The Protestant Philosopher @ProtPhilosopher

That's a fair question. I should clarify that salvific purpose isn't the only purpose of Scripture. It's rather an ultimate purpose that many other purposes feed into. You asked for "proof" of this purpose in Scripture, but I don't frame it as deductive in that sense. It's abductive and supported via convergence of key considerations. Scripture testifies to this purpose, as Jesus himself unpacks "all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27) as testifying to his salvific mission. There's more verses as well. And, Dei Verbum and Aquinas also affirm this. Even setting aside such support, we can ask what if there is no such purpose in Scripture, that would be impossible for a perfectly wise God, who came to save us but for some reason wouldn't intend to communicate that through the Scripture he inspired, which seems unwise. Or, if the purpose is not salvific, that would be undermined by the canon's own statement and content that is redemption shaped. And if you say it's salvific within the ecclesial economy, then that's conceding the purpose claim itself. So, I'd just ask what's your account of the key purpose of Scripture?

I'm not able to do an extended back and forth. But the short answer to a few of your worries is that the purpose of Scripture is communicating God's salvific purpose for fallen humanity. This is shared ground. It's possible God intended this to be realized through a coordinate authority in the Magisterium or conciliar governance, but when you look at what's required for an authority to possess properties that equip the authority to function as a norm on par with Scripture beyond the ministerial sense, Tradition and Magisterium simply don't possess the required properties. Scripture does. This is what makes it the sole ultimate infallible norm of faith and practice. That's a very rough sketch. If you want a step-by-step presentation of just the argument, see: open.substack.com/pub/protestant…

Are you just responding to the title? I never claimed Trent damns Jerome. I agree that anathemas bind the living. When you say "later was defined" that is the key. A doctor of the church held the condemned position in good standing until a council defined things. And you say "material, not formal" only because the question was open until then. The "curse" is a verdict on Jerome's position, not on his soul. It was attached to close a question a saint could hold the day before. That's defining a deposit. It's not preserving one in the relevant sense.

Trent's curse lands on Jerome. Three Catholic apologists defended the anathema and called my Trent note "low hanging fruit," but the books Trent cursed you for ranking lower are the ones Jerome called apocrypha: protestantreview.substack.com/p/the-apocryph… And most of what they mocked wasn't mine. It was Jedin's, the source they praised. Reply's up.

Dear friends. I will be doing my first debate tonight at 8 PM EST on Capturing Catholicism on whether Scripture self-authenticates itself as inspired, which is the classical Protestant position. youtube.com/live/2qcmysGJu…

Catholics say their canon was just received, not added to. But the oldest Christian canon list, Melito (170 AD), tracks the Hebrew canon. No Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Sirach appear in his list. The longer list appears only in the late 4th century. By their own rule, the accretion runs the other way.

I've watched it. They had a couple of good moments, but the majority of their critique is problematic and consists of a bunch of ad hominims questioning my degree and calling it low hanging fruit. For self-professed experts on the canon, I find their analysis wanting and will be offering a reply.

One reason Christianity resonates: it speaks to both head and heart. It tells a meaningful story about the world around us, but also the longings deep within us. It explains both the universe and the human experience within it.

Please join @sincead33 and I as we have a dialogue together on Saturday concerning the Papal Circle argument, and how we know that Scripture is divinely authoritative! I’m guessing Cardinal Franzelin in this picture is staring in disapproval at me, but it’s hard to tell for sure.

@EcciusMaximus @JohnMB69 @gmichuta @walbrecht1854 @DavidSzara79671 Thanks for sharing this and for them reviewing my article. I'll take a look at their critique.

@EcciusMaximus Thanks for your kind words. Here's an article that goes into more detail regarding Trent and the canon: protestantreview.substack.com/p/what-jedin-s…

