As a Lutheran moving into Catholicism, when a Protestant says "the church" it doesn't mean the same thing that Catholics mean. Protestants had to redefine the meaning of the church from Calvin forward in order to separate itself from Rome. I remember reading the Nicene Creed in the Lutheran Church and the phrase "holy Catholic church" is changed to "holy Christian church." Two things that are different are not the same.
Scott Oakland the word catholic was first used by ignatius of Antioch who knows if even before. It means universal. Anyway i chuckle when people say catholics are not christians.
Funny. I think Rome and the east has redefined what "ecclesia" means. Rome especially uses the word in dialogue primarily to refer to an institution, even though its direct translation would be "assembly" and I think the word's used differently in the bible
Lets not discount St Augustine's view of Scripture was before Bible Canonization. St Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo who help[ed decide what books went into the Bible. Placing Sola Scripture as a belief by St Augustine is putting the cart before the wagon. Its a historical impossibility that he believed in Sola Scriptura.
Just how many churches do you think there were back then? Was there a separate entity known as the Catholic church, and were there competing Baptist or other churches? I don't think so.
Another point that should be noted is that st. Augustine says that he wouldn't believe the scriptures if not for the authority of the church, which is unrelated to his position that the scriptures alone are infallible. Also, Augustine had access to the scriptures even before there was an infallible declaration of the bible's contents.
That depends on if Nicea had a canon. As some said as such, like that one early council and Jerome’s introduction to Ruth or something like that. Sorry I can’t give specifics from top of my head, Christiaan Kappes gave lectures on the councils and briefly mentioned this
Oh my word, why do people keep prooftexting this statement from Augustine’s Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus? Gavin literally did a 21 minute in-depth response to those who prooftext this passage from Augustine
@@andrewhronich8543 although that exact quote can be interpreted in a Protestant lens, many of the fundamental doctrines Augustine holds cannot be. They all align to be vastly more Catholic, especially when taken in context of his book of Retractions. We can see this even with his doctrines that are sometimes understood to be far more Protestant, such as his view in predestination, since he believes grace can be withdrawn after it is given and received, and how the gift of perseverance works in union with sacramental sanctifying grace.
@@slocole1005 I’m not B.B. Warfield claiming Augustine as the fountainhead of Romanism and Protestantism. (He believed unbaptized infants were damned and a lot of other diabolical nonsense, so I would happily concede my communion don’t see eye to eye with him on a great many things, though his genius is undoubted on many other matters.) All I’m saying that simple prooftexting gets us nowhere (like when Christian apologists cite Sura 19:28 in the Quran as evidence that the author was a moron, even though Luke 1:5-6’s usage of “daughter” is similar to Sura 19:28’s usage of “sister.” Oftentimes, prooftexting only reveals that one hasn’t done the heavy lifting. (Like when fundamentalists prooftext Matthew 23:9).
Read "On Grace and Free Choice of the Will"... St Augustine is pretty clear on where he stands. Definitely Catholic and erroneously misquoted by many a Protestants
Saint augustine was a papist look at his work. Also he believed in purgatory in his work on the city of god. Also praying to the saints. He believed in the real presence of the Eucharist etc. His work on nature and grace he talks about Mary’s entireless sinlessness.
@@mjramirez6008 Not sure if you know this, but “papist” is a pejorative term and should not be used to describe a Catholic, much less a Saint and Doctor of the Church.
“The custom … may be supposed to have it’s origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the WHOLE CHURCH, and therefore are fairly held to have been ENJOINED BY THE APOSTLES, which are not mentioned in their writings” -St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius. Doesn’t sound like a Baptist to me.
Gavin has said repeatedly that sola scriptura does not mean we reject every unwritten tradition that claims to be apostolic, just that we don’t assign infallibility to them in case it comes to light that it is wasn’t originally from the apostles. This is a good rule cause it lets us reject those doctrines which claimed to be apostolic but have later been proven to be accretions.
