I know someone who followed your advice at the end. He ended up dropping 2nd and 3rd John and I believe one of both of the Epistles of Peter from his own personal "Cannon" as well as like chunks of Daniel I think? He treated the cannon like any other "Academic Topic" and the "Best" "Impartial" Scholarship said 2nd and 3rd John and 1st and 2nd Peter were "Late" so he doesn't consider them to be scripture proper. This is a problem that is unique to the Protestant position: as a protestant you need to be sure about each book, each possible configuration of the cannon. A Catholic or Orthodox person just needs to be sure they picked the correct church or Communion/ Community to be part of. For the Protestant who believes in Sola Scriptura, the scriptures are functionally their authority and the "community of the church" is some sort of abstract invisible thing. It adds many more variables It isn't just about deciding if the bible is your authority its which bible configuration out of any number of possible ones because there is no "Protestant Church" community to be part of with any actual authority. You can always just DYI your own with a 62 book cannon i guess if you feel like it.
@cerebralgeneratedimagery5785Ай бұрын
The thing about the Bible Canon arguments is that, the NT isn't even being debated. The old testament is what's up for debate and Jesus DOES give us a condensed list of what we need. Luke 24:44-46
@knightrider585Ай бұрын
+0:42 "God did not reveal to us which books are supposed to be in the Bible" I thought you had misspoken here, but then I listened further and realised I just disagree with you. The point about Protestants and their canon list is not to say they can't claim their 66 books are the correct canon, it is that they say this on the basis of Protestant tradition, not scripture. So ultimate authority for Protestants is tradition, not scripture. You use the term "epistemic certainty" in order to make the bar for belief too high. But "epistemic certainty" is not required because if it was required no system of beliefs could meet it.
@theepitomeministryАй бұрын
@knightrider585 The reason I use the standard of epistemic certainty is because oftentimes, Catholics say that we can't possibly know what is in the Canon as Protestants, and usually what they mean by that is, "We are certain about what books are in the Canon, and you aren't." I'm simply showing that everyone has fallible knowledge of the Canon. If you're wrong that Catholicism is true, you don't actually have the justification you think you have for the Canon. That's all this argument seeks to show. I would recommend checking out Martin Chemnitz' work, Examinination of the Council of Trent. He does a great job drawing out 8 different kinds of traditions. Protestants only reject one of them, which are traditions that can not be exegeted or inferred from Scripture. The Canon is a tradition we accept, because there is nothing about revelation itself that goes beyond or contradicts Scripture, and we find the qualifications for canonicity within the confines of Scripture itself.
@knightrider585Ай бұрын
@@theepitomeministry I don't think Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox knowledge of the canon is fallible. The canon of the Bible is just the books those churches deem fit to be read in their church services. Those churches made that decision and the decision was correct, guided by the Holy Spirit, and the books in their canons are the books they read in their churches. What is the other standard by which you would determine they are wrong about the books they read in church?
@theepitomeministryАй бұрын
@knightrider585 So you're positing that Catholics have epistemic certainty about the Canon? According to my argument, you would have to be epistemically CERTAIN that Catholicism is true before you can say that. Which premise are you rejecting?
@knightrider585Ай бұрын
@@theepitomeministry No, I am saying that for non-sola-scriptura churches their canons are just the books their bishops, popes, councils, etc choose to be allowed to be read in church. So their canon is necessarily correct because it can be checked by observing what books are read in their churches.
@theepitomeministryАй бұрын
@knightrider585 Oh wow. So your theory of inspiration is that humans can just choose what is inspired? You can believe that if you want to, but I believe that God inspired books and we merely recognize them to be so. Canonicity is not something done to a book, but something a book intrinsically has given its very nature.
@jackjustice2558Ай бұрын
Good stuff!!!
@theepitomeministryАй бұрын
@@jackjustice2558 Thank you for watching and commenting!
