How Do We KNOW the New Testament Canon?

[@TruthUnites]

as always, let's focus on arguments and not personal attacks in the comments--thanks for engaging everyone!

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

Thank you, Gavin. It seems that there's no neutrality anymore in that channel.

[@JeremyJohanson]

First, history doesn't require inspiration, the Gospels and the Acts have authority because they are records of eyewitnesses regardless of whether the writer was the actual eyewitness. The chain of custody is established in the early church Fathers. The books of doctrine claim inspiration and are cited by the earliest church Fathers as inspired and authoritative, like Hebrews, James, Revelation, and Second Peter, but The Shepherd of Hermas is not. The reading of the Shepherd of Hermas in churches doesn't give it authority but attests to it's value for discussion among the illiterate like 1 Enoch. The "writer" of Hebrews was later disputed but this doesn't mean Paul was not accepted as the "author" nothing prevents the amanuensis from using their own style given approval by the author. This above criteria was used for the OT canon not simply from Rabbinic authority.

[@jenniferboht961]

Pastor is Pastoring!😊😊. Thank you for reminding us!

[@ghostlyyt9167]

Hey Gavin, great vid, quick question: it’s not a question of whether Christianity is historically stronger than other religions I would affirm that, it’s about the day to day reality. Everyday we wake up and pray, sometimes we think God answers. The SAME situation happens in other religions, where they will wake up, pray for something to happen, and it does, and they believe it to be a gift from God. I just can’t practically get over that bump, that the experience of trusting and receiving from God or a diety is more or less universal: if it is a subjective and untrue feeling for them, how can we trust that our feelings of God or His providence are true, even if He exists? Bc apparently whether or not a religion is true does not change the experience one has, only whether they believe it to be true or not.

[@Yugi601]

Amen

[@TestifyApologetics]

I infallibly approve this message. 👌 Spot on.

[@Toda_Ciencia]

You here.

[@haydentrent101]

Now infallibly show us how your interpretation is the correct one, out of thousands of Protestant interpretations. How can people keep falling for this theological relativism?

[@jayv3264]

@@haydentrent101show yours is infallible, and all its points are.

[@ElvisI97]

@@haydentrent101 how about you demonstrate how your church actually has ecclesial infallibility instead of assuming so

[@hmhmhm]

Likely pride

[@seth_bortner]

You are incredibly respectful Gavin. It is so refreshing and life giving. Reading your book, I’m both encouraged in my Protestant beliefs and also love my catholic friends all the more. Thank you brother

[@jenniferboht961]

@@seth_bortner his book is amazing

[@Yugi601]

Same. He did a great job

[@MikeWinger]

Great thoughts Gavin.

[@morghe321]

​@@ILoveAsukaCalvin isn't here any longer. 😅

[@HopeUnites]

@@morghe321?

[@johnbrion4565]

Did you watch Cameron’s video? This video didn’t even address his main points.

[@ZorbazShackleford]

"Great thoughts" despite being full of fallacies and reducing Gods omnipotence/omniscience to a joke?

[@ryaniscoloring]

@@ZorbazShacklefordlol what

[@swedishmastah]

Hey Gavin I adore your work! You’ve really strengthened my faith over the last 2 years. I’m getting baptized in 2025

[@jenniferboht961]

Sounds like you are starting 2025 in the most wonderful way

[@JosefFurg1611]

Hope you adore it with “dulia”, and not with “latria”

[@jenniferboht961]

@@JosefFurg1611 stop trolling

[@jenniferboht961]

@@JosefFurg1611 stop trolling…go talk to dead people

[@jenniferboht961]

@ we have no plans of dulia. We worship God alone! Have a great 2025!

[@VictoryOlaleye]

Well done Gavin 🔥🔥🔥

[@karhukoira]

If early church consensus is sufficient for believing in the current understanding of the NT canon, then shouldn't it also be sufficient for believing in apostolic succession and the real presence in the eucharist?

[@jgons]

Reformed Presbyterians do believe in real presence. We just don’t believe it turns into literal cannibalism.

[@DavidTextle]

1000 years ago, people would say the same about unbaptized babies going to hell, the death penalty. Things that the church now rejects. Being of God does not necessitate that everything you proclaim will be spot on.

[@TheHumbleGrumble1987]

@@DavidTextle that’s why we need an authority outside common opinion. This authority exists and it never firmly proclaimed either where babies go or anything unmalleable about the death penalty. Commonly held opinions can be wrong or incomplete (sola scriptura is one example of this).

[@wonderingpilgrim]

This is a really good question. I don't know if Gavin will answer this, but I do know he has other videos on these specific topics.

[@Joshlifts02]

@@TheHumbleGrumble1987 how is sola scriptura incomplete or wrong? Humans are fallible but God is not, and by proxy neither are His commands and words. Even the apostles made mistakes, Paul writes about them, as do Peter and James. Sola scriptura doesn’t need more added to it. Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 back this up.

[@SonofJohn-w8j]

I believe Gavin is really brilliant. But, I have an objection. If you believe that God guided the church to preserve and define the canon of scripture, then isn't appropriate to believe that God also preserved the interpretation of the Scriptures through the church? (Since, it doesn't seem reasonable that God would preserve the correct scriptures, but not the correct interpretation of the scriptures.)

[@SilverlightLantern]

God does that through various people (and groups) led by His Spirit, e.g. Augustine, Calvin, etc. :)

[@josephgreen6013]

​@SilverlightLantern, and what happens when Calvin and Augustine disagree? Or when Luther, Calvin, Zwingly, etc, condemn each other as heretics?

[@sammytalluri1019]

Bingo

[@DanOcchiogrosso-uj4be]

@@josephgreen6013Gavin demonstrated that the Catholic Church has the same problem. Who is tge Heretic, Pope Francis and his supporters or Bishop Strickland and his? Whose infallible list of doctrines are correct? Trent Horn or Friar Casey? At some point, you have to use your own personal judgment just as a Protestant does.

[@DanOcchiogrosso-uj4be]

You make a very logical point. However, your point doesn’t have to be true in order for God to use the institutional church to define the Scriptures (which seems to have been Cameron’s argument). “Infallible dogmas” like the bodily assumption of Mary, among others, cause us to say that your argument is logical, but not historical. Even if your argument is correct, then whose interpretation is infallible? The Papacy? The Orthodox Church? As soon as you answer the question, you have used your personal judgment based on the evidence to make that decision, just as Protestants do when they reject the Papacy. Thanks for reading!

[@andrewselbyphotography]

So, forgive me if I misunderstood this, but is your argument that you only accept the books that all major churches agree on? So you wouldn't accept 1 & 2 Macabees because the Lutheran church decided against including them in the canon. And you wouldn't accept 3 Maccabees because the Catholic church doesn't include it as canon. Does that mean it's an argument of the lowest common denominator? That's not a positive argument for anything. The Catholic Church has a process for deciding Canon, the Orthodox church has a process for deciding canon. Your "process" is just taking the books that everyone agrees. We want your argument why you exclude Maccabees from your canon. What is your argument against the books you are excluding?

[@RightCross22]

Don’t hold your breath. Protestants can’t answer that question because they have no way to defend a definitive closed canon. They literally removed 7 books from the Bible and can’t give you a good reason why

[@taylorbarrett384]

It's one piece of evidence, just like "the unanimous consensus of the fathers" is one piece of evidence. Ie, the mere fact everyone agrees about something doesn't necessarily prove it, but it does provide some credibility to it.

[@andrewselbyphotography]

@@taylorbarrett384 Sure, but the original question is how do you justify your canon, and what Gavin gave was not an answer to that question.

[@Matthew-gl2kf]

​​@@andrewselbyphotography And his point is that very question itself is always going to be a fallible process - even if the answer is that you're fallibly picking ONE of the several allegedly infallible churches that create various decrees which people fallibly place into lists of infallible teachings. So his short video isn't about defending the protestant method, it's about pointing out any method will ALWAYS be fallible, even though we can have strong confidence in it.

[@treydean7997]

@@andrewselbyphotography yeah I think you’re missing what Gavin is getting at. He mentioned that the process of canonization happened slowly as the church worked through the new writings from the NT authors, etc. and eventually the Church came to a collective decision “from the bottom up” on the 27 books we have today. This is NOT the “Protestant” way of canonization or the “Catholic” way, or the “Orthodox” method of canonization…it’s the Church’s method. It’s how it happened for everyone. You, me, ortho’s, everyone. It was a fallible process and it wasn’t affirmed by an infallible process for the early church up through the 1500’s, as Gavin pointed out. Gavin also pointed out that some on the orthodox side still don’t have an infallible process that affirms the canon. My question is-if it’s so important that the Church have an infallible process to give the church the correct canon, then why didn’t she do it for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

[@josiahalexander5697]

One of my biggest issues with sola scriptura is a very practical one. How do we interpret the text? What is Christianity objectively? It’s really struck me that so many churches, universities, and seminaries have become completely secularized. In the case of Protestantism, I think this is mostly due to the context in which scripture is put. We approach it like it is the sum of the faith of the apostles, when, frankly, no one in the early Church believed that. In fact, the idea is completely novel and there’s plenty of quotes from Fathers who noticed that people were quick to appeal directly to scripture when they wanted to develop their own doctrines. I’ve also found it odd how Protestantism accepts scripture and is even willing to accept doctrines like the Trinity and the hypostasic union all the while ignoring the elephant in the room. That being, the ones who articulated those doctrines had beliefs that are completely incompatible with Protestantism. It’s obvious that whatever Christianity we have did not grow in a vacuum. The same can be said of scripture. It isn’t that I’m making an argument for any particular church, it’s just that the Church is an obvious necessity upon which scripture is predicated.

[@ottovonbaden6353]

A Sola Scriptura based framework acknowledges the necessity of the Church in the lives of believers. It even acknowledges that some form of hierarchy is necessary purely for the sake of orderliness. In the same way that a constitution is paramount for a state, but still needs a body to act out the purpose of that constitution, so it is with Scripture and the Church in Sola Scriptura. As to the early church holding beliefs incompatible with Protestantism, I disagree. Some of the early church held to particular tenets within the faith that some within Protestantism disagree. That is not synonymous with the early church being incompatible with the idea of Protestantism. We do not honestly know how the early church would react to the developments within Medieval and Renaissance Europe up to and including the Reformation. The surviving writings we have from them don't give enough information for us to decide. People like Augustine and Chrysostom seem, on paper, to be stalwart supporters of the Roman Pontiff - but would that support continue if they were faced with the words of Nicaea II, the Great Schism, Pope Boniface VIII, Martin Luther, the Council of Trent, Vaticans I and II, even up through Fiducia Supplicans? We just don't know. Would they, seeing the faults within the Roman system, go East? Also don't know. Interpretation is a big deal. It's a problem faced by every denomination. Whether one accepts the kind of surrogate intellect offered by the assent of mind and will that the Magisterium offers, draws deeply from the Tradition and consensus (sometimes in heavy quotation marks) of the Fathers esteemed by the East, or tackles the problems like individual theologians and reformers, we all face the question of "What is our faith?" I don't think we are capable of knowing it objectively in this life, but it's nonetheless a task we have to undertake.

