Sola Scriptura Defended 

Great and thoughtful video

Hey Dr. Ortlund, As someone who gets easily swept up in the vitriol of Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant debates, you're slogan 'Truth Unites' is a breath of fresh air to my soul. It's very edifying and convicting. Thank you for what you do!

Catholic deacon here giving you a like and your channel a recommendation. You are a needed voice for both Catholic and Protestants.

Hands down the best discussion I've seen on this topic. A further point I'd like to add: Has the Roman Catholic Church not undermined it's own authority by promulgating certain teachings that went against scriptures? That's not to say that church history or tradition isn't important, they absolutely are. But i think it calls into question the belief of particular traditions or the authority of the church to be considered infallible.

"Respectful disagreement" is so very important. Thanks for making this point.

I had the gift of learning under Dr. Ortlund's teaching for several years and I just happened to run into this video after I spoke with an Eastern Orthodox Christian about our differences over Sola Scriptura. I really appreciate his call to engage these discussion respectfully and without straw manning other peoples points of view. I also appreciate his call on Protestants like myself to dig into more church history and to understand our own professions of faith more deeply through these discussions.

Praise God for your excellent teaching

So glad to see this video! Videos like these really keep these important conversations going at a high level in a charitable way. Keep up the good work!

You are well on your way young man to filling a huge void in the Christian community. Dialogue that increases our understanding of differences which in turn only broadens our understanding of God. So needed.

From a Catholic: keep up the mindful and civil dialogue. I find the more we get in the weeds over scripture and doctrine we agree on most of the "meat and potatoes" of what Christianity is. I want to come together with my Protestant brothers and sisters because at the end of the day, we are all Christians. The devil wants us divided. Let's not let him succeed. God Bless!

Hi Dr. Ortlund - I'm a Catholic who has recently stumbled onto a lot of Austin's (Gospel Simplicity) videos as well as Matt Fradd and Trent Horn. I really appreciate your addition to the conversation here. While I don't agree with your conclusions, I think you're being intellectually honest and having these conversations in a really admirable and exemplary way. I think you are furthering these discussions and doing it in a way that invites discussion over disagreement. Keep up the great work and thanks for putting the time into articulating your view.

First of all, kudos to you, Dr. Ortlund. This is the best exposition of Sola Scriptura I have ever heard. As a born Catholic with strong Orthodox sympathies, I think I'm fairly representative of my coreligionists when I say that before listening to your talk, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has always seemed absurd and unhistorical. Your presentation here has completely changed that view for me. I can say that your interpretation is very reasonable and Prima Scriptura is certainly a nice way to express it that we could all agree upon. Most of all, I'm impressed that you gathered some of the strongest arguments against Sola Scriptura and confronted them head on. It seems to me that most apologetics are based on straw man arguments (I unfortunately include William Webster in this). My primary comment is this: Tradition (with a capital T) in the understanding of all Apostolic Churches (Catholic, Eastern, and Oriental Orthodox) will never contradict Sacred Scripture. Arguments against Tradition presuming that we hold it as an authority over and above Scripture are straw man arguments. No Apostolic Church holds that position. Quoting Church Fathers who explain that Tradition will never contradict Scripture is not a valid way to argue that they only viewed Tradition as another term for Scripture, as William Webster claims. Tradition is the way we can be sure that our interpretation of the Bible matches what Jesus and the Apostles originally meant by the words they spoke. For example, Jesus said (Jn 6:55) "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." The use of the term transubstantiation is not Tradition (again, a common straw man argument).The Catholic Church invented the term "transubstantiation" to help describe how best to interpret a difficult passage in Scripture (by a teaching authority called Magisterium). In fact, it was a difficult teaching that caused many of Jesus's followers to leave Him even back then. What Tradition (with a capital T) shows us is that when we look back in time and across the vast geography of Christianity, there has been a common interpretation about what Jesus meant. We see a consistent line among not only the Roman Catholic Church, but also the Greek Orthodox Church, and the thirty or so other Churches who trace their roots to the apostles but were never under the authority of either of those two big Churches - such as the Coptic Church, the Etrurian Church, the Tewahedo Church, the Syro-Malabar Church, etc - and also among the writings of the Church Fathers - such as Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 202 AD), Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165) and the Didache (late 1st or early 2nd century), etc. All interpret this passage in fundamentally the same manner. Since this is the case, we can have confidence that the traditions (with a little t) we have all retained, whereby the Church perpetuates the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross in bread and wine becoming his Body and Blood, belong to the Tradition (with a capital T) of the Universal Church - not just the Roman Catholic Church - in fulfillment of Christ's command in Scripture "Do this in remembrance of Me." In regard to Matthew 15, the Catholic Church is very aware that some traditions (with a little t) do not accord with Tradition (with a big T) or Sacred Scripture. Hard-core conservative Catholics - the kind who like apologetics - shy away from this, but the Catholic Church acknowledges it is wrong about certain practices, most notably priestly celibacy. Scripture and Tradition (with a big T) say there is nothing wrong with married priests. St. Paul specifies that a priest can only be married once. The Fathers tell us that all the apostles were married except John. Both Jesus and St. Paul say that Christians who renounce marriage to dedicate themselves entirely to the Kingdom of God are blessed and do a praiseworthy deed, but it is not required. The Catholic Church's requirement for priests to renounce marriage is tradition (with a little t) not Tradition (with a big T). The Catholic Church recognizes it is wrong in doing so but it probably won't fix it any time soon. In a similar way, the Catholic Church does not recognize marriages that it does not witness. This is tradition with a little t. The Church teaches and acknowledges that Tradition with a big T recognizes the intent of any baptized man and woman who seek to do what Jesus explained about marriage (Matthew 19:6) as sufficient for a Christian marriage. Likewise, annulments are tradition with a little t. Again, since marriage and divorce are both civil and spiritual realities, the Church tries to navigate the two, even if it must deviate from Tradition with a big T. Vatican I and its formulation of papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and many other bones of contention between Churches, are not Tradition. They are formulations of the Magisterium. In sum, the Church of Rome is a profoundly messed up organization, with tons of corrupt bureaucrats filling its ranks. It is scarred by thousands of years of evil people manipulating spiritual power for personal gain. Yes, indeed. But Jesus wanted us to worship Him as a Church, messed up though we are, not as individuals. Therefore, to a learned Catholic the idea of any individual person just picking up the Bible and correctly interpreting it is absurd because from the outside all we see is that practitioners of Sola Scripture interpret the Bible in such different and contradictory ways that they cannot worship together as a Church but only as thousands of small groups of individuals whose only common doctrine is their hostility towards the Catholic Church. As you define it, however, I would agree. I do believe that God's grace is such that a person who goes to the Bible and sincerely seeks to understand it will be brought to salvation. Blessed are you for being a peace maker! You are doing a great service to the Christian people by seriously considering these bitterly divisive issues and finding channels that we can navigate in common.