@jackjustice2558Ай бұрын
@@theepitomeministry very insightful keep it up, orthodox and Catholics love to monopolize Christianity this opens up more question in their "perfect doctrine"...
@franciscoascensao7010Ай бұрын
This is a very interacting video! I'm a catholic, but I've also thought about this! I'll let you know if I come up with something! Thank for this Good video and congrats
@theepitomeministryАй бұрын
@@franciscoascensao7010 Thank you for watching and for the kind words! God bless you.
@jpanduezadlfАй бұрын
"What if everyone's list was fallible? Would Catholic Christians be inclined to believe that they shouldn't believe their Bible?" Short answer: Absolutely, yes. Long answer: If our list of books is fallible, then the Holy Spirit is not helping the Church and revealing all things; the gates of Hades have prevailed against the Church (as we have books that shouldn't be in the Bible and/or don't have books that should be); the Church is not the pillar and foundation of Truth. Therefore, Jesus Christ is not God (He couldn't keep His promises), the Bible is a false book, and everything in it is no more than lies. If the One True Church founded by Christ doesn't have the Holy Spirit with it to infallibly declare the canon, then Jesus is not God.
@TheRebelAndTheRedeemedАй бұрын
We have a Bible that contains all the necessary things to save your soul. It is full, complete, finished...
@mateofonseca7558Ай бұрын
According to who?
@TheRebelAndTheRedeemedАй бұрын
@@mateofonseca7558 according to whom does 2 + 2 = 4? math textbooks codify the universe the bible codifies morality in the same way it doesnt set morality, but observe it
@Civil_ManiacАй бұрын
Somewhat joking: I’m pretty sure Song of Songs/song of Solomon was added just to round the number to 66 without adding too many pages
@carlosa4852Ай бұрын
Except that it's part of the Hebrew Bible, the tanakh
@jpanduezadlfАй бұрын
You got my attention because you perfectly described the protestant dilemma. But then you went on to make up a pretty stupid excuse to say that Catholics don't know their canon is true or not. I can't tell you if Christ is really God, according to you, because we don't have that Truth since we're born, we're born outside of this knowledge. The fact is that it doesn't matter. The protestant dilemma doesn't apply to the Church, because the Church is internally consistent. The Church claims to have authority to infallibly declare the canon, therefore, we can trust the canon we have. Protestantism, however, doesn't have the same privilege. It claims that only Scriptures have infallibility, but their Scriptures were decided by the Catholic Church, Luther, and the British Printer. This is why this is a protestant dilemma and not a Christian dilemma. Because the Catholic Church and the Orthodox don't claim to have only Scriptures as their infallible rule of faith. You could say that neither the Catholic Church, nor the Orthodox church, nor protestants have the true Scriptures, because Jesus is not God, but you can't claim protestantism is true, because it is self-defeating... Although you're not born knowing Allâh is a false god, you can easily come to that conclusion when you see that in the Qur'an the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are confirmed and that it contradicts those Scriptures as if Allâh doesn't know what they say. Likewise, protestantism is self-defeating. You can reject it without making any claims about Jesus or Christianism. Protestantism needs a Bible to infallibly declare things, but the Bible is a compilation of books declared by someone outside of the Bible (the CC, Luther or the British Printer whichever Bible you follow). This is a self-defeating argument. You can't have Scriptures as the only infallible rule of faith if Scriptures is not a defined term.
@tookie36Ай бұрын
Right? To me it seemed like oh so the Catholics have the best shot and the Protestants are the least likely scenario
@mateofonseca7558Ай бұрын
1) there are no such thing as properly basic beliefs as you’ve defined them. even being itself must be infered from observations, “I think therefore I am” is an argument and the fact that it must be argued proves that the beliefs which you consider basic are not basic at all. 2) if there are no beliefs which are as you described properly basic, your standard of epistemic uncertainty is completely untenable 3) There are no properly basic beliefs therefore your standard of epistemic certainty is untenable.
