Many times in apologetics, we can get lost in the weeds of philosophy or reasoning. It’s important in these moments to remember that a person can reason many things that we would never agree with. Therefore we should not be swayed by reasoning, but hold firm to what we KNOW.
We KNOW that the only way to have the highest level of certainty that a teaching is truly apostolic is to read what the apostles wrote. It’s really that simple.
Suan has decided to re-open the canon debate and ask protestants pre-canon debate questions. Then, Suan argues from a post canon debate position. He even says, "... it's not the reasons behind, let's say, the Bishop's reasonings that ultimately makes it infallible or settled..." Ok, but the canon debate is not about the mechanism of infallibility. It's about the epistemic certainty of what is canonical BEFORE infallibility is invoked. And the Bishops reasons are necessary in giving us that certainty, even if they are not relevant to the mechanism of infallibility.
Suan is trying to argue that the canon cannot be known without infallibility. But my objection is that the canon was known and objectively decided without infallibility. Infallibility is only relevant AFTER the canon debates are ended; not before, nor during the canon debates. As Suan says, "once you see the rubber stamp go down, once you see the gavel go down, that's what makes it ultimately decided." No, the vote is what makes it ultimately decided. The dropping of the gavel is a pronouncement that the matter has been settled (past tense by vote) and the debate has ended (present tense by gavel drop). What he doesn't seem to understand is that by arguing that the Protestants' methodology IS bogus, he's also saying that his own church's methodology for determining the canon WAS bogus, because it's the same methodology, at least for the New Testament.
Remember, we are justified THROUGH faith alone, not BY faith alone. Our justification is by God’s grace. He applies His grace to us THROUGH the mechanism of faith in Christ. Faith is the empty, open hand which receives God’s graces. I bring this up because in the apologetics realm, Protestants seem to have become lazy in understanding our own doctrines. There are so many debates between Protestants and Catholics with the prompt, “Are we justified by faith alone?” The answer is no. If the question is what are we justified BY? The answer is Grace alone. This slight change is enough to put Protestants in an awkward position of defending a prompt that the reformers did not teach. And too many times the result is exactly what you would think. Protestants, many times, are all over the place and it comes across as grasping at straws. Keep reading the reformers! They had it right!
Imagine you’re on a jury to determine if the defendant is guilty of murder. You’ve gone through the trial and while deliberating, you go over the evidence that exonerates the defendant. Such things like the DNA found at the crime scene do not match the defendant, or the defendant has never owned the weapon used in the crime, etc. Then another juror stands up and disagrees with you. They argue that the state has the authority to imprison criminals and the state believes the defendant to be a criminal. They continue that it’s the state that investigates crimes and without the state, we could not know who the criminals are. So we must put our trust in the state to inform us of who the criminals are and assent to the state’s knowledge and authority. Therefore, we must find the defendant guilty because finding the defendant not-guilty is an act of rebellion against the state and we should lose our citizenship status for not siding with the state.
This is what reformation apologetics is like with Roman Catholics.
Imagine being on trial for murder and when your defense attorney demands evidence for your guilt, the prosecution only offers a list of people that believe you are guilty. Should that be considered compelling? It seems to me that Calvin was encouraging the church to sift through all ecclesial teachings and separate the historical legends from the historical facts based on empirical data.
So I have 10 subscribers without ever posting a video. However, I have made many comments on YouTube videos, mainly Protestant vs Roman Catholic videos. Out of curiosity, why did you subscribe to my channel?
The Other Philip
Many times in apologetics, we can get lost in the weeds of philosophy or reasoning. It’s important in these moments to remember that a person can reason many things that we would never agree with. Therefore we should not be swayed by reasoning, but hold firm to what we KNOW.
We KNOW that the only way to have the highest level of certainty that a teaching is truly apostolic is to read what the apostles wrote. It’s really that simple.
2 months ago | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
The Other Philip
Peter: *speaks at the council of Jerusalem.*
Roman Catholics: …and that’s why Pope Francis has universal jurisdiction over the whole church.
2 months ago | [YT] | 1
View 1 reply
The Other Philip
Suan has decided to re-open the canon debate and ask protestants pre-canon debate questions. Then, Suan argues from a post canon debate position. He even says, "... it's not the reasons behind, let's say, the Bishop's reasonings that ultimately makes it infallible or settled..." Ok, but the canon debate is not about the mechanism of infallibility. It's about the epistemic certainty of what is canonical BEFORE infallibility is invoked. And the Bishops reasons are necessary in giving us that certainty, even if they are not relevant to the mechanism of infallibility.
Suan is trying to argue that the canon cannot be known without infallibility. But my objection is that the canon was known and objectively decided without infallibility. Infallibility is only relevant AFTER the canon debates are ended; not before, nor during the canon debates. As Suan says, "once you see the rubber stamp go down, once you see the gavel go down, that's what makes it ultimately decided." No, the vote is what makes it ultimately decided. The dropping of the gavel is a pronouncement that the matter has been settled (past tense by vote) and the debate has ended (present tense by gavel drop). What he doesn't seem to understand is that by arguing that the Protestants' methodology IS bogus, he's also saying that his own church's methodology for determining the canon WAS bogus, because it's the same methodology, at least for the New Testament.
youtube.com/clip/UgkxXrq0CgQvbpixcO50JijUUZ4Vyn7tN…
2 months ago | [YT] | 2
View 0 replies
The Other Philip
Remember, we are justified THROUGH faith alone, not BY faith alone. Our justification is by God’s grace. He applies His grace to us THROUGH the mechanism of faith in Christ. Faith is the empty, open hand which receives God’s graces. I bring this up because in the apologetics realm, Protestants seem to have become lazy in understanding our own doctrines. There are so many debates between Protestants and Catholics with the prompt, “Are we justified by faith alone?” The answer is no. If the question is what are we justified BY? The answer is Grace alone. This slight change is enough to put Protestants in an awkward position of defending a prompt that the reformers did not teach. And too many times the result is exactly what you would think. Protestants, many times, are all over the place and it comes across as grasping at straws. Keep reading the reformers! They had it right!
5 months ago | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
The Other Philip
Imagine you’re on a jury to determine if the defendant is guilty of murder. You’ve gone through the trial and while deliberating, you go over the evidence that exonerates the defendant. Such things like the DNA found at the crime scene do not match the defendant, or the defendant has never owned the weapon used in the crime, etc. Then another juror stands up and disagrees with you. They argue that the state has the authority to imprison criminals and the state believes the defendant to be a criminal. They continue that it’s the state that investigates crimes and without the state, we could not know who the criminals are. So we must put our trust in the state to inform us of who the criminals are and assent to the state’s knowledge and authority. Therefore, we must find the defendant guilty because finding the defendant not-guilty is an act of rebellion against the state and we should lose our citizenship status for not siding with the state.
This is what reformation apologetics is like with Roman Catholics.
6 months ago | [YT] | 2
View 0 replies
The Other Philip
Imagine being on trial for murder and when your defense attorney demands evidence for your guilt, the prosecution only offers a list of people that believe you are guilty. Should that be considered compelling? It seems to me that Calvin was encouraging the church to sift through all ecclesial teachings and separate the historical legends from the historical facts based on empirical data.
7 months ago | [YT] | 1
View 0 replies
The Other Philip
So I have 10 subscribers without ever posting a video. However, I have made many comments on YouTube videos, mainly Protestant vs Roman Catholic videos. Out of curiosity, why did you subscribe to my channel?
9 months ago | [YT] | 2
View 5 replies