@tbojai He brough no good argument against protestanism but twisting the truth like what Josephus said or what happend with the three fold canon of the prologue of Ben Sira?
@@thomasglass9491 The "three fold canon of the prologue" is not complete, it mentions the categories of writings 3 times, and each time it fails to give a decisive title for the "3rd category." It calls them: "the others that followed," "the other books of our fathers" and "the rest of the books," speaking in very incomplete language, implying that this category isn't fully developed yet. On top of this, the prologue claims that the book is inspired when it says "my grandfather Jesus, after devoting himself especially to the reading of the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers, and after acquiring considerable proficiency in them, was HIMSELF ALSO LED to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom." (sorry for the caps, but I want to add emphasis and I don't see another way). The prologue to Sirach does not support a closed canon. And, on the contrary very clearly contradicts that idea.
@Joeya.2458 As NT scholar Dr. Ed Gallagher said "the others that followed" is compatible with the three folded protestant canon (Source: The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis). The problem that you have is the jews never considered the apocrypha part of any sort of group inside the three folded canon, no matter the name or lack of there off to the 3rd category.
OK. Final comment. The Catholic Model of History is really good. And I think this is a balanced approach to how the church sees authority functioning within the church. It isn't just the Magisterium making unhinged pronouncements from on high. It also includes the sensus fidelium. As the CCC defines it in paragraph 92: "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals." And this perfectly reflects, as Suan states it, the bottom up and top down approach. Both/and indeed!
@ My comment was an opinion. The Pope’s infallibility when officially teaching on faith & morals is fact based on Mt 16:19 18:18 as is Mary Queen of Heaven Rev 12
@@geoffjs Nowhere in those Matthean passages teach ex cathedra infabillity. Revelation 12 is not Mary but Israel. Jacob's dream was about Israel and is the same as what John wrote in Revelation 12.
@grond21 Where was the deceiving? that's the truth. The thing here is that doesn't fit your catholic bias. Josephus said that jews for centuries before him had a closed certain canon that didn't have the apocrypha. Catholics and their twisting of the truth!
I think his desire to make a living off religion as a pastor, dilutes his ability to be intellectually honest. He obfuscates those facts of history, whenever he encounters them, that run counter to his theological assertions.
This is the problem with the Dr Gavins argument: 1) He misunderstands infalliblity as a process, instead of Divine assistance in the judgement of the Roman pontiff. 2) he says "you don't need infalliblity (the Church), to discern infalliblity (the Bible). This statement highlights his wrong usage of the Word due to his poor understanding of its meaning in Catholic context. 3) Dr Ortlund seems to be using the dictionary definition of infalliblity to promote his argument. 4) most protestants like him have a hard time understanding the doctrine of infalliblity. Infallibility is a gift of charism (like prophecy, inspiration, tongues, healing etc). Therefore it is a gift that is gratuitously given by God for the help of others rather than for the perfection of its possessor (the Roman pontiff). 5) in one argument, Dr Ortlund claims that " Moses did not need infalliblity to discern the burning bush." I found this example of his quite funny because infalliblity was not necessary in this instance. Moses was an observer, he was not actively teaching during this episode. So this example that Dr Ortlund gave is completely unrelated to the topic of an infallible Church.
Many problems with your arguments: 1. Now you're redifining infabillity. Also divine assistance? Where do you get that attribution to the pope, when the early church didn't believe that? 2. Now you're applying your catholic bias into the matter. Gavin is attacking the catholic claim that the church is infallible, which is not. His point is that catholics attack protestant of a wrong canon because we're not in the "infallible roman chuch". So, fallible men can discern an infallible Bible. 3. You're imposing your bias into infallibility. 4. Where in the Bible says that infabillity is a gift by the Spirit? Nowhere! The prophets of the OT where infallible and the gifts where not yet poured out. 5. Now you're mixing the church's supposed infabillity with the supposed pope's ex cathedra infabillity. They're not the same. Moses was not infallible (church's infabillity) and he discern that the one at the burning bush was God. So, protestants can do that also.
@@thomasglass9491 many of your arguments do not address my points. 1) you falsely accuse me of redefining infalliblity. But a quick glance at Vatican I definition suffices to prove me correct. You claim the early Church didn't believe in Papal infalliblity, but Matthew 16:18-19 proves you wrong. Also, St cyprian (a 3rd century father), tertullian, St Jerome, the nicean fathers and so many others all acknowledged the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as successor of St Peter. 2) You accuse me of being biased. How? By pointing out that Dr Ortlund is wrong? If I'm wrong, prove it. Protestants do not have a complete Canon of scriptures because they have no authority to redefine the Canon. Neither do Catholics. 3) I am imposing my bias into infalliblity? What does that even mean? I simply pointed out that Dr Ortlund is not defining infalliblity in an Ecclesiastical context. 4) Matthew 16:18-19, John 16:13. The Old testament prophets could also heal even though the gift of healing was also poured out upon the early Church. So what's your point? 5) your statement is incoherent. Infallibility as a gift was only guaranteed to the successor of St Peter. The rest of the Bishops are regarded as teaching infalliblibly when they are in communion with the chair St Peter. Like I said before, the episode of the burning bush does not require infalliblity. Infallibility is a gift of charism that enables the Roman pontiff exercise his office as pastor and doctor of the universal Church. Moses was not exercising a pastoral or doctrinal office when he was OBSERVING the burning bush. Infallibility is not required for observation, but for judgement in the doctrines of the Church.
@@thomasglass9491many of your arguments do not address my points. 1) you falsely accuse me of redefining infalliblity. But a quick glance at Vatican I definition suffices to prove me correct. You claim the early Church didn't believe in Papal infalliblity, but Matthew 16:18-19 proves you wrong. Also, St cyprian (a 3rd century father), tertullian, St Jerome, the nicean fathers and so many others all acknowledged the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as successor of St Peter. 2) You accuse me of being biased. How? By pointing out that Dr Ortlund is wrong? If I'm wrong, prove it. Protestants do not have a complete Canon of scriptures because they have no authority to redefine the Canon. Neither do Catholics. 3) I am imposing my bias into infalliblity? What does that even mean? I simply pointed out that Dr Ortlund is not defining infalliblity in an Ecclesiastical context. 4) Matthew 16:18-19, John 16:13 are clear examples from scriptures. Also, infalliblity should not be confused with Divine inspiration and prophetic judgement. The Old testament prophets could also heal even though the gift of healing was also poured out upon the early Church. So what's your point? 5) your statement is incoherent. Infallibility as a gift was only guaranteed to the successor of St Peter. The rest of the Bishops are regarded as teaching infalliblibly when they are in communion with the chair St Peter. Like I said before, the episode of the burning bush does not require infalliblity. Infallibility is a gift of charism that enables the Roman pontiff exercise his office as pastor and doctor of the universal Church. Moses was not exercising a pastoral or doctrinal office when he was OBSERVING the burning bush. Infallibility is not required for observation, but for judgement in the doctrines of the Church.
