The Protestant Philosopher

3.1K posts

The Protestant Philosopher banner
The Protestant Philosopher

The Protestant Philosopher

@ProtPhilosopher

Building a Philosophical Case for Protestantism | Dr. Christopher Cloos

Katılım Ocak 2022
591 Takip Edilen2.7K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
"But who gave you the Bible?" Most Protestants freeze when they hear this. I wrote a free guide that shows you how to answer the Canon Objection to Sola Scriptura with philosophical precision. Get your free guide now: protestantacademy.com
The Protestant Philosopher tweet media
English
17
8
78
8.6K
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
"Wisdom rejoices in turning the present upside-down world rightside up, when wisdom overturns folly, righteousness ousts wickedness, knowledge overcomes ignorance, humility topples pride, and life swallows up death." (Bruce Waltke, The Book Of Proverbs: Chs. 1-15. New International Commentary on the Old Testament)
The Protestant Philosopher tweet media
English
2
2
9
437
The Protestant Philosopher retweetledi
John “JC” Dirks
John “JC” Dirks@johncdirks·
One Answer to The Canon Conundrum is this: The external marks of Scripture provide objective grounds and motives of credibility, while the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause of the believer’s divine faith in the inspiration and canonicity of Scripture. Turretin sums it up this way: “Hence if the question is why, or on account of what, do I believe the Bible to be divine, I will answer that I do so on account of the Scripture itself which by its marks proves itself to be such. If it is asked whence or from what I believe, I will answer from the Holy Spirit who produces that belief in me. Finally, if I am asked by what means or instrument I believe it, I will answer through the church which God uses in delivering the Scriptures to me.” Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.
English
5
1
5
815
The Protestant Philosopher retweetledi
Erick Ybarra
Erick Ybarra@ErickYbarra3·
I am not an expert in Mariology. But I can tell you this much, the Scripture has no clear attestation to Mary's sinlessness for someone who is looking for such clarity as to tap out the vicious skeptic. Perhaps the strongest text would be the promise of God in Genesis that there would be enmity between the Woman and the Serpent. Obviously, that woman is Woman par excellence, the Virgin Mary. This "enmity" is not simply that one is opposed to the other. Rather, the enmity is one in where one side completely overthrows the other. For Mary and Jesus, it means a total victory over sin and death, and if Mary herself was a sinner, it would depreciate this vision laid out in the Gospel of Genesis. Does that prove anything beyond all shadow of doubt? Not for the intellectually rigorous skeptic. In the early Church Fathers, we have concerning witnesses. Tertullian, Origen, Basil, and John Chrysostom, who all seem to either explicitly say Mary sinned or that she struggled with sin. On the other hand, you have Ambrose who might suggest that Mary is sinless. Augustine speculates that Mary might have been given grace to overcome all actual sins in her life and wished not to include her in the debates about hereditary sin w/ the Pelagians. Nothing explicit that goes as far as the Immaculate Conception, but an interesting reservation by the 4th/5th centuries. All of these men were well aware of the Marian typology of the ark, the 2nd eve, etc, etc. And yet some were not hesitant to say she sinned. That's not a mixture you see in contemporary Catholics and Orthodox. The latter accepts doctrinal development. Or, for the Orthodox, they might reject all development and just say these Church Fathers were in error and that we simply don't have a documentary record of what WAS the oral consensus from the beginning. The early Church also isn't explicit on Mary's ongoing, present-active distribution of all graces for salvation. There is a clear indication that she, by bearing God in the flesh, is the instrument of salvation for all. However, that is much different than a present-active distributor of each and every grace within time for each individual. Ultimately, the evidence for the sinlessness of Mary and the other dogmas is in the Church's authoritative decree that it is so. And because of that, the rigorous skeptic isn't going to become Catholic by looking for early evidence for Catholic Mariology. Almost always, such a skeptic will have to find the rational merits in some other article of Catholic faith, which then immediately builds a tentacle of rational acceptance for the Mariology of the church. For example, once someone is convinced of the historic ecclesiology, then this makes for an avenue whereby one can have rational grounds to accept the immaculate conception, her sinlessness, her assumption into heaven, her heavenly coronation, and her mediation of all graces.
HisHumbleServant3239✝️@HHS3239

@ErickYbarra3 @GeoffKlein3 @timotheeology @counseloftrent I have been heavily investigating the the claim of Mary's sinlesness. I've been repeatedly told that the Bible and early church teaches this, but I'm not seeing that.