Thank you so much for this video! I have a brother who recently converted to Catholicism from Protestantism. That has stirred me up a bit and it has challenged me to really try and think through theology that I have taken for granted as a Protestant. I am SO happy I stumbled into your channel!! The arguments you review in this video are ones I keep hearing as well and I know are things that drew my brother into the Catholic Church. I want to understand and grow and try to see things from his perspective, while still standing firm in my convictions. My eyes have be opened to the issues and problems in Protestantism, however I have no plans to leave my tradition. If anything, looking into all of this has confirmed what I believe and helped to expand my view to appreciate early church tradition and history. You have a wonderful way of explaining these things and you do it in a calm and peaceful manner. I admire your desire for discussion and your humility. I would love to see a video on the authority of the church. That seems to be another area that draws Protestants over to Catholicism. P.s. I agree with the guy who commented that you should turn this into a podcast! 😊

I'm a Confessional Lutheran looking closely at this entire issue. There are plusses and minuses on both sides, at least from what I've seen so far. Your winsomeness is definitely rare and appreciated! Particularly appreciate your 2-parter with Jimmy Akin.

Thank you for setting such a great exemple of what a generous and honoring tone towards those you disagree with actually sounds like. The triumphalist tone is so easy to adopt and so agreable to listen to...but this is much more fruitful and rewarding!

Though I am a Catholic, I gotta say; I loved this video. You are very warm and loving, thus genuinely a Christian. "They will know we are Christians by our love." I definitely think all sides of the isle could use more of what you are sharing.

You did a great job defending Sola Scriptura and explaining the doctrine. Many people of the Christian faith don’t really understand this concept. I was surprised by Lizzie’s response, but I wonder where she studied theology? Many others do so, but I would ask professors, like Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Michael Rydelnik, etc for there perspective views. I always pray before reading scripture and after and then mediate on the word of God. The Lord will reveal the meaning. I love your videos, thank you again.

Great video Dr. Ortlund! Let me start by saying, as a Catholic, not annoyed at all! I should hope no one gets annoyed hearing a passionate, charitable and nuanced take by a fellow brother in Christ! I have been searching for a while for a good, Protestant defense of sola scriptura. I especially appreciate your point that ultimately, we do just fall down on all of our own consciences, Catholics included. I think that framework is the most formidable response to the issue. However, I still ultimately think sola scriptura lacks the solid internal consistency, but I very much appreciate your take on things! Would love to see more dialogue between you and other prominent Catholic apologists, particularly would love to see you on Trent Horn's or Matt Fradd's channel!

