The other question which is difficult for the Protestants to resolve is that of the closing of the canon of scripture. It seems to me that the matter must remain always open for them.
No not at all. Jude 3 speaks of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Protestants would look at what has been received without dispute throughout the centuries and recognize that is essentially what they have from cover to cover.
@@ElvisI97 The problem with using Jude 3 is that over half of the NT books hadn't been written yet. So to claim that as a proof text means that over half of the NT would not be scripture, including some of the gospels. The other verse that they will quote is the end of Revelation about adding/removing, even though the verse is only talking about the book of Revelation itself.
Hello Christian! I would like to express how much I appreciate your channel. The depth of insight you show, the precision, the detail, your seemingly exhaustive knowledge of and citation of authorities…all this leads to utterly fascinating studies. Having studied Theology before you are blowing my mind by penetrating so lucidly aspects of our Catholic Faith! Thankyou- and thanks for helping to keep me away from some of that politicised controversialist ‘radtrad’ stuff. I’m afraid I’m in a lot of poverty atm, otherwise I would contribute… nevertheless, please accept my thanks and prayers. Richard (in London, England).
I have some questions I’ve been intrigued by an interesting historical argument against Sola Scriptura: basically if SS is true, we should expect to see an early solemnly defined canon of scripture in order to base doctrine off of, there is no such early solemn canon, therefore SS is false. In contrast, the history demonstrates that the faith was entrusted to the Church to teach true doctrine (consistent with scripture) while the Bible was yet to be compiled. The faithful relied on the teaching of the apostles and their successors passed on through tradition just as much as scripture. The canon history includes how the first proposed canon was from Marcion the heretic, local churches often only had a handful of texts, some extra books were included (1 Clement) while other books were excluded (Hebrews), eventually St Athanasius offers a Protestant-like canon (that excludes Esther), then regional synods in the late 4th century start teaching a Catholic canon, yet there were still disputes through the centuries until the 16th century when even a cardinal like Cajetan disputed the deuterocanon, until finally Trent solemnly declared the canon for Catholics while Protestant tradition took after Luther. Again, I would argue this should not be the case if scripture was the only infallible authority to base doctrine off of, since this demands that the faithful knows immediately what is scripture and what isn’t. One question is do you guys think this argument works? Another question is about a discussion I’m having where my interlocutor argues that my argument would deny apostolic succession: because AS involves the direct and faithful transmission of apostolic teaching and authority, a clear agreed-upon list of canonical scripture is an essential part of apostolic teaching, so true AS should include an unbroken transmission of a canon; however there was no universally recognized clear canon list in the early church (my argument), therefore AS did not exist. What do you all think of his line of argumentation? I’m curious to learn more how apostolic succession relates to the implicit-ness of the canon in the early church.
Your first argument is not only valid, but it should be obvious to any rational thinking person. It's important to note that this argument wouldn't hinge on whether or not an all-powerful God *could* do it, but whether an all-loving God *would* do it. Sola Scriptura heretics rely on these pseudo-gnostic ideas that (1) the cannon was kept secret from the early Christians - if our current understanding of history is true - or (2) the conspiratorial notion that everything we know about Church history is wrong (see: God put dinosaur bones on earth to test our faith!) Theoretically, either of those things "could" be the case, but, very problematically, it presents God as toying with humanity; which isn't something that any God who truly wills the good of all mankind and seeks to draw us unto Himself *would* do. As for the argument against Apostolic succession presented by your interlocutor, it makes no sense for a number of reasons. First of all, it presumes too much of the Apostolic successors in question. They're humans, not gods, merely channels through which God works. Secondly, this guy clearly has no understanding of how doctrinal development actually works. Prots like to think of that as some sort of "cheap excuse" without realizing that *the entire Bible* is a story of doctrinal development. The Apostles encounter the actions and teachings of Christ, and - BOOM - doctrinal development! It's not a matter of doctrine "changing," but of fallible humans continually discovering infallible doctrine by encountering new dilemmas. Every time the Apostle Paul put his pen to paper, another instance of doctrinal development occurred. Humans ask questions. To whom should they take these quarrels, according to Jesus in Matthew 18:17, but the Church? As for the "unbroken transmission of a canon," that requirement is only necessary in order to prove Sola Scriptura. If God had wanted to do so, He *could* have left us a Church without an established Biblical canon at all. Nothing would prevent an all-powerful, all-loving God from guiding His Church and protecting Her from preaching any false doctrine. An argument could be made that an all-loving God "wouldn't" do that, and (thankfully) He didn't, but He certainly *could,* as the Holy Spirit guides the Church in the same way that it guides the fingers of those who authored Scripture, all of whom belong to the Church, of course. In short, that's like saying: "Peanut butter doesn't exist, therefore peanuts don't exist."