@@TheRoark Gavin said in the SS debate that no unwritten tradition is on the level of scripture and thus cannot be binding on that level. He explicitly argued the issue was not just man-made or corrupt tradition or even traditions that aren't contrary to scripture, but all unwritten tradition. If it was apostolic, it would've been inscripturated.
Here's augustine on infant baptism. I don't see how this sounds like a sola scriptura protestant at all. In fact I think it shows he believed in a rudimentary infallibility doctrine. "But the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings." "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"
The notion that Augustine supports a kind of Sola Scriptura is only an empty pressupossition of some protestants that have a serious complex about the poor historic pedigri of their modern doctrines and innovations. Mr Ortlund is only been coherent with this known practice. A textbook wishfull thinking. Augustine not even remotely supports the protestant Sola Scriptura and those cites that Ortlund uses to allegedly support his position has been debunked several times. Augustine is completely catholic in matters of Scriptures, Tradition and Magisterium.
Hi Timbo! How've you been? I'll concede that Augustine does not sound like a modern Protestant. That said, many a Protestant would still follow this basic reasoning on Baptism using Sola Scriptura. The command to Baptize is in Scripture. Since Baptism is salvific, it needs Scripture as a source. The customs around Baptism, however, are secondary to the imperative "do this", and while Scripture may be inferred to set precedent one way about them (full immersion vs affusion, affirming adult vs infant or a child without understanding), there is no specific Scriptural command we can see either way. Thus, it is appropriate to consider the customs of the church handed down to us to deal with the details. If you're saying that looking at such custom or tradition at all is in tension with Sola Scriptura by definition, that's not quite correct - that would be in tension with Nuda Scriptura, which is closer to the common caricature of Sola Scriptura than to the proper definition as asserted by Dr. Ortlund. While some of Augustine's works very much seem to affirm Sola Scriptura, his overall tone suggests more of a Prima Scriptura approach, at least to my intuition. I need to do more reading on him. Yes, I'm aware that this sounds a lot like more quibbling over definitions, but to a degree, we really can't escape that. Be nice if we could get the Bishop of Hippo himself as a guest on this show. With a translator. And several weeks' acclimation to modern culture, because boy would THAT be culture shock.
@ottovonbaden6353 wouldn't that be nice? Even if we had a time machine and a translator I think we'd probably not be 100% satisfied. I think the only way we're going to settle it is by finding quotes that sound like he believed or didnt believe in proto/rudimentary version of the modern understanding of infallibility of the church as well as infallible scripture. It's nice to know people are putting so much thought into this. I imagine he would see where the church expanded and clarified its doctrines and traditions I can see him accepting some and arguing against others. The issue most catholics are taking with sola scriptura is its hard to debate without a clear definition. I say sola scriptura doesn't work because private interpretation is dangerous. Then someone will tell me that's not sola scriptura. That I'm trying to expand the definition. I'm just trying to understand how you can trust a fallible authority to get right doctrines of salvation. If the church is a minor authority but makes a critical judgement on scripture that could jeopardize you or your kids souls, I can't think of anything more dangerous. Gavin conceded the debate and his position fell apart when he said interpretation of scripture is above scripture. In that sense way each individual Christian is the authority not scripture. Protestants like to think that scripture is so clear you don't need any interpretation but it's not or we wouldn't have more than a few denominations.
