Oh, of course. I just meant to communicate that we aren’t dependent on it to make our case; the very NT books to which they appeal suffice to make it.

Yup. But I don’t even think we have to take the OT context into account: the New Testament data is sufficient to come to that conclusion.

I agree that, in a real sense, Christ *did* only die for the elect, namely in the sense that only the elect benefit from the blood of Christ. The more fundamental question is this: Can any presently non-elect person later become elect? If the answer is yes, then there’s at least one sense in which Christ *did* die for the non-elect, namely that the non-elect stand to become part of those who benefit from the blood of Christ. If the answer is no, then the question becomes this: When is an individual elected, and on what condition(s), if any? *That*, I think, is the *real* debate to be had whenever anyone claims that Christ died only for the elect.

Hey @emuse1955, I just put out a video on September 30th in which I engage with your remark that the “crown of life”—a reference to the final lot of the righteous—in James 1:12 is the antithesis of “death” in James 1:15. I believe you were right to press Ryan on that, but, as I argue in the video, there was still more to press. The end of the video also features a debate challenge from @datechris. The debate question would be: “Will the damned rise to everlasting embodied life in hell?” Would you be up for that? I think it would be an excellent debate between two sharp minds. youtu.be/TMlWPHCpltI?si=CQoo…

Our interaction has just prompted me to pay for Premium—I'm tired of being limited to 280 characters. 😆 Let me copy and paste everything I agree with in your last reply: "Both the major and minor premises are flawed... John 10 is the only text that says Jesus was at the feast of dedication. And John only says Jesus was in the temple during the Feast of Dedication, not that he was obeying 1 Maccabees as an authoritative text. Even if Jesus observed the feast, participating in a legitimate historical custom doesn’t imply that the book recording its origin is Scripture... Maccabees records the feast’s institution but it doesn’t follow that celebrating the feast constitutes submission to Maccabees." [I'm only leaving out the last sentence because I'd put it differently (even though you probably mean the same thing as me). I'd phrase it not as canonicity being "smuggled into premise 2" but as canonicity being "concluded based on faulty premises."] Maybe we'll be in full agreement if we get more precise: I agree that John 10 is worth bringing up if the point being made from it is the one you aptly made: "John 10 is the only text that says Jesus was at the feast of dedication. John only says Jesus was in the temple during the Feast of Dedication," not even necessarily that He was celebrating it. That observation at least makes the first premise less certain, which does make it worth bringing up. But when you initially brought John 10:22 up to the guy who said "Jesus literally CELEBRATED Hannukah, which is only in Maccabees," it seems that it was because you understood him to mean that the feast wasn't mentioned anywhere else, whether in the OT or the NT, rather than to mean that it wasn't mentioned anywhere else that could ground Jesus' observance of the feast, which I think was an implied clause in his statement. I think we'd agree that simply saying "The feast is mentioned in John 10:22" doesn't undermine his statement that Hanukkah "is only in Maccabees"—that is, when the meaning of his statement is properly understood as containing an implied clause. I think we'd probably also agree that simply saying "The feast is mentioned in John 10:22" doesn't undermine either premise—they are undermined by different considerations. By the way, keep on producing high-quality content, Myles. And congrats on hitting 10K subs! Well deserved. Now... you gonna bless me with a follow back? 👀

I actually think both premises are false (and the second one is especially hilarious coming from a papist). Nevertheless, the mention of the feast in John doesn’t touch either premise, so I wouldn’t find it worth bringing up. 2/2

Here’s perhaps a clearer way of putting his argument: (1) Jesus’ observance of a feast only instructed in Maccabees demonstrates his submission to Maccabees; (2) if Maccabees weren’t Scripture, he wouldn’t have submitted to it; (C) therefore, Maccabees is Scripture. 1/?

I’m not sure I’m tracking with the flow of your argument here. We agree it’s a leap, but I’m not sure how you figure that John’s mention of the feast foils the leap. I also don’t think the leap assumes anything about why John mentions the feast.

By “only in Maccabees,” I think he meant it isn’t mentioned in any of the 39 *OT* books we recognize as canonical. His point was that Jesus’ observance of it, then, must have been based on Maccabees (obv. not on John), and that Maccabees must therefore be Scripture. Logic leap.

How so? I’ve not looked into how they ground their belief that deceased saints can receive prayers. Sounds odd to me that it would be strictly Heaven-dependent.

Even better: they’re not even conscious to receive any prayers! 😉 Banter aside, I don’t see how your view functions as an argument against prayers to saints. Couldn’t one just say, “Okay, then the saints receive prayers from Hades rather than from Heaven”?

Well, I don’t know—have you considered the exegetical arguments in favour of ECT? Those are pretty darn terrible, too. It’s arguable that the title might belong to one of those instead.

I released a video this past Tuesday critiquing Cameron’s conversion from an annihilationist angle (he used to treat annihilationism as a barrier to conversion). Having just learned you hold to annihilationism, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on it. youtu.be/8sbllNrJLcM?si=QJEq…

🥱 Aren’t you guys tired of constantly repeating the same false talking points?

Sooo… how many of these Protestant videos actually called you the top Protestant debater?

I distinctly remember listening to a stream or video he did with Gavin Ortlund and Javier Perdomo and thinking, “This guy strikes me as out of place; he’s clearly nowhere near as sharp or insightful as Gavin and Javier. Not impressed.” I feel vindicated.

Good stuff, Paul. Keep it up.

What’s blasphemous about it?

I speak French fluently (born and raised in Quebec, Canada). If you ever want to just hop on a call and shoot the breeze, feel free to reach out.

Which Maccabees? And which chapter(s) and verse(s)?