What is the meaning of an infallible list of doctrines? Would that not simply be the list itself? If A, B, and C are doctrines (i.e., put forward definitively and thus infallibly), then the conjunction or list of A, B, and C would also be definitive and infallible.
Do you have a list of the books on your shelves somewhere? I think I see the Summa set in Latin on the second shelf. Interested in the two volume set on the right on the top shelf. Thank you
A so called "apostolic" tradition that many church fathers like St. Athanasius, St. Jerome at least in his earlier opinion, St. John Damascene etc. didn’t know about & that Cardinal Cajetan first rejected, even after the Council of Florence had seemingly settled the issue.
So if I understood you correctly, it’s a matter of which leg in the stool you appeal to? Are you saying Catholics should stop saying “You can’t know the canon without a Church” but should instead say “You can’t know the canon without Sacred tradition”?
The Church isn’t a fount of revelation, it’s a teacher and a judge. My point here is that the canon of scripture is, of course, infallibly judged by the Church…but, this is something that is contingent on the will of God, NOT necessary in an absolute sense. On the other hand, sacred tradition is a fount of revelation…now, the fact that James is scripture is something that is a fact concerning an entitatively supernatural object and thus must come from revelation. This isn’t in scripture. So, it must be in tradition.
Jude 3 speaks of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Protestants would look at which books have been received without dispute throughout the centuries and recognize that is essentially what they have from cover to cover. Protestant do not deny the role of the church to help guide believers to truth without needing to grant it infallibility ex. John the Baptist pointing out Jesus while he later had doubts of whether he got it right. God chooses to use fallible persons/ entities to point to higher truths all the time. I mean what if John the Baptist did get it wrong? How would you know at the time? Perhaps that’s what happens when we confuse faith with epistemic certainty.
I already know all of this. I explicitly said something else than “epistemic certainty.” Boilerplate response that doesn’t actually deal with anything I said.
Why i having a fallible list of infallible books a problematic statement And how come it the list of infallible statements from the church are only fallible? I didn't get it
Couldn't a protestant say that we know the canon through historical reasoning about what was considered scripture by the apostles but acknowledge that tradition is not fallible and we could be wrong and James might not be canonical? This would still fit under sola scriptura as scripture (whatever it is) is the only infallible authority. I'm Catholic by the way and sorry if this is a stupid question.
You see the thread where I was arguing with a protestant on cameron latest video on protestantism. You will quickly see how flawed their defenses are. Granted I let the guy have the last word and think he answered my questions despite merely responding to my questions and just said the canon is quoted in scripture LOL.
This seems like you must hold to the partim-partim theory of scripture and tradition as opposed to the material sufficiency of scripture. Is my assumption correct or is it possible to make the argument in this video while holding to the material sufficiency of scripture?
@@MilitantThomist I've watched at least 60% of your videos. I'm in your top 500 fans for sure. I'll obviously need to go back and refresh. Scotus On Material Sufficiency?
