Sola Scriptura Defended in 6 Minutes

Рет қаралды 42,839

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 1 600

@TruthUnites 8 ай бұрын

For those saying "which Scripture?" You need to demonstrate how this is a problem for Protestants when it wasn't a problem for every church on earth until the end of the medieval era (the first time infallible canon lists show up) or for the Jewish people during their entire history of reception of Scripture. Infallible canon lists were never a thing in redemptive history until 600 years ago.

@prosoblue 8 ай бұрын

There was more than one Hebrew canon. All versions of the Old Testament in early Christianity were just taken from the local form of the Hebrew canon. That's why the Ethiopians have a massive canon for example.

@jep6752 8 ай бұрын

The earliest lists of what was considered canonical scripture were even in disagreement with each other. That's why it was necessary for a magisterium to settle the matter. And no, the first time an infallible canon list showing up is not at the end of the medieval era. The Muratorian fragment, also known as the Muratorian Canon, is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. Even this list is missing books of the New Testament, and it contains the Wisdom of Solomon. The missing books are: Hebrews James 1 & 2 Peter So no, the Canon was not self-attesting, neither the OT nor the NT; they required the authority of the Church and Sacred Tradition to resolve this matter.

@shotinthedark90 8 ай бұрын

It wasn't a problem for the early church because it didn't believe in sola scriptura whereas Protestants do... Is the issue not obvious?

@TruthUnites 8 ай бұрын

@@jep6752 You claim that infallible canon lists come earlier than the late medieval era, what do you have in mind?

@michaelclay7822 8 ай бұрын

⁠⁠@@TruthUniteswhere are either of you getting an infallible canon from? Also, to be fair, your first comment seems to be another example of why scripture itself couldn’t have been the sole or the supreme authority. Both for the Jews and for the early Christians, they existed before there was a completed set of scripture.

@RuslanKD 8 ай бұрын

Love this concise and precise summary! Great job. Will definitely share and react to this!

@lawrencecastle2777 8 ай бұрын

Let’s go! Can’t wait for the video

@snakefrumpkin4271 8 ай бұрын

Oh dope…I’ve been waiting for you to react some of Gavin’s stuff. He’s next level!

@thespyer2k 8 ай бұрын

Cool seeing you here. Gavin is great

@TruthUnites 8 ай бұрын

thanks!

@theosophicalwanderings7696 8 ай бұрын

Oh dang Ruslan dropping in??

@snakefrumpkin4271 8 ай бұрын

Killed it again, Gavin! Great work!!

@TheRoark 8 ай бұрын

This was a blast to work on! Excited to see this go live 😊

@ottovonbaden6353 8 ай бұрын

Fantastic job!

@Presbapterian 8 ай бұрын

This one is fantastic! Thanks for making this.

@ClauGutierrezY 8 ай бұрын

Thank you Ryan for your professionalism. Awesome job!

@TheRoark 8 ай бұрын

@@ClauGutierrezY thanks Clau! Same to you 😃

@brianh2477 8 ай бұрын

Great animation… But I’m still confused. Where is there a verse in the bible that states the bible ALONE is the sole infallible source of authority?

@danielhaas9469 8 ай бұрын

This is the best explanation of Sola Scriptura! Please don't give up Dr. Ortlund! May God of the universe the Lord of Armies keep you and may he shine his face upon you!

@micahjakubowicz4172 8 ай бұрын

I still haven't heard where Sola Scriptura is taught in scritpure

@danielhaas9469 8 ай бұрын

@micahjakubowicz4172 what you must keep in mind is this. Let's say your parents verbally told you how you are to conduct yourself while they were away or you were away. But for safe guarding what they said to you they also wrote it down so that you could be reminded of what was said. Are you following? If you are, then God is acting no differently than this. God communicated to Moses all the pertinent aspects of the faith verbally at first but then Moses by God's inspiration wrote them down so that Israel would not forget the Lord nor his commands so that they had the law written. This remains true when the prophets were called by God. First it was verbally communicated and then written down so Isreal would know and be reminded AND be held accountable by it. Christ very clearly read from scripture and held the Sanadhren accountable for what was written. Therefore, of somebody came along and gave you something else to do that would draw you away from what was written, you had proof that it is not coming from God. Just as in the same way if a person came along and said your parents also said Y which is important; you could verify that assertion and say no actually they did not say that. Then that other person can say well it was verbally stated. You can say no they didn't because if this is important as you say; they would have written that down. Now that dosent mean as you could ask; not all aspects of how to live a good life as been duly written so are you telling me that it has to be written? Of course not, for in both scenarios except for the case of the Law we have flexibility to do good "works" that demonstrate you love your neighbor and God. For instance does the bible say to mow your neighbors lawn even if they are able? No, but if you do it out of love you are doing what is good and pleasing to God.

@fopdoodler9427 8 ай бұрын

@@Ben94729 Intercessions with Mary and saints aren't part of Reformed theology.

@danielhaas9469 8 ай бұрын

@micahjakubowicz4172 Would you pull doctrine from Harry Potter?

@danielhaas9469 8 ай бұрын

@@micahjakubowicz4172 if I told you Jesus floated over Jerusalem with his arms outstretched in the sky during your Earthly ministry and say you must believe this to be saved what would you say?

@redgoesface1671 8 ай бұрын

Amen! Here's a very educational video that could be shown to even our teen children as an introduction to the topic. Thank you brother Gavin.

@the3rdchief 8 ай бұрын

Brainwashing the young ones, unfortunate

@micahjakubowicz4172 8 ай бұрын

Don't show this to teens. They're too smart to fall for this ridiculous argument.

@micktoss 8 ай бұрын

@@micahjakubowicz4172elaborate?

@butter__boi703 8 ай бұрын

Very brief and succinct. As a Catechuman I disagree entirely though. The fathers submitted to the authority of the church. Also we have pre council sources saying the apostles appointed successors

@triplea6174 8 ай бұрын

RCA or EO?

@Madokaexe 7 ай бұрын

Yeah, sola scriptura is saying that the church ordained by god started to be in error at some point and only when the reformation happened 1500 years later it started to be true again, would god really let his church be in error for so long?

@thederpyunicorn306 6 ай бұрын

@@Madokaexethat’s not what sola scriptura is saying at all, in fact before sola scriptura was even coined there were catholic theologians who questioned the infallibility of the church, aka the proto protestants

@Madokaexe 6 ай бұрын

@@thederpyunicorn306 I'm not a roman catholic Christian so I can't speak in their behalf, do you have a source for that claim? As an eastern orthodox Christian I'm curious to read, also, what's your definition of sola scriptura?

@kang7348 4 ай бұрын

@@Madokaexe he has no sourse, the idea that there were protestants in the early church is laughable.

@kevinjypiter6445 3 ай бұрын

The issue with sola scriptura isn't that we need to use scripture to measure against the councils and confessions, it is that new people will use their own "interpretation" of scripture and claim it as God's word, and then measure that against the former councils and confessions. What instead needs to be done is understand how the historic church understood scripture. If I were to compare a "pastor billy bob" vs St. Ignatius/Clement/Polycarp, I would go with the latters' "interpretation". If scripture was really that clear, then should there be a clear denomination within Protestantism which conveys the gospel truth and clearly understands Christology, Soteriology, role of ordinances/sacraments, etc etc. Heck, protestant churches can't even decide if they want women pastors or not, let alone fundamental, mere Christianity

@thadofalltrades 18 күн бұрын

there's not even a clear denomination within Orthodoxy. It's a human problem. Even in the early church, different churches were believing different things.

@ministeriosemmanuel638 8 ай бұрын

Another beautiful infographic animation, bravo! I love these animations! Only infallible rule of faith for all Christians! Pls read Psalms 119 and be sanctified by the word of God. God bless you for continuing to defend our Protestant beliefs Dr. Ortlund!

@unitewithch 8 ай бұрын

Amen!