English
17
3
89
10K
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
You've offered half of their case as if it's their whole case, and the weaker of the two at that. As I understand it, they run two independent arguments. They do have a fallback argument, which runs as you suggest. They cite canon law in making an affirmative defense. That does presuppose a violation occurred and only seeks an exemption from the penalty. But their core argument denies the act was unlawful. See their canonical study of the 1988 consecrations (sspx.org/en/canonical-s…). It offers a justification and concludes their disobedience is legitimate because necessitated and thus not schismatic. Whether either argument succeeds is a separate question. My point is that you've described only one of them.
English
1
0
2
187
Ethan Muse
Ethan Muse@emuse1955·
It seems you dont understand either side of the controversy. The SSPX is making a ‘positive defense’ of ‘necessity’ for an action that *they concede* is presumptively unlawful. Thus, they have the burden of proof. If it is even *doubtful* that the consecrations are necessary, their defense is inoperable Furthermore, even if the SSPX were correct, according to Catholic principles, there would be moral safety in deferring to the Pope on this matter. Meanwhile, they have no guarantee of safety - they need moral certainty to justify their refusal of obedience - which they concede they presumptively owe.
English
2
5
72
1.1K
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
Matt Fradd's claim seems misguided. As I understand it, the SSPX is contesting the claim that papal directives binds the conscience regardless of content. Matt's "burden of proof" claim only works if you've already settled that affirmatively. But, that's the thing at issue. If so, Matt can't use that to decide who bears the burden of proof.
Matt Fradd@RealMattFradd

If the consecrations go forward, rejecting the SSPX's position is clearly the safer course. The burden of proof rests entirely on those who claim that fidelity to Christ requires defying the explicit directives of the Roman Pontiff and receiving the sacraments from ministers who lack ordinary jurisdiction.

English
3
0
11
2.9K
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
Yes, I grant that a competent authority can declare whether the person is in schism. But, the fact the authority searches for to make that determination is the internal one, which is the focus of the article. It's whether that person freely and knowingly agrees that Rome's authority is no longer binding for him. Obviously, the "competent authority" cannot read minds, so the object of that authority's inquiry is the person's own verdict about papal authority. So, the authority is certifying the verdict, but it doesn't replaces it. And that private judgment by the person is evidence that constitutes his verdict. If there is interior agreement, he's schismatic. If there's not, then he's not. And that's quite apart from any preferences of the authority concerning the person. The person's private judgment creates the status concerning their membership in the church. That's all the dependence my argument needs to work.
English
0
0
1
56
agus pare
agus pare@agusofpare·
@ProtPhilosopher The paper fails to recognize that the judgment as to whether a lay person is in schism or not is to be determine by the competent authority, not the lay person himself. So, no private judgment here.
English
1
0
2
64
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
I can see what you're suggesting, but that's not how the Catholic objection works. That is, you're saying Rome's claim involves only private judgment that determines the individual's formal adherence. But, then you're saying the SS objection is about private judgment determining the articles of faith for the Church. But, no Protestant I'm aware of thinks his own interpretation of Scripture determines the articles of faith for his congregation, denomination, or someone else. It just determines what he thinks is binding on himself. And that's what the objection to SS targets. So, there's no equivocation. I'm using one sense of private judgment, namely the individual's own judgment about whether a religious authority binds him, and that applies to a person's standing under the rule of faith and the formal issue regarding the SSPX.
English
1
0
5
244
The Protestant Philosopher retweetledi
Pastor Rick Brennan Jr
Pastor Rick Brennan Jr@rickbrennanjr·
The only thing that functionally makes the Roman Catholic Church “one” is submission to the juridical authority of the pope. The excommunication of SSPX clergy and lay faithful exposes that reality. Here are Catholics who believe they are preserving the tradition Rome itself once handed down, yet when they persist against papal decree, they are treated as schismatics. That is how Rome views unity: not unity of apostolic truth, but a unity of institutional obedience. And in that sense, this is a small picture of what happened five hundred years ago. The Reformers were not innovators trying to invent a new church. They were seeking to recover the ancient gospel after centuries of ecclesiastical accretions, sacerdotalism, and sacramental machinery had obscured the simplicity of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
Bree A Dail@breeadail

