or my orthodox friend on their views. We all have the same love for Christ, a relatively orthodox faith and generally the same high regard for scripture. To me it’s more than enough for unity and the fun is in the disagreement. Love ya brother! I’m having a blast.

@YAJUN YUAN Good Morning! Thanks for the further response. I enjoyed hearing more from your perspective. Am pretty sure the catholic and orthodox consider themselves canonical. Is the quotation of Greek really helpful in this discussion? If we could settle it that way I am pretty sure we would all be unified in doctrine. It is great to have confidence in one's opinions but I would be careful. I once recall many months of discussion with a friendly Jehovah's Witness who argued much Greek and literal meanings to me. Quite fascinating really especially during my time in seminary studying Greek and Hebrew. I studied on it for years and still hesitate to use it for any proofs (not sure how good a student I was). This admittedly is just me and my caution however. That comment on Origen got me chuckling. Just read paragraph 5 here en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_IV/Origen/Origen_De_Principiis/II/Chapter_1 Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me on another list by a church father before Augustine? Your conjecture regarding church fathers use of deuterocanon was nothing less than facinating. Not sure you can prove it but to each his own. I for one would rather assume they read scripture more carefully than me since they defended much of the doctrines I take for granted. I find it difficult to find much fault with a man who literally wrote the book On The Trinity (Augustine)... (Oh look a small pun) As for the unity bit. It begins with me not them. I begin my love for neighbor with what is within my own power to do. I don't focus on them but on how I can show love. For me this involves going to church on occassion with my catholic brother and orthodox friend because I am free to do so and they like it. I respect their view of communion and do not partake. I listen to their perspective and we reason together on the scriptures. The exortation is for me to love my neighbor irregardless of how they act or think. I constantly learn more I did not know as I have in our discussion so thank you!!. I've never met the borg catholic you refer to but I have met plenty of borg calvinists. (Small star trek reference/joke here on uniformity at calvinist expense) Sure my catholic twin brother thinks I am a schismatic or heretic but that doesn't stop me from talking with him and listening and learning from him (by the way he also thinks I am a separated brother so there is grounds for some unity). I got my concerns on his traditions and God can handle that. Should I find I am incorrect on my views and change well I figure God's discipline is always best in the end though painful in the moment. I think what is needed at times is not taking oneself or ones doctrine too seriously and instead taking God more important and seriously. By this I mean sometimes we just can't see past our own opinions to see God so challenging ourselves in the Iron of another's opinion is helpful so thank you again! Grace and Peace to you bro!

There's only so many arguments so it's naturally expected that some or a lot of overlapping happens even with one not being aware of others making the same arguments.

It doesn't do much good to claim they have been refuted. Protestants are saying the Catholic arguments have been refuted and yet the same old arguments are employed.

@@Adam-ue2ig you mean protestant refuted catholic argument like the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Don't think soo. Dude, Protestant arguments like "some of the Church fathers believe in sola scriptura" had been refuted many times.

@YAJUN YUAN Did you read what the early church fathers have to say about the Eucharist?

Great point, for me, this is one of the reasons I considered Lutheranism, as they also practice confession

@@he7230 yes, it’s very hard for me to come at grasp with this topic. As far as I know, Lutherans do practice it but it’s not mandatory. Same for Anglicans. Some Orthodox churches practice it only for grave sins. The main Orthodox churches for all sins, standing next to the priest and not in a confessional. Catholics, however, practice it privately, and you have to report the sins in detail and number. I am currently an expat to a Eastern European country and there isn’t much choice, just Orthodox and some Catholic and evangelical churches. I grew up as a Catholic, abandoned the faith early as a teenager, but have recently been rediscovering my faith in Jesus Christ. I just find it hard to see who is theologically correct, and I might have come to the conclusion that there is good in every denomination of the body of the church. Another topic of interest is the canon of the Bible, maybe Mr. Ortlund did some research about that and I didn’t check it yet. Lutherans do have the apocrypha as an addendum, but they’re not considered inspired by God. I think Augustine didn’t consider them inspired either.

​@@stevep3364 Yes, I certainly agree that there are faithful Christians in all denominations. One of my favourite aspects of protestantism is that we can recognize the work of the Holy Spirit in other churches and denominations. You can look at this video on the canon by Dr. Ortlund: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vCwZNr1Q64w.html . God bless.

@@he7230 Thanks for the link, I will view it during the weekend. God bless.

nice haha

Well done my man

Protestants pick and choose on the basis of how closely Augustine’s views comport with scripture. Even though Augustine does the same, he is not infallible, none of us are. That’s why we study scripture carefully, listen to one another respectfully, and are always open to reform. Over time our understanding deepens, our souls are nourished, the Church is strengthened, and God is glorified.

yeah..they think they know better than the church fathers

@YAJUN YUAN it sounds like Augustine (?) is speaking about the importance of scripture. That it possesses an authority greater than all other authorities now on earth (I.e., prima scriptura). I’m not sure this would be agreed to by all the church fathers (and it is debated in what sense this is true in the church today), but it seems that scripture is unique in that it is directly from God. Although His ministers speak with authority in making decrees, as in councils, this is most often limited to confirming or explaining what was already handed down once for all (see Jude) in divine revelation. So the scriptures speak with a unique authority. But certainly all written words are ambiguous to some extent, and require interpretation. A “traditional” understanding, if you will. And that I think is, at least in part, what Sacred Tradition is. But I’d caution against using any church father too literally. They were not writing systematic treatises or catechisms in most cases, but rather speaking to their times. They may have spoken or written with authority, but they are neither scripture nor apostles.