@marksmale827 8 ай бұрын

It's just a shame that Christians disagree on so many things, given the importance of Scripture across all traditions.

@micahjakubowicz4172 8 ай бұрын

@hexproofproject8199 "I ask...that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us" "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all"

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

@@marksmale827the division and confusion of Satan, thanks to the reformers. In addition, Protestantism has damaged society by relativism causing contraception, which was denied by all denominations until 1930, abortion, IVF, LGBT+, socialism, freemasonry etc

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

@@marksmale827the fruit of personal interpretation which led to the damage caused to society by the relativism of Protestantism contraception, denied by all denominations before 1930, abortion, SSM, IVF, LGBT+ socialism, freemasonry etc

@catholicguy1073 8 ай бұрын

Good video. I disagree with it but appreciate you giving a quick talk on what your views are on this doctrine you believe in.

@pedroguimaraes6094 8 ай бұрын

Excellent work, Gavin. That how Protestant ideas should be defended: with Scripture itself. God gave us what we need and what is necessary to defend the truth. Your presentation was flawless. I would argue that a video explaining the protestant Canon (again, focused on the Scripture, when it says that the Old Canon would be given by the Jews, Jesus saying the components of the Hebrew Bible etc...) would be an excellent choice. God bless you. Hugs from Brazil.

@Jeremy73950 8 ай бұрын

This was a simple but beautiful animation and video. Covered all the important bases and gave a very good image of the position. Would love to see more of these short concise essays.

@TeamWilsonCT 8 ай бұрын

Awesome - please do 6 minute videos on the other 4 Solas

@ernestgrouns8710 4 ай бұрын

About 45 seconds in I had my questions answered. I had the wrong idea, thinking that everything non-scriptural was discounted, but that wasn't the case at all. While I think there is still some room for debate, I greatly appreciate men of God like Gavin for all that they do in bringing understanding and healthy debate. His defense of Sola Scriptura is compelling and difficult to disagree with.

@qwerty_L 8 ай бұрын

I already know some rubuttals are already being recorded

@TheRoark 8 ай бұрын

But are they being animated??

@morghe321 8 ай бұрын

3 hour rebuttals. 😅

@Nick-rb1dc 8 ай бұрын

Gavin, thank you for this, now we will have to sit through an avalanche of Catholic apologetics videos responding to this over the next two weeks. You might even cause a new book to be written. Big Apologetics needs a video like this every few months to keep the bills paid.

@rosem12514 8 ай бұрын

You don’t have to

@Daniel_Miller300 Ай бұрын

The only problem is: none of us Protestants can agree on what Scripture says. I'm not saying that Catholics or the Orthodox are more unified either; I just know a lot less about them.

@legacyandlegend Ай бұрын

That comes down to the fall with Adam and Eve. We'll never be perfectly unified until Christ comes back.

@geoffjs Ай бұрын

@@legacyandlegendBut why does Protestantism continue to splinter which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17:11-23?

@legacyandlegend Ай бұрын

@geoffjs I literally just answered that. The fall of man. Splintering isn't specific to Protestants. We've splintered since Christ ascended into heaven. We have the roman Catholic church, eastern orthodox, the oriental orthodox, assyrian church of the east, old Catholics, and Polish national catholic church. Like I said, until Christ comes back, we're screwed. It's not what Jesus intended, but then again, neither was for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit...

@geoffjs Ай бұрын

@@legacyandlegend There are 23 Catholic rites, all loyal to Rome & a similar number of Orthodox Churches, in total perhaps 50, far less than the scandalous tens of thousands of Protestant sects resulting from Luther splintering Christianity & Protestantism.

@EzeBall1710 Ай бұрын

@@geoffjsspot on

@jotink1 8 ай бұрын

Fantastic! Thankyou Dr Ortlund and I am sure some will still misrepresent this simple explanation.

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

Unbiblical and heretical

@sskuk1095 8 ай бұрын

Hey Gavin, I wanted to share with you that this channel has become one of my go to sources on theoloical teaching which i commonly share with friends and follow believers!

@TruthUnites 8 ай бұрын

yahoo, so glad to hear its useful to you!

@kurtgundy 7 ай бұрын

Amen. I thank God for Gavin and this channel.

@Lalones__ 2 ай бұрын

Can you continue these? The information was so easy to digest

@VeNeRaGe 8 ай бұрын

Hey Dr. Ortlund, are you still writing a book on the case for protestantism? If so, will it be out soon?

@TruthUnites 8 ай бұрын

yes, see my community tab for a recent update. releases in august.

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

Is there a case?

@TESSU-z2d 15 күн бұрын

@@geoffjs😂

@alexdelales57 8 ай бұрын

This is fire. Thank you Gavin for helping to teach people about Protestantism. It makes sense. God bless you!

@toddupchurch1028 8 ай бұрын

Yes, it is fire. Hell fire.

@NATAR160 8 ай бұрын

@@toddupchurch1028No it's purgatory. Maybe we shd pay to the RC to release his soul from purgatory wen he dies so that the RC cld make more money.

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

Makes no sense at all

@raphaelfeneje486 8 ай бұрын

God bless you immensely for this. The caricature on sola scriptura is really terrible. God bless your ministry and family 🙏❤️✝️

@fantasia55 8 ай бұрын

Protestants do not follow the original biblical canon, from AD 382, yet claim whichever version and translation of Scriptura they choose to follow is Sola.

@raphaelfeneje486 8 ай бұрын

@@fantasia55 You're confused, right?? Can you tell me what has that got to do with sola scriptura?? Does Roman Catholic follow the same Bible from the onset?? What about Eastern orthodox??

@fantasia55 8 ай бұрын

@@raphaelfeneje486 Yes, the Catholic Church follows the original biblical canon.

@raphaelfeneje486 8 ай бұрын

@@fantasia55 Still waiting

@fantasia55 8 ай бұрын

@raphaelfeneje486 Catholics follow the original biblical canon, but do not claim it to be the sole authority. How can anyone believe in Bible Alone with so much variation in canons and translation? Which is the Bible version that is Alone?

@matnic_6623 8 ай бұрын

Always doing great work Gavin! Very concise and just generally helpful.

@cassidyanderson3722 8 ай бұрын

If two Christians, acting in good faith, have conflicting interpretations of scripture, to what normative authority do they turn to determine which, if either, interpretation is correct?

@TheStockCarStig 8 ай бұрын

The same can be said between a modern Catholic and a Sedevecantist Catholic. Both are appealing to, in their view, authentic Catholic teaching.

@hjc1402 8 ай бұрын

That’s when they can turn to the other authorities of the church- the creeds, councils, etc. Remember, as mentioned in the video, sola scriptura is not a denial of other real authorities in the church. It just claims that only one of those authorities is infallible.

@cassidyanderson3722 8 ай бұрын

@@TheStockCarStig I’m not a Catholic and don’t know enough about it or the other group to understand how that is even responsive to the question.

@FalconOfStorms 8 ай бұрын

It's simple. Using the conflicting interpretations of which church is the #OneTrueChurchTM you can interpret either the Roman Catholic Church, one of the Orthodox churches, or one of the Mormon churches to have the correct teaching, and can then begin delving in to the conflicting interpretations of that organization's teachings.

@FalconOfStorms 8 ай бұрын

@@CanalAnti-demon Wait until you learn that the shape of the Earth has multiple interpretations too!

@micktoss 8 ай бұрын

That was an incredibly well put, and clear defense of Sola Scriptura. God bless you Gavin for your work.

@koppite9600 8 ай бұрын

Which scripture? Does it include the Epistle of Straw?

@micktoss 8 ай бұрын

@@koppite9600 nice one

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, indefensible and heretical and it explains the confusion of Protestantism. Can you see the benefit of the authority Matt 16 19 of the CC

@micktoss 8 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs nice statement. Referring to the Bible to make a claim from authority? Mark 7?

@koppite9600 7 ай бұрын

@@micktoss proper use of the bible by a Catholic. It's you who have overinflated the use of the bible resulting in infinite churches of christianities.

