Hey everybody! Thanks for watching the video. Some Roman Catholics in the comments to my latest rebuttal of Joe Heschmeyer seemed confused about how to understand my argument. So I thought I would put out a tweet thread clarifying the argument one more time in order to help them out (see the link to that thread here: x.com/javierperd2604/status/1850918756970553824?t=MqjLTqX2MMXfaDWxDE8d7g&s=19). Here is the text of that tweet thread for those who aren't on Twitter... There's some additional things I want to stress for those who watched all the relevant back-and-forth between me and @ShamelessPopery recently, since it seems that some Roman Catholics (RCs) were still confused after my final rebuttal. Sola Scriptura simply claims the following: "The Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the church." A separate, but related truth about Scripture is that it is perspicuous (i.e. - clear) in matters related to salvation. Technically speaking, these two are separate claims, as one could hypothetically uphold that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, without necessarily saying that they are abundantly clear in the essentials. However, as a Lutheran, I would affirm *both* claims. Having said that, it is important to note: A given thing being clear doesn’t mean that everyone who approaches it in good faith *will* come to understand it correctly. It simply means that they *can* do so, not simply by chance, but by having recourse to the clear thing in question and employing such proper means of study such as a proper hermeneutic, right reasoning, and diligent, attentive analysis. Unfortunately, not everyone who approaches the Scriptures "sincerely" employs those means of study well; someone can be "sincere" in their intent to understand them while employing a bad hermeneutic, or while not being as attentive in their analysis as they could be. Also unfortunately, even those who are Christians may misread Scripture and even invent heresy and fall away from the faith -- but this is not the fault of the text. Once again, there, sin and lack of careful study are the real culprits. Take, for example, the fact that Scripture speaks so directly against homosexuality. If a regenerate person brings their own biases & sin to the text and they come to believe that it's okay to live out their sinful urges in this way, and proceed to do so... they've fallen away. But they've gone astray & fallen away NOT due to the text of Scripture, but due to what they, themselves, sinfully *imported into* the text. In the case of the unregenerate, unregenerate man specifically has a darkened heart and understanding, so, without the aid of the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are easily misunderstood by him, as they are spiritually discerned. So he outright rejects them or invents heresy. Having understood all of this, Premise 1 of Joe's argument is false and leads to absurd conclusions if applied consistently to other areas (as I demonstrate throughout the video with several examples and will re-state here again). The reason Premise #1 is false is due to the snuck premise underlying it, namely: That "approaching with sincerity" is a sufficient condition for understanding something that has been clearly set forth. If something being clear, by necessity, implies that everyone who is "sincere" *WILL* understand it, then that would falsify the very existence of clarity itself - since there is no such topic where all "sincere" human beings are in agreement about how to understand it. The reason for this is that "approaching something sincerely", (meaning that one is trying to actually and properly understand that thing) is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for understanding something that's clearly set out. Anyone who has ever taught a class knows this. Every class has successful students that come to class sincerely trying to learn, but every class also has well-meaning students who are sincere in their desire to understand the subject matter... but they fail the class anyway. Joe's snuck premise hidden under Premise #1 would make it so that there is no such thing as a "sincere" student who fails to understand a clearly-taught class. So, this is an absurd definition leading to absurd conclusions, of which this is one. The point of my parody arguments is to demonstrate how absurd Joe's argument is by showing that, if applied consistently, it would debunk not just Ecclesialism & Rome (which Joe considers absurd), but also Christianity as a whole (which all Christians should consider absurd). This is not to mention that it would debunk the any system that accepts "approaching with sincerity" as a sufficient condition of understanding a clearly laid out system, and then claims to possess a clear teacher, book, or other such communicator. Hence, it is an absurd and worthless argument, ESPECIALLY for the discussion at hand -- which is supposed to be *delineating between* Christian options. Additionally, due to some of the confusion surrounding what reductio ad absurdum arguments are (with some people even mistaking them for Tu Quoque fallacies), I thought it'd be good to lay out a clear definition with some examples. As such, here is a short Twitter thread I put together with scholarly citations defining and giving examples of various kinds of Reductio Ad Absurdum arguments: x.com/javierperd2604/status/1853547125201621187?t=CFq0GMAkFQJnH0SAs345bA&s=19 Lastly, I didn't want to make this video longer than it needed to be, so I left a few additional things out that I wanted to address but which weren't absolutely necessary. However, I wanted to make sure people didn't miss out on these other glaring mistakes & inaccuracies in Joe's responses to me, so please see here for another tweet thread documenting precisely that: x.com/javierperd2604/status/1850174221642535085?t=e6FES1Tn9z6wJa4xWp0vZA&s=19
Not sure I see the argument here? Perhaps I am missing something. Help would be appreciated! As far as I can tell you are saying "A given thing being clear doesn’t mean that everyone who approaches it in good faith will come to understand it correctly." Is that not the exact argument Joe made? Does that not prove we need something more than sincerity to understand it correctly? Does that not therefore invalidate the perspicuity of scripture which claims sincerity is all that is necessary? "...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." Perhaps your final point is the real point, that this argument applies to everyone equally? And I agree, I think Joe should address how RC and EO solve this. Personally, I don't think this debunk Rome or EO, which both have ecclesial teaching bodies to deal with this exact problem. As a Catholic, humble assent and faith in the Church is necessary. Sincerity is not enough for right doctrine.
@@FirstnameLastname-qz9fr Javier is not as clear as Sean. They seem to indicate that premise 1 will apply to all fields because if something is clear, and if clarity necessarily results consensus then all clear truths should have consensus. Meaning there shouldn't be flat earthers since the Earth is clearly a globe. And yet there are. Hence premise 1 of Joe's argument is false. There are a host of problems with this though.
@@FirstnameLastname-qz9fr The Catholic Church does not claim that all of her positions are clear. Therefore there is no need to agree on the essentials based on clarity. The EO and the RCC demand that the bare essentials are simply accepted to enter their communions - whether one finds them clear or not. Why? Because they claim the authority of Christ to bind and lose. Other fields also don't claim that their clear principles or results are obvious to the untrained. That one could show how Quantum Mechanic is validated to an untrained person, and the untrained person will understand everything adequately. Therefore neither the EO or the CC nor the rest of the world has this problem, only Prots have, IMO. Because that's their claim.
For those who want to catch up on how this all started: Joe's (Shameless Popery) original video: th-cam.com/video/5_SGbUDFQWg/w-d-xo.html Gavin Ortlund's (Truth Unites) TH-cam short arguing that Catholics do not have essential doctrines: th-cam.com/users/shorts11kEcarffJM Joe's response to Gavin's TH-cam Short: th-cam.com/video/igf3anRyduA/w-d-xo.html Gavin's TH-cam short responding to that video: th-cam.com/users/shortsZxaIJZgvghA Javier's video responding to Joe's videos: th-cam.com/video/6xmoPU_RGX0/w-d-xo.html Joe's response to Javier: th-cam.com/video/GlSkKi3chQA/w-d-xo.html Sean Luke's (Anglican Aesthetics) take on Joe's arguments: th-cam.com/video/0NM4Xobux0E/w-d-xo.html And now you are here watching this 🙂 For all my fellow Protestant theobros out there, let’s keep it ecumenical and charitable. Let me know if I missed anything.
@@El_Invierno Having watched the video, there really is quite the catalog of Mr. Perdomo's misunderstandings, misrepresentations, misconstruals, misspeakings, and misapplications of logical principles. It's frustrating that Perdomo would spend over four hours of his October attacking fellow Christians-incompetently-while the world outside turns farther from God. The atheists can see you making these false claims, insisting that Catholic apologists ply their trade with little regard to the well-being of their hearers, and see too many lauding you for it, and come away firmer in their conviction that people of faith are stupid assholes out for their blood.
Succinctly put? He took over 4 hours of video and I'm still not quite sure what his argument is. His X comment on the other hand is pretty succinct and I gather it's basically this: "Joe's argument is false because premise one is not true. Premise one is not true because it affect Catholics and everyone else too." But I in no way understand this from his videos. And his evidence doesn't do a good job of proving or supporting this argument either.
You posted this twenty-five minutes after an hour-long video was posted. How invested are you-really-in people taking the time to watch and listen to videos in their entirety?
@@HighKingTurgon I had early access to this video, I have already watched it. I work with Javier. You should have asked if I had watched it, not assumed.
I am a non-Christian, so I don't have a stake in this argument. My interest in Christianity stems from my Southern Baptist friend. She and her Oneness Pentecostal neighbor across the street claim that the Bible is God's inspired word and read it daily. Before reading, they both pray to the Holy Spirit and believe that the Holy Spirit guides them to the correct interpretation. However, after their readings, they arrive at opposing viewpoints. The Oneness Pentecostal Christian believes that to be saved, one must receive the Holy Spirit, evidenced by the ability to speak in tongues. If a person cannot speak in tongues, they are not saved. Additionally, they reject the concept of the Trinity, asserting that baptisms performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are invalid. Instead, they insist that baptism must be conducted in Jesus' name only. On the other hand, my Southern Baptist friend believes salvation comes through professing faith in Jesus Christ. This is done by reciting the "Sinner's Prayer" with sincerity. Once someone has done this, they are eternally secure in their salvation-meaning they cannot lose it, no matter how sinful they may become. For them, baptism is an essential ordinance. Still, it is not necessary for salvation, as it is merely symbolic, reflecting a public declaration of faith by those who have already been saved (often referred to as believer's baptism). Furthermore, only individuals who have reached the age of reason can be baptized, and if they choose to do so, it must be in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit because of the belief in the Trinity. These two individuals read the same Bible but interpret it differently. They hold opposing views on salvation, the nature of God, and the purpose of baptism. My questions are as follows: 1. Can these individuals hold radically different doctrines as long as they both use the Bible as their final authority for Christian faith and practice? Please explain your answer, whether it is yes or no. 2. If the meaning of the Bible is so clear and the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it for themselves, why are there so many denominations and millions of individual Christians, each interpreting the Bible differently? 3. Can anyone authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible? 4. If Christians acknowledge that their interpretations of the Bible can be fallible, how can they label anything as heresy or attempt to bind another Christian to a particular belief?
Short Answers to your questions: 1. Technically yes. No one can force someone else into not holding a wrong view. Also, just because two people disagree, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a right answer to be had. There are hermeneutical principles that one implores to study the Bible. This is true for any study, not just the Bible. 2. It is too simple to just say if I have the Holy Spirit then I will come to the right conclusion. We all have biases, whether we know them or not. We are also coming from different backgrounds. That’s why we must strive to understand what the passage meant to the original audience. This is hard, but by finding out the speaker, the audience, the setting, the culture and events around it, we can better understand what the meaning is. 3. Yes. There are obviously heretical doctrines. The Nicene Creed is a great creed that all Christians should agree on. Your oneness friend is verifiably false. The trinity is the truth. And Paul says pretty clearly that not all will speak in tongues. To better find out if someone is wrong, you must study the scriptures, pray, and look into what the church fathers said and other theologians. 4. Just because we are fallible, doesn’t negate there being a truth that exists. Many doctors, scientists, historians, etc. disagree amongst themselves. This doesn’t mean therefor that we can’t know that X treatment will save lives, or that the earth is a globe, or that Julius Caesar existed. We must do the hard work to uncover the truth like in all areas of our lives. May God bless you and enlighten you to the truth of the Good News of Jesus Christ. All have sinned, and Jesus has atoned for our sins by dying on our behalf. He rose again, defeating death, and saves those who believe and follow Him.
Javier there are many things I would debate about, but I want to focus on the first part of the video. Joe Is using the proof by contradiction argument, the argument uses: 1. Assumption 2. Contradiction 3. Conclusion In order for this argument to work it needs: Clear Assumption Logical Derivation Identify Contradiction Reject the Original Assumption Now lets look deeper into Joes argument 1. “If sola scriptura is the only infallible and clear source, it should sufficiently and unequivocally define what is necessary for salvation, so that believers can understand it.” This point is foundational because, if sola scriptura truly is the only sufficiently clear source, then it should lead to a unified understanding of the essential doctrines of salvation. ✅ 2. “However, on questions essential to salvation, there are serious disagreements directly due to the text’s lack of clarity.” This step is essential because it shows that disagreements arise not from church teachings or differing traditions but directly from the text of scripture itself. ✅ 3. “This suggests that sola scriptura is not a sufficient principle for a unified understanding in matters essential to salvation.” This step is crucial, as it provides the logical inference: if sola scriptura leads to disagreement on matters of salvation, it cannot be considered a sufficiently clear and infallible source that would secure a shared understanding among believers. ✅ 4. “This tells us that sola scriptura is an insufficient principle for achieving salvation.” This conclusion logically follows from the previous points. If sola scriptura does not lead to a unified understanding of essential matters of salvation, then it raises doubts about its adequacy as the only principle for achieving salvation. ✅ SUMMARY: Point 1 sets up a clear, testable assumption. Point 2 demonstrates a practical contradiction to this assumption. Point 3 draws a logical conclusion from the contradiction, challenging the initial assumption. Point 4 formulates the final conclusion on sola scriptura’s insufficiency as the sole principle for achieving salvation. This structure gives the argument validity, as proof by contradiction relies on a direct inconsistency between the expected outcome and the real-world result. NOW LETS SEE why your proof by contradiction argument DOES NOT work. 1. “If the Christian view clearly shows the existence of God…” The first step assumes that if the Christian perspective were correct, it would be clearly understandable for everyone. This assumption is flawed because it does not take into account human differences in interpretation, subjective opinions, or personal experiences. The fact that a certain truth is not convincing to everyone does not automatically imply its falsehood. ❎ 2. “If this view is correct, everyone would agree on God’s existence.” This assumption ignores the fact that people often disagree even on clear and factual matters, because disagreement often arises from subjective reasons (e.g., personal experience, cultural or philosophical background). To assume that everyone must agree with a view for it to be true is absurd, as total agreement is highly unlikely for complex topics, especially for spiritual or metaphysical questions.❎ 3. People do not agree on the existence of God (for example, atheists).” Pointing to the existence of atheists as proof of disagreement does not itself prove God’s non-existence. The disagreement between believers and non-believers points more to differing perspectives and interpretations than to the objective truth or falsehood of God’s existence. ❎ 4. “Therefore, the existence of God is not correct.” This conclusion is absurd because it stems from the flawed idea that truth must always be universally accepted. However, the truth of a claim does not depend on everyone’s agreement. ❎ SUMMARY The first step incorrectly assumes that the clarity of the Christian view would necessarily convince everyone. The second step falsely claims that truth should lead to unanimous agreement. The third step mistakes people’s personal beliefs (such as atheism) as objective evidence against God’s existence. The conclusion is logically flawed because it assumes that truth depends on universal consensus. Now since I explained to you why Joe's argument works, I Hope to see video rebbuting Joe's SIMPLE question. ( hopefully not 3 hours long )
Hi! I'm not Javier, but I have some thoughts on your comment. First, Joe's argument isn't so much about Sola Scriptura, as it is about the Perspicuity of Scripture. Your point on Joe's Premise 1 does not word it the same way Joe does in his video(s). Joe's wording is that "If the Protestant view of Scripture is correct, sincere believers will all agree on essential doctrines." Note that Joe doesn't say what you said in that believers _can_ understand it. Joe says believers _will_ understand it. There is a logical difference between saying an outcome is possible and an outcome is certain. Your point on Joe's Premise 2 has some extra wording. Joe merely asserts that sincere believers disagree on essential doctrines. He does not say why this is, as it would be question begging. Joe saves this for his conclusion. Per your summary of Joe's argument, the argument by itself is sound. There are two problems with it that have not been addressed. 1. Premise 1 as worded by Joe is false. I alluded to this earlier. The Protestant position is that Scripture is clear enough that the sincere believer with due use of ordinary means *_can_* correctly understand the essential doctrines. He is arguing against a position that the neither the Reformers nor Protestantism today hold. 2. Supposing that Premise 1 of Joe's argument were true, the argument quickly becomes pointless. Great, Protestants don't all agree on essential doctrines. Well, neither do Ecclesialists. This goes back to Javier's 2 suitors arguement. If Suitor A says "You should not pick B, he has no land or titles," but Suitar B asks A "Do you have land or titles?" and A says "No,", then B says "Well, that doesn't mean anything then. By that logic, you should pick neither of us!" Pointing out disagreement over Essentials in Protestantism doesn't mean squat so long as Ecclesialists also disagree. Thanks, and God Bless
@@a.d1287 There are three components here to get the whole picture. The Formal Sufficiency of Scripture asserts that Protestants can come to a sufficient understanding of doctrine to follow Christ's commandments - love God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and to love our neighbors as ourselves - utilizing only that which is contained in Holy Scriptures. The Perspicuity of Scripture asserts that correctly retrieving said understanding from Holy Scriptures is possible for the individual believer, and does not necessitate intervention or explication from an external source (other than the Holy Spirit working internally to the believer). As helpful as external resources may be, they are optional, not required. Sola Scriptura asserts that if external resources are used, they are to be considered subordinate to the Scriptures, and if ever a conflict or contradiction between external resources and Scripture arises, Scripture's stance is affirmed and the external resource's stance is denied. Or, in other words, Scripture is the only infallible authority for the examination of doctrine.
@@ottovonbaden6353 Scripture can only in practice be truly the only infallible rule of faith IF a person can ascertain what Scripture teaches. If a person cannot ascertain what Scripture teaches, then Sola Scriptura cannot be adhered to.
10:31 I think you and Joe are probably talking past each other here. The first premise does not work because the ecclesialists dont claim that Tradition is perspicuous. Thats the whole point why councils are required. Joes critique as i understand it seems to be since Prots explicitly teach that scripture is "clear" on the main things, and sincere believers can ascertain those beliefs through ordinary means - hence all sincere believers must eventually agree. The claim of perspicuity is central to his argument. Maybe you can try and turn it on the Magisterium as a use case but not Tradition. Still early on in your video - but i wanted to remark on the premises themselves. Back to your video.
I think the syllogism with Magisterium works provided that one clarifies what the said position is. Otherwise it gives the Catholic side wriggle room, and I am saying this as a Catholic.
Ah YT is not letting my last comment come through. I wrote of some things that may need ironing out in your case - but that I also will ponder more on your case.
The added layer is that Catholics believe humble assent to Church doctrine is required for right doctrine. You can't just have sincerity and come to different conclusions.
This is one of the reasons i believe in Sola fide, imagine if we depend of many and many rebuttals of theology to arrive in a conclusion and still have doubts
But how does one come up with Sola Fide??? The Scriptures clearly demonstrate it is not by faith alone. Too many verses point to more than faith alone. And with so many denominations there is no unity in the things that are essential.
@@swoosh1mil "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Salvation is by faith alone because we can't produce good works without real faith(not just intelectual Faith, but the acceptance of the his Salvation's promises), they're product of our new nature. I know verses that supposedly put works in our salvation, however in my opinion they're talking to Christians is already saved, then i'd say works are important to maintain the salvation alone instead of obtain it, but even in this case the works are totally dependent of the Faith. About Unity, Classical Protestant affirm 5 solas, all 6 ecumenical creeds plus Athanasian and Apostolic creeds, that's enough to me, furthermore we're more willing to seek unity with Catholics and Orthodox than otherwise, and despite our differences our theology can consider other christians as brothers even recognizing their errors instead of call them heretics and damned(i know there are prots who call RC and EO heretics but i don't agree with them)
Origen believed Lucifer would ultimately be saved. Over the last 60 years, there have been Catholic theologians who claim Judas wasn't damned. Several articles written by conservative Catholic media have hammered Pope Francis for holding this view. This contrasts with what other Catholic traditions believe. If the magisterium is so clear why are even top Catholic theologians divided on this issue?