@@MilitantThomist I went back and watched it (I had watched it and still needed the refresher), but my question remains. That video was focused on the formal/material sufficiency debate, but my question here is whether or not that debate is moot. It's the last thing you say in this video "apostolic tradition which was transmitting revelation which is outside the books of sacred scripture." How could we say scripture is in any way sufficient if it doesn't contain all of revelation? Is all of revelation not necessary in some sense? Or does "sufficiency" mean "sufficient for some purpose other than transmitting all of revelation?"
Why do you think it's necessary to say that the canon isn't revelation? Why is there no problem with saying "fallible list of infallible books", but there's a problem with saying "unrevealed list of revelaed books"?
To the first, the act of inspiration is an entitatively supernatural act and thus can only be known by an act of Divine Revelation. It’s not something like a miracle that is modally supernatural. If you’re handed X book, there is nothing you can do in investigating this book to know that it is the Word of God unless there is the witness of God by an act of revelation (I.e., through Sacred Tradition). The issue with the “fallible list of infallible books” argument is that it lies on a fundamental equivocation between the first use of fallible (i.e., of the subject) and the second use of infallible (I.e., of the object). Its sophistical and Catholics shouldn’t use it. Whereas, in the first case, we are simply pointing to a lack of proportion between the natural endowments of the intellect and an entitatively supernatural object which must be revealed in order for us to know it.
You say the question is not whether its an "infallible" list but whether the canon list "was revealed". Sorry, I might be missing something, but aren't the two the same thing? Isn't divine revelation infallible?
Yes but not everything that is infallible is divinely revealed (infallible statements of the magisterium refer to divine revelation but are not themselves divine revelation)
@@emiliobazzarelli4270 I agree, but when he says "its revealed" it necessarily entails ifallibility. So I don't see why its wrong to say, "fallible list of infallible books".
He talks about this much later into that stream (like 20 minutes in). Divine revelation is infallible and inspired, yes, but the question is whether or not the list of canonical texts is part of divine revelation, not whether or not it is infallible. If I hand you a book and say "God inspired this" and you just take me at my word, you would be imprudent in just accepting my statement as I have not proven its inspiration nor do I have the authority to determine that. Catholics and Orthos can say that the canon list is in divine revelation, as we hold it comes from apostolic tradition which is a means of communicating divine revelation. Protestants do not believe that tradition is a means of divine revelation, so they either have to acknowledge A) that the list of canonical books is not part of divine revelation and something God didn't care to tell us (ie left unrevealed) or acknowledge B) that a divinely revealed canon list can come from apostolic tradition. Both positions challenge core theological ideas for Protestants of any denomination and also address the fact that Catholics do have "fallible lists of infallible statements" relating to ecumenical councils and papal statements but do not claim that parts of divine revelation are not yet revealed. The first position is an icky one similar to the situation above. Saying that something is inspired by God without having a revelation from God that it actually was is a dreadful place for a Christian to be as it calls into question our knowledge of divine revelation at all and whether or not it is fully revealed. The authorship question regarding the Letter to the Hebrews, for example, is a huge issue for any person holding the first position, as Hebrews has a massive impact on Christian theology and can be argued to fail the apostolicity test, meaning it could not be divine revelation. The second position openly refutes Sola Scriptura, as it indicates that divine revelation can be transmitted outside of Scripture.
The question of “fallibility” concerns the fallibility of the subject receiving, I.e., the Church, the question of revelation concerns the quality of the object at hand. You can have fallible knowledge of revealed things (e.g., my interpretation of John 1:2) and one can be infallible without revealing something (e.g., God leads a mathematician to infallibly do math).