@yeetmaestro575 8 ай бұрын

As a Catholic I applaud this video for being both robust and pithy. While I don’t think I’ll ever again be convinced of SS, I think this is the best expression of such.

@TruthUnites 8 ай бұрын

thanks for saying so!

@fantasia55 8 ай бұрын

Protestants do not follow the original biblical canon, from AD 382, yet claim whichever version and translation of Scriptura they choose to follow is Sola.

@jonathanpenduka7420 8 ай бұрын

My question is if Jesus Himself being God in flesh used scripture as the rule stick, what makes you differ with Him and if you differ with Him are you still in the Same body of believers He established ?

@callum4337 8 ай бұрын

Do we?

@the3rdchief 8 ай бұрын

@@jonathanpenduka7420Where did Jesus use Scripture as the rule stick in scripture?

@hjc1402 8 ай бұрын

Amen! This is the best most succinct explanation of sola scriptura. I hope this aids in us finally coming out of this age of misunderstanding between Catholics and magisterial Protestants. And for the clarification of the difference between the magisterial protestants who hold to true sola scriptura and others who happen to fall under the umbrella term Protestant who hold to a solO scriptura and confuse the two.

@dailyDorc 8 ай бұрын

It's certainly a more coherent and acceptable view of Sola Scriptura but who are the magisterial Protestants? I'm pretty ignorant of most groups but I have seen the Lutheran Church in America fragment like 3 times in the last 15 years and suddenly there's another magisterium. And just as a casual observation I just wonder how a magisterium that can be easily relocated and therefore easily have its authority ignored can be considered a magisterium in the first place

@fuuzug777 8 ай бұрын

I agree with. the problem with a lot of Protestants is that we tend to go Solo Scriptura instead of Sola. I have been to churches who dont even know what the council of Nicaea is and generally the theology at the very least is a complete mess. Most protestant have a very shallow knowledge of Church history and this needs to change

@hjc1402 8 ай бұрын

@@dailyDorc the magisterial protestants were those of the conservative reformation- Lutherans, anglicans, and the reformed including later Arminian Methodists and Calvinist Presbyterians. Magisterial means the emphasis on the teaching authority of the church. They still hold to the authority of the creeds, confessions, councils of the church and church fathers. They truly did not want to split from the RCC. They rejected those of the radical reformation such as the anabaptists and quakers, who desired to throw everything out and actually wanted to spilt from the RCC. You can Google it for more information.

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

The Catholic Church will never accept sola Scriptura which is unbiblical and heretical

@otineyskciderf 6 ай бұрын

1) For the first 300 years of Christianity, NOBODY had a bible. I am not saying there were no God-breathed inspired texts; but they were not codified into a single source called a bible during that time. The idea of what was and was not an inspired text was also a little fluid during that time as well. The Early Church Fathers often drew on texts to develop doctrine and theology, which eventually did not make it into the bible as sacred scripture; yet were treated as much as so. Texts like the Didache, the Letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Book of Enoch, the writings of Ireneaus, Polycarp (who was taught directly by St. John the beloved disciple) and many more. But a recognized inerrant, infallible, universal God-inspired single book called a bible did not exist. 2) To muddy the waters even more during those 300 years; many more texts emerged as the thirst for new Christian 'scripture' became a lucrative market, or heretical groups like the gnostics produced their own material. Hundreds more texts claiming inspired origins also circulated among the various and distant communities. Texts like the gospels of Thomas, Mary, Peter, Judas, Barnabas, or the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. etc. 3) Since there was no recognized bible, it goes without saving that the principle of Sola Scriptura was unheard of, never a part of authenticate Christianity, and would not even be known until invented by a mentally disturbed catholic monk in the 1500's in the form of a new heresy. 4) The Chrisitan Church was formed and led by living men who received their offices from the Apostles. Just as the office of Judas was given to Mathais, each Apostle recognized they held a specific office that could be transferred or shared in Apostolic Succession. Each Christian community recognized the Apostles or their successors as having that leadership and teaching Authority as being from Jesus directly. 5) By 385AD-400AD the successors of those Apostles realized the written texts they used in Liturgy and to form doctrine and theology were being lost, degraded, and infiltrated by forgeries, bad copies, and crafted but not God-inspired texts. The problem was, over 300 years out from the First Apostles and witnesses; there was no one alive who could vouch for what texts were inspired and what wasn't. For example; to this day, NO ONE knows who the author of the Letter to the Hebrews was. You can make an educated guess; but no one knows for sure. We don't know who wrote Matthew or Mark; it is only by tradition that it is their testimony which someone recorded; but that is hearsay at best. Luke and Acts was written by Luke the Physician and NOT Luke the Apostle, and is a record of what he remembers from following Peter and Paul at certain points. At some point during the discussions, the Letters of Clement were considered as scripture; while the Apocalypse of John was not finding much support. So by 400AD, here is the situation. No first edition leather bound Bible signed and handed out by Jesus ever existed. None of the Apostles made a bible, nor did they leave behind any written clues or instructons for a bible or what should be in it. Even the current bible by itself can not give us a table of contents of itself. By 385AD, there were about 5000 different texts, scripts, parchments, fragments o writings put before them all claiming they should be considered scripture. So the Catholic Faith through the claimed Teaching Authority the Catholic Bishops held by their Succession to the original 11 Apostles plus Paul; assembled from the 5000 texts, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit the 73 books which would form the Inerrant Infallible Bible for all Christians henceforth. The truth and reliability of these 73 books were then sealed by the approval of the Chair of Peter held then by Pope Honorius. It was ONLY by this process did an infallible Bible form for Christians of the True Faith for the next 1100 years until a wolf in sheeps clothing decided upon his own authority that he alone could decipher the true bible from those 5000 pieces; and created his own 66 book version. He was then the inspiration for others who thought he mucked it up, so they then took a stab at it and made their own bibles on their own authority. Even the KJV was invented by this method. The question then is 'will the real bible please stand up'? Should it be the ecumenical bible compiled by the valid successors to the Apostles in 400AD and agreed upon by 99.999% of Christianity? Or is it the result of individuals, 1500 years separated from the Apostles, motivated by greed, fear, or self-agrandizing aspirations who invented a 66 book mimic? Which story do you think better fits the history and logic of Christianity? Who has the better claim to Authority and the working of God? For me, it is either the Catholic claim or nothing. The protestant claim is so ridiculous and late to the game that it just defeats itself. If the Catholic Church aint it; then there is no church, and the whole thing is a farce anyway. So that is why I am a Catholic and will always be.

@Companyofheroes8 8 ай бұрын

Absolutely excellent video, and easy to understand.

@Tricorncitizen 8 ай бұрын

Thanks Gavin. Don't let people get to you about the local flood video, while you gave me things to think about within that video, I do not think you harmed the church by explaining the position for the local flood.

@beingmelody2750 8 ай бұрын

What a brilliant explanation. I will be coming back to this video time and again. Thank you for all that you do!

@MrKappaKappaPsi 8 ай бұрын

Praise God for your ministry and excellent teaching

@jesusrocks256 8 ай бұрын

So good

@RobertG3567 8 ай бұрын

Do I have permission to use this in its entirety with my youth group?

@ScroopGroop 8 ай бұрын

Masterful work.

@micahjakubowicz4172 8 ай бұрын

What part of this is masterful?

@tigertian1251 8 ай бұрын

@@micahjakubowicz4172 Animation, Clear concise argument. You can tell Gavin is a master at his craft: Apologetics

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

@@tigertian1251doesn’t justify what is unbiblical and heretical

@tigertian1251 7 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs Could you be more specific?

@prime_time_youtube 8 ай бұрын

Simple, but very compelling!!! Much appreciated!

@theosophicalwanderings7696 8 ай бұрын

I think all you need is a video on how Protestants account for the canon and a video on “who gets to interpret” from a Protestant perspective and you pretty much answer all the main Roman/EO objections! Theres really nothing else beyond those three.

