I have watched this and various associated videos multiple times. This is hands down the clearest and most helpful single unpacking of the issue that I have come across in my open minded, at times tremblingly so, 10+ year journey as a Protestant into the fathers and church history. Your preparatory comments alone were worth the price of admission. ;) Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Those quotes from John Chrysostom actually spoke directly to me, i feel that pressure to read scripture and judge things from scripture, pls pray so that the Holy Spirit guides me.

What an absolute stunner of a quote from Chrysistom, this father speaking from of old into the same human propensity to choose wandering over finding. Thank you Gavin. You are a gift to the Church.

Gavin, this came at exactly the right time for me. It was an almost instantaneous answer to my prayer tonight. God Bless you and thank you so much for this, your best video yet.

As a Catholic, I found your reasoning and explanation well done. Is it not interesting to follow Jesus? When I realized that Jesus chose twelve apostles/disciples, I realized they had different personalities, understanding and that we are to grown together learning from one another. Being a follower, a true Christian, representing our faith with one another, growing in faith and understanding. Lead by the Holy Spirit, the truth will always be present ...God bless

Wow, that letter to Jerome is really all you need. Thanks for the thoughtful video, pastor!

Thankful for the content you put up here, always nuanced and irenic. This video is certainly an example of that!

Great analysis and I like the tone, assertive and concrete.

good stuff brother Gavin!

Great stuff Dr. Ortlund. Thanks!

Gavin, I appreciate you stating the full force of what you think the evidence conveys. I’ve enjoyed listening to your videos, and my sense is that you are being very conscientious to be gracious and irenic. In such a case I think you need to be here stating the force of your convictions. I say this because I myself have tended to be the opposite, trying to make it’s clear where I think the evidence points, but I have some time a sacrificed being gracious. The order matters - if you have the greatest attitude first, you need to fear being bold!

Such an awesome video. The quote from St John was so relevant. Thank you for making this as a great recourse. 🙏❤️

Fascinating. Is there any chance that quote from the Letter to Jerome informed Luther's "scripture and plain reason" statement at Worms? It almost seems like a paraphrase.

Easily your most interesting video yet! Thank you for your ministry and for taking the time to address issues like these, Gavin!

So good!❤ I have no idea how that could be more clearly written.

Thanks again Gavin. Very clear.

Excellent! Thank you!

God bless you for this video

Wow. What a great video. Classical protestant perspective with nuanced and a kind approach.

Hi Gavin I appreciate your discussion of high regard that both Augustine and reformers have for scripture and emphasis on this. If I agree that Augustine held sola scriptura as you defined it I come to four questions: How does Augustine define scripture? (What is his canon?) How does this inform our understanding of his view of scripture? How is an understanding of canon arrived at? How does the canon one accepts impact one's acceptance of or openness to a doctrine? Perhaps a look at Augustine's and Calvin's view of prayer for the dead would be enlighting here as they both discuss this topic. It seems to bring the discussion to a very practical point of disagreement between two who have a high regard for scripture that could warrant another video. I am curious on your thoughts!

Awesome, Be encouraged, this is easy to digest and I will contemplate what I’ve digested . ✌️

So this church father did not appeal to Magisterium for theological clarity like some Roman Catholics do today, but to the Scripture itself.

Great job on this. One of the things, of course, is the starting point of the observer. For example, the individual's view of the church and what that entails will by necessity affect their view of the validity of Sola Scriptura.

Another excellent video, Gavin. Thanks for your thoughtfulness and desire for clear ecumenical discussions. Refreshing and helpful.

Another really excellent, thought provoking presentation by Pastor Gavin. Thank you!

Hi Gavin, Love your work, everything you do. It is edifying. Thank you. I have a question, off topic to the video, if you are not too busy. I think i recall you saying before that you, unlike other Baptists, believe that there is more going on in the Eucharist than just a symbol. I believe the same. How would you deal with someone, in your church, who only believes that the Eucharist is symbolic? Would you let them receive the Eucharist? Do you believe from Scripture there is any perceived dangers from this? Thanks

Hello Gavin, I am a former Catholic, now reformed Episcopal. The term "infallible" is a red flag for Catholics as they believe the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible when speaking "ex cathedra." I think Scriprure is "above all else" would be a better term.

Boom. This is awesome.

