I pastor a non-denominational Church in the greater area of New Orleans (which is heavily Catholic) and Gavin has tremendously helped me better understand and appreciate my Protestant roots. Thanks so much for your work Pastor!
This channel is absolutely incredible. I’m YEC, and I’m a Cessationist… yet still Gavin Ortlund is my favorite theologian and scholar on RU-vid. I’ll watch these videos over and over again 😂 so informative and packed with helpful wisdom. God bless your ministry Gavin
I'm a Molinist Protestant with several beliefs that are closer Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, and I utterly reject Calvinism/Reformed Theology (which makes me something like a rare, non-reformed, very conservative, Anglican), yet this is still just about my favorite channel on RU-vid. The information on this channel is so great, and Gavin is so charitable. Some might label him and his channel very irenic in tone. Thank the Lord for Gavin, and his channel, providing good help and starting/carrying forward important conversations for the sake of Christians everywhere!
I just left the Catholic Church and have been binging Ortlund's videos; thanks so much, Gavin, for handling theology and its historical development with such maturity. I discovered you by way of your discussions with Trent Horn and your work has been a tremendous help to me.
So you trust Ortlunds authority over Christ's? Interesting. I believe there is a scripture that states one should not follow the traditions of men. By following man made's interpretation of scriptures, you are doing just that.
You’re lucky to be in Ethiopia, go back to the apostolic Ethiopian orthodox tewahedo church. Even Martin Luther mentioned Ethiopian orthodoxy as an exemplar church with apostolic succession
@@Solomon_90 if we were back in the 16th century I would go back and you'd be right, however the current EOTC is anything but exemplar, the teachings of the church are not only not exemplar, a lot of well known teachers are down right heretical in any classical sense of the word, there's no real Administration of the sacrements, cessationism, and heck a lot of priests have documented evidence of practicing demonic practices and million other issues I could never finish listing, while I appreciate your zeal please do study more about the church you so support.
Look up Sts. Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Symeon the New Theologian and Gregory Palamas. They are the most important theologians from the medieval era.
Pope Benedict 15th, quoting St. Augustine: " Holy Scripture is invested with SUPREME AUTHORITY by reason of its sure and momentous teachings regarding the faith; whatever then it tells us, that we believe. We believe it simply because IT IS WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURE. And unless we believe in Scripture, we can neither be Christians nor can we be saved."
Lots of Church Fathers say similar things. Of course, supreme does not mean 'only' or 'alone' any more than 'useful' in 2Timothy 3:15-17 means alone. Raming a Protestant methodology into texts that clearly don't support it is disingenuous.
@@JacksonScott-os7kj Sola Scriptura doesn't help with the issue of Scriptural Interpretation. Protestants are deadlocked on important issues such as free will, the meaning of the Eucharist, infant baptism, church government, the nature of worship, spiritual gifts and so much more. Only through the Apostolic Tradition can you understand the Bible.
@@shelleeyoung8496 Sola scriptura does not mean only or alone in the context that you think it does. Sola scriptura means that the scriptures are sola infallible, and the 'Church" IS fallible. When Rome delares infalibilty for itself and people believe it, they have been deceived.
@@dann285 Gavin's warm interpretation of sola scriptura isn't the one used by most Protestants. Typically it means someone can ignore every other interpretation before them throughout the 2,000 years of the Church if they think their interpretation is the 'Biblical' one. Look at the promises Christ makes about sending the Holy Spirit. It only applies to the historic Church and not counterfeits. For example, Gavin's Baptist tradition was created in 1609 when John Smyth baptised himself. If I belonged to that church rather than one founded by the Apostles I would think it was fallible too.
I haven’t finished the video yet, but I’m commenting for the algorithm. I’m a Reformed Presbyterian and I have many interactions with the papists and eastern Christians and sola scripture is the main thing that separates them from us. It’s great to see good content explaining the history of Christian thought regarding these issues
Huh. Thanks for bringing Gansfort to our attention! Ive never heard of him before. This is great; we need to make scholarship like this more widely known, as you're doing. I think the days are gone when this stuff was only known in journals. I appreciate you a lot, brother!