I'm just happy that you've chosen to not be hostile. Unfortunately, so many of the Catholic videos I've seen are, "xxxx DESTROYS sola fida" or "xxx DEBUNKS protestants with ONE VERSE".

Dr. Ortland, thank you so much for your contribution to these important conversations! It’s so encouraging, refreshing, and helpful to hear such a deeply thoughtful and genuinely charitable Protestant voice! Thank you for helping us Protestants better understand our own theology and doctrine, and modeling ways to respectfully and meaningfully interface with Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Please keep up the great work! God bless you.

You nailed! Coming from a lapsed Orthodox believer.

I am a Catholic and I found your video thoughtful and thought provoking, though I mentally responded to certain points. That being said, your attitude of discussion over finger-pointing is exactly what I and my team are trying to foster in our interdenominational magazine. Thank you. -Sarah, Editor in Chief, LogoSophia Magazine

Thank you so much for a clear and charitable explanation to why Sola Scrptura. I've been on a personal question (albeit probably a lazy one cuz mainly thru RU-vid apologists😳, so far) to understand the reasons behind my Protestant upbringing. Really hoping to see more comradery among Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox I've enjoyed Josiah, Trent, Matt, and adding you. Subscribed, and look forward to more 👍

Thanks, Gavin. As a Catholic I respect your desire for clarity and your pursuit of Truth.

Recently as a Protestant, I’ve been digging deeper down the rabbit hole of the reformation and hearing the arguments against what we believe concerning scriptures authority, this video has really reassured me of my original conviction of the final authority of scripture.

A wonderful presentation- Thanks! And great to see Lizzy, one of my first internet loves! :-)

great vid bro! salutations from a confessional Lutheran brother.

I'm passionately and firmly Catholic, but I very much enjoy your lectures and debates, so I don't mind giving you a like. :-) Whether or not I agree with the perspective, the content is quite thought provoking and tasteful. Great video brother in Christ!

After watching this thoughtful and informative video: I realised I didn't understand Sola Scriptural at all myself; I was conflicted with Catholic views and appeals; I have also learned to open minded and humble in every discussion! Thank you, Pastor Gavin! More grace brother!

Fairly fresh as a student of scripture and learning the doctrines of the church. Catholicism can indeed seem appealing on one hand because of the staunch defense and attack they put up. RU-vid is riddled with it. As someone that grew up Catholic and now Protestant, I'm glad to see that someone is speaking against the strawman-ing of the Sola Scriptura framework as too often it is dismissed as incoherent or unsupported or self-refuting. The fallacy typically occurs among those that have a preconceived notion of what Sola Scriptura is and/or hold presuppositions regarding the signinficance of their already held beliefs. This tends to lead others to not consider the completely reasonable objections one might have to Catholicism such as icon veneration (which far too often resembles worship in practice) and papal infallibility which does not pass the sniff test. Thank you for all the work you and everyone else does on this topic. I listen to Catholic responses and critics as well. Seems like everyone is just trying to understand Christ's work better and we are all the better for it. Albeit I continue to be pushed in the Protestant direction, I appreciate all the information anyone posts on the subject. We are hungry to learn more.

I'm a Catholic and this video got me thinking. Thank you

Catholic here. I appreciate your tone and nuance. Just subbed

Love your shows!

Just recently came across your channel from a video someone posted in Christian Forums. As someone who does research myself; you are extremely well informed. I'm impressed. And God has blessed you with a good memory! This subject "Sola Scriptura" was of interest to me because I think the Scripture certainly does teach that it is it's own complete, internal and self interpretive document. There is a passage in Isaiah "Whom shall we teach doctrine?... line upon line upon line, precept upon precept upon precept" (Isaiah 28:10) What is written by "holy men of old spake as moved by the Holy Ghost" is "line upon line". The fact that what is inspired by God given in written format is an important principle. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is pretty clear that one can be "throughly furnished unto good works" by Scripture only. Which related to "church history" does have it's reflection in what we see of communication and propaganda today. The winners write the history books; so though tradition certainly exists and tradition in and of itself isn't by nature of being tradition; definitively wrong. But where traditions come to trump Scripture is where Scripture itself draws the line. And that line is a very real "line in the sand" so to speak. All that being said; I really enjoy your videos. I'm learning a lot about history from them!