[@josiahalexander5697]

@ All you have to do is read those various fathers who in very clear terms say that the heterodox take it upon themselves to interpret scripture according to their own design. In numerous places, the fathers are clear that the Church is a visible body united in the apostolic witness and handed down from one to another. They have a fundamentally different ecclesiology which is incompatible with sola scriptura. Off the top of my head, read Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Basil, Epiphanius, and Vincent of Lerins. Even Augustine is very clearly about the conditions of what constitutes the Church, he, after all, was a bishop.

[@ottovonbaden6353]

@@josiahalexander5697 "All you have to do is read those various fathers who in very clear terms say that the heterodox take it upon themselves to interpret scripture according to their own design." The critical element of this sentence is "of their own design". Intepretation with a motive to authorize sin in defiance of revelation is not authentic interpretation. Protestants affirming Sola Scriptura would agree. "In numerous places, the fathers are clear that the Church is a visible body united in the apostolic witness and handed down from one to another." The fathers also note the distinction between the Church visible (those showing up to worship) and the Church invisible (those inwardly regenerate). Their stance on affirming the necessity of orderliness and participation in the Church visible does not preclude them affirming the possibility of separated institutions still containing the inwardly regenerate. Again - we don't know what all of them would make of the Great Schism. "They have a fundamentally different ecclesiology which is incompatible with sola scriptura." If one holds to a kind of Material Sufficiency of Scripture view (which does have support among the Fathers), then Sola Scriptura would effectively state that Scripture is the first source of infallible teaching, and that Tradition can supply additional infallible teaching so long as it is subordinate to Scripture. The role of the episcopate is simply to enact the teaching of Scripture, not to alter it. The fathers seem pretty okay with this model. Perhaps you mean Nuda Scriptura - the idea that teaching may only come from that which is explicitly in the Scriptures. That idea would certainly be incompatible with the Fathers' ecclesiology. "Off the top of my head, read Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Basil, Epiphanius, and Vincent of Lerins. Even Augustine is very clearly about the conditions of what constitutes the Church, he, after all, was a bishop." Looking through some of Clement of Rome's epistulary work, he uses Scripture almost every other sentence in his teaching. In the very place he describes the appointment of bishops and deacons by the Apostles, he cites the Scripture foretelling of just this. I don't believe Clement would see the Sola Scriptura in tension with the ecclesiology. He even encourages those whom he addresses to read the Scriptures carefully and describes them as the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Ignatius, commonly pointed to as a pinnacle of support for the RC ecclesiology, has an interesting tidbit writing to the Magnesians: "Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual." Note "and to one another". This simply echoes the calls to unity, love, and serving one another that our Lord gave in the Incarnation. Nothing incompatible with Sola Scriptura here. For Irenaeus: "Now, what simple-minded man, I ask, would not be led away by such verses as these to think that Homer actually framed them so with reference to the subject indicated? But he who is acquainted with the Homeric writings will recognise the verses indeed, but not the subject to which they are applied, as knowing that some of them were spoken of Ulysses, others of Hercules himself, others still of Priam, and others again of Menelaus and Agamemnon. But if he takes them and restores each of them to its proper position, he at once destroys the narrative in question. In like manner he also who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognise the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them. For, though he will acknowledge the gems, he will certainly not receive the fox instead of the likeness of the king. But when he has restored every one of the expressions quoted to its proper position, and has fitted it to the body of the truth, he will lay bare, and prove to be without any foundation, the figment of these heretics." -Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 9 Here, Irenaeus excoriates the heretics who misappropriate Scripture after giving an example of how Homer could be misappropriated. Irenaeus's solution? That those who have been Baptized and dwell in their Baptism recognize the misappropriation by familiarity with the original. He does not say "Avoid them and listen to the Church" - he says "Know the Scriptures, and you will know how to refute the heretics." Again - entirely in line with Sola Scriptura. Eusebius, too, when writing about the Council of Nicaea, informs his recipient that regarding the creed, he and others made special inquiry, not merely rubber stamping the proposed usage of the term for one essence, but scrutinizing it according to Scripture. He also lauded the anathematism that proscribed use of words "not in Scripture", saying it was from the extra-Scriptural words that confusion had come. This is very much a bishop embodying what could be considered Sola Scriptura. I would look further at Basil, Epiphanius, Vincent, and Augustine, but time escapes me.

[@omarvazquez3355]

Gavin, thank you so much. I was a traditional roman Catholic. Went to only latin mass in it sspx. I never in a million years thought I'd be a protestant. Im a close friend of Robert Sungenis and John Salza. I used to not like you but you've challenged me and I've become a Christian Protestant Presbyterian. ❤

[@platospaghetti]

Wow amazing! Praise God 🙏😃

[@lucashadd7703]

That's some great news!

[@midwestcatholic6845]

Such a tragedy. You’ve been lured by the piper.

[@joeoleary9010]

@@midwestcatholic6845 According to good Catholics, SSPX membership is also a tragedy.

[@gto2111]

I read that comment before. Are you the same person who 'copy-pasted' something similar, or are you a different person?

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

I think the biggest problem with this defense actually is the special pleading it does with God's preservation of His Word. If God can guide His Church torwards the truth when it comes to the canon He can also guide it when it comes to doctrines and dogmas. In fact your point about the development of the canon is a good defense of the development of doctrine.

[@whatsinaname691]

Someone couldn’t make it 2/3rds the way through a 10 minute video

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

@@whatsinaname691 I saw his response, it is lacking and can (at most) only refute one Marian dogma. His take gets *very* close to him just arguing for the development of doctrine wich would mean any accusation of innovation from our part becomes much harder to defend.

[@JoeSwanson-d5y]

@@whatsinaname691 I see you absolutely everywhere lol.

[@whatsinaname691]

@ Maybe I need to spend less time commenting then ha ha

[@ctt59]

Very speed Dr. Gavin! Thanks for addressing this question and paying attention to Cameron.

[@dinkledork4421]

Gavin, the notion that the Church merely “organically” arrived at the New Testament canon through a bottom-up, fallible process overlooks the decisive role of ecclesial authority from the outset. Even the so-called “local” fourth-century councils (Rome (AD 382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397, 419)) were synods convened by bishops in unity with the successor of Peter and recognized throughout the Latin Church, and their canonical determinations were never later rescinded or altered. This enduring consistency, extending to the dogmatic ratification at Trent, demonstrates that the Church was not guessing or “making it up” belatedly; rather, she was authoritatively discerning the deposit she had received. Likewise, pointing to the Old Testament’s reception under the old covenant does not negate the fact that Christ established his Church with a unique charism of truth: she possesses more than just the informal consensus ancient Israel had. The old covenant community did not enjoy the unique authority Christ conferred on His Church. Catholics do not reduce the canon to a merely human, “good enough” consensus. Instead, the Church’s charism of truth underwrites the reliability of her judgments, including on the canon. This means the canon is not just “trustworthy” in a broad sense; it is definitively knowable because the Church, endowed with Christ’s promise of the Spirit, can speak infallibly on precisely such questions. That some Eastern Orthodox bodies have not formally settled their own canon does not invalidate the definitive settlement in the Catholic Church. As for the concern that a “fallible process” can still yield trustworthy results, it misidentifies the Catholic claim: the Church’s infallibility pertains not to each historical stage of private theological opinion but to her solemn, definitive judgments. The Church’s recognition of the canon stands on the same authoritative foundation as her other dogmatic teachings and cannot be dismissed as merely “organic” or “fallible.”

[@foodforthought8308]

Great comment!

[@davidmcpike8359]

"the Church’s charism of truth underwrites the reliability of her judgments" -- but that's so restrictive! I suspect guys like Ortlund really just prefer to feel free to trust in their own judgments, even though they're clearly possibly wrong (i.e., fallible). "The truth will set you free." "Thanks, Jesus, but I'm already free (to be me)!" "Let him listen to the church -- if not let him be anathema." "I do listen to the church -- the church of me!"

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

Rome it's not clear if it even did that (there's reason to think the Gelasian decree is a forgery). The other two are only north african. Regardless, all three would only be local councils, not binding upon the whole church, and so not infallible, per your own system.

[@ElvisI97]

@@dinkledork4421 the church has the charism to infallibly blah blah blah. None of these are arguments for why Rome got the canon right. You're just assuming your end and running with it. If anything it undermines the authority of councils when a long tradition of significant church fathers are in opposition to it. If in the end of the day your argument comes down to its just a matter of faith in the magisterium, then one must be equally humble about their spiritual epistemic “certainty”.

[@dinkledork4421]

@@BernardinusDeMoor Even if one questions the authenticity of the Gelasian Decree, the broader historical record makes clear that the same canon promulgated in 4th-century synods was accepted throughout the Latin Church and never repudiated by any higher authority, an acceptance effectively ratified by subsequent papal endorsements and, ultimately, by the Council of Trent. While those may have been “local” councils, in the Catholic system a council’s local character does not automatically nullify its authority when its decrees are embraced by the universal Church or confirmed by the Bishop of Rome. In this case, no universal council or pope ever reversed the canon laid down at these councils. Instead, later definitive judgments (like Trent) simply reaffirmed what had already been established. So, even setting aside the Gelasian Decree, the unbroken consistency in the canon’s reception across centuries (without contradiction from any ecumenical council or papal directive) demonstrates that the Church was exercising her binding authority on precisely this matter.

[@jameskeys971]

Time is always well spent watching Truth Unites!

[@jenniferboht961]

@@jameskeys971 truth!

[@Pat.hibuleire]

What à joke this quote miner

[@jenniferboht961]

@ nobody has an any idea what you are talking about! Did you go to hard at midnight?

[@Pat.hibuleire]

@@jenniferboht961 keep protesting pal you re the best who opened the door of hell on the church Good job

[@SentinelArchivist]

Really appreciate your work, Gavin. I consider this (and your other videos and comments on the "canon problem") to be immensely and fully satisfying proposals on the matter. This is no problem for Protestants (like me)! As a Protestant pastor in the ECC denomination, I have benefited immensely from your work--both published and video-based. Thanks for bringing us all an example of clear-minded scholarship, solid judgment, and relevant expertise on church history from a Protestant perspective. Be encouraged!

[@notavailable4891]

1. The Jewish people may have preserved canon writings, but they didn't have an infallible or even singular canon. 2. Jesus is infallible, so anything He does concerning the canon is almost by definition extraordinary. 3. I still think the problem of a fallible canon is not symmetric between the apostolic churches and protestants. The apostolic churches have an authority outside of scripture. In fact I don't think it even makes sense to say that writings have an authority on their own, but nonetheless the writings and the gospel were contained in tradition liturgy etc. For low church protestants at least, the Bible just stands on its own with the authority of the person preaching it so now it being fallible could be a concern. I'd wager this is a problem for the high church denoms too but harder to see. 4. It is true that any infusion of infallible information into our world immediately becomes fallible in human hands. To me the difference here between fallible canon and fallible dogma lists is one of the center. In protestantism the center simply cannot hold, even in principle. Despite that scripture was handed down infallibly 2000ish years ago, there is no center to hold to because it has to be interpreted on a personal basis. The apostolic churches at least in theory have a central unifying principle that just isn't comparable. This to me is a fatal flaw in protestantism or non apostolic churches might be more accurate. Catholicism, orthodoxy, etc may be wrong but I don't see how protestantism per se can be right.