@@timboslice980 "wouldn't that be nice? Even if we had a time machine and a translator I think we'd probably not be 100% satisfied. I think the only way we're going to settle it is by finding quotes that sound like he believed or didnt believe in proto/rudimentary version of the modern understanding of infallibility of the church as well as infallible scripture. It's nice to know people are putting so much thought into this. I imagine he would see where the church expanded and clarified its doctrines and traditions I can see him accepting some and arguing against others." Agreed. And even if we cannot conclude anything definitively, the thought exercise is intriguing. "The issue most catholics are taking with sola scriptura is its hard to debate without a clear definition. I say sola scriptura doesn't work because private interpretation is dangerous. Then someone will tell me that's not sola scriptura. That I'm trying to expand the definition. I'm just trying to understand how you can trust a fallible authority to get right doctrines of salvation." I think a lot of Protestants feel the same way when engaging with the idea of infallibility. We'll look at phrases like "consensus of the fathers" and then at times when the fathers seemed like they were in consensus on something heretical (Arius before that got dealt with), "ex cathedra statements" and then look at all the quibbling over what may or not be technically classified as ex cathedra (I think officially the count of ex cathedra statements is only at 2?), and much as you describe the difficulty in nailing down Sola Scriptura, we feel similarly about infallibility. Reminds of the late Antonin Scalia on what consituted something obscene: "I don't know how to define it, but I'll know it when I see it." That's one reason I enjoy Dr. Ortlund's approach to this debate so much - at the very beginning, he clearly laid out Sola Scriptura both as being affirmed by him and as classically described. "If the church is a minor authority but makes a critical judgement on scripture that could jeopardize you or your kids souls, I can't think of anything more dangerous." It is a scary thought. Question - how do you think the notion of invincible ignorance - or maybe it's subjective culpability - would interact with a Protestant led astray on a critical doctrine? Would there be an easy answer, or would it vary case by case? "Gavin conceded the debate and his position fell apart when he said interpretation of scripture is above scripture. In that sense way each individual Christian is the authority not scripture. Protestants like to think that scripture is so clear you don't need any interpretation but it's not or we wouldn't have more than a few denominations." Well, kind of. In a sense of every individual Christian being an authority, partially true. We each have to make the decision, on our own authority, as to whether we believe that Christ is Lord, and so believing, whether we will accept Him as such. The casting down of crowns before Him implies we have a crown to cast. This is the same whether you are Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or non-denom. Once that is done, then it is a matter of understanding what He wants of us and submitting to it as well. We lack an infallible magisterium, but we don't lack teachers or clergy. We have millions of devoted faithful who dedicate their lives to learning the ins and outs of Scripture, and we submit ourselves to their understandings. As to some who say "No, my understanding alone is right", well, that's not only a Protestant problem. Look at the Sedevacantists, for example. A note on the Perspicuity of Scripture - we don't think Scripture is clear as a bell. We think _parts_ of it are. Children in Catechism can follow along with the Gospel narratives and understand the basics of the mystery of faith: Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again. They can understand the stories of Genesis and Exodus, and the time of Judges through the Kings of Israel. Wherever the Bible says "These are things that happened in the past," it's simple enough to grasp on a surface level, and that includes being brought to salvation. As they grow in maturity and aptitude, they may engage more with the teachings of the Epistles and the significance of the prophets. They'll begin to see how the OT foreshadowed the things in the NT on their own, instead of having them pointed out in textbook fashion. If they spend lots of time in study, they might get into the more difficult concepts of interpretation of unclear prophecies, or grapple with the agony of Job and the weltschmerz of Ecclesiastes. There's the symbolism of Song of Solomon, and the surprisingly powerful insights from the long lineages in Numbers, or description of the Tabernacle and the Temple in Ezekiel. Why so much division, then? A combination of factors, I think. First, Protestants feel freer to discuss the less central issues of the faith because we don't have as rigid a structure in place about it all. How do we understand what really happens in the Lord's Supper, or Baptism? What is the best way to go about ministering forgiveness, with private confession and absolution, or public? Or both? What liturgy is most edifying? What is too decadent? You know - the line items of how we go about worshipping God. Second, and I hate to say it, Pride. It's easy to get sucked into a kind of tribalism with particular denominations or congregations. On the one hand, high-church Protestantism can claim a more worshipful feel to it, and a richer history going back to the Reformation and even before, as we still recognize the Holy Spirit at work in the Catholic Church then and today. Low-church denominations, on the other, can claim pride at shaking off the excesses of their neighbors and embracing a simpler way, more accessible to all, as Christ made Himself accessible to all. Third, ambiguity. Going back to the Perspicuity of Scripture, we all agree that Christ is Lord. That is so clearly attested in Scripture and Tradition (I know, I used the "T" word) that any who reject this aren't Protestant, they're just not Christian. The ambiguity comes in the complex understandings of the mysteries. Frankly, I think we make too much of these differences. While I disagree with Baptists that the Eucharist is only a symbol, I laud them for still doing as Christ commanded: "Take and eat," and "Take, and drink ye all of it". Similarly, I think infant Baptism is valid, while they would wait for the Age of Accountability (technical term? unsure). But they still Baptize, as Jesus told us all to. Considering all our obedience to God will be imperfect anyway as we are not yet perfect, my hope is the Holy Spirit will work with what we have. "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with groanings too deep for words." Romans 8:26 Likewise, my hope is that the Spirit will work within us all with regard to interpretation. This seems conditional to me, with the condition of discernment being that we humble ourselves to accept even that which we wish were not so. It's difficult, and failing to be humble in this manner can happen to anyone, not just Protestants.