@YAJUN YUAN 1) Jimmy is correct because “inspired” means God-breathed. Scripture is authored by the Holy Spirit. But Tradition can be formulated in multiple ways. And because it is oral, it always needs a mediator or speaker. Yet it is from God. Thus scripture is directly from God (without a mediator) and Tradition is from God but through the mouth of a speaker. 2) There is not always one way to understand a text, but there are always ways *not* to understand a text. That’s the principle behind church councils. In Acts, the Apostles did not expound on all of the words of Jesus, but they did say that He did not require us to be circumcised. 3) Show me that definition of Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition has never had such a limited meaning, such that the Apostles would be said to have made their disciples memorize their words like Homer. 4) Yes, and this has always been understood. The Church almost never speaks infallibly. But it does not mean that she cannot. Furthermore, infallible does not mean that an infallible statement is the best or only formulation of the idea behind it. Rather, it just means that the statement is not in error or contradicting Revelation. The most important thing here is that to understand the difference between sola scriptura and the Catholic understanding of Revelation, it is necessary to understand what is meant by the latter. It means not seeing scripture and Tradition as opposed to each other, but complementary. If you see the two in opposition, then your understanding is incorrect. Whereas is you can formulate the two as compatible, you may or may not agree, but at least you’re more likely to have understood what is meant by the people you disagree with.

As a Protestant, I can understand your concerns regarding the church fathers and the canon. It should be noted that many of us Protestants who enjoy exploring church history, that we find it interesting that Roman Catholics appeal to the church fathers, because whenever a church father disagrees with any particular Roman Catholic dogma, that issue is just brushed aside as being that man's own personal and errant opinion. Ultimately in Roman Catholicism, the church fathers opinions don't matter, the only thing that does matter are the declarations of "the Church". Also, matters of canon are important. Many people may brush them off because they don't know how to tackle the issue possibly. But the canon is not something that man can come up with or declare. The canon is what has been called an artifact of revelation. Not all books are canonical, only those books which have been θεόπνευστος (God-breathed). God did not deliver another book declaring what the canon was. The canon is the canon because that is what God provided for us. We as men can recognize the canon, but we have no power or right to determine the canon. I hope this helps. God bless.

​@@zipper778 We reference the Fathers to provide a preliminary indication of what the early Church believed, but ultimately it's not the ending point of our apologetic, because yes, they are fallible men. It is through sacred tradition and the opinions of the church as a whole that we get inerrant truth, and ultimately the Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit infallibly steps in in areas where there is confusion, such as when the divinity of Christ was defined at the Council of Nicaea in response to the Arians, or when the canon of Scripture was dogmatized at the Council of Trent when the Reformers aimed to take out 7 books of the OT. There are many nuances when it comes to sacred tradition and how we identify it, but it is there, and the Protestant can't deny sacred tradition while at the same time holding to the Bible that was given to them whether they admit it or not, by sacred tradition. The ontological fact of the matter is that God gave us the canon. Both Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox agree on this. The question that no Protestant can answer though, is the epistemological question of how we as humans came to the knowledge of that canon. In the OT, the Torah was given to the Jews by God, and the means in which that knowledge was transferred to the Jews was through Moses on Mount Sinai. In the same way, God gave us the NT canon, and the way that knowledge was transferred to us was through sacred tradition and ultimately the Church that Christ founded. Saying that the canon was given to us by God without showing the means by which God gave us that canon begs the question. Did God give the canon to Marcion? Is it the Codex Vaticanus? Was the canon complete when St. Irenaeus wrote about the Tetramorph, or fourfold Gospels in the late 2nd century? Are early apostolic texts such as the Didache or the Shepard of Hermas that were read alongside the epistles in the ancient liturgy part of Scripture? These are questions that no Protestant can provide an answer for, and not surprisingly either, since conceding to the immediate implications of them would pull the rug out from under their entire theology.

@Grant B...well said!!