Highly recommend reading the whole homily on Acts (homily 33). A quote from there in response to the question of why people don't necessarily see the truth of scripture straight away: "'Then how is it they do not see it at a glance?' Many things are the cause of this: both preconceived opinion, and human causes (αἰτίαι). The others, say you, say the same thing about us. How? For are we separated from the Church? Have we our heresiarchs [leaders of heresy]? Are we called after men - as one of them has Marcion, another Manichæus, a third Arius, for the author and leader (of his sect)? Whereas if we likewise do receive an appellation from any man, we do not take them that have been the authors of some heresy, but men that presided over us, and governed the Church."

To the first few minutes,I personally find Kevin Vanhoozer distinction between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura of much help!

Thank you Gavin! One question I have from this is: Do you know why, given his stance here, Augustine still urged Jerome to include the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate? I’m curious if he gave reasons why. Especially if he felt this way about Scripture in contrast to all else. Thank you for your videos!

If Augustine believed that councils were infallible by their nature, you would think that in the third quote from his letter to Jerome he would have said "...convincing my judgment of its truth either by these canonical writings themselves //or by church councils//, or by arguments addressed to my reason." It's seems so cut and dry!

off topic, but where’d you get your church schaff fathers set!? I’ve been looking everywhere and can’t find a good price

This was a great overview. I really appreciate the nuance and fairness with which you treat these issues. One question you didn't address that I often see come up is, "All Christians believe that the church established the canon of scripture guided by the Spirit. So shouldn't any reliance on sola scriptura lead to trusting that the Spirit continued to guide the same church in the development of doctrine and traditions?" How would you respond to that objection?

While John Chrysostom's homily on Acts 33 may suggest something like Sola Scriptura in a first look, I think it's important to be careful not to come to that conclusion before reading more of his work. The same John Chrysostom also taught about the tradition of the Church as worthy of credit: "So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours. Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken." (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV) "Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, "whether by word or our Epistle" 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, Hold fast the form of sound words, which you have heard of me." Also, the same John Chrysostom considered the Deuterocanonical books, at least some of them, as Scripture: "Let us then repeat to ourselves soothing charms drawn from the holy Scripture, and say, "You are earth and ashes. Why is earth and ashes proud?" Sirach 10:9, and, "The sway of his fury shall be his destruction" Sirach 1:22: and, The wrathful man is not comely Proverbs 11:25, Septuagint;" (Homily 48 on the Gospel of John) As a final quote, in his 3rd homily on the letter to the Phillipians, he goes as far as saying that the practice of praying for the dead comes from the apostles themselves: "Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful Mysteries. They know that great gain results to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them? And this we do for those who have departed in faith, while the catechumens are not thought worthy even of this consolation, but are deprived of all means of help save one. And what is this? We may give to the poor on their behalf. This deed in a certain way refreshes them. For God wills that we should be mutually assisted; else why has He ordered us to pray for peace and the good estate of the world? Why on behalf of all men? Since in this number are included robbers, violaters of tombs, thieves, men laden with untold crimes; and yet we pray on behalf of all; perchance they may turn. As then we pray for those living, who differ not from the dead, so too we may pray for them." (Homily 3 on Philippians) So, in my humble opinion, I think it's quite a long stretch to get a Sola Scriptura-believing John Chrysostom out of what he says in his 33rd homily on Acts, given all his other writings which show other things he believed and practiced that go against this principle and that resemble practices and beliefs of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy much more than those of Protestantism.

I really enjoy your channel. Do you ever have a call in show?

this was brilliant

Dr. Ortlund, is it not the case that even ecumenical counsels sometimes state things that are not understood by Catholics to be infallible? Such as decrees regarding church government, etc? Either way, can you please explain?

Great video, thank you very much! Greetings from Germany!

Interesting video. Its overwhelming how nuanced all of this is. I appreciate the quote from John Chrysostom. I'm wrestling with converting to the RCC. I guess the heart of what John meant was to continue to read the scriptures? My one question is if scripture is only infallible source, what about later things that arent in scripture such as birth control? How should a Christian approach things like that?

Very well articulated

So what do you do with the line “or by arguments addressed to my reason”?

Thanks Gavin, do you have a link to your sources? That would be great.

Would love to see a video on how a Christian has been historically defined! Specifically addressing your view of whether Catholics and Eastern Orthdox are simply misled brothers in Christ, or whether the doctrines they hold to generally disqualify them from the biblical faith.

