@maklelan states that he is going to argue that this statement is wrong on three grounds. First, he is going to argue that the Bible never refers to the Bible because the canon wasn’t closed. He is going to base part of this argument on New Testament references to non-canonical books. He also asserts that using the term Bible is invalid because he says the canon of scripture was not referred to as “The Bible” until the 5th Century at the very earliest. Secondly, he is going to assert that there is no part of the Bible that refers to any other part of the Bible as “inspired”. Thirdly, he is going to assert that there is no part of the Bible that refers to any other part as the “word of God”. Let’s listen to his refutation of the question and let’s address each of these points. NOTE: at one point in the video, I used the word Patristics instead of referring to the early Church fathers. Obviously, I misspoke. Patristics is the study of the early Church/fathers. I caught it in editing, but couldn’t remove it without losing momentum in the video. McClellan’s video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owyFJkKrPyg
CONTACT INFORMATION:
DONATE: https://forthemaster.org/give or https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jonathanburris
WEBSITE: https://jonathanburris.com
PODCAST: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theoveropinionatedpastor
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/dr.jonathan.burris
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/thepastorburris
EMAIL: drburris@icloud.com
No responses yet