Because whether Judas did or did not go to heaven is not an essential doctrine. The real presence of the Eucharist, on the other hand, is an essential doctrine. You will not find any pope or catholic theologian disputing that.
Because in the case of Origen, sometimes people (especially really smart people) do come up with theological novelties that have to be clarified or outright condemned. Obviously this doesn’t happen until later. In the case of Judas, some are taking a myopic view of his damnation as uncertain, or that Jesus’s claim that “it would be better for him not to be born” was exaggeration. I’m speculating as to why, but it is possible that some of these Catholic theologians are pressing on this ambiguity to make the narrow way seem wider and more welcoming. (I should like to know who.) But it’s not a good thing.
I think that Javier is under the impression that this method of rebuttal is effective, but from my perspective, it's not. The subject matter was Sola Scriptura. Javier has spent at least 20 minutes of the video addressing other issues that have nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. I don't care about these other issues. I care about hearing a defense of Sola Scriptura. If this is the best defense there is, then I don't think it's effective enough to justify belief in Sola Scriptura. I may edit this if I'm proven wrong after finishing the video, but so far.... Not impressed. And I'm a protestant.
If you listen to what he said you'll realize pretty easily that Javier's whole point is that Joe's argument against Sola Scriptura fails because it also destroys his own position. Javier has no reason to rebut an argument that isn't valid to begin with.
Excellent. I hope he takes the time to actually understand what's being said. If the argument he's using against Protestantism rests on logic *he himself rejects* (and he has to since he actually is a Roman Catholic), then he's being a disingenuous hypocrite to use it against Protestants. Is as simple as that. It would be like me arguing to an atheist, "well God might not be omnipotent or omniscent so your objection doesn't rule out God"--that reply is bankrupt as part of an overall strategy to commend what I believe because I reject the premise on which it rests. You made this very clear.
@@anglicanaesthetics This isn't the undercutting defeater you think it is and that's a poor analogy. Protestantism fails its own test, that's all that has been pointed out. It's internally incoherent and externally fractured. Saying that the Catholic faith has the same problem doesn't address the problem. It does however highlight the consequences of the subjective theological liberalism which is inherent to protestant perspectives.
I think the issue here boils down to the definition of "perspicuity" of Scripture and the methodological commitments towards resolving issues in addressing apparent unclear Scriptural passages.
You have addressed the heart of the matter and it's what kept me out of Rome too. I shouldn't assume motives, but it seems like almost willfull blindness that they won't acknowledge the double standards they use in their debates. You are one of the few who has recognized this double standard and started calling it out and demonstrating why it doesn't hold water. I wish Protestants of all persuasions would have recognized this years ago and we might not have lost so many to Rome or the East. The first Reformers did see this because they came up in that system. But many now aren't trained in theology or philosophy so they don't see it. Roman apologists get really flustered by that because they aren't used to being challenged on this point, but I think this is really the point that it all hangs on. Sure we can debate all the other differences but once you realize they are using private judgment (no way around it) and interpretations of their infallible interpretations, (and there's no list of infallible required beliefs for the theologians to debate about how to interpret them) it all unravels. I'd rather be a Lutheran and debate with other Protestants about what the Bible means than be in Rome and debate what the Bible, Tradition, the Fathers, the Councils, the Canon Laws, and the Pope's mean, and then turn around and debate with some Catholics of today about whether the Pope is actually the pope or an antipope. Instead of clarity they add multiple layers of information that we have to interpret. It's insane that they can't (or won't) recognize this.
I think there's a sense that the excess of information becomes so unwieldy for the vast majority of people that it conditions you to suspend disbelief even in areas that aren't matters of dogma. I've known some Romish Catholic's to say things like 'it's so much easier to follow the teachings of Rome' but what they seem to mean is that it would be so incredibly difficult to actually follow the thread of different teachings and historical documents, canon law etc, that they never actually bother. Scripture being accessible to the ploughboy, as was Tindale's dream, provoked a sense of duty in the Church to increase literacy and understanding, in other words to actually make Disciples(students) of all nations. The temporal blessings of this are obvious or we wouldn't be typing in this comment section, but the spiritual growth of reading and reflecting on Scripture is an undeniably Protestant legacy, even for those in Rome who naively take it for granted they might have had such a privilege otherwise.
Largely speaking, Roman apologists are usually making a case for epistemic nihilism, and absolute fideism. They pretend that they aren't to their audience, but they're always arguing against ones ability to know anything dogmatic that the Bible says, and their solution is a fideistic submition to Roman teaching. The issue here is that the epistemic case they make against the Bible will always make everything equally unknowable. Either I can trust my private interpretation of all texts (Scripture, and magisterium included) or I can't. Either anything that is disagreed upon is unclear or it isn't. They just special plead and obfuscate to distract from the fact that their post-modern epistemology makes their texts equally uninterpretable.
To be fair to Joe, I spent HOURS watching Javiers videos and I didn't understand what he was saying. He is a very poor communicator in video form. Without his X, I would still have no idea what he was on about. I gather now that he is attacking premise one and saying everyone falls to the clarity problem, but I never understood that from all the content before. I don't think Joe understands it either tbh; it's nowhere expounded in Javiers previous content and Joe addresses only it's lack of existence. Now to address the argument, I don't think it applies to RC or EO at all. So perhaps this is why you guys think it's a double standard; none of us had any idea what you were talking about the double standard is not obvious from our perspective. Catholics and EO avoid this problem because we don't hold to the perspicuity of scripture. We require the believe to have a humble heart and follow the Church if they want right doctrine. We do not believe sincerity is enough for right doctrine. Joe's point is that prots do think sincerity is enough, and he gave reasons why they shouldn't believe in perspicacity of scripture. And his following point is that if that's true, then either prot is false or we can't expect them to have right doctrine. I'm inclined to say prot is false, but I could see saying them not having right doctrine might be okay.
10:50 Ok, you're using the same argument against catholicism, fine, we understand that. But this still doesn't answer Joe's point (wich is why the previous video and this one is a tu quoque fallacy). In a nutshell, your argument is to say that Joe's syllogism is a bad criteria for knowing wich christian tradition is right. But you're missing the point of his argument. He's saying that P1 of his syllogism IS the protestant argument, not that he would apply it to know a christian tradition to be true. If you want to refute him, you should prove that P1 of his argument is wrong, not if the syllogism is a bad criteria of delineating truth. About the unitarian stuff, if you say "papal affirming roman catholics" , I would think "roman catholics". This is by definition what roman catholics are. If you don't affirm the bishop of Rome to be the Pope, you're not roman catholic. You're taking a maybe inaccurate terminology and turning into a massive issue when the main point is simply that unitarians also believes in Sola Scriptura. If this is the best you have to justify accuse him of all the sorts of thing then it's quite disingenuous from you. But I understand why you won't even address the embarrassing accusation of gish gallop, for example. PS: About Romans, it's not saying that because God's qualities are clear then everyone will convert but rather, because it's clear, there's no excuse for rejecting God.
@Jimmy-iy9pl then you don't understand Joe's arguments nor the false equivalence the Lutheran is doing in lumping different churches together as ecclesialists. Which is a very dim thing to do
@@the3rdchief Why are Roman Catholics so triggered by the term "Ecclesialist"? Is it because it's forcing everyone to realize that, contrary to what Roman Catholic apologists claim, your denomination does not occupy some privileged epistemic position?
@@Jimmy-iy9plwe reject the premise that Javier uses when he groups together Catholics and EO. That is how you refute an argument. Either you reject the form of the argument(the validity of the argument in logic) or show that the premises are false
@@Jimmy-iy9plthe fact that Javier doesn’t reject the premises of the argument shows that he accepts them. He then accepts that the premises lead to the conclusion. This means that Joe’s argument is valid and sound which means he doesn’t respond to the argument. All that Javier does is make a new argument against Catholicism. He doesn’t defend his own
P1: If the Catholic understanding of the magisterium is true, then all sincere believers will agree on. Essential doctrines. P2: All sincere believers do not agree on Essential doctrines. C: Therefore the Catholic understanding of the magisterium is not correct. P2 is simply not true. All sincere Catholics DO agree on essential doctrines. The doctrines you listed in this video are not essential doctrines...
I've watched most of the videos related to this video, and I think there's a few problems with your responses. (Btw, you made the claim in this video that Joe was agitated in his response video. I would say the same about you in your initial response video.) 1. You're not directly responding to Joe's syllogism. The logic of Joe's syllogism seems valid. So which premise of Joe's syllogism do you contest and why? Unless I missed it, you haven't explicitly denied any of Joe's premises. Instead it sounds like you're denying the form of the argument by trying to use a reductio. Which is a valid tactic but I think there's some issues there too which leads me to my second point. 2. I'm not sure your rebuttal is a reductio which would be showing that an argument is absurd by pointing out the absurdity of the argument's logical conclusion. It sounds more like you're arguing that Joe's argument is not valid because it doesn't work with other subjects. But I don't think this works either because Joe's argument is specific to the protestant claim. Ecclesialists, as you call them, aren't claiming the kind of perspecuity with regards to authority as the Protestants so I don't see how your counter argument applies. 3. You seem to also be arguing that the term protestantism is too broad and you compared it to the term ecclesialists. On some issues, I think these categories are valid but not on this one since, when protestants of all stripes claim perspecuity, they are all making the same claim about the nature of the same object, the Bible. When ecclesialists make a similar sounding claim about their churches, they are making the same claim about different objects that have different forms as Joe mentioned. So I don't think these categories are comparable. So I think Joe's argument still holds. If protestant perspecuity is true, there should be more unity among these Protestants who make this claim. But there's not. So either perspecuity is false or some further qualifications need to be made regarding the definition of perspecuity or protestant. And any qualifications made to these terms raise further issues.
Nah, Joe's argument is still flawed. There are two big problems with Joe's argument. Javier is focusing on what I consider the second. Problem 1: Joe's first premise isn't true. Problem 2: Joe's argument is useless. I imagine Javier chose to focus on Problem 2 because he anticipated more pushback and wriggling based on technicality or just flat disagreement about Problem 1, which I go over below. Joe's argument: P1 - If the Protestant view of Scripture is correct, sincere believers will all agree on the essential doctrines. P2 - Sincere believers do not all agree on the essential doctrines. C - Therefore, the Protestant view of Scripture is not correct. The Protestant view of Scripture is not that Perspicuity entails everyone sincerely using Scripture, with due use of the ordinary means, *_will_* correctly understand the essentials. The Protestant view of Scripture is that Perspicuity entails everyone sincerely using Scripture, with due use of the ordinary means, *_can_* correctly understand the essentials. There is a world of difference between guarantee of the possibility of an outcome (real Perspicuity) and the guarantee of that specific outcome (fake Perspicuity). The support Joe used in his video to assert Premise 1 is bunk. The full passage around the snipped quote Joe used from Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will does not mean what Joe says it means. Bondage of the Will is publicly accessible. People can read it for themselves. Suppose a professor in a calculus course gives his students a study guide for the exam. He's written both the guide and the exam himself, and he tells all his students "Everything you need to know to pass the exam is in this guide." That does not mean that every diligent student who reads the guide and takes the exam will get a passing grade. The most common pushback I see in response the correct formulation of Perspicuity is "If Scripture doesn't guarantee everyone sincerely using it with due use of the ordinary means *_will_* come to correctly understand the essentials, then what value is Sola Scriptura?" The value comes from knowing that the full truth of salvation can be found only in the Scriptures - one does not need to go elsewhere for them. Those who assert one _cannot_ find the full truth of salvation in Scripture alone have a history of saying salvation must be sought through them, and exploiting believers along the way.
@@ottovonbaden6353Here’s the problem with your comment. We are assuming they are sincere believers using the ordinary means and they are using scripture. If they disagree, it means the party that disagrees is either wicked (or not sincere, sinful), or they intellectually disagree but not because they are suppressing the truth in their sin. Because the first premise is about *sincere* believers using the ordinary means, then it means they cannot be wicked. The only option then is that they have intellectual disagreements. If this is the case, then it actually does entail that the thing being disagreed about it is not actually clear enough on its own to effectuate unity.
@derekmathews153 this is a point joe makes in his rebuttal. If you hold to the perspecuity of scripture, then all theological disagreements are a condemnation of one's side intelligence or faith. Rather than a reasonable disagreement between people of good will.
Saying catholics disagree on a non-dogmatic issue is not remotly the same as protestants disagreeing about fundamental issues. Again, Joe clearly says in the clip that you showed that he is not argueing that any disagreement invalidates a group. Its the kind of disagreement we see in protestant groups that largely affirm each others denominations that is the issue. Also, a note about the term "ecclisialist". Its really not equivalent. Denominationalism affirms the trueness of other churches where as catholics make a much stronger claim that there is one true church. Such silly arguementation. Thats a category error. Forcefully applying the protestant paradigm where it does not belong show a profound lack of understanding.
I actually thought Joe's original statement about disagreements being either from ignorance or deceit is pretty much accurate, but then he makes it sound like if we think about each other that way it must be unloving and judgemental. It's simply true that if someone expresses a false view they are either mistaken or misrepresenting things. It seems to me that someone being 'good faith' is just saying they aren't consciously doing either of these things, it doesn't speak to them having internalised a certain view in the past, or are misremembering a passage, maybe a bad teacher misguided them and they neglected to compare the teaching to Scripture, etc, etc. These things aren't bad faith they're just bad practice. It also isn't some great evil to say Christian's still have sin, including pride, and can find it difficult to admit fault. There's also a third basis for disagreement that kind of lends to ignorance but isn't quite the same, and that's just laziness. There's a kernel of truth to Joe's critique which is that Sola Scriptura doesn't work if God's people don't put in the work and learn the Scripture diligently. Biblical literacy is a real problem right now despite having more resources than ever so many people simply don't meet the conditions Joe himself describes in premise 1 if being sincere includes conscientiousness. So that would be a valid critique as something more probabilistic but it's not a proof of anything.
@zacdredge3859 Joe's statement was that claiming anyone who disagrees is lazy or wicked is uncharitable. Of course, accepting the possibility of someone being ignorant or even incapable would be a more charitable position than assuming bad intentions.
@@josephgreen6013 Exactly, he loads the alternative with pejorative terms to make an emotional argument. I'm saying a) what if I simply bite the bullet? Other than sounding unpleasant where is the substance of this argument? and b) beyond this we should just acknowledge that it's true for all disagreements in which case it isn't a valid critique of any particular position or category of disagreements. Unless Joe can establish that there is an area of disagreement where it's impossible for anyone to misunderstand or disagree due to being lazy or wicked then there truly is no value beyond posturing and rhetoric to pointing this out about disagreements that specifically relate to interpreting Scripture.
@zacdredge3859 if you grant Joe's argument that the claim of perspicuity of Scripture necessarily means that any disagreement is the result of laziness or wickedness by the disagreeing party, then we are left to ask how we can determine which party is the lazy or wicked one, since there is no substantive way of determining which view is true and which is the result of laziness and/or wickedness.
@@josephgreen6013 By not being lazy or wicked yourself. You can't know other people's motives, how they might be confusing things etc, but if your standard is the content of Scripture, rather than trying to focus on persons as you seem to be abstracting, then it doesn't particularly matter *why* they are presenting the wrong interpretation. It could be one of the more innocuous reasons I presented or the terms Joe provided, in either case we can correct that person in love as opposed to speculating their motives. If it really is malicious well good thing we're called to forgive others by the power of the same Spirit who inspired Scripture and illuminates if for those who will humble themselves as disciples of Christ. Lastly, are you aware of anyone whose judgement is immune to iniquity and has complete conscientiousness in all things? Is it not pride encroaching upon blasphemy to even claim such a thing? Ergo our deficits in acquiring knowledge are *always* a result of our being sinful, foolish and slothful. Joe wanting to make that look sinister seems to betray either an ignorance of human depravity or a carelessness in the way his argumentation affects the spiritual wellbeing of his viewers.
@zacdredge3859 so, the person being lazy or wicked definitely isn't you, except when it is. Though it could be both of you or neither one of you. So, you are still left disagreeing about what is necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, without any sure way of settling that dispute.
Yeah, I can say I rebuttle someone too, but then I have to actually challenge their arguments. I don't believe you understand the arguments Joe was even making. I watched his original video, and you seem to be talking about things he never said. 🤷♂
Not sure I see the argument here? Perhaps I am missing something. As far as I can tell you are saying "A given thing being clear doesn’t mean that everyone who approaches it in good faith will come to understand it correctly." Is that not the exact argument Joe made? Does that not prove we need something more than sincerity to understand it correctly? Does that not therefore invalidate the perspicuity of scripture which claims sincerity is all that is necessary? "...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them".
@thejollyviking8083 It's a dialogue tactic. Say someone responds to you and calls into question your intentions, you may well take it the worst way possible, especially if you're not used to that. But Joe is. His expression of calling foul is overblown on purpose in order to take control of the exchange and put the other on the defensive. Almost every debater you can watch uses this tactic, such as, James White, Trent Horn, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bart Erhman, and from what I've seen from Joe for years, Joe himself at times. It's a valid tactic insofar as "winning" the exchange is concerned but it's only that - a tactic. Being friends with two lawyers, you either grow an incredibly thick skin or you're a crappy lawyer. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Joe and assuming he was an excellent lawyer, you call out tactics for what they are. To play into it is to downplay Joe's intelligence, and I don't think anyone here would doubt his.
I don't see how it demolishes the RC position. Perhaps you could help me understand. RC doesn't believe in perspicuity of scripture, in fact to get right doctrine they require the believer to have humble assent to the Church's teaching. Sincerity is not enough.
@@FirstnameLastname-qz9fr I appreciate your thoughtfulness in asking. What Javier is contending is that Joe's specific argument against Protestantism (that it has disunity and disagreement and thus its foundation - the Solas - is therefore untrustworthy) is a bad argument. He's saying this because the same argument can be turned around against Ecclesialist traditions, and the RCC specifically, and lead to the same conclusion. In short, the argument that there is disunity among Protestants on some issues doesn't have any value in this context because the same thing is true of Ecclesialists and Roman Catholics specifically.
@@tategarrett3042 Thanks for replying! Not sure I see the argument tho. Joe isn't arguing against disunity (obviously that's a bad argument, I'm with you on that 100%!). Rather, he's arguing against the perspicuity of scripture and how that is a false doctrine. RC and EO make no claim that scripture or tradition or anything can be read with unity by the average believer (in fact they claim the opposite, only the magesterium in certain instance can be guaranteed right doctrine). However, the perspicuity of scripture is a uniquely protestant doctrine and he's trying to point out how it doesn't work. Wierdly, yall seem to agree it doesn't work, which is where a lot of my confusion lies I think.
@@FirstnameLastname-qz9fr I think I see what you're getting at a bit better. The issue with Joe's argument is that it's based on a misunderstanding of what the Perpescuity of Scripture means to Protestants. He is asserting that because there are disagreements between different denominations that hold to it, it isn't a good foundation for truth. What we actually understand the doctrine to mean though is that truth can be found from sincerely reading the scriptures, not that everyone who does so will correctly interpret and duly apply what they read. I could paste what the Westminister says about it if you'd like. So what he's protesting - that Protestantism doesn't have full unity on all doctrines - isn't a useful critique because that's not the logical conclusion of the doctrine as we understand it. And beyond that, the disunity among Ecclesialist traditions shows that their foundational principle(s) - sola Ecclesia, sacred tradition, etc - are not capable of producing such unity either. Because of that, as Javier contends, this critique is not a valid argument against Protestantism, or for Ecclesialism.
