DEBATE: w Gavin Ortlund | Sola Scriptura (Part 1)

Part 1 (of 2) of a discussion between Jimmy Akin and Gavin Ortlund of Truth Unites on the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("by scripture alone").

I explore the argument in the linked article in this discussion, particularly in part 2 (forthcoming).

[jack_skeean]

I appreciate the mutual graciousness of this conversation. I respect Dr. Ortlund's historical honesty and nuanced thinking. Great video as always, Jimmy!

[arkofthecovenant]

This is what dialogue looks instead of debate, hence my preference in this type of format. 👉🏼📺👍🏼

[pastorsmellgood]

Another Baptist Pastor in the room! Thanks Gavin for articulating our stances so very clearly and competently. And to Jimmy, wonderful job as well, you went into Catholicism, I came out of it. You are a very polite in your arguments.

[josephjude]

Protestantism leads eventually to everything become subjective to their own fallen understanding of scripture. Only one step away from saying if I can choose what the scripture says; why follow it at all. I will make my own church or no church.

[tjflash]

I really appreciate the respectful and honest conversation. As a protestant who has become quite interested in Catholicism, I am grateful for the presentation. I have become a fan of Jimmy Akins Mysterious World through EWTN that I listen too regularly. Much respect for both of these gentlemen.

[MrBloodWake]

Mr. Jimmy, you are a gem. I'm reformed, Anglican, South African, but please accept my compliments to your style, knowledge, conduct and rigor. I'm always learning something new with you and Dr. Gavin.

I mean, now I can't wait to use "Florilegium" in a sentence.

[timboslice]

Proper interpretation of scripture is serving it. Improper interpretation certainly will lead to error. If the protestants could solve their disputes from the Bible alone then they wouldn't have any disputes by now. They had 1500 years of work by the catholic church to go by and another 500 years of their own time to figure it out and what we see is more denominations over time not less.

[sherwindique]

I'm so glad this happened! I was literally thinking a while back about how great it would be if Jimmy and Dr. Ortlund could discuss Sola Scriptura.

[christopherjones]

I have to say, I appreciate both of your dispositions....a respectful dialogue where you can disagree without being condescending and without sacrificing your covictions. well done to you both.

[srfrg]

Sola scriptura is historically impossible. The bible was compiled and published by the Church during the two first centuries and the canon was decided by the council in Trullo in 692. So the Bible predates the Church and is actually a part of the teachings of the Church put on paper.
More over, in the scriptures themselves Jesus said that the Church established in Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria will last until the Gospel is preached all over the world.
Acts (1:8) : "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
The only Church with apostolic continuity is the Church of the Greek orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria, which is also called the mother of all Churches in the orthodox world.
Also in the middle ages the Roman Catholic not only forbid translations of the bible but also condemned people who read the bible in Greek as heretics. The only authorized Bible was Latin, only Latin and it was tolerated only within the clergy. And remember that heresy was a matter of life and death as Thomas Aquinus dogmatised in Summa Theologica.
Kyrie eleison.

[leon]

Well, another Protestant losing a debate and exposing Protestant error. What a priori bias Gavin expresses in his argument ...

[cactoidjim]

"The Norming Norm that is not Normed"

Years of watching Cheers make this an especially amusing alliteration.

[zekdom]

What I really appreciate about this dialogue is that — instead of a six-minute, rapid-fire gish gallop of information in a debate — we can have both sides go through the data, carefully, one or two points at a time, while clarifying positions.

And that’s definitely what I watched here. Very informative.

Thanks, Akin and Ortlund!

[sjappiyah]

This is one of the most productive Catholic/Protestant discussions I’ve ever heard.

[dodavega]

The issue is that Rome declares magisterium to be equivalent to Scripture but only Rome determines the meaning of Scripture. So no one needs Scripture because Rome gives you the meaning. Sola Scriptura defends us against such things.

[aly]

"The Church didn't give us the Bible; it recognized the Bible."
A false dichotomy in my view.
The Church was and is composed of individuals with individual opinions BUT they were are all part of the Church - the people who wrote the books and the people who later read them.
So in that sense, of course the Church gave us the Bible. No doubt.
Individuals differed but over time the recognition coalesced into the official canon not least because the members of the hierarchy at some point declared the official canon after which no doubt was possible without committing heresy.
To summarize, the Church gave us the canon and then recognized it.
As pointed out by mostly Catholics, the disciples went everywhere preaching the Good News even WITHOUT the New Scriptures/ the New Testament books in hand. Maybe one or some certainly not all. They did that even before all the books were written.
Sola Scriptura was literally impossible at that time.