Beautiful work sir. May the Father give you all the knowledge you desire.

Hi, Gavin. I’m going to defend the Catholic position here. I was a hard-core Calvinist for about 45 years before I was confirmed in the Catholic Church in April. I will just mention one point at a time. Point first: You took pains to define “Sola Scriptura,” which I greatly appreciate. Defining terms is extremely helpful in these conversations. However, I’d like to suggest that you went too far. You stated you were giving the “official” Protestant definition of “Sola Scriptura.” This, I think, is inaccurate and perhaps even misleading, since there is no “official” central Protestant authority that can define anything. The best the Protestant world has is what I refer to as a, “consensus of the moment,” represented, perhaps, by contributors to The Gospel Coalition, Desiring God, etc. That lack of central, defining authority leads to no end of interpretation of Scripture itself, even on the two Sacraments that most Protestants retain - baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Denominations and independent churches end up practicing de facto sacred traditions of their own, especially in regard to eligibility, mode, and meaning of baptism. Definitions must be backed by authority, and authority is what Luther, Calvin, and others rejected…and then claimed for themselves. Is consensus enough? And if so, what is the biblical justification? Thank you.

Hi Dr. Ortlund are there any church Fathers than St. Augustine that teach something other than Sola Scriptura? If so, did other Church Fathers take issue with St. Augustine teaching Sola Scriptura? If no one called out St. Augustine (or vice versa) how do you account for that?

I love that video and it's exactly because of sola scripture that trinity won against arrianism. The Fathers always defended their position saying "what I teach is what scriptures teach". Scriptures are our infalible rule of doctrine.

Hello, Dr.Ortlund. You quoted St.Augustine who says:,,who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; ...but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? (On Baptism 2.3.4). The Local Councils can be fallible and this is a part of the belief of the Church. That is why only some Local Council are ratified by the Ecumenical Councils. But the Ecumenical Councils where the whole Church is gathered (in relation with Acts 15:22,28), cannot be fallible. Here he does not refute the infallibility of the Ecumenical (Plenary) Councils when he says that the ones that follow the previous, correct the previous because if we go through the acts and Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, we will see that no subsequent Ecumenical Council has refuted what a previous one has declared. That is relevant also for the time of St.Augustine when only two Ecumenical Councils had been gathered - the first in Nicaea (325) and the Second, in Constantinople (381). When the Second added to the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it did not correct the Council of Nicaea but only added to the Creed which had explicit articles about the Father and the Son. The Second one only complemented the First one. When St.Augustine says ,,there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. (Reply to Faustus 11.5)'', he refers to the authority of the Scripture which is undisputable but he does not reject the infallibility of the Church. The Ecumenical Councils gave the right interpretation of Scripture when heresies arose. So when we say that they are infallible, we do not mean that they add something to the Scripture but that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Who works in the conciliarity of the Church regarding the better definition of the right faith in the encounters with the different heresies. An interpretation which is infallible is not in contradiction with the infallibility of the Holy Scripture. When the whole Church is gathered, the decisions are from the holy Spirit:,,Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, a and Silas, leading men among the brethren. ...28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: † 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. a If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. The Decree Received in Antioch.'' (Acts 15:22, 28, Orthodox Study Bible). That is why the Ecumenical Coucnils are infallible and the local are not until they were ratified by an Ecumenical Council. ,,It behooves those who preside over the churches, every day but especially on Lord's days, to teach all the clergy and people words of piety and of right religion, gathering out of Holy Scripture meditations and determinations of the truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, nor varying from the tradition of the God-bearing fathers. And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill they may have departed from what was fitting. For through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of what is good and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying their minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment.“ Canon 19, Quinisext Ecumenical Council, of Trullo (692 CE). Of course, the acceptance of the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils is related to the issue of the acceptance of the infalliblity of the Church which in turn is related to the issue of the acceptance of the apostolic succession of the episcopacy which I suggest, you still reject as not having a divine origin.

If you are lookin for a concise review and additional references for your scholarship on this subject, listen to today's (November 8, 2021) podcast "Called to Communion" by Dr. David Anders. It's somewhere around the 15 minute mark.

How are we to take his multiple quotes from non-cannonical books? E.g. Wisdom of Solomon etc. Did Augustine include those in his conception of Sola Scriptura?

Thank you!

Sincere question, as a Protestant pastor how do you keep your bias in check? Meaning you’re naturally inclined to see theology from Protestant pov as your job/life depend on it. Curious what tactics work for you?