[@clivejungle6999]

Well then when can we expect an infallibly interpreted Bible from Rome or Istanbul? Do the Romans publish a handy infallible compendium of every magisterial teaching? In theory, you are right that the system should be easier, but in practice it is an utter confusing (And very human) mess.

[@ZorbazShackleford]

@@clivejungle6999 Both Rome and the East have infallible dogma, which is what protestants lack , because they have a fallible starting point (list of scriptures).

[@dinkledork4421]

@@clivejungle6999 Although Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not compress every interpretation into a single volume, they are anything but a “mess.” Both Churches preserve an unchanging deposit of faith through a living, authoritative Magisterium that clarifies doctrine as needed, ensuring unity on essentials. The Catechism, conciliar decrees, and official documents provide definite guidance on central points of faith, forming a coherent framework that undergirds all theological discussion. These resources, taken together, already offer a coherent framework, even if they are not condensed into a one-page cheat sheet. Far from yielding confusion, this structure allows for legitimate exploration within well-defined doctrinal boundaries, guaranteeing the heart of the faith remains safeguarded. In this way, the Church’s Spirit-guided authority obviates the fragmentation that inevitably results from purely individual interpretive models.

[@clivejungle6999]

@@dinkledork4421 ‘Official documents’? That would include millions of pages. No Roman alive has ever read such a broad survey of magisterial teachings. And why cant an infallible Church produce an infallible interpretation of Scripture? Why doesn’t it just go through every verse and state infallibly in a handy single volume what they all mean?

[@jotink1]

What is unavoidable is everything ultimately comes down to the individual who is an interpreter. Non Protestant traditions do not have a real centre as you suggest because non Protestant groups like Catholics or EO have different canons. Protestantism is not individulistic against non Protestant who claim not to be. Non Protestants groups are filled with individuals who align themselves to a particular group with particular doctrines. The same goes for Protestants we as individuals align ourselves to a group who hold particular doctrines,. The difference is in the freedom of the individual within a group which I believe Protestantism gives a genuine freedom that the others don't. I think this is the key difference and your interpretation of describing a centre to me is actually about freedom which only Protestantism truly provides.

[@Ethan-of9hs]

It’s very interesting that Gavin skips over the issue of differing canons with much debate for the Old Testament both in 1st century (between Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Greek vs Hebrew) and in early patristic Old Testament canons which are much more similar to the Roman and Orthodox view than the Protestant view. It just seems like a double standard to hold that we can trust the early church with the New Testament but not with Old Testament and that that had to be fixed in the 1500s. This strikes me as a much larger aberration than any of the Marian doctrines from the early church.

[@Allotedline]

He did mention that he made another and more exhaustive video. Your criticism may be addressed there.

[@nathanpeereboom761]

If I recall, Cameron's video was specifically addressing the New Testament. In regards to protestants "not trusting the early church for the OT canon", the problem is that their was never any consensus in the early church on the OT canon. Some, like St Augustine, had a larger OT, while others, like St Athanasius, used the same canon protestants use. There wasn't any consensus in the church on this issue until the protestant reformation (for protestants) and the Council of Trent (for Roman Catholics).

[@tayalollipop2317]

Nathan, this seems to go against what Gavin said in this video. Basically that everyone knew what the scriptures (OT) were because Jesus held people accountable to them.

[@sneakysnake2330]

I think that’s because it seems that it wasn’t exactly unanimous among Jews at the time contrary to what Gavin says

[@improvementestimate7458]

Can you please proof there was dabate in regards to the apocrypha by the 1st century? The books of the OT were laid at the temple 200 years before Christ. Where are you getting your information?

[@emorylevinetheology]

I’m currently going through Michael Kruger’s book on this! So helpful to think through the issue!

[@truthnotlies]

His book was fraught with major issues, unfortunately.

[@improvementestimate7458]

@@truthnotlieswhere is your book dork. Michael K is solid

[@zalmoxis3707]

@@truthnotliesfacts!

[@truthnotlies]

@@zalmoxis3707 For one, he says the Catholic Church's stance is "Sola Ecclesia." That's a glaring misrepresentation of what they believe. I am shocked that a scholarly work would include such a falsehood. If you're going to argue against something,, that's fine, but you first need to explain accurately what you're arguing against. That's just the tip of the iceberg though, with that book.

[@hookoffthejab1]

​@@truthnotlies is it not true that the Catholic Church has attributed the power to discern what is and what isn't canonical to its own authority? Also what other issues did you have with the book? I just finished it about a month ago so it's still relatively fresh in my mind

[@apocryphanow]

Does anyone else feel like this still doesn’t answer the question? How do we know which books are scripture?

[@JohnMaximovich-r8x]

You're not wrong!

[@The335plyr]

It’s because no Protestant can answer this question. It was my entry into orthodoxy. Studying the formation of the cannon.

[@Bozicze77]

The same way ancient Israel and Jesus knew which books are scripture. They received the old testament scripture without any infallible operations, just like the new testament scripture was received without any infallible operations. And yes this also meant that there were disagreements between the jews regarding the old testament canon. That's one of the reason they had many different fractions. Both in the old and new testament the canonization process was an organic and gradual process. And in both cases the jews and the church came to a virtually universal agreement about the canon. That doesn't mean everyone accepted it, but the result of the canonization was a widespread consensus.

[@The335plyr]

@ this still doesn’t answer the question of how you know epistemically you have the right list of books. If it’s not an infallible operation it’s subject to be changed which is the heart of the issue. So you admit your canon was not infallibly defined and could be wrong. Saying the way ancient Israel or Jesus knew is a fallacy. Did Jesus list out all of the books which are inspired? Which puts you back at step 1. How do you know epistemically you have the right list of books? There is no such thing as saying “ancient Israel” or “the Jews” because they all have different cannons and their cannon isn’t closed like ours is (Christianity)

[@Bozicze77]

@@The335plyr I don't know, I just trust that God guided the process of canonization. But as Gavin said in the video, the fallible reception of the canon is something that all christians have to wrestle with, not only protestants. For roman catholics the canon was not infallibly defined until the late middle age. And orthodoxy doesn't help in this matter either as in the eastern traditions there are not any earlier infallible councils determining the canon that are agreed upon. The people of God received scripture through fallible means in the case of both the old testament and new testament, but this does not mean the canon is not trustworthy.

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

Happy new year to all, God bless!

[@Leonugent2012]

So you’re saying the church determined the canon of scripture and it wasn’t determined by scripture alone?

[@joecardone4887]

@@HearGodsWordno it makes a lot of sense since Protestants are trusting man and tradition to decide what book of the Bible are truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and which aren’t. If you didn’t have the church who knows what writings people would follow.

[@mwdiers]

Yes. All Protestants believe this. That's not the claim of the Roman church, however. They insist there was some sort of infallible decree. There was not. For example, there was disagreement on the status of the Apocrypha all throughout the Western church, until Trent, when they decreed the cannon with an anathema. All other councils which mention a canon were local, and thus fallible. Further, no council before Trent actually decreed a canon. Florence did not decree a canon, but only cited a canon to which those present already agreed. The council of Rome (also not infallible) is often cited in this connection, but has other problems. We have no proceedings from it. We have two versions of what is variously called the Gelasian or Damsine decree only one of which mentions the council. The latter includes a quote from Augustine, and thus cannot be from either Damasus or from the council. The other claims to be by Gelasius, who was not even the Bishop of Rome at the time of the council. Further, Jerome, who mentions the council in passing, does not appear to be aware of any such decree from said council. He does not even mention any decisions of the council.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@joecardone4887 ironically, it's the Roman Catholics who are the ones trusting in men and tradition. That's why the Reformation was needed

[@Stanzan52]

The church *discerned* the canon of scripture. The church fallibly recognized the infallible books of scripture. Totally consistent with Sola Scriptura

[@haydentrent101]

@@Stanzan52if it was fallibly declared, the canon isn’t fixed. It’s open for more review. Tomorrow John could be considered gnostic and there’s nothing sola scriptura could do about it

[@mkroberts71]

Leaving aside all of the “fallible” and “infallibe” arguments, the fact that the canon was curated over time within the church is what matters. The scripures are the story of and the book of the church, (old and new testaments) an intregal part of the whole tapestry of holy tradition. The context of and interpretation of the scriptures is within the church, which has the promise that God will preserve it. The scriptures are tradition. The archaeological appproach of trying to determine what exactly everyone believed at what time is frought with problems, and is in fact impossible, being that we rely soley on documents and artifacts (and our interpretation of them). The church was not and cannot be derived from scripture. The scripture is a part of the church. The real issue is where is the church? Jesus did not leave us a book. He founded the church at pentecost, a group of people in communion with each other. Archaeologists will forever be revising history based on evidence. Wouldn’t it be better to ask the church (that still exists)? Archaeologists can’t ask the people groups who were wiped out what they were doing. We dont have that problem. We can go to the living tradtion now and ask those people. Which tradition? Well, there are really ony a couple of options….

[@toddvoss52]

Agree with this comment. similar to mine

[@anamericanfriend2367]

We have the Bible that was written by people who knew Jesus or who knew people who actually were taught by Jesus.

[@CatholicCraig]

@@anamericanfriend2367 I would also add that we also have the writings of the church fathers who were directly taught by the apostles. Like st. Ignatius of Antioch. He was the direct disciple of John the apostle. He teaches the true presence in the Eucharist. So therefore catholic understanding is more accurate than Protestant.

[@TasteBudTreasures-hq2nw]

@@CatholicCraig doctrines of Rome with no bearing to the writing of the gospels are not authority.

[@CatholicCraig]

@ Which doctrine are you referring?

[@jonathanspeicher5298]

Great explanation! I think a major hurdle the Romans have is that they have an expectation of fiat from a single earthly source, while Protestants recognize that God has spoken to us in various times and in various ways. That is why an ecclesiology based on consensus rather than fiat earthly authority is essential to the faith. You will know them by their fruits!

[@foodforthought8308]

What do you think of the Great Reformer, St. Catherine of Sienna?

[@jonathanspeicher5298]

@foodforthought8308 being a "Reformer" implies a drive to restructure ecclesiology and reformulate sacramentology in light of evident abuse in the extant system (most specifically with regard to the sale of Papal Indulgences). Catherine of Siena does not seem to fit into this category; Wikipedia describes her as a "mystic". (Not saying anything against her, just trying to classify appropriately) Was there a specific point you were trying to make? 🤔

[@JohnAugustineCA]

"Romans" recognize multiple sources of authority.... including consensus of councils and of the fathers in harmony with scripture. The most consensus a Protestant can expect is congregation wide. This is especially true of non-denominational evangelical but even-so of confessional Protestants. They often had their own set of local tenets in direct contradiction to their denominational confessions.

[@jonathanspeicher5298]

@JohnAugustineCA you are referring to doctrinal unity for the Romans and operational unity for the Protestants. 👍 Only Christ is infallible and only Christ can bring unity to his Church.

[@josephgoemans6948]

@@jonathanspeicher5298 And given that the Church is the Body of Christ, why would you assume that it does not possess Christ's infallible character?

[@larghence]

I was looking forward to your response to this video immediately after watching. Been enjoying your content and now reading books on church history.