@tategarrett3042 Joe specifically stipulates that he isn't arguing that disagreement necessarily invalidates a belief system. He is arguing that the disunity among protestants invalidates Sola Scriptura, because it disproves perspicuity claims.
Its amazing to me how no matter how many times people are willing to simply refuse to watch/ listen in good faith. The responses being put forth by Joes supporters do precisely what Joe himself is guilty of... refusing to actually engage in dialogue in the interest of understanding, but rather with the interest to simply "debunk" those who stand against the position they believe. The solution to this is *super* easy... Listen with the intention to understand... thats it... its that easy! Can you imagine how much better these dialogues would be if the goal was to learn, and not to "win"? Javier has demonstrated time and time again he argues in good faith, in the interest ensuring protestants are fairly represented, and why arguments levied against "Protestantism" are categorically misapplied. To assume otherwise demonstrates a bias that is totally unfounded. If you're here to just comment strawmen, and obfuscate further, *please* just go take it to an echo chamber to allow for productive dialogue here.
The criticism that Heschmeyer levies in his video this week-and some weeks ago-is that Sola Scriptura claims that the Bible is the sole rule of ecclesial authority, that those who hold to this doctrine arrive at different conclusions-even becoming non-Christians and therefore non-Protestants-and that since truth is One, Sola Scriptura is false. To claim anything about the category of "Protestant" is outside the scope of the argument. Don't imagine otherwise!
@@HighKingTurgon um, you might not know this since you don't seem to have watched the video but he actually showed at length why his actual criticism was both relevant and correct.
JH likes to invoke the language of reason, philosophy, and logic, but he does so just to the depth necessary to confuse his audience (and perhaps himself). Those of us who actually "know" logic can clearly see that JH doesn't realize that simply "making an argument" is not evidence or demonstration of truth. JH might make arguments, but they are habitually unsound. When this is pointed out to him (over and over and over), he consistently claims that he is being personally attacked, introduces other distractions, and then moves on to some other equally unsound argument... all to the applause and affirmation of his followers. His argument actually is valid -- it is formally well structured -- but his first premise is transparently false, rendering the conclusion unconfirmed and his argument unsound. But he doesn't seem to care. It may be that he doesn't understand this. In any event, it appears that his mind is made up, and he will not be confused by the facts.
@raphaelfeneje486 , you are incorrect and demonstrating my point that people just don't know logic. The "validity" of an argument has to do with its structure--not the truth of its premises.
@@philoalethia An argument is valid when the premises and conclusions are both related in the right way so that if the premises are "true" then it follows that the conclusion would have to be true. You are saying an argument has nothing to do with the truth of the premise and that's false. P.s: I'm saying that his syllogism is valid, but he started it on a false premise.
Real question, how can one distinguish between unitarian and trinitarian protestants? Like what is the response to that? Like say they affirm the five solas but rject the trinity, what is the grounds that protestants use to other them as heretics?
Mr. Perdomo, reductio ad absurdum only works in binary cases. The invention of additional categories invalidates that argument. A most famous application of reductio ad absurdum is the common proof for the irrationality of sqrt(2) that demonstrates the impossibility of expressing it as the quotient of two integers, p and q. There are two options: p/q expresses sqrt(2), or it doesn't. Replacing the constraints on p and q arbitrarily risks invalidating the argument. Reductio can only be applied to Joe's argument if you phrase it as "the prod. view of Scripture is that everyone should be able to agree. Everyone who holds to this view agrees. Therefore the prod. view is correct." To argue that a different concept of a different doctrine has anything to say about Sola Scriptura is not logical. And let me be clear-I'm not upset by the illogic; I don't think it makes you a bad person. It does leave only two possibilities, however: either you don't understand what you and Mr. Heschmeyer are actually saying, or you are willfully obfuscating the truth. I believe you when you claim not to engage in the latter. You're welcome to claim the validity of the "ecclesialist" category, even if you deny the validity of the "Protestant" category. The problem only arises when you deny that there are many Christians-and indeed non-Christians-who affirm some doctrine generally definable as "Sola Scriptura" and treat Truth as a coherent whole. That's a far tougher row to hoe, from the evidence. A three-hour video saying ecclesialist views of tradition are wrong is fine in itself-but it doesn't address the shortcomings of Sola Scriptura.
Yet, if Javier is arguing from the same syllogistic format as Heschmeyer and simply replacing terms, then what you are saying is that Heschmeyer's own objections and arguments are not valid which is Javier's point. The structure of Heschmeyer's original argument is basically: If A, Then B. Because C, then B is false. Therefore A is false. Javier is simply showing that if you structure other arguments in the same format, you can find plenty of C's to invalidate the B's and thereby disprove the A's. Hence the argumentative form is fallacious.
@@pete3397 Pete, I think you misunderstand. Syllogism isn't flawed; nor is reductio ad absurdum. When Perdomo later attempts syllogistic reasoning, his premise is flawed-it's based on his misunderstanding of reductio. Reductio ad absurdum relies on the reasoning that "if a then b" and "if a then not b" cannot both be true. One can draw no conclusion from the argument to absurdity if you change the premise. "If an ecclesial view of authority is true" et cetera is simply a DIFFERENT syllogism-with flawed premises-not a reductio as Perdomo asserts.
The argument that highlights the shortcomings of sola scriptura equally applies to the person making the argument. It is an invalid argument. So simple, how do you not understand?
@@HighKingTurgon Yet, again, what Javier has shown is that if Heschmeyer's thesis is true because A, then B. Not B, therefore A is false follows, then one can find other syllogistic elements regarding Heshmeyer's other theses that also fail the syllogistic elements. The point being is that there are many Not B's that disprove Heschmeyer's A's. The reductio applies because the denial of Heschmeyer's presupposition: A = Tradition is a valid means of infallible authority. Then B, following Heshmeyer's reasoning, = those holding to Tradition as infallible will agree. Yet, we have C, or Not B, as it were. So, not formally a pure logical reductio, but by showing that the conclusion of Not A does not follow the Not B, what we have are arguments about the accuracy of premises and the definitions of terms and that Heschmeyer's own argument can be quite easily turned against him to disprove his own premises and presuppositions. The conclusion may not be ad absurdum, but it is absurd, nonetheless. Hence, the argument against sola scriptura put forward by Heschmeyer may be logically sound yet at the same time false because the conclusion of Not A does not necessarily follow Not B. Or, if it does follow, Heschmeyer's alternative to sola scriptura fails on exactly the same terms of Not B, therefore Not A. And that was Javier's point, whether the use of reductio is formally correct or not.
@@pete3397 edit: sorry, Stephen! I mistook your name. The trouble with Perdomo's argument is that it's a different syllogism. Perdomo's premises are flawed. Therefore his conclusion is unreliable. Reductio works; syllogism works. They're simply misapplied here
Yeah sooo... neither Tradition nor Magisterium are claimed to be "clear" like the Scriptures are claimed by protestants to be. Thats the difference. You literally are making the strawman in the first portion mentioned in Joe's video "because catholics disagree the view is false" we dont claim both the learned and unlearned would understand the magisterial teaching. Thats why priests are spiritual fathers. To help the unlearned understand the magisterium and if a priest doesnt understand it, there is the Bishop, and if not the Bishop a council and if not a council the pope.
Nature can be clear about god, but not clearly perceived because the effects of sin cloud the intellect. That verse from romans condemns those people because they DID perceive the oneness of God and still chose to worship other gods. Its is possible others who did not perceive are less at fault
As per usual, I find myself deeply disheartened by the behavior in the comments section. Most (not all) of the romanists in the comments section here are doing one of a few things, all of which have been predicted 1. Refusing to watch the video and just making slanderous, insulting statements without providing any substance 2. Misapplying/ misunderstanding what constitutes a Tu Quoque fallacy, and applying it incorrectly regardless. 3. Shifting the goalpost of premise 1 to say Javier hasn't addressed it *at length*, only then to say Javier is fighting a ghost argument that hasn't been made, which is verifiably false 4. A *disastrous* missing of the entire point. The amount of people who simply do not comprehend what is being put forward here is astounding... To those who don't actually get Javiers point, please remain silent until you do, lest you fall prey to slander, and misrepresentation.
At 17:48, I disagree with the reduction in this case for this reason. You aren’t comparing like for like. There’s a lot of ways to be a Christian within certain parameters. The Essentials are this parameters in Joe’s argument. So you can disagree about a lot of things but Dogmas for example are settled matters. Protestantism cannot by definition have settled matters because each Protestant is his own magisterium yet lacks it’s infallibility.
But that's what you failed to see, that after watching all the video snippets from Javier's original rebuttal, you notice that catholics also are their own magisterium as all have different positions and beliefs that are not supported by the central position of Rome
I am not Catholic, but the made up names that Protestants attribute to them “Romanists”, “papists” and now “ecclesialists” are so smug and annoying. Call them what they call themselves. How hard is that?
@Blaisesongs I put one out just a month ago, and we'll have another one coming out in a couple of weeks -- Lord-willing, I'm not planning on stopping those any time soon! However, I do have a wide variety of content on this channel along the lines of theology, church history, Reformation apologetics, and the Christian life. Hopefully, there's a lot of edifying stuff there to enjoy 🙂
How are people still not getting it in these comments? It’s the simplest argument imaginable. If your argument refutes your own position, it is an invalid argument. No refutation is even necessary.
I mean, the fact that you guys think a reductio ad absurdum against another reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argumentation is wild to me, but whatever.
@@junkim5853 Joe's argument is a reductio ad absurdum of the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura. In other words, the argument is utilizing the logic of Protestantism (which is the point of premise 1), applying said logic (which is premise 2), and then showing it leads to an absurd conclusion. The reason the argument works is because Catholics (or """""""""ecclesialists""""""""") don't operate under the same authority system or definition of clarity as Protestants, and so trying to turn Joe's argument back on Catholics completely misses the point. To use an analogy, those who adopt the position of what is called "scientism" argue that no statement can be considered true unless it can be verified by science. A simple reductio of this position is that scientism itself, being a philosophical rather than a scientific position, cannot be verified by science. Now, I hope everyone reading this understands why it would be absurd for the advocate of scientism to attempt to turn the argument around and say, "well, your philosophical beliefs can't be verified by science either", and why it would be even more absurd to dedicate hours of video feed to demonstrating how no other philosophical position is verified by science rather than simply responding to the original argument by showing how scientism is verified by science (i.e. meeting its own burden of proof). The same principle is operating here: it is the Protestant tradition which claims that there will be agreement on essentials due to the clarity of Scripture. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has never said that all of its statements are so clear that there will never be disagreement over doctrines. Of course, it's fine to discuss what it has said about clarity and agreement over its doctrines when that's what's up for discussion, and if you want you can even try to create reductio ad absurdums for it as some Eastern Orthodox apologists will do, but it's not relevant to the discussion we're supposed to be having, which is whether or not the Protestant view of clarity and Sola Scripture meets its own test.
@@junkim5853 Joe Heschmeyer's argument is, itself, a reductio ad absurdum. He's using the claims and paradigm of Protestantism and showing how Protestantism doesn't measure up to its own claims. Catholics, however, do not operate under the same set of claims and paradigm, and therefore trying to turn Joe's reductio ad absurdum for Protestantism into a reductio ad absurdum for Catholicism fundamentally misses the point of the argument and is no different from an advocate for scientism attempting to rebut the reductio ad absurdum that his own worldview can't be demonstrated by science by turning to the theist and saying that his can't either
@@junkim5853 I've tried replying to your comment several times at this point but the replies don't seem to stay up. I'm hoping my fuller reply to the video does, so if you're interested please read that (or at least the TL;DR part)
I've listened to over 4 hours of your responses to Joe, and honestly, I don't think you have a gift for brevity. I've drawn these "essential" conclusions from your replies: - Sola Scriptura doesn't allow for the determination of essential concepts, at least not in a shared manner - You argue that the issue raised by Joe is inappropriate, badly posed
your first point is a bit odd given that his whole argument is that the ecclesialist traditions can't provide a meaningful list of essential doctrines, or agree on the interpretation and application of the doctrines they do agree on.
@@tategarrett3042 you are missing the point. Whether other traditions can or cannot provide a meaningful list of essential doctrines is irrelevant to whether sola scriptura can provide for the determination of essential concepts. The question is whether sola scriptura works, not whether other traditions do not work.
@@bcarollo1 That's reframing the discussion out of the bounds that Joe and Javier were discussing it in. Joe's specific criticism of Sola Scriptura fails because it defeats his own position too. Javier does not need to offer a comprehensive defense of Sola Scriptura to demonstrate that this specific argument fails.
@@tategarrett3042Yes Javier does need to defend Sola Scriptura. I think you are missing what Catholics believe about Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. The Church defines and clarifies the teachings of Christianity through infallible councils and papal declarations (ex cathedra). There is debate among Scotism and Thomism about different interpretations and the like and you can hold to any of those that you like unless the Church has infallibly defined something. This is where the Javier’s “ecclesialism” fails because the EO, and OO reject infallibly defined dogma coming from councils and papal declarations (ex cathedra). For Protestants, sola scriptura is the only rule of faith and there is NO infallible interpreter. Catholics and EO argue about who is the correct interpreter just like how we Christians would argue about whether or not Muslims have an infallible text in the Quran(they don’t btw). The Catholics believe that the EO are in schism but can the Lutherans say the same about Baptists who reject infant baptism and if so, how can they do that if they are no infallible interpreters?
So many ecclessialists are once again missing the point. They are saying “Look, Javier, the point of contention was the protestant use of sola scriptura and you have not touched on that!” But that is missing the point to an egregious extent. Javier is saying that Joe’s argument itself fails. He is not making a case for sola scriptura. He is saying that Joe’s argument can be used against ecclesialist traditions via reductio. Jaier is contending about the very foundation of Joe’s argument, which means that sola scriptura itself does not need to be defending *in this case* Moreover, for Joe to act like because protestants agree on the 5 solae we all have the exact same interpretive method is an astonishingly bad misrepresentation. An ounce of critical comparison of different protestant traditions will prove that to be false. Take anabaptists and Lutherans, just as Javier said. It isn’t difficult.
Yeah, it's just goalpost shifting. When Javier argues how Joe's argument fails, then a flood of RCs demand him to give a positive case for Sola Scriptura or else. As if that was the perview of this exchange, or as if Javier doesn't already have a list of videos doing just that. It's the same nauseating triumphalism that so many accuse the "orthobros" of.
I also think Joe's protest against labeled as part of the Ecclesialist umbrella when the terms "Protestant", "Lutheran", "Calvinist" and many others are all labels that Roman Catholics put on them to describe them. It is especially unfounded for him to oppose this label given that it is consistent, relevant, and useful, as Javier shows.
@@KillerofGods What you said doesn't follow at all. "Ecclesialism" is a perfectly valid term because it describes those churches that subscribe to a certain series of beliefs. Just like "Protestant" is a valid term to describe those who hold to the 5 Solas, so too is "Ecclesialist" a valid term to describe those churches that hold to their respective understandings of authority, the church, and the rest.
@@tategarrett3042 And you side stepped the point entirely. When you join hands with them, you're now forced to justify/defend their viewpoint. Whereas when you just say they are wrong. You are under no obligation to defend those positions.
@@tategarrett3042 Whereas I don't have to defend mormanism or Catholicism to defend the church. You however do have to justify certain beliefs when you take the ecumenical approach.
@@tategarrett3042 You're basically saying, you can't endorse one government without endorsing them all... It's not a valid argument, you can say one group/authority is right without saying all groups are right.
I don't understand why you are attacking Catholicism in particular. The argument Joe makes could be made by a Muslim, an atheist, a Hindu, an agnostic, whoever. How does attacking Catholicism disprove Joe's argument? Why don't you try to disprove the argument with Protestantism's merits? (If such a thing even exists...) If an atheist were to make exactly the same argument, how would you respond to them? Try and discredit atheism? Joe's argument isn't uniquely Catholic (""ecclesialist""), so attacking Catholicism doesn't help defend your position at all...
As someone getting sick of the smug tone that Catholic apologetics has been taking of late, you gave me like seven hours of homework to do, and my God, I must be really sick of that smugness because, by God, I did it. And now here I am. Conclude this brother! Edit: after the fact: Well said, and well concluded and thanks again for calling out the tone of their videos. I've been looking for some solid long form Lutheran YT stuff. I believe I've found him. Bell icon and subbed.
@@FirstnameLastname-qz9fr I didn't. But out of respect, and my desire to not become a stumbling block for you, I will not use my Lord's title, in speech while addressing you directly sir or madam.
Not all scripture is equally unclear. It goes beyond the bounds of reductio ad absurdum to say that Catholics, let alone all “ecclesialists”, think scripture cannot be understood at all without church intervention.
The first problem I see with Joe Heschmeyer’s argument is he assumes something about sola scriptura that he shouldn’t: he believes that if scripture is clear that it follows that all those who believe in sola scriptura are going to automatically believe in the same essential doctrines from scripture, as well as understand scripture the same way. But that’s like saying all Roman Catholics are going to all agree on what the magisterium teaches, including ecumenical councils, in terms of essential doctrines. But if that is true, then why do 70% of American Catholics not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? Why do Roman Catholics not all believe what happens to an unbaptized baby who dies? Why don’t all Catholics believe in evolution, or if the Earth is young or old? Why do all Catholics not believe in capital punishment? Using Joe’s own arguments against him, then Joe should reject Roman Catholicism for the same reasons he claims to reject sola scriptura. And that’s because like most Roman Catholic apologists, Joe has an inaccurate understanding of what sola scriptura is, and what it leads to.
4:30 my guy, you took HOURS to play clips of him and you never even quoted a single part of the video you were allegedly responding too. I'm all for charitable interpretation, but at the very least I think you ought to admit you didn't have good flow or reasonable citations. I can happily give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're new to this or you made a mistake, but to double down? Really??!!