What would you say to the idea that the canon of Scripture is a secondary object of infallibility - and is intimately connected to the deposit of faith inasmuch as it defines where the deposit of faith is located in its inspired written form? Obviously in the video you seem to reject this inasmuch as you have a problem with the notion of an unrevealed canon - but it seems to me that - historically speaking - the idea that the Apostles handed down the 73 book canon as an object of revelation is not convincing. Certainly, I would grant that certain books among the canon were revealed to be Scripture - but all of them? I am not so sure. It seems that somewhere along the line - we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church to - as it were - 'detect' which books were written by Him - and such detection, as it is intimately connected with the deposit of faith, falls within the remit of the Church's infallibility.
It's not as if the Apostles wrote down a list of canonical books and said "these are the 73!" That's not what I meant. What I meant is that the fact that such and such a book is Divine Revelation is something that is Apostolic Tradition. The idea that the canon of Scripture is a secondary object of infallibility is something that is novel...any author that I've read has said that that it is a primary object, passed down via Divine Tradition. The reason for this is quite simple...revelation is an entitatively supernatural act. It is not a "historical fact."
@@MilitantThomist How does that relate to the orthodoxy of the position of those who hold that certain books of Scripture were written after the death of the last Apostle? Moreover, when you say that Revelation is an entitatively supernatural act, this of course is clear, but must it be the case that the place in which said Revelation is deposited is necessarily entitatively supernatural? Would that not be necessary to maintain for the argument that the Canon is necessarily revealed?
Instead of framing it as "apostlic tradition" just frame it as "History". Also, sola scriptura is the idea that Scripture alone is infalliable or that its the ultimate authority. we have examples of fallible canons, but infallible content. An arithmetic curriculum. This is not a good argument, especially when you have the existence of the Orthodox and have to argue about historical events. This the "give me a epistemic justigucation", but if you take this to the most logical conclusion, it renders all knowledge unjustifiable.
Fallible list of infallible books is beyond stupid. If that list is fallible then: - it's possible that one of the books is fallible. Thus you could never say, but only assume (without good ground), that the books in the list are infallible. - it's also possible that there are other infallible books not in the list. What if one of those books teaches that a Christian needs to drink honey, at least once, to be saved. Then many Christian would be going to hell since they never have any honey.
I mean, not really...God could, in his absolute will, have provided us with Divine Revelation passed down in a "fallible mode." By "fallible list of infallible books," there is a subtle equivocation going on here. By the first "fallible," you mean fallible as to the subject knowing, i.e., the Christian. By the second "infallible," you mean infallible as to quality of the object, i.e., the author. It's sophistical to jump from the one to the other. We interact with "infallible" things in a "fallible" manner all of the time.
@@MilitantThomistyes, if you affirm the premises that a Catholic wants to affirm in order to make the canon problem work, he undermines not only protestantism but his own faith as well.
In all seriousness though why do you believe in the Canon of the books of the New Testament since it changed so frequently and was finally ratified by clearly Apostolic authority.
A friendly reminder that the Protestant Revolution paved the way for secularism and modernism.
I wouldn't even call it a revolution. It's more like pretty rebellion. Certainly not a "reformation" in any positive sense.
And atheism and humanism
"one of the weird German names."
- Christian B. WAGNER
The other question which is difficult for the Protestants to resolve is that of the closing of the canon of scripture. It seems to me that the matter must remain always open for them.
No not at all. Jude 3 speaks of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Protestants would look at what has been received without dispute throughout the centuries and recognize that is essentially what they have from cover to cover.
@@ElvisI97Nevertheless, it is still an equivocation of sign and the thing signified. Faith isn't the Christian Bible.
Yes because Jesus's disciples and the ones learning DIRECTLY from them are still around
@@ElvisI97 The problem with using Jude 3 is that over half of the NT books hadn't been written yet. So to claim that as a proof text means that over half of the NT would not be scripture, including some of the gospels. The other verse that they will quote is the end of Revelation about adding/removing, even though the verse is only talking about the book of Revelation itself.
God bless our holy catholic church!
Hello Christian!
I would like to express how much I appreciate your channel.
The depth of insight you show, the precision, the detail, your seemingly exhaustive knowledge of and citation of authorities…all this leads to utterly fascinating studies.