Can you make a video on suggested reading material on specific subjects

Well-made video with important arguments that deserve attention. One small point I'll make here. If Augustine intended to equate "plenary council" with "ecumenical council", then how can he say the earlier are "**often** corrected by those which follow them" (emphasis mine)? After all, at the time of this writing, there had only been two ecumenical councils (Nicaea and Constantinople). So, at most, Augustine would have only seen an ecumenical council "correcting" another one time. So, why would he say they are *often* corrected? It strikes me as much more plausible that Augustine's use of "plenary council" does not map on to "ecumenical council" as the term is understood by Catholics. With that in view, it doesn't follow from this quote that Augustine thinks ecumenical councils can err in their solemn teaching.

is there a book where we can read the church fathers letters to follow into this subject?

Hi Dr Gavin. Love your work that you commit for Christ, all Glory to God in Heaven! I am on my way to Augustine's quote part of the vid, and I must say that I am trying my best to understand what Sola Scriptura means, like what are the words used, and what is its essence and what it is not. I know that you did quite a few vids on Sola Scriptura, as well as others, but was wondering if you had book recommendations on this topic other than the Historical Protestant writers like Martin Chemnitz (which are quite pricey). Maybe a book that was written in this century? Is Matthew Barrett's "God's Word Alone" book a good one, or is there a better book? Would really like to read it in my hands than constantly searching on the internet, which can be very tiring. Once again, thanks for your work, Christ be with you always :D

Test everything by the word of God. His word is True, hold on to tradition that is grounded in His word and reform those that stray from the Truth. Walk in faith by grace to glorify Him who eternally saved us from justified damnation!

Thank you Gavin... this is progress toward an answer I keep looking for regarding Sola Scriptura and the arguments I get from Catholics. However, it still needs to be taken further. If a teaching magisterium is not called for, then how can we truly know the proper interpretation of scripture. MANY denominations have deep and rational arguments for their point of view, and they are not secondary differences... Lutherans and others argue for baptismal regeneration, while Baptists and others do not. There are many other examples. Did God leave it up to us to debate without any authoritative resource? Are Lutherans or Baptists doomed because they didn't interpret correctly? I do not believe that the Catholic magisterium is authoritative, however, I have not found satisfying answers to these questions. Continued progress down this road is MUCH appreciated!

Interesting that Augustine also says, "subsequent to apostolic times" as if there was an apostolic age and it ended. That doesn't seem to indicate apostolic succession.

It has always been a bit strange to me that those who hold oral tradition to be on the same level as Scripture, to the point that they would anathematize someone for not believing it, as not falling into the same folly as the Pharisees and Sadducees. They clearly stepped outside of Scripture and elevated manmade traditions then and Jesus called them out for it, and thus Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do the same and are none the wiser. That is not say that many within the Protestant church don’t do the same and they are clearly in error too (no pass for Protestants). If something is not clearly articulated in Scripture and becomes a dogma centuries later or eisegetically read back into Scripture, we can confidently say that the Holy Spirit did want us to practice such things. For example, Mary’s bodily assumption nor immaculate conception nor Transubstantiation are not clearly articulated in Scripture but became later interpretations by men many centuries later, the Christian is not bound to believe or endorse said dogmas. But even for Protestants, any practice not clearly laid out in Scripture can and should be rejected.

Howdy! Great video(as always). I am a Catholic convert from the Baptist/reformed tradition. I actually became Catholic approaching the doctrines from a scripture alone perspective. I dont know if this is covered elsewhere in the comments but Augustines quotes got me thinking about the deuterocanon. If the argument is that Scripture cannot err but councils can, what do you do with a set of scriptures that is believed to be in error by the majority of the "900 million" protestants? Does that undercut a protestants perspective? Is it ok to use his quotes to affirm a particular doctrine but then reject his perspective on the boundaries of that doctrine? Thanks for your hard work! Peace.