@@dougy6237 And he specifically said that in the video, multiple times. All this video is showing is that the idea of Sola Scriptura existed before Luther.
@@shockthetoastThe antiquity of a heresy, weather it be Gnosticism or Sola Scriptura, does not change it from being a heresy. "The church is the pillar and foundation of truth" (1Tim 3:15) and not the private rantings of an individual/group. You have made your Protestant founders gods.
@@dougy6237 What a completely backwards assertion. I mean really, listen to yourself: "You've made following Christ before men a god." What nonsense. Christ holds the authority. All of it. Not the pope, not your own hollow extrabiblical tradition of your own puffed up authority. This nonsense argument that I have seen several Catholics attempt to use is quite literally nothing whatsoever except the Catholic going "i KnOw YoU aRe BuT wHaT aM i!?" Foolishness.
Some of these responses from angry Roman Catholics are ridiculous. If you’re not gonna take the time to make a meaningful critique of the actual arguments made in the video, stop wasting your time commenting, and our time for having to read it.
thanks Gavin time to write all this down! Edit: This generation of protestants will be very well educated on these topics being able to defend themselves!
No they won't. When a prot argues with a knowledgeable Catholic, they will be dismantled piece by piece when the Catholic fills all the holes Gavin left purposely. It is never just to do an evil, even for a good cause. Gavin purposely lies and misleads in an attempt to save people to his worldview. That is dishonorable and lacks integrity. It is a sin. He is an anti-Christ.
Thank you so much. I think this just clarified something. I need to put all my faith and trust in Jesus, and not in what the Catholic Church tells me. I’m a cradle Catholic, and never knew much about it at all. I’ve been consumed with trying to figure out if the Catholic Church really is the one true church for almost a year now. This is the most helpful thing I’ve heard in all the videos I’ve watched.
Gavin is a notorious quote miner who’s been called out MULTIPLE times by MANY Catholics/Orthodox about his blatant lies and convenient misinformation. Wessel stands entirely on Catholic ground. He teaches the freedom of the will, justification not by faith alone but by faith active in love, the meritorious character of good works; the rule of faith as formed by the *Scriptures and Tradition;* he *acknowledges the primacy of the pope,* the efficacy of the Sacraments ex opere operato, Transubstantiation by the priestly consecration, the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist and holds firmly to the veneration of the Blessed Virgin. Such being Weasel cannot be regarded as a precursor of the Reformation. He never thought of separating from the Church and he died a Catholic. During his lifetime he was never taken to task by the Inquisition. In the sixteenth century his writings, however, were placed on the Index of forbidden books on account of their errors.
@@DPK5201 Did you read my comment? Wessel believed in Holy Tradition and Scripture, as well as Pope Supremacy. I also mentioned all of his other VERY Catholic beliefs. He’s not a “proto Protestant”.
I've been discouraged from discussing the subject of Sola Scriptura. Most of the time, Sola Scriptura is conflated with Nuda/Solo Scriptura. I don't know whether some people are doing so intentionally, because there's clearly a difference between 'sole INFALLIBLE authority' and 'sole authority'.
The problem that you sola scriptura people are missing is that we deny there is a difference between solo and sola scriptura. You guys won't address that claim, though. You insist on a distinction, but from lur perspective we see no such distinction. Solo and Sola both rely on using your own judgment as the arbiter of what scripture means.
@@bad_covfefe Catholics use their own judgement on what the decrees of the magesterium means. Do you think its morally and legally right to burn heretics?
sole infallible authority has the same consequences as sole authority. Either position implies that the individual's interpretation of Scripture can override Holy Tradition
I am a Baptist and went through a phase of RC and Presby inclination some years ago. Somehow stood on my Baptist convictions and soon after that I stumbled upon Truth Unites. One of the greatest blessing God has bestowed on me!