Hey man Orthodox Christian here. I can appreciate what you’re doing and I pray God gives you guidance in your journey! I’ve seen and met wonderful Christian’s from all denominations and were all ultimately just trying to do our best. I appreciate your approach and honesty here and wish nothing but the best for you and your channel!

As a Catholic I used to scoff at Sola Scriptura. But after reading the bible myself I valued the Bible as a stable enduring truth. I left the church after 57 years. I was really invested in the Catholic church and niss some aspects of it but cringe at returning. They push so much on ppl that wasn't even in the Christian church at the beginning not even in the Catholic church until hundreds of years later after Constantine.

Great video. It’s nice to have a thoughtful explanation of what I believe as a confessional Protestant. We Lutherans have a very high view of tradition (this is one of the reasons we quote the fathers so much in our confessions) but Holy Scripture is alone the infallible norm of all other authorities in the Church.

I appreciate the spirit of humility you adopted when approaching this topic.

This deserves multiple thumbs up. So thoughtful. Thank you for making this.

Your approach is noble and needed in the modern church.

I'd like to express rapt admiration and appreciation for the words Gavin spoke in the first part of this video, in which he describes his "irenic" (or what I often describe as "ecumenical") approach, methodology, and viewpoint. It's extremely refreshing to hear in this age which is so hyper-polarized. The theological world (to our shame) has, of course, been divided and polarized for many centuries. There is an increasing need for Christians to talk to each other -- really talk and communicate -- and to exercise charity and do our best to understand our Christian brothers and sisters and not to misrepresent what they believe. If we can't do that, we have no hope of getting our message out to the unbelieving, suffering, dying, despairing world. I find Gavin to be an exemplary role model of this approach, and it is worlds apart from the anti-Catholic-type Protestants I have mostly dealt with these past 26 years I have been very active online. Personally, as an apologist since 1981 (and a Catholic since 1991), Gavin's words were a great exhortation to humility and to offset the pride that -- sadly -- too often cripples apologetics efforts. I am humbled and challenged by them, to do better in this regard. Apologetics can very quickly become "oppositional" and shot-through with hostility or passive aggression. It need not be so. So, again, I am deeply grateful for these words from Gavin and he has already gained my respect as a Christian role model in terms of how we must conduct ourselves during discussions, where we disagree with each other. Inter-Christian dialogue ought to be from the perspective of "brother to brother" within the Body of Christ, in order to better understand and to learn from each other, as well as providing challenges when we think a brother or sister in the faith is wrong on a particular issue (along with a willingness to be challenged). We all learn and we all "win" when good, constructive dialogue takes place.

Thank you, Dr. Ortlund! This was a very helpful video and I will be sharing it with some friends. I really appreciate your irenic approach to these challenges. So often my Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox friends are quick to dismiss videos like these because of the attitude or reputation of the Protestant speaker/apologist but I think you hit the perfect balance of being respectful to their viewpoint while also being convinced of your own. Well done!