[@MalleusEcclesiae]

Gavin makes some good points, but there are major flaws in his argument that need to be addressed. First, he’s correct that God guided the Church in recognizing the canon-Catholics fully agree. He’s also right that the process of canonization was gradual, relying on criteria like apostolicity and orthodoxy. Additionally, it’s true that all major Christian groups today agree on the 27 books of the New Testament. However, his argument falters when he critiques the Church’s authority and consistency. Downplaying Church Authority: Gavin describes the canonization process as “bottom-up,” but that’s only part of the story. Councils like Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) formally declared the New Testament canon, exercising Church authority under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If the Church didn’t have this authority, how can we be sure these books-and not others-are inspired Scripture? Without an authoritative Church, the canon becomes a matter of subjective consensus rather than divinely guided discernment. Inconsistent Standards: Gavin trusts the Church to recognize the New Testament canon but rejects the same Church when it comes to doctrines like the Assumption of Mary. This is a clear double standard. The same councils that affirmed the New Testament canon also affirmed the deuterocanonical books, which Protestants later removed. If he accepts the Church’s authority in one case, why not the other? Misrepresenting Marian Doctrine: Gavin claims the Assumption of Mary appeared centuries later, but this is historically inaccurate. Early Christian traditions, such as the Dormition narratives and writings by figures like St. John Damascene, affirm this belief. The development of Marian doctrines is no different from the development of doctrines like the Trinity: a deeper understanding of divine revelation over time, not a later invention. Faulty Old Testament Comparison: He compares the reception of the Jewish Old Testament canon to the Christian recognition of the New Testament, but this analogy doesn’t hold up. The Jewish canon wasn’t settled in Jesus’ time (e.g., disagreements between Pharisees and Sadducees). Furthermore, early Christians relied on the Septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonical books Protestants later rejected. The processes are not equivalent. Fallibility vs. Infallibility: Gavin argues that fallible processes can still produce trustworthy outcomes, which is true in part. However, Catholics trust the canon because the Church was given divine authority to safeguard revelation (Matthew 16:18-19, 1 Timothy 3:15). Without that authority, how can we know the canon is trustworthy? His reliance on a fallible process fails to provide an objective standard. The Bigger Issue: Gavin’s argument is ultimately inconsistent. If the Church was wrong about Marian doctrines, how can we trust it was right about the canon? Accepting the Church’s discernment in one area while rejecting it in another requires a solid reason, which he doesn’t provide. Gavin’s approach to Catholicism is like a man carefully examining a stained glass window, appreciating its craftsmanship while insisting that the frame holding it together is unnecessary. He acknowledges the beauty and depth of Catholic theology but dismisses the foundational authority-apostolic succession and Tradition-that has preserved and illuminated these truths for centuries. His arguments attempt to separate Catholic doctrines from their historical and theological roots, treating them as isolated ideas rather than interconnected parts of a cohesive whole. This method gives the impression of thoughtful critique but ultimately overlooks the structural integrity of Catholic teaching, which rests on the union of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. Ironically, Ortlund relies heavily on the Church’s historical legacy to make his case-quoting the Church Fathers and appealing to early Christian practices-while rejecting the authority that safeguarded these truths and discerned their proper interpretation. In doing so, he unintentionally affirms the necessity of the very structure he seeks to deny, demonstrating that the Catholic Church’s foundations remain far sturdier than his critiques.

[@johnnymartinez7717]

Fr

[@bigjoegamer]

Thank you for this explanation/rebuttal; I was hoping for something like it in the comments, even more so now that I want to be Catholic 🙂God bless you, and Gavin, and the others watching the video and reading comments. 🙏

[@consecratedsoul]

Well said!

[@cider3608]

Did you use AI? That's a lot of write up for a short video i can tell ya

[@Ruben914]

Does this mean that I as a protestant (I don’t know if I can still call myself that) have to believe that God mistakenly defined the canon for 1500 years?

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

I'd like an answer to that

[@survivordave]

Absolutely not. Claiming something isn't infallible is not claiming it is incorrect. If I say 2+2=4, you don't have to believe I am infallible in order to believe that 2+2 does in fact equal 4, nor do you have to find any infallible declaration at all to believe it.

[@mrbungle2627]

In short, people don’t really care. They’ll either say, “yes, it was put together incorrectly, and God fixed it because men are imperfect.” Or they’ll just shrug their shoulders because it’s not New Testament canon.

[@collin501]

The deutero canonical books were sometimes seen as lower in status, but still to be used, just like an eminent church father might be used for edification, but at a lower status than the apostles Peter and Paul. Protestants look to church fathers, or reformers, for teaching. Catholics look to the deutero canon. Maybe there’s no problem with that as long as we interpret everything in light of the Lord Jesus’ words and his apostles. Since we even interpret the Old Testament in light of the new.

[@Knight-of-the-Immaculata]

Not just the canon. You need to add the mountain of theologies never taught by Christ and the Apostles and never believed by Christianity for the first over 1,500 years.

[@sambray9888]

Thanks Gavin. An infallible process is not satisfied by joining the Catholic Church - because as a fallible human being, you have to decide which church/tradition/denomination is correct and most biblical. I feel this is a point that is often overlooked in Catholic argumentation. No matter how you slice it - fallible human decision making is involved in your faith journey. Maybe that itself is the essence of faith - doing our best to prove/discern the will of God - but at the end of the day, trusting God to guide, help and love us despite our shortcomings in fully comprehending the truth of all matters.

[@davidlarson4647]

Thank you for this response.

[@Creations_one]

Thank you Dr. G… deeply grateful to the Lord for your meticulous studying and excellent teaching ❤

[@andrew33bird]

I've always found the Westminster Confession of Faith to be encouraging in these discussions. Though it does not address the exact question of "which books", I still think Chapter 1, Paragraph 5 is extremely relevant overall. "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."

[@RedeemedMusicanOfGod]

Happy New Year everyone!

[@Sundayschoolnetwork]

Excellent teaching. Thank you, and happy New Year!

[@ryanroach5637]

Happy you crossed over 100k subs! Great videos and content all the time.

[@ElvisI97]

If Christians can receive the Old Testament scriptures without feeling the need to adhere to all Jewish traditions-particularly the mainstream ones like those of the Pharisees, as opposed to outlier groups like the Essenes or Samaritans, who were not regarded as true Jews-then it logically follows that Protestants can also embrace the New Testament scriptures from the ancient and medieval church without being bound by all its traditions. It's important to recognize that preserving scripture is not the same as maintaining an office that also infallibly interprets scripture and tradition.

[@WeakestAvenger]

This seems reasonable, but I'm not sure that the parallel quite works because of the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. The people of God post-Pentecost is not in the same position as the people of God pre-Pentecost. Jesus promised his disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth, but I don't recall a similar promise being given to the people of God in the Old Testament. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[@truthnotlies]

Is your canon infallible then?

[@gregorywullaert8618]

It also ignores that the Jewish Canon wasn't finalized until after the Temple was destroyed and Jesus had announced that He would remove the Pharisees' authority.

[@ElvisI97]

@@WeakestAvenger The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, as stated in Romans 3:2. They were given the important privilege of receiving and passing down God's words to all people. Jesus assumed that the Jews could accurately recognize scripture when quoting it, indicating a shared understanding of the canon. Thus, they had a unique opportunity to preserve and transmit the scriptures. Protestants also believe that the church will be guided into all truth, meaning that the church is indefectible. In other words, the Holy Spirit will not allow the church universally to apostatize. Gavin Ortlund and many other Protestants have created videos (and written works) discussing this concept to illustrate that the guidance of the Holy Spirit here does not imply ecclesial infallibility.

[@ElvisI97]

@@WeakestAvenger The Jewish people were entrusted with the oracles of God, as mentioned in Romans 3:2. They had the privilege of receiving and preserving God’s words to share with all people. Jesus believed that the Jews could accurately recognize Scripture when he quoted it, indicating a shared understanding of the biblical canon. Therefore, they played a crucial role in preserving and transmitting the Old Testament scriptures. Protestants also hold the belief that the church will be guided in all truth, which means that the church is indefectible. This belief implies that the Holy Spirit will never lead the universal church into apostasy, making the church a reliable authority, though not infallible. Gavin Ortlund and many other Protestant thinkers have produced videos discussing this concept, clarifying that the Holy Spirit's guidance of the church does not equate to ecclesial infallibility.

[@HaggisOfDeath]

Great video, and a good way to show how Christian dialogue should be done, it puts Cameron's video to shame. At times I do think you're a bit too generous, but I can see how toeing that line of being humble, respectful, gracious, loving and charitable, while also putting across a concrete defense can be difficult. I'd say the one thing I personally would prefer, and feel free to ignore me as I am just one person, but I think it would be good if you had a 2 minute Protestant apologetics section along with the summary, where you argue why the Protestant position is in your view the best rather than just articulating what Protestants believe or why it is not a problem for Protestants, and where possible some questions for the other traditions to consider. God bless you Gavin and have a happy new year!

[@joshy1507]

Excellent breakdown, Gavin. Thank you 🔥

[@Westrwjr]

7:13 Well-conceived and perfectly stated rejoinder to Bertuzzi’s original conception of the issue of canonicity! @TruthUnites if you could just help us along one step further by actually adding LINKS to your previous KZbin videos, such as that shown here, to facilitate our acquisition of the sometimes requisite background information needed to fully process points you make. Thank you!

[@JohnVandivier]

Let’s go! Thanks brother Gavin. I commented on Cameron’s video that he should speak with you, but you were already on the case! ❤

[@Grandwigg]

I may have seen that one. I replied to one or two comments, but this said things much better than I. I'm very glad Gavin made this video.

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

Then why did Luther want to remove James and Jude if he was so trusting of the Church's decision on the canon?

[@atleelang4050]

He didn't remove them even though he wanted to, because he cared about the Canon

[@aaronraju8254]

@EmmaBerger-ov9ni Luther is one man. He’s not the Pope of Protestants or Lutherans. And he never removed any books. All Bibles until the 20th century had the aprocrypha/deuturocannon.

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

​@@aaronraju8254 He did remove books from the Old Testament though 🙄

[@seanoconnor5311]

@@EmmaBerger-ov9ni Lutheran Bibles still have the apocrypha. Go look at any Lutheran publishing house's bibles online.

[@jdotoz]

​@@atleelang4050 How could he even consider it?

[@ProphetGreg94]

Very great break down. Thank you, Gavin. 🙏🏽

[@laymanchristian1138]

Okay, yes, you have an answer but you have given very poor resolutions to all the problems that Cameron mentions in his video. You still have all those issues staring you in the face. Saying that other processes were done non-infallibly leaves you with the same problem staring you in the face. Sorry but not convincing Mr Ortlund.

[@roman727]

Ok it wasn't just me thinking this. Gavin's argument literally contradicts the protestant bible and affirms Tobit, Maccabees etc. because hey the Holy Spirit preserves things even through fallible people.

[@laymanchristian1138]

@ that's 100% right you can't Bible thump and say this is the infallible book by God this is all we need Bible alone etc.. but you cannot even trust the process in which it was handed down in. There is absolutely literally no reason to believe that it is infallible nor that those other books that didn't make it in the Canon are not also the inspired word of God and we are all missing out. Not to mention the issue you then have with how to interpret the books.

[@RuslanKD]

Fallible processes can still be trustworthy! Well said.