@ottovonbaden6353 Yep when I think of the disunity within the catholic church it boils down to traditionalists that can take it too far. My RCIA sponsor openly condemns pope francis at meetings but bows his head when we pray for our bishop and the pope at mass. Hes a taylor marshall guy and hes so upset with the current state of things. He wants to leave the church but knows theres nowhere to go to get the true catholic faith so hes stuck. I think he needs to change who he's listening to. Every generation has their progressives and their conservatives... one of the points of infallibility is that we trust that the spirit will not lead the church in a way that contradicts God's will for us at that time. The living magisterium continually reinterprets and clarifies its doctrines so that we don't get stuck in time like the eastern orthodox. Seems like the radtrads are losing faith that the spirit isnt guiding us anymore its very sad but its nothing the church actually teaches. Infallibility hinges on the spirit guiding us to make crucial decisions through history but men are fallible and when the decision being made wouldnt impact the church in a way that binds it to heresy, errors occur and probably more frequently than most of us like to admit. The Way infalibility works in real time is for instance the Vatican could lay out its dogmas definitively like Gavin was asking and if they did that infallibility would be necessary or somebody come along in 100 years and reverse any of them. In the case of a secondary issues or a reversal of smaller doctrines like celibacy for priests. Though a radical change, we all know there's scriptural support for both views. Peter had a wife and he was the first pope in our tradition. Jesus and Paul both strongly endorse the practice of celibacy and today's stats reflect it. One of the top selling subjects in protestant book stores is "pastors looking to balance family responsibilities with congregational responsibilities" I've been in multiple denominations where the pastor is divorced and remarried. It must be incredibly demanding so I can see why our church would require celibacy but in a sexualized country like the USA, it's very hard to find new priests. I wonder if one day they would reverse a doctrine like that. If this were made dogma it would pit scripture against scripture so it remains a doctrine not a dogma. I definitely agree with you that the catholic definition of infallibility is kind of hard to pin down. I would offer a simple way of looking at it rather than defining. Whenever the church is making any decision that would bind the faithful to heresy, the spirit intervenes and guides the church away from that kind of heresy in some form or another. It's kind of like our plot armor... according to Matthew 16 the gates of hell will never prevail against the church. The catholic church has stood since the beginning as have the orthodox. Some church documents predate scripture most protestants think the catholic church went off the rails at some point in history and the reformation is the attempt at restoring the true teachings of the church. The orthodox predate the reformation by 500 years and don't believe in infallibility. Yet they dont believe in sola scriptura... I think everything I hear from the EOs sound like a rudimentary infallibility was at least there in the belief that the spirit guided the church in closing the Canon and in the first 6 ecumenical councils.