I think I finally got it. It took me a few years, but I understand sola scriptura now. I read your recent tweet about it, and that unlocked it for me. You pointed out that there is an infinite regress problem to infallibility, and this usually indicates we are looking at a deep paradigm issue. If I were to pretend that I'm not Catholic, and just consider the magisterium and sola scriptura to see which one(s) are workable I'd have to reason it out. Firstly, we have to accept that we are capable of grasping theological truth, otherwise there's no point in worrying about this problem in the first place. But we also have to accept that the endpoint of knowledge about theology will be fallible no matter what because it terminates in the human mind. If God introduces some infallible truth into creation, it immediately is subject to fallible ways of attaining the truth and fallible ways of understanding that truth, so it is unavoidable for everyone. But we can't fall into relativism or intellectual nihilism because this would call all possibility of knowledge into question. If we accept that we can know theological truths, because it is incoherent to say that we can't, then we have to figure out which paradigm, if any, can justify this assumption. We can consider them side by side. The church was founded when God's Word came into the world and created a deposit of faith, which is things needed to be known/done to be saved. I think both paradigms have to accept this, or we have to abandon Christianity which leads us back to the coherence problem. But maybe Catholics have the upper hand because they have "the church"? I don't think so, because protestants have the church too, just in a more spiritual sense. We have no way to determine yet which kind of church was established. Maybe we can say that Catholics have an infallible interpreter, so they win. Well not quite because, as we see, you can disagree about what the infallible interpretation means. Hence the infinite regress. We have to go earlier: the deposit of faith includes, at first, tradition and word of mouth and, eventually, scripture. These foundational facts and assumptions don't really get us anywhere though. We have to get to the core question: how can I know what valid doctrines are, and what scripture and tradition are trying to teach me? At some point, I think both paradigms must accept the intervention of the Holy Spirit. And this is where I suspect we will find a weakness. If our paradigm allows for the Holy Spirit to guide the physical church, then maybe we found a way to have better access to truth? But we could say the same for your paradigm, there's no reason the Holy Spirit can't also guide your version of the church similar to the sensus fidelium concept in Catholicism. The difference has to be in the object that is being guided by the Holy Spirit. In the Catholic church it is the entire church from top to bottom, but united particularly in the top of the hierarchy. Basically, the bishops together with the pope have the final say on what is true. In Protestantism it's not quite so clear. We can't say scriptures are being continually guided into truth because scripture is a deposit of writings. Is it the general faithful? Maybe but there is no uniting feature to this form of the church, so when this spiritual church disagrees it becomes difficult, based on these assumptions, to know who actually got the truth in the first place. Let alone worrying about whether or not we can understand that truth as it is communicated through a messy physical creation subject to fallible means. It's not quite an open-and-shut case because if there were a reliable means of figuring out where the truth entered creation in your paradigm, then that could be good enough. For instance, protestants generally agree on the canon, which is a pretty compelling example that uniting around truth is at least possible. The difficulty isn't necessarily that it is impossible, but that it may be practically impossible in some cases. Do we take a poll of all Christians on every issue? Is it a majority or is a plurality okay? Do we include Mormons, Catholics, Orthodox, LDS, Calvinists (jk) etc? The disunity makes it difficult, perhaps unreasonably difficult, to know what the source of truth is even if it exists. It would be like if the US was founded on a constitution, but then wasn't given a supreme court to make decisions about what the document means. There would be immediate splintering, and from an outside perspective it would be difficult, if not practically impossible, to determine which group was following the intent of the document. Maybe this could be argued to be the point of superiority, where the paradigms diverge and one just becomes practically superior to the other? But by the best of my reasoning, both paradigms can justify the assumption I set out to justify above at least in principle. The argument will probably have to be a much weaker one about the practical realities of the church in whatever form it takes. Regardless of what's true, what has become clear to me is there is no pithy and concise refutation of sola scripture anymore. The argument from anarchy, the argument from fallibility, etc. don't work. You have convinced me that sola scriptura is a powerful paradigm that must be contended with seriously by all believers regardless of tradition, and there will be no easy way to dismiss it. If it should even be dismissed at all. You probably aren't reading this but just wanted to say: I noticed your tone in these older videos was much more optimistic. Contrast your open and vulnerable demeanor in this video with somewhat more defensive ones in current videos, it was a little sad to see ngl. I hope social media isn't getting to you, I appreciate your even keeled takes on this stuff.

I am very blessed by this and all your content on RU-vid, Dr. Gavin. Thank you!

Gavin ! I am a Coptic Orthodox Christian Priest. I am captured by your wisdom and love. The description you gave is basically “PRIMA SCRIPTURA” but why the term is “ SOLA SCRIPTURA”. We all agree on “PRIMA SCRIPTURA” if I am correct. Now Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants could be one step closer. Our Unity in Christ is my prayer” God bless

What a beautiful video.

2 Thessalonians 2: 15 “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

Thanks for the understanding! After taking a look into protestant perspective, being Catholic Ive realised how most denominated Catholics avoid readimg scripture, abd that includes myself. Now I know the importante of Scripture, which is as or even more important than dogmas/tradition, and ill do my best on keeping up with reading. Fantastic video, I expected some kind of attack to Catholics but there wasnt any, I think all christians should agree that Scripture is essential in our faith🙌 even the Catholic tradition is based on it!

This is one of the best conversations I have ever heard, even though it was a monologue. Very informative as well. Thank you for your work!

The key is that Catholic and Orthodox don’t view their tradition as human tradition but as divinely inspired at Pentecost. It’s holy tradition not human tradition.

"As conciliatory as possible" is triumphant generosity and love.

Another good video, Dr Ortland. As one raised Southern Baptist and who almost converted to Eastern Orthodoxy 15 years ago, I can relate to all these points brought up against ‘sola Scriptura’ by our RCC and EOC brethren. Suffice it to say, it was my study of Christian history and the early church fathers that led me to affirm (at the very least) the MATERIAL SUFFICIENCY of Holy Scripture. I affirm with Article 6 of the Thirty Nine Articles that “holy scripture contains all thins necessary for salvation…”, and that the historic context of Christ’s Gospel in the Apostolic churches provides the FORMAL principle of interpreting those Scriptures.