[@MrPeach1]

did he even make a case why it should be trust worthy? It seems like you now have to do the work of proving why it should be trusted at all. And if the case is weak I guess you need to go back and figure out if Shepard of Hermas really should have been left out.

[@Sxrainn]

I agree they can be trusted but they can't be infallibly trusted that is the big problem

[@ednaron1229]

@@MrPeach1no case was made lol at this point they are winging it 😂

[@Jonnytsunami823]

Thanks for the great video. Personally, I still don't understand why we should accept the early Church's recognition of the Canon and not other early doctrines. By what standard can we say that the Church got it right in this instance but not others?

[@kennylee6499]

Depends on what those other doctrines you’re talking about are. Gavin brings up the Assumption of Mary as an example of a poor comparison

[@improvementestimate7458]

Because when your authority is the scripture you reform all tradition to Scripture. Sola Scriptura.

[@laymanchristian1138]

You are 100% right, I am not here to bash the Protestant position. I was Protestant for a long time but still Gavin's argument don't answer the actual question at hand they go around in circles and still remain with the same problem. For some reason, Johnny you are able to see it but a lot of others don't and I'm not sure why.

[@ukaszkrawczyk6260]

​@@laymanchristian1138 If one of my ancestors had written a book several generations ago about the values that their family should follow, even if I had well-documented information about the author and to whom the book was originally passed, it wouldn’t automatically mean that successive generations would fully understand these values and apply them correctly. It also doesn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t have added values foreign to or contradictory to the original author’s intent in their practice. My contemporary understanding of this book could also differ from the original, as I live in different times, influenced by different social, cultural, and historical factors. Awareness of the text’s origin doesn’t automatically ensure its proper interpretation, nor does it guarantee that the interpretation of previous generations was correct. Understanding the text does not stem automatically from knowing where it came from. One simply does not follow from the other. That is why I am puzzled by the difficulty some Catholics have in separating these two matters. The formation of the canon did not result from a single meeting where something was decided forcefully. When we study the history of the formation of the canon, we don’t see it happening through the gatherings of church hierarchs. Rather, it was an organic process that took place throughout the entire Church. Achieving final consensus on the New Testament canon in itself provides sufficient reason to consider it reliable. In Athanasius' Letter, it is clear that the canon had already been recognized before any official local synods took place.

[@Bozicze77]

@@laymanchristian1138 Gavin answers this question from 5:54 to 8:45. The process of canonization begins right away in the new testament and it's just concluding in the 4th century. While in case of other doctrines they have a gap between the new testament and when the doctrine entered into the church. And since these dogmas lack the scriptural basis, it's hard to accept them.

[@unidosenfe]

God bless you my brother from Colombia. I am a Venezuelan.

[@MatiasCumsille]

💪💪 latinos unidos

[@CPATuttle]

Padre Luis Toro is amazing

[@johnbrion4565]

This video didn’t address the main points Cameron made. In the early church there were debates about which books and letters were in fact sacred scripture.

[@Orthoindian]

Formation of the canon: God guiding the Church (leaving them with different canons) Any doctrine I don't like: accretion Saying that Peter calling Paul's writings scriptures is somehow an early formation of canon is disingenuous as the original Greek word just means "writings". There might as well been a canon which wasn't found in scripture but there is no way to determine if it was an accretion to include books like revelation nor do we see the new testament authors use sola scriptura on the old testament scriptures.

[@jeffreyjones754]

He didn’t make the argument from Peter calling Paul’s writing scripture at all in this video?? It’s only 9:16 long my guy at least hear him out

[@Joyyarns]

I'm not sure what you are saying! Scripture means writing everywhere in the Bible. This is not the Protestant translation.

[@jacquesalbert8942]

γραφή, -ῆς, ἡ seems to overwhelming refer to Holy Scripture in the NT. If you are claiming that Peter simply meant "writings" in the 2 Pt. 3 passage, I think that it would be good to provide some type of argumentation in support.

[@RightCross22]

How do you decide between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church? “It’s nuanced”? No, not really. The early church tells us that the bishop of Rome had a form of primacy passed onto him from the apostle Peter. They also tell us that the canon of scripture included 73 books. Catholicism affirms both of these things, while orthodoxy rejects both of them. Very simple, the early church was the Catholic Church.

[@briandiehl9257]

The early church also says there was a cannon of 66 books and affirms all kinda of EO teachings

[@RightCross22]

@@briandiehl9257 not really, many of the things they at affirm that are EO also apply to RC. And the Orthodox Church itself is in constant schism, being split by nationalities. Each one having a different canon too. Many orthodox churches reject both the 66 and 73 book canons bc they actually have a larger canon. And of course with the early church and the ecumenical councils all testifying to the primacy of Rome and Peter’s successors, it makes it hard for one to become orthodox.

[@rujotheone]

EO also has the deuterocanon in their Bible

[@josiahalexander5697]

Orthodoxy doesn’t reject that. Orthodoxy rejects the innovations that took place at the turn of the millennium. The canon is not an issue between RC and Orthodox.

[@RadicalPersonalFinance]

Really good video, Gavin! Very cogent.

[@mf4674]

Gavin , Thanks a lot for your videos. Very helpful. May Lord Jesus bless you. Very grateful to have your Channel

[@ianwingstrom340]

Gavin, You’ve done a lot to help my faith. I’ve been working through church history and even the issue of the canon for Protestants for awhile now. I’ve had to wrestle with Catholic and orthodox arguments that have challenged me to think critically through these issues. I appreciate what they have had to say. Because of your channel, I have grown tremendously as a Protestant (and a reformed Protestant for that matter). Keep the content coming.

[@mrbungle2627]

Kind of just interested in this question, would you still be a Christian if you thought EO or Catholicism was true?

[@ianwingstrom340]

@ Fair Question. Yeah I would say so. Why wouldn’t I want to follow that which is true? If it’s EO or RC, I want to be apart of that! Currently, I think Reformed Protestantism gets us closer to the truth. I could be wrong about that of course.

[@ninjason57]

Canon of scripture was a "problem" for me until I asked myself this question, "is there information in the apocrypha that reveals the truth of God required for me to believe and live Jesus way that isn't already present in the most limited canon". The answer is no, but it doesn't prevent me from reading the apocrypha as well as church fathers to get more clarity of those truths.

[@HoneyBadgerbtc]

There absolutely is and it's precisely why the reformers wanted it gone.

[@ninjason57]

@ give me an example.

[@ExiledKenobi]

@@ninjason57 Reformers argue that death was brought into the world spiritually due to Adam and Eve, and claim the physical part did not, and from there try and back up the idea of evolution being true etc. Fact is, which thankfully some protestants actually do understand, that Adam and Eve did bring both physical and spiritual death, and thankfully Wisdom of Solomon makes it crystal clear, whereas the verses in Romans do not. Wisdom of Solomon 1:12-16. We see this with many theological truths, where the apocrypha backs it up. There are things like this that without it, things can become ambiguous and easy to self interpret for a particular view.

[@ninjason57]

@ which reformer? I've never heard of anyone interpreting Romans as only spiritual death. The wisdom of Solomon only adds to what is already taught.

[@aidanhansemann1212]

@@ninjason57 Your solution to the "problem" of canon, is purely arbitrary. You've made it a completely subjective standard, so you have no claim to criticize others when they hold to it as scripture. Besides what happens when there is revealed truth about God in the "apocrypha" but because you already presuppose there isn't, you may completely miss it.

[@ponponzooubevmaleon8924]

I still didn’t hear the answer of the question, the question is how did we know? So all this explanation you still not answering how you know , the only answer to this question is; we know through the Catholic Church that all don’t bring up and down game here , if there is other way then say it period 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@Lucas-zu2es]

The same way the Isrealites got their fallible list of infallible books in the old testament.

[@anthonywhitney634]

Gavin was intentionally brief. A longer answer would include the fact that to the early church the majority of the N.T. was self evidently authoritative, and in operation, from a very early stage.

[@thadofalltrades]

Most of the Canon was already set by the second century. It's not that difficult to determine what is Scripture and what isn't. The only books really ever debated were Hebrews and Revelation.

[@hunterhewitt8630]

​@Lucas-zu2esthe jews didn't have a fixed canon. They didn't operate under sola scriptura. So they don't have the problem protestants do. Everyone not under sola scriptura world view doesn't have this problem. Jesus quoted the books each group held as authority. Hence why he quoted exodus to demonstrate resurrection to the sadducees rather than more obvious passages in Daniel and Isaiah

[@hunterhewitt8630]

​@@anthonywhitney634"the majority of the NT was self evident feom the beginning" well if you actually meant at least 10 of the books were argued over until even after Augustine, then your be right.

[@A-ARonYeager]

We NEED a long for conversation on this. Both sides presenting their thoughts and ideas would be great.

[@johnnylollard7892]

I've always felt the Roman argument displays that Scripture is a lesser authority than the Magisterium, in terms of epistemology.

[@josephgoemans6948]

I mean certainly the canon. But not Scripture itself.

[@T.Truthtella-n3i]

Christ established a Church, His Church established the Bible.

[@joeoleary9010]

Scripture absolutely is a lesser authority in RCC teachings. You don't see any snake handling at any Masses.

[@johnnylollard7892]

@@josephgoemans6948 Just look at the epistemological claims of Rome. The Scriptures are only guaranteed by the visible institution of the RCC. The Scripture is, in a deep metaphysical sense, God's speech. Yet the word of God is not sufficient to attest to itself. In Roman Catholic epistemology (at least in polemics against Protestantism), the word of God must be guaranteed by the visible institution of the Church, rather than the other way around. One merely needs to ask, what was Jesus' attitude towards the Scriptures, and does it agree with this teaching?

[@josephgoemans6948]

I mean you clearly don't understand Catholic theology. Particularly when it comes to authority. In Catholic Theology, divine revelation is given to us in the form of a "3-legged stool". Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. In the same way as just because Jesus exists does not mean He is greater than the Father, so too with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Their existence does not make them greater than Sacred Scripture. The canon specifically is discerned by the Magisterium which is guided by the Holy Spirit to discern this. The canon (or you could think about it as the table of contents if you like) is not the word of God and is the outworking of the 3 legs - therefore it is not at the same level as the 3 legs.

[@MusicByTomas]

Excellent video

[@junkim5853]

Gavin, as a protestant, wouldn't the logic of your own argument be used against you for rejecting the Apocrypha? Catholics could say that the canonization of the Apocrypha books just like the New Testament was a fallible process. Still, we can see the development of the Apocrypha books as part of the canon straight from the New Testament books since these writers would quote things from the Apocrypha. Early Antenicene Fathers would also commentate on many Apocrypha passages, especially Irenaeus. How would you or other protestants respond to this objection?

[@bigfathungrybear]

Just because a writer of the NT quotes apocryphal books doesn't mean they equate it as divine/scriptural. You can see this pretty clearly Paul quotes greek philosophers when he preaches to the Athenians in Acts 17.