Augustine wasn't saying so much that the Church is necessary for the existence of Scripture, but that he never would have believed Scripture unless Catholics like Ambrose had explained it to him, because as a Manichean he thought the Old Testament was foolishness and the allegorical passages were actually meant literally, and Ambrose explained them allegorically and it was in light of that explanation that he finally found them to be believable.
@@Dee-gs2hn No, thats not what I was saying. I was referring to Augustine's autobiography, Confessions, in which he describes his objections to the faith when he was a Manichean. At that time he rejected Catholicism and the Old Testament because he understood passages like "God made man in His own image" in a literal sense, as if the Old Testament was saying that God was a physical human being, and made us that way too, in resemblance of Himself. It was through the preaching of Ambrose that Augustine learned passages like that were never meant to be literal, and it was only after Augustine realized that, that he was able to believe in them.
@@taylorbarrett384 You are better than me. I wouldn't have even responded to that, since they either seem to not care to truly read what you write or to want find anything they can use as a gotcha.
I want to thank you Taylor for responding to my question, it shows that you don't think there are any stupid questions. I am not an educated person and most of what is said here goes over my head....BUT I want to learn and that's why I watch these videos, with a commentary in one hand and google in the other😅.
Like others here, I am in the process of coming out of Catholicism thanks, in part, to your videos. I felt shackled and in a continual state of anxiety, but now I am beginning to experience the freedom of Christ.
Just finished the video. Excellent exposition Dr. Ortland, thanks so much for making this. I feel much more prepared for dialogues with Romanists after watching this.
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund. Your work is important for people from all traditions. This channel has definitely helped me in my search for Gospel assurance. It is so difficult to be grounded in the truth of God’s work through Christ and the cross, and your videos have encouraged me many times.
Thank you Gavin, I have recently discovered your channel and it has been a great joy to watch video after video! Thanks to your videos I have been able to more clearly define what I believe. My to read list has also grown exponentially. I am from the Netherlands (I am Dutch reformed) and just wanted to point out a typo: 28:57 in the footnote Marin dr Kroon should be dr Marijn de Kroon (as for the dutch pronunciation Marijn rhymes with pine, and Kroon rhymes with stone). Please keep up the good work, I am always happy to see Dutch figures appear in your video's. I did not know about Wessel Gansfort myself! This period in dutch history is really interesting, as it is at the end of the Devotio Moderna. I am always eager to see your videos, God bless you and your work!
Thank you for your work, Dr. Gavin! Even though the main focus of the video was Sola Scriptura (and it was great), Gansfort's quotes made me think of another common argument against protestantism. It's often said that we cannot find protestant ecclesiology in Ancient or Medieval Church history. But Gansfort seems like a really interesting place to begin with, due to his claims of Church unity and catholicity being fundamentally a unity of the faith and of the Head. It might be interesting to study and trace that line of thought and see if, as is the case with Sola Scriptura, it shows itself throughout Medieval and Early authors.
I’m an evangelical in a very low church setting. Growing up in my church, there was no context provided to any biblical interpretation. For instance, I didn’t know that there were even other protestant views regarding the ordinances. I knew Catholics believed something else and was taught that it was cuckoo-bananas-crazy. I never developed any personal faith and was a professing atheist for most of my adolescence and adulthood. After conversion as an adult, I became exposed to church history and the beliefs of other Christian denominations. I was almost paralyzed by anxiety. Could such disunity be possible if the Holy Spirit was real? Or maybe my anxiety and confusion was a sign that I was not actually regenerated? If I adopted different views, would I need to break fellowship with my church body? The fear and dread were crushing. Anyway, long wind up to say, your videos have been very helpful for me. They have helped provide assurance of salvation and confidence in Protestantism. As I delve deeper into some of these issues, I do find myself further from some of the beliefs of my fundamentalist upbringing, but not feeling out of step with my fundamentalist brothers and sisters.