No one was claiming Augustine was a protestant. The term wasn't known then, and they were killed back then. The only point is that Augustine believed in the scriptures first, as the only infallible source. And he further stated that all other sources, of bishops and councils were not fallible.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 "Augustine believed in the scriptures first, as the only infallible source" No where did St Augustine ever profess this. He does say the authors were free of error. _I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it_ (Letter to Jerome) He did say this against Faustus who claimed other later books had authority ... but this has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura: The excellence of the canonical authority of the Old and New Testaments is distinct from the books of later writers. This authority was confirmed in the times of the Apostles through the succession of bishops and the propagation of churches, as if it was settled in a heavenly manner in a kind of seat to which every believing and pious mind lives in obedience. (Against Faustus, 11.5) And he points here to scripturea... the PLAINER passages AND the authority of the Church. Sola Scriptura? No way. Let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things. But if both readings, or all of them (if there are more than two), give a meaning in harmony with the faith, it remains to consult the context, both what goes before and what comes after, to see which interpretation, out of many that offer themselves, it pronounces for and permits to be dovetailed into itself. (On Christian Doctrine, 3.2)
Augustine was an ordained Bishop of the Catholic Church. Just because Protestants have used his writings for their nonsensical arguments doesn't mean he was Protestant.
Protestants don't claim he was a Protestant. It's just a clickbait title. Gavin Ortlund named one of his videos "Did Augustine Affirm Sola Scriptura?", NOT "Was Augustine a Protestant?".
@@adamfiser7645 A clickbait title is bad enough. It's really a strawman. So Catholics come on and say, of course Augustine wasn't a protestant. That wasn't the point Gavin was making. Only that Augustine affirmed points of sola scriptura. There was no either or back then. I don't even know if we can say that Augustine was "a Catholic". He was a bishop of the Christian church. There were no such distinctions back then.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Interesting distinction you make late in your comment between “Catholic” and “Christian”. Are you saying that The term Catholic did not exist in the time of Augustine? In 107 AD, obviously pre-dating Augustine by over two hundred years, Saint Ignatius of Antioch wrote the following in Chapter 8 of his Letter to the Smyrnaeans: “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” It would stand to reason that Saint Augustine would have made the “distinction” that he was a Bishop of the Catholic Church.
@@RumorHazi What I mean is that there wasn't a distinction of, I'm Catholic, or I'm Christian, in the way that there is now. Referring to the Catholic church did start surprisingly early, but it just meant universal. It has somewhat of a different meaning now that there are many other Christian churches. If you can find a specific reference to Augustine saying it, then I'd stand corrected. He was said to be the most prolific church father in terms of writing, so if he made that distinction, there would be a quote for it. I don't mean it in the way that Catholics are not Christians. I don't think you took it that way either, but I just want to say that so there's no misunderstanding there.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 So… I am to assume you didn’t read my quote from Saint Ignatius in 107 AD? Or perhaps threw it off? Catholic LOOSELY means “universal”. It is more literally transcribed as, “ of the whole”.
This title is awful haha, neither person says Augustine was Protestant, Gavin is just saying that he affirmed sola scriptura. No matter what tradition you’re a part of you will disagree with pretty much every church father on some thing or another, so this shouldn’t be a big deal.
I was raised a Catholic, until…I actually seriously started to read the Bible. We can read in Scriptures that Lord Jesus commanded the Apostles to first preach the Gospel to the Jews, and after also to the Heathen or Gentiles (but never vise versa!). I found out in Scriptures who of the Apostles for the first time went to Rome .. and it wasn't Peter. In the Book of Acts it says in Chapter 28 the following: 16 "And when we came to Rome, the Centurion delivered the Prisoners to the Captain of the Guard: but Paul was allowed to live in a house, by himself, with a Roman Soldier that kept him. 17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the Chief of the there living Jews together: and when they came together, Paul said to them: "Men and Brethren, though I have committed nothing against our people, our customs, or against our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans 18 who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of guild in me. 19 But when the Jews spoke against that verdict, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had made any accusations against my Nation. 20 For this Hope (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) therefore I have called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because for the Hope of Israel I am bound with these chains. 21 The Chief of the Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning you, neither any of the Brethren that came from there shewed or spoke any harm of you. 22 But we desire to hear of you what you think: for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere". The Roman Catholic Church claims that it was Peter who went to Rome first to preach the Gospel there first and that it was Peter who founded the Church there. Question: who lies? God,... or the Roman Catholic Church ? And what about the Letter in the Bible from Paul to the Congregation of Galatians where it says this in Chapter 2? From verse 7 we read the following: 7 "But on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the Circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter; 8 for He that gave Peter power effectively to the Apostleship of the circumcision (again: the Jews), the Same was Mighty in me toward the Gentiles. 