Protestantism, Sola Scriptura & Doctrinal Accretions? A Review of "What It Means to Be Protestant"

[@Weavileiscool]

The veneration of icons is the clearest issue for why I’m Protestant and he has some great videos on it that are probably better than how it is the book

[@srich7503]

How can another person explain to you how other people think and believe? Should i trust my JW mother or my Mormon neighbor what you believe and think? They sure are quick to make a judgment and declaration on that. I hope not… 🤦‍♂

[@navienslavement]

You should watch Seraphim Hamilton response series on that if you don't want to remain with a biased POV. Gavin does a lot of cherry picking and even miss interprets the scholars he's quoting.

[@glennlanham6309]

I guess you are unfamiliar with the 2nd Council of Nicea and St. John Damascene...he destroys iconoclasm

[@cassidyanderson3722]

This is a great example of a huge issue society currently struggles with. To base, or even be heavily influenced by, one’s beliefs and views on what one sees from an admittedly biased source, online of all places, leads people to hide from the truth in an echo chamber. There is a mountain of evidence that contradicts almost everything Ortlund says about icons, but his followers (sycophants?) will never see it. And, if they happen to see it, they will be so poisoned by Ortlund that their minds simply won’t allow them to reason.

[@Weavileiscool]

@@cassidyanderson3722 Ortlund is far from the only person who has influenced my views on this subject

[@johnnygnash2253]

I'm glad that you covered this book. Also glad that i recently discovered your channel. Yeah, I enthusiastically follow Gavin Ourtland's channel, so I'm gonna get the book. But your review really whets my eagerness to get my hands on it. And FWIW, I'm a recovering Evangelical who landed on the good old via media of the Anglican Communion.

[@JoshWashington]

5:20 He claims, "Protestantism contains the ability to reform over time..." I've come to disagree with that. The Protestantism I know does not bother to read scriptural arguments that differ with their Popes (Luther, Calvin's) infallible interpretations. i.e. Originally Protestantism was new, discovered, flexible, biblical. Over time its become old, traditional, inflexible, doctrinal. Authority has moved from scripture to traditional interpretation. 16:00 Exactly. It looks like this as quoted by Schriener, "“Extraordinary presuppositions. Now I come to the fundamental and most serious problem with Wilkin’s essay: he forces every text to fit his paradigm. All of us, of course, bring our theology to the text. None of us, if we’re honest, are free from presuppositions. There is no neutral reading of the text. Nevertheless, there would be no point in doing exegesis if our preconceptions could not be altered. We must be willing to listen to the text and ask ourselves if we have adopted a system that is alien to the scriptural text.” ... "there comes a point where a doctrine needs to be revised because other texts speak so clearly against the doctrinal formulation." or this from Josh Harris, "I, you know, as I grew older, I should’ve gone back and reevaluated the content of the book sooner than I did. I should’ve been open to that, but what it teaches me is how people can get locked into beliefs and ideas and ideologies and it has nothing to do with scripture, it has nothing to do with what they actually believe if they were forced to really, honestly, you know, critique and think about it, it’s shaped by, you know, the fact that it’s their job. It’s shaped by this is their community, it’s shaped by, well, I can’t question that or this would fall apart, I’d lose my role, you know, all those types of things. And so, that fear is behind so much of it, but what we dress it up as is, well, this is sound doctrine." The way one tells if someone truly holds to Sola Scriptura is if in the light of scripture they *change* their beliefs. Or in their own words - 'reform'. Otherwise it can be pure lip service.

[@kevinyao0615]

This is the same conclusion that I have come to also. Especially as I have dived deeper into the New Perspective on Paul, I have found the NPP camp to be more correct scripturally, and more in line with the church fathers. Yet I see many opponents of NPP can only point to their Reformed confessions (tradition) and/or usually engage in lazy polemics, rather than good scriptural exegesis. I have yet to meet any 'Calvinist' who has actually read Calvin's Institutes. I see most modern-day Protestants (especially the Baptistic variety) to want to obey their popes/[John MacArthur/John Piper/their pastor] rather than continuing to reform or willing to change their beliefs. Semper reformanda and ad fontes is a bit too tough to swallow for most Protestants ironically.

[@InspironGantry]

That's self evidently not true. Look at Pentecostalism. You can write that off as an unwelcome development, but not as just a tiny incremental change that doesn't constitute reform.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

They still reform - by allowing same sex marriage, female priests and bishops, etc. The overwhelming majority of the contemporary magisterial Protestant sects would be considered heretical by the 16th and 17th century Protestants.

[@InspironGantry]

@@cassidyanderson3722 I understand Pope Francis has just instituted an LGBTQ+ jubilee. And the man is clearly a universalist. Don't get me started on the German Catholic church. And yet none of these groups are considered heretical by the Catholic church. At least we can acknowledge the apostasy within our ranks and separate from them.

