Transcription
So, we'll go to the So, the first argument is uh I'll give my I'll I'll state the argument uh and then I'll kind of give my response. Look, the Bible is God's word. There's really nothing else that we can say is God's word. And so, you can't uh appeal to anything else as if it was equal to or above because hey, you can't replace or go above God's word. Look at what the Bible says about God's word.
Now I would say well the fallacy here is to assume that in all instances in all cases the written text is equal to God's word. It's not. There are some places yes Psalm 119 right where the written texts are said to be God's word and we have no problem attributing that to uh the written text but the written texts are not the only form of God's word and the written text and the oral or uh faimma mindset paradosis concept conception is also not a reductionist notion of God's word because God's word ultimately is the second person of the trinity the logos hence why Jesus says is you search the scriptures because you think that it is in them that you have eternal life when it is they that bear witness of me. He says so Jesus even distinguishes himself as a hypostasis from the written text. That doesn't mean the written texts aren't a revelation that he gives. Right. But just like if I wrote you a letter and you learn some things about me, I'm not identical to my letter.
>> Yeah. And also this this proposition um has completely divorced scripture from history, >> right? >> What context are you approaching this scripture from? Where did it come from? Who gave it to you? Who wrote it down? >> There's a great book that Yars Pelican wrote that I always forget to recommend too. Whose Bible? Which tradition? >> Oh yeah. >> He really just surveys the history of how texts come to you from a a context, right? There's no book that that is just dropped into your lap, especially not ancient texts like the Bible. Uh it comes with a history. It comes with a mindset, with a context, with a millu that is inseparable from how you read and interpret and understand the book.
Father, how would you would you is there any other way you would reply to that? Like, well, the Bible is God's word. Um, I liked what I and I think I might have actually made that point. Again, these we might use the same words. >> Scripture, love, um, justification, um, substitution. Um, we don't all mean the same things. So, when the Protestant says the word of God, they don't mean the same things as we do as Orthodox. Um, in part you already point that out because they already assume that God's word can't be in other place. It's a false dichotomy um beyond what's written in the text. But I would actually add a second point that um what Protestants have done and you already kind of pointed this out is they've made a hypostasis with the word, the second person of the trinity, with the written texts from that are inspired and authoritated from the people of God that were taught by God and therefore derivatively could be said to express or contain the word of God. um that they really have fallen into um making their Bible a Quran and what I call Bible dollatry. They're literally worshiping text the way that we worship the second person of the Holy Trinity because they've made a hypothasis which is interesting because they accuse us. One second. of being idolattors because we venerate icons. We don't worship them. But what this is is not a detraction from Christ. It is one becoming like Christ. And therefore we honor and venerate those who have led the way. Um and we believe that we still participate with them because we believe that God is not a God of the dead but of the living. And that I just find it ironic that they'll accuse us of idolatry, but that's exactly what Protestants are. They're idolattors. They're Bible dollars. um they have the influence of Islamic thought upon them and have they made their Bible a Quran.
>> Jay, you're muted. >> Oh, yeah. Thank you. Um so for those that are actually interested in some of the more in-depth stuff like uh the biblical issue of tradition, I have an essay I wrote a long time ago. Um I'm going put that in the chat again. I'm sure some of you will be familiar with it. But just the idea of extracononical tradition itself is within the Bible. So the Bible itself will actually refer to and cite extracononical traditions in many many instances. There's there's a whole bunch of these >> and what that shows is that the attitude of the composers of those texts did not have a text alone type of attitude. Um, as I've said in many cases, uh, if you look at Paul, the way he operated when he taught at Ephesus, when he talks about the word of God, if you look at 2 Timothy 1:13, 2 Timothy 2:1-2, compare that to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and then look at second uh, sec 1 Peter 1:23 and 24. In all those cases, you will see what's referenced is the oral word of God that was taught, that was heard, that they heard the pattern of sound words, which you heard from me. 2 Timothy 1:13. And then Paul commands Timothy to ordain and lay hands on men after him that are able to pass on that same pattern of sound words, that same paradosis, that same tradition that he heard from Paul. Paul taught in Ephesus for three years according to Acts. So he's not telling Timothy to only pass down the letter I wrote you. In the letter he says pass on everything that you heard from me. Well, you're Well, he can't remember everything Paul said. No, but Paul is teaching for three years catechizing Timothy in the par the the Pauline catechesus and interpretation and mindset because he's an apostle, right? So there's a an interpretive framework because remember these are real people. Timothyy's a human. St. Timothyy's a real guy that Paul catechizes, ordains, and then tells him to lay hands on a successor after him who's able to pass on that deposit. In in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, he says the exact same thing to the Thessalonians. I'm not talking about the 2 Thessalonians text about the written and word. We all know that one. That one's always appealed to stand fast in the traditions that you heard, whether oral or written. 2 Thessalonians 2:15. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul makes another important statement. He says, "For this reason, we thank God without ceasing because you received the word of God that you heard from us. You welcomed what you heard not as the word of men but as the word of God. So you notice Paul explicitly identifies his oral preaching and teaching with the word of God. And that's >> and 2 Timothy 1:13 too. >> Right. Right. So you've got uh 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Timothy 1:13, 2 Timothy 2:1 and2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Right. And first >> Ephesians 1:13, hearing not what's read, right? >> The word of truth is the gospel and that's our salvation. >> Right. And first and you you mentioned that too. What is heard? Faith comes what is heard, not just what is read.