[@stephengray1344]

The New Testament authors quote pagan poetry on occasion. They also quote from Jewish texts which aren't in the Tanakh or the Apocrypha (like Enoch). But I've yet to see anybody give me an example of a NT quotation from an apocryphal book which seems to be treating that book as scripture. So it's highly debatable whether the quotes you mention are actually evidence of a development of treating them as canonical. There certainly is a case to be made that the books that made it into every different version of the Apocrypha (Roman, Eastern, Ethiopian, etc.) should be given some sort of higher status. But the fact that this process was much later, and doesn't seem to have been based on any firm criteria makes it more difficult for Protestants to accept than for the NT (universal agreement from fairly early on, based on some fairly clear criteria) or the undisputed books of the OT/Tanakh (universal agreement, almost all the books referred to as scripture within the NT).

[@garyr.8116]

@@stephengray1344 Theres a whole massive list: dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2019/09/17/does-the-new-testament-or-jesus-quote-from-the-apocryphal-books/

[@junkim5853]

@@stephengray1344 Is it necessary for a Catholic and Orthodox to show how the Apocrypha books being quoted in the New Testament are treated as scripture if they can show early Church Fathers from the first century or 2nd century where they treat these books as scripture? Irenaeus and many Early Church Fathers spent a lot of time commentating on these books and never once did they treat these books as something lesser than the Old Testament and the New Testament, no? They can still appeal to the logic Ortlund uses to defend the doctrine of sola scriptura, no? Also, why spend so much time commentating on the apocryphal books if they are lesser than the Bible or they are not divinely inspired at all? Remember, I am a protestant I would like to hear your response or Ortlund.

[@JesusIsLordOurRedeemer]

Well put Gavin. Great video!

[@jpii4585]

Hi Gavin, Catholic from 🇩🇪 here. This is an unexpected good answer to Cameron‘s challenge. However, I‘m still asking myself how protestants harmonize, that the same people of the first centuries, who put the New Testament together, also practiced Marian veneration, infant baptism, eucharistic understanding etc. Shouldn’t it make Protestants sceptical if you can’t trust them, since those people „put the Bible together“ while believing/practicing unbiblical doctrine. Greets 👋🏻

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

He addressed some of that: some of that was just starting at later points. I'd guess that he'd say that he has a higher view of the Eucharist than most baptists, and I think the early church was more ambiguous on infant baptism than you'd think (people often waited to be baptized). (I'm still fine with baptizing babies myself, to be clear.)

[@jpii4585]

@ thanks for your answer! However, I do know about venerations to the blessed mother by Irenäus of Lyon, a very famous church father from the 2nd century. And also, i believe that infant baptism is one of the few issues where all church fathers unanimously agreed. At least that’s what Jimmy Akin presented and I truly trust his expertise. Obviously, Eucharist is already mentioned by Ignatius of Antiochia in 106 AD

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

@@jpii4585 What is there in Irenaeus? I'm not familiar with that. Hmm, it's possible they agreed on its validity, I'm not familiar. It just certainly wasn't always done in practice, I know that. Sure, there are Ignatius quotes. But there are various Eucharistic positions in the early church (Philip Schaff is good on this, I think), and the language is often pretty ambiguous and can make it hard to see what precisely they would affirm. Augustine is later, of course, but he looks a lot more like the positions of Calvin, the post-reformation church of England, etc. There were earlier people as well.

[@jpii4585]

@ Irenäus in Adversus Haereses: „And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.“ He is sometimes called the „father of mariology.“ What other eucharistic positions are there in the early church? I just thinks that John 6 is working very well with Ignatius of Antiochien. I‘m curious about your answer, however, I don’t want to spend too much time discussing on KZbin comment sections, so I‘ll thankfully read your answer but may not reply. Take care and God bless

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

@@jpii4585 Sure, that's not really veneration, though. Oh, John 6 isn't about the Eucharist, at least primarily. See verse 35, for example, where it's clear that the eating is closely tied to believing, and the parallels throughout the passage. Do see Philip Schaff regarding the eucharist. The Alexandrians and the North Africans both had different views than you'd expect. I was able to find both relevant pages right away upon googling "schaff eucharist alexandrian." Entirely reasonable regarding time.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

I see Mike W approves of Gavin's thoughts in this video. In fairness, this is the best defense I've heard. But the cost of this defense is high. He has effectively undermined all infallibility and put all traditions and teachings on the same level. He maintains with perfect assuredness that *we can trust* a fallible list of infallible scriptures. I cannot repeat that after him. Gavin is also too relaxed regarding the diversity of opinions and possible interpretations which the dismissal of a Magisterium leads to. But, let me clarify: The Catholic story is that Jesus Christ established a Church with a Magisterium to bind and loose. This is a story one would have to believe (yes, I don't claim infallible knowledge) - but it is a coherent story that makes perfect sense and is sufficient to explain everything we need. From this, the canon naturally flow - at which point the canon was *infallibly* defined is not the main issue - such statements come when needed in history. The Protestant story is that Jesus established a Church without Magisterium and that we're all on our own to figure out canon, interpretations, and salvation theology. For some reason, Gavin wants to sell the second story - like that's a bargain. And, btw: The Jews had a Magisterium (Sanhedrin), even though the canon was not settled. It just shows that the main thing is the Magisterium - not the canon.

[@briandiehl9257]

The protestant story is that Christ left his teachings

[@mortensimonsen1645]

@@briandiehl9257 Did he? As far as I can see he left us Apostles - not one written word.

[@briandiehl9257]

@@mortensimonsen1645 Yeah, he left us teachings, there are other ways to leave teachings that don't involve writing

[@mortensimonsen1645]

​@@briandiehl9257 Yes, as I said, the Prot story is that he left us with the Apostles (= Church), but no Magisterium. I imagine Jesus must have had incredible faith in his apostles - not even saying anything about writing or how to figure out if the Gentiles should be allowed into the Church. But perhaps the Protestant story is that the apostles were *infallible*, but the later successors were fallible?

[@mikeinterbartolo5706]

A cogent summary - nice 👍🏻 work Gavin.

[@dmjones1956]

How about the old testament canon? Growing up a fundie evangel Prot I feel I missed out on the rich wisdom literature from the Septuagint i.e Wisdom of Solomon and Ben Sirach.

[@kennylee6499]

They’re considered books for the edification of the church, should be read and taught, but are “Deuterocanonical” books, meaning there is still a distinction between those and the Protocanon. “fundie evangelicalism” is more the issue rather than Protestantism

[@T.Truthtella-n3i]

They’re fully Scripture. How do I know? Because the Church of the Living God says so. That’s how.

[@harrisonjones1087]

The Catholic Church told you, that's the actual answer

[@jenniferboht961]

@@harrisonjones1087 it’s just a wrong answer

[@Pat.hibuleire]

​@@jenniferboht961obviously no one was protestant in the early church

[@ImmyT89]

which Catholic church? Roman?

[@Pat.hibuleire]

@@ImmyT89 the one catholic church out of 30 000 dénominations

[@jenniferboht961]

@Pat.hibuleire the early church was just the early church they were not catholic or Protestant

[@tdhoward]

I'm curious if you believe that the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawehedo church's canon is also dependable, since it went through the same process of canonization as you describe here, but got to different results. They have 81 books in their primary canon.

[@bejamen14]

Hi Gavin, this argument is a good one and Jordan B Cooper uses a similar point about the Old Testament Canon which I think is quite strong. The question I struggle with is could the church have got it wrong? Because even though we can be confident that they came to the right decision, how can we be absolutely certain? Because you have figures like Luther who comes along and seems to challenge the canonicity of certain books and it begs the question that if the list isn’t infallible why can’t you challenge the cannon?

[@clivejungle6999]

The Church got in wrong on Subordinationism, even the churches Paul founded got things wrong especially in Corinth.

[@mikeoxmaul1788]

There were questions around the cannon even before the reformation. We cannot say with 100% certainty that the church got the cannon right (we can only take it on faith). We should however believe the scriptures we do have are suffient.

[@petercollins7848]

Our main problem is not some esoteric arguments around the ‘Canon’, but our sinful hearts! Jesus deals with that, by dying on the cross to make atonement for our sins. The big issue is whether we are ‘born from above’, John’s gospel chapter 3. The next big issue is constant confession - and I don’t mean to a priest. Our great High Priest is Jesus, Hebrews 4:14-16. 1John 1: 8-10. When all that is a living reality in our lives, all the rest falls into place. Don’t worry about Luther, he was a great man, but fallible like us. He was struggling with greater issues than we will ever have to face probably, and sometimes in his zeal got some things wrong. We don’t follow any particular individual in church history, but the steady consistent witness of believers and reformers down the ages.

[@stephengray1344]

Certainty is an impossible standard to meet outside a handful of areas of mathematics and philosophy (and even there, there is at least some room for us to doubt whether we've got our proofs correct). There is always room for at least some doubt.

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

I'm more okay with challenging books around the fringes of the canon, the ones which were disputed for longer, than the core ones, but I think I'm in principle fine with it, if you're convinced of it in a reasonable manner.

[@OniLeafNin]

The question is why do you believe what the ancient Church taught on this subject but then reject bishops, the other sacraments, etc. If the “fallible” books of the Old Testament are such, how does it follow that they are certainly to be followed? If not certainly the Word of God, then they open us to heresy

[@stephengray1344]

You seem to be assuming that saying that a person or group of people were right on one issue should mean that you accept that they were right on every issue. I don't see why this should be the case. And my understanding is that the early church had a variety of views on most subjects. We have evidence that bishops being a separate office from presbyters was something that developed during the second century or so (I think it was Jerome who basically described how this happened). There also seems to be a variety of different views within the church fathers about the sacraments.

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

​@@stephengray1344 Exactly, it's very post hoc to believe the early church is in lock step with all of romes current polemics.

[@OniLeafNin]

@ no, on this matter it would be the Holy Spirit who is working

[@OniLeafNin]

@@stephengray1344 the reality of history is that despite differences of opinion the settled issues remain settled. Now either we accept that God was working through the Church or it was “fallible” and therefore could be subject to complete error. The decisions on doctrine and scripture are made through councils for a reason. The idea is that while individuals may err, the mystical body of Christ does not, when its teachers all gather. What is fascinating to me is the idea that Jesus who sent the Holy Spirit would not also guide the Church he founded. That is a tough claim to make in my opinion.

[@stephengray1344]

@@OniLeafNin God working through the church doesn't meant that the church isn't fallible. And being fallible doesn't mean that you are subject to complete error on everything of importance. In scripture God works through all sorts of people and institutions that got key things completely wrong. Unless you are going to go to the extreme that says that your denomination of Christianity is the one true church and that everybody else is completely outside the body of Christ, you accept that a very large proportion of the church actually did get it badly wrong on some important doctrinal issues.

[@brianjoelbasualdo7436]

Something is wrong with these videos, when I saw his video (not you, the youtuber you are talking about), I made a respectful enough response, where I proved that the structure of his arguments are invalid, and my comment got deleted or at least not shown. It doesn't appear anywhere!! Has anybody ever happened these things? Also, this doesn't just happen with Capturing Christianity's videos, but also a lot of other youtubers. Am I crazy or youtube is censoring the theology? Has anybody ever experienced these things lately? Can somebody bring their opinion on this?

[@KillerofGods]

@@brianjoelbasualdo7436 happens all the time, KZbin censored a lot of stuff. It will also censor some comments if they get too long. The length differs on each channel.