I'ts absolutely ignoring the Catholic system and what we teach, i'ts just imposing that we have the same teaching as you guys and this is where the mistake lies. It ignores what we teach about faith as a theological virtue, dogmatic faith, implicit faith. We acknowledge different levels of doctrinal knowledge and authority while maintaining a coherent system for preserving and transmitting truth through established institutional mechanisms rather than relying solely on individual interpretation of scripture. While the protestant position on the Church will be something semantically equivalent to "whoever reads and interprets the Bible just like I do, or at least pretty close to just like I do". And if you ask "Which creeds, confessions and historical theology are authoritative?", their ultimate answer is semantically equivalent to "those creeds and confessions and historical theology that agree with me-and-my-own-interpretation-of-Scripture." The Catholic position, in contrast, provides clear, objective criteria for delineation while maintaining the proper nature of faith as a theological virtue requiring true submission to divine authority. The Church is part of the deposit of faith. She is “something to BELIEVE in”, because she is the mystical body of Christ. She is tangible, both historically AND in the here and now. She makes claims, she calls for a decision, she confronts the person with a choice - just as her founder, Jesus, did. *The Protestant argument fails to distinguish between two fundamentally different types of submission:* Mental submission (interpreting texts privately) Extra-mental submission (submitting to a concrete, living authority) As Aquinas explains, true faith requires adherence to the Church "as to an infallible and divine rule" Merely choosing what to accept/reject based on personal interpretation is not submission but "following one's own will" *Objective vs. Subjective Criteria:* The Catholic Church offers objective, verifiable criteria: Historical succession Unity Stability Miracles Prophecies Fruitfulness As Fenton notes, these are "objectively provable" and the Church's founding is "historically a miraculous phenomenon" Faith is a stable disposition in the intellect Requires: Assent to the whole of revelation (even if virtually) Submission to Church authority as the channel of revelation Acceptance of the Church's teaching as infallible and divine *The Formal Object of Faith:* Aquinas establishes that faith's formal object is the First Truth (God) This Truth is manifested through: _Holy Scripture_ _Church Teaching_ Key point: The authority of the Church itself is a revealed truth This creates an "epistemic hierarchical order" where Church authority must be accepted even before Scripture *We have a Hierarchical Understanding of Doctrine*: Not all doctrines require explicit knowledge by all believers Basic doctrinal requirements (like the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds) apply to all More complex dogmas (like detailed Christological definitions) are primarily required knowledge for theologians *Institutional Teaching Framework:* The Church established theological schools and manual systems This provides an "ordinary means" for interpreting and teaching the deposit of faith Creates a structured way to communicate magisterial teaching to those who need to know specific truths *Practical Application:* Laypeople can make an "implicit Act of Faith" by believing what God has revealed through Christ and His Church This doesn't require explicit knowledge of every dogma
"The Catholic position, in contrast, provides *_clear_* , objective criteria for delineation while maintaining the proper nature of faith as a theological virtue requiring true submission to divine authority." So you are saying the Church offers clarity? Would this clarity be such that any (not every) Catholic, sincerely seeking to learn about the faith, and properly using the resources provided by the Church through Tradition, Scriptures, and Magisterium, can come to understand the essentials needed to be saved? If you say yes (and I think that is correct), then Javier's parody argument applies. If you say no, then you actually deny the advantage claimed by Rome whenever she asks a Protestant "You disagree about this in your system - who decides what is right?" The whole point of the Roman case against Protestant Perspicuity is that Rome offers a clarity absent in Protestant Perspicuity. Claiming that she doesn't backfires against the Catholic position severely.
Having taken some time in the comments it seems to me the argument is basically this: Joe's argument refutes Joe, therefore it's a bad argument. If this is correct, I have to say that Javier you need to do some work in your presentation abilities because I've watched about 5 hours on this topic and I'm just now realizing what could be said in a single sentence. Perhaps you find it very clear? But at the very least your Catholic audience does not. I will pray for you and I hope in the future you may be more clear so that we may have more fruitful dialogue.
Admittedly haven't watched entire thing but I hope this is actually a rebuttal video and not a lot of words entailing a reply video that side steps his core arguments.
@@mitchellscott1843 In the first half of this video, I clearly lay out Joe's argument and reject the first premise by demonstrating how it leads to absurd conclusions when applied equally to other circumstances. Hope that helps.
Seems the argument here is that as a Catholic Joe isn't allowed to criticise Sola Fide as foundation of "Protestantism" (whatever that is, seems it only includes trinitarian denominations, but I don't think an explanation is provided how Sola Fide can be used to exhaustively prove the Trinity) because not all Catholics agree on everything as well. Maybe am missing something, I don't have time to watch hours of this.
@@christophlindinger2267 yeah I guess the distinction is that Catholics don't agree on everything not so much because the dogma is unclear more like because they personally decide the church is wrong on xyz issue.
19:40, It would be a circular argument without scripture. The scripture which says that The Holy Spirit will head the church into all truth. Also, not just the Papacy. The Magisterium includes all Bishops.
I think what Joe is saying that because no one can agree on anything sola scriptura or with the magisterium is his point. Also isn’t sola scriptura just meant to say scripture is Gods word therefore it’s the authority, doesn’t really say anything about understanding it, therefore if we don’t have someone, either ourselves, a pastor, a magisterium etc pick one or all then it’s irrelevant.
I am a Catholic who affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture. This means, I believe Scripture is THE authority. The question becomes, how do I know what the Scripture teaches/says? Protestantism says I can know that, at least when it comes to essential doctrines, through the due use of ordinary means. As a Catholic, I hold it requires the magisterium.
We understand the argument. The argument is that Javier doesn't like Joe's argument. But that does nothing to rebute Joe's position on Sola Scriptura, and that's the problem. There is NO addressing of Sola Scriptura here. That's the problem. Javier is dancing around the issue.
@@Shirogarasu9 well if you watched the video you might realize that his entire point is that Joe hasn't made any real criticism of sola scriptura since his own arguments also debunk all the Ecclesialist traditions, including Rome. An argument that defeats your own position is worthless against your opponent's.
Yep, got that, understand it. He doesn't like Joe's argument. It didn't take 4 hours to get that point across and he still didn't do anything at all to present even a crumb or reasoning for anyone to believe in Sola Scriptura. He didn't defend it AT ALL. Period. He can hate Joe's argument all he wants, but if he doesn't defend his stance on Sola Scriptura specifically, he does nothing at all to move the needle.
@@Shirogarasu9 Javier doesn't have to defend Sola Scriptura to defeat Joe's argument, and all he was trying to do here was show the invalidity of Joe's argument. Criticizing Javier for not making an independent case for Sola Scriptura in this video is a complete red herring. He has already done that in other videos.
@@tategarrett3042 A red herring?? Bro, the entire subject of this back and forth is Sola Scriptura. Lol what the heck are you on about? Whatever. This has been a huge waste of my time and I'm not burning any more of it here. What a joke.
Javier, do you not know how to do basic logic? Joe's argument is simple: If p, then q. Not q. Therefore, not p. You need to show that either premise 1 or premise 2 is not true. Its simple logic. Why can't you just respond to the syllogism? There is absolutely nothing wrong or faulty with Joe's logic. It is both sound and valid. You are using sophistry to beat around the bush.
@user-hj8vd2od9h I object to Joe's 1st premise and demonstrate that the snuck premise underlying it leads to all sorts of absurd conclusions. Re-watch the video, then check the pinned comment.
@@user-hj8vd2od9h The snuck premise behind Joe's 1st Premise *is* false. That's why I'm objecting to his 1st Premise. Once again, check the pinned comment. Hope that helps.
@@javierperd2604 Thanks, that pinned comment is more clear. You stated: "The reason Premise #1 is false is due to the snuck premise underlying it, namely: That 'approaching with sincerity' is a sufficient condition for understanding something that has been clearly set forth." If premise 1 is false, then are you saying that God would allow sincere believers to passionately disagree on essential doctrines (those doctrines which a Christian needs to believe for salvation)? How could a loving God allow such a thing? It seems absurd to say that Christians can passionately disagree on essential doctrines.
@@user-hj8vd2od9h not to mention it completely concedes the whole premise. The whole argument is against the perspicuity of scripture along sola scriptura lines, that all essential doctrine is clearly defined in the bible. By admitting that sincere believers can come to different conclusions then begs the question... how? If scripture is 100% clear and perspicuity is correct, only those of bad faith would disagree, but if sincere believers can arrive to different conclusions, you absolutely need to concede that they are ignorant, if they are ignorant and 100% sincere, then scripture was insufficiently clear. You can't both have full sincerity and full clarity with several Protestant denominations that disagree on essential doctrines claiming full clarity. Javier conceding sincere believers can arrive to different conclusions is simply the end of the argument and proves Joe's case, it doesn't matter if he gives a line of reasoning that supposedly debunks Catholicism afterwards, that wasn't the debate in the first place. At best, if we just take for granted Javier is correct and Catholicism is wrong, then both Protestantism and Catholicism are wrong. Regardless, the perspicuity of scripture is still ends up proven false in the end.
Why not save yourself some time and just admit that there is no way to resolve doctrinal disagreements in Protestantism? In fact there are no "official teachings". Only thing official is the unofficial. Since no one church has the infallible power to settle dogmatic matter or moral one then anything goes. No one church can call any other Christian or church heretics. There, I saved you some time. You're welcome.
@@MrJayb76 You are just continuing to ignore the discussion, while trying to ram in a false ultimatum. Engage in the subject at hand, or don't engage at all. This only obfuscates and muddies the water. His *whole point* is that Protestant agree on the essentials *just as much* as ecclesialists do. If you can't see that, you've missed the point entirely.
@@MrJayb76 That criticizing the "protestant understanding of scripture" is a false dilemma. Since all protestant traditions have a different interpretative lens. To apply the same standard to "Tradition" in the ecclesialist worldview creates the same problem. Holy Tradition doesn't fix the problems that those who hold to Sola Scriptura and therefore, Sola Scriptura isn't the problem. People are.
If you get to claim that all the people that don't believe in sola scriptura are ecclesialists, then unitarians are protestant. In your example about cats, separating them based on number of legs is only dumb if all the cats have four legs. If one of them has three legs, then it suddenly isn't quite so dumb. The map example doesn't help you. You gave three examples of people using the map, those that get there, those that don't want to get there, and those that get lost. If the map is so clear that no one can get lost, then there are only two people. Those that get there, and those that don't want to get there. If that is true, then I guess everyone that happens to disagree with you must not want to be saved. There is no good faith disagreement. "If the roman catholic view of the magisterium is correct, sincere believers will all agree on the essential doctrines." Why? What is the "roman catholic view of the magisterium" that somehow necessitates everyone agree? What does "sincere believers" mean?
"If you get to claim that all the people that don't believe in sola scriptura are ecclesialists, then unitarians are protestant." He didn't, we don't, and they aren't. "In your example about cats, separating them based on number of legs is only dumb if all the cats have four legs. If one of them has three legs, then it suddenly isn't quite so dumb." In his scenario, no cat was mentioned as having three legs. This is not relevant. "The map example doesn't help you. You gave three examples of people using the map, those that get there, those that don't want to get there, and those that get lost. If the map is so clear that no one can get lost, then there are only two people. Those that get there, and those that don't want to get there. If that is true, then I guess everyone that happens to disagree with you must not want to be saved. There is no good faith disagreement." Joe's premise that anyone sincerely, with due of ordinary means, _will_ understand the essentials is not what Protestants claim. The claim is that we _can_ understand the essentials. We don't claim the map is so clear no one can get lost (which would probably violate free will). We claim the map is clear enough that anyone, using it rightly, _can_ use it without getting lost.
@@ottovonbaden6353 "he laid out a parody argument based on Joe's umbrella argument against Protestants by creating a fake label of Ecclesialist." Right. But for the parody to hold, unitarians would have to be protestant. If you say that unitarians are NOT protestant, the parody fails, which was my point. "Pointing out that three legged cats technically exist is just not relevant." You do realize that the story with the cats is an analogy, right? He created a story where all the cats have four legs, and then says that Catholics and protestants are in the boat. But, they're not. "After I respond, are you going to just ask me if another Prot disagrees on any of them?" Nope. I don't have to ask if they disagree. They do. I was going to ask how you know those are the essentials. If another "Prot" is doing the same thing as you, but gets a different answer, how do you know that you found the right answer?
@ “for the parody to hold, Unitarians would have to be Protestant” Maybe there is some blending of contexts here. In the land of JoeArgument, Protestantism includes every group that affirms Sola Scriptura. So, sure, Unitarians are Protestant according to Joe’s concept formally put forward as part of the framework for his premises. In that same land, Javier introduces his parody argument. Here, Ecclesialist refers to every group claiming a clear, infallible teaching authority combining Tradition and Magisterium. These umbrellas only act like this in the land of JoeArgument. In the real world, Unitarians aren’t Protestant, and Catholics and Orthodox aren’t really part of an Ecclesialist umbrella claiming the clarity of Tradition. The parody holds because it demonstrates the absurdity of the entire premise of JoeArgument, and because it demonstrates that, it also shows that forcing umbrellas around both groups is absurd. "He created a story where all the cats have four legs, and then says Catholics and Protestants are in the same boat. “ He only claims they are in the same boat in the land of JoeArgument, because Joe’s Premise 1 is false and, frankly, just an example of poor epistemology. What is more, its conclusions make it completely pointless to bring to conversation anyway. Saying “If Umbrella group’s stance that X is clear means they will all say Y is true, they don’t all say Y, therefore stance is false” relies on the absurd idea that everyone who looks at a thing with a similar mindset will necessarily all agree on specific aspects of the thing. The Catholics in the comments who are protesting (ba dum ts) that the Catholic Church doesn’t claim that all Catholics will agree while the Protestants do claim this have it half right. The Protestants don’t claim we will all agree, because that claim is bunk. “How do you know you found the right answer?” Same way you know Christ is Risen, or that you concluded your own Church is the true Church. Faith.
ok. so … it just feels like youre just defining what is and isnt acceptable as an argument. i feels like youre saying: A + B = C , therefore when you use + in any argument it can be scrutinised since that shape is only a symbol that equals C in certain contexts.
At the core of my confusion, I don't understand why you exchanged the parties in Joe's syllogism when it is for Protestants alone and based on the argument for perspecuity, which only Protestants affirm. And, given that, neither do you ever address his argument for Protestantism.
@@amcasci I read his syllogism in the video a million times while showing why the first premise is faulty, given that it leads Joe to absurd conclusions in plenty of other areas.
You are creating other syllogisms. You are free to do so. Have at it but please answer his syllogism instead of listing others. It does not matter how many times you quote his syllogism what matters is addressing one simple syllogism
@@javierperd2604and you didn't address it. You talked about it a lot, and complained that you didn't like it, but you didn't address it, nor did you do anything at all to defend Sola Scriptura.
A long way to go and you never got to sola scriptura. Your discussion is interesting and has many good points but SOLA SCRIPTURA is the matter at hand.
If you want to demonstrate that his system is no better, have at it. That is a legit matter but you still have not addressed the failure of sola scriptura. I am a LCMS emeritus pastor and I can vouch for the fact that Ming us in this small relatively homogeneous enclave there is significant disagreement. Why? We say all our pastors subscribe to scripture and the Book Of Concord and yet we do not have concord. How do you answer that? To say Rome or East is no better is no help to a struggling LCMS.
What about theological differences between Missouri-Synod and ELCA? They come from the same tradition and have vastly differing interpretations of very important doctrines
They don't come from the same tradition. Their understanding of everything from Scripture to the Book of Concord are completely different. The Missouri Synod holds that the Book of Concord is correct because it leads to a correct understanding of Scripture. The ELCA claims to support both "in so far as" as they conform to Scripture. To put it the classical way, the ELCA can affirm the Koran "in so far as" it conforms to Scripture. When you take this approach, everything becomes entirely subjective, and this is how the ELCA can affirm gay marriage, trans pastors, other religions, and any other nonsense that they come up. My Pastor has put it this way: The ELCA isn't Evangelical, isn't Lutheran, and probably isn't Christian. They are correct to claim they live in America though.
@@mattnxtc1 wait but the ELCA spilt from the LCMS so they do come from the same tradition right? You can say that the LCMS upholds that tradition better but to say that the ELCA doesn’t stem from that tradition would be wrong, right?
@@ottoaero14 I don't understand your point? The groups that would eventually become the ELCA split BECAUSE they didn't want to follow the historical traditions, and would rather affirm new traditions.
Former ELCA here. Despite the presence of good congregations remaining in the denomination, the denominational leadership is teaching heresy. As much as it hurts to say it, the ELCA falls under Progressive Christianity, not Confessional Lutheranism. If you want to contrast differences in Lutheran traditions, I'd suggest comparing LCMS with the North American Lutheran Church (NALC), or maybe the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod WELS. I think Jordan Cooper is AALC (forget what one of the A's stands for).
I don’t understand Joe’s definition of “essential doctrines.” I think all Protestants do agree on Sola Scriptura and Justification by Faith Alone. Those are essential doctrines, and are clearly taught in Scripture.
Essential would be anything you need to be saved. His whole point is that if perspecuity of scripture is true, then we would expect most protestants to agree on matters of faith and morals. We do not see agreement on matters of faith and morals. Therefore, the protestant view of scripture is incorrect. The reason Javier keeps missing the whole point is that he is applying the doctrine of perspecuity to Catholic teaching. But that was never an argument made by Joe, or the Church.
@@sgtadhesive9044 The Catholic Church makes this argument about her own teaching any time she asks a Protestant "This issue is disputed in your system. Who decides? In ours, Rome decides. We offer clarity." Saying that Rome does not claim to be clear in teaching the essentials drastically backfires against the Catholic position.
Literally the only place in the bible that uses "justified by faith alone" says, "Man is not justified by faith alone". But sure, the thing explicitly denied by scripture is actually affirmed in scripture.
@ottovonbaden6353 An argument made by a lay person is not the same as "the Catholic Church teaches." The claim isn't that all Catholic teaching is clear in the way that protestants claim scripture to be. There is a small subset of teaching that is infallible. All this means is that the Holy Spirit is protecting the magisterium from binding the faithful to error. You see infallible statements in councils and a few times directly from the pope. Look for language like "we declare and define that..." or "... let them be anathema." The advantage of this is that there is a process and authority for resolving disputes that are binding on the faithful. Not that all teaching will be clear. Protestantism has no mechanism for this because, as Joe makes the argument, scripture is not clear enough that the learned and unlearned alike may agree on all they need to be saved. Luther even thought that scripture was clear enough that all would agree on every matter of doctrine, essentials, and non essentials alike.
@@sgtadhesive9044 "The claim isn't that all Catholic teaching is clear in the way that protestants claim scripture to be." Then what, precisely, is the Catholic claim on the teachings of essentials in the Catholic Church? I understood it to be that Catholics _can_ correctly know essential doctrines sufficiently to attain salvation by submitting to the teachings of Tradition and the Magisterium. "Luther even thought that scripture was clear enough that all would agree on every matter of doctrine, essentials, and non essentials alike." I would like to see a citation on this particular matter from Luther, if you have one handy. From what I have seen, mainly in the Bondage of the Will section dealing with Perspicuity, Luther claimed Scripture is abundantly clear in all things, but that degrees of darkened hearts resulting from our lives of sin put obstacles in the way of understanding. These obstacles are removed in part or in total through the work of the Spirit in the believer who seeks to understand.
Javier, I wonder if what you should have said (and this is certainly in the same spirit of what you did say) is that a generalization of Joe's premise 1 is false; namely, that, _if a source of doctrinal essentials is perspicuous and authoritative, then sincere believers will all agree on the essential doctrines insofar as they are outlined by that source_. Since this generalization is clearly false (as Joe should admit), premise 1 is simply unmotivated. No one should accept it, let alone a protestant who believes in the perspicuity of scripture.
A comment unrelated to the Joe business, why does your audio sound so can-like? Is it the mic or something else? Sorry I just keep thinking about it every time I watch your videos 😂 great content though ❤️
Can you make a video refuting "Ultimate REFUTATION of Sola Scriptura" by Scholastic Answers. I'ts one of those videos that is not rhetoric bs, i'ts very systematic and in the end part you have syllogism you can work with.