I just discovered your page.. I myself am a Wesleyan Arminian emphasis believer, who's credo baptist and lean towards cessationist emphasis.. I know.. strange.. I have enjoyed this video as I've also leaned more towards sola scriptura over prima scriptura..and at times I have been finding myself getting into discussions with Catholics..some are charitable..some are full of caricatures.. Particularly one from a young who is an alleged ex Baptist and now Roman Catholic.. I'm sharing this video. God bless.

I liked this video a lot. I thought the first two points were strong and very reasonable. I think the case got a bit weaker in the latter half. Im a Protestant considering Orthodoxy, but I've found content like yours to be very clarifying and challenging. Thanks brother!

I was sort of flirting with the idea of Catholicism, but man am I glad I found your Channel. You seem genuine and historically knowledgeable, can’t wait to get some time so I can go through more of your content.

What a well-done, thoughtful, and charitable video! I’m so glad you make this kind of content because I’ve wanted this kind of content on RU-vid for a long time! I think you did a fantastic job.

I so needed some teaching where the arguments and counterarguments are given in search of truth. Up til now, Mike Winger was the only teacher I had found who does this

So glad I discovered you. All of the videos I've watched by you have been so helpful. You are so charitable, rational, and helpful. I am of the same persuasion as you and I have not found many in Baptist circles to be as helpful as you are in this way. Thanks for what you do!

I converted to Catholicism but really appreciate your videos. I'm on the not agreeing with you but not annoyed side.

Gotta say I’m still pretty firmly Catholic, but I really respect your work and had a great time watching this video

Coptic Orthodox here and this is a great video, thanks for sharing.

Dr. Ortlund, I'm very glad that I found your channel. I enjoy your irenic manner of speaking and how you try to be fair. Keep up the good work.

Looking forward to watching you on reason and theology.

Thank you so much for your hard work and dedication and solidifying me in my faith :)

Love this content, will always smash that like button. Please continue with this content

Wow Gavin! You sir, are a humble, respectful, honest and good Christian. Thank you for what to you do! God bless you 🙏

Side note: that Sean guy has some great lighting.

This video and analysis is amazing! Incredible. I cant list enough superlatives. Excellent and so helpful to guide further reading. Thank you for your work

IM SUPER GLAD I FOUND YOU

Thank you Dr. Ortlund for making these videos. I have been stimulated by your content, especially your recent book on Finding the Right Hills to Die On (or should it have been titled Finding the Right Hills Upon Which to Die?-but that is a grammatical hill I won’t die upon 😉). I just wanted to say as a point of interest, I’ve found the points raised in this video helpful. I’ve skimmed through a handful of Dr. James White debates on Catholicism and it seems not only are the videos posted by Catholics generally but they’re lauded by them in the comments section in particular, namely “this is why I converted to Catholicism...or Dr. White can’t argue ____.” I’m looking forward to this series on Catholicism as you point out in your recent blog post. Thank you brother for your graciousness and investment in defending the faith and stimulating others to avoid parroting others without sufficient grounds.

Thank you for this video. Makes me want to talk with you a lot about these topics in a respectful and serious manner. I like the way you express yourself and how you want to take the conversation further. Makes all of us think a lot more about these issues, hopefully in a more reflexive way.

You should be a guest on the remnant radio. That would be a fascinating conversation.

This probably the best defense of the doctrine I have seen so far, keep it up!

Brilliant video, thanks for taking the time to provide a balanced argument. Subscribed sir.

Interesting video. As an Orthodox convert from evangelical protestantism, I think our view is that Scripture is at the core of Holy Tradition, interwoven with it. Our point is not that contradicting Scripture would be acceptable, our point is humility and respect for the Holy Spirit, who teaches the community through appointed and sacramentally empowered bishops. Scripture speaks to me for myself and my family, but it does not say things that contradict the Holy Spirit. For example, an ordinary member of the church at Corinth would be mistaken to interpret scriptures contrary to Paul's teaching. This is not less true for us and the Holy Tradition today, because the Holy Spirit will never abandon the Church.

understanding these theologies in their best light, benefit of the doubt in thinking the best of our brethren. Keep at it, friend.

As an Orthodox convert from non-denominational Protestantism, I now believe that without prevailing Church authority, the Word of God, while Divinely inspired, can not be properly discerned. I used to be a Sola Scriptura defendant until I realized that the continual divisions and subdivisions of Protestantism has caused individuals to proclaim themselves, *individually,* as Christ's Church, whilst being divided against most of Christendom on rather trivial issues that incurred no division during the first millenium. What Protestants seem to forget or deny outrightly are that the traditions of the Church were bestowed by the Apostles, as were the scriptural interpretations. Putting oneself into the frame of mind of a 1st century Christian, without a personal copy of the Old Testament or any New Testament, it becomes quite clear that one could not be considered part of *the Church* without express Apostolic conversion (being baptized by one who was baptized by one who...who was baptized by an Apostle). One could be a *believer in Christ,* since Christ merely requires that when we hear the Gospel we believe it, but to be a member of the Church body on earth requires more of us. Thank God for the Lord's grace & mercy or we would ALL be found in outer darkness! Hallelujah!