@@thomasglass9491many of your arguments do not address my points. 1) you falsely accuse me of redefining infalliblity. But a quick glance at Vatican I definition suffices to prove me correct. You claim the early Church didn't believe in Papal infalliblity, but Matthew 16:18-19 proves you wrong. Also, St cyprian (a 3rd century father), tertullian, St Jerome, the nicean fathers and so many others all acknowledged the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as successor of St Peter. 2) You accuse me of being biased. How? By pointing out that Dr Ortlund is wrong? If I'm wrong, prove it. Protestants do not have a complete Canon of scriptures because they have no authority to redefine the Canon. Neither do Catholics. 3) I am imposing my bias into infalliblity? What does that even mean? I simply pointed out that Dr Ortlund is not defining infalliblity in an Ecclesiastical context. 4) Matthew 16:18-19, John 16:13 are clear examples from scriptures. Also, infalliblity should not be confused with Divine inspiration and prophetic judgement. The Old testament prophets could also heal even though the gift of healing was also poured out upon the early Church. So what's your point? 5) your statement is incoherent. Infallibility as a gift was only guaranteed to the successor of St Peter. The rest of the Bishops are regarded as teaching infalliblibly when they are in communion with the chair St Peter. Like I said before, the episode of the burning bush does not require infalliblity. Infallibility is a gift of charism that enables the Roman pontiff exercise his office as pastor and doctor of the universal Church. Moses was not exercising a pastoral or doctrinal office when he was OBSERVING the burning bush. Infallibility is not required for observation, but for judgement in the doctrines of the Church.
@@thomasglass9491many of your arguments do not address my points. 1) you falsely accuse me of redefining infalliblity. But a quick glance at Vatican I definition suffices to prove me correct. You claim the early Church didn't believe in Papal infalliblity, but Matthew 16:18-19 proves you wrong. Also, St cyprian (a 3rd century father), tertullian, St Jerome, the nicean fathers and so many others all acknowledged the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as successor of St Peter. 2) You accuse me of being biased. How? By pointing out that Dr Ortlund is wrong? If I'm wrong, prove it. Protestants do not have a complete Canon of scriptures because they have no authority to redefine the Canon. Neither do Catholics. 3) I am imposing my bias into infalliblity? What does that even mean? I simply pointed out that Dr Ortlund is not defining infalliblity in an Ecclesiastical context. 4) Matthew 16:18-19, John 16:13 are clear examples from scriptures. Also, infalliblity should not be confused with Divine inspiration and prophetic judgement. The Old testament prophets could also heal even though the gift of healing was also poured out upon the early Church. So what's your point? 5) your statement is incoherent. Infallibility as a gift was only guaranteed to the successor of St Peter. The rest of the Bishops are regarded as teaching infalliblibly when they are in communion with the chair St Peter. Like I said before, the episode of the burning bush does not require infalliblity. Infallibility is a gift of charism that enables the Roman pontiff exercise his office as pastor and doctor of the universal Church. Moses was not exercising a pastoral or doctrinal office when he was OBSERVING the burning bush. Infallibility is not required for observation, but for judgement in the doctrines of the Church.
@thomasglass9491 My dude, you are all over these comments getting mad at everyone. Go outside, take a walk. If you actually watch the video, it's not hard to find areas where Gavin is being disingenuous, such as how he cites Josephus or putting up a written quote from Luke while verbally contradicting what he actually wrote.
@@thomasglass9491 agree, truth hurts. Thats why it became trendy now in internet, Protestant making video about their conversion from man-made Church (Protestanism) to Catholicism. So, you need to repent and convert to Catholicism too.
I don't think Gavin would be open to that 😢 Suan is too well equipped to expose the weaknesses in his theology and understanding of the historic record.
@@intellectualcatholicismSuan if you don’t want to debate Gavin on the canon, for personal reasons, I would be happy to debate you. We could debate either the old or the new testament, or the entire Bible. I have debated other Catholics on the canon, such as Gary Michuta, Trent Horn, and Tim Gordon. I also wrote a book on the canon, and have been on both catholic and Protestant podcasts. Let me know. The offer is out there.
4:20 "After Nicaea (325), lists or catalogues of Christian scriptures began to appear." Doctrine comes first, then the canon. Even though Nicaea did not define the canon, it does become important in settling the Canon, because it then becomes the benchmark by which canonicity can be established. Interesting example is that Jerome, who rejected the deuterocanon, at least initially. Here he accepted that he needed to provide a translation for Judith, because Nicaea considered it a part of the sacred scriptures: "Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!):" I find it interesting that, despite his opinion about the issue, the authority of this council has a big impact on him. Top down trumps canon by scripture scholar. Or rather, maybe, the council represents the bottom up, and Jerome represents the scholarly top down....:) [Edit] Ah, I see you've addressed this in your "A Catholic Model of History!"
19:28 Just curios on your thoughts on Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Have you considered the passage where he accuses the Jews of removing scripture from the Septuagint? "CHAPTER LXXI -- THE JEWS REJECT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LXX [This means 70, which is means Septuagint]., FROM WHICH, MOREOVER, THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY SOME PASSAGES. "But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy[king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you." I have heard it claimed by some protestants, that Justin and Ireneaus do not list the contents of the LXX, and thus, we have no idea what books they contained, or whether the included the Catholic deuterocanonicals. Not sure how to respond to this yet. Seems like the earliest versions of the LXX that we have appear much later.
@@danielcarriere1958 From what we can tell, the earliest version of the LXX only consisted of the Pentateuch but later on the other books were translated into Greek. By Philo's time these Greek texts were accepted as inspired by at least diaspora Jews. Interestingly enough, nobody really knows the exact history of when the other books were translated. I know that Bart Ehrman speculates most of them would have been translated by the first century AD. By Irenaeus' day, Isaiah was certainly translated into Greek. Justin Martyr seems to think that a good number of them were finished by his time, but we'd have to look at his citations of the Old Testament in Greek against his Jewish opponent to see the minimum amount that he thought was translated.
@@intellectualcatholicism Interesting - Thanks for responding! I did a search via AI on direct quotations. It lists one direct quote from Baruch. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 70: Justin Martyr quotes Baruch 3:36-38: "This is our God; no other can be compared to him. He found the whole way to knowledge, and gave her to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved. Afterwards she appeared on earth and lived with mankind." It also lists some indirect allusions: First Apology, Chapter 20: Justin Martyr speaks of Wisdom in a way that echoes themes from Wisdom of Solomon: "For the Word, being the first-begotten of God, is also called Wisdom by which He made all things." This can be compared to Wisdom of Solomon 7:22-26, which describes Wisdom as being "the fashioner of all things." Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 46: Justin discusses the nature of wisdom in a manner that might allude to Sirach: "For we have learned that He is the Son of God, and have believed that He was born of the Virgin, and have learned from the prophets that He is to judge the whole human race." This could resonate with Sirach 24:3-6, where Wisdom speaks of her origin, though this connection is more thematic than textual. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 39: Justin speaks about the Maccabean revolt in a way that might allude to the events described in 1 Maccabees: "For even the Maccabees, and those with them, when they fought against the nations on behalf of their country, and for the temple and the law which is in it, are said to have done so by the help of God." Although not a direct quote, this mention of the Maccabees and their struggle aligns with the narrative in 1 Maccabees. Certainly all this points to an early adoption of the Septuagint as an early canon tradition that they accepted as inspired early on. He certainly seems to be responding to a 2nd century Jewish rejection of the deuterocanon, I would think.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to not interpret Gavin's actions as being deliberately dishonest. I know he's way above the likes of James White in terms of how he engages with Catholicism, but over and over he shows himself to be very manipulative and deceptive with how he uses his sources.
Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they are “deliberately dishonest.” As a Protestant I get that feeling a lot when listening to Catholic apologists, but I have to remind myself that there can be honest disagreements.
@@jellyphaseI think if someone looks at clear historical evidence and tries to make an inaccurate conclusion from it, it makes sense that one may suspect he is being dishonest. Not saying that this is the e case with Gavin, maybe it is, but my point is that history is objective and so someone can be dishonest about it, and it’s not a matter of opinion (agree v disagree).
But his question would still stand that how could Jesus expect his follower to know which books was he referring to when he says the law and the prophets when there were no council to decide that issue the people seem to just know
A canon can be formed apart from a magisterium, as I explain in the video that canons are made all the time from the Star Wars (9 canonical movies) to the Batman fan communities. But how do you know which one is correct? That's the real question. The Jewish people had different canon lists but only universally agreed on the Torah. Everything else was open to varying degrees of debate. We only know in hindsight which Jewish community got it right, but I would then ask Protestants how they know they got it right. I also explained that if Jesus, God Incarnate, is telling you to be held accountable to certain collections you already know, then that's the kind of confirmation you need from an infallible source to know that you got it right.
@ I hear what you saying but Giving the Jesus example Jesus didn’t say which books are or collections is the right one he just assumes they have discernment to tell the word of God not to say hey THESE BOOKS are the ones I’m talking about which would still be Gavin’s point that the church’s role is that of discernment
Protestants do not slip up on the canon issue as Suan accuses. Gavin, to use a relevant example, does hold to the idea that the canon list is a fallible list of infallible books. He’s intentional about it. For example, the Orthodox tradition has a different canon than both Catholics and Protestants. So unless you’ve already assumed the Catholic Church is the one true church (tm), it’s obviously true that the Church is not infallible in this area.
You say you don't think anyone is debating whether a Canon can be formed. Obviously you don't see all the comments from Catholics who claim, "The Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible!" They like to argue that the Canon was formed by a Council.
1. Just as I said here and in the first part of my presentation that there are bad RC/EO objections to Protestantism, I’m happy to say the same here: if anyone is saying that a canon can’t be formed unless by a magisterium, then that’s silly. Canons can be made all the time from Star Wars to Batman. 2. But I emphasized that the debate is really about canon verification or authorization. How do we know who has the right canon? How do we know the Church got it right? 3. Moreover, Gavin doesn’t disagree that the Church gave us the Bible. He says that the Church is a necessary witness since the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. 4. But yes, if the claim is that an ecumenical council settled the canon first and then people began using scripture, then that’s false. If the claim is that only bottom-up authorities and no top-down authorities were involved in canonization then that’s false.
Take a close look at Suan's Catholic Model of History section in this video. I highly recommend it. 00:38:59 - The Real History of the Canon It is really good and reflects the actual reality of the formation of the canon. It cut against such bad Catholic arguments for the canon, while also pushing back against Gavin's characterization of the formation of the canon.
Suan, could you enable automatic dubbing in Spanish? UA-cam has already released a new update, and it would be a great help for us Spanish-speaking followers.
@@intellectualcatholicism Log in to UA-cam Studio from a computer. Click on Settings, then Upload Defaults, and then Advanced Settings. Check the box for Allow automatic dubbing. If you want to review the dubs before publishing, check the box for Manually review dubs before publishing. Select either Review dubs in all languages or Review only dubs in experimental languages. Click Save.
@@intellectualcatholicism Log in to UA-cam Studio from a computer. Click on Settings, then Upload Defaults, and then Advanced Settings. Check the box for Allow automatic dubbing. If you want to review the dubs before publishing, check the box for Manually review dubs before publishing. Select either Review dubs in all languages or Review only dubs in experimental languages. Click Save.
@intellectualcatholicism Log in to UA-cam Studio from a computer. Click on Settings, then Upload Defaults, and then Advanced Settings. Check the box for Allow automatic dubbing. If you want to review the dubs before publishing, check the box for Manually review dubs before publishing. Select either Review dubs in all languages or Review only dubs in experimental languages. Click Save.
An infallible church is not necessary to correctly discern _the canon._ Your "slippage" argument is false. Don't you understand the difference between infallibility and inerrancy? Infallibility means the inability to err. Inerrancy means the absence of error in a particular instance or group of instances. For example, I can say "Jesus is Lord" and my statement is inerrant, yet I need not be infallible (and I am fallible) to make an inerrant statement. Thus, for the Canon to have been correctly discerned merely necessitates particular inerrancy, not blanket incapability of error. We know from history that the church has made many errors; it is demonstrably fallible and it is comprised of individuals who each (and all) are fallible.
@@ryanbeamish The lessons gleaned from early church statements is authoritative... just not infallibly so. We see the historical record of the early church's beliefs and they instruct us. Jerome's preface in the Vulgate is particularly helpful on the matter of the Canon (meaning: Rule) of Scripture.
Rex, provide evidence where the Catholic Church taught error! Why did many Church Fathers disagree with you regarding which books were to be included in the new testament and which were not? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
The only reason you can tell Jesus is Lord is because Jesus ( revelation) told you so. Jesus did not disclose the canon to you. How do you know the canon you have is not mistaken? After all, the Church has made many mistakes as you claimed. Without divine revelation about the divinity of Jesus. Could you have concluded this out just with your reason ?
Does anyone think Gavin will admit his errors and dishonesty? His account of the canon history is very flawed as Suan clearly and irrefutably shows. Begs the question when will Gavin become Catholic? I doubt he has the courage as he will lose countless fans, friends, family, and perhaps a job.
Gavin has made an entire living off of Calvinist bigotry, so he can't afford to walk away from it. Not only is anti-Catholic hatred a part of his fundamental ideology, it's also a financial necessity for his livelihood. Sadly, he will take his errors and dishonesty to the grave for the sake of his ego.
The books were all being used before the first century was over. It were the Jews through the prophets, apostles and oral traditions under Jesus that gave us the canon, Romans 3:1-2, Ephesians 2:20.
@@fantasia55 When Jesus and Paul used the phrase "the scriptures", they were referring to the scriptures that everyone agreed is inspired by the Jews. Too much misinformation floating around on the internet about this. They did not use the "Deuterocanonical" books. There were no prophets at the time they were written. These books contains Jewish history which has some value, but they are not at the same level as inspired scripture.
@@fantasia55have you ever looked at the reasons the Jews reject the books or place them below others? It has nothing to do with rejecting Christ. Nothing is 100% accurate but they do have good reasons.