@@grantbenson7458 "We reference the Fathers to provide a preliminary indication of what the early Church believed, but ultimately it's not the ending point of our apologetic, because yes, they are fallible men." You have just made my point, but allow me to reestablish it more clearly. Being confused with why Protestants cite early church fathers because Protestants can "write them off" due to Sola Scriptura is no different than Roman Catholics who "write off" the early church fathers because they disagree with modern Roman Catholicism. Your argument here is self refuting. "The question that no Protestant can an­swer though, is the epistemological ques­tion of how we as hu­mans came to the kno­wledge of that canon." Realistically, God is under no obligation to reveal anything to mankind. He owes us nothing. We owe Him more than we could ever repay. He doesn't have to tell us what the canon is if He doesn't want to. Whatever we have, we have because of the grace of God. With that said, God demonstrates what the canon is in a number of ways. He does so first, Biblically. In Luke 11:51 Jesus gives us the chronological outline of the Scriptures, from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. This is the same Old Testament that both the Jews and Protestants share together. We can dive more into that if you wish. "Did God give the canon to Marcion?" No He did not. "Is it the Codex Vaticanus?" Well, considering that neither of us have the same canon as Vaticanus, we can safely rule that one out. "Was the canon complete when St. Irenaeus wrote about the Tetramorph, or fourfold Gospels in the late 2nd century?" Yes it was. The canon was completed as soon as the last character was written down. Whether people recognized that or not is irrelevant. "Are early apostolic texts such as the Didache or the Shepard of Hermas that were read alongside the epistles in the ancient liturgy part of Scripture?" No, they are not. This is partly due to the fact that, in regards to the Didache at least, we don't have the text in completed form. I've read what we do have of it and it reads like a to-do manual for the church. There's nothing in it that I disagree with. It would be odd for God to not leave His Word anywhere. The Shepard of Hermas is something that I've been meaning to read, but I haven't yet, so I can't make a comment on it at this time. It's on my list though. I think the biggest disagreement that I have with you is with your presuppositions. What you have presented is a Bible that must be authorized by men. This is something that I cannot accept. If man can define authoritatively what Scripture is and what Scripture means, then man is of a higher authority than the Scriptures themselves. If man can determine what "Tradition" is and what it means, then man is higher than "Tradition". This is putting the church's authority where God's authority should be. The Scriptures are the only thing left for us that is θεόπνευστος. Tradition has a place, but it must always be in submission to what God has breathed out. The Bible is authorized by God alone. Man can only recognize what God has done. You have said a lot, and I'm not going to be able to respond to everything in this post, but if I didn't cover something that you would like me to answer, please let me know.

​@@zipper778 I’m not saying the Bible was authorized by men. God made the canon, period. The books of the NT were Scripture the moment they were put to ink. This is the ontological side of this. What I am trying to point out to you is the epistemological side of this. God knew the canon before time began, but how did the church come to the certain knowledge of that canon? The Gospels and Epistles were just a part of many highly praised texts and read aloud in the liturgy in the 1st century, and no one in the 1st century Church really realized yet that many of these texts would later be recognized as infallible Scripture. The attempts you’ve given to prove canonicity all beg the question of what the correct canon is. When you say things like Marcion didn’t have the right canon, or St. Irenaeus completed the canon, you’re implying there is indeed a completed canon out there that we should know, so which one is it?

Historically, Protestants did not believe “all else should be discarded.” Protestant reformers, like Luther, even criticized some Christians for going too far.

As interesting as that may be, I think Dr. Ortlund is doing just fine. There's only so much time in a day.

A native Spanish speaking Lutheran! Cool! Where are you from, if I may be nosy. Have you read the story of Casiodoro de Reina? He and his wife were so heroic. Somebody should make a movie!

@@Mygoalwogel what's up bro, im from San Luis AZ but i go to a Mexican Lutheran church right across the border. Its called San Mateo Lutheran church. We are part of the Mexican Lutheran synod. We are in the process of becoming an orthodox confessional church body.

@@jesuscorona3562 That's great to hear! It makes me jealous. I'm a member of the China Evangelical Lutheran Synod in Taiwan, originally from NY/NJ. I can't tell if we're in the process of leaving confessional orthodoxy or emerging.

@@Mygoalwogel well hopefully you'll be able to stick to the confessions and the liturgy, that's the main thing. I'm happy to hear there is a Lutheran synod in China, is there a lot of persecution there?

@@jesuscorona3562 China? Absolutely. However my synod is in a diáspora fellowship scattered into Taiwan (my home), Hong Kong, Macau, Malaysia, and Singapore. Our forefathers fled the communist revolution, but kept our name upon arriving in other countries. The European and American missionaries who preached to us back in China were all pietists, putting little emphasis on the confessions. But now we are shocked at the outrageous and disgusting doctrines of their present-day children, and can't maintain fellowship with them. When we take breaks from infighting and other local crises, we occasionally pursue fellowship with confessional synods internationally, but language is yet another barrier. I'm not in any sort of power, but I like the LCMS. Some other American confessional synods insist on adoption of extra-confessional decisions of the 21st century. The LCMS seems more reasonable, only insisting on subscription to the Book of Concord and not worrying as much about how it ends up getting interpreted. (With the notable exception of their particular flavor of creationism.) BoC is already difficult enough for us in my opinion. Well this ended up longer than I intended. Sorry for the wordiness.

Just to note that I edited my comment in its second part. In summary it must be said that he Nicene Creed (325) was developed at the Second Council (381) with a development of its articles about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Also an article about the Church was included. So St.Sugustine referred to the development of the Nicene Creed in Constantinople in 381.

It depends on what you think sola scriptura means. Gavin meant it simply that Augustine held sacred scripture as the highest and only infallible authority. Not the other things that Catholics equate w/ sola scriptura, that he would have been protestant, or a reformer, or a maverick, or like Luther. None of those were the claims of Augustine simply holding scripture as the ultimate authority.