"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men." Acts 17

There is no disagreement between the Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox on the idea that scripture is entirely correct on all matters of faith and practice. The idea that it is the "only" source is where we disagree since Catholics/Orthodox both would say that Holy Tradition is the "only" source and that scripture is an enormous part of that Holy Tradition. So the quotes from Augustine here are not going against the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, they're just affirming one particular portion of Holy Tradition. And that extra layer of tradition is where Sola Scriptura is lacking because when you limit the only source of reliable truth to the content of a book, you must solve the problem of how that truth gets off the pages into the hearts of the readers. Interpretation is taking place any time you read a text, letters are symbols, words are symbols, and meanings are fluid across time and cultures and even between people in the same place speaking the same language. There must be an authority in place, a righteous human authority, that can be called upon to play that role, to authoritatively move the words from the page to the person and maintain the unity of the Church.

2:44 I think it's important to note why it's the "rule" or "standard." We believe that Jesus is the authority, so the testimony of Jesus is the standard to build and refer upon. Putting it another way, The Word of God became flesh, so we reference his living example and teachings through the scriptures given to us by his direct witnesses.

Beautiful passage by Augustine from Sacred Scripture. “For, if the thought of peace dwelt in his heart, he would not afterwards, at Carthage, in company with betrayers whom he had acquitted, have condemned of betrayal men who were absent and whom none had convicted. All the more should he have feared to break the peace of unity, because Carthage was a great and famous city, whence the evil might spread from the head through the whole body of Africa. Besides, it was in touch with the overseas countries, and enjoyed widespread fame. Certainly, it had a bishop of no ordinary authority, who was able to pay no attention to a crowd of hostile conspirators, which he saw that he was united by pastoral letters to the Church of Rome, where the primacy of the apostolic chair has always flourished, and to those other countries which the Gospel came to Africa, itself, and when arrangements were made for him to plead his case if his opponents should try to win over those churches from him.” Augustine

When we get to this level of complexity with our Lord, I think we sometimes hurt things rather than help/clear up. The gospel message is for children, people who maybe aren't very intellectual, people who are disabled. It's easy enough and precious enough that all of the above can understand plainly. I get nerding out, I do the same, but there are times when I feel like God just tells me "be quiet and rest in me." Frankly, what Augustine or any of the church fathers say, if it's contrary to the message of the cross delivered plainly in scripture, it needs to be disregarded. I think sometimes people can overanalyze things to death (including the fathers) and do the original message a great disservice. Just my two cents. Peace and blessings to all here.

Thanks, Gavin! I’m a Catholic and these Augustine quotes really got me thinking. If Augustine held to the doctrine of sola scriptura, though, how did he have all these other beliefs like Baptismal Regeneration, Real Presence, the Papacy, Perpetual Virginity etc. is it possible for a Christian to hold these views along with the doctrine of sola scriptura? If so, why aren’t these prominent among Protestants? Why does it always seem as though sola scriptura precedes some doctrine of deriving all doctrine directly from the Bible as you’re adamant this is not part of the doctrine? Thanks for making these videos!

Amen!

Do you agree with Augustine when he states if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church, he would not know the Holy Scriptures. Augustine also called Mary without sin, a pure dwelling place, and Augustine prayed for the dead, those undergoing final sanctification, and Augustine teaches of the Lord's Supper, " He held His own body in His hands, and gave it to them to eat ". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

Facts

The issue I have with this is that 1) Augustine was not Sola Scriptura. 2) he was undeniably Catholic, and submitted to Rome. Not a Catholic.

Dr Ortlund, Augustine makes reference to tradition that is not written in Scripture which he calls 'apostolic'. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book V.23.13) Would it be fair to say that 'apostolic' is a synonym for 'infallible' as I can't imagine that Augustine would have thought the apostles could err in matters faith.

From how its portrayed by my non-Protestant close friends… i honestly would’ve never thought to expect such clear and precise language by Augustine or any other church father for that matter on a subject that is the crux of such modern distinctions such as scripture and tradition. Love this content. What you said about the church fathers that “they don’t fit neatly” is what I’m most comfortable admitting. I think it’s accurate and frames our retrieval from them in a honest manner and gives us more clear direction on what we should expect to glean from them.

I don't really have a problem with this being Augustine's view. Let's say it is. Who was wrong when people disagreed? In St. Augustines time it seems a plenary council could be called and doctrine determined. The Church would then go forward holding to said doctrine. Those who didn't were out. In St. Augustines time when using Scripture to decide what's right and wrong did anyone get the final say? Or did they just split when they disagreed? Many councils were held throughout Church history which bound the faithful to faith and morals. When was the first time the baptist churches bound all the faithful to something? Is canonical Scripture reformable? St. Augustine held the deuterocanpn to be Scripture. So shouldn't his statments of it's authority apply to the deuterocanon as well. Augustine seemed to think only the Church infallibly recognize Scripture. When was the deuterocanon officially said not to be Scripture? St John Chrysostom questions sincerity if they cannot see the truth. Which of us is the insincere one? Also there is a lot of overlap in St. Augustines and St John Chrysostoms doctrine that sounds very Catholic/Orthodox. It seems Protestants want to find Scripture alone in the father's so they can throw out any other Catholic/Orthodox doctrine.