Why do you constantly appeal to Josephus scholarship without giving their reasons? I don't care what their conclusions are if their reasons are unfounded. You sound like Kipp and Josh when quoting OT scholarship. They always appeal to "muh scholarship," but their reasoning is bad. Do better, especially if you're going to posture yourself as correcting someone who you claim is being "irresponsible" and doing "sloppy work." And laughably, it's OBVIOUS that Josephus is giving a Canon. You can debate whether or not it was the only Jewish Canon during his time, but do not entertain as serious the idea that he wasn't. Idk where this uncharitable posture from you is coming from, but Gavin has always been kind to you in his responses to you. Kind of sad to see you unable to do so in return, but I guess you've gotta please the viewer base over engaging in a charitable dialog.
Not sure what you are talking about. Suan mentions that it is a live debate in scholarly circles on whether Josephus is giving a canon. He says you shouldn't just assume he is giving a canon, you have to argue for it. And no, saying "And laughably, it's OBVIOUS that Josephus is giving a Canon." does not cut it. Suan is talking about scholarly circles, where it isn't just assumed to be obvious. Gavin doesn't broach the subject in his videos at all. But Suan knows that this is discussed in the scholarly world. With regard to claiming Gavin is being irresponsible or doing sloppy work - that is in reference to the Luke 24:44 quote where Gavin tries to claim a settled canon from this, when clearly Jesus mentioned only the psalms in the last part. This certainly does appear to be irresponsible and sloppy work. "Idk where this uncharitable posture from you is coming from, but Gavin has always been kind to you in his responses to you. Kind of sad to see you unable to do so in return, but I guess you've gotta please the viewer base over engaging in a charitable dialog." I disagree. This is a forceful rebuttal to one of his arguments. I think Gavin needs to respond, or at least acknowledge that his interpretation of Luke 24:44 does not reflect what Jesus himself said.
The funny thing about this comment is that I actually show in the video at the Joseph Blenkinsopp chapter a concrete example of Josephus contradicting himself which is why you have to be careful with him. I’m going to assume out of charity you didn’t get to that part of the video but you prematurely commented.
@danielcarriere1958 Yeah, Josephus is listing the 39 books of the Torah (which they correlate to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet) while mentioning the deuterocanonical books and saying they aren't received like those... but he's not giving a Canon list... That definitely sounds like an opinion that should be taken as intellectually serious 👍 Again. You can say it wasn't the only Canon, and I'd agree. There was the Canon of the Sadducees during Jesus' time, but we know their Canon is incorrect due to the NT usage of the prophets. The Septuagint isn't a Canon, so we are left with what Josephus gives us. I don't care what scholarly circles are talking about unless their reasons are provided. This is the equivalent of giving the conclusion of a logical syllogism, but not providing the premises. Why should I accept that conclusion? Idk. You didn't say! So I have no reason to accept anything he said on the matter. I have provided more reasons in this comment for thinking it is a Canon than he provided in that entire video for thinking it isn't one.
@intellectualcatholicism I'm not saying you don't have to be careful with Josephus. What I'm saying is that it should not even be intellectually entertained that he wasn't trying to provide a Canon list. He obviously was. You instead need to argue that his Canon list is wrong or provide reasons for receiving what you refer to as the Greek tradition here. I think you're going to have a hard time doing that, given the continuation of Josephus' Canon to the present day. Josephus' views have the luxury of continuity while any other views on the Jewish Canon do not. This is an often neglected point in this discussion. I don't think there are good reasons for thinking it's merely a post-70 AD Canon either. I'm also saying that I really think you need to provide reasons when appealing to scholars. To give an analogy, let's say I said I am giving you a syllogism, but I only provide the conclusion, but don't tell you the premises. I don't have a single reason to accept your conclusion. This is how I felt watching your section on Josephus.
Thank you for saying my presentation is nice and eloquent. My magisterium is the Catholic Church. If you have evidence that it isn't infallible, I'd like to know.
"No salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church" In Vatican 1. Compare that to All religions are a path to God - Pope Francis. Sure, they don't contradict at all. Mental gymnastics gim huai lua hilou hia Suan?
We know that Jerome was a liar in regards to his fight with Augustine about which text type family should be used for the Latin Vulgate translation. Why doesn't The Roman Church go back to the Septuagint since the Masoretic is so flawed and fallible. I recommend "When God Spoke Greek", By Timothy Law. The Orthodox have always used the Septuagint to this day.
As an Orthodox Christian, I wouldn't be so quick to say this against the pre-schismatic Roman Church and leave it there, that doesn't mean you have to throw out this line, as it may give credence to the Orthodox argument that the Church of Rome could have independently errored on an issue that all other major Sees did not (an idea which seems to be in conflict with the current Catholic theory of the indefectibility of Rome and her Patriarch) I would rework the wording here to include that if I were you, as it comes across as needless harshness on pre-schism Rome
@roddumlauf9241 You're making an irrelevant argument. We're not primarily concerned with translation between masoretic vs Septuagint. The bone of contention is on which literatures or texts are Divinely inspired. Protestants deny the inspiration of the deutero- Canons which the early Church affirmed. The Masoretic translation of the Bible excluded the deutrocanons because the post second temple Jews in Palestine became skeptical of it's inspiration for some reason. The Catholics did not follow the traditions of the post second temple Jews because she inherited her own canon of the old testament from the Greek speaking Jews (, this included the apostles of Christ) whose tradition dates back to the times before the Romans conquered Judah.
Thank you for all your work in this area Suan. The Canon is a clear fatal flaw of protestantism, as your presentation demonstrates.
Suan is among the most intellectually honest theologians on the web.
@tbojai He brough no good argument against protestanism but twisting the truth like what Josephus said or what happend with the three fold canon of the prologue of Ben Sira?
@@DanielAluni-v2t said no one ever
@@thomasglass9491 The "three fold canon of the prologue" is not complete, it mentions the categories of writings 3 times, and each time it fails to give a decisive title for the "3rd category." It calls them: "the others that followed," "the other books of our fathers" and "the rest of the books," speaking in very incomplete language, implying that this category isn't fully developed yet. On top of this, the prologue claims that the book is inspired when it says "my grandfather Jesus, after devoting himself especially to the reading of the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers, and after acquiring considerable proficiency in them, was HIMSELF ALSO LED to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom." (sorry for the caps, but I want to add emphasis and I don't see another way). The prologue to Sirach does not support a closed canon. And, on the contrary very clearly contradicts that idea.
@Joeya.2458 As NT scholar Dr. Ed Gallagher said "the others that followed" is compatible with the three folded protestant canon (Source: The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis).
The problem that you have is the jews never considered the apocrypha part of any sort of group inside the three folded canon, no matter the name or lack of there off to the 3rd category.
Gary Michuta on his channel "apocrypha apocalypse" has an amazing series completely dismantling the idea that Josephus was giving a closed canon.
A canon vs The canon is a compelling observation.
Yes! I am going to try to remember that
Excellent discussion and I especially appreciate your even handed approach towards Gavin and your own previous work. Well done!