As a Pentecostal (The orthodox one), I do not consider Unitarians at all as Protestants. Once you deviate from at least one essential doctrine, you're out. Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, Baptists and Pentecostals all agree on the essentials (The Trinity, Jesus's divinity, The Virgin Birth, The Hypostatic Union, Holding only two sacraments, and the Five Solas.) I don't know why Romanists keep claiming we don't agree on the essentials. So far, we do, that's why I get along with my Baptist friends despite some of them being cessationists. There was actually one time when a Free Evangelical Lutheran lady visited our church and gave a testimony before us. Moreover, our church was visited by an elderly Anglican man, he was married to one of my relatives, who herself is Pentecostal but when I asked him if he's Anglican, he confirmed he is. I don't hold any issue with that, I was even glad that we got visited by an Anglican. If I'd be given the chance to return the favour of visiting a Lutheran and an Anglican Church, I would certainly do that too. I visited a Bible Baptist Church and attended there for about 3 or 4 Sundays straight and let me tell you despite arriving there hearing about disputing Pentecostal beliefs, I still continued being with them. I shared them my experiences as a Pentecostals and instead of saying that I should depart from Pentecostalism, one of them just said "Continue on your walk in Jesus Christ" which just prove the point that despite some differences (non-essentials) we see each other as fellow brethren in Christ. Before you drop the Montanist and Nestorian bombs on me because I identify myself as a Pentecostal, here are some of my beliefs: a.) I had renounced my old Nestorian sensibilities, acknowledging further that the Blessed Virgin is the Theotokos (God bearer or the Mother of God). b.) Pentecostals (or at least the church I'm affiliated to) do not put received revelations above Scripture (Montanism), rather received revelation must confirm and conform to Scripture. c.) I'm fine with calling the Lord's Supper as the "Eucharist" recognizing both memorial and spiritual properties in the sacrament (aye, I acknowledge spiritual presence as well). d.) I now at least have a "relaxed" view of the apocrypha considering them as "ecclesial" because while they may not hold the same canonical status with the 66 books, they are however allowed to be read in the church for edificational purposes. e.) We've been taught from childhood in our church that despite being separate from Rome, we have not lost our Catholic identity, it is still with us. Finally, had not Pentecostalism existed, I'd either become an Anglican or Lutheran. Thank you for your patience and God bless you
@@Joshua12w2o Hello there, I reckon I've not dived deep enough into Montanism, sadly it is one of the pervasive accusations out there concerning Pentecostalism. Of course, that does not mean it doesn't hold water at all. I admit that there are some Pentecostals out there that may display Montanist tendencies. Further, we do share a few similarities with them: (a.) Presence of spiritual gifts, (b.) bishops and presbyters open for women, (c.) ecstatic worship and (d.) Primilennialism. However, when it comes to spiritual gifts especially, received revelations, we do not believe they supersede the apostles but rather as confirmation of the Holy Scriptures and must be in conformity to them otherwise we reject them. Moreover, unlike Montanists, we do not forbid our women to wear ornaments, do not inherit the problem of Monarchianism (which some of them believed), do not subscribe to asceticism (though we have ocassional fasts), do not forbid those who had once renounced their faith to return to us, and even though we have ecstatic worship, we do give room for singing some hymns, do not have limited distinction between the laity and clergy (Heb. 13:17 has been used to obey our priests), do not only discouraged infant baptism but reject it for infant dedication instead. So we're far enough from being Montanists. Thank you for your patience and God bless you
I loved the point you brought up at around 19:00. The Roman Catholic claim ultimately requires a self-authenticating papacy. So then why not just accept a self-authenticating Bible, like Magisterial Protestantism does? When you get to the bottom of it, God’s words _have_ to be self-authenticating - you can’t have something higher than God’s words giving them a stamp of approval. So how then did we receive the Scriptures? It’s called Divine Providence. _Of course_ God wouldn’t inspire the Scriptures only to then let them fall into oblivion.
36:50, the cat syllogism doesn’t work. It only appears to because you equate the opinion of laymen with church teaching. Also because one of the ancient churches is the correct tradition. Novel institutions that weren’t founded by Christ can’t be the church for that reason.
I just always feel that the catholicism is ignoring glaring obvious truth of the gospel and always want to turn this into a sola scriptura is false conversation. : /
Would you please time-stamp where Javier leveled personal jabs at Joe? I didn't see any, or maybe I just personally wouldn't have been offended. Having watched Joe for a number of years, it's something that's used as a dialogue tactic rather than actual hurt feelings. And being friend to two lawyers myself, they've confirmed as much. But I don't know Joe personally. And I'm not Joe. I was unable to locate anything that was personally insulting from Javier, but Javier's take on Joe's arguments could be vexing to Joe.
@@jmh7977I don't have the time to go through a three hour video again bro. I do remember the very personal tone of the video wrt Joe. Implying that the other person is dishonest is a very personal remark. He should have just stuck with "Joe is wrong here".
@Neil-g4g Fair enough, I wasn't trying to pin you down or expect you to comb through hours of material again, but I'd hoped maybe certain moments stood out to you that you could recall. Without actual time-stamps though, you realize anyone can make claims, myself included. I asked you because if I'm wrong, and Javier really did make purposeful and personal jabs at Joe, I'd sincerely like to know. I just didn't recall seeing anything which Joe, a very seasoned speaker, former lawyer, and intelligent person, should actually take real offense to.
@@jmh7977 Again, I don't remember things verbatim - but one example is when Javier implies Joe uses debate tricks intentionally to obfuscate the fact that the same argument will undercut his position - or something to this effect. That's a comment on Joes character now. If I remember well (and I likely don't) this happens in the first 30 mins. If my memory is correct and the above observations are true - wouldn't you consider that as a personal jab?
@@jmh7977 I can't see your last reply but here is what I wrote: Fair enough. If you think the assessment is true to Joes character - then it's not a jab as such - even though it's still personal. I am new to both these channels so I have limited data to work with than you. I don't find Joe dishonest at all so far, and I won't take your word for it (nor do I think you'd expect me too). I don't see a reason to make a personal remark (even if supposedly true) whilst trying to defeat an argument. I just don't see the point. And I cannot see this done in "good faith". But again, maybe Joe has done things in the past that may make you feel he simply asked for it. I can't say because I have not accessed that data.
(not sure if the channel or youtube is deleting my comments, so I'm splitting this up into multiple parts to see if that fixes the problem. I genuinely don't think Javier would simply delete attempted rebuttals of his video regardless of whether they gave him pause or not, so I'm going to blame youtube.) Part 1: This, unfortunately, has to be a long post, because it's become clear to me (see what I did there) that you and several other commenters on this video are entangled in such a web of failures to understand what this discussion is even about that it's taken me a bit to unravel them. The fundamental problem with your entire argument is that "ecclesialists" don't use the Protestant definition of clarity. That's the point. You can't foist your definition of clarity (which involves all sincere believers applying the due use of ordinary reason to the Scriptures as their only infallible source of authority coming to agreement on the essential doctrines) onto "ecclesialists" and say that they don't meet its requirements and pretend that proves some kind of double standard. The difference between "ecclesialists" and Protestants is that one side specifically claims that sincere believers who follow their authority paradigm will arrive at essential doctrines and the other side specifically doesn't say that. "Ecclesialists" saying that no sincere reader of the tradition of the Church can come away thinking that Protestantism in particular is in line with the tradition of the Church (which, as it happens, most Catholic apologists don't say though some probably do for rhetorical purposes), doesn't mean that they're saying no sincere believer will have disagreement on the interpretation of Sacred Tradition.
Part 2: The reason people said that you spent three hours rambling and/or missing the point was because what you were saying was completely irrelevant to the argument*. The Catholic Church *doesn't say that Sacred Tradition, or the Magisterium for that matter, is so clear that no reasonable person could be Orthodox, or that Orthodox and Catholics won't disagree, or even that there will be no disagreement over the "essentials" (whatever that is supposed to mean in Catholicism) within our own tradition, which is why the reductio is completely and totally off base. Of course, you try to anticipate this object with your second reductio concerning the Magisterium, but you still do the same thing as the first reductio: you put a Protestant burden onto "ecclesialists". Literally Joe's entire argument is that Protestant confessions specifically say that those who follow Scripture and apply the ordinary means of reason to it will arrive at the essentials. The Catholic Church does not say that, it doesn't say that there will be no disagreement over essentials among her members because it doesn't talk about "essentials." It doesn't even say that what the Magisterium says will always be perfectly clear so that there will be no disagreement. Individual Catholics may say that, but this is not the claim of the Church itself. What it does say is that it has the authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition and to authoritatively bind the consciences of the faithful on matters of faith and morals, that it (and this is important) is CAPABLE (i.e., it can*, in principle, do this) of *continuing to clarify its teaching when there is a lack of clarity, and that those who knowingly (again, important) do not follow her judgments on the matter are guilty of the sin of heresy.
Part 3: You can say that there's still disagreement. We know. WE weren't the ones who said there wasn't going to be disagreement over "essentials" or non-"essentials", what we did say is that when there is a disagreement the authority of the Church is capable of settling said issues specifically because it is a living authority which is capable of clarifying and reclarifying itself and that Scripture because it is not a living authority is unable to do this. (As a side note, this is why the relevant apologetic argument here is about *capability*, in that the Magisterium has a capacity as a living authority which Scripture does not. The Magisterium is at least capable of settling these matters in a way that Scripture isn't, regardless of whether or not it succeeds in doing so at any particular period of time. You might not like this paradigm, but that doesn't make it a double standard.) Now, you can object that we should have already settled issues over what anathemas are, whether or not NFP is immoral, etc. But these objections are either: a) historical matters (what anathemas were considered to do in the 500s, 800s, 1300s, etc. obviously isn't a theological doctrine, but an historical dispute) and are therefore outside the claimed purview of the Church's authority, or b) actually have been authoritatively settled by the Church, meaning that at least one side of those disputes are in open dissent to the teaching of the Church and therefore don't qualify as part of the discussion anymore than those who reject some part of Scripture apply to your end. I know that radtrads say that NFP is immoral. They're wrong, and they're (knowingly or unknowingly) dissenting from the Church's teaching.
Part 4: Similarly, you can object that we should have already settled issues over which theological school has predestination right, whether or not "hopeful" universalism is an orthodox position, etc. But the Church has decided not to make a judgment on the matter and to leave it open for dispute beyond the parameters of the discussion it has created, meaning that it is (by analogy) one of our "non-essential" doctrines. Maybe you think these things are major enough that they should be "essential" (again, I'm using that term analogously), but even if I were to agree with that, it wouldn't constitute a double standard because, again, the Catholic Church doesn't define things in terms of the "essentials". Maybe you think that this means we have no "clarity" advantage over you guys, great, cool, the rhetorical apologetic argument of "come to the Catholic Church because we agree on everything" has been refuted! Good job! You know what hasn't been refuted though? The foundational claims of our authority paradigm, which says nothing about the total conformity of belief among all of its members over "essential" matters.
Part 5 (final) To summarize: Protestants are the ones who created the workload around needing to agree on "essential" doctrines, not "ecclesialists". It is because of *specifically this claim* and for no other reason that the "essentials" question is something which is even brought up in the first place. Scripture doesn't do what your confessions say it does, therefore, you're wrong about Scripture. Even if Catholics were wrong about the Magisterium, you would still be wrong about Scripture until you can come up with a defense of your position which, for some reason, you guys still haven't done. I genuinely can't figure out why this is so difficult to understand, because it seems to only be Protestant apologists who are incapable of understanding it. I don't know if there's a mental block here or if you guys are just going into an "automatic rebuttal mode" or something whenever the topic of Protestant disagreements come up, but you've now spent 5 hours simply dodging the actual criticism and even after Joe made two clarification videos you guys still missed the point. I genuinely don't get it. And what's hilarious about this is that you could just invalidate the argument with one simple statement: just say that people who apply the due use of ordinary reason won't necessarily agree on the essentials from Scripture. Or (better yet) simply show how Joe's interpretation of what "applying the due use of ordinary reason to the Scriptures" means is wrong and how what it actually meant in the creeds makes your creeds' statement on the matter so much more reasonable. In other words, simply deny premise one of the argument and show how it fails. That's literally all Catholics are asking you to do and you refuse to do it. So, let's make this simple: which premise of Joe's argument do you deny, and why? At this point, you really ought to do that just for the sake of moving the discussion forward because it's clear that we Catholics simply don't get which premise you deny or why. So please, don't dance around the argument by giving parody arguments or reductio ad absurdums in response to a reductio ad absurdum. Which of the premises of the argument are false and why?
TL;DR Catholics don't claim that they'll all agree on every "essential" doctrine or that all statements from the Magisterium are perfectly clear. I'm sorry if we've given you that impression with our apologetic arguments in other areas, but that's not what the Church teaches. Joe's argument is that Protestants *are* the ones who claim that all true believers who apply the due use of ordinary reason will agree on the essentials, and yet they don't. Because of this, you can't turn the argument back around onto Catholics for the very simple reason that we don't make the same claims you do. You don't hold up to your own claims, the fact that we don't hold up to your claims is completely irrelevant. Therefore, in order to refute Joe's argument, rather than spending hours talking about how """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""ecclesialists""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" don't agree with each other on stuff you think is really important, you need to actually deny one of the premises or show how the conclusion doesn't follow. If you can't do that, then the argument holds and your understanding of Scripture is false.
You’re committing the tu quo que fallacy. Roman Catholics disagreeing on non essential doctrines (all of the doctrines you mentioned aren’t essential doctrines by far) does not fix the problem with sola scriptura. Joe also never claimed that the Magisterium will always be clear, however there is the added benefit of the magisterium clarifying and giving us more clarity. But let’s just say that your critiques work and this makes Catholicism bunk. That STILL doesn’t even address the issue that it seems that Protestants claim scripture to be sufficient and perspicuous and obviously isn’t. I mean no offense, but at least at the point that I’m at in the video you aren’t actually addressing the argument Joe put forth. The argument is about the Protestant claim of perspicuity, not the perspicuity of anything.
for your second paragraph you're missing the point - Joe's argument fails because it refutes his own system. Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of scripture do not mean that everyone will arrive at the right interpretation. As Javier pointed out, at length, if this were true, it would mean everyone should become Christian because the evidence is so clear.
@sneakysnake2330 The problem is *precisely* that Joe's argument doesn't *just* apply to Sola Scriptura. Did you get to the part of the video where Joe's criticism would invalidate *Christianity* when applied to creation? I thought the field of apologetics we are in (Joe being a Roman Catholic and myself being a Lutheran) is happening from the standpoint that we both at least agree *Christianity* is true. Any argument one of us tries to provide which leads to the absurd conclusion that Christianity is false, is obviously invalid and irrelevant given the context of the apologetics conversation we're both engaged in.
That is not tu quo que. the argument against Joe is that the methodology he uses against sola scriptura equally applies to his own position, and is therefore invalid. It is an internal critique.
@@javierperd2604that's not true. Your (incorrect) understanding of reductio ad absurdum would actually invalidate syllogistic reasoning itself. Which makes a hash of human reason; presumably not a tack you're willing to take.
That doesn’t make it an invalid criticism. At best, it makes it one that cuts both ways. That’s not how reductio arguments work. It could be the case then hypothetically that this therefore shows Catholicism to be false, but that doesn’t mean that Protestantism is suddenly true. It just means that neither Protestantism or Catholicism is true. In order to substantiate Protestant theology you can’t just critique Catholics, you have to do the work to prove your position as well.
If someone has the time, or Javier yourself, I have a couple questions to try and understand this better. Does Sola Scriptura promise all sincere believers will agree on essential doctrines? (Premise 1) Is this premise false? My understanding was that it meant the Bible was the only way to settle differences in doctrinal disputes. Do Protestants agree on essential doctrines? (Premise 2) Is this premise false? I mean maybe "Protestant" is the wrong category. Maybe it would be better to say "Sincere people who believe in Sola Scriptura"? More verbose, I know, but in my mind this connects the premises better.
@zekemiller9680 Thank you for your question! I'm happy to help clarify. Sola Scriptura simply claims the following: "The Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the church." A separate, but related truth about Scripture is that it is perspicuous (i.e. - clear) in matters related to salvation. Technically speaking, these two are separate claims, as one could hypothetically uphold that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, without necessarily saying that they are abundantly clear in the essentials. However, as a Lutheran, I would affirm *both* Sola Scriptura and perspicuity. Having said that, it is important to note: A given thing being clear doesn’t mean that everyone who approaches it in good faith *will* come to understand it correctly -- it simply means that they *can* do so, not simply by chance, but by having recourse to the clear thing in question and employing such proper means of study such as a proper hermeneutic, right reasoning, and diligent, attentive analysis. Unfortunately, not everyone who approaches the Scriptures "sincerely" employs those means of study well; someone can be "sincere" in their intent to understand them while employing a bad hermeneutic, or while not being as attentive in their analysis as they could be. Additionally, unregenerate man specifically has a darkened heart and understanding, so, without the aid of the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are easily misunderstood by him, as they are spiritually discerned. Having understood all of this, Premise 1 of Joe's argument is false and leads to absurd conclusions if applied consistently to other areas (as I demonstrate throughout the video). If something being clear, by necessity, implies that everyone who is "sincere" *WILL* understand it, then that would falsify the very concept of clarity itself -- since there is no such topic that we could think of where all human beings will be in agreement about how to understand it. The point of my parody arguments is to demonstrate this by showing that Joe's argument would debunk not just Ecclesialism broadly and Roman Catholicism particularly, but also Christianity as a whole. Hence, it is an absurd and worthless argument, especially for the discussion at hand.
@@javierperd2604How would I objectively know that you the Lutherans have employed the highest form of standards in applying Sola Scriptura i.e I guess that the Holy Spirit guided you correctly in interpreting Scriptures and not the other denominations who are using Sola Scriptura as well but have different theology than yours?
This is epic level talking past each other. And the main issue is precisely that one interlocutor believes in one church established by God. And the other believe that one church is of spirit and not matter. No amount of debate matters here until that point is resolved.
The too long, didn't watch remains: Javier Perdomo still does not understand how argument works. See 59:30-1:00:30 where Perdomo restates and agrees with Heschmeyer's entire argument.
@@HighKingTurgon Well if you, or he, had listened to Javier's argument the two of you might realize that Javier destroyed the foundations of Joe's entire argument and exposed why it doesn't even begin to work as a criticism of Protestantism, making it entirely relevant to the discussion. That is in fact how debate works.
NFP and the death penalty are not essential Catholic doctrines 🤦♂️ dude you are wrong, but I am praying for u to see that. Please, if you are going to try to disprove Catholicism, research its teachings more thoroughly so you can make an honest argument.
NFP, sure, but the death penalty isn't an essential doctrine? It concerns a grave matter (the k1lling of another human) and whether that can be done without committing sin. Disagreement over that seems of paramount importance.
They may not be essential to the Catholic faith in the way the trinity is, but they are topics the Papacy has made dogmatic (although not infallible) claims on. So, to accept papal supremacy, you must accept these claims. Or at least not openly reject them. So, in some sense, they are essential doctrines because in denying them, you are denying the authority of the papacy (which is an essential doctrine).
@@npuritan6769 Respectfully, your argument is not a valid argument. Your claim is that "in some way" they are essential is really vague and you are also getting several facts wrong. Look it up, the death penalty and NFP are doctrinal, not dogmatic. The Papacy has not declared them dogmatic. There is a big difference between doctrines and dogmas, and even rejecting these teachings like calling up the Pope and saying "yo buddy you did not cook on this one" does not equate to denying the authority of the Pope. Catholics are encouraged to accept the Church's moral guidance, but some level of interior struggle or respectful questioning does not automatically separate a person from the Church, nor does it constitute a rejection of papal authority. What is essential is an overall respect for the Church’s teaching role and a willingness to approach these teachings with an open mind and heart. Usually Popes operate with pastoral care and forgiveness so you really have to go out of your way to separate yourself from the church on this one. Furthermore, when we are talking about essential Christian beliefs, we are talking about those necessary to uphold. The Catholic Church teaches that essential truths, like belief in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Christ’s Resurrection, are part of the fullness of faith that leads to salvation. There is room where the Church recognizes that salvation is possible for non-Catholics and non-Christians who, through no fault of their own, do not fully know or accept these teachings but still seek God sincerely and live according to their conscience. But, to be considered a member of the Catholic Church, a person must accept the essential teachings, often referred to as dogmas, of the faith. Adherence to these essential beliefs is necessary for full communion with the Church. Therefore, the counter example shown in the video and your statement right now I believe are not fruitful examples because of their errors. For concern of your soul, please examine your witness as to make sure you are not bearing false witness. Even though your heart is for God, a lie even if unintentional cannot only damage your relationship with God, but also your future arguments. If you are trying to win back my opinion as much as I would be honored to win back yours, use valid arguments. Maybe I am not right, but right now I am convinced you are wrong.