@billybobbenny9997 8 ай бұрын

Absolutely this!!

@EricAlHarb 7 ай бұрын

Lol. The Church is infallible because it is the Church which is entrusted with the charge to make disciples of all nations. It cannot do so if it can be wrong. It cannot be corruptible because the body of Christ is not corruptible. I am Orthodox.

@turkeybobjr 7 ай бұрын

@@EricAlHarb Which verses state this?

@EricAlHarb 7 ай бұрын

@@turkeybobjr Go make disciples of all nations!

@turkeybobjr 7 ай бұрын

@@EricAlHarb What does that have to do with ecclesial infallibility?

@karlkeating2803 8 ай бұрын

The fundamental problem with the thesis in the video is the misunderstanding of infallibility. Inerrancy is not infallibility. The Bible is inerrant (contains no errors), but it is not infallible. The video confuses the terms (an almost universal problem with advocates of sola scriptura). Infallibility is the inability to decide something erroneously. Infallibility requires an active agent, one capable of making a decision, whether rightly or wrongly. The Bible is not an active agent at all. It is static. No book, not even an inspired book, is an active agent. No book, not even the Bible, can make a decision about anything. People who read the Bible make decisions when they interpret what it says. In theory it is possible that someone, or some group of someones, possesses the charism of infallibility and can decide with absolute certainty what the Bible means, but that is not a charism that anyone reading this has. And it is not a charism that even the Bible has, since, as I said, the Bible is not an active agent. Bottom line: The Bible is not infallible. It is inerrant. The words are not synonyms. The Bible's inerrancy doesn't guarantee that it always will be understood properly by fallible people like us. Either there exists an interpretative authority that can function at times infallibly (such as an ecumenical council), or there exists no such authority. In the latter case, one must be satisfied with a probability or possibility of correct interpretation but not a guarantee of it.

@461weavile 8 ай бұрын

I like your point, but it's a tough sell, because some people won't even agree on the definitions of the words "church," "worship," or "prayer" when Jesus Himself says them. We are a long ways off from getting people to understand what "inerrancy" means.

@rexlion4510 8 ай бұрын

The active agent who makes the Bible infallible is the Holy Spirit, for He divinely inspired and guided the people who held the quills. But you make a valid distinction, which becomes valuable when we consider the Councils. No Council is infallible, but it is possible for some Councils to act inerrantly at times. The Council happened to act in an error-free manner when it listed the Canon of Scripture. But it was not the listing of the Canon which made the Scriptures infallible; that act was accomplished by God and we all accept it (the infallibility of Scripture) as a matter of faith. 🙂

@461weavile 8 ай бұрын

@@rexlion4510 No, I think you misunderstood his comment. The Bible is not infallible, it is inerrant. The Bible can't be described as either infallible or not because it does not make decisions. That means the adjective is not appropriately defined to modify the particular noun in this instance. To make a mistake, you have to have choices and make a decision. Something which is infallible is something that cannot choose mistakenly. Something which is inerrant is something which cannot have the quality of wrongness. Now, if we substitute the word "inerrant" into your comment, which may have been your intent, and I simply have no clue why you responded to this particular comment, we could have a different response, which is this: Yes, the Bible is inerrant because of God, but a more pertinent (perhaps not more important, but certainly more pertinent) question is how we know which passages are inerrant. We know the passages in the Bible are inerrant from various sources which I'm sure you and I would agree on but are too complicated for this forum. What we need to know is which passages are in the Bible. Is there a way to know with certainty that the passages we think are in the Bible are correctly named to be in the Bible? I only know of one way, and that's if there is someone to tell us which passages they are and be known to not be wrong. If a regular human claimed to know which books are in the Bible, should we trust him? Is there anybody who might have a particular ability to not be wrong about this matter? It is our faith in God, and particularly in God the Holy Spirit, that allows us to know that the list of the canon delineates the books which are part of the inerrant works of scripture, and does so without mistake. I suppose there is a third possibility here, and that would be that you're making a joke about confusing the terms "infallible" and "inerrant," and that's why you're replying to this comment in particular. If so, I'm a goof and I missed it.

@sweetpea11 4 ай бұрын

@@461weavileisn’t that literally why we have the Holy Spirit with us? To lead us to the right path of thinking? God gave his word, people who believe in his word have the Holy Spirit, therefore they can understand it and it isn’t because of the understanding of man but the discernment of the Holy Spirit? God’s word alone is infallible because we believe in him and we are given the Holy Spirit because of our belief in him and his Son that we are able to understand scripture. His word is then infallible, and the highest authority. The Holy Spirit that dwells within us has higher authority than man, whose heart we cannot know. Jesus was able to discern and interpret the scriptures because was one with the Father. Does it not also make sense that those who believe and have the Holy Spirit within them also have the ability to understand the scriptures? Why would I trust man when I can trust God?

@461weavile 4 ай бұрын

@@sweetpea11 Two things come to mind. The first is that it depends on who you mean by "us." The second is that believing God's word is not enough to have the Holy Spirit within you. I would also nit-pick that learning and understanding is not the reason we receive the Holy Spirit and it's more like a beneficial side effect, but I don't think that plays an important role in your comment. Lastly, your comparison to Jesus's knowledge on account of His oneness with the Father to the oneness of the Holy Spirit with the Father misses the mark because a person who receives the Holy Spirit doesn't also receive that oneness with the Father. We will only receive that oneness if we receive our eternal inheritance which is heaven.

@nateperez6587 8 ай бұрын

Lol to all the Ex Protestants who became catholic because of their misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura…

@NoahBradon 8 ай бұрын

Misunderstanding and conflation abound on all sides.

@nateperez6587 8 ай бұрын

@@NoahBradonYeah but my main point is, you hear way to many testimonies of “Ex Protestants” leaving to catholicism, after they heard a ridiculous KZbin video of allegedly refuting sola scriptura, all the while not knowing that the person is likely committing a straw man fallacy argument, not accurately representing sola scriptura…

@NoahBradon 8 ай бұрын

@@nateperez6587 I can assure you the number of ex-Catholics leaving the Church to become Protestant due to their own misunderstandings/straw men is extremely high, as well. In fact, every single ex-Catholic I’ve met has told me they believe the Church teaches something that’s demonstrably untrue/contrary to actual doctrine. My point is, I don’t think this is a problem unique to one side at all.

@nateperez6587 8 ай бұрын

@@NoahBradonThat’s called the Tu Quo Que fallacy…

@nateperez6587 8 ай бұрын

@@NoahBradon Also to deny the recently, ever so popular trend, of leaving Protestantism because, “Sola Scriptura is self defeating.” Is to deceive yourself… We’ve turned this into a popular trend of bashing protestantism because of this strawman argument.

@Presbapterian 8 ай бұрын

This is a great summary of Sola Scriptura! One of the best parts is that which distinguishes the oral teaching of the apostles from the latter transmission of this teaching.

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

Unbiblical and heretical, look at the fruits of Protestantism

@SugoiEnglish1 3 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs Like more people getting to here the general call? Like that fruit?

@odd-phase 8 ай бұрын

Beautifully put, Dr Ortlund!

@FollowerOfChrist0708 8 ай бұрын

Amen! I needed this video! Glory to to our Lord Jesus alone!🙏✝️

@ethanmetzner5318 3 ай бұрын

Fantastic video. For other commentors who are looking for resources, I am writing a paper for my Systematic Theology class on Sola Scriptura and Roger Olson's "The Mosaic of Christian Belief," namely chapters 1-4, has been supremely helpful in wrapping my mind around the necessity of unity, catholicity, and the consensus of The Great Tradition., Olson even uses the analogy of the Supreme Court as well.

@daddada2984 4 ай бұрын

To God be the glory.

@swires1 7 ай бұрын

Already your thumbnail and the first/last graphics make no sense, since the Bible wasn't even in book form like that originally.