@tookie36Ай бұрын
Kurt Gödel wins again 🏆
@theepitomeministryАй бұрын
@mateofonseca7558 Your comment misunderstands classic foundationalism. Propositions don't have to be grounded in other propositions. Rather, experiential knowledge grounds the propositions with we have infallible justification for.
@tookie36Ай бұрын
@ no one uses classical foundationslism anymore. But also my statement still stands when the church claims it’s lost is infallible it’s not making a philosophical argument. It’s claiming there is a god and through the Holy Spirit it gave us this list. This is a category error
@theepitomeministryАй бұрын
@tookie36 First, Timothy McGrew has recently defended classical foundationalism, giving a new version that avoids all classic arguments against it. Until I see any reason to doubt his version, it's on the table. Second, it's not a category error. I understand the Catholic claim, and that's why I mention twice in the video that if we assume Catholicism is true or if we trust the Catholic system, then we can say we have an infallible Canon. But we cannot just assume Catholicism or trust it whenever we are trying to find truth. We have to independently verify if it is true, which can only be done fallibly, making our knowledge of any claims within the Catholic system also fallible.
@tookie36Ай бұрын
@when the Catholics define infallible it is assuming these beliefs. You then suggest we start for a different set of beliefs and redefine infallibility. You’re not talking about the same thing
@mrjustadude1Ай бұрын
I get what you are saying, but Orthodoxy isn't primarily a "system of beliefs" it's primarily a community. A community we believe goes back to the Apostles, a community that holds beliefs and practices and can define that holding contrary or heterodox beliefs or practices can exclude you from our communion, or to be part of our community. A baby who doesn't hold any rational beliefs is still as much a Christian as a fully functioning adult the same as a mentally disabled adult who has limited reason. A baptized baby who dies is fully a Christian in our system because they were fully a member of our community. Protestantism is a system of beliefs because there is no unified body or agreement. Its made of of various communites or individuals but is not a community in and of itself.
@davethesid8960Ай бұрын
What? Why assume? The Bible isn't perspicuous, so by logic an infallible interpreter is needed. The sheer fact that there is a multitude of denominations all with different interpretations is enough proof. Christ knew this too, so He established the Catholic Church precisely for that (Mt 16:18, 28:18, John 20:23, 21:15-17, Acts 15, 1 Tim 3:15, Luke 10:16 etc.). You don't have to be born epistemically into the truth when you can reason your way into it. That's how we can arrive at Catholicism. Also, historicity is necessary but not a sufficient criterion to be included in the biblical canon. Long story short, you were talking like an atheist here.
@theepitomeministryАй бұрын
@davethesid8960 "The Bible isn't perspicuous... a multitude of denominations, all with different interpretations, is enough proof..." ^ That's a non-sequitir. Humans' inability to agree on something is irrelevant to whether or not something is clear. People disagree about literally everything, even obvious things. "By logic, an infallible interpreter is needed..." ^ You're just asserting something that would be pragmatically nice, which is why these ideas developed in history. "Wouldn't it be nice if we could have certainty? Let's ground our epistemology in church statements!!!" was basically the logic from the pope who thought of Papal infallibility. He was having existential dread about his ability to know things, and his solution was to ground his epistemology in the church, which is circular and makes RC unfalsifiable - if the precondition of knowledge is the Church, then the Church must be there and correct! It's arguing like a presuppositionalist. Just assume your paradigm, and you win! There are reasons why we can't "just go along" with this pragmatic consideration - namely that the RCC has dogmatized things as necessary for salvation that Christ and the apostles never even imagined in their wildest dreams, like venerating icons or the Assumption of Mary. You can not dogmatize things that the apostles wouldn't even recognize and say they are necessary for salvation. No man has that authority. Once men start claiming they do, it's time to say they're wrong and go back to what the apostles taught through following Sola Scriptura, because we know those teachings are apostolic.