>> Now remember first Peter 1 also 23 and 24. All flesh is as grass. All glory of man as the flower of grass. Grass withers and it falls away. But the word of the Lord endures forever. Now this word is the word of the gospel preached to you. So Paul Peter says the same thing Paul says, right? So this this is all the oral um tradition you could say the parados is the deposit that's also the synonymous with the written text and they function together as the whole deposit of faith, the the entire apostolic revelation. You see? So this alone really refutes the absurd notion that only the written text is what Paul considered or what Peter considered authoritative. It's ludicrous. I mean Jesus, it says that if if it were to be written down everything that Jesus taught, right, in John 20, >> there's not enough books in the world to contain, right? And that's a good I'm glad that you brought that up because a typical Protestant >> Excuse me. >> John um yeah, John 21:25. >> I'm glad you brought that um point up because Protestants I've heard reformed Calvinists say, "Yeah, but everything that was appealed to orally eventually was written down >> and that's the scriptures." >> That's Yeah, where's the list? Um that's pretty presumptuous. number two and number three, John 21:25 says that's impossible to write down everything did and taught.
With that in mind, uh the often cited uh Protestant text of Acts 20:27 to listen to the full council of God. >> Now, you've been told that the full council of God is everything they preached. Mhm. >> And that's where it says Paul taught uh for in verse 31 >> day and night for three years in Ephesus. So he's teaching Timothy for three years day and night. Right? And that's because Paul just like Obadiah or Isaiah was a prophet, a preacher, and they didn't just write things, they preached. Because again, most people can't read. If I may take a moment here >> and please indulge me for a moment, Father Deacon, because usually like when I give examples, I like to relate it to the real world somehow, something that's more tangible. So would you agree with me that there do exist medical books that delineate the procedures that a surgeon would follow in performing some kind of operation. >> So these would indicate um truths. They would be true like if you followed these steps you'll have a greater chance of having a successful procedure. >> Yes. Yeah. Correct. Now, would you ever let yourself undergo a medical procedure from someone who calls themselves a doctor that says to you that their only training that they've ever had was that they've read that book cover to cover multiple times and all they all the terms that were ambiguous to them. Don't worry, they got a dictionary and they made sure to look up those words >> and an inner >> Yeah. Yeah. Wherever Wherever it may be. Would you trust a doctor of that magnitude? >> Great point. >> I don't think anybody in their right minds in this world is going to say yes, I'll I'll I'll trust to undergo this medical procedure. So if you as an individual are reluctant to undergo a medical procedure physically for your body, how much more important and valuable is it for you to exercise caution with regards to your spiritual soul with your spirituality? And Kai, I certainly wouldn't try to perform the operation on myself. Like if I was I've got the scalpel and I'm like a incision in the what >> what what muscle or organ is that? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> That's a great great point, Kai. Thank you.
>> All right. Um, anybody else have anything on this first kind of uh u bad argument about well uh we only follow the word aka written text before we move on? >> Yeah, I just I would just call them a Muslim and say why don't you just go to a mosque because this is the Muslim approach. It's ridiculous. >> Well, and don't forget Hebrews, right? The word of God is living and powerful, right? >> And the word of God is in you. Do the are the texts inside of me? I mean, uh, no, obviously we're talking about, uh, the hope, uh, the divine logos himself who is inside inside of us, so to speak, via the energies. Um, >> well, hang on. I'm going to go grab my OSB and start tearing out pages and eating them. >> Swallow those just like Well, by the way, uh, Ezekiel does that. He actually eats the the texts, which is a which is a type of the Eucharist, eating the word, actually. So um actually Greto if you weren't aware in Islam there actually um >> are some hadiths that say that um like you could cure yourself in some capacity if you actually were to eat holy words. So I know I I know what you're referring to with regards to the incidents that have been happening as late but honestly in Islamic belief they they would do that.
All right. So let's get to the next one here. The next objection that I hear quite often is um you guys follow the traditions of men. Uh we follow the Bible. Um maybe there are some good traditions perhaps, but uh you Roman Catholics and Orthodox have gone crazy because you follow the traditions of men and we don't. Now on a really basic level, I'm just going to say that actually everybody follows some tradition of man. Even in the Protestant churches, for example, you have made up a way to worship God. That's a tradition of man. Whether you're a Baptist, whether you are with your altar call, whether you're a Presbyterian with your regulative principle of worship or uh whether you are a evangelical with a rock band. I mean, everybody has followed and created some notion of a tradition of man that they are attempting to follow. And by the way, the decision on what books go into the canon is a postappostolic later church decision, which is therefore a quote tradition of man. So there's many different ways that you could go against this point. Uh, the Bible itself, as I pointed out in my paper right here, uh, mentions in many cases valid and correct traditions. I'll just give you a couple. In Matthew 23, Jesus says, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. Therefore, do as they say, but not as they do." Uh, there's nothing in the Old Testament it says anything about a seat of Moses. There's nothing about a succession of the office of the scribes and Pharisees succeeding to Moses' authority. uh it is a tradition and of course there are many other examples in my essay that you could read there of traditions that are appealed to um >> Paul talks about Galatians 1:14 Colossians 2:22 um he talks about the traditions of my fathers >> I would make a point that this this you're following traditions of man um why why are you why would they delineate between the traditions that the apostles set out and the traditions that the descendants set out or gave to us. Where are we drawing the line? What is the tradition of man? Is it the one that is it the traditions that Paul taught? Is that a tradition of man?