[@JoshWashington]

@InspironGantry, @cassidyanderson3722. You raise some interesting and thought provoking challenges. Thank you. Just thinking out loud. I wonder if Ortlund would refer to these as examples of 'semper reformanda'? I guess I refer to reform of first order doctrines, not second or third. I suspect possibly then that reform means to cease to be a Protestant and become something else because of a key change in theology. e.g. Protestant >> Catholic and vice versa. Pentecostalism could still come under the banner of Protestant, with their differences possibly due to a difference in emphasis. So not sure how many would call that 'reform' if they havent really changed much, rather put more emphasis on one feature than another. Suggesting that a change in theology resulting in allowing same sex marriage, female priests and bishops is 'reform' is challenging again. I think the proponents of these might better term it 'progress', others might call it 'false teaching', 'heresy'. So one might call something 'reform' if they in fact agree with the change. I wonder if 'reform' is a bit of a pandoras box.

[@alypiusloft]

16:00 This is the primary contention I have with Dr Ortlund's work when it comes to Sola Scriptura v Tradition. He argues for a kind of hyper-perpiscuity of Scripture that simply doesn't hold up. There are so many interesting things in Scripture that require a knowledge of the languages, cultural/religious contexts, and the broad reception among Christian authorities to grasp intended meanings (and this is along with the necessity of the Holy Spirit for comprehension, which is indeed a Patristic belief). That doesn't mean the average Christian can't have good spiritual insight on their own, even apart from the Church. What it does mean is that that person wouldn't be a reliable interpretive authority for other people, much less the Church at large.

[@Athanasius242]

@alypiusloft watching Gavin's videos he would agree with you. Especially his video on the conquest of Canaan where he did just what you said.

[@alypiusloft]

@Athanasius242 Sure. And that's the problem. He is doing something that demonstrates his perspective on perpiscuity doesn't hold up. Patristic sources provide a lot of insight into the reception of the Scriptures, and those sources are Tradition. The understanding of Scripture within Tradition is a more certain mode of interpretation than Sola Scriptura.

[@bruhmingo]

@@alypiusloftyou’ve just improperly defined sola scriptura in your reply.

[@Athanasius242]

@@alypiusloft Man I don't know, I can't speak for Garvin outside of the few KZbin videos I watched, but based on those videos he does engage with patristic sources (especially his video on Gregory of Nazianzus on slavery). How he applies those engagement to his interpretation or his preaching ministries? idk so I'll politely bow out. I would say this though (as a protestant), I wholeheartedly agree that understanding scripture within in Tradition is a must have. I think the biggest difference between us maybe that I see Sola Scriptura as adding the appropriate guard rails to ensure that it's (interpretation within tradition) done properly. The other difference would be how we define Tradition.

[@alypiusloft]

​@@Athanasius242"Understanding Scripture within Tradition is a must". Right--which means the debate is not whether X group does or doesn't consider Scripture the highest authority. The debate is which Tradition appropriately understands and applies Scripture. If Sola Scriptura is about the final authority which allows tradition to reform, then the problem is whether the chicken or egg came first, or perhaps whether the ox pulls the cart or the cart pulls the ox. Quoting patrisric sources is great. I'm glad Gavin does it. But he is also reading those sources through Protestant tinted glasses.

[@miroslavbalint-feudvarski9516]

Great review! I also like Ortlund's work. Regarding your question about Sola Scriptura, I think Thomas Oden's paleo-orthodoxy view would fit well with it (basically, those interpretations that are deemed orthodox by most churches are the most authoritative ones, the rest should not be pressed upon people's consciences. I enjoy your videos! Keep up the good work!

[@JoelWentz]

Thank you! I appreciate the pointer to Oden. I like him but wasn't aware of this piece of his work

[@jmr10276]

“Most authoritative” is a bonkers concept.

[@jeffreyl1354]

Arianism would have been orthodoxy then, with this view...we need an infallible interpreter so that the gates of hell will truly not prevail against the Church, and that the truth will be preserved. Jesus thankfully gave us this possibility with the Rock that is St Peter - he did not leave us to the opinions of the majority of any given time

[@halfvisual]

‘Infallibility’ seems to be an impossible assertion in either Sola Scriptura, traditions or councils. It’s all being determined through human interpretation. Even if the text could be shown somehow to be infallible (however that’s being defined), that infallibility is only as good as the infallibility of the agent engaging the text. It seems to be far better then to come to a consensus across a variety of Christian traditions and interpretations than an individual or denominational interpretation. Like the early creeds.