@lad6524 8 ай бұрын

God bless you Gavin for this wonderful work.

@ethanbunn1948 7 ай бұрын

Right so the scripture that comes from the church you're in protest with is the only authority. Gotcha, Sola scriptura is self-defeating.

@British_loyalist 6 ай бұрын

The church came from scripture, not the other way around

@ethanbunn1948 6 ай бұрын

@British_Protestant So the Bible dropped out of the sky magically and wasn't formed and brought together by a magisterium? Hmm someone doesn't understand history. And the church was well established before scripture was even written so no you're wrong.

@jakestevanja1304 8 ай бұрын

Incredible videooo. Well done

@javierperd2604 8 ай бұрын

Yet another PHENOMENAL concise presentation on an important topic, Gavin. Well done 👏

@bolgerlake 8 ай бұрын

Great!

@edwardlargent4144 8 ай бұрын

Great video! Really renews my confidence in this doctrine. Also.. a great, short summary of an argument defending Sola Scripture I heard during a debate one time in Steubenville, OH…

@johngeverett 8 ай бұрын

I've never heard this explanation before. I guess I am 'Sola Scriptura' after all.

@461weavile 8 ай бұрын

You may want to reconsider. Read John 21 and you'll see that Jesus Christ himself asked somebody to be responsible for His followers.

@upsxace 8 ай бұрын

@@461weavile you didnt fucking watch the video did you XD

@461weavile 8 ай бұрын

@@upsxace Sure I did. I even reminded a couple times when I thought he said something incorrect to see if I'd misheard. Maybe you're not convinced that John 21 is strong enough evidence? John 16 might help with that.

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical and heretical

@megaloschemos9113 8 ай бұрын

Excellent, thank you Gavin. The best explanation of Sola Scriptura I have heard. God bless you

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

Doesn’t change its unbiblical and heretical nature

@psalm1readers 8 ай бұрын

This serves the body of Christ well. This is something the everyday church-goer who is looking to grow in their faith can make sense of, process and respond to. Thanks Gavin.

@dougmasters4561 8 ай бұрын

This definition if sola scriptura pretty much makes the doctrine effectively useless unless you are talking tk a catholic about the pope specifically ( which is truly, a very narrow scope ). Other than that, everyone agrees that only the Word of God is paramount ans that councils can be flawed. The problem with sola scriptura is that which it is used to justify. You still need an authority to interpret scripture. Sola scriptura is, or just became an excuse to side-step the authority if tradition and apostolic succession so things can be interpreted in any number of ways without an authority to keep it in proper perspective. It was also a way to reverse justify justification by faith alone which, whole not untrue in its proper understanding, it is untrue in its broader application, that all we need for our salvation is faith despite any number of verses that show otherwise. Jesus did not leave a tome of scripture, he left illiterate men to start a church, through which the gospel would be spread and grace would be conveyed. If there needs to be an authority through which to interpret scripture ( and there does ) then one can say that scripture is paramount until they are blue in the face. It is an empty phrase if there is no relatively authoritative authority to interpret it. And, simply being able to read the Word is not enough as is quite evident in human history. The irony of a couple examples provided here, that early apostolically descended men had disagreements so therefore, the Word guards truth against such folly, is that the doctrine places this truth in the hands of regular average joe humans. Sola scriptura does not answer that problem. It not only has the same problem, but more so in that the interpreters of truth become mostly lesser capable people, or groups of people. Without church authority, we still have to interpret it. Now we have billions coming to their own conclusions as opposed to a flawed, but grace infused institution that was left to us at the command of Jesus Christ. And that would be my last point. Scripture cannot simply be held in so high a regard because it is the Word of God without also recognize a high regard for the Church as it was a command by Jesus to establish. His very disciples were tasked with this as their most precious priority. Sola Scriptura is essentially, an empty mistake.

@nf8367 8 ай бұрын

Best explanation thus far invalidating SS

@dougmasters4561 8 ай бұрын

@nf8367 thank you. I am just in the beginning stages of converting from LCMS Lutheran to Orthodoxy so, truly, this is mostly my summarization of other explanations from wise people, too numerous for me to name, who have counseled me in recent months. I can take no credit for that.

@rexlion4510 8 ай бұрын

You wrote: "This definition if sola scriptura pretty much makes the doctrine effectively useless unless you are talking tk a catholic about the pope specifically ( which is truly, a very narrow scope ). Other than that, everyone agrees that only the Word of God is paramount ans that councils can be flawed." I'm pretty sure the Roman Catholic Church doesn't agree with you, though; pretty sure they think that the Councils are infallible. Therein lies a problem IMO.

@dougmasters4561 8 ай бұрын

@rexlion4510 they say that yet also acknowledge and even argue with pride how the pope changed a certain council decree or declared one void. Ive always found that a bit circular to get into with them.

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

More than a mistake, it is unbiblical and heretical

@bigbosssauce7 8 ай бұрын

Who do you think gave you the Bible as you know it? If Christians throughout history would have followed Sola scriptura, we wouldn't have the faith today.

@461weavile 8 ай бұрын

Careful; I bet a lot of protesters would be happy if we didn't have the faith we have today.

@theosophicalwanderings7696 8 ай бұрын

LOVE IT

@TheRoark 8 ай бұрын

Thanks man! Your videos are great too. Glad you loved it 😃

@theosophicalwanderings7696 8 ай бұрын

@@TheRoarkI am a freelance videographer we should connect!

@macesune 8 ай бұрын

I think it is awesome how Peter calls Paul’s writings Scripture as well as reminds that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

@alyu1129 7 ай бұрын

That is one possible support for Sola Scriptura. But that is a slender branch to hang a huge doctrine on. You place so much weight on that passing mention because you presume that Peter's writing is authoritative scripture. What about Peter's own writing? Any scriptural basis for regarding HIS writing as authoritative scripture?

@macesune 7 ай бұрын

@@alyu1129 I don’t hang the whole doctrine on this. Like you said it is one possible support. This is simply a supplementary support of on top of everything that Gavin shared in his video

@alyu1129 7 ай бұрын

@@macesune Authoritative "Scriptural" support. Gavin's list are from human reason. They're good and plausible but not authoritative scriptural support unlike what you referred to.

@macesune 7 ай бұрын

@@alyu1129 when did I require authoritative scriptural support? I just pointed out one potential supplement to what Gavin said

@noahfletcher3019 8 ай бұрын

Incoming response videos. Good luck Gavin

@pgc-68 3 ай бұрын

Great video. Many thanks.

@williamofdallas 3 ай бұрын

Still disagree but liking because it's well explained. right on

@BarkotSentayehu 8 ай бұрын

❤❤❤❤❤❤ great work

@Caesar-Cincinnatus-Americanus 6 күн бұрын

You get a denomination you get a denomination we all get a denomination until the thing is diluted so much you have gay Mormons claiming they are the original faith. The biblical cannon was assembled after the great councils so decrying that defeats any argument

@joshd3502 8 ай бұрын

Good video. I applaud those who made it for packing in so much in 6 minutes.

@NatnaelTefera-vc7or Ай бұрын

Amazing, May God bless you

@jamesbishop3091 8 ай бұрын

What scripture was Paul referring to in 2 Timothy 3:16?

@Ahuntrgw2013 8 ай бұрын

If I might offer something in hopes of helping your understanding. I believe that the Apostle Paul was pointing to all of the 39 books compiled into what we now call the “Old Testament,” and by modern extention, the 27 books / letters compiled into what we call the “New Testament.” Now, I heard a discussion about this many years back, and one upshot was that, the verse in 2 Timothy 3:16 could more accurately be translated as “All GOD-BREATHED Scripture is useful…,” which would narrow down our field of view to the Holy Bible, these 66 books that we have in common among our “denominations.” Otherwise, you might find Hindus, Bhuddists, and perhaps even Muslims (among many others) pointing to 2 Timothy 3:16 saying, “See!! This is PROOF that God inspired the koran, the vedas, etc.”