>> Well, 1 Corinthians 11, Paul specifically says, "Keep the traditions that I delivered to you in Corinth." Now, I'm not talking about the second Corinthians, second Thessalonians uh statement about the written and oral, >> which which by the way, he does specifically have the injunction to keep the oral and written traditions. Uh Matt Slick has this absurd uh reply to this that he says that's about the end times. That's an esqueological text. He always just says it's an esqueological text. Uh you'll understand proper ex Jesus because that's an esqueological text, right? which no it's not like I mean Paul wrote that to an actual historic church right called the church of Thessalonica as far as I know there's still an Orthodox church in Thessalonica right that extends back to what Paul was writing to and they have in fact kept the oral and written traditions so Matt's uh uh absurd just ad hoc thing that oh that's just talking about something esqueological it's ludicrous >> if I can um speak to this point a little in a an extended way with regards to the traditions of men versus versus the traditions of God. Um, this notion is ultimately rooted in the Judeaic notion of something called Kumra. And Kumra um it has a specific meaning, but it also means a prohibition. um or obligation in Jewish law that is more than the letter of the law. So what you had in the ancient days is um the way the houses were built, they were built with um those flat flat roofs and you could go up and you could be on the roof of a house. And if you didn't have a fence that was delineating the roof of your house, then anybody who goes up above, they stand a chance that they can fall off of the house and hurt themselves or kill themselves or so on. And if your house was of that construction, then you share in that guilt of the person falling and hurting themselves. And so you built this humra as a protective barrier so that the only way that someone could hurt themselves is if they actively go to bypass that barrier and then they were to jump off and whatever it may be the result. But it absolves you of this guilt. You're no longer guilty before God for this. You've done your due diligence. So people have now gone beyond that and it's on them. And that principle is extended to the Torah by the Jews. So that what they ended up doing was creating this fence around the Torah. So that if there was a certain prohibition and this was the literal prohibition, well, you would have prohibitions that are kind of outside of it. So that you would never at any point in time be able to get to violate what has actually been prohibited. But when you go and examine the insanity of the Talmudic system and the traditions involved here, you completely lose the spirit of the law and it becomes um it's just every aspect is like you need to live your daily life by carrying around an instruction manual of what you need to do. And so these are madeup rules that were excessive. You lost the focus of religion and that is the traditions of men.
>> Right. It's not all traditions. That's the assumpt the yeah the the pro the fallacy here is to assume that um all traditions is what Jesus is referring to when in fact there's many places in the New Testament that refer that refer to good traditions. again, 1 Corinthians 11, 2 Thessalonians 2.
>> Uh, yeah. Um, any anybody else have anything else on the traditions of men paradosis section? Um, before we get to I'm not trying to be rude or rush anybody. It's just that we've already gone for two hours and we lost 100 people in terms of the viewers. So, I want to kind of get through the rest of this uh uh list and we got to hit the super chats. So, um, anybody else have anything else on um, traditions of men? >> No, I'm all good.
All right. So the next one, um, 2 Timothy 2, uh, excuse me, 2 Timothy 3, where Paul says that, uh, scripture is sufficient to make the man of God, uh, you know, capable of every good work. >> Father Deacon, what would you say to that? >> Um, second Timothy 2, no, three, right? >> Three. Yeah. >> Mhm. Doesn't say sufficient. Um, is the first thing. Um it says and it starts with um >> let's see in second Timothy 2 uh no was that second Timothy 2 in second Timothy it talks about um that you were brought up as a child learning the scriptures >> right second Timothy 3 right >> where is that three my eyes 3:15. Yes. And from childhood you have known the holy scriptures which you are able to make wise um for the salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ. So Protestant will read that as sufficient. >> But there's the next few verses where it's the some I think some translations will say sufficient like a Protestant translation will say >> uh all scriptures inspired by God, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction, righteousness. The man of God may be complete or sufficient uh depending on which one we're reading. So you obviously have a paradigm um you know corrupting the way that you would translate that and also if we talk about if Paul's referring to the scriptures that you've learned um and known from childhood >> it's the Old Testament. >> Yeah. That's so what a Protestant if the Protestants wants to read that verse is um all scripture that that's sufficient then they'd have to commit themselves to saying that um well you wouldn't need um most of the New Testament at least. >> Yeah. Yeah. feathers is not necessary and also um even if you did have the I'm not I agree with you that the sufficient may not even be the right word in that in that text if you have >> well it's put in a subjunctive too >> which would make you capable >> right >> or could make you capable it doesn't sufficient is will make you like it's uh it does it it's enough to do that um so they're not even reading the subjunctive there >> well even if it was which is not but even if it was it's they read it in an exclusionary sense as if Paul would mean does so Paul mean does Paul mean that uh prayer is not necessary >> good gathering together in the community of the church isn't necessary >> great point do you see this dialectics they keep doing >> I only need this well if that's the only I mean would anybody say that I only need the gospels >> right >> I only need to read I don't need to pray I don't need to be kind >> yeah it's silly >> um So they keep putting in those dialectics. Good point. I'd also just real quick add that again, you're reading certain words and imputing certain meanings according to your paradigm of what scripture is, what inspiration is, what doctrine is, um, correction, instruction, righteousness. Um, and we don't share that. So that's why we need to go back to the first principles. You don't know what you're talking about. That's >> I mean I mean all I have to Okay. Uh, yeah. the dudero cannon as part of that uh correction for >> doctrine and righteousness. And since you as a Protestant don't pray for the dead, you reject scripture. And >> and part of scripture, by the way, includes mentioning you need to hold to what's not written. >> Exactly. Right. Yeah. So >> there's a standing injunction within scripture to also hold to the oral traditions. You as a Protestant don't. So you deny scripture. Um you don't pray for the dead. >> Uh the dud canon says pray for the dead. So therefore, and they'll say, "Well, that's not the right canon." Yeah, exactly. That's why we have to go back to first principles because it's a question also of which cannon. I mean, think about Luther. Luther said, I'm not joking. He says, "I don't believe in the Duterol cannon because it doesn't preach the word of God." Well, yeah, but that's begging the question, Luther.
