Answering the Canon Conundrum [Scriptum #13] 

Yep! I referred to you in the description and in the script. Your stuff on that was so good!

@@ScholasticLutherans I meant on this particular meme. Mine on this was quite rambling without a script. They are also equivocating on “tradition”.

@@ScholasticLutherans I will say I’ve never been referenced with Chemnitz before.

Thank you! Your content for this was phenomenal, especially loved your response to Kyle on this.

@@ScholasticLutherans thanks boss!

That one would think scholarly study is necessary to know Christ tells us pretty much everything we need to know

@@account2871 none of us ever said that, try again.

​@@TheOtherPaul It is implicit in the protestant and orthodox paradigm: the reduction of divine revelation to the analysis of opinions. After seeing your debate with Jimmy Akin, I find it hard to put stock in what you say explicitly as well, because you seem to redefine everything as soon as it's challenged.

Couldn't have done it without your contributions!

@@ScholasticLutherans yes, very good job

Thanks! Big fan of your channel

Well, we could dispute that empirical claim at the end. As for determining canon, there are many methods. Lutherans actually would affirm self-authenticafion as one means. Another, for NT books, is deciphering authorship. If a book has apostolic origin, then it is scripture. My blog post linked in the description also has a unique argument in it: If we can determine first that some set of Christian church bodies is correct prior to examining scripture at all, then we can determine that there are a set number of possible canons. The approach in my blog was to do that via natural theology, but it could also be done by empirical means of examining the truth of the events in the Gospels (and falsehood of heretical gospels), thus demonstrating the truth of Christian church bodies that accept the Gospels, which narrows the set of possible canons. -Seth

Arbitrary.

We do not. We say: "God, through sinful men". That is how the Bible was compiled, and much more importantly, how the books of the Bible were written

Decided to give this a listen. In general, he's presenting a decent overview, but he often falls short on the details and some of the distinctions being made. I don't necessarily blame him for that-- if you haven't read too much on the topic, you'd probably miss some of the distinctions and details. That said, when the distinctions are properly made and details are rightly explained, it does undercut the strength of many of his points rather significantly. I have a rather high view of the apocrypha for a Lutheran, but I retain the distinctions between different categories of canonicity of the Bible that Lutherans have made. It's obviously a huge series, so I'll just give two examples of how his shortcomings on some of the distinctions really hurt his arguments: 1) He says Luther flip-flops on some of this when Luther uses apocryphal texts to make arguments. This is not the case. Luther's position, as that of later 16th and 17th century Lutherans, is that the apocrypha can be used to make arguments for doctrine, but they must be used as *support* and not the *foundation* of the argument. This is because apocryphal texts do have authority; it's just not infallible authority. It's similar to how church fathers have authority, yet they're not infallible. I'd contend, they tend to hold the apocrypha in higher regard than the opinions of the fathers. 2) He makes sweeping comments about how the church has "historically" received the apocrypha as if Lutherans changed this. He makes it sound as if the church has always received apocrypha at the same level as all the other texts of the Bible (though he sounds like he's willing to grant occasional exceptions to this). This isn't, IMO, the most honest or accurate take on the data. The data is rather scattered on this issue. Some fathers seem to place the apocrypha at the same level of the other books, without distinction. Others say it shouldn't really be read much at all-- only in specific circumstances (usually this is "in private" or "only the clergy/learned"). Others say they are to be read in churches but are not inspired. Perhaps the most abused example here is the council of Carthage, which puts forward the RC canon. Here the council is defining the canon as books to be read in church-- not necessarily books that are inspired. If that's our definition of canon, then the apocrypha are canonical for Lutherans since we have retained apocryphal readings in the church (the Lutheran Missal project has all the historic Western lectionary readings, including the apocryphal ones, which occur on weekday masses). Furthermore, Josephus' account of the destruction of the temple would be canonical for American Lutherans too since that was in the LCMS German hymnal to be read in church on a particular day of the year. Obviously, this is an absurd conclusion though since most ppl don't mean to use "canon" to refer to "books read in the church" in this debate. Most mean "list of inspired texts." --Seth