[@A-ARonYeager]

Yes happens a lot. I like to read comments and respond to them. I probably comment 3-4 a day and I'd say depending on thr topic anywhere from 20-60% of my comments get removed immediately. There's certain words and phrases I've learned to sensor to get around it.

[@davemoore7808]

These are always very unsatisfactory for me. There's only so many ways one can say they don't agree with the Church while at the same time aping the bits and pieces they happen like. It's always a problem with authority, infallible or otherwise.

[@joeoleary9010]

I think you nailed it. Or at least, I was dismayed to see Gavin arguing for an "infallible" church. I don't think he realizes how he's trying to have it both ways.

[@TomPlantagenet]

That’s ok-I asked Cameron if he still held to justifications by faith or if he subscribes to sacramentalism and he never responded.

[@faithharbour]

This is really useful Gavin. Also, best background award. 🥇

[@likeich]

He completely misses the authority component of canonization. In the Old Testament the Levitical priesthood were the custodians of scripture and the authority of the Israelites. In the new covenant a new priesthood was started at Pentecost that is led by the Holy Spirit and is the custodian of scripture. The Church is comfortable with a gradual canonization process since the Bible is not the pillar and foundation of all truth - the Church itself is. The main critique is that Protestants arbitrarily accept the canon from the Church and pick and choose other universal church doctrines as they see fit. For some reason we can trust the church for the canon but everything else is a grab bag of beliefs to the protestant.

[@mikekukovec4386]

But none of the New Testament was accepted based on someone's authority. It was ALL organic, no one appealed to Rome's Supreme authority to get to the canon.

[@likeich]

@mikekukovec4386 I don't disagree with that. The normative authority of the church is an essential part of its organic canonization, you can't just leave that part out because it doesn't fit the Protestant worldview. That's exactly what Gavin did I'm not Roman btw

[@universalman5861]

A custodian is simply a placeholder. He is neither the originator nor the the final authority on the information he is safeguarding.

[@Constantinos_Is_Dead]

@@mikekukovec4386 Rome didn't have any authority different from the other Patriarchates in the beginning. We're not talking about the primacy of the Pope but something much more fundamental, the magisterial authority of the Church as such.

[@tammymorris2268]

Gavin, are you aware of Ralph Martin, PhD, of Renewal Ministries in the Catholic Church? He is a very spirit filled Catholic having a gentle spirit like yours. He has a channel on KZbin as well. You could do an amazing talk with him on your channel! Had to add this!

[@garrett2514]

1:05 The Jews didn’t have one set of canonical books. There were multiple canons. Famously the Sadducees only held the Torah to be canonical. The Qumran community probably also had a different canon. There are more examples of Jews who had different canons.

[@taylorbarrett384]

Even if that was true, it would be irrelevant. Christians don't have one set of Canonical books either (Catholics 73, Orthodox 77, Protestants 66). But despite ancient Jews not having absolute unanimity about the Canon (they had more agreement than some people want to give them credit for), nevertheless, ancient Jewish people could still know, and did know, that Scripture was Scripture, without any infallible declaration telling them it was.

[@ElvisI97]

@@garrett2514 Christians and Modern day Jews are the inheritors of the Pharisaical tradition. Paul even considered himself as a Pharasee. Jesus referred to scripture as the Law, the Prophets (including the writings) and Psalms. So its irrelevant what the Sadducees considered as scripture. Qumran was a sectarian male only group. They were the weirdos of 2nd Temple Judaism. These were an outlier group. Regarding other examples, the Samaritans weren't really considered Jews as they had comprised the covenantal guidelines given to their ancestors.

[@garrett2514]

@ but many Jews didn’t know that Scripture was Scripture. Isaiah was not considered to be Scripture but some. Enoch was considered to be Scripture by others. And just because “Christians” don’t have one set of agreed upon canon doesn’t matter. The video was about determining the correct canon and competing methods to determine it.

[@taylorbarrett384]

@garrett2514 your second paragraph refutes your first - yes, it is true, disagreement is not relevant, ie, the fact Jews disagreed about the Canon is irrelevant to whether a Jew could know it. How do we discern the Canon? The same way we discern any religious truth: faith and reason. Whether discerning the Papacy, the Canon, or any other doctrine = humans only have faith and reason at our disposal. External evidence for the inspiration of the Bible provides credibility, and God provides faith.

[@ElvisI97]

@garrett2514 it doesn't matter if the Sadducees or the Samaritans only accepted the Torah since Jesus appealed to the Law, Prophets and Psalms. That itself refutes the Sadducees and Samaritans. Christians and Rabbinic Jews are the successors to Pharisaical Judaism so it doesn't matter what sectarian groups like the male only Essenses or non Jews like the Samaritans believed.

[@DarkHorseCrusader]

It seems to me that if there is no authority to declare which books belong in the Bible, then we’re left to take our best guess.

[@HeIsEdison]

Saying that they were not infallible operations deciding the cannon does not help at all. In every list of inspired books that the church has given. In every council “ Fallible” or infallible. Is always the same number, 73. Not 66 or 80 or 20 ALWAYS 73

[@cjstev1]

Great video! Thanks!

[@dreistheman7797]

The problem is Sola Scriptura needs an infallible canon, otherwise you don’t have certainty that the book you’re reading is indeed God’s written word. The argument goes like this: the Scipture is my sole infallible authority because it’s God’s word. Well how are you certain it’s God’s word, when the canon was not infallibly defined? You need to have 100% certainty it’s God’s word if if’s your sole “infallible authority”, even though it does not act to settle disputes.

[@seanoconnor5311]

No you don't, you take it on faith. How do you know the church is infallible? Oh, the magisterium says so?

[@stephengray1344]

Why would we need certainty? There's virtually nothing in the world where we can completely rule out the possibility that we are wrong. As far as I can see this question isn't a serious problem for Protestantism. The New Testament consists of the books that trace back to the Apostles and their immediate followers. And are the only set of documents we can be confident (to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt) preserves their teaching without any later doctrinal development. The Protestant/Jewish Old Testament/Tanakh canon are the only set of books that we can be confident (to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt) that Christ and the Apostles endorsed as scripture. There is enough room for doubt about the status of the books collected in the various versions of the apocrypha/deuterocanon that I cannot assume that they are infallible. And there is enough room for doubt about whether the writings of the Church Fathers contain doctrinal development or man-made traditions that I cannot assume that they are infallible. So the only options that I find at all viable for a Christian are Sola Scriptura or a belief in some mechanism by which God gives post-Apostolic infallible revelation.

[@Ruben914]

@@seanoconnor5311No because Jesus said so, when He gave the keys to Peter.

[@andrewmiller6051]

I think its a common fallacy to think we need an infallible source to believe something. That’s not the standard for anything else in life. While I personally do think that Scripture is infallible and that the canon we have is correct, my faith doesn’t rely on it. And likewise I am comfortable in believing that we have a fallible canon of infallible books.

[@Adamcatholic]

​@@seanoconnor5311 sounds like taking it on faith Jesus promise in Matthew 16:18 that church will be infallible would be good place to start. Not to mention Gavin low key approved that church infallibly defined same 4th century canon in 15th century, was right and infallible all along... And then refuting himself in the process since he still didn't explain why protestants actually picked up different canon after 1500 years?

[@jochemschaab6739]

Hey Gavin, great video! Those answers are spot! However, I noticed there was some confusion about the video in the comments, so I thought I might give some further clarification (please correct me if I'm wrong) Wome people seem to think that the video is an answer to how protstants know which books are part of the Bible. From my understanding that comoletely misses the point. Gavin didn't show how we know which books are part of the NT, but instead he answered the objection to Sola Scriptura that the list of the canon needs an infallible authority. The aim of the video was not to answer how we know which NT books are included, but to defend sola scriptura. So with that being said, let me try to answer how a protestant, and any christian for that matter, knows which books are part of the NT canon: As already pointed out, all christians follow the early church in respect to the NT canon. Yet the early Christians didn't just "feel" which books were in and which were out, they seemed to have used criteria. The three main underlying criteria at play seem to be these: 1. Apostolic Authorship - The book must contain apostolic teaching, because God chose the apostles to lay the foundation of the church and proclaim the gospel. This means that the work either has to be written by the apostles or their close companions. That is why, for example, the letters of Ignatius or Ireneaus can not be considered as scripture. 2. Acceptance in the church - The book must be accepted early on and become widespread. If, for example, Paul's "third letter to the Corinthians" is found, it would still not count as Scripture. Sure, certain books like Revelation or 2 Peter were in question some times, but within 3 millenia all the books of the NT were held as scripture almost universally. 3. Noncontradiction - The content of the book cannot contradict other books of the Bible. Sure, Luther was totally wrong when he wanted to take out James or Revelations, but he didn't want to drop them just because he felt like it. He believed they violated the principle of noncontradiction. Later he seems to have realized that the contradiction was only apparent, so he eventually embraced it. With these three criteria in mind, it is clear that Protestants don't "just" accept the NT books for no reason. We trust that Holy Spirit guided the church in recognizing the canon, and know that the criteria they used are a solid foundation to build upon. We have every reason to believe that the books in our Bible are giving us the word of God itself.

[@gardengirlmary]

Happy New Year!!

[@anthonywhitney634]

Gavin was very gracious towards Cameron, but let's say the quiet part out loud - Cameron's video was clearly a pro-Catholic apologetic. And a weak and lazy one too. It was formatted in a way that had several logical problems for eg his false dichotomy of options he gave for formation of the Canon. And it was lazy because the internet is full of information as to the actual historical formation of the Canon. As a Catholic apologist he conveniently ignored this.

[@T.Truthtella-n3i]

The Catholic Church canonized the New Testament. This is just historical fact.

[@elmichiapologeta]

​@@T.Truthtella-n3i catholic, NOT ROMAN

[@anthonywhitney634]

@@T.Truthtella-n3i 1. the Church at the time AFFIRMED the Canon of scripture. 2. The church at the time is a very different beast to what had become the Roman Catholic Church.

[@heir8095]

It's true, but Gavin is done videos responding to more profound Catholic arguments. If you're dissatisfied with this video because of its source material, go watch those others.

[@khas7556]

Waited for this 👏👏👏

[@josephgoemans6948]

Question: In your view. If there is a dispute on the canon within Protestantism, how would this be resolved? If it's a fallible list, then it theoretically it is not set in stone and therefore not above challenge/questioning.

[@charlesudoh6034]

This is the question. This is what he refuses to consider. A closed canon isn't compatible with a fallible process. In his view, the canon will always remain open.

[@DreyZ-gv8cv]

@@charlesudoh6034 When did we ever argue salvation through a closed canon?

[@charlesudoh6034]

@@DreyZ-gv8cv _When did we ever argue salvation through a closed canon?_ When did I talk about salvation? I am simply making the point that you can not say that the canon is closed and also say that the canon was defined through fallible means By definition, a fallible process can never deliver certainty of truth (unless we are talking about one of logical necessity), because to be fallible is to have the possibility of being wrong. Therefore, his position would mean that we can be confident that the canon is correct in the sense that all (and only) divinely inspired books are included, but never certain that the canon is correct. If we can only be confident but never certain, you truly cannot say the canon is closed. You will have to accept the canon is open in order to be consistent. The only way to maintain a closed canon that can never be altered is to acknowledge that the church that defined it could not have been wrong (aka infallible).