>> Uh, anything else on uh 2 Timothy 3 and the all scripture is inspired text? Uh yeah. So they always stop after it says complete or sufficient. Um and the ESV it says that the man of God may be complete equipped for every good work. So unless you're going to equivocate that every good work means profit uh unless you're going to say that what the text actually says is all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching for reproof for correction and training in righteousness. that the man of God may be complete equipped for teaching, for reproof, for correction and training and righteousness. It doesn't say that it's complete for sol scriptura.
>> And remember, look back at um 2 Timothy 3:10 >> when Paul begins that section. >> Um what does he say? He says, "You have followed carefully my doctrine." What did we see in all those texts a few minutes ago was Paul's doctrine? Is it just the letter he wrote to Timothy? No, it's the scriptures and Paul's oral word of God that he taught three years day and night. Okay.
Um, next one. We should follow the maseretic text aka the post first advent uh Jewish decision which is somewhat debated but the uh post apostolic era post 1st century Christian decision on the part of the Palestinian Jews to exclude the dudero cannon and therefore we should follow them even though they reject the church and they are not the apostles we don't want to follow the apostles usage of the canon aka the septuent we want to follow the Jewish decision. Well, that doesn't really make sense for the church. This is a Protestant assumption that there was no historic authoritative church that could make and use and decide what the canon was and uh uh utilize the Septuagent. In fact, the apostles most of the time utilize the Septuagent. The apostles in many places site the Deuterononical texts. They make illusions to them. They make direct references to them in many many cases. And so there's no reason to exclude the duro cannon on this ridiculous claim as if the church has to submit to postappostolic uh nonbelieving Jewish decisions about the canon.
>> Uh this is something that Muslims do in regards to the Old Testament and the New Testament is um Kai can probably elaborate on this. I can't quote it word for word but um the prophet Muhammad is asked a question about the old testament and he says go >> a prophet >> yeah circle prophet >> yeah I will add to uh that I have a lengthy essay from some years ago um that I reposted in 2018 it's called reputation the protestant can of scripture and basically all I do is go through multiple arguments um um from a reformed scholar uh Ian Paisley and then I have another longer essay that I wrote um response to standard of protestant objections to the dudero cannon. So those two essays will actually just give you many many cases where Protestant scholars like FF Bruce, Lee McDonald, um Vinkenhauser, um I've got a whole bunch, Wescott Hort, they will give you many many um admissions regarding both tradition and the dudero cannon. For example, FF Bruce will talk about the fact that most of the early church's manuscripts included um references to the dud duro canon and the church determined her cannon partly in regard to the church lectionaries that's in his book new testament documents. Are they reliable? Um any I mean there's just endless endless quotes from people like Lee McDonald. The uh uh old the the early churches canon included the duro canon in many many cases. most of the time. There's only one church father that seems to have a significant um qualm with the dural canon. That was Jerome. But of course uh that's not going to afford the Protestant any aid because if you read Jerome, you'll note that he believes everything that we believe all of those doctrines that you believe are apostate. Uh Jerome was a celibate. Jerome was an aesthetic. Jerome believed in the real presence. Jerome um worked with the pope of his time. Jerome was a u monastic. Jerome um wrote um treatises against people who denied um relics like vigilantis, excuse me, uh yeah, vigilanteas. Uh he wrote treatises on the perpetual virginity of Mary. So there's absolutely nothing in Jerome. And by the way, Jerome actually would also cite the Dudome cannon even though he did not necessarily think it should be included in the cannon. But we don't go by any single church father. There's nobody who actually does this. Not even the Protestants just can consistently go by one church father to prove their views. So really when when we look at what was believed at all times and in all places um and eventually this gets settled for the orthodox church by the time of the six ecumenical council. Trolo and the sixth council basically give a list of the canon of scripture that becomes universally accepted. So, uh, if you read those two essays, I will give you, uh, everybody, I mean, tons and tons of, uh, Protestant scholarly admissions, uh, from J&D Kelly, from um, Bishop Wescott, uh, from FF Bruce, from Lee McDonald, uh, from Protestant, uh, Bible dictionaries, etc., telling you what the canon of scripture is, and it's not the Protestant cannon. So there's no basis for this uh Calvinist type of assumption of let's go to the maseretic text.