Having studied Theology before you are blowing my mind by penetrating so lucidly aspects of our Catholic Faith!
Thankyou- and thanks for helping to keep me away from some of that politicised controversialist ‘radtrad’ stuff.
I’m afraid I’m in a lot of poverty atm, otherwise I would contribute… nevertheless, please accept my thanks and prayers.
Richard (in London, England).
I sure hope this title isn't clickbait :D
One of the main arguments i asked my self to became a catholic from protestantism
I have some questions
I’ve been intrigued by an interesting historical argument against Sola Scriptura: basically if SS is true, we should expect to see an early solemnly defined canon of scripture in order to base doctrine off of, there is no such early solemn canon, therefore SS is false. In contrast, the history demonstrates that the faith was entrusted to the Church to teach true doctrine (consistent with scripture) while the Bible was yet to be compiled. The faithful relied on the teaching of the apostles and their successors passed on through tradition just as much as scripture.
The canon history includes how the first proposed canon was from Marcion the heretic, local churches often only had a handful of texts, some extra books were included (1 Clement) while other books were excluded (Hebrews), eventually St Athanasius offers a Protestant-like canon (that excludes Esther), then regional synods in the late 4th century start teaching a Catholic canon, yet there were still disputes through the centuries until the 16th century when even a cardinal like Cajetan disputed the deuterocanon, until finally Trent solemnly declared the canon for Catholics while Protestant tradition took after Luther. Again, I would argue this should not be the case if scripture was the only infallible authority to base doctrine off of, since this demands that the faithful knows immediately what is scripture and what isn’t.
One question is do you guys think this argument works?
Another question is about a discussion I’m having where my interlocutor argues that my argument would deny apostolic succession: because AS involves the direct and faithful transmission of apostolic teaching and authority, a clear agreed-upon list of canonical scripture is an essential part of apostolic teaching, so true AS should include an unbroken transmission of a canon; however there was no universally recognized clear canon list in the early church (my argument), therefore AS did not exist.
What do you all think of his line of argumentation?
I’m curious to learn more how apostolic succession relates to the implicit-ness of the canon in the early church.
Your first argument is not only valid, but it should be obvious to any rational thinking person. It's important to note that this argument wouldn't hinge on whether or not an all-powerful God *could* do it, but whether an all-loving God *would* do it.
Sola Scriptura heretics rely on these pseudo-gnostic ideas that (1) the cannon was kept secret from the early Christians - if our current understanding of history is true - or (2) the conspiratorial notion that everything we know about Church history is wrong (see: God put dinosaur bones on earth to test our faith!)
Theoretically, either of those things "could" be the case, but, very problematically, it presents God as toying with humanity; which isn't something that any God who truly wills the good of all mankind and seeks to draw us unto Himself *would* do.
As for the argument against Apostolic succession presented by your interlocutor, it makes no sense for a number of reasons.
First of all, it presumes too much of the Apostolic successors in question. They're humans, not gods, merely channels through which God works.
Secondly, this guy clearly has no understanding of how doctrinal development actually works. Prots like to think of that as some sort of "cheap excuse" without realizing that *the entire Bible* is a story of doctrinal development. The Apostles encounter the actions and teachings of Christ, and - BOOM - doctrinal development! It's not a matter of doctrine "changing," but of fallible humans continually discovering infallible doctrine by encountering new dilemmas. Every time the Apostle Paul put his pen to paper, another instance of doctrinal development occurred. Humans ask questions. To whom should they take these quarrels, according to Jesus in Matthew 18:17, but the Church?
As for the "unbroken transmission of a canon," that requirement is only necessary in order to prove Sola Scriptura. If God had wanted to do so, He *could* have left us a Church without an established Biblical canon at all. Nothing would prevent an all-powerful, all-loving God from guiding His Church and protecting Her from preaching any false doctrine.