Not only that, even the concept that there would be a new set of scriptures outside the Jewish scriptures was formed in the bosom of the Church Catholic - among the people that comprised it.

Christ did not predict a new set of scriptures.
No mention whatsoever.
It was the CHURCH that realized both the concept of a new set of scriptures AND the books that belonged in that category.
What Jesus clearly mentioned was assigning PEOPLE properly deputized by HIM to teach His truths - not books that those people would later produce. Some of those writers were apostles some laymen but they were all Body of Christ - in other words, the Church.
He prophesied and instituted HIS CHURCH.
AND gave certain people a certain level of authority.
He breathed upon them, SOME mind you - not all. See Romans 12:5
"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.” John 20:21
That is to be given authority. That is to be deputized.
Only God can forgive sins but these are his deputies who received the Master's breath.
In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul states, “All Scripture is God-breathed.."
But Christ did not breath on the "new" scriptures - they were not even mentioned at that time much less written.
He left that to the Church through the people who were given authority.
That is the Church, duly authorized and deputized by the Master, that gave us the NEW scriptures and then subsequently recognized them.

[stephanelarochelle]

Two super intelligent, open minded and informed theologians discussing their differences .... Note: I am glad to be Catholic ;-)

[hemlock]

I find comfort in knowing an intellegent mind like Jim Akin is on our side.

[zekdom]

3:58, 4:26, 5:10, 19:48, 21:23, 27:30,
29:19, 30:26 - Clarifying Sola Scriptura

7:19, 8:01, 8:35 - Reaching agreement

9:02, 9:40, 9:59, 10:08 - Why was there disagreement in the past?

10:38, 11:03, 12:36 - Translations
11:52 - Jehovah’s Witnesses

14:02, 15:22, 15:47, 17:24, 18:25 - Did Catholicism push back against translations for the common folk in general, or just certain translations?
17:45, 17:58 - Fascinating history

28:07 - How to avoid caricatures

32:06, 32:11 - How does the Westminster Confession of Faith handle tradition?

37:26 - What is the Church’s role in a Sola Scriptura framework?
37:48, 38:39 - Akin’s response

39:17, 40:16, 41:09, 41:28, 47:46 - Sola Scriptura before the Reformation?

42:35, 43:14 - Ortlund’s word of caution concerning the church writers

46:27, 47:46 - Cyril of Jerusalem

47:16 - Aquinas and Augustine on…

49:34, 56:24 - Akin’s take on Sola Scriptura before the Reformation
50:28, 50:36, 52:43, 52:58 - Akin elaborates on the church writers
50:58, 51:37 - Akin on the Gnostics in the 2nd century
52:05 - Akin on other contexts where scripture is emphasized

53:49, 53:58, 54:18 - Gavin’s response to Akin’s balanced view of the church writers

54:57, 55:18, 56:09 - Correct view of Catholic teaching about scripture and tradition

[jesusmarywillsaveyou]

Response to Gavin on his view that Cyril of Jerusalem advocated Sola Scriptura...
CYRIL of JERUSALEM (two quotes):

i. 'But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now DELIVERED TO THEE by THE CHURCH, AND which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES.' Catechetical Lectures 5, 12

ii. 'Learn also diligently, and FROM THE CHURCH, WHAT ARE THE BOOKS of the Old Testaments, and WHAT are the books of the NEW' Catechetical Lectures 5, 33

Gavin should be made aware of the following historical context of Cyril's alleged Sola Scriptura quote, which he read in the show, to better understand what Cyril meant. Cyril was born, and ruled as a bishop, during the height of the Arian heresy. As a matter fact, two Roman Emperors during Cyril's life were Arians. Thus, since Cyril was a bishop and catechist teacher during this period, he most likely was endeavouring to promote precise theology from the Scriptures AND the Church to defeat Arian heresies. And this is perfectly consonant with what the Catholic Church has always taught because it is Tradition which the Church employed to determine the canon of Scritpure, since Scripture certainly doesnt tell us what the canon is, and moreover Tradition has always been regarded as one of the three indispensable pillars (Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium) which the Church professes to rest on.