>> Yeah. I don't know if we have enough time um but there's also the problems of the maseretic text um having evidence for it being purposefully corrupted or rewritten. We we have a I can mention this book um which I brought out to for people to see here >> uh which is the Woodward book I do recommend if you want to get into kind of the basics of this issue which is called rebooting the Bible by S. Douglas Woodward where he argues I mean it's not very hard to just look and prove and see that the early church fathers are utilizing the dudero cannon. There was a um explicit attempts to um alter and censor texts that were being used by so many Christian apologists um from the dudero canon from those dutonical texts and from the Septuagent um because there's many texts in the Septuagent that lend to a very Christian reading um of you know in the prophets and the prophecies the the voice of the lord the word of the lord the logos etc um and let's bring home another point here uh I'll try to make this as quick as possible possible. There's a great appendix in this book. Uh I recommend and Lee McDonald is a Baptist textual scholar. This is a classic text for evangelicals and Baptists. The formation of the Christian biblical cannon by Lee McDonald. Let's look through um his different lists here. So if we look at this first list, I'll put it up for everybody so they can see it. This is regarding the Old Testament and it's going to show you the Protestant admission that I mean anybody who studies canonics will know this. This is the um listing of the Old Testament books, the different cannons of the Old Testament books on the part of in this list, Milo, Sardis, Origin, Athanasius, and Sirill. And you'll notice that different books have different stuff included and left out. And in all of these cases, you have the dudero canon. So, or at least some of them. So, here is Malito. Um, let make sure I can get it to where you can read it. There's Molo origin, Athanasius and Serial of Jerusalem's differing cannons and I've circled the sections where there are discrepancies and disputes. Now this is just about the Old Testament canonical books. Let's come over here and we've got I can't even read it from there. Epipanius um another couple texts that I don't know what they are. I can't read it. And then Gregor Natanus. So these are different lists of Old Testament cannons. You see that there and you'll notice that in this list you'll find also some books um there some books missing but these are again different church fathers listings. Now we come over to um the council of Leodysia um two ancient texts from pseudo chrysum and inilioakius listing different cannons that are not the protestant canon. So, here's another list. um, all of these again totally inconsistent with anything in Protestantism. And we're already just we're only talking about the Old Testament list in the East. Now, we move to the West, the Old Testament um books listed in the fourth and fifth century. So, we have St. Hillary, St. Jerome um another um Latin text. I don't know who it is. Rufinus. And you'll notice that these are all um not the Protestant view. Again, I've circled everything where it's disputed and questionable and not Protestant. So again, nobody has the Protestant view here except for Jerome. The the one unique case here is that Jerome does list what the Protestants accept. We're only talking about the Old Testament now. Now we get to Augustine, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo and Codex Vaticanis. Nothing Protestant there. All what the Orthodox and the Catholics would accept canonically speaking in terms of the Old Testament. Remember, we're only talking about the Old Testament. And then there's two last ones. Codex Sonaticus and Codex Alexandrinus. They're not Protestant either. As you see here, you've got a bunch of circled and disputed books there between Protestants. Now, let's move to the New Testament. And guess what? It's not any better. The list of New Testament canonical books in the 4th century. So we have um Clement, excuse me, to the 4th century. U Clement serial Jerusalem, Athanasius, the Momsson catalog, and Epipanius. And these are all over the place, these listings of New Testament cannons. And you'll notice that some of the ones that Protestences might appeal to, they actually leave out certain books. So there's not agreement on the new. So the apostolic cannons don't mention revelation. They don't mention Hebrews. St. Gregory Nazanzus does not include revelation and he doesn't include Hebrews. The African cannons don't include um Revelation. Oh, excuse me. They do. The African cannons do. Excuse me. But Ucius disputes um and questions James, Jude um and the Catholic epistles. But he also thinks that maybe um the revelation of Peter, the diti and Barnabas are included. Serial of Jerusalem does not include the book of revelation. Then we come over to Jerome. Jerome has the cannon that we all agree with in terms of the new testament. Augustine has the canon of the new testament that we have. Um and Filioakius does not include second Peter. And then you get other um listings of the cannon such as the Syrian catalog which does not include the book of revelation. Pope Innocent um mentions a few things that let's see no Pope Innocent has the canon that we have. So that's pretty late in the West. Rufinus has um everything except a couple weird books like the two ways and the preaching of Peter which he considers to be ecclesiastical writings. So there's a group there's a um listing of degrees there. So in other words between the old and the new testament there is a wide span of variation not on everything but in terms of the solos scriptural principle right you need a you need a full canon recognized and what I'm saying is that it's not recognized until very late and it's not the protestant canon. So it affords a Protestant no evidence to go to the church fathers other than to say, "Well, I just picked Jerome." I mean, on what basis do you know Jerome's right? Because he has the cannon that you accept. But that's the thing that's in question, right? So how do just because you think Jerome is right because he has your cannon? I mean, that doesn't really work, right? And on what basis do you know to just follow one church father? Any um any additional arguments here? Yeah, I have one argument that's takes it completely from a different perspective whatsoever and perhaps a lot of Protestants are not aware of this. If they hold to the Maseretic tradition, it makes um Christ being of the priesthood of Melchzedc Mechisedc impossible >> because the genealogies in the Old Testament um are altered in the Maseretic >> and it makes the lifespans of Mel Melkisedc overlap with Shem. And so then you have the identification of Melkisedc Mechisedc with Shem and then that establishes the Levitical priesthood and we know that Christ is not of the Levitical priesthood. So the Jews will then argue you don't have the correct correct messiah. But when you look at the Septuagant, when you look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, um when you look at Josephus and when you look at the Samaritan Pentatuk, their genealogies, their um time um time frames and everything, they are witnesses against the Maseretic text. And when you look at those genealogies, you have an impossibility of um MelkiseDC living at the same same time frame as Shem. And so you avoid this problem of the priesthoods altogether. Um now somebody will point out you don't see the actual genealogy in the Dead Sea Scrolls. That's correct. In that particular instance, you won't see it. But in all other instances where genealogies and time frames do appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls, they do match up with the Septuagant and their witnesses against the Maseretic text. >> Yes. >> And so >> Yeah. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. No, I just basically going to say is that if you're a Protestant and you hold to the Maseretic text, you hold to a genealogy that makes Christ impossible. Simple as that. So, that last 10 pages of that other appendix that while um Kai was talking, if you saw me put that appendix up, that last 10 pages is all of the many references in the New Testament to duteronical texts and pseudapigrapha. So, for example, I had a conversation with a an apologist. I'm not going to call anybody out, but a few nights ago we had a discussion about this and it came up. Where in in anywhere is there references all these New Testament references to the Deuteronical books and the pseudograph writings? Well, now I just showed you in this get this book. There's a whole appendix 10 pages, dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of lists of um references to the Deuteronomical books. Mcabes, Mcabes, wisdom of Sierak, wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Barack, on and on and on and on. It's just dozens and dozens and doz. So, this is well known. It's not even debated. It's a well-known thing. It's a well-known feature that the New Testament references the Dutal cannon countless times. And of course, the pro the Protestant will say at this point, well, yeah, but it references books that are not included in the canon. Right. Exactly. Because the Bible can cite things that are tradition. That's our whole point here. Right. Uh but by the way, something being cited is a good attestation to it being canonical. It may not be immediately the only reason that it's canonical merely because it's cited, but if it is cited, it's probably a good reason why it may end up canonical. You see, so we don't listen to anyone but the church for how we get the canon. And that should be common sense because Jesus established a church that's authoritative, that's historical, that extends beyond the time of the apostles and they have the right and the authority to establish the canon and you don't have the right 1500 years later, 600 years later to change it. Any other points? >> Mhm. >> Uh yeah. So for the Orthodox defense, one of the things I'm working on is just a personal project similar to how we have the canons um list that Sarapin made is a list of all of the times that the Old Testament is cited in the New Testament and to compare the Maseretic text versus the Septuagant. So I do have a short list already prepared that if you want it, it's in the Discord. So go ahead and join our discord. But it just lists out citing, you know, Maseretic Tech. Well, we'll cite New Testament, then Maseretic text, then Septuagent with um relevant parts highlighted within the document. And so when you look through that, you'll see that almost every single reference is the Septuagent and the Maseretic will contradict the Septuagent. So I think one of the most famous is with Amos. Let me pull that up really quickly. Yes. So, Acts 7:43 where it talks about um taking up the tabernacle of Malik and the star of Reman, the Maseretic um version of Amos instead says um the star of your God instead of the star of your God, Reman. And so, the New Testament says the star of your God, Reman. The Septuagent says of Reman. And so in order for the prophecies to actually be the same, you have to use the Septuagent. Just like with Matthew 1:23 where in the Maseretic it says a young woman and the Septuagent it specifically says a virgin.