You said: Could such disunity be possible if the Holy Spirit was real? I think the answer is "no". There are no denominations in the bible. Why? Because Christ established one church on Peter, the rock. Paul correcting Peter was called for…but it didn’t mean he needed to start his own denomination based on what doctrines he liked and didnt. He corrected Peter and therefore made the church stronger for it…but it still remained united. If you believe the bible is the inerrant word of God and that the holy spirit would never lead the Church into error, then why does each protestant church have different interpretations of the bible? Either God preserved his Church throughout history from errors that would corrupt its teachings, or he did not. If you believe he preserved his Church as he said he would...I would keep searching for that Church. God bless!
Gavin, I really appreciate the work you do on this channel and the way you do it so patient and peacefully. I hope you will get to do it for a long time🙏🏻
Although I think he is wrong about Evolution, I absolutely love Gavin! His authenticity is edifying! He emits a genuine love for sacred Scripture that is compelling and positively contagious. You can always see it oozing out of him.
Wow again an amazing video pastor Gavin! Thanks for proclaiming the truth and help others to remain faithful to the scriptures and the true gospel and cause many to leave Rome
We need to remember that heresy does not spring up without antecedent, but is rather an errant development of the prior tradition. The question is not whether there a traceable genealogy of a developing thought, but whether each subsequent development is to be approved or disapproved. Sola scriptura is clearly not found in Augustine, but Augustine’s statements can certainly be seen as an early seed that, little by little, grows into the sola scriptura branch. However, much like two branches that grow out of one, it is not exactly clear where the split occurs: before there is one; after there is two; and between, there is both one and two intermingled. In that intermingled region, there was always the possibility that the developing error would whither and die away, and the one would remain one. With that in mind, it is not at all clear from the presentation which quotes (or summaries) on the Church-Scripture relation are irreconcilable with the developed Roman teaching (at Trent, for instance), and which are reconcilable. Obviously, one can see how this tradition can develop into a clearer articulation of sola scriptura, but one can also see how this tradition can develop into the Tridentine teaching, and continue to develop up to the present day Roman teaching. Indeed, the Church could easily quote many of these authors to articulate what the Church has clearly taught on the relation of Church and Scripture, just as it quotes Augustine.
Gansfort actually doesn't sound Protestant at all. I'd honestly never heard of him before, so had a quick look at his life and ideas. He sounds perfectly Catholic to me. I know it's a common practice for Protestants to mine the Fathers and the later scholars and theologians to prop up as "proto-Protestants", but the reality is that people have opinions. Gansfort had opinions! Some of his ideas ranged beyond what we might consider Catholic doctrinal thought, others did not. Was Gansfort a reformer? I think he espoused some reforming ideas, such as protesting eucharistic superstitions and indulgences. These are the kinds of things Catholic reformers do! They protest things that they believe are going in a wrong direction within the Church. I don't think he went quite so far as a man like Francis of Assisi in reformation, but perhaps that wasn't his role in God's plan. I don't disrespect Gansfort any less because of this. Was Gansfort a Protestant? No. That much is clear. Catholics are actually allowed to think. It may shock some Protestants, but Catholics do actually brains and minds and know how to use them. Some Catholics do have ideas that could be characterised as "out there", and some of Gansfort's clearly are. For example, you said that he "denied purgatory". But I don't think you actually mentioned what he did believe, and that is there is some kind of process of purgation. So, yeah. Not exactly Protestant there. Clearly, Gansfort is not a Protestant, and not even a Proto-Protestant. So what can we learn from this? As I look at the lives and ideas of men like Gansfort and Deutz (11c theologian with some "out there" ideas and who influenced Gansfort), what I see is thoughtful people who are learned, generally very well formed in the faith, and who are bold thinkers. They meditate, they think, they learn, they write, they dispute; but they do not weaponise their learning as if turning their ideas into wedges for splitting the Church apart. If Gansfort held any Protestant ideas, he never sought to destroy the Church. He never sought to set himself up as an antipope at the head of his own church. He never sought to break away from the