OK. Final comment. The Catholic Model of History is really good. And I think this is a balanced approach to how the church sees authority functioning within the church. It isn't just the Magisterium making unhinged pronouncements from on high. It also includes the sensus fidelium. As the CCC defines it in paragraph 92:
"The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."
And this perfectly reflects, as Suan states it, the bottom up and top down approach. Both/and indeed!
Absolute W for the Canon. Total victory for Christ. Not sure if Protestantism will last the year!
Excellent work Suan. Gavin is an accretion!
hahaha like the assumption of Mary and the pope's ex cathedra infabillity
@ My comment was an opinion. The Pope’s infallibility when officially teaching on faith & morals is fact based on Mt 16:19 18:18 as is Mary Queen of Heaven Rev 12
Gavin's theology is full of Protestant innovations and he has do some absurd intellectual gymnastics to force-fit them into the Apostolic Church.
@@geoffjs Nowhere in those Matthean passages teach ex cathedra infabillity.
Revelation 12 is not Mary but Israel. Jacob's dream was about Israel and is the same as what John wrote in Revelation 12.
@ Name one innovation of Gavin or intellectual gymnastics?
15:47 I never thought I would see Gavin deceive his audience
@grond21 Where was the deceiving? that's the truth. The thing here is that doesn't fit your catholic bias. Josephus said that jews for centuries before him had a closed certain canon that didn't have the apocrypha. Catholics and their twisting of the truth!
I think his desire to make a living off religion as a pastor, dilutes his ability to be intellectually honest. He obfuscates those facts of history, whenever he encounters them, that run counter to his theological assertions.
@DanielAluni-v2t So this is a pattern with him? Is he as bad as James White?
@grand21 Gavin was right! Josephus did claim that the canon was closed before him for centuries without an apocrypha
@ Lying about somone is a sin. Give evidence!
This is the problem with the Dr Gavins argument:
1) He misunderstands infalliblity as a process, instead of Divine assistance in the judgement of the Roman pontiff.
2) he says "you don't need infalliblity (the Church), to discern infalliblity (the Bible). This statement highlights his wrong usage of the Word due to his poor understanding of its meaning in Catholic context.
3) Dr Ortlund seems to be using the dictionary definition of infalliblity to promote his argument.
4) most protestants like him have a hard time understanding the doctrine of infalliblity. Infallibility is a gift of charism (like prophecy, inspiration, tongues, healing etc). Therefore it is a gift that is gratuitously given by God for the help of others rather than for the perfection of its possessor (the Roman pontiff).
5) in one argument, Dr Ortlund claims that " Moses did not need infalliblity to discern the burning bush." I found this example of his quite funny because infalliblity was not necessary in this instance. Moses was an observer, he was not actively teaching during this episode. So this example that Dr Ortlund gave is completely unrelated to the topic of an infallible Church.
Many problems with your arguments:
1. Now you're redifining infabillity. Also divine assistance? Where do you get that attribution to the pope, when the early church didn't believe that?
2. Now you're applying your catholic bias into the matter. Gavin is attacking the catholic claim that the church is infallible, which is not. His point is that catholics attack protestant of a wrong canon because we're not in the "infallible roman chuch". So, fallible men can discern an infallible Bible.
3. You're imposing your bias into infallibility.
4. Where in the Bible says that infabillity is a gift by the Spirit? Nowhere! The prophets of the OT where infallible and the gifts where not yet poured out.
5. Now you're mixing the church's supposed infabillity with the supposed pope's ex cathedra infabillity. They're not the same. Moses was not infallible (church's infabillity) and he discern that the one at the burning bush was God. So, protestants can do that also.
@@thomasglass9491 many of your arguments do not address my points.
1) you falsely accuse me of redefining infalliblity. But a quick glance at Vatican I definition suffices to prove me correct. You claim the early Church didn't believe in Papal infalliblity, but Matthew 16:18-19 proves you wrong. Also, St cyprian (a 3rd century father), tertullian, St Jerome, the nicean fathers and so many others all acknowledged the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as successor of St Peter.
2) You accuse me of being biased. How? By pointing out that Dr Ortlund is wrong? If I'm wrong, prove it. Protestants do not have a complete Canon of scriptures because they have no authority to redefine the Canon. Neither do Catholics.
3) I am imposing my bias into infalliblity? What does that even mean? I simply pointed out that Dr Ortlund is not defining infalliblity in an Ecclesiastical context.
4) Matthew 16:18-19, John 16:13. The Old testament prophets could also heal even though the gift of healing was also poured out upon the early Church. So what's your point?
5) your statement is incoherent. Infallibility as a gift was only guaranteed to the successor of St Peter. The rest of the Bishops are regarded as teaching infalliblibly when they are in communion with the chair St Peter. Like I said before, the episode of the burning bush does not require infalliblity. Infallibility is a gift of charism that enables the Roman pontiff exercise his office as pastor and doctor of the universal Church. Moses was not exercising a pastoral or doctrinal office when he was OBSERVING the burning bush. Infallibility is not required for observation, but for judgement in the doctrines of the Church.
@@thomasglass9491many of your arguments do not address my points.
1) you falsely accuse me of redefining infalliblity. But a quick glance at Vatican I definition suffices to prove me correct. You claim the early Church didn't believe in Papal infalliblity, but Matthew 16:18-19 proves you wrong. Also, St cyprian (a 3rd century father), tertullian, St Jerome, the nicean fathers and so many others all acknowledged the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as successor of St Peter.
2) You accuse me of being biased. How? By pointing out that Dr Ortlund is wrong? If I'm wrong, prove it. Protestants do not have a complete Canon of scriptures because they have no authority to redefine the Canon. Neither do Catholics.
3) I am imposing my bias into infalliblity? What does that even mean? I simply pointed out that Dr Ortlund is not defining infalliblity in an Ecclesiastical context.
4) Matthew 16:18-19, John 16:13 are clear examples from scriptures. Also, infalliblity should not be confused with Divine inspiration and prophetic judgement. The Old testament prophets could also heal even though the gift of healing was also poured out upon the early Church. So what's your point?
5) your statement is incoherent. Infallibility as a gift was only guaranteed to the successor of St Peter. The rest of the Bishops are regarded as teaching infalliblibly when they are in communion with the chair St Peter. Like I said before, the episode of the burning bush does not require infalliblity. Infallibility is a gift of charism that enables the Roman pontiff exercise his office as pastor and doctor of the universal Church. Moses was not exercising a pastoral or doctrinal office when he was OBSERVING the burning bush. Infallibility is not required for observation, but for judgement in the doctrines of the Church.
@@thomasglass9491many of your arguments do not address my points.
1) you falsely accuse me of redefining infalliblity. But a quick glance at Vatican I definition suffices to prove me correct. You claim the early Church didn't believe in Papal infalliblity, but Matthew 16:18-19 proves you wrong. Also, St cyprian (a 3rd century father), tertullian, St Jerome, the nicean fathers and so many others all acknowledged the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as successor of St Peter.
2) You accuse me of being biased. How? By pointing out that Dr Ortlund is wrong? If I'm wrong, prove it. Protestants do not have a complete Canon of scriptures because they have no authority to redefine the Canon. Neither do Catholics.