>> Exactly. Uh yeah, good point. Um so the next one that I had on my list, Father Deacon already kind of hit on which was uh what about this text where like Isaiah says to the law and to the prophets. That's solos scriptura. That's all we need. Well, really, so you're going to find Old Testament references to um scripture being sufficient or um appeals to the law and the prophet. Actually, the phrase to the law and to the testimony, that's probably um oral tradition, right? So, you have the law, the Torah, and then to the testimony, that could also conceivably be the tradition. Uh granted, it may not. It may be a reference merely to um the the prophets or to the writings. Um but you could also argue that the merely saying to the law and to the to the um uh to the law and to the testimony in Isaiah. Uh they'll appeal to these kind of Old Testament texts. But the problem is that well if that's all that was needed then we don't need a New Testament. Right? So Father Deacon already kind of hit on that one. So that's a really a really bad argument. But, uh, another argument they'll make along those lines is, well, if the if you could appeal to the, um, texts before there was an a closed cannon in the Old Testament period, then why can't we just appeal to texts in the New Testament period? And we're no different than somebody living under the period of the Old Testament, right? So, you can't make this argument that you got to have a closed cannon to have soul scriptura. The problem with this argument is that it's assuming that the 16th century doctrine of solos scriptura was in the mindset of the people during the old testament period or in the period of the new testament church before the closing of the canon and that's not true. So it's just assuming that they had the mindset of solos scriptura by the fact that they're saying you can appeal to the scriptures. Nobody denies that you can appeal to the scriptures. But when Timothy went to his local synagogue when he was learning the text in the scriptures that Paul's talking about right that came with a millu with a tradition and we don't believe Jesus didn't believe that everything that was oral tradition was false right he wasn't rebuking every aspect of oral tradition in the old testament there was old testament oral tradition that was valid for example when hezekiah organizes the lurggical worship of god He went by oral tradition that it extended back to the time of David. We don't know where he got that. We don't know what it was, but he had an oral tradition that he used. It's in my essay I argue for that was not written down that we know of. Right? And so therefore, just saying that because somebody existed at a time when they could appeal to text before there was a closed cannon means solos scriptura is a nonsequiter. No, it does not follow that because the cannon is not fixed or closed yet that therefore there was no infallibility or there was no um uh tradition. Right? Again, it's it's a it's a faulty comparison because the doctrine of solos scripura, which is what we're rebutting and re refuting, not appealing to scripture, the doctrine of solos scripura, which is that scripture alone is the infallible final authority for faith, morals, and doctrine. That's what we're rejecting. So you can't compare the argument to a time period when people live before a closed cannon because there's no comparison. Plus there were living infallible authorities in the Old Testament period. There were there was an existing prophetic office, right? Elijah, right? The schools of the prophets, Isaiah, right? These these people were the voice of God at that time. And they did possess a degree of infallibility and authority comparable to what Paul and the apostles will have. Right? But once the cannon closes or excuse me, I said I should say once revelation ceases when John dies, right? With the death of the last apostle, there's no more public revelation. It's ceased. But that public revelation is not known yet by the Catholic universal church in the sense of every local parish or sea having access to the totality of the deposit in the written form because there was not a circulation yet of all of those texts. That's why you see all of these different church fathers in different centuries possessing different lists and different cannons. So, it's not clear yet in the first few centuries what the full written text is. That's why the church doesn't need a full written text to exist because she's not existing on the basis of written texts. That's part of her existence. The church is the pillar and ground of truth, Paul says. So, the church was existing, living, making converts before there was even a completed cannon. So all of that itself disproves solos scriptor.
>> I went longwinded there. Sorry, but go ahead. >> It was beautiful though. >> Does that Does that clear up kind of this mistake of like well they didn't have a closed cannon in the Old Testament and yet they appeal to scripture. Do do you see why that doesn't follow? Because that's assuming that the Protestant doctrine, right, of soul scriptura was operant at that time. And so therefore, the argument goes, I don't need a closed cannon, right, to have an infallible authority. Anyway, it's it's an argument that James White, people like that will make pretty pretty consistently. Um, moving on. Um, there's a double there's two ways Protestants go with this. Uh, and I'll throw this to anybody who wants it. Um, the canon was established by the early church. Uh, and they got that right and they got the deity of Christ right, but everything else they got pretty much wrong. Or conversely, a Protestant will say the opposite. The canon was not established by the early church. It was present and was just known and was just there. So, you'll notice that uh Matt, I think, tended to towards the latter. But you'll get both from Protestants. How would you respond to this objection, guys, that um it was established by the church um and they got everything else wrong?