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the Grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we (that are Paul and Barnabas) should go unto the Heathen, and they unto the Circumcision. Again dear Catholics: who lies? Gods Word, or the Roman Catholic Church? Bible, the book of Acts, Chapter 5, verse 29 : Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey GOD - rather than man” !! Since the Roman Catholic 'church' claims to be well-read on scriptures, then please point me in the direction of where in the Bible it says to pray to a woman, or with a rosary (praying to May: "Hail Mary full of grace...), or to dead “saints.” Please show me where it says to call any mortal sinful man (the pope) your father. Please show me where the Bible says anything about purgatory, or paying indulgences (buying yourself into heaven - is God corrupt ?). Please show me where Mary was sinless. Why is it that Catholics worship Mary still as a virgin when Lord Jesus had half brothers and half sisters? Please show me where it says to confess your sins to a fellow sinful man so that he may forgive them? Show me the name pope in the Bible? Where does the Bible say the pope is the “vicar of Christ” on earth? Show me where it says that a preacher must be unmarried? It was the pagan ROMAN Emperor Constantine who was in fact the first “Pope” and he didn't allow for the common people to have Bible Scriptures...to keep believers ignorant, as the Catholic Church still does. Later pope’s started the ‘inquisition’ because the book printing machine was invented and people like William Tyndale could spread the Bible to the common people: he was burned to dead for that, and so were hundreds others who did the same and because they denounced the VALSE doctrines of Rome, and they were called heretics and witches by the Roman Catholic “church”- they were tortured, burned to dead - and murdered !!! GET OUT OF THIS FALSE CHURCH !!! The Roman Catholic “church” is a continuation of the old Roman PEAGAN Empire: it never went away as it disguised itself as a Christian Church. Read Revelation, Chapter 17: verse 7 and 8…please read, dear brothers and sisters.
Why do you use a Catholic book? You have decapitated it from the faith from which it came. Show me where in scripture, scripture lists which writings belong in the table of contents. Then show me where scripture lists the criteria for what is scripture.
I do Not believe that Augustin was neither clear nor honest: he was pelagian against manichees, catholic against donatist, manichee against pelagians, Calvinist against demo-pelagians... You can choose whatever you want from him, all incoherent and all Said in the Heat of Disputes.
Gavin needs to invite St Augustine to his Church to preach. That he was protestant, is as Sola Scriptura is: a man-made invention. That he was a protestant, is too, a imagination of the mind. *On The Authority of the Church (sola scriptura? no way!)* _“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, _*_AND FROM THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH,_*_ and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.” On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397)._ “The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, *supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.”* Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5 (c. A.D. 400). *On the Eucharist:* _“‘And was carried in His Own Hands:’ how ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.'” On the Psalms, 33:1, 10 (A.D. 392-418)_ *On Baptism (the Sacrament of Regeneration)* _“But the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration: Wherefore, as the man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again. From which the conclusion arises, that no one who has not been born could possibly have been born again in his father. Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. And so much does Christ show us in this very passage; for when asked, How could such things be? He reminded His questioner of what Moses did when he lifted up the serpent. Inasmuch, then, as infants are by the sacrament of baptism conformed to the death of Christ, it must be admitted that they are also freed from the serpent’s poisonous bite, unless we wilfully wander from the rule of the Christian faith. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own actual life, but in him on whom the wound was primarily inflicted.”,On Forgiveness of sin and baptism, __43:27__ (A.D. 412)._ *On Baptism (how one is Born Again scripturally)* _“One generation and another generation; the generation by which we are made the faithful, and are born again by baptism; the generation by which we shall rise again from the dead, and shall live with the Angels for ever.” Augustine, Psalms,135:11 (A.D. 433)._ *On Infant Baptism* _“It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another’s will when that infant is brought to Baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn…’Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was in one Adam.” To Boniface, Epistle 98:2 (A.D. 408)_
The Baptist Pastor is utterly wrong here: has he ever Read Augustine? One May say that Saint Augustine was wrong in some things, but no one can Deny that he tried to find the foundations of his opinions Not only in Scripture but particularly in conformity with Church practice and Tradition. His doctrine of predestination May be a novelty and a heresy, YES, but PLEASE Read the last chapters of De dono perseversntiae, or the whole book: he does Not rely his exégesis in an absolute Sense, he cites Cyprian, Ambrose, Nacianzenus and the liturgical practice of the Church specially, al in favor of his opinions.