@ericleon9000 How would you draw a distinction between doctrine and dogma? And what are you basing that on? Either way, on rejecting the doctrines of the Magisterium, I don't see how you're not denying the authority of the papacy, much like when we sin, we implicitly deny the authority of God in our lives.
@@npuritan6769 Friend, I am just a regular guy, hopefully I am bringing value to your day. I would encourage you to look it up and examine my statements for yourself, I may be completely wrong, I may be misrepresenting Christianity as a whole, but we owe it to God to pursue truth. I have dedicated a fair bit of time searching to answer your questions so far, I expect you to do the same. :) Distinction Between Doctrine and Dogma: Dogma: Dogmas are doctrines that have been formally defined as divinely revealed truths by the Church’s Magisterium, and Catholics are required to give their full assent of faith to them. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that “dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure” (CCC 89). They are core teachings that have been revealed by God, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection, and are essential to Catholic identity. Doctrine: Doctrines encompass all authoritative teachings on faith and morals given by the Magisterium, but not all doctrines reach the level of dogma. Doctrines are teachings the faithful are called to adhere to, though they may be developed, clarified, or even adapted over time as the Church grows in understanding. According to the CCC, “The Magisterium of the Church exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas” (CCC 88). Doctrines may not always carry the same level of irrevocability or universal binding as dogmas, but they are still teachings meant to guide Catholics toward the truth. When Rejecting Doctrines Denies Papal Authority: The rejection of Church doctrines can imply varying levels of dissent, depending on the nature of the doctrine and the level of authority with which it is taught. Here’s how these scenarios might play out: Dogma Rejection: Rejecting a dogma (such as the Resurrection) is a direct denial of the Church’s authority because dogmas are divinely revealed truths that Catholics must accept. Denying a dogma equates to denying the Church’s role as the custodian of divine revelation. Doctrinal Dissent: For non-dogmatic teachings, there’s more flexibility. However, dissent from authoritative doctrines, especially if done publicly and without respect for the Church’s teaching authority, can imply a rejection of the Church’s authority. Persistent rejection of these teachings may be a serious matter, depending on how central the doctrine is and how the dissent is expressed. Private Struggle vs. Public Rejection: A private struggle with a doctrine, approached prayerfully and with a desire to understand, is not considered a denial of papal authority. The Catechism encourages openness to Church teachings even when struggling, noting that “faith seeks understanding” (CCC 158). Publicly rejecting a doctrine in a way that leads others away from the faith or challenges Church authority can border on rejecting the authority of the pope and Magisterium. Key questions to guide this conversation: Does God value athority and or give athority? Does God desire unity among Christians? How often are our individual interpretations of scripture without scholarly basis, prayful experience and or thorough research more authoratative than the interpretations of those who have dedicated their lives to faithfully delivering the truth of the Gospel? / Should we approach our local non-denomonational church pastor or Catholic Pastor with humility in our disagreements with the ultimate goal being a desire for full reconcilation under what we can be certain is the absolute truth affirmed in Scripture? These are intentionally loaded questions.
Just answer the question! Do you, as a Protestant, believe in the principles of sola scriptura and the perspecuity of Scripture? If you do, then your system DEMANDS that all faithful believers agree on the essentials. That is precisely what confessional documents like the Westminster Confession state. It is irrelevant if Catholics also cannot find agreement relying on Tradition (something which Javier never proves, and which betrays a deficient understanding of what Tradition is); the point is that the Protestant conception of Scripture is hopelessly contradictory.
Did you watch either of his videos? He showed with incredible thoroughness in the first one how deep the disagreements among the Ecclesialist traditions are, and even how great they are just among Roman Catholics. Joe's whole argument that "For sola Scriptura to be true everyone who practices it must agree on all essential doctrines" fails completely because of this - because it also refutes his own system.
Wake up. You are NOT addressing the simple syllogism. You posit a different syllogism instead of answering his. Wake up. I have never heard him say Catholics agree on all things. No thoughtful catholic believes that.
If the "ecclisialist" 🤮 view of tradition is true, we would expect them to agree on doctrine. Do you have anything from the Church that teaches the perspecuity of doctrine? The reason this whole thing started is because martin luther and the westminster confession and wrapped up in sola scriptura is the idea that scripture is clear enough for the essentials to be worked out by anyone. That is the protestant claim. That is not the Catholic claim outside of a very small number of infallible teachings. Catholics don't view tradition, scrioture, and the magisterium the same way protestants view scripture.
"Do you have anything from the Church that teaches the perspecuity of doctrine?...Catholics don't view tradition, scripture, and the magisterium the same way protestants view scripture." I will agree that Catholics do not view Scripture the way Protestants do. But there is a problem with saying that Catholics do not view the whole of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial teaching as Protestants view Scripture. Hear me out. The RCC posits that Scripture, while good and useful and divinely authored, is not clear in espousing the essential doctrines required for the believer to be saved. An authoritative interpreter is needed to correctly understand these essentials in Scripture. The RCC claims that the RCC is said interpreter. So, while Scripture is claimed not be clear for salvation, the RCC offers clarity in teaching about Scripture, as well as truths deemed necessary but outside of Scripture. This clarity is claimed to be enough for Catholics to understand the essentials of what they need to be saved. Not in an intellectual, comprehensive grasp of theology, but a minimum prescription of assent of thought and action (Prot Perspicuity claims this format as well, btw). The entire argument of the RCC against Sola Scriptura and the Perspicuity of Scripiture is that the RCC can provide the clarity that Scripture alone cannot, thus the Catholic has an advantage over the Protestant. It seems as though you are claiming the parody argument Javier employs against the RCC is not valid because the RCC (or "ecclesialists" generally) don't think the totality of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium provide clarity on the essentials needed for salvation. This is new to me. Most Catholics I've engaged with claim that the minimum advantage offered by the Papacy and Magisterium _is_ clarity. They claim that in Protestantism, who decides? In Catholicism, Rome decides. Thus, clarity. If Rome actually doesn't provide clarity in teaching, then she has no basis to claim that she has a teaching advantage over Protestants. "You don't have clarity!" "Do you?" "...No." "Then so what?" Now, the entire point of Javier's video was that this argument against "Ecclesialists" would be stupid. And by putting the argument forward, he compares it to Joe's argument against Protestant Perspicuity...revealing it to also be stupid. The greater context of this whole conversation is a defense of Protestant Perspicuity, not an attack on Catholic Clarity.
Sola Scriptura. The non interpretive method that leads to mass interpretations. Open a phone book dude. Look down your street. Open your eyes. See the local streets cluttered with denominational debris. But ok. But the solas aren’t…..
@@bruhmingo where Peter is there is the Church. But what about some angry rad trads? If they are on the books then they are with Peter, kicking and screaming maybe but that’s a lot different than looking at your church’s (Protestantism) book of membership. Oh that’s right. It’s invisible along with the list of essentials. “Let’s make it authentic by making it a nothing”. Great job my invisibly listed non essential brethren.
Are those magisteriums in EO or OO in communion with Rome? No? So it isn’t just different hermeneutics. I hope that you notice that at multiple reconciliation councils between Catholics and EO that it was about reuniting under the Bishop of Rome and this led to some staunch Orthodox schismatics rejecting documents signed but their own bishops reuniting with the Pope
I'm shocked both at you and the people in the comments. He refuted this ecclesialist nonsense. I didn't expect you to lump people who have different authorities and methodologies together. That's actually really dim
You mean, like lumping Presbyterians in with Lutherans and Methodists to form an argument that their authorities and methodologies are invalid because they disagree? Yeah, the dimness of that approach is a central part of Javier's argument.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 91 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs อเล็กเซย์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0RkEfYFsgM/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey everybody! Thanks for watching the video.
Some Roman Catholics in the comments to my latest rebuttal of Joe Heschmeyer seemed confused about how to understand my argument.
So I thought I would put out a tweet thread clarifying the argument one more time in order to help them out (see the link to that thread here: x.com/javierperd2604/status/1850918756970553824?t=MqjLTqX2MMXfaDWxDE8d7g&s=19).
Here is the text of that tweet thread for those who aren't on Twitter...
There's some additional things I want to stress for those who watched all the relevant back-and-forth between me and @ShamelessPopery recently, since it seems that some Roman Catholics (RCs) were still confused after my final rebuttal.
Sola Scriptura simply claims the following: "The Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the church." A separate, but related truth about Scripture is that it is perspicuous (i.e. - clear) in matters related to salvation.
Technically speaking, these two are separate claims, as one could hypothetically uphold that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, without necessarily saying that they are abundantly clear in the essentials. However, as a Lutheran, I would affirm *both* claims.
Having said that, it is important to note: A given thing being clear doesn’t mean that everyone who approaches it in good faith *will* come to understand it correctly.
It simply means that they *can* do so, not simply by chance, but by having recourse to the clear thing in question and employing such proper means of study such as a proper hermeneutic, right reasoning, and diligent, attentive analysis.
Unfortunately, not everyone who approaches the Scriptures "sincerely" employs those means of study well; someone can be "sincere" in their intent to understand them while employing a bad hermeneutic, or while not being as attentive in their analysis as they could be.
Also unfortunately, even those who are Christians may misread Scripture and even invent heresy and fall away from the faith -- but this is not the fault of the text. Once again, there, sin and lack of careful study are the real culprits.
Take, for example, the fact that Scripture speaks so directly against homosexuality. If a regenerate person brings their own biases & sin to the text and they come to believe that it's okay to live out their sinful urges in this way, and proceed to do so... they've fallen away.
But they've gone astray & fallen away NOT due to the text of Scripture, but due to what they, themselves, sinfully *imported into* the text.
In the case of the unregenerate, unregenerate man specifically has a darkened heart and understanding, so, without the aid of the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are easily misunderstood by him, as they are spiritually discerned. So he outright rejects them or invents heresy.
Having understood all of this, Premise 1 of Joe's argument is false and leads to absurd conclusions if applied consistently to other areas (as I demonstrate throughout the video with several examples and will re-state here again).
The reason Premise #1 is false is due to the snuck premise underlying it, namely: That "approaching with sincerity" is a sufficient condition for understanding something that has been clearly set forth.
If something being clear, by necessity, implies that everyone who is "sincere" *WILL* understand it, then that would falsify the very existence of clarity itself - since there is no such topic where all "sincere" human beings are in agreement about how to understand it.
The reason for this is that "approaching something sincerely", (meaning that one is trying to actually and properly understand that thing) is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for understanding something that's clearly set out.
Anyone who has ever taught a class knows this. Every class has successful students that come to class sincerely trying to learn, but every class also has well-meaning students who are sincere in their desire to understand the subject matter... but they fail the class anyway.
Joe's snuck premise hidden under Premise #1 would make it so that there is no such thing as a "sincere" student who fails to understand a clearly-taught class. So, this is an absurd definition leading to absurd conclusions, of which this is one.
The point of my parody arguments is to demonstrate how absurd Joe's argument is by showing that, if applied consistently, it would debunk not just Ecclesialism & Rome (which Joe considers absurd), but also Christianity as a whole (which all Christians should consider absurd).
This is not to mention that it would debunk the any system that accepts "approaching with sincerity" as a sufficient condition of understanding a clearly laid out system, and then claims to possess a clear teacher, book, or other such communicator.
Hence, it is an absurd and worthless argument, ESPECIALLY for the discussion at hand -- which is supposed to be *delineating between* Christian options.
Additionally, due to some of the confusion surrounding what reductio ad absurdum arguments are (with some people even mistaking them for Tu Quoque fallacies), I thought it'd be good to lay out a clear definition with some examples.
As such, here is a short Twitter thread I put together with scholarly citations defining and giving examples of various kinds of Reductio Ad Absurdum arguments:
x.com/javierperd2604/status/1853547125201621187?t=CFq0GMAkFQJnH0SAs345bA&s=19
Lastly, I didn't want to make this video longer than it needed to be, so I left a few additional things out that I wanted to address but which weren't absolutely necessary.
However, I wanted to make sure people didn't miss out on these other glaring mistakes & inaccuracies in Joe's responses to me, so please see here for another tweet thread documenting precisely that:
x.com/javierperd2604/status/1850174221642535085?t=e6FES1Tn9z6wJa4xWp0vZA&s=19
@@javierperd2604 This is a much better response. Thanks.
Not sure I see the argument here? Perhaps I am missing something. Help would be appreciated!
As far as I can tell you are saying "A given thing being clear doesn’t mean that everyone who approaches it in good faith will come to understand it correctly."
Is that not the exact argument Joe made? Does that not prove we need something more than sincerity to understand it correctly? Does that not therefore invalidate the perspicuity of scripture which claims sincerity is all that is necessary?
"...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."
Perhaps your final point is the real point, that this argument applies to everyone equally? And I agree, I think Joe should address how RC and EO solve this.
Personally, I don't think this debunk Rome or EO, which both have ecclesial teaching bodies to deal with this exact problem. As a Catholic, humble assent and faith in the Church is necessary. Sincerity is not enough for right doctrine.
@@FirstnameLastname-qz9fr Javier is not as clear as Sean. They seem to indicate that premise 1 will apply to all fields because if something is clear, and if clarity necessarily results consensus then all clear truths should have consensus. Meaning there shouldn't be flat earthers since the Earth is clearly a globe. And yet there are. Hence premise 1 of Joe's argument is false. There are a host of problems with this though.
@@FirstnameLastname-qz9fr The Catholic Church does not claim that all of her positions are clear. Therefore there is no need to agree on the essentials based on clarity. The EO and the RCC demand that the bare essentials are simply accepted to enter their communions - whether one finds them clear or not. Why? Because they claim the authority of Christ to bind and lose. Other fields also don't claim that their clear principles or results are obvious to the untrained. That one could show how Quantum Mechanic is validated to an untrained person, and the untrained person will understand everything adequately. Therefore neither the EO or the CC nor the rest of the world has this problem, only Prots have, IMO. Because that's their claim.
@@Neil-g4g can u explain yourself more
For those who want to catch up on how this all started:
Joe's (Shameless Popery) original video: th-cam.com/video/5_SGbUDFQWg/w-d-xo.html
Gavin Ortlund's (Truth Unites) TH-cam short arguing that Catholics do not have essential doctrines: th-cam.com/users/shorts11kEcarffJM
Joe's response to Gavin's TH-cam Short: th-cam.com/video/igf3anRyduA/w-d-xo.html
Gavin's TH-cam short responding to that video: th-cam.com/users/shortsZxaIJZgvghA
Javier's video responding to Joe's videos: th-cam.com/video/6xmoPU_RGX0/w-d-xo.html
Joe's response to Javier: th-cam.com/video/GlSkKi3chQA/w-d-xo.html
Sean Luke's (Anglican Aesthetics) take on Joe's arguments: th-cam.com/video/0NM4Xobux0E/w-d-xo.html
And now you are here watching this 🙂
For all my fellow Protestant theobros out there, let’s keep it ecumenical and charitable.
Let me know if I missed anything.
Thanks for the list! At what point does a public TH-cam playlist become a good and helpful idea? Two more videos?
@@ottovonbaden6353 Maybe. We'll see how much longer this goes on jaja
Javier, I didn't watch your video. Here is a list of reasons why you are wrong...
They are usually quick to comment and slow to engage the material.
RC triumphalism
This guy is on to something
@@El_Invierno Having watched the video, there really is quite the catalog of Mr. Perdomo's misunderstandings, misrepresentations, misconstruals, misspeakings, and misapplications of logical principles. It's frustrating that Perdomo would spend over four hours of his October attacking fellow Christians-incompetently-while the world outside turns farther from God. The atheists can see you making these false claims, insisting that Catholic apologists ply their trade with little regard to the well-being of their hearers, and see too many lauding you for it, and come away firmer in their conviction that people of faith are stupid assholes out for their blood.
@@El_Invierno Javier, I didn't watch your video - but man you are dead right! 👍
Succinctly put brother! It will be hard for Joe to claim you haven't addressed his argument now.
Succinctly put? He took over 4 hours of video and I'm still not quite sure what his argument is. His X comment on the other hand is pretty succinct and I gather it's basically this:
"Joe's argument is false because premise one is not true. Premise one is not true because it affect Catholics and everyone else too."
But I in no way understand this from his videos. And his evidence doesn't do a good job of proving or supporting this argument either.
Great video brother! I pray to all who see this video you take the time to actually listen and look at videos, don't just take anyone's word for it.
You posted this twenty-five minutes after an hour-long video was posted.
How invested are you-really-in people taking the time to watch and listen to videos in their entirety?
@@HighKingTurgon I had early access to this video, I have already watched it. I work with Javier. You should have asked if I had watched it, not assumed.
I am a non-Christian, so I don't have a stake in this argument. My interest in Christianity stems from my Southern Baptist friend.
She and her Oneness Pentecostal neighbor across the street claim that the Bible is God's inspired word and read it daily. Before reading, they both pray to the Holy Spirit and believe that the Holy Spirit guides them to the correct interpretation. However, after their readings, they arrive at opposing viewpoints.
The Oneness Pentecostal Christian believes that to be saved, one must receive the Holy Spirit, evidenced by the ability to speak in tongues. If a person cannot speak in tongues, they are not saved. Additionally, they reject the concept of the Trinity, asserting that baptisms performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are invalid. Instead, they insist that baptism must be conducted in Jesus' name only.
On the other hand, my Southern Baptist friend believes salvation comes through professing faith in Jesus Christ. This is done by reciting the "Sinner's Prayer" with sincerity. Once someone has done this, they are eternally secure in their salvation-meaning they cannot lose it, no matter how sinful they may become. For them, baptism is an essential ordinance. Still, it is not necessary for salvation, as it is merely symbolic, reflecting a public declaration of faith by those who have already been saved (often referred to as believer's baptism). Furthermore, only individuals who have reached the age of reason can be baptized, and if they choose to do so, it must be in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit because of the belief in the Trinity.
These two individuals read the same Bible but interpret it differently. They hold opposing views on salvation, the nature of God, and the purpose of baptism.
My questions are as follows:
1. Can these individuals hold radically different doctrines as long as they both use the Bible as their final authority for Christian faith and practice? Please explain your answer, whether it is yes or no.
2. If the meaning of the Bible is so clear and the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it for themselves, why are there so many denominations and millions of individual Christians, each interpreting the Bible differently?
3. Can anyone authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?
4. If Christians acknowledge that their interpretations of the Bible can be fallible, how can they label anything as heresy or attempt to bind another Christian to a particular belief?
Short Answers to your questions:
1. Technically yes. No one can force someone else into not holding a wrong view. Also, just because two people disagree, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a right answer to be had. There are hermeneutical principles that one implores to study the Bible. This is true for any study, not just the Bible.