Uh, or it was not established by the church. It was just there. Well, for me, it would basically imply that after Christ's ascension, you basically had immediate apostasy of the church. I mean, you can't hold to either one of those views that you had just enumerated, Jay, without having that implication. So, for 1500 years or 1,800 years, whatever it is, that you do not have a visible church. You do not have the teachings of Christ in their pure form, supposedly. I just think that implication alone is enough to destroy that argument.
Father Deacon.
Yeah. My point to Matt was that, um, if that's the case, then why do all the people that you hold to that think are good guys in the church are all disagreeing, um, and having disagreements and can't settle on what's actually to be included? If it's so obvious, why are there so many disagreements among the people that you look up to and would use? Now, I'm not saying they would, he would embrace everything, but of them. But, um,
You mean like Protestant theologians or what do you mean?
No, I mean, for example, um, early church fathers that they might actually appeal to and use.
Augustine, Athanasius. So either you're going to have to say that, um, as Kai had pointed out, that okay, it was known after the death of the last apostle, um, the true Christians knew what it was, um, and immediately the church went apostate or something like that.
Right.
Um, but again, that's just begging the question, um, and it's an argument from ignorance as well.
Another argument that they'll make in that regard is, well, uh, there were real true Christians around, maybe proto-Calvinists, and they really knew what the canon was.
Where were they?
They were just, yeah. What's the evidence of this? Where? Name one. They'll just assert this with no evidence.
It's as bad as like, um, oh gosh. What's that stupid?
The trail of blood.
The trail of blood. Yeah. No, the, um, where the aliens come down and inseminate the, like, the earth. What is that?
Scientology.
Yeah. No, Scientology. No, that's not. Come on. You know this. Oh, it's on the tip of my.
Panspermia.
Panspermia. It's just some made-up. Who built the pyramids?
Yeah, it's an ad hoc rescue. Oh, well, uh, well, then there were true, true Christians around. Name one. Well, they were there.
They were there. You just couldn't see them. They're invisible.
It's invisible church, right?
The invisible church.
Exactly.
That's what it means to be invisible. You can never see them.
All right.
It's a non-falsifiable theory in ad hoc.
Right. Exactly. It's an ad hoc rescue. But, by the way, you can do ad hoc, uh, fallacies. Now, they're not fallacies because they're not.
They're not formal fallacies, so you can do them.
Um, that's a joke, by the way. Uh, Deuterocanon. Uh, we already did that one. Uh, the, well, the Deuterocanon has errors in it, so it's not the word of God. Well, really, um, that's, uh, based on an assumption that it's not part of the canon. Uh, and most of the time, what people point to in the Deuterocanon are things that are not errors. They're just things that don't make sense with Protestant presuppositions, like prayers for the dead. Right? They'll say, well, that's a pagan doctrine, really, right? Or they'll point, what is it, to Judith that mentions the name of the king that's wrong. That's not the name of a king, like a surname. The name that's mentioned is a title, and Jews would typically talk about the enemies of God's people under, like, they'll call Amalek, right? So Amalek was a guy a long time ago who is an enemy of God's people, but Jews would have the tendency to refer to any enemy later on, even centuries later, as, "Oh, he's Amalek." Right? Well, they do the same thing with the pagan king that's mentioned in Judith, and Protestants say, "Oh, this is, they got the date wrong." This is, so they do this higher critical method, right, to try to undermine the Deuterocanon, and then they'll turn around and say, "Don't do the higher critical method on the other canon, their other books that I accept."
So.
Remember, Kai, this is exactly what Muslims do. I mean, if you think about how many commonalities that Protestants have with Muslims, they make their Bible into a Quran.
They reject iconography, they're iconoclasts. They use these false dialectics that you have to think in either-or. You're either saved by this, or you're either saved, or you're not saved. You're either this, or it's either works or not works. It's either traditions or not traditions. Um, and they tend to think that words can only have one meaning and be unable and lack nuance. So they're basically Muslims who claim to believe in the truth.
It's not accidental that there's a similarity between, uh, the approaches of both. Yes. Um, and and the predestination tendencies with Calvinists especially. Um, all right. So next one is the, uh, right of private judgment. Who are you to tell me I don't have the right to make my own private judgments on scripture?
So what's the one that they always, um, well, again, it just begs the question. They'll say it's the Holy Spirit leading. We all say that, but, um, we want to justify the means of how it.
Where is anyone given this right to? Uh, in fact, Peter says that no scripture is given by private interpretation.
Interpretation. Exactly. Good.
And on what basis do you think that you have this right? Where do you get this from? This is actually.
Martin Luther.
Exactly. It's an Enlightenment Reformation assumption that I have an individual right of conscience. Right. As if my conscience can trump anything else.
Yeah. And by the. Go ahead, Kai. Sorry.
No, I was just going to say, really quickly, Matt Slick actually goes the extra mile and he says that his pedigree comes from Christ himself, from his experience. Christ gives him this authority.
That he can execute the way he does.
We see this in philosophy.
David Koresh said the same thing.
We see this in philosophy. You know, when you set out a, a perfectly sound argument to someone, it's logically sound. The premises, or the conclusion always follows from the premises, and then they just say, "Well, I just don't agree with that. I'm not convinced by this." It's like, well, okay, you may not be convinced by the argument, but you haven't provided me a refutation for it.
Yeah. Second Peter 1:20-21 reads, "Knowing first that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation."