Catholic Maximus offers us a "perfect example" of reading "malicious" motivated reasoning into a case where a more charitable and accurate explanation is available. As I clarified: Yes, I have since corrected my statement in light of Jedin's footnote, but that correction shouldn't read "malicious intent" into Metzger's typo and mistake. That's an overreach to make a polemical point yourself. The details of the vote in February are themselves contested by the Catholic source. I simply sided with Jedin, as he's typically regarded as the definitive source. But, siding with him is just siding with him siding with one of three interpretations of what the February vote was about. He says it was attaching an anathema. There were two other live readings of what actually happened. Moreover, the April vote was promulgated to affirm what was already decided in February. The April vote wasn't a fresh deliberative vote. And the deliberative vote in February was genuinely contested, as 40% dissented. So, by way of a divided body (i.e., not even close to a consensus), it erased with an "anathema" a long-standing Catholic tradition of reading two levels of canonical texts. It silenced Jerome's long-standing division of the canon for doctrine and the canon for edification-only (the deuterocanonical). And the opposition were great scholars, following in Jerome's line. So, unless you can read Metzger's mind as wanting to make a malicious polemical point (and he was no polemicist), then his mistake is understandable as the data on the vote is messy and contested. The misreading of the ambiguity concerning "nay" votes as "abstentions" I have corrected, but that still doesn't do much regarding the polemical point, namely that a whole tradition of reading the deutros as of lesser canonical status was silenced by a mere simple majority (60-40). That it was a contested vote with substantial dissent that fell well-short of consensus means that's it's still a problem for the tidy Catholic claim that the canon was definitively declared at Trent. More accurately, the dissent was voted out of existence by a simple majority. The deutros officially became canonical by a contested vote.

CATHOLIC MAXIMUS @EcciusMaximus

a week ago

This is a perfect example of 𝖂𝖍𝖎𝖙𝖊𝕭𝖊𝖆𝖗𝖉 appealing to tertiary sources, in this example to @ProtPhilosopher who himself is going by secondary sources Metzgers book The Canon of the NT. This book swaps two key details for no other reason than to push the narrative that

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

6 5 31 5K 6

@ProtPhilosopher You have integrity, I have a lot of respect for you. Honestly you’re one of my favorite Protestants accts here on X. You actually make me think. 🙏🏻

Yes, I have since corrected my statement in light of Jedin's footnote, but that correction shouldn't read "malicious intent" into Metzger's typo and mistake. That's an overreach to make a polemical point yourself. The details of the vote in February are themselves contested by the Catholic source. I simply sided with Jedin, as he's typically regarded as the definitive source. But, siding with him is just siding with him siding with one of three interpretations of what the February vote was about. He says it was attaching an anathema. There were two other live readings of what actually happened. Moreover, the April vote was promulgated to affirm what was already decided in February. The April vote wasn't a fresh deliberative vote. And the deliberative vote in February was genuinely contested, as 40% dissented. So, by way of a divided body (i.e., not even close to a consensus), it erased with an "anathema" a long-standing Catholic tradition of reading two levels of canonical texts. It silenced Jerome's long-standing division of the canon for doctrine and the canon for edification-only (the deuterocanonical). And the opposition were great scholars, following in Jerome's line. So, unless you can read Metzger's mind as wanting to make a malicious polemical point (and he was no polemicist), then his mistake is understandable as the data on the vote is messy and contested. The misreading of the ambiguity concerning "nay" votes as "abstentions" I have corrected, but that still doesn't do much regarding the polemical point, namely that a whole tradition of reading the deutros as of lesser canonical status was silenced by a mere simple majority (60-40). That it was a contested vote with substantial dissent that fell well-short of consensus means that's it's still a problem for the tidy Catholic claim that the canon was definitively declared at Trent. More accurately, the dissent was voted out of existence by a simple majority.

I just watched a thoughtful conversation between Dr. Gavin Ortlund and Fr. Gregory Pine on three important topics. First, they discuss sins of speech in the internet age, with special attention to the lack of Christian civility online. This portion draws from Fr. Pine’s recent book, Training the Tongue: Growing Beyond Sins of Speech, and begins around the mark. Second, they consider areas of Protestant and Catholic agreement, especially classical theism and our shared confession of and love for the triune God. This portion begins around . Third, they turn to Protestant and Catholic disagreement, which was the most interesting part of the discussion for me. Beginning around the mark, Gavin and Fr. Pine have a frank and respectful exchange about doctrinal history, organic development, and the difference between legitimate development and later accretions. In my opinion, this is the kind of tone and mutual respect Protestants and Catholics should strive for in serious theological dialogue. We can speak clearly about real disagreements without caricature, hostility, or contempt. I will let the video speak for itself, but I recommend listening. youtube.com/watch?v=PmsE-f…

The article version of my second and final reply to Joe is now live! open.substack.com/pub/protestant…