As a Protestant who sometimes neglects the historic side of religion, thank you for expanding my knowledge on this!

Love your videos Gavin, they are greatly helpful to progress thoughtful conversation. Just scratching the surface, I find the more I learn, the more I know what I don't know. Simplistic arguments don't really help. Nuances and "tiny" words make big differences, and sometimes things can really look like X, but then turn out to be an Y. Like those examples where you see a shadow of what is seemingly a square, but when you zoom out it's light hitting a cylinder at just the right angle.

Dr. Ortlund, I'm so glad to see the kind of engagement and listening shown in your videos, along with Matt at 10 Min. Bible videos--both of you meeting with good spokesmen for other streams of Christianity, and being a good example in doing so. You're tackling heav issues, and I'm looking forward to hearing more.

Hi Gavin, I just found your channel. You are very thoughtful and thorough. This video really helped me sort this issue out myself.

Thank you for laying all this out from the (a?) Protestant perspective! I find that there are a lot of points of commonality, points on which I'd agree with you. For example, that scripture has a kind of preeminence or prominence; that the Church "recognised" the Bible; that scripture and tradition form a sort of unity, among others. But more than that, the Church did indeed determine what the Bible consists of (not that books left out are evil or corrupt, but that the books declared to be canonical are universally approved). We understand that it comes from tradition, as Jesus didn't give us the Bible but a teaching institution (the Church) that would be capable of and competent to write the scripture, compile it, recognise what ought to be in or out and to declare the nature of the canon. I think the take away for me, made clear around 20 minutes in, is that the "Catholic vs Protestant Problem" is not so much a question of which doctrines are actually right or wrong, but of who gets to decide. It's a question of the very nature of the two bodies. On the one hand, the Church (Catholic & Orthodox), as you say goes about things in an "organic" fashion. Even recently defined dogmas like the immaculate conception and the assumption were not pulled out of a hat 50 or a 100 years ago. I'm not competent to speak on the differences between East and West, except to recognise that the issue is complex and seems to rest not on any actual doctrinal difference but more on a distinction of emphasis. Kind of like the filioque, more has been made of the distinction that should be. In any event, the dogmatic declaration of the Church clearly refers back to scripture (where Mary is greeted as having already been fully engraced) as well as tradition (since the Feast of the Conception was given to the West by the East). And even Luther himself espoused what we would recognise as a far more Catholic Mariology than just about any modern Protestant denomination holds to. Same goes for the papacy: even this is clearly scriptural and also comes to be recognised and developed through tradition. That said, my issue with Protestantism is that it does not in fact do things in an "organic" fashion. Until Luther's time, Trent was the 19th ecumenical council. This era marks the first time that an individual specifically took the power and authority of the Church into his own hands and revolted against it. His may have begun as an act of protest, but was ultimately not an act of reformation and the result was indeed the birth of a kind of Christian chaos. The truth of this lies all around us. The very fact that one man can decide to splinter the unity of the Church is a clear indication that his side is not the side of organic development. His disciples have demonstrated time and again that theological opinions and doctrinal divisions are generally solved by further splits, formation of new denominations and the creation of new traditions. Protestantism is ultimately a revolutionary system based in a highly individualistic context, rooted in the personality of Martin Luther. The Church is ultimately a conservative system based in the universality of the magisterium and the continuity of its hierarchy and transmission of the faith.

Thanks for this great video! I found this really helpful for clarifying the questions involved

God bless you brother. Thank you for your charity towards those with differing views. Your words have brought me peace as I continue to wrestle with this matter.