Church. In so far as Gansfort was a reformer, he was clearly a Catholic reformer: he reformed from within. The object lesson here is that Catholics reform the Church from within. Going all the way back to the first reformer, St. Paul, who reformed St. Peter's faulty practices, we do it from within the Church. When the first Protestants (Luther mainly) sought to reform, he made a clear choice. Luther was a Catholic priest! He could very easily have chosen to follow after Paul of Tarsus and Francis of Assisi and Catherine of Siena. But he chose differently. He chose to break away from the Church. He chose the way of defiance and will over obedience. His way leads to chaos, not reform. Back to Gansfort: if you'd like to set a Catholic theologian and scholar up as a "proto-Protestant", you might also consider his example and become a Catholic while doing so! The secondary lesson here is that the depth and breadth of Catholic thought is often underestimated not just by Protestants, but by Catholics as well. I think where Catholics get it right is that we don't therefore equate everything that a Church Father or a later theologian or even a saint says as gospel! Where I think Protestants get it wrong --- and I am aware that Dr Ortlund is very sensitive about accusations of "quote mining" ---- is that they will actually go back into those works, pick out ideas and set them up as gospel. See! Jerome says this! See! Athanasius says that! See! Gansfort says the other! I reckon the main difference between the Catholic Church and the "Protestant Church", then, is that we don't found our doctrines on random cobblestones chucked into a heap. Sure, Jerome said this and Athanasius said that and thousands of other theologians have espoused myriads of other ideas. But the Fathers and the Doctors and the Theologians are NOT the Church. Their role is NOT to determine doctrine. What they say is NOT dogma. By these three statements, I am saying that men like Jerome and Ignatius were not given the task of "writing down all the things they want to cram into the Church's Book of Dogma". Their words are part of our Tradition and many of them do espouse doctrinal ideas, and we use them as resources, but ultimately, Catholic doctrine is fundamentally Bible believing and fundamentally Apostolic faith, both of which have Christ as the fountain and the focus. If Gansfort considered Sola Scriptura as a theory, that's fine! Catholics are allowed intellectual freedom. But he doesn't speak for the Church, and the Church knows that Christ did not teach sola scriptura in the Bible and did not impart sola scriptura to the Apostles as a matter of faith.
As a Roman Catholic, all I can say most of the quotes are absolutely compatible with catholicism and are acceptable. I affirm most of them. I do believe revelation is above the church. None of the quotes however say "Scripture is the only INFALLIBLE rule". So I am schocked you think a catholic will be schocked. Absolutely not. When you say Scripture is the ultimate rule, I affirm it. But when you say Scipture is the ONLY INFALLIBLE rule, I reject that, since you changed the definition. So most of these don't even give a precedence for sola scriptura prior the reformation.
The point is that the bible only not and tradition. Tradition is not truth. Plus the catholics belive that salvation comes only if you belong to the catholic church. Romans specifically talks about it.
Wessel Gansfort - going into this video, the Star Trek fan in me wants to point out if his quotes are used for any so-called bombshell claims that we will have found the nuclear Wessels. 4:25 - There was a Pope called Sixtus the IV? That's not at all confusing. Thank you for unpacking the Augustine passage from the reply to Faustus vis a vis "would not believe the Gospel if not for the authority of the Church". That passage always perplexed me when taken at face value, especially given the common story around how Augustine was converted. Your elaboration is a much clearer reading. Very nice video! That opening is a hook if I've ever seen one.
Fantastic video! I recently learned about a movement around the time of Augustine that was fairly protestant in belief. A number of theologians in that time opposed the perpetual virginity of Mary and spoke out against the way the church was elevating virginity at the expense of marriage. Jovinian is one of the lead examples of that period.
Mary's perpetual virginity was a doctrine held to by both Luther and Calvin, so I wouldn't really call that an essential Protestant doctrine, though many Protestants later came to believe it (or not believe it, rather). Also, Jovinian was claiming that Mary lost her virginity during childbirth due to the physics of giving birth, not that she had relations with Joseph post-Christ.
Too bad he was a heretic and denial of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos is heresy and blasphemy. She is the new Ark of the Covenant. Stop trying to find the historical church in historical heretics and heresies. It's futile.