VATICAN CITY--SSPX EXCOMMUNICATED, INCLUDING LAY FAITHFUL attending their “chapels”. The Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following statement, this morning: “Despite the warnings issued to the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, the Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, having committed an act of a schismatic nature by means of the the episcopal consecration of four priests, without a papal mandate and against the will of the His Holiness the Pope has ipso facto incurred the penalties provided for in can. 1387 and can. 1364 § 1 of the CIC 2021. I hereby declare, for all legal purposes, that both the aforementioned Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Mare Hanappier were automatically subject to in the latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. I further declare that Bishop Bernard Fellay, having participated directly in the celebration liturgical as a co-consecrator, having thus publicly endorsed the schismatic act, incurred the excommunication latae sententiae provided for in can. 1364 § 1 of the 2021 Code of Canon Law. Clergy and lay faithful are warned NOT to join (support) the schism of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, because they would ipso facto incur the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication.“ From the Ministry Building, July 2, 2026 Cardinal Victor M. Fernández

English
51
15
103
6.5K
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
@barob05 I'll look into that Oxford Handbook article. There's more I could say and I'm not sure reception theory helps your case, but I'll leave it here for now. I always enjoy chatting with you. Thanks for the dialogue, Brooks.
English
1
0
2
28
Brooks Robinson
Brooks Robinson@barob05·
@ProtPhilosopher magisterium or supreme teaching authority of the college of bishops. While it is true V2 did not define dogma, it still requires assent of the faithful (Acta synodalia III/8,10)
English
1
0
0
16
Brooks Robinson
Brooks Robinson@barob05·
No it doesn’t. The Church has settled Vatican 2, Lefebvre rejected this & illicitly consecrated bishops & was excommunicated. SSPX, founded by Lefebvre, continues to reject V2 & has now consecrated four bishops.
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher

The SSPX controversy casts doubt on a key claim Catholic apologists use against Protestants. They often say that Protestants ultimately rely on private judgment to settle doctrine whereas Catholics submit to a living authority that definitively settles it for them. But, no one is the SSPX controversy is doing that. They're not just saying "obey the office holder because he holds the office." Rather, both sides are arguing "obey the office holder when what he teaches matches the tradition he's supposed to be passing on." Someone still has to judge that. Rome and the SSPX are doing just that, and they're reaching different verdicts. So, when you add the Magisterium to Scripture and Tradition, the burden to judge doctrinal content yourself doesn't disappear. It just gets relocated to the question of which claim to the Magestrium is the real one. And that gets answered by checking the claims against the deposit. And that's the same way every doctrinal question gets answered, as Protestants urge.