An argument could be made that an all-loving God "wouldn't" do that, and (thankfully) He didn't, but He certainly *could,* as the Holy Spirit guides the Church in the same way that it guides the fingers of those who authored Scripture, all of whom belong to the Church, of course.
In short, that's like saying: "Peanut butter doesn't exist, therefore peanuts don't exist."
Yeah some weird sects completely deny Paul, so that list needs to happen
What is the meaning of an infallible list of doctrines? Would that not simply be the list itself? If A, B, and C are doctrines (i.e., put forward definitively and thus infallibly), then the conjunction or list of A, B, and C would also be definitive and infallible.
Yes
Will this trick turn them to ash or something?
Tried it. Didn't happen
Do you have a list of the books on your shelves somewhere? I think I see the Summa set in Latin on the second shelf. Interested in the two volume set on the right on the top shelf. Thank you
Blessed.
A so called "apostolic" tradition that many church fathers like St. Athanasius, St. Jerome at least in his earlier opinion, St. John Damascene etc. didn’t know about & that Cardinal Cajetan first rejected, even after the Council of Florence had seemingly settled the issue.
“Wow, you’re telling me this now for the first time”
So if I understood you correctly, it’s a matter of which leg in the stool you appeal to? Are you saying Catholics should stop saying “You can’t know the canon without a Church” but should instead say “You can’t know the canon without Sacred tradition”?
The Church isn’t a fount of revelation, it’s a teacher and a judge.
My point here is that the canon of scripture is, of course, infallibly judged by the Church…but, this is something that is contingent on the will of God, NOT necessary in an absolute sense.
On the other hand, sacred tradition is a fount of revelation…now, the fact that James is scripture is something that is a fact concerning an entitatively supernatural object and thus must come from revelation. This isn’t in scripture. So, it must be in tradition.
bro
real and true!
Jude 3 speaks of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Protestants would look at which books have been received without dispute throughout the centuries and recognize that is essentially what they have from cover to cover. Protestant do not deny the role of the church to help guide believers to truth without needing to grant it infallibility ex. John the Baptist pointing out Jesus while he later had doubts of whether he got it right. God chooses to use fallible persons/ entities to point to higher truths all the time. I mean what if John the Baptist did get it wrong? How would you know at the time? Perhaps that’s what happens when we confuse faith with epistemic certainty.
I already know all of this. I explicitly said something else than “epistemic certainty.” Boilerplate response that doesn’t actually deal with anything I said.
Why i having a fallible list of infallible books a problematic statement
And how come it the list of infallible statements from the church are only fallible?
I didn't get it
Did you listen to the video? I didn’t say that it was.
Couldn't a protestant say that we know the canon through historical reasoning about what was considered scripture by the apostles but acknowledge that tradition is not fallible and we could be wrong and James might not be canonical? This would still fit under sola scriptura as scripture (whatever it is) is the only infallible authority. I'm Catholic by the way and sorry if this is a stupid question.
Then you will never have true certainty what is scripture. Sola scriptura then only applies to an ambiguous book.
nice
You see the thread where I was arguing with a protestant on cameron latest video on protestantism.
You will quickly see how flawed their defenses are.
Granted I let the guy have the last word and think he answered my questions despite merely responding to my questions and just said the canon is quoted in scripture LOL.
This seems like you must hold to the partim-partim theory of scripture and tradition as opposed to the material sufficiency of scripture.
Is my assumption correct or is it possible to make the argument in this video while holding to the material sufficiency of scripture?
Have you seen the video I did on this topic?
@@MilitantThomist I've watched at least 60% of your videos. I'm in your top 500 fans for sure.
I'll obviously need to go back and refresh. Scotus On Material Sufficiency?
@@ManofSteel007This one: ruclips.net/video/_Gn8H7ox0gg/видео.htmlsi=KJvD9QhTw2mDCfUZ
@@MilitantThomist I went back and watched it (I had watched it and still needed the refresher), but my question remains. That video was focused on the formal/material sufficiency debate, but my question here is whether or not that debate is moot.