I appreciate the clarification on what the idea of Sola Scriptura represents. Even protestant teaching can be influenced by leaders, tradition etc…. but the idea is that only scripture is infallible. As I listen I find the same idea presented by many of the Catholic apologist that I listen too. One of the thinks that I have learned is that Catholics do have a have esteem for scripture and that tradition does not invalidate scripture. As a Protestant I find that while, yes there are different perspectives, I am finding more consistency in the respect for the Holy Scripture.

Hi Gavin. Thank you for the video. While scripture is, undoubtedly the highest authority, how can you be sure that the way you were interpreting them is the correct way? We can take baptism, for example. I read through the lectures on Christian sacraments and the apostolic tradition by Saint Cyril and Saint Hippolytus. Both affirm that baptism is a new birth, and washes away sins, and this was common catechetical teaching for new Christians. This is obviously different from a modern interpretation of baptism. The crux of the issue is that if we are so far removed from the culture, and nuance of these authors, how can we be sure that we have captured the correct meaning of scripture? Whereas when you have a church father, that is one or 2 degrees of separation away from the apostle, and is able to expound on something like baptism and communion, wouldn’t that be convincing for a need of a Tradition to supplement interpretation? Thanks, Confused Protestant

Yep clearly for Augustine the bible is supreme and pretty much he is teaching something we would call “sola scriptura”. Thanks again pastor Gavin!

Weird.. Then we said, sometimes after the *ordination of Maiorinus* whom they wickedly raised up against Caecilian, setting *altar against altar* , and rending the unity of Christ with frightful divisions, that they had requested Constantine, then emperor to appoint bishops as judges to arbitrate the differences that had arisen to break the bond of peace in Africa. But, when this was granted, in the presence of Caecilian and those who had gone abroad to appear against him, Melchiades, Bishop of Rome, acting as judge, with his colleagues whom the emperor had sent at the request of the Donatists, had decided that nothing could be proved against Caecilian, that he was thereby confirmed in his Bishopric, and that Donatus, who had appeared against him, was censured.”

Doesn't it provide a difficulty for your case given that Augustine affirmed the deuterocanon?

If I pray to Mary, don’t I imply she has some sort of divine attribute? How can she hear my prayer along with another 1 billion other at the same time?

Very good. Seems the only sensible stance. Interesting he didn't mention papal infallibility as being an exception. Have you raised that with any Catholic apologists?

Hi Gavin, I've done some checking on what the Church Fathers, including Augustine, say about 2Tim3:16. You should see for yourself. None of them ever say anything about sola scriptura even though it is supposedly key text for it. Why?

Nope! Check out William Albrecht's response to this video.

The retreat to: 'Well, Augustine could be wrong', I believe has to be weighed by how much we would expect a bishop of the Church not to be wrong concerning the infallibility of plenary councils. It is not enough to say that was possibly was ignorant of this matter of authority. One has to argue why this is more likely the case, than the alternative which is that Augustine as a bishop probably did have an as-yet permitted view to have in the Church at the time, or perhaps even the general consensus of bishops at the time. A modest claim can be that even if false, somwthing like sola scriptura was a permitted view of bishops at the time of Augustine. This modest claim survives even if he was theologically incorrect.

Given your presentation of "Sola Scriptura," would you say that Church Councils were infallible in their determination of what constituted Scripture? Or do you believe that Scripture steered the Councils even before Scripture was fully formed as canon? And, what of the Protestants claim that Scriputre included in the canon is Apocryphal literture, in spite of being canonized by the councils? Good luck explaining this.

Where's the links

I think the point here is that sola scriptura has its roots in Augustine, contrary to popular Catholic objections that it's a late invention. In any case, scripture infallibility certainly was discussed and approved of by church fathers much earleir than papal infallibility, which is evidently a later invention. Sola scriptura is not anti-tradition, but is the yardstick by which tradition is measured.