@@mattroorda2871 Calvin says it was a matter of curiosity and was a waste of time to debate since the verses in question could go either way, even if he did believe it.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy if Moses were to read your comment, he would either laugh his butt off of his non-existent graveyard or would strike the rock in anger all over again due to the sheer absurdity of "MaRy iS tHe ArK oF tHe CoVeNaNt!!!"
Gavin; when are you going to write a book in which you put all of the historical continuity of the Reformers with pre-reformation Christianity into one compendium? You just need to get transcripts for a bunch of your videos and edit them together. I got one would love to buy it. I loved reading “Theological Retrieval”. God bless you and all of your family.
Hey Gavin, thank you for the time and research you take to publish works like this, I had a wonderful time learning about this information for the first time from you. I have 2 questions: 1. Where can I find the resources that you quoted throughout the video? I want to research things like this more to discover the widespread understanding of the solas independent of the Reformation thinkers, but I never know where to look 2. Can you make a follow-up video speaking of the patristics who believed in sola scriptura like you did in this video? I think it's great to hear that people in the patristics believed Scripture to be the only infallible rule, however I need quotes and references so I can have a more concrete conviction of the concept
You said you want your videos to give as Gospel assurance, and that's exactly what they do. It may have taken years but the Papacy came in pretty early on, and there's been this niggling worry that maybe I'm just not reading Scripture correctly and Christ established the office in Matthew 16 and other passages, and the implications of me having these worries but remaining Protestant would mean my decision is not based on ignorance, making me liable for my refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff . It's comforting finding out some Christians (faithful Catholics) saw the Papacy as a human institution so late on Edit: Haha, just got to 23:50 where you spoke about the anxiety this can cause. I'm not in the same boat as I was never part of an 'Apostolic' Church but I'd say this can cause anxiety even to people like me
Google "William Webster Matthew 16 Christian Truth" Should be the first link that pops up. You will see a TON of Church Fathers did not interpret Matthew 16 in the way Rome does. He documents: Augustine, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Aphraates, Apostolical Constitutions, Asterius, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Basil of Seleucia, Bede, Cassiodorus, Cassian (John), Chrysostom(John), Chrysologus (Peter), Cyprian, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius, Ephrem Syrus, Eusebius, Firmicus Maternus, Firmilian, Fulgentius, Gaudentius of Brescia, Gregory the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Ignatius, Isidore of Pelusium, Isidore of Seville, James of Nisbis, Jerome, John of Damascus, Maximus of Turin, Nilus of Ancyra, Origen, Pacian, Palladius of Helenopolis, Paschasius Radbertus, Paul of Emessa, Paul Orosius, Paulinus of Nola, Prosper of Aquitaine, Tertullian, Theodoret, Comments of 6th Century Palestinian and Syriac Clergy from a Letter to Emperor Justin, Comments of Chrysostom, Cyril or Origen falsely attributed to Victor of Antioch.
Google "William Webster Matthew 16" and "William Webster Matthew 16 Christian Truth" In both searches it should be the top link. He documents how a TON of Church Fathers disagreed with Rome's interpretation.
Search "William Webster Matthew 16" and "William Webster Matthew 16 Christian Truth" In both searches it should be the top link. He documents how a TON of Church Fathers disagreed with Rome's interpretation.
Search William Webster Matthew 16 and William Webster Matthew 16 Christian Truth In both places it should be the top source. He documents how a ton of Church Fathers disagreed with Rome's interpretation.
@@thespyer2k According to Catholics, all church fathers agree w/ all their teachings, and only their teachings, all the time. All fathers are Catholic, the bible is theirs as well and basically we have nothing, because it's even their book. And of course, we can't interpret "their book" w/out them to tell us what it all means. So, no guidance of the Holy Spirit, because they own the Holy Spirit too. You see, the Holy Spirit only guides their church, but not us.
Lots of love from Ethiopia Gavin. Really appreciate your works and thank God for what he's doing through you. Would you consider doing a video on the recent Horn/White debate on sola scriptura? I think there were some great perspectives raised in it but were kind of overlooked. God bless.