Dr. Ortlund. Catholic here. I agree with most all your points. (1) Scripture is abundantly clear, even to uneducated unbelievers, when it comes to the basics. (2) Our Lord's condemnation of the Corban rule, is definitely underappreciated by Catholic apologists, and it is an even stronger argument for Sola Scriptura than you seem to realize. This is because Corban was not just a tradition, but it was a tradition that the Pharisees thought was infallible. The Pharisees even made the erroneous argument, like some of my fellow Catholics do today, that without their infallible oral tradition no one could know the Old Testament, so therefore you had to accept them both. Another passage that works in favor of Sola Scriptura is actually the one about "hold fast to the traditions" often cited as evidence against it. But perhaps that's another discussion. (3) Trent Horn is right when he says, ultimately, we are all our own final authority. The Catholic is no different than the Protestant in being stuck with merely their own interpretation. Although, this sort of Kantian-esque epistemology of doubt and distance really isn't even Catholic to begin with. (4) Michuta, likewise, perpetrated an erroneous epistemology that merely backfires on the Church. One could always ask us Catholics, "where is your infallible list of infallible decrees, and how do you know that list is infallible to begin with?" This sort of epistemology that Michuta et al propogate necessitates an infinite regress in which no one can ever be certain of anything. Plus, we already know from the OT that God can transmit the Canon without necessarily doing so through an infallible Magisterium (as God transmitted the OT Canon through Israel without them having such). Now, all this being said, as a Catholic I don't actually believe in Sola Scriptura. I am just agreeing with you against these bad arguments. And as a Catholic, I can also agree that Scripture is an unparalleled authority. We Catholics only attribute the negative charism of infallibility to the Church, whereas Scripture possesses the positive attribute of inspiration. Pretty big difference there. As for evidence against Sola Scriptura and for the Church. Well, Jesus says that whatever the apostles - and seemingly the Church by extension - bind on earth will be bound in Heaven. And that seems to imply a limited charism of infallibility. Also, while the early Church may not be strictly unanimous about apostolic succession, etc, I do think the overwhelming evidence leans in that direction.

Even as a Protestant, these are the kinds of teachings I need. We seem to lack robust training of both holy scripture and history in the modern protestant church, and it only hurts us.

Thank you for such a great discussion! The reminder that smart people can disagree is SO GOOD for where we’re at in 2021. Love it!

I’d love to see you debate with Josiah - I’d imagine it would be mind blowingly awesome!

Thankful for your work, and for this video. What a gift to the Body! Thank you.

Thanks Gavin for the thoughtful discussion. Your channel is a real blessing to the greater body of Christ.

Hi Gavin! Thank you for making this video. I really appreciate how kind and open-minded you are (without being wishy-washy). I’m Catholic, and I agree with you. I don’t think the church is infallible in its teachings and interpretations. I think (as we see over history), they get a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong, and it all has to be measured against Scripture. Thank you for all the work you put into this!

Nice job, Gavin. Good tip on Webster, who you may know has a three volume set on this topic.

Thank you very much! Awesome video. I agree that most of Christians (especially Orthodox and Catholics ones) don't understand what Sola Scriptura actually means.

Hopefully crossing the Tiber in the future. Definitely not annoyed. Very reasoned and gracious responses to some objections that are either not exceedingly strong or possibly not articulated well. Hitting the like button to support! God Bless.

Great video and as a Catholic , very thought/ provoking. I will say though, on the issue of the canon, the view you articulated is also the Catholic view . The view is not “The Church makes something true” it’s that “The Church recognizes what is true”. The Catholic would simply go one step further and say : “If this can apply to a canon then why can it not apply to a sacrament or practice.”

You earned my respect sir, i wont lie, im a reformed protestant and ive been doubting a lot of stuff, this video helped a lot, God Bless you

Keep on doing Educational and enlightening videos.I am more convinced with what I believe as a Christian through ur videos.

Excellent video! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and Scriptures related to Sola Scriptura. You made so many good points that I'm going to have to watch this video again and write them down. So many will take a topic and talk to great lengths instead of boiling down their best points and presenting them in a concise presentation like you did, and I appreciate you for that. One area that Protestants will run to for Church history, creeds, confessions, etc. is eschatology (the study of last things). In debates between Partial Preterists and Full Preterists the creeds and Church history are constantly brought up by Partial Preterists to argue against Full Preterists. Full Preterists claim if all of Church history is taken into account we find different teachers saying Bible passages have been fulfilled and if we put all those fulfilled passages together it would cover the entire Scriptures. side notes: Full Preterists hold that the second coming of Christ took place in 70 AD to end the age of the Mosaic covenant and bring the kingdom of God to Earth in full. Partial Preterists hold that Christ came in 70 AD to end the age of the Mosaic covenant, but the second coming and the fullness of God's kingdom is still in our future .

I am a Catholic and I am becoming a fan of your channel. I wish you made a video talking on the hypothetical reunion of Christians under one church. Catholics many times talk about this, but Protestants and Orthodox usually don't want to talk about it. I honestly believe that these three branches are somehow converging. Slowly, true, but I do think so.

Great video. Really thoughtful and balanced. Good point about the difference between the early Church and current deviations and additions. I'm really interested in becoming Orthodox but struggling with Mary and the Saints