@CPATuttle 8 ай бұрын

Not the 66 books in today’s Protestant Bible

@461weavile 8 ай бұрын

@@Ahuntrgw2013 Interesting guess. You think Paul was only talking about the 39 because he's a Pharisee? If we can extend that concept into modernity by including the 27 books written after the coming of Christ that the Church named, why would we not extend that to the other books the Church named?

@jamesbishop3091 8 ай бұрын

@@Ahuntrgw2013 “… all of the 39 books of the Old Testament”. Catholics & orthodox have 46 books in the Old Testament. Who’s to say Paul didn’t consider the “extra” 7 books to be canonical? “and by modern extension, the 27 books of the New Testament.” This can’t be the case. This doesn’t follow either. 2 Timothy is dated earlier than the gospel of Mark.

@asgrey22 8 ай бұрын

I appreciate the video. My main criticism of “sola scriptura” is that it rips Scripture from the liturgical context in which it was written and read and lived, and historically critical methods bear that out. Scripture and Liturgy are deeply intertwined and inseparable in Catholicism, and in history. Secondly, you appear to conflate tradition and the teaching office of the Church. They are different and relate to Scripture differently. The teaching office is not “equal” to Scripture as if serving a similar function as you seem to indicate here and some of your other videos. It is placed at the service of Scripture.

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

The church is the pillar of Truth 1 Rom 3:15

@mortensimonsen1645 8 ай бұрын

Sooo - a fallible council declared an infallible canon? And besides - the question about when to celebrate Easter was settled how? But such questions are unfair - I know. I will go back to Protestantism the day the Protestants can agree on what the Bible says. Even that is unfair; let me moderate myself: If half of all Protestants can unite in one single denomination in an agreement over how the Bible should be interpreted - then I would say: There really is something to this "Sola Scriptura".

@NATAR160 8 ай бұрын

Scripture is scripture even if everyone in the world don't know what it means. If a thousand ppl disagree on sth the fact that u hatch out a body to tell us what to believe doesn't make that body right. The watchtower is not right bc they all agree on one interpretation. If u wrong u wrong even if u all agree to one interpretation. Among protestants can you give me a list of what they disagree on scripture???

@rexlion4510 8 ай бұрын

All we needed was for the fallible Council to act inerrantly (error-free) in this particular task: the listing of all the documents which the churches had been passing around, reading, and considering as infallible/inerrant for nearly 300 years.

@mortensimonsen1645 8 ай бұрын

@@NATAR160In charity: Yes, of course, Truth is always truth. But when you ask for a list of what Protestants disagree about regarding Scripture, I must ask: where have you been for the past 500 years? Why do you think there are so many denominations in the first place - do you simply think it was for fun? But if you think Calvinists and Pentecostals go hand in hand in how to read Scripture, I cannot help you.

@mortensimonsen1645 8 ай бұрын

@@rexlion4510So it wasn't hard to decide you think? It was just a matter of slapping the "approved"-stamp on a complete agreement? No - that was not the case. Martin Luther, as you may know, wanted to remove quite a few books from the canon - he thought Revelation was "obviously" not a revelation. So in reality this process was not *that* easy. Some books were of course uncontested, but others weren't. How would you go about deciding whether or not to keep the Hebrew letter? Read about the various canons that were made - and see for yourself - the table in this article is very interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon So there were *real* questions and problems, and we today (and especially Protestants) trust the decisions made by the Church Councils back in Catholic times. And you say that you only need one inerrant act. It's fine to postulate that, but why should you have such an inerrant act? You could just as well suspect the act was wrong. There is certainly nothing in the Bible that guarantees that a council should perform one single inerrant act. It's like the atheists, they can believe everything is natural - they only need on miracle at the beginning.

@NATAR160 8 ай бұрын

@@mortensimonsen1645 Can u force a clean church on ppl? Even Christ says let the good seed n the bad ones grow together. He will separate them on the last day in case u uproot the good seed in trying to uproot the good one. Salvation does not depend on a church, it depends on the Word of God: Jesus preached it, the apostles preached it whether u identified n canonized them or not. God seeks worshippers in spirit n in truth and not entrusting the truth to any organization.

@ottovonbaden6353 8 ай бұрын

Lovely video in style and substance. Question - is Sola Scriptura technically a doctrine? It is commonly referred to by that term, but it seems less like an official teaching and more like an axiomatic approach to the testing and interpretation of doctrine. The word prolegomenon comes to mind, as I remember it coming up in the debate with Trent Horn.

@461weavile 8 ай бұрын

Yes Sola Scriptura is a doctrine. -- "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group" -- Any church that claims there is no infallible source other than the Bible is teaching Sola Scriptura, making it a doctrine by definition. Any church that does not claim that can only claim that there is another infallible source has no right to name them other than the sources God has named already, which will lead you to an apostolic church or a non-Christian church. Sola Scriptura seems to me that it cannot be a prolegomenon because it does not introduce anything in particular. It is an axiom, though, because it only functions if it is assumed to be true, because there is no evidence that could support it, because it itself eliminates the possibility of any evidence outside of scripture being considered and has no evidence within scripture. It can only function as an axiom.

@ottovonbaden6353 8 ай бұрын

@@461weavileThanks for the clarification, that was helpful. I tend to think of doctrines as assertions of things about the faith - Incarnation, Resurrection, etc. Sola Scriptura seemed too meta to fit the bill at first, more like "a thing about things about the faith". Your elaboration makes sense.

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

Unbiblical and heretical

@ottovonbaden6353 8 ай бұрын

@@geoffjs Biblical and orthodox

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

@@ottovonbaden6353dream on

@Seminarystudent99 8 ай бұрын

This was really good! Thank you!

@reci. 8 ай бұрын

Here from Redeemed Zoomer

@jacobgrice-composer6173 8 ай бұрын

Came for the quality animation, stayed and learned something interesting! Great job, Ryan :)

@461weavile 8 ай бұрын

Very pretty and very well narrated. Unfortunately, the quote on screen at 1:06 is an inaccurate summarization of the previous statements. "...Sola Scriptura is the statement that the Church can err." (Not sure if "Church" was not capitalized on purpose, but I'm assuming it was an insignificant mistake and am capitalizing it.) It's slightly too vague. It seems to imply that the Church can err in any possible situation. If that's true, we unfortunately stumble when we attempt to discern which passages are legitimate parts of the Bible. The Church determined which passages were in the Bible, and there is a fragment of the Muratorian Canon which was written in the second century, showing that the Church did have an official record of which books were approved by the Church. If the Church could have been wrong when it determined which books were part of the Bible, then we cannot claim that the Bible as such is infallible, because we may be stating that a book which is incorrectly determined to be the Word of God is infallible. Therefore, if the Church has the possibility of being in error in this circumstance, we do not have a Bible. Since most people would agree that we do have a Bible, the Church must therefore have at least one circumstance in which it is preserved from error, and we can claim that this preservation is given by the Holy Spirit. This can be inferred with some assistance by Jn 16:13.

@upsxace 8 ай бұрын

There is nothing hidden/implicit behind the sentence "the church can err". It's quite explicit and straightforward. This is a video about Sola Scripture. It's telling you that you should be aware that the church might do a mistake and go against the scripture, and in that case you value what the scripture says more. It's telling you that if there is a church that says that their Pope is infallible, they are wrong. It's that simple. It's not saying the church could be wrong about everything. You're being so intelectually dishonest, or maybe just dumb. And your example about the bible canon is just horrible. The fact that there is disagreement on what is the canon itself shows that the church is not infalliable enough even to determine the canon, unless you truly believe only Catholic and other churches that follow the same canon were guided by the Holy spirit, and all the others are horrible heretics, and maybe you as a catholic can agree on that, but as protestants(the ones who believe in Sola Scripture), we don't, so don't pretend there is any kind of agreement between us on that topic.

@BrotherLogan 8 ай бұрын

Very good!

