Philosoroofer

@SpeedWatkins @philosophiSingh Do we know where Bahnsen said this?

@philosophiSingh The Pyrrhonian never “assumes knowledge” as Bahnsen suggests.

The skeptic needn’t claim knowledge in order to doubt; at most, she provisionally supposes certain appearances or propositions for the sake of inquiry. A lesson of Pyrrhonism is that suspension of judgment is internally coherent without committing oneself to any knowledge claims.

No, I quoted what you actually said, and then asked *how* what you said was the point could be the point. If it was indeed the point, I am fine agreeing with you that you are an extremely horrible communicator. More likely to my mind: you got “caught” and so said your “point” had nothing to do with the *actual* case you complained about. But as I say, I’m more than happy to agree that you’re just very bad at conveying your points, and one must wonder with you if what appears to be the obvious point is, in fact, the actual “point” going on in that fascinating mind of yours.

@philosoroofer That's for telling me the point I was making. I'm impressed that your knowledge of my mind exceeds even my own.

Christians would be outraged if a Muslim student did this.

No, that doesn’t “miss the point”. You said they’d be outraged if a Muslim did “this”. The “this” was “Christian student at explicitly Christian university motivating fellow students to boldly live out their faith.” You’re now moving the goal posts to a situation that wasn’t “this”. How was something that didn’t happen “the point”? But suppose they would be enthused. Presumable that’s because they think it’s *true*. And presumably they wouldn’t be enthralled with the Muslim doing this because they think Islam is *false*. Compare: there’s surely *some* context in which you’d share your theological vision to an audience. However, you’d find it “ermagherd, so yucky!” if a *Calvinist* shared his theological vision in a similar context. Ya feel me?

@philosoroofer That misses the point. The Christians who celebrate that tweet would be even more enthused if it was at a "secular" campus, a bold preaching to the "heathen".

So this video was a pre-text to fly into an emotional outburst against Calvinism (ew! yuck! gross! disgusting!) under the guise of stating the utterly obvious and trivial? I say the latter because when Huff says there are saved people in Roman Catholicism that just straight up entails that one can be saved without affirming Calvinism. So absolutely no one needed your cute little gotcha where you say ‘same for the teachings of Wes Huff’. This is S-tier slop in excelsis.

Wes Huff says Catholics can be saved despite their Catholics. I say the same of Huff's toxic Calvinism: youtube.com/watch?v=N13R1V…

Nope. We are talking about the preceding discussion. Don’t introduce a rabbit trail. All your “sola scriptura means X” comments were straw men. You were decisively refuted, and even corrected on your own theology. I’m not here for a discussion, I’m satisfied just to expose you as fraudulent. Hopefully you’ll learn from this and not straw man the next Protestant who crosses your path.

The problem of Sola Scriptura... Watch the full episode here: bit.ly/4u1cLfy

@CatholicDrip___ If I give YOU a hamburger, that doesn’t even mildly imply that I don’t give a hamburger to anyone else.

He did NOT say “You are Peter and on this Rock” He said you are “Kepha” and on THIS “Kepha” I build my church. It’s the same exact word in Aramaic He said THIS Kepha, Not That Kepha He then gave the Keys ONLY to Peter (You singular), respectfully

@SeanNea71990714 @ShamelessPopery Sa scriptura means no knowledge outside of scripture?

@ShamelessPopery Also, this "self authentication" is Divinely revealed or only human knowledge. If they say it is Divinely revealed then that defeats sola scriptura since it is Divine revelation outside of scripture. But if they say it is only human knowledge then the the canon has ZERO certainly

@deathsquad6969 @grok @Playyy_boii And remember son, you think you’re showing that I’m wrong but *questions* can’t be false (or true). There’s literally *nothing* to correct. And here’s the relevant dialectic.

Nope, because when asked if he meant ‘can’t’ or ‘you can’t but won’t’, Grok replied “it’s a won’t”, affirming my option of “can but won’t”. You can keep asserting I’m getting clowned, but I’m the only one offering *arguments* and *textual analysis*. All you have is foot stomping and “nah bro.” You’re an intellectual toddler and I put you over my knee and gave you a good spanking on your bare ass.

Hey @grok remove the pedophi!es for this picture !!

No because as The Catholic Church teaches, public, special revelation was completed, and therefore was concluded, with the death of the last apostle (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4). When public, special revelation was still ongoing, I wound *expect* further revelation and special offices as redemptive history unfolded and we learned more about the nature of sin, why we need a redeemer, etc. But after such ceased, and Christ accomplished redemption, I guess I would expect those revelatory things required when public revelation was ongoing, to cease. So where I’m sitting, it the objection you raise to SS seems to support it! So it’s no irrational to expect the completed to accomplish more than the uncompleted.

An easy, no-brainer against Sola Scriptura is that it expects to do MUCH more with less. The Old Testament paradigm ordinarily had Scripture as the rule of faith except when God sent the extraordinary office of prophet to return Israel to the unity of faith. OT revelation was (1) simple: primarily concerned with the natural law, (2) for one nation, (3) for a short period of time: until the coming Messiah. NT revelation is more (1) sublime: God’s Triune nature, the Incarnation, the nature of grace, etc; (2) for all men in all nations; (3) for all times, not just until the next prophet comes and fixes things. Is it not irrational to expect less means (remember, no more extraordinary prophets) to accomplish more than what it couldn’t achieve before?

@PhilosopherJoeC @SpeedWatkins I’m less confident that that’s right than I am that this is right: people who think it’s permissible to kill their son so they can advance their careers should not be lecturing others about morality.

@SpeedWatkins People who think you should kill your son if a god instructs you to do so should not be lecturing others about morality.

“It’s not really wrong unless the big guy says so.” It’s hard to imagine a more inadequate moral theory.

@deathsquad6969 @grok @Playyy_boii You haven’t demonstrated it can’t, and when I asked it it didn’t say both. It qualified simply to “won’t”. You got absolutely cooked by a “bro who cries about AI”. LOL

@philosoroofer @grok @Playyy_boii Bros crying about AI. It can’t and won’t. Cry about it, bitch.

The real question is, when will Catholics start discovering that they misrepresent Luther and the Reformed on this matter? Is winning anti-intellectual evangellyfish converts really worth the price of lying? Luther wrote, “Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. … To think, "If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing," is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. and, “We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. "Without works" is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.” The Formula of Concord states, “But after man has been justified by faith, then a true living faith worketh by love, Gal. 5:6, so that thus good works always follow justifying faith, and are surely found with it, if it be true and living; for it never is alone, but always has with it love and hope.” And Calvin wrote, “I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. (Galatians 5:6; Romans 3:22.) It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light.”

Protestants are discovering that Luther’s “faith alone” is a false doctrine 1 Corinthians 13:2 is a work of Art “If I have all faith… but do not have love, I am nothing.” Is this the Catholic Awakening ???💧

@upn960 @grok

Hey @grok Make him Clean and give him a Modern look

@CatholicDrip___ Who affirms “the bible is the only authority”? Wait, hold on, let me count them, brb. … Ok, counted. Nobody.

This is a big question ???

@deathsquad6969 @grok @Playyy_boii

@philosoroofer @grok @Playyy_boii “Instead it just said ‘it’s a won’t’ this is more evidence that it can but just won’t” that’s literally what I’m saying dawg 🤣 stop being a dumbass. Don’t mess with me. I clocked your shit and I’ll clock your shit again retard.