2. It is too simple to just say if I have the Holy Spirit then I will come to the right conclusion. We all have biases, whether we know them or not. We are also coming from different backgrounds. That’s why we must strive to understand what the passage meant to the original audience. This is hard, but by finding out the speaker, the audience, the setting, the culture and events around it, we can better understand what the meaning is.
3. Yes. There are obviously heretical doctrines. The Nicene Creed is a great creed that all Christians should agree on. Your oneness friend is verifiably false. The trinity is the truth. And Paul says pretty clearly that not all will speak in tongues. To better find out if someone is wrong, you must study the scriptures, pray, and look into what the church fathers said and other theologians.
4. Just because we are fallible, doesn’t negate there being a truth that exists. Many doctors, scientists, historians, etc. disagree amongst themselves. This doesn’t mean therefor that we can’t know that X treatment will save lives, or that the earth is a globe, or that Julius Caesar existed. We must do the hard work to uncover the truth like in all areas of our lives.
May God bless you and enlighten you to the truth of the Good News of Jesus Christ. All have sinned, and Jesus has atoned for our sins by dying on our behalf. He rose again, defeating death, and saves those who believe and follow Him.
Javier there are many things I would debate about, but I want to focus on the first part of the video.
Joe Is using the proof by contradiction argument, the argument uses:
1. Assumption
2. Contradiction
3. Conclusion
In order for this argument to work it needs:
Clear Assumption
Logical Derivation
Identify Contradiction
Reject the Original Assumption
Now lets look deeper into Joes argument
1. “If sola scriptura is the only infallible and clear source, it should sufficiently and unequivocally define what is necessary for salvation, so that believers can understand it.”
This point is foundational because, if sola scriptura truly is the only sufficiently clear source, then it should lead to a unified understanding of the essential doctrines of salvation. ✅
2. “However, on questions essential to salvation, there are serious disagreements directly due to the text’s lack of clarity.”
This step is essential because it shows that disagreements arise not from church teachings or differing traditions but directly from the text of scripture itself. ✅
3. “This suggests that sola scriptura is not a sufficient principle for a unified understanding in matters essential to salvation.”
This step is crucial, as it provides the logical inference: if sola scriptura leads to disagreement on matters of salvation, it cannot be considered a sufficiently clear and infallible source that would secure a shared understanding among believers. ✅
4. “This tells us that sola scriptura is an insufficient principle for achieving salvation.”
This conclusion logically follows from the previous points. If sola scriptura does not lead to a unified understanding of essential matters of salvation, then it raises doubts about its adequacy as the only principle for achieving salvation. ✅
SUMMARY:
Point 1 sets up a clear, testable assumption.
Point 2 demonstrates a practical contradiction to this assumption.
Point 3 draws a logical conclusion from the contradiction, challenging the initial assumption.
Point 4 formulates the final conclusion on sola scriptura’s insufficiency as the sole principle for achieving salvation.
This structure gives the argument validity, as proof by contradiction relies on a direct inconsistency between the expected outcome and the real-world result.
NOW LETS SEE why your proof by contradiction argument DOES NOT work.
1. “If the Christian view clearly shows the existence of God…” The first step assumes that if the Christian perspective were correct, it would be clearly understandable for everyone.
This assumption is flawed because it does not take into account human differences in interpretation, subjective opinions, or personal experiences. The fact that a certain truth is not convincing to everyone does not automatically imply its falsehood. ❎
2. “If this view is correct, everyone would agree on God’s existence.”
This assumption ignores the fact that people often disagree even on clear and factual matters, because disagreement often arises from subjective reasons (e.g., personal experience, cultural or philosophical background). To assume that everyone must agree with a view for it to be true is absurd, as total agreement is highly unlikely for complex topics, especially for spiritual or metaphysical questions.❎
3. People do not agree on the existence of God (for example, atheists).”
Pointing to the existence of atheists as proof of disagreement does not itself prove God’s non-existence. The disagreement between believers and non-believers points more to differing perspectives and interpretations than to the objective truth or falsehood of God’s existence. ❎
4. “Therefore, the existence of God is not correct.”
This conclusion is absurd because it stems from the flawed idea that truth must always be universally accepted. However, the truth of a claim does not depend on everyone’s agreement. ❎
SUMMARY
The first step incorrectly assumes that the clarity of the Christian view would necessarily convince everyone.
The second step falsely claims that truth should lead to unanimous agreement.
The third step mistakes people’s personal beliefs (such as atheism) as objective evidence against God’s existence.
The conclusion is logically flawed because it assumes that truth depends on universal consensus.
Now since I explained to you why Joe's argument works, I Hope to see video rebbuting Joe's SIMPLE question. ( hopefully not 3 hours long )
Hi! I'm not Javier, but I have some thoughts on your comment.
First, Joe's argument isn't so much about Sola Scriptura, as it is about the Perspicuity of Scripture.
Your point on Joe's Premise 1 does not word it the same way Joe does in his video(s). Joe's wording is that "If the Protestant view of Scripture is correct, sincere believers will all agree on essential doctrines." Note that Joe doesn't say what you said in that believers _can_ understand it. Joe says believers _will_ understand it. There is a logical difference between saying an outcome is possible and an outcome is certain.
Your point on Joe's Premise 2 has some extra wording. Joe merely asserts that sincere believers disagree on essential doctrines. He does not say why this is, as it would be question begging. Joe saves this for his conclusion.
Per your summary of Joe's argument, the argument by itself is sound. There are two problems with it that have not been addressed.
1. Premise 1 as worded by Joe is false. I alluded to this earlier. The Protestant position is that Scripture is clear enough that the sincere believer with due use of ordinary means *_can_* correctly understand the essential doctrines. He is arguing against a position that the neither the Reformers nor Protestantism today hold.
2. Supposing that Premise 1 of Joe's argument were true, the argument quickly becomes pointless. Great, Protestants don't all agree on essential doctrines. Well, neither do Ecclesialists. This goes back to Javier's 2 suitors arguement. If Suitor A says "You should not pick B, he has no land or titles," but Suitar B asks A "Do you have land or titles?" and A says "No,", then B says "Well, that doesn't mean anything then. By that logic, you should pick neither of us!" Pointing out disagreement over Essentials in Protestantism doesn't mean squat so long as Ecclesialists also disagree.
Thanks, and God Bless
@@ottovonbaden6353 so in what meaningful sense does perspicuity of scripture exist for protestants then?
@@a.d1287 There are three components here to get the whole picture.
The Formal Sufficiency of Scripture asserts that Protestants can come to a sufficient understanding of doctrine to follow Christ's commandments - love God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and to love our neighbors as ourselves - utilizing only that which is contained in Holy Scriptures.
The Perspicuity of Scripture asserts that correctly retrieving said understanding from Holy Scriptures is possible for the individual believer, and does not necessitate intervention or explication from an external source (other than the Holy Spirit working internally to the believer). As helpful as external resources may be, they are optional, not required.
Sola Scriptura asserts that if external resources are used, they are to be considered subordinate to the Scriptures, and if ever a conflict or contradiction between external resources and Scripture arises, Scripture's stance is affirmed and the external resource's stance is denied. Or, in other words, Scripture is the only infallible authority for the examination of doctrine.
@@ottovonbaden6353 Scripture can only in practice be truly the only infallible rule of faith IF a person can ascertain what Scripture teaches. If a person cannot ascertain what Scripture teaches, then Sola Scriptura cannot be adhered to.
@@Vaughndaleoulaw Right...we claim that the person can. That's the Perspicuity claim. I am not sure what your point is.
10:31 I think you and Joe are probably talking past each other here. The first premise does not work because the ecclesialists dont claim that Tradition is perspicuous. Thats the whole point why councils are required. Joes critique as i understand it seems to be since Prots explicitly teach that scripture is "clear" on the main things, and sincere believers can ascertain those beliefs through ordinary means - hence all sincere believers must eventually agree. The claim of perspicuity is central to his argument. Maybe you can try and turn it on the Magisterium as a use case but not Tradition. Still early on in your video - but i wanted to remark on the premises themselves. Back to your video.
Ah - never mind. It's not directed at Joe. 😂
Tradition is very unclear on many things. No arguments there.
I think the syllogism with Magisterium works provided that one clarifies what the said position is. Otherwise it gives the Catholic side wriggle room, and I am saying this as a Catholic.
Ah YT is not letting my last comment come through. I wrote of some things that may need ironing out in your case - but that I also will ponder more on your case.
The added layer is that Catholics believe humble assent to Church doctrine is required for right doctrine. You can't just have sincerity and come to different conclusions.
This is one of the reasons i believe in Sola fide, imagine if we depend of many and many rebuttals of theology to arrive in a conclusion and still have doubts
Correct!
Our solid foundation John 3:16
But how does one come up with Sola Fide??? The Scriptures clearly demonstrate it is not by faith alone. Too many verses point to more than faith alone. And with so many denominations there is no unity in the things that are essential.
@@swoosh1mil "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Salvation is by faith alone because we can't produce good works without real faith(not just intelectual Faith, but the acceptance of the his Salvation's promises), they're product of our new nature. I know verses that supposedly put works in our salvation, however in my opinion they're talking to Christians is already saved, then i'd say works are important to maintain the salvation alone instead of obtain it, but even in this case the works are totally dependent of the Faith. About Unity, Classical Protestant affirm 5 solas, all 6 ecumenical creeds plus Athanasian and Apostolic creeds, that's enough to me, furthermore we're more willing to seek unity with Catholics and Orthodox than otherwise, and despite our differences our theology can consider other christians as brothers even recognizing their errors instead of call them heretics and damned(i know there are prots who call RC and EO heretics but i don't agree with them)
So you believe in sola fide because you want it to be true?
@@sgtadhesive9044 no, it's because God is good and rational enough to save us without depend of our sinful skills
These rebuttal videos you’ve released don’t really contain an actual rebuttal as far as I can tell. Can you substantively answer Joe’s arguments?
Origen believed Lucifer would ultimately be saved. Over the last 60 years, there have been Catholic theologians who claim Judas wasn't damned. Several articles written by conservative Catholic media have hammered Pope Francis for holding this view. This contrasts with what other Catholic traditions believe. If the magisterium is so clear why are even top Catholic theologians divided on this issue?
exactly!
Because whether Judas did or did not go to heaven is not an essential doctrine. The real presence of the Eucharist, on the other hand, is an essential doctrine. You will not find any pope or catholic theologian disputing that.
@@bcarollo1i would say it is essential, because if we say Judas is saved, then it changes our theology on many things pertaining to salvation
@@learn1924Not really
Because in the case of Origen, sometimes people (especially really smart people) do come up with theological novelties that have to be clarified or outright condemned. Obviously this doesn’t happen until later.
In the case of Judas, some are taking a myopic view of his damnation as uncertain, or that Jesus’s claim that “it would be better for him not to be born” was exaggeration. I’m speculating as to why, but it is possible that some of these Catholic theologians are pressing on this ambiguity to make the narrow way seem wider and more welcoming. (I should like to know who.) But it’s not a good thing.
A stellar response! And just the right length too. Looking forward to more from this channel.
I think that Javier is under the impression that this method of rebuttal is effective, but from my perspective, it's not. The subject matter was Sola Scriptura. Javier has spent at least 20 minutes of the video addressing other issues that have nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. I don't care about these other issues. I care about hearing a defense of Sola Scriptura. If this is the best defense there is, then I don't think it's effective enough to justify belief in Sola Scriptura. I may edit this if I'm proven wrong after finishing the video, but so far.... Not impressed. And I'm a protestant.
What he (or she) said
You are missing the point and boot licking the papist
If you listen to what he said you'll realize pretty easily that Javier's whole point is that Joe's argument against Sola Scriptura fails because it also destroys his own position. Javier has no reason to rebut an argument that isn't valid to begin with.
The argument fails because it refutes the position of the one making it (Joe). Such an argument requires no refutation.
Thank you for being intellectually honest AND humble enough to admit it.
Excellent. I hope he takes the time to actually understand what's being said. If the argument he's using against Protestantism rests on logic *he himself rejects* (and he has to since he actually is a Roman Catholic), then he's being a disingenuous hypocrite to use it against Protestants. Is as simple as that.
It would be like me arguing to an atheist, "well God might not be omnipotent or omniscent so your objection doesn't rule out God"--that reply is bankrupt as part of an overall strategy to commend what I believe because I reject the premise on which it rests. You made this very clear.
@@anglicanaesthetics Spot on 🎯
Btw, your own video response to Joe was excellent as well, brother! People should check that out for, for sure.
@@anglicanaesthetics This isn't the undercutting defeater you think it is and that's a poor analogy.
Protestantism fails its own test, that's all that has been pointed out. It's internally incoherent and externally fractured.
Saying that the Catholic faith has the same problem doesn't address the problem. It does however highlight the consequences of the subjective theological liberalism which is inherent to protestant perspectives.
@@Silverhailo21 My argument was not that the Catholic faith has the same problems...you people really need to stop repeating that mantra.
@@anglicanaesthetics Oh well if you've changed your opinion then, what's the new thing that you're arguing?
@@anglicanaesthetics Oh is it just that Joe's mean or something? I mean okay I guess, but that still doesn't address the issue.
I think the issue here boils down to the definition of "perspicuity" of Scripture and the methodological commitments towards resolving issues in addressing apparent unclear Scriptural passages.
You have addressed the heart of the matter and it's what kept me out of Rome too. I shouldn't assume motives, but it seems like almost willfull blindness that they won't acknowledge the double standards they use in their debates. You are one of the few who has recognized this double standard and started calling it out and demonstrating why it doesn't hold water. I wish Protestants of all persuasions would have recognized this years ago and we might not have lost so many to Rome or the East. The first Reformers did see this because they came up in that system. But many now aren't trained in theology or philosophy so they don't see it. Roman apologists get really flustered by that because they aren't used to being challenged on this point, but I think this is really the point that it all hangs on. Sure we can debate all the other differences but once you realize they are using private judgment (no way around it) and interpretations of their infallible interpretations, (and there's no list of infallible required beliefs for the theologians to debate about how to interpret them) it all unravels. I'd rather be a Lutheran and debate with other Protestants about what the Bible means than be in Rome and debate what the Bible, Tradition, the Fathers, the Councils, the Canon Laws, and the Pope's mean, and then turn around and debate with some Catholics of today about whether the Pope is actually the pope or an antipope. Instead of clarity they add multiple layers of information that we have to interpret. It's insane that they can't (or won't) recognize this.
Willful blindness or a strong delusion.
I think there's a sense that the excess of information becomes so unwieldy for the vast majority of people that it conditions you to suspend disbelief even in areas that aren't matters of dogma. I've known some Romish Catholic's to say things like 'it's so much easier to follow the teachings of Rome' but what they seem to mean is that it would be so incredibly difficult to actually follow the thread of different teachings and historical documents, canon law etc, that they never actually bother.
Scripture being accessible to the ploughboy, as was Tindale's dream, provoked a sense of duty in the Church to increase literacy and understanding, in other words to actually make Disciples(students) of all nations. The temporal blessings of this are obvious or we wouldn't be typing in this comment section, but the spiritual growth of reading and reflecting on Scripture is an undeniably Protestant legacy, even for those in Rome who naively take it for granted they might have had such a privilege otherwise.
Largely speaking, Roman apologists are usually making a case for epistemic nihilism, and absolute fideism.
They pretend that they aren't to their audience, but they're always arguing against ones ability to know anything dogmatic that the Bible says, and their solution is a fideistic submition to Roman teaching.
The issue here is that the epistemic case they make against the Bible will always make everything equally unknowable. Either I can trust my private interpretation of all texts (Scripture, and magisterium included) or I can't. Either anything that is disagreed upon is unclear or it isn't. They just special plead and obfuscate to distract from the fact that their post-modern epistemology makes their texts equally uninterpretable.
To be fair to Joe, I spent HOURS watching Javiers videos and I didn't understand what he was saying. He is a very poor communicator in video form. Without his X, I would still have no idea what he was on about. I gather now that he is attacking premise one and saying everyone falls to the clarity problem, but I never understood that from all the content before. I don't think Joe understands it either tbh; it's nowhere expounded in Javiers previous content and Joe addresses only it's lack of existence.
Now to address the argument, I don't think it applies to RC or EO at all. So perhaps this is why you guys think it's a double standard; none of us had any idea what you were talking about the double standard is not obvious from our perspective.
Catholics and EO avoid this problem because we don't hold to the perspicuity of scripture. We require the believe to have a humble heart and follow the Church if they want right doctrine. We do not believe sincerity is enough for right doctrine. Joe's point is that prots do think sincerity is enough, and he gave reasons why they shouldn't believe in perspicacity of scripture. And his following point is that if that's true, then either prot is false or we can't expect them to have right doctrine. I'm inclined to say prot is false, but I could see saying them not having right doctrine might be okay.
The two of you might try public debate. This is a less than optimal media for these discussion.
This is so good,i am watching this third time.. thank you so much
10:50 Ok, you're using the same argument against catholicism, fine, we understand that. But this still doesn't answer Joe's point (wich is why the previous video and this one is a tu quoque fallacy).
In a nutshell, your argument is to say that Joe's syllogism is a bad criteria for knowing wich christian tradition is right. But you're missing the point of his argument.
He's saying that P1 of his syllogism IS the protestant argument, not that he would apply it to know a christian tradition to be true. If you want to refute him, you should prove that P1 of his argument is wrong, not if the syllogism is a bad criteria of delineating truth.
About the unitarian stuff, if you say "papal affirming roman catholics" , I would think "roman catholics". This is by definition what roman catholics are. If you don't affirm the bishop of Rome to be the Pope, you're not roman catholic. You're taking a maybe inaccurate terminology and turning into a massive issue when the main point is simply that unitarians also believes in Sola Scriptura. If this is the best you have to justify accuse him of all the sorts of thing then it's quite disingenuous from you. But I understand why you won't even address the embarrassing accusation of gish gallop, for example.
PS: About Romans, it's not saying that because God's qualities are clear then everyone will convert but rather, because it's clear, there's no excuse for rejecting God.
No, he's saying that the argument Joe is using against sola scriptura is only acceptable on pain of self defeat for the Roman Catholic.
@Jimmy-iy9pl then you don't understand Joe's arguments nor the false equivalence the Lutheran is doing in lumping different churches together as ecclesialists. Which is a very dim thing to do
@@the3rdchief
Why are Roman Catholics so triggered by the term "Ecclesialist"? Is it because it's forcing everyone to realize that, contrary to what Roman Catholic apologists claim, your denomination does not occupy some privileged epistemic position?
@@Jimmy-iy9plwe reject the premise that Javier uses when he groups together Catholics and EO. That is how you refute an argument. Either you reject the form of the argument(the validity of the argument in logic) or show that the premises are false
@@Jimmy-iy9plthe fact that Javier doesn’t reject the premises of the argument shows that he accepts them. He then accepts that the premises lead to the conclusion. This means that Joe’s argument is valid and sound which means he doesn’t respond to the argument. All that Javier does is make a new argument against Catholicism. He doesn’t defend his own
P1: If the Catholic understanding of the magisterium is true, then all sincere believers will agree on. Essential doctrines.
P2: All sincere believers do not agree on Essential doctrines.
C: Therefore the Catholic understanding of the magisterium is not correct.
P2 is simply not true. All sincere Catholics DO agree on essential doctrines. The doctrines you listed in this video are not essential doctrines...