@davethesid896028 күн бұрын
@theepitomeministry No, it isn't irrelevant at all. Although it only applies in one direction, namely, if people disagree about something, then it's def either not clear or not objective, I acknowledge that it doesn't say anything about the other direction of the implication. What example do you have of an obvious thing that people disagree about? We don't deny that the Bible contains clear teachings but recognize the complexity of Scripture and the need for authoritative interpretation. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter warns that some passages in Paul’s letters are “hard to understand,” and that “ignorant and unstable people distort them.” For instance, central doctrines such as baptism, the Eucharist, justification, and even salvation itself are contested among Protestant groups. This raises the question: if the Bible is clear, why does the Holy Spirit seemingly guide Christians into conflicting understandings? If perspicuity were true, we would expect essential doctrines to be universally agreed upon among those reading the Bible in good faith. Other biblical evidence: Acts 8:30-31, 1 Tim 3:15. Early Church Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus, emphasized the role of apostolic tradition and the Church's authority in interpreting Scripture, as the heretics of their time often used Scripture to justify false teachings (e.g., Against Heresies, Book 3). If you think that the Catholic position is unfalsifiable, then can you think of an alternative infallible source of doctrine that's also a living agent? There cannot be any because Jesus instituted the Church and appointed Peter as pope precisely for that reason. This authority is supported by Scripture, Tradition, and reason, forming a triad that validates each other. Catholic theology embraces a "reasoned faith," consistent with St. Augustine's credo ut intelligam ("I believe so that I may understand") and St. Anselm's fides quaerens intellectum ("faith seeking understanding"). It does not rely on presuppositionalism in the same way some Protestant traditions do. Catholic theology does not hold to sola scriptura (Scripture alone) as the sole rule of faith. The Church teaches that Divine Revelation consists of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Doctrines like the Assumption of Mary or the veneration of icons are seen as developments of doctrine-truths implicit in the Deposit of Faith but clarified over time through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). The Church draws from the writings of the early Church Fathers, ecumenical councils, and the lived experience of the faithful to discern these teachings. For example, the veneration of Mary has roots in the earliest Christian communities (e.g., the Council of Ephesus in 431 affirmed Mary as Theotokos, God-bearer). Catholic theology holds that Christ conferred His authority on the Apostles and their successors (bishops), with Peter given a unique role as the leader of the Church (Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:15-17). This Apostolic authority includes the ability to bind and loose (Matthew 18:18), which encompasses the development of doctrine and the safeguarding of faith as the idiomatic expression suggests. This does not add to revelation but unpacks its meaning in different historical contexts. As St. John Henry Newman explained, doctrines develop like a seed into a tree-not changing the essence of the faith but making explicit what was always implicit.
@koffeeblack5717Ай бұрын
Your argument does not engage with the point that I, as a Catholic, find convincing. This is because the canon problem is actually, when properly understood, an internal critique (granting a system and finding a problem within its own premises), but your video treats the problem as though it were an external critique (whether there are credible reasons to believe the system from the outside). I think I can isolate the problem by distinguishing epistemic fallibility of the act of faith (which directs itself to the whole system) from the metaphysical power of infallible discernment (which is a feature of a system proposed). Yes, all Christians make an act of faith that is epistemically fallible in relation to objective criteria of certainty (from outside the system). But the content/object of that act of faith for Catholics and Orthodox is in a metaphysical power of infallibility. It is a historical fact that faith traditions determine canons. But a protestant makes an act of faith in a tradition that, in the very meaning of that act of faith, does not have the power of infallible discernment. Analogy: you have to trust the word of the person you hire to fix your car- one candidate says he might be able to fix your car and the other says he can do it for sure. Yes, the initial act of trust is, from the outside, epistemically fallible. But the content or object of that trust is in a person who has the power to do the job. A catholic and orthodox make an act of faith, and the content or object of that act of faith is a tradition with infallible power of discernment. If