English
1
0
1
539
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
I don't think this helps. "Rejections of the authority structure" still presupposes the current office holders are exercising that authority faithfully. That's the thing the SSPX contests. So, the move to "clear and objective" is question-begging like your earlier "clear cut." And the Korah move doesn't help. That was the claim Moses had no special authority at all. Lefebvre allows that the papacy has authority. He just argues the current exercise of it isn't faithful to the deposit.
English
1
0
4
114
Chad Autist (anti-woke)
Chad Autist (anti-woke)@AN1Guitarman·
OK I could’ve been a little clearer in my response, but the rejection of the authority structure of the church is exactly what schism is, and is that is exactly what’s happening here. So my point stands. So no it’s not the same judgment call across all Protestantism, but a standard by which we measure any institution religious or otherwise. some protestants see their institution as the same to them and would just simply agree to the standard here. We have a clear precedent for this in scripture too, Korah‘s rebellion - and this may be different for protestants who see their institution differently or reject the idea of an institution at all, but those are a dismissal of schism being a thing in the first place or a conflation of it with heresy. - so the question simply doesn’t apply here. Rather we have a clear standard of institutional continuity, and we have a group that is schism from the institution known as the Catholic Church by any reasonable and objective measure.
English
1
0
6
115
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
The SSPX controversy casts doubt on a key claim Catholic apologists use against Protestants. They often say that Protestants ultimately rely on private judgment to settle doctrine whereas Catholics submit to a living authority that definitively settles it for them. But, no one is the SSPX controversy is doing that. They're not just saying "obey the office holder because he holds the office." Rather, both sides are arguing "obey the office holder when what he teaches matches the tradition he's supposed to be passing on." Someone still has to judge that. Rome and the SSPX are doing just that, and they're reaching different verdicts. So, when you add the Magisterium to Scripture and Tradition, the burden to judge doctrinal content yourself doesn't disappear. It just gets relocated to the question of which claim to the Magestrium is the real one. And that gets answered by checking the claims against the deposit. And that's the same way every doctrinal question gets answered, as Protestants urge.
Michael Haynes 🇻🇦@MLJHaynes

SSPX Consecrations: Asked if the four bishops have the apostolic mandate, the notary replies -- “It is the Catholic & Roman church, always faithful to the traditions received from the apostles, who in entirely exceptional circumstances demands that we provide for the upholding of these traditions, that is the deposit of faith & that we take the means necessary to transmit them faithfully to all men for the salvation of their souls. Since the Second Vatican Council up to the present day the authorities in the church have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to the faith & have been acting against holy tradition. They will no longer endure sound doctrine” Schreiber then makes the episcopal oath.

English
27
13
66
5.9K
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
But "obey the office holder, full stop" isn't the Catholic view. And when you allow that exceptions exist, then "recognizing authority" gives way to "judging doctrine." Someone has to judge whether the exception applies. And saying SSPX "only reveals an individual's ability to misjudge" assumes the thing at issue. It isn't a response to it.
English
1
0
4
149
Bennett Bernard
Bennett Bernard@BennettBernard7·
@ProtPhilosopher This is wrong in multiple ways. There’s a distinction between recognizing authority and judging doctrine. The Catholic claim is obey the office holder, not to obey if you determine it’s correct teaching. The SSPX doesn’t reveal anything besides the individuals ability to misjudge
English
2
0
3
168
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
Even if I agree the Rome v. SSPX controversy isn't strictly identical to the Hodge quote, which is specifically about perspicuity and is out of context anyway, this still affords the point at issue. Why? Hodge's target is Scripture, which has no office to begin with. And Lefebvre isn't claiming to create magisterial authority in the same way Protestants are accused of doing. Rather, he's contesting the continuation of an existing office under emergency conditions. But even that's a private judgment. It's just one made by a bishop. He still had to decide that emergency conditions obtained. So we have a higher office but the same structure.
English
1
0
0
42
Brooks Robinson
Brooks Robinson@barob05·
@ProtPhilosopher No, because Lefebvre accepts the authority of the Church de jure. He would not see himself as doing what Hodge is claiming here. He believes the Church has authority, but that that it’s compromised. He understands himself as interpreting the faith for the community.
English
1
0
0
29
The Protestant Philosopher
The Protestant Philosopher@ProtPhilosopher·
Believing V2 contradicts the deposit and defining the deposit are two different things. Only the first thing is needed to make sense of his resistance. And that's the same distinction you rely regarding a lay person being able to recognize heresy. When someone does that they don't thereby become the pope. Lol.
English
1
0
0
30
Brooks Robinson
Brooks Robinson@barob05·
@ProtPhilosopher He absolutely is claiming that. He (along with SSPX today) believed Vatican 2 was in contradiction with the faith (that’s how they use Trad). That is why he was against it. What do you think councils do? Why do you think professions of faith emerge from these things? Haha
English
1
0
0
25

Keşfet

@barob05 @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13 @cristiano @BillGates @NASA @nikifrancismediavine