A good answer from Gavin, while the Roman Catholic rather seemed to me attempting damage control. I.e. "even if he might have shared a similar view on scripture, the church fathers are not an infallible authority but can also err. Also this Calvinist agreed that the ecclesiology of Augustine was Roman". So church fathers obviously aren't an infallible source equal to scripture according to this guy. Good that he admitted that
I’m not a RC but I think that’s a straw man of the RC position. They would never claim the fathers are infallible, and especially not an individual father of the Church. Their work may be part of the Magisterium but that does not mean everything he wrote is infallible.
@@paulmiller8362 I don't know if you had any discussions on various topics with RCs, but they will use the church fathers as authorities. And if you reject something they say they then accuse you of rejecting a higher authority. And sure, they actually only ascribe infallibility to the ominous entity called "the magisterium". But honestly I'm yet to encounter a Roman catholic who can point to an infallible source of authority that all of them agree on that it's infallible, i.e. truly pointout, whatthis "magisterium" is. As far as I know there's disagreement on which papal statement was infallible. And even books like catechism, books produced by the church to teach the laity on what their faith is, can err. You might see what I said as a strawman, but I'm telling you, some RCs use them in discussions as if they were part of the magisterium. So if this guy admits that the guys can err, they're not an infallible source, meaning that "Tertullian said X" can be dismissed, because it's an appeal to authority without the "he said 'B' and here's why he said it"
@@GermanFreakvb21 I’m Catholic and I can say that yes we believe consensus’s of Fathers can be authoritative, for God wouldn’t let his church err in whole. However, we do not propose that any church father singularly, nor even in like trios can be infallible at all.
@@GermanFreakvb21 I don't think there's an option for the Church Christ founded other than the Catholic Church or the Orthodox, and the Orthodox has too many obvious problems.
@@GermanFreakvb21 Church Fathers are a part of the Magisterium, the Magisterium is not bound to the Church Fathers however. There's a difference between someone's private teaching vs what the Church is bound to teach. The reason why we Catholics like to quote the Church Fathers so often isn't that they themselves are infallible, but rather because they represent the orthodoxy of what the Magisterium taught in the early Church. It's something that we can go back on and see what the early Christians were taught and likely what the Apostles and their students taught. A criticism I see from some Protestants is that the Catholic Church is nothing like the early Church, and while some aspects of that may be true, generally, the Church Fathers more often are in line with what the Catholic Church teaches. Just a minor tidbit, Tertullian was not a Church Father, he was a very strong apologist in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but he ultimately became espoused in heresy toward the end of his life. That, however, does not discredit the truth in his works.
You heard what he said. You don’t have scripture without the church. Therefore you have to trust the Catholic Church since there was no other church preserving scripture
The problem of saying church fathers were actually protestant is they will take an idea before the dogma was established that's near a protestant idea say that makes them protestant. It takes ideas they have and saying "that's like what they believe so they would be for dividing the church." It's like trying to sneak a train into a doorway
Very true. IMHO, it is intellectually dishonest to cherry-pick and borrow concepts from those who were clearly Catholic and then claim "Augustine believed in SS." If Augustine was such, where is his outcry against the Catholic Church for its upholding of Tradition? These arguments simply don't work.
@@aninjathtpwndu I just mean that, flipping that logic- you can't say they hold to the Roman church's dogmas when they hadn't been established yet. So in that sense, they aren't part of the "Modern" roman church either. The fathers are there, and It's best to read them for what they are and not fit them too much into our modern context, I think Christians of every tradition would benefit with some familiarity with the fathers!