Love your humility 🙏 I often think... Scriptures are not an end in themselves; we Honour them as the Word of God, but we do not Worship the Bible or believe it miraculously fell out of heaven ! Its contents are a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church - both old and new - coming into being through the Church, and properly understood (experienced) within it. There is a 'synergistic' relationship between the Lord and the authors of Scripture. As Christ was both God and Man (the 'Hypostatic Union') - neither his divinity or humanity being 'overridden' or 'lost' in the other, so the Church has always seen something similar at work regarding the Divine origin and the Human and Divine authorship of both the Old and New Testaments. They are indeed 'inspired and infallible' - "God breathed" - in as much as they Wonderfully reveal Him Who is The Word of God - Jesus Christ - Who's Spirit inspired the human writers of them - the self same Spirit by Whom we now come to know God (particularly through the scriptures) in a personal and intimate way, Who has revealed Himself in a way we can understand. Jesus is the truth The Spirit is the Spirit of truth His word is truth His Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the truth The Catholic Ancient Churches always saw the authoritative primacy of Scripture... But... Does God meticulously determine all and save and sanctify via monergism? Are the 5 "Doctrines of grace" a viable interpretation? Augustine would agree with some of it... Chrisostom would have none of it. The Eastern Church was guided, and it maintained and encapsulates in its worship, the Ante-Nicene view of the nature of human "free" will and Divine Providence, and the reality of synergy (I'm not Orthodox so I can say that I'm not sure about the 100% infallibility of the Church, but I can see that - unlike the West - following on from SOME of the blessed Augustine's later in life ideas, the East had largely reflected the infallibility of Christ the Living Head in speaking with one voice regarding Trinitarian theology, Christology, the Sacrements and Soteriology, and the nature of our participation in Him X

William Albrecht responded to this video. Would you be willing to rebut his video? Would you be willing to debate/passionately discuss this topic with William?

I think it's important to remember that St. Augustine doesn't write that decisions of councils can be changed by individual interpretation of scripture, but by another council. I'm not aware of any pan-Protestant council that decided to reject any of the councils. That all came down to individual beliefs.

We have to keep in mind that both Augustine (d. 430) and Chrysostom (d. 407) were bishops thoroughly faithful to the Catholic Church. They were, in a very real sense, defenders of the the faith par excellence. They would with absolutely no doubt consider protestants to be heretics and schismatics and would be shocked that their writings would be used by them in this way centuries later. For instance, in 388, Augustine completed his apology "On the Holiness of the Catholic Church." Both considered Doctors of the Church in Catholicism and saints in Orthodoxy. Ardent defenders of the Catholic Church par excellence are being used to buttress the key foundation of Protestantism namely Sola Scriptura. If they were alive they would be the most vociferous opponents of protestants of today as intensely as they denounced the heretics and schismatics of their day. You have pointed out that they had certain opinions about this and that.. What you have to prove is that Sola Scriptura was the teaching of the Church to which they belong and defended very admirably. So tell us what the Church of the time was saying about SS. Can you claim that Sola Scriptura was the guiding principle of the Catholic Church at that time? What about the first three ecumenical councils ( years 325, 381, 431) was Sola Scriptura evident in how they argued and sifted through the issues? That in my mind is much more important than showing that there were various streams of "pious opinions" held by a variety of people over the centuries - many of great standing. After all, at that time, even the canon of scripture that they allude to was still being worked out with one saint or church believing this or that.

20:13, 21:14, 22:13, 22:53 - John Chrysostom 25:25 - “Reasonability”

But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius (54) 1,1). In his reply to the Donatists on infant baptism, Augustine says: "The apostles, indeed, gave no injunctions on the point; but the custom [of infant baptism]… may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (Baptism, 5,23). How can we identify Apostolic Tradition? One way of doing so is to examine what all the Apostles appear to have handed down, not only the Apostles who wrote divine Scripture, but also those who did not. All of the churches, including those as far east as India and Armenia, conduct liturgical worship in communion with bishops, presbyters and deacons, and they all recognise the same seven sacraments. And we can confirm from Scripture that the Church must be served by bishops, presbyters and deacons, as follows: Acts 1:20; Acts 15; Acts 20:17-38; Philippians 1:1; 1 and 2 Timothy; and Titus.