It's the last thing you say in this video "apostolic tradition which was transmitting revelation which is outside the books of sacred scripture." How could we say scripture is in any way sufficient if it doesn't contain all of revelation?
Is all of revelation not necessary in some sense? Or does "sufficiency" mean "sufficient for some purpose other than transmitting all of revelation?"
Why do you think it's necessary to say that the canon isn't revelation? Why is there no problem with saying "fallible list of infallible books", but there's a problem with saying "unrevealed list of revelaed books"?
To the first, the act of inspiration is an entitatively supernatural act and thus can only be known by an act of Divine Revelation. It’s not something like a miracle that is modally supernatural. If you’re handed X book, there is nothing you can do in investigating this book to know that it is the Word of God unless there is the witness of God by an act of revelation (I.e., through Sacred Tradition).
The issue with the “fallible list of infallible books” argument is that it lies on a fundamental equivocation between the first use of fallible (i.e., of the subject) and the second use of infallible (I.e., of the object). Its sophistical and Catholics shouldn’t use it.
Whereas, in the first case, we are simply pointing to a lack of proportion between the natural endowments of the intellect and an entitatively supernatural object which must be revealed in order for us to know it.
You say the question is not whether its an "infallible" list but whether the canon list "was revealed". Sorry, I might be missing something, but aren't the two the same thing? Isn't divine revelation infallible?
Yes but not everything that is infallible is divinely revealed (infallible statements of the magisterium refer to divine revelation but are not themselves divine revelation)
@@emiliobazzarelli4270 I agree, but when he says "its revealed" it necessarily entails ifallibility. So I don't see why its wrong to say, "fallible list of infallible books".
@@davidszaraz4605 because infallibility is to low a standard
He talks about this much later into that stream (like 20 minutes in). Divine revelation is infallible and inspired, yes, but the question is whether or not the list of canonical texts is part of divine revelation, not whether or not it is infallible. If I hand you a book and say "God inspired this" and you just take me at my word, you would be imprudent in just accepting my statement as I have not proven its inspiration nor do I have the authority to determine that.
Catholics and Orthos can say that the canon list is in divine revelation, as we hold it comes from apostolic tradition which is a means of communicating divine revelation. Protestants do not believe that tradition is a means of divine revelation, so they either have to acknowledge A) that the list of canonical books is not part of divine revelation and something God didn't care to tell us (ie left unrevealed) or acknowledge B) that a divinely revealed canon list can come from apostolic tradition. Both positions challenge core theological ideas for Protestants of any denomination and also address the fact that Catholics do have "fallible lists of infallible statements" relating to ecumenical councils and papal statements but do not claim that parts of divine revelation are not yet revealed.
The first position is an icky one similar to the situation above. Saying that something is inspired by God without having a revelation from God that it actually was is a dreadful place for a Christian to be as it calls into question our knowledge of divine revelation at all and whether or not it is fully revealed. The authorship question regarding the Letter to the Hebrews, for example, is a huge issue for any person holding the first position, as Hebrews has a massive impact on Christian theology and can be argued to fail the apostolicity test, meaning it could not be divine revelation. The second position openly refutes Sola Scriptura, as it indicates that divine revelation can be transmitted outside of Scripture.
The question of “fallibility” concerns the fallibility of the subject receiving, I.e., the Church, the question of revelation concerns the quality of the object at hand.
You can have fallible knowledge of revealed things (e.g., my interpretation of John 1:2) and one can be infallible without revealing something (e.g., God leads a mathematician to infallibly do math).
What would you say to the idea that the canon of Scripture is a secondary object of infallibility - and is intimately connected to the deposit of faith inasmuch as it defines where the deposit of faith is located in its inspired written form?