[@MrSeedi76]

True. That would be a kind of "minimalist consensus". Like Paul wrote, whoever believes that Jesus was crucified for our sins and rose... Etc. I think that seems pretty close to the earliest forms of Christianity. Because Paul also wrote that, one person holds one day higher and another doesn't, everyone should be convinced of his own opinion. Or, nothing is impure in itself, only for those who deem it impure, etc. That seems to be a rather, dare I say, liberal stance. Later on - all churches (after the schism and reformation) became way more rigid than this early approach towards a community made up of gentiles and jews who believed in Christ.

[@michaelvalor9480]

Agree

[@bruhmingo]

You’ve just shifted the problem back one more step, you have the exact same issue applying to your understanding of the magisterium/tradition. We see the exact same levels of disagreement among ecclesialists traditions.

[@halfvisual]

@@bruhmingoyes, that’s part of the issue I’m trying to raise with the idea of ‘infallibility’ in regards to scripture, traditions, councils or interpretations. I don’t see how it can possibly be a tenable stance to take. It seems to be more of an insistence. It will always come down to human exegesis. Like a scientific consensus then, it seems the best we can do is make a consensus across traditions that is open to revision. The point Gavin makes is that the Catholic Church backed itself into a corner by saying that councils are infallible and that the dogmas they affirm become required beliefs. They are unable then to change without admitting fallibility. The same goes for anyone using the Bible alone to attempt to build their theology while simultaneously holding to the idea they can reach an infallible interpretation, application or understanding of the text. Can’t be done even if the texts are in fact ‘infallible’. Gavin’s good at pointing out the pros and cons of each stance. I think the real smoking gun he argues is that when an individual is incorrect in interpretation, they have a small scale impact on the whole that is largely isolated to the individual. When an ecumenical council errs, suddenly the impact is exponential. He gives well argued examples of when this has happened. Main point: infallibility is not a tenable or helpful stance to hold in Christianity. God is infallible, Christendom isn’t.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

​@@halfvisual How could we know if we have Christendom at all if we can't be sure we've kept the tradition? There's a problem with this consensus view in that, depending on the threshold for tolerance it can stretch to the Reformation or be reduced to the first century, according to the interpreter's understanding of first century orthodoxy which is what Unitarians claim, for example.

[@Phlebas9202]

This book impressed me beyond his channel. It's much needed as the other churches seem to be on attack. It's a good introduction.

[@BaronStVon]

I look forward to reading this book sooner than later

[@tylercurtis764]

I genuinely love Dr Ortlund, so I don't intend for this to sound mean-spirited: I converted to Catholicism in part because of his dialogues with Catholics.

[@DavidTextle]

That’s very interesting, his dialogues with Catholicism actually made me stronger in the Protestant faith and tradition than I’ve ever been. Not to invalidate your experience or anything but I think it’s interesting how the same thing brought us to different conclusions

[@tylercurtis764]

@DavidTextle totally! It just depends on your initial perspective and what doctrines/issues are most important to you or just happen to speak to you more.

[@glennlanham6309]

@@DavidTextle it is the issue of authority where Protestantism falls...you really can't agree across denominations about what the essentials are..

[@InspironGantry]

@@glennlanham6309 I hear this so much, but in reality every Protestant agrees on the gospel and the 5 solas. This being the case despite disagreeing way too much on other topics is significant.

[@cassidyanderson3722]

@@InspironGantryThe largest Protestant sect - the Anglicans - don’t believe in sola scriptura.

[@Leviticus_is_fun]

Another great review. Thanks

[@atgred]

Protestant Syllogism Sola Scriptura 1st Premise: The Biblical Canon is a truth of Faith. 2nd Premise: Only Scripture has truths of Faith. Conclusion. Therefore, the Biblical Canon must be demonstrated by Scripture. If it cannot be demonstrated by Scripture, then it is NOT A TRUTH OF FAITH.

[@thewiseandthefoolish]

I haven’t read this book, but I watch Gavin’s videos on these topics. I appreciate the work he does in this area.

[@BillyBoy66]

Joel, with regard to Sola Scriptura, when/where did the idea of scriptural infallibility begin? When asked this question, many Christians will say it began in 2 Tim 3:16 but I think most people realize that this verse is talking about the OT, not necessarily the NT. So, where did this notion of "The Bible (OT & NT) is the infallible word of God." come from?

[@KingoftheJuice18]

Scripture might be "infallible," but it's plainly true throughout history that there's no infallibly obvious interpretation of Scripture. So saying "Scripture is infallible" lacks definitive application.

[@MrSeedi76]

That's further complicated by the fact that scripture is a collection of texts written over thousands of years by people with a vastly different mindset. In theology we therefore have the concept of the "foreign text". Something that gets glossed over by the fact that the Bible has been translated dozens of times into something that can be understood by modern readers even though we can probably never understand it from the actual perspective of someone living 2,000 years ago. That becomes obvious when trying to understand for example something like Paul's letter to the Romans from a modern, logical point of view. The one author who explained this best, IMHO, was the German catholic Georg Koepgen who wrote "Die Gnosis des Christentums" (the gnosis of Christianity but gnosis here is meant as "form of thought" not gnosticism). He ended up on the index of forbidden books but was later rehabilitated. Unfortunately I don't think the book was ever translated into English. I think it was one of the most important books I read while studying theology.