[@taylorbarrett384]

Resolutions to disputes only come about when people agree that the evidence supports one resolution. This is true even in Catholicism, as our mutual agreement to go with the decision of the Church only exists as long as we agree the evidence supports the reliability of the Church's decision. Religious epistemology functions the same for every human.

[@josephgoemans6948]

Well no that's not entirely true... For Catholics, the Church is a divinely instituted institution for the spread of the gospel and resolution of disputes (in a nutshell). As such, the resolution from the Church is what we submit to regardless of our own personal convictions (which may be incorrect). It takes our discernment away from the dispute on the table and places the discernment/discovery on a more tangible historical reality that can be reasonably assessed. It consolidates all issues down to one question: Did Jesus institute a Church with an authoritative leadership structure which has the ability to safeguard Divine Revelation for all Christians?

[@TanjiV]

this is an epistemic question of justification in the protestant worldview, just giving good reasons to believe the canon doesnt solve the problem of justification

[@DelicueMusic]

I know some guys will be mad that you used Mary's Assumption as an example and hone in on that, completely missing the point you were making.

[@_Zakariah]

Anyone else watch this and still asking “how do I KNOW the New Testament canon?” Please point me to where this was directly answered.

[@truthnotlies]

Gavin does not answer it. Go watch the video this is supposed to be a response to - it is so much more thought provoking and interesting.

[@TruthUnites]

see starting around 00:46. You can know by trusting God's guidance of the process of NT canonization that came to receive universal agreement. It is not up to individuals to start the process all over, as though we had to figure it out from scratch. Much knowledge comes to us through fallible processes (e.g., knowing Christianity is true). Hope that helps.

[@slick_Ric]

yes, try turning the audio on. we can trust the process as it played out for various reasons that he lists out

[@truthnotlies]

@@TruthUnites You actually undermined Christianity itself with your argument. Saying that because we are fallible we can only know anything fallibly means that Christianity and Christ are just a "best guess." This is where even moral relativism comes in. If someone says they are a woman when they are a man, and I say, "No they are a woman," that's an objective truth. And if it is an objective truth, then it is by definition infallible. Objective truth has to also be infallible, or else everything is fallible and subjective - which is the mindset our society has in our Western World. They imitate Pontius Pilate in the way they say, "What is truth?" as if it is impossible to know for sure.

[@LoriLev1107]

Nicely put!

[@georgwilliamfriedrichhegel5744]

It seems like wanting 110% certainty for scripture is similar to atheists who demand 110% mathematical certainty before they will accept the existence of God.

[@MrPeach1]

You need to be certain of the cannon. I see issue arise in church if one verse is mistranslated. For example I can debate a woman for days over the verse "wives submit to your husbands" I have heard every type of explanation imaginable. So more feminist leaning some more literal in meaning. And that is just one sentence. If you get an entire book wrong in your cannon you could be a million miles off from the faith. You need to be certain.

[@georgwilliamfriedrichhegel5744]

@@MrPeach1 I think the question then is "what is certainty?" Do I need to be 100% certain like in a geometric proof? Or could I be happy with being 99% certain?

[@MrPeach1]

@georgwilliamfriedrichhegel5744 well in the Jehova witness bible they add the letter "a" in front of "and the word became God" from the gospel of John, which changes it to "the word became a god" in the greek they are "technically" not wrong to do that. But you can see that would radically impact the dogma of the Trinity. So even a single letter being off can have huge implications. We need to be 100 percent on scripture.

[@angelam.3830]

Thank you Gavin, this was very helpful!

[@ZacharyTLawson]

I found this threefold distinction of knowledge from Turretin to be helpful for this conversation: T2.Q6: From what source does the divine authority of the Scriptures become known to us? Does it depend upon the testimony of the church either as to itself or as to us? We deny against the papists Section VI. As a threefold cause can be granted for the manifestation of anything (an objective, efficient and instrumental or organic), so a threefold question can arise about the divinity of the Bible: the first, concerning the argument on account of which I believe; the second, concerning the principle or efficient cause from which I am led to believe; the third, concerning the means and instrument through which I believe. And to this triple question a triple reply can be given: For the Bible with its own marks is the argument on account of which I believe. The Holy Spirit is the efficient cause and principle from which I am induced to believe. But the church is the instrument and means through which I believe. Hence if the question is why, or on account of what, do I believe the Bible to be divine, I will answer that I do so on account of the Scripture itself which by its marks proves itself to be such. If it is asked whence or from what I believe, I will answer from the Holy Spirit who produces that belief in me. Finally, if I am asked by what means or instrument I believe it, I will answer through the church which God uses in delivering the Scriptures to me.

[@fatimarojas9655]

First evidence for the assumption of Mary is in the 4th century- first evidence for sola scriptura is in the 16th?

[@stephengray1344]

Gavin has previously made the case that there are passages in the Church Fathers which seem to be arguing for sola scriptura. But there is also a fundamental difference between these two issues. Sola scriptura is a statement about which texts we can be confident preserve the authentic teaching of the Apostles without any later doctrinal development. Which means that it is a doctrine that could not have existed in the first century or early second century when the Apostles and their immediate followers were still alive, and one that would take several generations before it could reasonably become the standard belief among Christians. Whilst the assumption of Mary is a doctrine that (if true) should have existed from the moment it happened.

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

Sola Scriptura is now new, it was anathemaised in the 8th century. The quote from the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Nicaea, 787 A.D.) "Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church."

[@meepmeep545]

what do u think is the meaning of "sola scriptura" in the protestant sense.

[@auggieeasteregg2150]

Wdym evidence for the assumption of Mary?

[@aaronbarkley539]

I lost a lot of respect for Cameron. He treated his "conversion" to papism as some sort of social media series, never took protestants criticisms seriously and essentially converted for "aesthetic" reasons.

[@DavidTextle]

I’m a Protestant but in his defense, he stated in a comment (under another comment) that the question was originally for all Christian’s but that saying “Protestant” just allows for more engagement since it’s more provocative (something like that). It also just seems that cam was a kind of an ignorant Protestant not someone who really understood it. So it was easier for him to change traditions. Which is ok, long as he’s following Christ

[@Chuck_McDon]

This is definitely a theme that I've noticed among many historically uninformed low church "Protestants". It's definitely somewhat of an indictment of many Protestant churches, in my opinion, for not properly catechizing their members and equipping them for many of the attacks that they are now facing in thera of KZbin and social media. But at the same time, it's so foolish for so many to "jump ship" so to speak, to Rome or Constantinople, without first thoroughly familiarizing oneself with the arguments of ones OWN tradition. This topic is a great example, in my opinion. This is not a topic that Protestants haven't responded to many many times throughout history as well as in more modern times.

[@mistertracey1]

​@@Chuck_McDonamen

[@michaelharrington6698]

This is a very bad mischaracterization of Cameron that I don't think is helpful or charitable.

[@mikaelrosing]

No respectfully no. Like if you look into all sides its quite hard to make a pick.

[@FuddlyDud]

I’m a bit confused as to how Mary’s Assumption and Canonization are incomparable. If indeed the church was aware enough to address many heresies, aware enough to canonize the canon, and all done through fallible processes, then it seems just as relevant that they don’t seem to condemn Mary’s assumption or liturgies/prayers that emphasize Mary. You then throw in the myriad of miracles that stem from love of Mary, or at least her continual presence on Earth, and it does seem apparent God’s given her a special role. That seems reasonable to me. :)

[@MrPeach1]

very reasonable to me also.

[@FuddlyDud]

@ Glad to know I’m not the only one! :)

[@elitecompany1878]

Gavin is making a major flaw here by assuming the only infallible process of the church is ecumenical councils and that simply is not the case

[@ChumX100]

If we can have reasonable confidence in the canon as a result of a fallible process that guided Church, why can't we have the same reasonable confidence in other results of similar processes guiding the Church, like the ecumenical councils.

[@nigelowen4262]

Gavin appears to be arguing we look at things on a case by case basis. Scripture is authoritative by virtue of being God breathed. As we have agreement on the NT canon, it then becomes our primary source of authority. Later church councils discussing matters of tradition and doctrine will need to be measured against and in agreement with what has been revealed in Scripture.

[@MrPeach1]

​@@nigelowen4262is what you did there circular? You just skipped right over the case by case part and assert scripture is God breathed. We are in the process of discussing how tou know the thing that you just asserted.

[@ethanshowler6273]

@@nigelowen4262 How do you know that Scripture is God-breathed?

[@nigelowen4262]

@@ethanshowler6273 Paul was appointed as an apostle by Jesus Christ himself and given the authority to write Scripture. In addition this is attested to by Peter. I am not aware of any Christian or church who disagrees with this.

[@mithrandirpilgrim1419]

Thanks for the informative video, Dr. Gavind! It's also great to take note how the Apostolic Fathers of the early 2nd century, Polycarp for example (a discple of Apostle John) quotes and paraphrases from nearly every book in the New Testament as authoritative Scripture, not to mention his affirmation of Paul's apostolic role, even referencing how he sent his Biblical letter to the church of Philippi when he was still alive.

[@MomentumCanada365]

Excellent response video!

[@textandtelescope8199]

Well done.

[@StJohnPaulXXIII]

Someone is finally going to try. Let's hear it. How do we know that there should be a New Testament?!

[@HearGodsWord]

Why shouldn't there be?

[@StJohnPaulXXIII]

@HearGodsWord Why shouldn't there be a Papacy?

[@StJohnPaulXXIII]

@@HearGodsWord You tell me. I asked the first question and you asked another one.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@StJohnPaulXXIII sounds like you don't know

[@StJohnPaulXXIII]

@@HearGodsWord likewise

[@fungusbeef]

Infallibility is a bit of a red herring here, in my opinion. The issue is that Protestants implicitly trust the authority of the Church in this matter, but not in other matters, which is essentially arbitrary. By this rule, there is no basis by which a Protestant could reasonably criticize a detractor who denies the inspiration of the book of Revelation, for example, since it was not widely canonized until well after many other Catholic practices now rejected by most Protestants can be seen as widely adopted in the historical record. The “timeline argument” that argues that canonization started early and is therefore just different from other things is just not coherent or consistent, in my opinion.

[@JD-eb7ek]

3:10 oh my goodness Gavin, obviously it’s not an issue because they dont hold to sola scriptura. That’s issue that you have to face not us, we don’t need an infallible canon but you do because without one, sola scriptura doesn’t work

[@jenniferboht961]

@@JD-eb7ek it’s worked for us for 500 years…I think we will keep it

[@TheKj85]

@@jenniferboht961it sure does look how unified Protestants are. If you follow sola scriptura and you don’t believe and profess everything I do it because you are not really following the scriptures. Just how Jesus wanted. Unity in the things I say are important.

[@jenniferboht961]

@ are you not familiar with the Bible story where the disciples complain to Jesus about other casting out demons? The disciples said “ they are not of us”. Jesus said “they are with me” I love when Catholics try to use the “denominations” talking points. It shows me just how incredibly uneducated they are about church history

[@jaypritchard7122]

@@TheKj85we don’t have to be 100% unified. Church will always have some culture influence. Rome was a centralized empire. We just have to respect one another as brothers in Christ. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing for us to be at peace with each other.

[@Ruben914]

@@jaypritchard7122but there is no unity in doctrine.