You are both: an outstanding historical theologian AND an outstanding communicator! Besides, being the quintessential gentleman! Thank you for all you do!
Awesome episode! Would love more on Proto-Protestants who were able to maintain good standing with Rome. It would be cool to also understand and contemporary engagement with their thoughts or later engagements with their thoughts. Currently working on a personal exposition of the 1689 and when I get to chapter 26 (The Church), I’m hoping to draft some engagement with Vatican 2. May integrate some of your research :)
"Sola scriptura" doesn't mean "ignore everything else," but it does mean that the only infallible authority is God, so His Word is what I go to first and trust most, so I reject the papists as they now claim infallible authority in their popes/pontifs/councils/dogmas, though they contradict and develop over the centuries
The problem is that sola scriptura is a logical impossibility because 100% of the time it is a human being, or group of them, interpreting scripture to decide what is and isnt true, is and isnt permissible. So it still comes down to whose word are you going to take for it when two well meaning groups read the same thing and come up with a different answer.
@@dougmasters4561this. Both groups will continue to claim the authority for their interpretation comes from Scripture. There is no reconciling agent to determine who has the correct interpretation.
@Smitty419 yup And while that in and of itself isnt an argument for either side being right or wrong on an issue, it is part of what shows that sola scriptura is pretty much impossible
I have several Roman Catholic friends. Some are very cagey and antagonistic and often attack Protestants for our beliefs stating that we are outside the Church and we must repent and return. I’ve noticed that in their debates they often shape the contours and textures of discourse to purely a Roman Catholic context. That is, all historical works of the church cannot be viewed on its own and the only accepted interpretation is that of the Catholic Church. It’s a straw man argument. Thank you for this video as it affirms my suspicions that much of Catholic Dogma on Sola Scripture is just one giant straw man. If Gansfort and other Medievals existed prior to the Reformation and their works later destroyed post-Trent then it shows that the Magisterium wasn’t interested in doctrine but power.
I was trying not to scream when I heard that! Like is Christ not the head of the church? Do we just get to let the pope usurp the place of Christ in Eph 1?
@@mrjustadude1 Of course. But any revelation I get from Jesus I test by the Bible. Not because I think that Jesus is fallible but because I think anything besides Jesus is fallible.
Your work has really been helping me to clear the decks and fact check some of the "evidences" of ancient church communities who profess absolute exclusivity .....thank you.
Love it. Off topic, you probably have mentioned this but at some point, I would really love to hear your opinion about the Incident at Anthioc together with Paul's and Barnabas' split and make-up, and if those examples can be a parallelity with Church history's present schisms. I notice the short splits in the NT usually between law/consequence and grace as they kind of are now.
Great stuff. Have you done a video on Irenaeus's Book III of Against Heresies regarding Sola Scriptura? I would find that video highly interesting! Also, Irenaeus's argument is, as far as I read it, highly sophisticated and so could use exposition from someone like you.
While im no calvinist i believe In sola scriptura within the context in witch it was written Historical and geographical. This channel is a blessing showing the depth of history Other protestants need this in their tool kit
Jesus NEEDED his Mother in order for Him to be born into this world, but that does not mean that she was equal to Him. An analogy for your point at 34:57. God bless!!
I like most of this but speaking as an Arminian, you can hardly say Packer was a centrist, he was a committed Calvinist and my belief is that he consistently misrepresented the Wesleyan / Arminian position. But that is a side issue, thanks for taking the time to dig into this material and giving us access to it
man cannot rely upon any institution of man. We will universally cause some error. Scripture is the only foundation that can be the guiding light to all of the Church eternal.
In the science of literature, it has long been known that reading a text is just as much about who you are as a reader as it is about the text itself. There are as many ways to read the Scriptures and to develop your theology as there are people on this planet. It is only because we have a Church and a Magisterium that we can know which understandings are authoritative and guided by the Holy Spirit. Sinful man is an expert at twisting the Scriptures.