Yes. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but by holy men who spoke of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. So that actually, ironically, is not a text that Protestants will use this text, right, to talk about inherency. And ironically, they don't, they don't realize that the very text they're using to prove the inherency of the scripture, which is fine with me. I do, I do think that this text teaches the inherency of the scripture, but it also says that you don't have the right to privately interpret it.
Yeah. And they get this confused. So, um, one objection is, but you Orthodox, you have to rely on your own, you know, individual conscience and mind and epistemological framework to decide the Orthodox Church is true. But that's not the doctrine of the right of private judgment.
Exactly. The, the, the doctrine of the right of private judgment is that any Christian individual is basically ultimately obligated to adhere to some belief only if and only if they judge according to their conscience that that belief is scriptural.
Exactly. We would say that. And what that rejects is that you could have, because some Protestants will have an authoritative body, but what they reject is that the authoritative body within the church, um, is ultimately normative. That their decision on what this scripture means or this doctrine will override the individual's conscience on whether that's scriptural or not. Every Protestant rejects that. So when we speak about that, um, the right of private judgment, let's be clear what that is. Of course, we all rely on our individual subjective. Nobody's saying that. We're being very specific at what the doctrine of the right of private judgment is and what the episcopal, um, and ecclesiology, how it plays a normative role. How that's.
Let's think about the book of Acts and when there's a dispute in the early church. The first big church-wide dispute that comes about is the reception of Gentile converts and the Mosaic Law. We get a council in Acts 15 that meets under the presiding of St. James, Peter, and others, and they dispute, they debate, they, uh, argue, and they come to a decision, a conciliar decision. Hence, we see obviously clearly that conciliarism is the model, the synod, right? And then they send that letter out to the churches of God to, you know, here's what we have come to by, uh, God's grace and by the Holy Spirit. And when Jesus sends the Spirit in Acts 2 at Pentecost, it is to empower the church to be able to do this. Now, think how ludicrous it is after the death of the apostles. Oh, now you no longer have the ability to settle and have these synods. You no longer have that. That's gone. Better. Good luck. You know, do it the best you can. Hope you can figure all this stuff out. No, it doesn't leave, right? The gates of hell cannot prevail. Jesus said, "The Spirit will lead you and guide you in all truth. I will be with you until the end of the age." All of those things go together. And so the church does not lose the ability to have synodal government and to have synods that can settle issues. And by the way, there are synods prior to Nicaea, right? There's, there's synodal, uh, gatherings happening.
Nicaea is just the ecumenical, empire-wide synod, right? And the church to this day continues that synodal model. And it's just ludicrous to think that Jesus would not provide for the church that he's setting up in history in time and space the means and modes by which, uh, problems can be settled and decided. And what is the means and the mode for all these centuries? Did they just ask the Petrine See? By the way, the Petrine See is Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, right? Even Gregory the Great mentions the Petrine See being those three Sees. Does everybody just constantly write letters to, uh, to Rome? No. They have synods, you see. And so synodal collegiality is the means that Christ laid down for his church. And that's what the church does for the next millennium, between East and West, by the way. So this right of private judgment is really ludicrous. No man takes this unto himself. Scripture has that principle all throughout. Does that mean that you can't make individual decisions? No. I mean, when the Ethiopian eunuch is asking for help, he's making the individual decision to ask for help in understanding the scriptures.
Great point. Great point.
But he's asking for help. Okay, the next one. Um, uh, the scriptures possess a special feature of perspicuity. The scriptures are clear. Um, we can go to them for understanding the basic doctrines. There may be difficult things in the Bible. Yeah, Peter says Paul's writings are difficult, but the scriptures just possess this quality of perspicuity. The Protestants say, how would you reply to that?
I would go straight to, um, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have life." Okay. So we, as Orthodox, affirm that it is the real blood and body of Christ. Okay. And he says it in no uncertain terms.
Well, no, it's clear that's symbolic. It's clear that that's symbolic, and you guys are all wrong. It's all clear.
Well, he emphasizes "verily, verily, I say." And he says, "unless you chew."
He's emphasizing the symbolism. Greedy.
Yeah. Right. But that's the thing is you, as a quote-unquote Protestant, you come to a symbolic understanding. We have a symbolic and literal understanding of it. So obviously, it's not clear. Obviously, there's interpretation there.
Matt Slick said, "Jesus wept." Well, that's obvious.
Exactly.
But that's just that's the same thing.
There's ambiguity over clear. That's the funny part of this. Right.
Father Deacon. How was your.
It's the same thing that people do with the, when they just, um, ad hoc and and say, well, it's self-evident.
Mhm.
Um, you just look, well, if it's so self-evident, why is everybody arguing over whether that's a self-evident principle? They're all wrong.
Yeah, they're all. It's it's clearly self-evident to me, and it should be to you as well, right? So, it comes back again.
To the sola that I become.
The ultimate and absolute principle of determining any epistemic standards. Um, and that's clear, and um, it should be clear to you, and if it's not, um, then you're wrong. So I would also say that, yes, again, if it was so clear, um, why do you have so many various.
Well, and this is just ignorance of church history too. I mean, uh, even if you're a Protestant and you learn about church history, I mean, there's centuries and centuries and thousands and thousands of pages of debates, right?
Yes, exactly.
So.
The history just contradicts that.
Right.
And so they'll just say, "Well, everybody else is wrong." And again, it comes back to.
So, you're the special guy. They got it all right. And all these amazing figures, right, that are all in consensus, right? So much more learned than you. So much, and you have this consistent 2,000 years, the council and fathers.
Um, they're all wrong, but you got the internet, and you're better than them. That's.
That would be my argument.
Yep. Yep. And most, most Protestants will be like, "Yep."
Fair enough.
"Too bad, baby." Yep. Um, so, uh, those are my kind of top 10 that I always.