@Lrock79 8 ай бұрын

Wow! This is the best explanation of Sola Scriptura I've heard.

@HillbillyBlack 8 ай бұрын

PERFECT

@SinceAD33 8 ай бұрын

Clear video at the start, but near the end I was a little disappointment. Before I offer my critiques, I'll offer the positive: that is, I hope evangelicals who don't know what sola Scriptura is can see this and at least know it doesn't mean you can't read creeds/confessions. Here are my points of disappointment with this video: 1. I've always seen the disagreement on the date of Easter as evidence for why Protestantism doesn't work. Notice how we can't point out early disagreement on what baptism does or whether the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ? Everyone knows the date of Easter is a practice/discipline, not divine law. What is baptism, the Eucharist, etc. is NOT just a practice/discipline; the apostles either taught that baptism saved or they didn't, and there is no disagreement on this early on that we have evidence of. In other words, before the apostles went to different parts of the world, they definitely went and preached the same thing about baptism. The date of Easter is not as important. So claiming apostolic tradition for the date of easter is more like little 't' than big 'T'. 2. You keep saying there are absolutely no pieces of evidence in the NT of a post-apostolic infallible rule of faith. You can claim there aren't any convincing ones, but to say there is absolutely none is like if an atheist told you there is "absolutely zero" reasons to believe in God. I know you think Peter's keys only applied in the first century, but the promise of the gates of hell never prevailing (an indefinite promise) is made in the context of Peter's binding and loosing (a finite man who died in the first century). So if mortal Simon being renamed to the Rock on which the immortal Church was to be built died in the first century, it is not unreasonable to say there will be succession from that verse alone. To say there is "no evidence" decreases my likeliness to take these arguments seriously. Also, I have brought this up before, and you don't agree, but Luke tells us in Acts 15-16 five (5) different times that the decision made in the Jerusalem council was the decision of the apostles *AND the elders*. This decision was also from the Spirit. 3. Since Nicaea, the first ecumenical council since Jerusalem, there are many comments from the fathers that hint at ecclesial infallibility (at the very least, you cannot say there is absolutely 0 evidence in the early church's awareness about this): From Cyril to Nestorius: "But it would not be sufficient for your reverence to confess with us only the symbol of the faith [The Nicene Creed] set out some time ago *by the Holy Ghost* at the great and holy synod convened in Nice." Pope Celestine wrote to the Council of Ephesus: "A Synod of priests gives witness to the presence of the Holy Spirit." And, "never were those who taught deserted by their Teacher." Also, quoting Augustine doesn't do much because Catholics and Orthodox agree that individual letters of bishops are not infallible... many of the early heretics were bishops and we agree with the councils that overruled them.

@joshuanadeem8898 8 ай бұрын

God bless you. Amen. Praise God. He never fails us. This is a great short explanation and wow the animation is such an amazing addition to visualise your presentation.

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

Unbiblical and heretical

@juan_xd42 Ай бұрын

@@geoffjs Heresy is a man made description, Apostasy, whoever, is the Biblical heresy, so no, protestant are not apostate, but in the eyes of man mades tradition, yes, we are a heresy. I prefer that this world considers me a heresy like you do, that's what christianity is about, to deny the world and seek only God's approval. And you should know that protestant don't denied scriptures, so in a matter of effect, we are Biblical, not because we appear in the Bible, but because we uphold the Word of God like any christian denomination - church should do. I rejoice that this world denies me, that proves what Jesus Christ said about following Him and being hated and rejected just for following Him alone.

@geoffjs Ай бұрын

@@juan_xd42 Sorry, but Gavin’s & your thinking are confused. Gavin says that Scripture is the only infallible rule which is an incorrect use of the word, which only applies to people making decisions. Scripture is inerrant, but not infallible. It’s telling that nowhere do you defend or support sola Scriptura which you can’t do as it is unbiblical & rebutted by 2 Peter 1:20-21 & 2 Peter 3:16. Where in the bible do we see an index or canon? It is one thing to be denied by the world for genuine Christian beliefs, but something completely different to be defending man made heresy such has optional baptism & symbolic Eucharist, both of which Jesus says are symbol8c for salvation, sola Scriptura, sola fide, AOSAS, personal interpretation etc. Quite frankly, Protestantism only has a portion of the Truth so consequently, can only be partially denied as compared to full persecution that the CC endures for holding the fullness of Truth! The five signs of the CC are One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), Apostolic & Persecuted

@geoffjs Ай бұрын

@@juan_xd42 Both Gavin & you have the basics wrong. The bible can’t be infallible, a term that applies to an individual making decisions, it is however, inerrant thanks to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Because the CC contains the fullness of Truth of her founder, she has been & continues to be persecuted. However, Protestantism, without the fullness of His Truth, will never be persecuted in the same way!

@charliek2557 2 ай бұрын

Who defines what Sola Scriptura is and what it's boundaries are? "Good and necessary consequence", "not everything needs to be explicitly taught in Scripture". These are man made doctrines.

@fuuzug777 8 ай бұрын

really good short videos. FI you dont have tiktok you should and post stuff like this. Its the only way to reach out to young people.

@alyu1129 7 ай бұрын

Did the Lord promise a new set of scriptures? No. No mention whatsoever. Certainly nothing to indicate that the yet non-existent texts will be, as Gavin puts it, " the only infallible rule..." That is one giant leap. But He did promise to leave behind a group of people - not texts but a Church as a perennial legacy - that "I will be with YOU always, even to the end of the age." and "...I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." I suggest THAT is the bedrock Christ intended and that Gavin is searching for. Did the Lord express in any way the sentiment that "He who reads this text, hears me"? None whatsoever. But the Lord did say, "He who hears YOU hears me." Faith comes by hearing, yes? Not from reading. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." He promised to communicate through people He had chosen - not through text. And indeed, people heard the gospel and believed way before the texts were written and finally recognized and compiled. All scripture is God-breathed. Did the Lord breathe on the unmentioned and yet unwritten texts to come? No. The Lord DID breath on people. "As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.” Only God can forgive sin UNLESS... That my friend, is to be empowered and to be deputized. The books were not breathed upon by Christ. Christ breathed on His people and they wrote the inspired Word of God. Do any of the books of New Testament claim that it is the infallible Word of God? No. In fact, the opposite is true. All are manifestly authored by PEOPLE. If a person unfamiliar with the New Testament picked up any of the books they wouldn't conclude that it was the Word of God. The Church told YOU that the said writings were the inspired Word of God. Gavin claims that the Church merely "recognized" the canon. I suggest that if just any anonymous, undeputized Tom, Dick and Harry recognized the canon, using their intellect in the flesh, whatever list they came up with would be just a man made canon with nothing special or infallible about it. The Bible isn't like the Quran whom Muslims claim to be the dictated word of Allah. They were all written by flesh and blood Church members for other members of the Church - BY the Church FOR the Church. One cannot artificially separate the authors of the inspired books from the Church as if they stood apart somehow for the purpose of building a case for Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura was a johnny come lately idea not held by ANY of the churches founded by apostles or the disciples. As such, It cannot have been the bedrock of faith in the early church that Gavin claims to be "retrieving."

@shawngillogly6873 8 ай бұрын

Concise, well-done. Thank you.

@TheChurchofBreadandCheese 8 ай бұрын

Hey Pastor Gavin, I recently became reformed from catholic. In Catholicism we are taught (in seminary) a lot about liberal scholarship. Would love a video on your views of Paul's letters, gospel authorship. Stay blessed. Eoghan

@ogloc6308 8 ай бұрын

Thats a cool name. God bless you brother

@sleepingpilgrim3240 8 ай бұрын

Love this explanation!

@tategarrett3042 8 ай бұрын

This is an excellent summary and defense of Sola Scriptura. I think it effectively and peaceably illustrates the key difference between those who hold to Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and those who hold to Sola Ecclesia (the church alone).

@Essex626 8 ай бұрын

Could your church be wrong about which books should be in the Bible?