@@ScholasticLutherans And around and around we go. It really comes down to authority. Did the Orthodox and the Catholic Church have the authority to include the books that Protestantism rejected? Yes. Councils and the Church solve disputes (no single individual like Jerome … Jerome would submit to the Church not his opinions). There was no settled canon among the Jews at the time of Christ. Early Christians read the Greek Septuagint which included the seven deuterocanonical books Catholic use and the books the Orthodox use (3 maccabees, etc.). I understand that Lutherans and Anglicans see these books as non-canonical but important and useful to read (at least for Lutherans & Anglicans). The Reformed straight up reject these books full stop. Which I find ironic that modern American Lutherans would use reformed Bibles. You might find this website interesting. Article: Johann Gerhard, the Apocrypha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls hips.dormitionpress.org/?p=65 Grace and peace be with you.

The magisterium is not infallible because you can plainly look at it and see it is not infallible. The layperson can look at the Roman church and see the corruptions, both historical and modern that plague it and come to that conclusion.

@@gumbyshrimp2606 Did you even read my comment?

​@@account2871Yes, now why did an infallible Magesterium use a forged document to justify its own Supremacy?

Yeah but which one is right? Does Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Church of The East, SSPX, Genuine/ True Orthodox, Palmarians, Anglicans, Episcopals, Anglo-Caths, Lutherans, Old Catholics, etc. all hold equal authority? How can they all have authority if none of them agree?

@@ScroopGroop the answer is roman catholics. They have all 4 marks of the true church

​@@USDebtCrisisDoes that include all the medieval inventions?

@@ScroopGroop Rome obviously. They're the only ones who still hold councils.

You're just worshipping according to your own personal conception..how is that better than an actual tradition?

@@CHURCHISAWESUM That’s not an issue for Pagans as long as you’re being true to the sources, nor is there the looming threat of hell

If you don't do human sacrifices then you aren't pagan.

@@chemnitzfan654 That's not true, and it's a ridiculous assertion. Some societies practice it, others don't. Some cultures also treat the practice of war as tantamount to human sacrifice (which is obviously distinct from selecting victims from within a group's own populace), while others only make human sacrifices out of capital punishment (again, very different from selecting someone innocent). In fact, even animal sacrifice was comparatively rare, as animals were expensive. Most offerings from European Pagans involved cakes and other treats, money, libations of alcohol/milk/fresh spring water, the burning of incense, and votive deposits into bogs and such of weapons or other valuables. The Gods could also be honored through the swearing and keeping of oaths. To say that people aren't Pagan if they're not conducting human sacrifice is nothing but a strawman argument. The Pagan Romans sometimes claimed other groups were practicing human sacrifice as justification to take up arms against them.

@Liquid Oxygen you are just out here LARPing. Enjoy throwing your children into the bog to appease the swamp gods so they will bring housing prices down. 🤣

Unfortunately Jay Dyer doesn't have the proper nous to contemplate the writings of St. Elrak the Grey. Once he receives those energies, come back to me.

@@ScholasticLutherans Wise dodge

Reminds me of the hilarious debate between other Paul and Akin. After chest-thumping, bloviating for hours, and snidely denigrating anti Sola Scriptura opponents, OP got utterly annihilated by Akin and spent the next month making endless streams trying to defend himself and crying to his echo chamber. Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face.

You've got to feel for the actual Orthodox around the world, when they find out they're represented online by Internet Catechumens whose main church affiliation is the Cathedral of St Jay Dyer of Brostantinople. (Not a sleight on Dyer himself, just an observation about a section of his avid followers). Hopefully I'm wildly wrong about you and my suspicions entirely misplaced. That would be good.

@@Mic1904 Wait until you find out Apologists who make coherent arguments gain traction and a following🫣