3) I am imposing my bias into infalliblity? What does that even mean? I simply pointed out that Dr Ortlund is not defining infalliblity in an Ecclesiastical context.
4) Matthew 16:18-19, John 16:13 are clear examples from scriptures. Also, infalliblity should not be confused with Divine inspiration and prophetic judgement. The Old testament prophets could also heal even though the gift of healing was also poured out upon the early Church. So what's your point?
5) your statement is incoherent. Infallibility as a gift was only guaranteed to the successor of St Peter. The rest of the Bishops are regarded as teaching infalliblibly when they are in communion with the chair St Peter. Like I said before, the episode of the burning bush does not require infalliblity. Infallibility is a gift of charism that enables the Roman pontiff exercise his office as pastor and doctor of the universal Church. Moses was not exercising a pastoral or doctrinal office when he was OBSERVING the burning bush. Infallibility is not required for observation, but for judgement in the doctrines of the Church.
@@thomasglass9491many of your arguments do not address my points.
1) you falsely accuse me of redefining infalliblity. But a quick glance at Vatican I definition suffices to prove me correct. You claim the early Church didn't believe in Papal infalliblity, but Matthew 16:18-19 proves you wrong. Also, St cyprian (a 3rd century father), tertullian, St Jerome, the nicean fathers and so many others all acknowledged the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as successor of St Peter.
2) You accuse me of being biased. How? By pointing out that Dr Ortlund is wrong? If I'm wrong, prove it. Protestants do not have a complete Canon of scriptures because they have no authority to redefine the Canon. Neither do Catholics.
3) I am imposing my bias into infalliblity? What does that even mean? I simply pointed out that Dr Ortlund is not defining infalliblity in an Ecclesiastical context.
4) Matthew 16:18-19, John 16:13 are clear examples from scriptures. Also, infalliblity should not be confused with Divine inspiration and prophetic judgement. The Old testament prophets could also heal even though the gift of healing was also poured out upon the early Church. So what's your point?
5) your statement is incoherent. Infallibility as a gift was only guaranteed to the successor of St Peter. The rest of the Bishops are regarded as teaching infalliblibly when they are in communion with the chair St Peter. Like I said before, the episode of the burning bush does not require infalliblity. Infallibility is a gift of charism that enables the Roman pontiff exercise his office as pastor and doctor of the universal Church. Moses was not exercising a pastoral or doctrinal office when he was OBSERVING the burning bush. Infallibility is not required for observation, but for judgement in the doctrines of the Church.
Clearly, Gavin is bias and deceiving. He crafted his arguments in oder to attack the Catholic Church, but he fail so miserably.
Mention one bias or deceitful claim!
@thomasglass9491 My dude, you are all over these comments getting mad at everyone. Go outside, take a walk. If you actually watch the video, it's not hard to find areas where Gavin is being disingenuous, such as how he cites Josephus or putting up a written quote from Luke while verbally contradicting what he actually wrote.
@@Biedrik4 Truth hurts
@@thomasglass9491 if that's what's got you so upset, then touch grass, my dude 😎
@@thomasglass9491 agree, truth hurts. Thats why it became trendy now in internet, Protestant making video about their conversion from man-made Church (Protestanism) to Catholicism. So, you need to repent and convert to Catholicism too.
Hey, it’s been a while since i’ve tuned in. That being said, why is there a watermark for The Michael Lofton Show?
Let's see the debate between you two! I'm hoping he'll talk to you!
Unfortunately, it won't ever happen. Can't say much more than that.
I've seen them debate on Capturing Christianity channel (maybe it was not a formal one).
I don't think Gavin would be open to that 😢 Suan is too well equipped to expose the weaknesses in his theology and understanding of the historic record.
@@intellectualcatholicismSuan if you don’t want to debate Gavin on the canon, for personal reasons, I would be happy to debate you. We could debate either the old or the new testament, or the entire Bible. I have debated other Catholics on the canon, such as Gary Michuta, Trent Horn, and Tim Gordon. I also wrote a book on the canon, and have been on both catholic and Protestant podcasts. Let me know. The offer is out there.
4:20 "After Nicaea (325), lists or catalogues of Christian scriptures began to appear."
Doctrine comes first, then the canon. Even though Nicaea did not define the canon, it does become important in settling the Canon, because it then becomes the benchmark by which canonicity can be established.
Interesting example is that Jerome, who rejected the deuterocanon, at least initially. Here he accepted that he needed to provide a translation for Judith, because Nicaea considered it a part of the sacred scriptures:
"Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!):"
I find it interesting that, despite his opinion about the issue, the authority of this council has a big impact on him. Top down trumps canon by scripture scholar. Or rather, maybe, the council represents the bottom up, and Jerome represents the scholarly top down....:)
[Edit] Ah, I see you've addressed this in your "A Catholic Model of History!"
19:28 Just curios on your thoughts on Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Have you considered the passage where he accuses the Jews of removing scripture from the Septuagint?
"CHAPTER LXXI -- THE JEWS REJECT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LXX [This means 70, which is means Septuagint]., FROM WHICH, MOREOVER, THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY SOME PASSAGES.
"But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy[king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you."
I have heard it claimed by some protestants, that Justin and Ireneaus do not list the contents of the LXX, and thus, we have no idea what books they contained, or whether the included the Catholic deuterocanonicals. Not sure how to respond to this yet. Seems like the earliest versions of the LXX that we have appear much later.
Thank you for sharing Jerome's quote. What a lovely find!
@@danielcarriere1958 From what we can tell, the earliest version of the LXX only consisted of the Pentateuch but later on the other books were translated into Greek. By Philo's time these Greek texts were accepted as inspired by at least diaspora Jews. Interestingly enough, nobody really knows the exact history of when the other books were translated. I know that Bart Ehrman speculates most of them would have been translated by the first century AD. By Irenaeus' day, Isaiah was certainly translated into Greek. Justin Martyr seems to think that a good number of them were finished by his time, but we'd have to look at his citations of the Old Testament in Greek against his Jewish opponent to see the minimum amount that he thought was translated.
@@intellectualcatholicism Interesting - Thanks for responding! I did a search via AI on direct quotations. It lists one direct quote from Baruch.
Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 70: Justin Martyr quotes Baruch 3:36-38:
"This is our God; no other can be compared to him. He found the whole way to knowledge, and gave her to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved. Afterwards she appeared on earth and lived with mankind."
It also lists some indirect allusions:
First Apology, Chapter 20: Justin Martyr speaks of Wisdom in a way that echoes themes from Wisdom of Solomon:
"For the Word, being the first-begotten of God, is also called Wisdom by which He made all things."
This can be compared to Wisdom of Solomon 7:22-26, which describes Wisdom as being "the fashioner of all things."
Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 46: Justin discusses the nature of wisdom in a manner that might allude to Sirach:
"For we have learned that He is the Son of God, and have believed that He was born of the Virgin, and have learned from the prophets that He is to judge the whole human race."
This could resonate with Sirach 24:3-6, where Wisdom speaks of her origin, though this connection is more thematic than textual.
Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 39: Justin speaks about the Maccabean revolt in a way that might allude to the events described in 1 Maccabees:
"For even the Maccabees, and those with them, when they fought against the nations on behalf of their country, and for the temple and the law which is in it, are said to have done so by the help of God."
Although not a direct quote, this mention of the Maccabees and their struggle aligns with the narrative in 1 Maccabees.
Certainly all this points to an early adoption of the Septuagint as an early canon tradition that they accepted as inspired early on. He certainly seems to be responding to a 2nd century Jewish rejection of the deuterocanon, I would think.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to not interpret Gavin's actions as being deliberately dishonest. I know he's way above the likes of James White in terms of how he engages with Catholicism, but over and over he shows himself to be very manipulative and deceptive with how he uses his sources.
Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they are “deliberately dishonest.” As a Protestant I get that feeling a lot when listening to Catholic apologists, but I have to remind myself that there can be honest disagreements.
$$$
@@jellyphaseI think if someone looks at clear historical evidence and tries to make an inaccurate conclusion from it, it makes sense that one may suspect he is being dishonest. Not saying that this is the e case with Gavin, maybe it is, but my point is that history is objective and so someone can be dishonest about it, and it’s not a matter of opinion (agree v disagree).
But his question would still stand that how could Jesus expect his follower to know which books was he referring to when he says the law and the prophets when there were no council to decide that issue the people seem to just know
A canon can be formed apart from a magisterium, as I explain in the video that canons are made all the time from the Star Wars (9 canonical movies) to the Batman fan communities. But how do you know which one is correct? That's the real question. The Jewish people had different canon lists but only universally agreed on the Torah. Everything else was open to varying degrees of debate. We only know in hindsight which Jewish community got it right, but I would then ask Protestants how they know they got it right.
I also explained that if Jesus, God Incarnate, is telling you to be held accountable to certain collections you already know, then that's the kind of confirmation you need from an infallible source to know that you got it right.
@ I hear what you saying but
Giving the Jesus example Jesus didn’t say which books are or collections is the right one he just assumes they have discernment to tell the word of God not to say hey THESE BOOKS are the ones I’m talking about which would still be Gavin’s point that the church’s role is that of discernment
Protestants do not slip up on the canon issue as Suan accuses. Gavin, to use a relevant example, does hold to the idea that the canon list is a fallible list of infallible books. He’s intentional about it.
For example, the Orthodox tradition has a different canon than both Catholics and Protestants. So unless you’ve already assumed the Catholic Church is the one true church (tm), it’s obviously true that the Church is not infallible in this area.
It is time for Protestantism to be defined as a separate religion, since it differs in substance from Christianity.
You say you don't think anyone is debating whether a Canon can be formed. Obviously you don't see all the comments from Catholics who claim, "The Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible!" They like to argue that the Canon was formed by a Council.
1. Just as I said here and in the first part of my presentation that there are bad RC/EO objections to Protestantism, I’m happy to say the same here: if anyone is saying that a canon can’t be formed unless by a magisterium, then that’s silly. Canons can be made all the time from Star Wars to Batman.
2. But I emphasized that the debate is really about canon verification or authorization. How do we know who has the right canon? How do we know the Church got it right?
3. Moreover, Gavin doesn’t disagree that the Church gave us the Bible. He says that the Church is a necessary witness since the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky.
4. But yes, if the claim is that an ecumenical council settled the canon first and then people began using scripture, then that’s false. If the claim is that only bottom-up authorities and no top-down authorities were involved in canonization then that’s false.
Take a close look at Suan's Catholic Model of History section in this video. I highly recommend it.
00:38:59 - The Real History of the Canon
It is really good and reflects the actual reality of the formation of the canon. It cut against such bad Catholic arguments for the canon, while also pushing back against Gavin's characterization of the formation of the canon.
Suan, could you enable automatic dubbing in Spanish? UA-cam has already released a new update, and it would be a great help for us Spanish-speaking followers.
Hey, Steven! Do you know how to do that?
@@intellectualcatholicism Log in to UA-cam Studio from a computer.
Click on Settings, then Upload Defaults, and then Advanced Settings.
Check the box for Allow automatic dubbing.
If you want to review the dubs before publishing, check the box for Manually review dubs before publishing.
Select either Review dubs in all languages or Review only dubs in experimental languages.
Click Save.
@@intellectualcatholicism Log in to UA-cam Studio from a computer.
Click on Settings, then Upload Defaults, and then Advanced Settings.
Check the box for Allow automatic dubbing.
If you want to review the dubs before publishing, check the box for Manually review dubs before publishing.
Select either Review dubs in all languages or Review only dubs in experimental languages.
Click Save.
@intellectualcatholicism Log in to UA-cam Studio from a computer.
Click on Settings, then Upload Defaults, and then Advanced Settings.
Check the box for Allow automatic dubbing.
If you want to review the dubs before publishing, check the box for Manually review dubs before publishing.
Select either Review dubs in all languages or Review only dubs in experimental languages.
Click Save.
An infallible church is not necessary to correctly discern _the canon._ Your "slippage" argument is false. Don't you understand the difference between infallibility and inerrancy? Infallibility means the inability to err. Inerrancy means the absence of error in a particular instance or group of instances. For example, I can say "Jesus is Lord" and my statement is inerrant, yet I need not be infallible (and I am fallible) to make an inerrant statement. Thus, for the Canon to have been correctly discerned merely necessitates particular inerrancy, not blanket incapability of error. We know from history that the church has made many errors; it is demonstrably fallible and it is comprised of individuals who each (and all) are fallible.
In your view, How do you know that the canon of scripture isn’t one of the many errors the church made in history?
@@ryanbeamish The lessons gleaned from early church statements is authoritative... just not infallibly so. We see the historical record of the early church's beliefs and they instruct us. Jerome's preface in the Vulgate is particularly helpful on the matter of the Canon (meaning: Rule) of Scripture.
Rex, provide evidence where the Catholic Church taught error! Why did many Church Fathers disagree with you regarding which books were to be included in the new testament and which were not? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
The only reason you can tell Jesus is Lord is because Jesus ( revelation) told you so. Jesus did not disclose the canon to you. How do you know the canon you have is not mistaken? After all, the Church has made many mistakes as you claimed.
Without divine revelation about the divinity of Jesus. Could you have concluded this out just with your reason ?
@@alexs.5107Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide the Chuch, which ensured the Council of Rome determined the correct canon.
Does anyone think Gavin will admit his errors and dishonesty? His account of the canon history is very flawed as Suan clearly and irrefutably shows. Begs the question when will Gavin become Catholic? I doubt he has the courage as he will lose countless fans, friends, family, and perhaps a job.
Gavin has made an entire living off of Calvinist bigotry, so he can't afford to walk away from it. Not only is anti-Catholic hatred a part of his fundamental ideology, it's also a financial necessity for his livelihood. Sadly, he will take his errors and dishonesty to the grave for the sake of his ego.
Don’t cast so much doubt on him. Leave him to the Lord.
No
At least Catholic apologists have stopped genuflecting to Gavin Ortlund.