@@CausingLewis the difference is there is nothing anywhere near as apt as dividing the church. The church fathers and especially Augustine were no strangers to dissenters and repudiated every notion of such groups. That there is one holy apostolic church as of the Nicene Creed is the dogma they knew and kept to. Dissenters and divided churches werent new but keeping to the church was something they chose to ally themselves to. There is no such thing as a distinct modern catholic church it has always remained the same church set up by Christ and the same one Augustine knew and defended the authority of. Aligning with something like separating the church is an action Augustine was fundamentally against, trying to unite him with your beliefs is laughable. There is no flipped logic when the Nicene Creed exists. If it was equally flipped as you say what catholic belief would be anywhere as substantial to someone like Augustine like denying the NIcean Creed?
This is why Gavin is the worst protestant. Not one in search of truth, he's one against all odds. He knows exactly how wrong he is and how he leads others into error. That's why he's so sensitive to being called out: he knows he's a liar
Well, he sure wasn't Roman Catholic, as he did not believe in the papacy/primacy of Peter. Just like several other Early Church Fathers. Here I will simply quote them and I can't help but agree with the Church Fathers: Augustine from 'Retractationes 20.1' (toward the end of his life): "Peter after this called rock (Petros), represents the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock (Petra), and has received the'keys of the kingdom of heaven' for 'Thou art Peter (Petros) and not 'Thou are the Rock (Petra)' was said to him. But the Rock (Petra) was Christ, confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter (Petros)..." "THE ROCK WAS CHRIST" from Retractationes 20.1 Jerome: "The Rock is Christ" Origin: "All Christians are the rock... insofar as they confess faith in Christ like Peter." John Chrysostom: "... 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church', that is, on the faith of his confession." Basil of Seluecia: "Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter'..." Ambrose: "... Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it...'" Cyprian: "The remaining Apostles were also necessarily that which Peter was, endorsed with an equal partnership both in honor and in power." On the Unity of the Church 4 And here John Chrysostom speaking of the John the Apostle: "... Son of Thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven... " From Gavin Ortlund's: "Was There a Bishop of Rome in the First Century? Protestant Critique" @ min. 3:40. i.e. there never was any "overwhelming consensus" regarding the so called "papacy" amongst the Church Fathers. All to the contrary.
From the RC Catechism: "Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church." Oh noes, RCism debunked itself! The rock is not considered just one thing or in just one sense in RCism.
Rolando, Jerome writes a letter 'Letter 15' to Pope Damasus, in 377 AD, he says the chair of Saint Peter is in Rome and says the chair of Saint Peter is the rock on which the church was built by Christ.
@Chris Tuttle, CPA rolando is clueless. Saint Augustine was a papist and so where most fo the early church fathers who knew that Christ left a vicar on earth. It all started with the council of Jerusalem and forth on. Also st ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter to the Church of Rome which he said holds the primacy. The problem with the Protestants is they think that we treat the pope as god lol. 🤡. He’s the servant here on earth of Christ. Notice when the apostles started arguing about whose the greatest Jesus said the leader shall be a servant and next thing you know in the next line he says Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat but i have prayed that your own faith may no fail and once you have turned back , you must strengthen your brothers. Protestants cherry pick Bible scriptures and don’t look at the context. Also isaiah 22 is another thing to look at. One baptism one faith. Rolando go read a poem that st Augustine wrote psalm against the donatists he said come,brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine; we grieve to see you lie thus cut off from it. Number your bishops from the very chair of saint peter, and in that list of fathers trace the succession. This is the rock which against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail. The pope is the prime minister of Christ on earth . You Protestants each one of you is a pope and have thousand of denominations. Matthew 12:25
@ Rolando Velasquez you just contradicted yourself lol. Christ left a vicar on earth. Look what I posted. All of the early church fathers believe he Jesus left a vicar on earth to guide his church. All you have to do is look at the history when all the councils where called against against the heresies that tried to destroy the catholic church early. Protestantism Everyone is their own pope which leads to division. Thousands of denominations etc