Obviously in the video you seem to reject this inasmuch as you have a problem with the notion of an unrevealed canon - but it seems to me that - historically speaking - the idea that the Apostles handed down the 73 book canon as an object of revelation is not convincing.
Certainly, I would grant that certain books among the canon were revealed to be Scripture - but all of them? I am not so sure. It seems that somewhere along the line - we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church to - as it were - 'detect' which books were written by Him - and such detection, as it is intimately connected with the deposit of faith, falls within the remit of the Church's infallibility.
It's not as if the Apostles wrote down a list of canonical books and said "these are the 73!" That's not what I meant. What I meant is that the fact that such and such a book is Divine Revelation is something that is Apostolic Tradition.
The idea that the canon of Scripture is a secondary object of infallibility is something that is novel...any author that I've read has said that that it is a primary object, passed down via Divine Tradition. The reason for this is quite simple...revelation is an entitatively supernatural act. It is not a "historical fact."
@@MilitantThomist How does that relate to the orthodoxy of the position of those who hold that certain books of Scripture were written after the death of the last Apostle?
Moreover, when you say that Revelation is an entitatively supernatural act, this of course is clear, but must it be the case that the place in which said Revelation is deposited is necessarily entitatively supernatural? Would that not be necessary to maintain for the argument that the Canon is necessarily revealed?
Hey bro do you debate on RUclips
Did not expect to see you in the comments brother , God bless
Instead of framing it as "apostlic tradition" just frame it as "History". Also, sola scriptura is the idea that Scripture alone is infalliable or that its the ultimate authority.
we have examples of fallible canons, but infallible content. An arithmetic curriculum.
This is not a good argument, especially when you have the existence of the Orthodox and have to argue about historical events. This the "give me a epistemic justigucation", but if you take this to the most logical conclusion, it renders all knowledge unjustifiable.
This is a boilerplate response to something I didn’t say
@@MilitantThomistMy comment addresses @6:15-7:20. The last paragraph is more of an anticipation. If anybody wants to argue that.
big if true
Fallible list of infallible books is beyond stupid.
If that list is fallible then:
- it's possible that one of the books is fallible. Thus you could never say, but only assume (without good ground), that the books in the list are infallible.
- it's also possible that there are other infallible books not in the list. What if one of those books teaches that a Christian needs to drink honey, at least once, to be saved. Then many Christian would be going to hell since they never have any honey.
I drank honey last week and the thick 3am acid reflux nearly sent me to heaven
I mean, not really...God could, in his absolute will, have provided us with Divine Revelation passed down in a "fallible mode."
By "fallible list of infallible books," there is a subtle equivocation going on here. By the first "fallible," you mean fallible as to the subject knowing, i.e., the Christian. By the second "infallible," you mean infallible as to quality of the object, i.e., the author.
It's sophistical to jump from the one to the other.
We interact with "infallible" things in a "fallible" manner all of the time.
@@MilitantThomist can you elaborate on this a little?
Needs more lens flare on the eyes and all caps in the title.
Ah, I had some things to respond with but wanted you to finish your thoughts
Replace the word canon list with apostolic tradition. These same arguments can be used against apostolic tradition 😂
Awesome. So Catholicism and Protestantism are both refuted, right?
@@MilitantThomistyes, if you affirm the premises that a Catholic wants to affirm in order to make the canon problem work, he undermines not only protestantism but his own faith as well.
Prot here. Christian is right. I truly am ravaged but this argument 🥵
Are you being sarcastic?
@@genericname7020 I’m being sarcastic that it’s ravaged me, but I truly am a protestant
@@thomasthellamas9886would you like to be ravaged?
In all seriousness though why do you believe in the Canon of the books of the New Testament since it changed so frequently and was finally ratified by clearly Apostolic authority.
@@scienquist Because of history. Textual criticism. Why do you believe that the authority of the church of the church changed the canon many times?
I sent you a message via Instagram, i hope you can answer me it's about the Filioque.
God bless you man