Doing a deep dive on sola scriptura and of course I go to Dr. Ortlund for an explanation of the Protestant position. I love Dr. Ortlund’s content. I do have a genuine push-back on the Chrysostom quote specifically because I feel like that particular homily may not have been appropriately represented. Later in this homily (Homily 33 on Acts) Chrysostom judges his interpretation of Scripture by measuring it against the fact that his interpretation is in line with the Church and so verified. This entire conversation, of course, is nested within the context of there being one visible Church. I could be wrong, but here is the later party of the homily: Responding to an accusation about faulty interpretations he continues: “The others, say you, say the same thing about us (that our interpretation is faulty). How? For are we separated from the Church? Have we our heresiarchs? Are we called after men - as one of them has Marcion, another Manichæus, a third Arius, for the author and leader (of his sect)? Whereas if we likewise do receive an appellation from any man, we do not take them that have been the authors of some heresy, but men that presided over us, and governed the Church." He is using schism here as an indicator of heresy. So he is obviously using sacred scripture as the source material for doctrine, but using the Church as the bar which his interpretations must clear.

Do any Orthodox or Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ disagree with Dr. Ortlund's definition of Sola Scriptura, that the Bible (we can discuss canonicity in another thread) is the ONLY INFALLIBLE rule for faith and practice of the Christian life? Put another way, is there any infallible source beyond the scriptures?

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy WORD is truth." John 17:17 This is the bottom line for me. Jesus never pointed people to "tradition". He always pointed them to the word of God..."It is written..."It is written". "Scripture cannot be broken".

By what authority do you define sola scriptura? Who is the official expresser of the official expresson? Why you? Who is the official teacher?

It seems like when protestants "read wrongly" the fathers, what they are doing is finding contradictory statements in the fathers. Now there's 2 options from there, 1. is to admit that they might say one thing and then mean another because the fathers never changed positions and they would never contradict or 2. to say that its OK for the fathers to contradict since they aren't an inspired source. If you take option 1, you'd have to elevate their writings to the level of Scripture, but I don't even think RCCs do this. For what else/who else is ever non contradictory? If you take option 2, then "well why not rely then on the inspired source that we do have?" Either way, you're left with "here's what a godly man said about the Bible, and here's what the Bible says about the Bible". The Bible calls only itself as θεόπνευστος

I am watching this video late, but I am desperate for an answer on this question. Let me just take one disagreement between Catholic and Protestant. The question is how can we trust the Bible. Catholics say the Church put the Bible together. Protestants say “NO the Bible revealed itself. Protestants say "the Church no more gave us the Bible than Newton gave us gravity.” For me not growing up in a religious home I just read the Bible until I was convinced that it was not a myth. I read it carefully so I know the contents pretty well. So to the question as to why we should trust anything the early Church did; this is what the Bible says: Jesus said 1) He was going to build a single Church. 2) He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 3) He said that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. 4) He said that He was going to send the "Spirit of Truth" to guide the Church in all truth. Then Paul says 5) the pillar and bulwark of truth is “the church.” Okay so let us look in church history at the Canon. In 382 AD the Church had a council and determined that the canon was 73 books. They chose which books are infallible. That should be radically important right? So the question is why would we trust them? Well, the answer is that Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the age. He also said he would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. So from 382 AD to 1520 the Church that operated on the earth had the 73 book canon. But then Protestants come along and say in 1520 or so that the Church got the 73 book canon wrong. Please tell me how that is not absurd based on Jesus promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and to send the Spirit of Truth to guide the church in All TRUTH. I am not being belligerent here really, I earnestly want to know. Did Jesus lie? Did He make a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make an error with the 73 book canon? I cannot for the life of me believe that the church which is described as the pillar and bulwark of truth was not even on the earth from 382 To 1520. But then let’s move on; let’s say that the Protestants are right and the Church errored in the 73 Book canon. If the Church errored in the 73 book canon did God wait from 382 AD until 1520 before He restored the real truth? Are we really going to believe that for 1200 years the true Christian Church was not there? Can that make any sense? I am just a guy who read the Bible very closely and came down on the Catholic side only recently but now I have Protestants telling me I am going to hell. I am not being rude or accusatory. But please tell me how it is not absurd that Jesus says he would create one Church. He would be with the Church to the end of the age. He would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in ALL TRUTH. But then for one of the most important issues in all of Christianity the early Church gets 73 book canon wrong and so the truth is not there until 1520. That would make me question the Christian claims. Just a reasoned answer to this question would really help me.