[@Jim-Mc]

Maybe it works in the Platonic Ideal sense. It can be true but applicable only to the degree a person can strive and achieve correct understanding of the truth.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

@@MrSeedi76 I appreciate the point you made, but I want more conservative believers to understand that the issue of our radical dependence on human interpretation is true even if Scripture were the unmediated word of God dropped directly from heaven all at once yesterday.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

​@@Jim-Mc That's why the common term is inerrant rather than infallible

[@alexvlk]

Excellent review.

[@JERRYSHONDA]

magnificently careful review profound insights

[@kaminasego]

Didnt know your ecclesial journey but it makes a lot of sense why you’d be interested in this book. Curious what made you stay Protestant? Vs conversion to Orthodoxy? I feel most drawn there, Anglo Catholic and Lutheran are close 2nds.

[@Athanasius242]

Sidenote: Why'd you leave Eastern Orthodoxy?

[@Athanasius242]

18:00 You do make some good comments there. As a protestant, I definitely feel the tension between interpretation of scripture and tradition and Sola Scriptura. I think it's interesting that critics of Sola Scriptura (Roman Catholics and EO) often miss this in their attacks or don't know how to articulate well. But it would be interesting to see Gavin or any other "Protestant apologist" for lack of a better phrase address this.

[@MrSeedi76]

​​​@@Athanasius242I studied protestant theology and religious studies and if I remember correctly from reading Luther (it's been a while) - "Sola Scriptura" developed from being "negatively applied" - Luther said, who wants to refute him (especially the 95 thesis) needs to do so from "scripture alone" - into something protestants use "positively" - to formulate creeds, etc. It's a bit similar to how dogma in the catholic church developed - as a defense against heresy, not as a "positive assertion" about what to believe, because the mysteries of faith shouldn't be pulled out in the open. They can't always be expressed. So IMHO the problems begin, when making the step from the negative to the positive application of either "Sola Scriptura" or dogma in the Roman catholic church. (in a nutshell)

[@BillyBoy66]

@@MrSeedi76 Interesting.

[@Athanasius242]

@MrSeedi76 hmmmm that's interesting thanks for that comment

[@Athanasius242]

@MrSeedi76 Based on my limited knowledge, I think the phenomenon you're explaining from negative to positive is an attempt to clarify the essence or spirit of the phrase Sola Scriptura Because the point Luther is making is "we (i.e. the Roman Catholic church) have strayed away too far from the scripture. Lets make it the core for our dogmas." Thinking about it some more, I think what you're explaining is why we end up with Solo scriptura from low church protestants who don't engage in church history. They're stuck in the negative phase of sola scriptura and miss the thought behind it.

[@anonimo-um2ng]

Accretions. Ortlund defends a clear accretion: That baptism does not save and that is not for the forgiveness of sins that it is clearly an accretion in christianity in general but Ortlund wants to defend that antibiblical teaching as real christianity. It is not. He was honest enough to inform that the Southern Baptist Convention could not do something so basic as to accept the Nicene Creed as an official creed of the Baptists in general because the Nicene Creed confesses that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins something that officially baptists reject. Yes the baptist view on baptism is an accretion in christianity but to be exact it is pure heresy for the Catholic Church if we use the Nicene Creed as an standard.

[@bruhmingo]

It would serve everyone well to actually read a systematic treatment on sola scripura, as these comments reveal glaring misunderstandings which give route to self refuting arguments. Gerhard’s doctrines of scripture are must reads.

[@glennie1946]

Infallibility = Bible worship

[@srich7503]

Hmmmm, can you explain…

[@InspironGantry]

Was Moses a tablet worshipper? I'm pretty sure he would have regarded the Law as infallible.

[@tonguemybumb]

ok liberal.

[@tookie36]

If only God left an infallible living tradition. Can’t believe He dropped the ball 😬

[@Dolphin._.]

You think God dropped the ball?

[@InspironGantry]

Same as in the OT, human fallibility in the face of divine revelation is quite something. It's how you go from the apostles to having two halves of the church using their 'infallible' authority to mutually anathematise each other for 1000 years.

[@tookie36]

@@Dolphin._. no. I think sola scriptura is a tragedy

[@tookie36]

@@InspironGantry yes unity is a sure sign of peace and the further we get from the Eucharist the more division we have

[@Dolphin._.]

@@tookie36 Somone viewing scripture as the infallible authority is a tragedy?

[@cantrait7311]

What it means to be Protestant ? Is finding the Protestant denomination that fits your ideology A lot of work since there are over 40 k different denominations