@tategarrett3042 8 ай бұрын

@@Essex626 "could it be" is the wrong question - all things are within the realm of possibility. It is possible that no church has the correct cannon and that no church has saving doctrine. This however is not probable in the least. Similarly, Protestants feel that the biblical and historical evidence make the shorter cannon which we hold to far more probably the correct one than any of the alternatives.

@Essex626 8 ай бұрын

@@tategarrett3042 Something probable is not infallible though. If it could be that your church is wrong, then your list is not infallible. If your list of contents is not infallible, then the contents themselves cannot be declared infallible, both because it might be missing important things and because it might contain extraneous things.

@NATAR160 8 ай бұрын

@@Essex626Suggest a way out, sir/ma

@tategarrett3042 8 ай бұрын

@@Essex626 I don't think that necessarily follows. We have confidence that the word of God is infallible and we have confidence that what we have is the word of God. Again we don't need to eat in extreme probabilities to reach a sound conclusion

@JamesClark-le7hu 8 ай бұрын

Every time I see non-protestants mischaracterizing Sola Scriptura, I will post this link. And likewise, every time I see Protestants misusing and misquoting sola Scriptura, I will also post this link. Thank you Dr. Ortlund.

@otineyskciderf 6 ай бұрын

@logofreetv 3 ай бұрын

@@otineyskciderf Given that Gavin showed the CC has contradicted itself in the last 500 years, much of your own logic points right back at you, only worse.

@LJrock101 4 ай бұрын

I am proud to be a reformed Protestant.

@HellenicPapist 8 ай бұрын

When Protestants claim that the Bible is their only “infallible authority”, what does that mean? They’re saying scripture is never failing, incapable of mistakes or being wrong for teaching. The Bible logically cannot teach itself. If you don’t know what a passage means, the Bible literally cannot tell you how it’s suppose to be read, because you’re forced to reference back to your “only infallible” source again-the same passage in the Bible you just questioned. You need an infallible, outside source to tell you how passages are interpreted. If I write a simple comment, like, “I didn’t say you stole the cookies.” You, the reader, have multiple ways of interpreting this by simply emphasizing any one of those words to change the original meaning of the what was conveyed. The only way to get the original meaning is to ask the person or those who the person told the meaning to, right? And Jesus’ Church was obviously established as the infallible source when concerning truth spoken by God and the contents of scripture.((I’ll use Protestant translated bibles: ESV, NIV, NKJV, to show you scripturally)) ”“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.“ ‭‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭15‬-‭20‬ ‭ [[He’s speaking to His apostles, the twelve men who are going to build, expand and run His Church, and that the Spirit of Truth would be with them. FOREVER. Not till they’re dead. But forever, until the Church ceases to be when Jesus Christ returns. He never said all believers will be with this truth, He’s talking to the twelve in private.]] ”“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.“ ‭‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭25‬-‭26‬ ‭ [[Jesus clarifies who this Spirit of Truth, the Helper, is. The Holy Spirit, Who Jesus right before said to the apostles that The Helper will be with them, the men who will be running His Church, FOREVER, and He will TEACH you all things and bring remembrance all that He said.]] *”“I still have many things to say to you,* but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will *guide you into all the truth,* for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and _he will declare to you the things that are to come._ He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.“ ‭‭John‬ ‭16‬:‭12‬-‭15‬ ‭ [[Jesus explicitly says that He has MANY things to tell them, the truth, but He will be sending the Helper, the Holy Spirit to guide them, the Church, _forever,_ as spoken before. If He teaches all truth, and that forever, how is it possible that the Church can err or erred in matters of faith, at any time, or in any point of doctrine? In this supposition, would not the Holy Spirit have forfeited his title of Spirit of Truth?]] ”“If your _brother_ sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he _does not_ listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, *tell it to the church.* And if he refuses to listen even to the *church,* let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.“ ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭18‬:‭15‬-‭18‬ ‭ [[It looks like Jesus’ Church has the final authority on matters of those faithful in Christ in regards to sin? I wonder what else His Church has the final authority of if the Holy Spirit of Truth is guiding His Church forever?]] ”I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.“ ‭‭Romans‬ ‭16‬:‭17‬-‭18‬ ‭ [[Paul is writing to the CHURCH OF ROME. The same Church given authority by Jesus and is guided by Him, through the Holy Spirit of Truth, and Paul is saying to watch out for those who deviate from the *doctrine* that you have been *taught*. For those who deviate from the doctrine don’t serve the Lord. How do you know that any one of these Protestants that all speak and teach different doctrines aren’t one of these Paul spoke of? How do you know for certain they’re guided to the truth? You can’t. They’re not guided infallibly. The DOCTRINES TAUGHT by the Apostles are TRADITION, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.]] ”“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.“ ‭‭John‬ ‭17‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭ & ”I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.“ ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1‬:‭10‬ ‭ & ”Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.“ ‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭ [[Jesus prays that we, those who follow Him and part of His Church are ONE. United. Peter writes to those in the Church to be a unity of mind, sympathy, love, heart and humble mind. And Paul literally begs for no division of mind and judgement to His Church. Jesus wants us to be one and united so the world sees that He is the truth, and Peter and Paul implores the same. Which Church as been United and One since the beginning of Christ’ establishment?]] ”Of this gospel I was made a *minister* according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power.“ ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭3‬:‭7‬ ‭ [[Authority, ranks in His Church]] ”For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.“ ‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭13‬:‭10‬ ‭ [[Paul has God given AUTHORITY, He is guided by Spirit of Truth, he’s infallible and inerrant in these writings]] All of these passages deal with Church Authority and how His Church operates: 3 John 1:1; 3 John 1:9-10 Titus 2:1-15 1 Timothy 3:14-16 1 Timothy 4:11-16 2 Timothy 2:1-7 Titus 3:1-11 2 Corinthians 13:1-10 1 Timothy 5:17-25 [[I can go over these passages if you wish. But this comment is getting large]] Acts 8:26-35 [[The Ethiopian eunuch literally asked Philip, a disciple of the Apostles, on how to interpret scripture within the Old Testament, and with his God given authorities and taught traditions on interpreting scriptures, Philip told the eunuch exactly what those scriptures meant.]] *_I’ll leave you with these last two passages…_* ”which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and *_gave Him to be head over all things to the church,_* which is *His body,* the *fullness of Him* _who fills all in all.“_ ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭20‬-‭23‬ ‭ & ”Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.“ ‭‭1 Timothy ‭3‬:‭14‬-‭15‬ ‭ [[“Sola Scriptura isn’t the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of TRUTH… *_THE CHURCH_* is. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church]]

@geoffjs 8 ай бұрын

The Church that Jesus founded Matt 16 18-19 that gave us the Bible in 382 that some Protestants worship. The bible is inerrant and the CC when teaching on faith and morals is infallible

@coltonmoore4572 8 ай бұрын

Loved this video and the animation!

@bairfreedom 8 ай бұрын

Very clear and concise. Nice presentation. It clear up what many THINK sola Scriptura is and is displays what is ACTAULLY is. So many Catholics/Orthodox do not define it properly.

@nealkriesterer 8 ай бұрын

That's probably because Protestants don't agree on what "Sola scriptura" means. This video is the definition Gavin uses. There are at least two other common definitons.

@BenjaminAnderson21 8 ай бұрын

@@nealkriestererI'm not sure about the Lutherans, but the Reformed view on Sola Scriptura is very clearly laid out in the Westminster standards, and it is consistent with Gavin's definition.

@micahjakubowicz4172 8 ай бұрын

I still haven't heard an explanation of where Sola Scriptura is taught in the Bible

@dailyDorc 8 ай бұрын

To be fair some Protestants hold to this view of Sola Scriptura and some Protestants adhere to even the most caricatured view of it. So some Catholic/Orthodox will caricature it to set up a straw man but in most cases they have only encountered the caricature in actuality.

@triplea6174 8 ай бұрын

@@nealkriesterer as a Protestant unfortunately this is true