The books were all being used before the first century was over. It were the Jews through the prophets, apostles and oral traditions under Jesus that gave us the canon, Romans 3:1-2, Ephesians 2:20.
There were at least five Jewish canons in first century AD. The canon used by Jesus and the Apostles has the deuterocanonical books.
@@fantasia55 When Jesus and Paul used the phrase "the scriptures", they were referring to the scriptures that everyone agreed is inspired by the Jews. Too much misinformation floating around on the internet about this. They did not use the "Deuterocanonical" books. There were no prophets at the time they were written. These books contains Jewish history which has some value, but they are not at the same level as inspired scripture.
@@soteriology400Jesus and the Apostles' OT quotes were from the Septuegent, which includes the deuterocanonical books.
@@fantasia55have you ever looked at the reasons the Jews reject the books or place them below others?
It has nothing to do with rejecting Christ. Nothing is 100% accurate but they do have good reasons.
@jaypritchard7122 Jews after the lifetime of Jesus rejected the deuterocanonical books because Christians were using them to support Christianity..
Was scripture an ordinary, fount of divine revelation to which the OT Jews were obligated to give the assent of faith?
i think ortlund is losing his mind. He devolved into being plain nonsensical, and i doubt he's stupid enough to believe what he's saying.
It's a grift.
Why do you constantly appeal to Josephus scholarship without giving their reasons? I don't care what their conclusions are if their reasons are unfounded. You sound like Kipp and Josh when quoting OT scholarship. They always appeal to "muh scholarship," but their reasoning is bad. Do better, especially if you're going to posture yourself as correcting someone who you claim is being "irresponsible" and doing "sloppy work." And laughably, it's OBVIOUS that Josephus is giving a Canon. You can debate whether or not it was the only Jewish Canon during his time, but do not entertain as serious the idea that he wasn't.
Idk where this uncharitable posture from you is coming from, but Gavin has always been kind to you in his responses to you. Kind of sad to see you unable to do so in return, but I guess you've gotta please the viewer base over engaging in a charitable dialog.
Not sure what you are talking about. Suan mentions that it is a live debate in scholarly circles on whether Josephus is giving a canon. He says you shouldn't just assume he is giving a canon, you have to argue for it. And no, saying "And laughably, it's OBVIOUS that Josephus is giving a Canon." does not cut it. Suan is talking about scholarly circles, where it isn't just assumed to be obvious. Gavin doesn't broach the subject in his videos at all. But Suan knows that this is discussed in the scholarly world.
With regard to claiming Gavin is being irresponsible or doing sloppy work - that is in reference to the Luke 24:44 quote where Gavin tries to claim a settled canon from this, when clearly Jesus mentioned only the psalms in the last part. This certainly does appear to be irresponsible and sloppy work.
"Idk where this uncharitable posture from you is coming from, but Gavin has always been kind to you in his responses to you. Kind of sad to see you unable to do so in return, but I guess you've gotta please the viewer base over engaging in a charitable dialog."
I disagree. This is a forceful rebuttal to one of his arguments. I think Gavin needs to respond, or at least acknowledge that his interpretation of Luke 24:44 does not reflect what Jesus himself said.
The funny thing about this comment is that I actually show in the video at the Joseph Blenkinsopp chapter a concrete example of Josephus contradicting himself which is why you have to be careful with him. I’m going to assume out of charity you didn’t get to that part of the video but you prematurely commented.
@danielcarriere1958 Yeah, Josephus is listing the 39 books of the Torah (which they correlate to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet) while mentioning the deuterocanonical books and saying they aren't received like those... but he's not giving a Canon list... That definitely sounds like an opinion that should be taken as intellectually serious 👍
Again. You can say it wasn't the only Canon, and I'd agree. There was the Canon of the Sadducees during Jesus' time, but we know their Canon is incorrect due to the NT usage of the prophets. The Septuagint isn't a Canon, so we are left with what Josephus gives us.
I don't care what scholarly circles are talking about unless their reasons are provided. This is the equivalent of giving the conclusion of a logical syllogism, but not providing the premises. Why should I accept that conclusion? Idk. You didn't say! So I have no reason to accept anything he said on the matter. I have provided more reasons in this comment for thinking it is a Canon than he provided in that entire video for thinking it isn't one.
@@theepitomeministry I “didn’t say so” 😂 See 17:48 and finish the point there.
@intellectualcatholicism I'm not saying you don't have to be careful with Josephus. What I'm saying is that it should not even be intellectually entertained that he wasn't trying to provide a Canon list. He obviously was. You instead need to argue that his Canon list is wrong or provide reasons for receiving what you refer to as the Greek tradition here.
I think you're going to have a hard time doing that, given the continuation of Josephus' Canon to the present day. Josephus' views have the luxury of continuity while any other views on the Jewish Canon do not. This is an often neglected point in this discussion. I don't think there are good reasons for thinking it's merely a post-70 AD Canon either.
I'm also saying that I really think you need to provide reasons when appealing to scholars. To give an analogy, let's say I said I am giving you a syllogism, but I only provide the conclusion, but don't tell you the premises. I don't have a single reason to accept your conclusion. This is how I felt watching your section on Josephus.
It’s all nice and eloquent, but who is your magisterium? How is it infallible if evidence points otherwise? When will the circularity end?
Thank you for saying my presentation is nice and eloquent. My magisterium is the Catholic Church. If you have evidence that it isn't infallible, I'd like to know.
"No salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church" In Vatican 1.
Compare that to All religions are a path to God - Pope Francis.
Sure, they don't contradict at all.
Mental gymnastics gim huai lua hilou hia Suan?
😊❤
Gavin Ortlund wREkT!!1
We know that Jerome was a liar in regards to his fight with Augustine about which text type family should be used for the Latin Vulgate translation. Why doesn't The Roman Church go back to the Septuagint since the Masoretic is so flawed and fallible. I recommend "When God Spoke Greek", By Timothy Law. The Orthodox have always used the Septuagint to this day.
The Vulgate does use the LXX.
As an Orthodox Christian, I wouldn't be so quick to say this against the pre-schismatic Roman Church and leave it there, that doesn't mean you have to throw out this line, as it may give credence to the Orthodox argument that the Church of Rome could have independently errored on an issue that all other major Sees did not (an idea which seems to be in conflict with the current Catholic theory of the indefectibility of Rome and her Patriarch) I would rework the wording here to include that if I were you, as it comes across as needless harshness on pre-schism Rome
@roddumlauf9241 You're making an irrelevant argument.
We're not primarily concerned with translation between masoretic vs Septuagint.
The bone of contention is on which literatures or texts are Divinely inspired. Protestants deny the inspiration of the deutero- Canons which the early Church affirmed.
The Masoretic translation of the Bible excluded the deutrocanons because the post second temple Jews in Palestine became skeptical of it's inspiration for some reason.
The Catholics did not follow the traditions of the post second temple Jews because she inherited her own canon of the old testament from the Greek speaking Jews (, this included the apostles of Christ) whose tradition dates back to the times before the Romans conquered Judah.