PhD philosopher and committed Protestant. Teaching The Object Test, a live masterclass on Catholic miracles, Nov 14. Enroll at link below.
Joined January 2022
- Tweets3.2K
- Following591
- Followers2.8K
- Likes3.3K
Pinned Tweet
Enrollment is open for The Object Test, my live masterclass on Catholic miracles.
Saturday, November 14, 9–11 a.m. Pacific, on Zoom.
I grant every miracle, Fatima, Lourdes, Lanciano, Padre Pio, and show why none of them obliges an informed Christian to accept Rome. We’ll run the test on each case, take on the best-explanation and probability arguments, and answer your questions live.
Workbook, three bonus guides and the recording included. Enrollment closes Thursday, November 12.
Save your seat: protestantacademy.com/the-ob…
Three bonus guides are now included with The Object Test masterclass. Answers to the 34 strongest objections, the 1917 Fatima documents with translations, and the whole argument in nine principles. Live Saturday, November 14. Enrollment closes November 12. Save your seat: protestantacademy.com/the-ob…
The Protestant Philosopher retweeted
You claimed it was logically impossible. Ergo, impossible in every possible world.
This is precisely @ProtPhilosopher’s point. You guys don’t even seem to understand the extent of the claims you’re making.
And this is especially ironic because you’re constantly calling out other Protestant apologists (rightfully so, btw) for being ignorant and overconfident on matters such as sola scriptura, for not being sufficiently well-read, and so forth.
For example, you rightly criticize Protestants for making claims without understanding the concepts behind them, or even what the relevant authorities in the field mean by those concepts. You’ve pointed out, for instance, that Reformed scholastics such as Turretin, LeBlanc, and others understood sola scriptura in terms of Scripture being the sole rule of faith, rather than merely “the only infallible authority.”
You complain about Protestants being ignorant of these distinctions, and at times borderline mock them for it (as do others in your camp, such as @DoorDashThomist and @WalmartThomist). But then you turn around and do the very same thing when making claims such as “logically impossible,” without apparently understanding even the basic entailments of what you’re claiming. Namely, that to establish logical impossibility, you need to demonstrate that the proposition entails a contradiction, such as P and not-P in the same sense and at the same time.
Moreover, your comment about MCU only further demonstrates that you don’t seem to understand the very modal terms you’re employing, such as “impossible.”
And this is what makes you guys come across as hypocrites. On the one hand, you mock people and demand precision and accuracy on niche and esoteric theological matters. But on the other, when you make similarly uninformed claims, you either ignore the criticism or brush it aside.
You’re essentially doing the very thing you criticize independent fundamentalist Baptists for doing in sola scriptura debates, except now it’s with elementary modal claims.
Do better, man.
This article from Dr. Morris is worth checking out. It supports my earlier pet peeve from another angle. A weaker assertion often results in a stronger argument, or, as I'd put it, a stronger assertion in the title of a video often results in a weaker argument (i.e., one that doesn't deliver on the promise in the title).
Philosopher working in the apologetics space pet peeve incoming: Please don't title your video "X is impossible" unless you argue X holds in no possible world, perhaps because it leads to a logical contradiction. If not, just say X is unlikely, unsupported, in tension with commitment Y, etc. /endrant.
A Catholic commenter said the miracles center on Rome. I granted them all. Bishops, the Eucharist, Marian devotion. The Orthodox have all three. A few replies later, he agreed the miracles don’t necessarily pick Rome over the East. Live class, Nov 14: protestantacademy.com/the-ob…
New video. Does a Miracle Have to Be Announced in Advance? youtu.be/1YSTqJ1i4Ls?si=3Eb8…
I joined Jordan on The Analytic Christian to talk about Catholic miracles. I grant them for the sake of argument, and they still don’t get you to Rome. A sign confirms what it was declared to confirm, and none of these was declared to confirm Rome as God’s legate. Jordan pushed back in some good ways too.
youtu.be/5ncSm9cXtS8?si=wwr4…
Do you only have one big private judgment whether to join the Catholic Church and after that you simply defer your judgment to the Church on important theological matters? That's what Catholic apologists used to often tell me. But, that's false, as the disagreement over capital punishment has shown. You not only need to judge what CCC 2267 means, you also need to judge how much it binds you. And your answer to the former informs your answer to the latter, and vice versa.
The Protestant Philosopher retweeted
I can tell you I have had multiple occasions irl where people have brought up the Catechism change on the death penalty as an obstacle in their devotion to the Faith or in their conversion.
It is absolutely a problem.
The Protestant Philosopher retweeted
If the pope or the DDF would just clearly and explicitly reaffirm "The death penalty is not intrinsically wrong..." before going on to criticize its use in practice however harshly they like, it would instantly resolve this problem for most of the people troubled by the issue. There is no rational basis for refraining from doing this.
The Protestant Philosopher retweeted
The Catechism of the Council of Trent said the magistrate bears the sword and the power of life and death, and that the exercise of that power is not murder. The Bible teaches its propriety, Paul said he was not afraid to die if he had committed a crime for which it was the proper punishment, and yet, once you abandon sola scriptura, you get to "develop" doctrine X into doctrine NOT X in a relatively short period of time. What other doctrines will undergo similar "development" in Rome?
The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption. #NoDeathPenalty
This is problematic. It supports a reading of CCC 2267 according to which capital punishment is wrong because it is an "attack on inviolability and dignity of the person," yet there was a necessary exemption in the past due to needing to protect the public from violent criminals. That exemption doesn't apply any more, as our criminal justice system can keep them locked up safely, so that dignity weighing against execution now isn't overridden. That means it wasn't punishment and retribution making capital punishment permissible in the past, it was a necessary exception due to public welfare. But, that means if dignity is really inviolable, then past executions weren't exempted violations. They were violations full stop. Necessity doesn't make the inviolable violable. That's a contradiction. To avoid this the Pope's claim collapses into the intrinsic reading of CCC 2267. The Church's past permission of execution was an error. And Feser seems to consider this a contradiction of Scripture and tradition. We get error and innovation, not permissible action and continuity.
The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption. #NoDeathPenalty
The Protestant Philosopher retweeted
Complete contradiction with Scripture and the official Catechism the Roman Catholic Church taught for over 400 years.
“The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.”
-CCC Trent
The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption. #NoDeathPenalty
The Protestant Philosopher retweeted
The reason I highlight the pope’s strong rejection of both Scripture and Catholic Tradition is not to attack his supposed infallibility.
It is to do something more important.
It shows that the pope and the RC authority is simply not trustworthy. Because infallibility isn’t the real reason people run to Rome. It’s the sense that they have a faithful and trustworthy source for guidance and clarity in Christian truth.
But history (and the last several days) proves this is not true.
RCism’s trustworthiness is not as advertised.
Go to Scripture as your final authority. Learn from history.
On November 14, I'm teaching a live masterclass on Catholic miracles.
I grant every case, Fatima, Lourdes, Zeitoun, Lanciano, and ask one question. Before it happened, what did they say it would prove?
Waitlist gets first access and $10 off:
protestantacademy.com/the-ob…