we thus distinguish the subjective act from the objective metaphysical meaning of its content, the canon problem does not go away. To try once more to clarify what I know to be a subtle point, here is a formal breakdown: the act of faith itself is the "I trust in___". Objectively, this act is always epistemically fallible from the outside. The object of that act has to be specified, however. The object of the protestant act of faith is *(1) a tradition that does not have the power to discern a canon infallibly (2) does discern a canon infallibly*. Part 1 of the content of faith for the protestant is historical fact: traditions, whether loose protestant traditions or tight apostolic traditions, determine canon. Part 2 is what protestants claim that part 1 accomplished despite, in their own view (this is fundamentally an internal metaphysical critique so your epistemic argument does not apply), lacking a power of infallible discernment. This is a unique problem for protestants because they believe the charism of infallibility ended at the end of the apostolic age (the close of revelation at the death of the last apostle). So protestants must actually hold the following view in order to be explicit and consistent: God withdrew infallibility at the death of the last apostle but restored it briefly in the sixteenth century then took it away again. But this leads to further problems. How, from inside a protestant perspective (again, this is an internal critique and so presupposes the protestant view), do they know that God restored infallible discernment in the sixteenth century? If a protestant is only making an act of faith in the Bible, the Bible clearly does not say this. So they must also make an act of faith in the tradition, but the tradition, again, lacks this charism by the protestant's own admission.
@jpanduezadlfАй бұрын
I could be wrong that Catholicism is true, Jesus could be no more than a man, even though the evidence points to the contrary. But protestants are definitely wrong, it's not that they *could* be wrong... They are wrong. Their man-made traditions fall apart at the smallest research. If Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith, what are these Scriptures? It's a dilemma that destroys the false ideology of Luther and the consequent followers of Pride, and completely obliterates it.
@theepitomeministryАй бұрын
@@jpanduezadlf Did you watch the video for why Catholicism doesn't avoid the same problem? If it destroys Protestantism, it destroys Catholicism too.
@crimson6172Ай бұрын
huh??? Dude, you are unnecessarily making it more complicated than it needs to be. EO and RC followers are binded by a normative authority from their Church. This binds them to believe that their dogma is guided by the Holy Spirit, such as their traditions, which includes the formation of the biblical canon. They believe that their Church was started by Christ (God) himself so the Church have authority to decide what is dogma. Either you accept or reject this. Simple as. Protestants rejects this so they can believe whatever they want to believe about Christianity. A group of Protestants can make up their own biblical canon tomorrow claiming that they are guided by the Holy Spirit. And a different group of Protestants can come up with a different set of biblical canon and claim that they are also guided by the Holy Spirit. That is all there is to it dude.
@tookie36Ай бұрын
So Catholicism is more likely than Protestantism? Infallible statements are not epistemic claims. You’re confusing categories. Infallible claims are from god. So this already comes with basic beliefs Epistemic claims are from a philosophical position in which you create axioms, rules and such.
@jpanduezadlfАй бұрын
If you say that the Bible is a fallible list of books, then you ought to declare Christianity a false belief. You shouldn't follow a belief that doesn't have the internal consistency to be followed. If I tell you: 1+1=2 and 2+2=4, but (1+1)+(1+1)=17, you following my internally inconsistent belief is your fault and no one else's. You should begin by discarding the religions that make claims that don't have internal consistency. This is true of protestantism and it's not true of Catholicism. If you wish to then say that Jesus is not God (even though there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary), you can do it. But don't join a church which fails at the most basic things.
@theepitomeministryАй бұрын
@@jpanduezadlf To your first statement, I'd just disagree. The truth is that the only beliefs we have infallible justification for are a small subset of properly basic beliefs. The Canon list for the Scriptures just simply doesn't fall on that list, and neither would any system that would support such a belief. No one is epistemically justified in claiming an infallible Canon list.
@carlosa4852Ай бұрын
One thing i almost never hear christians talking about is how the order of the canon is just made up whole cloth by people with an agenda. Like, for example, in the hebrew bible, the last book is second chronicles, and daniel is categorized as Writings and not in Prophets.