Y'all should really have a debate at this point
I've watched most of the videos related to this video, and I think there's a few problems with your responses. (Btw, you made the claim in this video that Joe was agitated in his response video. I would say the same about you in your initial response video.)
1. You're not directly responding to Joe's syllogism. The logic of Joe's syllogism seems valid. So which premise of Joe's syllogism do you contest and why? Unless I missed it, you haven't explicitly denied any of Joe's premises. Instead it sounds like you're denying the form of the argument by trying to use a reductio. Which is a valid tactic but I think there's some issues there too which leads me to my second point.
2. I'm not sure your rebuttal is a reductio which would be showing that an argument is absurd by pointing out the absurdity of the argument's logical conclusion. It sounds more like you're arguing that Joe's argument is not valid because it doesn't work with other subjects. But I don't think this works either because Joe's argument is specific to the protestant claim. Ecclesialists, as you call them, aren't claiming the kind of perspecuity with regards to authority as the Protestants so I don't see how your counter argument applies.
3. You seem to also be arguing that the term protestantism is too broad and you compared it to the term ecclesialists. On some issues, I think these categories are valid but not on this one since, when protestants of all stripes claim perspecuity, they are all making the same claim about the nature of the same object, the Bible. When ecclesialists make a similar sounding claim about their churches, they are making the same claim about different objects that have different forms as Joe mentioned. So I don't think these categories are comparable.
So I think Joe's argument still holds. If protestant perspecuity is true, there should be more unity among these Protestants who make this claim. But there's not. So either perspecuity is false or some further qualifications need to be made regarding the definition of perspecuity or protestant. And any qualifications made to these terms raise further issues.
Nah, Joe's argument is still flawed. There are two big problems with Joe's argument. Javier is focusing on what I consider the second.
Problem 1: Joe's first premise isn't true.
Problem 2: Joe's argument is useless.
I imagine Javier chose to focus on Problem 2 because he anticipated more pushback and wriggling based on technicality or just flat disagreement about Problem 1, which I go over below.
Joe's argument:
P1 - If the Protestant view of Scripture is correct, sincere believers will all agree on the essential doctrines.
P2 - Sincere believers do not all agree on the essential doctrines.
C - Therefore, the Protestant view of Scripture is not correct.
The Protestant view of Scripture is not that Perspicuity entails everyone sincerely using Scripture, with due use of the ordinary means, *_will_* correctly understand the essentials.
The Protestant view of Scripture is that Perspicuity entails everyone sincerely using Scripture, with due use of the ordinary means, *_can_* correctly understand the essentials.
There is a world of difference between guarantee of the possibility of an outcome (real Perspicuity) and the guarantee of that specific outcome (fake Perspicuity).
The support Joe used in his video to assert Premise 1 is bunk. The full passage around the snipped quote Joe used from Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will does not mean what Joe says it means. Bondage of the Will is publicly accessible. People can read it for themselves.
Suppose a professor in a calculus course gives his students a study guide for the exam. He's written both the guide and the exam himself, and he tells all his students "Everything you need to know to pass the exam is in this guide." That does not mean that every diligent student who reads the guide and takes the exam will get a passing grade.
The most common pushback I see in response the correct formulation of Perspicuity is "If Scripture doesn't guarantee everyone sincerely using it with due use of the ordinary means *_will_* come to correctly understand the essentials, then what value is Sola Scriptura?" The value comes from knowing that the full truth of salvation can be found only in the Scriptures - one does not need to go elsewhere for them. Those who assert one _cannot_ find the full truth of salvation in Scripture alone have a history of saying salvation must be sought through them, and exploiting believers along the way.
@@ottovonbaden6353Here’s the problem with your comment. We are assuming they are sincere believers using the ordinary means and they are using scripture. If they disagree, it means the party that disagrees is either wicked (or not sincere, sinful), or they intellectually disagree but not because they are suppressing the truth in their sin. Because the first premise is about *sincere* believers using the ordinary means, then it means they cannot be wicked. The only option then is that they have intellectual disagreements. If this is the case, then it actually does entail that the thing being disagreed about it is not actually clear enough on its own to effectuate unity.
You’d be surprised how few sincere believers use ordinary means
@@derekmathews153 Wow. I didn’t know most sincere believers didn’t pray or sit under preaching.
@derekmathews153 this is a point joe makes in his rebuttal. If you hold to the perspecuity of scripture, then all theological disagreements are a condemnation of one's side intelligence or faith. Rather than a reasonable disagreement between people of good will.
Saying catholics disagree on a non-dogmatic issue is not remotly the same as protestants disagreeing about fundamental issues. Again, Joe clearly says in the clip that you showed that he is not argueing that any disagreement invalidates a group. Its the kind of disagreement we see in protestant groups that largely affirm each others denominations that is the issue.
Also, a note about the term "ecclisialist". Its really not equivalent. Denominationalism affirms the trueness of other churches where as catholics make a much stronger claim that there is one true church. Such silly arguementation. Thats a category error. Forcefully applying the protestant paradigm where it does not belong show a profound lack of understanding.
Great work man! Keep fighting the good fight.
I actually thought Joe's original statement about disagreements being either from ignorance or deceit is pretty much accurate, but then he makes it sound like if we think about each other that way it must be unloving and judgemental. It's simply true that if someone expresses a false view they are either mistaken or misrepresenting things.
It seems to me that someone being 'good faith' is just saying they aren't consciously doing either of these things, it doesn't speak to them having internalised a certain view in the past, or are misremembering a passage, maybe a bad teacher misguided them and they neglected to compare the teaching to Scripture, etc, etc. These things aren't bad faith they're just bad practice. It also isn't some great evil to say Christian's still have sin, including pride, and can find it difficult to admit fault.
There's also a third basis for disagreement that kind of lends to ignorance but isn't quite the same, and that's just laziness. There's a kernel of truth to Joe's critique which is that Sola Scriptura doesn't work if God's people don't put in the work and learn the Scripture diligently. Biblical literacy is a real problem right now despite having more resources than ever so many people simply don't meet the conditions Joe himself describes in premise 1 if being sincere includes conscientiousness. So that would be a valid critique as something more probabilistic but it's not a proof of anything.
@zacdredge3859 Joe's statement was that claiming anyone who disagrees is lazy or wicked is uncharitable. Of course, accepting the possibility of someone being ignorant or even incapable would be a more charitable position than assuming bad intentions.
@@josephgreen6013 Exactly, he loads the alternative with pejorative terms to make an emotional argument. I'm saying a) what if I simply bite the bullet? Other than sounding unpleasant where is the substance of this argument? and b) beyond this we should just acknowledge that it's true for all disagreements in which case it isn't a valid critique of any particular position or category of disagreements.
Unless Joe can establish that there is an area of disagreement where it's impossible for anyone to misunderstand or disagree due to being lazy or wicked then there truly is no value beyond posturing and rhetoric to pointing this out about disagreements that specifically relate to interpreting Scripture.
@zacdredge3859 if you grant Joe's argument that the claim of perspicuity of Scripture necessarily means that any disagreement is the result of laziness or wickedness by the disagreeing party, then we are left to ask how we can determine which party is the lazy or wicked one, since there is no substantive way of determining which view is true and which is the result of laziness and/or wickedness.
@@josephgreen6013 By not being lazy or wicked yourself. You can't know other people's motives, how they might be confusing things etc, but if your standard is the content of Scripture, rather than trying to focus on persons as you seem to be abstracting, then it doesn't particularly matter *why* they are presenting the wrong interpretation. It could be one of the more innocuous reasons I presented or the terms Joe provided, in either case we can correct that person in love as opposed to speculating their motives. If it really is malicious well good thing we're called to forgive others by the power of the same Spirit who inspired Scripture and illuminates if for those who will humble themselves as disciples of Christ.
Lastly, are you aware of anyone whose judgement is immune to iniquity and has complete conscientiousness in all things? Is it not pride encroaching upon blasphemy to even claim such a thing?
Ergo our deficits in acquiring knowledge are *always* a result of our being sinful, foolish and slothful. Joe wanting to make that look sinister seems to betray either an ignorance of human depravity or a carelessness in the way his argumentation affects the spiritual wellbeing of his viewers.
@zacdredge3859 so, the person being lazy or wicked definitely isn't you, except when it is. Though it could be both of you or neither one of you. So, you are still left disagreeing about what is necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, without any sure way of settling that dispute.
Yeah, I can say I rebuttle someone too, but then I have to actually challenge their arguments. I don't believe you understand the arguments Joe was even making. I watched his original video, and you seem to be talking about things he never said. 🤷♂
Not sure I see the argument here? Perhaps I am missing something.
As far as I can tell you are saying "A given thing being clear doesn’t mean that everyone who approaches it in good faith will come to understand it correctly."
Is that not the exact argument Joe made? Does that not prove we need something more than sincerity to understand it correctly? Does that not therefore invalidate the perspicuity of scripture which claims sincerity is all that is necessary?
"...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them".
I can’t imagine why Joe might have taken offense to your personal attacks at his character lol
He didn’t make any
This is just the kind of thing a sneaky snake would say.
@@bruhmingo I don't know what else to call questioning a person's integrity because they used to be a lawyer other than a "personal attack"
@thejollyviking8083 It's a dialogue tactic. Say someone responds to you and calls into question your intentions, you may well take it the worst way possible, especially if you're not used to that. But Joe is. His expression of calling foul is overblown on purpose in order to take control of the exchange and put the other on the defensive. Almost every debater you can watch uses this tactic, such as, James White, Trent Horn, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bart Erhman, and from what I've seen from Joe for years, Joe himself at times. It's a valid tactic insofar as "winning" the exchange is concerned but it's only that - a tactic. Being friends with two lawyers, you either grow an incredibly thick skin or you're a crappy lawyer. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Joe and assuming he was an excellent lawyer, you call out tactics for what they are. To play into it is to downplay Joe's intelligence, and I don't think anyone here would doubt his.
Speaking of personal attacks…
This is very well put. No argument that demolishes your own position should be considered as a valid critique of your opponent's position.
I don't see how it demolishes the RC position. Perhaps you could help me understand.
RC doesn't believe in perspicuity of scripture, in fact to get right doctrine they require the believer to have humble assent to the Church's teaching. Sincerity is not enough.
@@FirstnameLastname-qz9fr I appreciate your thoughtfulness in asking. What Javier is contending is that Joe's specific argument against Protestantism (that it has disunity and disagreement and thus its foundation - the Solas - is therefore untrustworthy) is a bad argument. He's saying this because the same argument can be turned around against Ecclesialist traditions, and the RCC specifically, and lead to the same conclusion.
In short, the argument that there is disunity among Protestants on some issues doesn't have any value in this context because the same thing is true of Ecclesialists and Roman Catholics specifically.
@@tategarrett3042 Thanks for replying! Not sure I see the argument tho. Joe isn't arguing against disunity (obviously that's a bad argument, I'm with you on that 100%!). Rather, he's arguing against the perspicuity of scripture and how that is a false doctrine.
RC and EO make no claim that scripture or tradition or anything can be read with unity by the average believer (in fact they claim the opposite, only the magesterium in certain instance can be guaranteed right doctrine). However, the perspicuity of scripture is a uniquely protestant doctrine and he's trying to point out how it doesn't work. Wierdly, yall seem to agree it doesn't work, which is where a lot of my confusion lies I think.
@@FirstnameLastname-qz9fr I think I see what you're getting at a bit better. The issue with Joe's argument is that it's based on a misunderstanding of what the Perpescuity of Scripture means to Protestants. He is asserting that because there are disagreements between different denominations that hold to it, it isn't a good foundation for truth. What we actually understand the doctrine to mean though is that truth can be found from sincerely reading the scriptures, not that everyone who does so will correctly interpret and duly apply what they read. I could paste what the Westminister says about it if you'd like.
So what he's protesting - that Protestantism doesn't have full unity on all doctrines - isn't a useful critique because that's not the logical conclusion of the doctrine as we understand it. And beyond that, the disunity among Ecclesialist traditions shows that their foundational principle(s) - sola Ecclesia, sacred tradition, etc - are not capable of producing such unity either. Because of that, as Javier contends, this critique is not a valid argument against Protestantism, or for Ecclesialism.
@tategarrett3042 Joe specifically stipulates that he isn't arguing that disagreement necessarily invalidates a belief system. He is arguing that the disunity among protestants invalidates Sola Scriptura, because it disproves perspicuity claims.
I love that you are moving up in the apologetics world Javier.
Keep up the good work. 🏵️✝️🗿
I concur
He was just promoted by Joe to be a "top Protestant apologist" so he's on his way up for sure.
At this rate, Joe might make himself become a top Protestant apologist.
This is excellent, Javier
Its amazing to me how no matter how many times people are willing to simply refuse to watch/ listen in good faith. The responses being put forth by Joes supporters do precisely what Joe himself is guilty of... refusing to actually engage in dialogue in the interest of understanding, but rather with the interest to simply "debunk" those who stand against the position they believe.
The solution to this is *super* easy...
Listen with the intention to understand... thats it... its that easy!
Can you imagine how much better these dialogues would be if the goal was to learn, and not to "win"?
Javier has demonstrated time and time again he argues in good faith, in the interest ensuring protestants are fairly represented, and why arguments levied against "Protestantism" are categorically misapplied. To assume otherwise demonstrates a bias that is totally unfounded.
If you're here to just comment strawmen, and obfuscate further, *please* just go take it to an echo chamber to allow for productive dialogue here.
Mr. Perdomo literally went with, "but he's a LAWYER, so what do you expect?" It's the laziest ad hominem there is.
The criticism that Heschmeyer levies in his video this week-and some weeks ago-is that Sola Scriptura claims that the Bible is the sole rule of ecclesial authority, that those who hold to this doctrine arrive at different conclusions-even becoming non-Christians and therefore non-Protestants-and that since truth is One, Sola Scriptura is false. To claim anything about the category of "Protestant" is outside the scope of the argument. Don't imagine otherwise!
@@HighKingTurgon He quite literally didn't
@@HighKingTurgon um, you might not know this since you don't seem to have watched the video but he actually showed at length why his actual criticism was both relevant and correct.
@@tategarrett3042 watched it all, merely got further frustrated
JH likes to invoke the language of reason, philosophy, and logic, but he does so just to the depth necessary to confuse his audience (and perhaps himself). Those of us who actually "know" logic can clearly see that JH doesn't realize that simply "making an argument" is not evidence or demonstration of truth. JH might make arguments, but they are habitually unsound. When this is pointed out to him (over and over and over), he consistently claims that he is being personally attacked, introduces other distractions, and then moves on to some other equally unsound argument... all to the applause and affirmation of his followers.
His argument actually is valid -- it is formally well structured -- but his first premise is transparently false, rendering the conclusion unconfirmed and his argument unsound. But he doesn't seem to care. It may be that he doesn't understand this. In any event, it appears that his mind is made up, and he will not be confused by the facts.
His syllogism is valid if the first premise holds true. He has to assume the first premise is true and nobody agrees with that, only him
@@philoalethia he is a trained lawyer so he is good at presenting his evidence
@raphaelfeneje486 , you are incorrect and demonstrating my point that people just don't know logic. The "validity" of an argument has to do with its structure--not the truth of its premises.
@@philoalethia An argument is valid when the premises and conclusions are both related in the right way so that if the premises are "true" then it follows that the conclusion would have to be true. You are saying an argument has nothing to do with the truth of the premise and that's false.
P.s: I'm saying that his syllogism is valid, but he started it on a false premise.
There is no argument in your comment
Real question, how can one distinguish between unitarian and trinitarian protestants? Like what is the response to that? Like say they affirm the five solas but rject the trinity, what is the grounds that protestants use to other them as heretics?
Mr. Perdomo, reductio ad absurdum only works in binary cases. The invention of additional categories invalidates that argument. A most famous application of reductio ad absurdum is the common proof for the irrationality of sqrt(2) that demonstrates the impossibility of expressing it as the quotient of two integers, p and q. There are two options: p/q expresses sqrt(2), or it doesn't. Replacing the constraints on p and q arbitrarily risks invalidating the argument.
Reductio can only be applied to Joe's argument if you phrase it as "the prod. view of Scripture is that everyone should be able to agree. Everyone who holds to this view agrees. Therefore the prod. view is correct."
To argue that a different concept of a different doctrine has anything to say about Sola Scriptura is not logical.
And let me be clear-I'm not upset by the illogic; I don't think it makes you a bad person. It does leave only two possibilities, however: either you don't understand what you and Mr. Heschmeyer are actually saying, or you are willfully obfuscating the truth. I believe you when you claim not to engage in the latter.
You're welcome to claim the validity of the "ecclesialist" category, even if you deny the validity of the "Protestant" category. The problem only arises when you deny that there are many Christians-and indeed non-Christians-who affirm some doctrine generally definable as "Sola Scriptura" and treat Truth as a coherent whole. That's a far tougher row to hoe, from the evidence.
A three-hour video saying ecclesialist views of tradition are wrong is fine in itself-but it doesn't address the shortcomings of Sola Scriptura.
Yet, if Javier is arguing from the same syllogistic format as Heschmeyer and simply replacing terms, then what you are saying is that Heschmeyer's own objections and arguments are not valid which is Javier's point. The structure of Heschmeyer's original argument is basically: If A, Then B. Because C, then B is false. Therefore A is false. Javier is simply showing that if you structure other arguments in the same format, you can find plenty of C's to invalidate the B's and thereby disprove the A's. Hence the argumentative form is fallacious.
@@pete3397 Pete, I think you misunderstand. Syllogism isn't flawed; nor is reductio ad absurdum. When Perdomo later attempts syllogistic reasoning, his premise is flawed-it's based on his misunderstanding of reductio.
Reductio ad absurdum relies on the reasoning that "if a then b" and "if a then not b" cannot both be true. One can draw no conclusion from the argument to absurdity if you change the premise. "If an ecclesial view of authority is true" et cetera is simply a DIFFERENT syllogism-with flawed premises-not a reductio as Perdomo asserts.
The argument that highlights the shortcomings of sola scriptura equally applies to the person making the argument. It is an invalid argument. So simple, how do you not understand?
@@HighKingTurgon Yet, again, what Javier has shown is that if Heschmeyer's thesis is true because A, then B. Not B, therefore A is false follows, then one can find other syllogistic elements regarding Heshmeyer's other theses that also fail the syllogistic elements. The point being is that there are many Not B's that disprove Heschmeyer's A's. The reductio applies because the denial of Heschmeyer's presupposition: A = Tradition is a valid means of infallible authority. Then B, following Heshmeyer's reasoning, = those holding to Tradition as infallible will agree. Yet, we have C, or Not B, as it were.
So, not formally a pure logical reductio, but by showing that the conclusion of Not A does not follow the Not B, what we have are arguments about the accuracy of premises and the definitions of terms and that Heschmeyer's own argument can be quite easily turned against him to disprove his own premises and presuppositions. The conclusion may not be ad absurdum, but it is absurd, nonetheless.
Hence, the argument against sola scriptura put forward by Heschmeyer may be logically sound yet at the same time false because the conclusion of Not A does not necessarily follow Not B. Or, if it does follow, Heschmeyer's alternative to sola scriptura fails on exactly the same terms of Not B, therefore Not A. And that was Javier's point, whether the use of reductio is formally correct or not.
@@pete3397 edit: sorry, Stephen! I mistook your name. The trouble with Perdomo's argument is that it's a different syllogism. Perdomo's premises are flawed. Therefore his conclusion is unreliable. Reductio works; syllogism works. They're simply misapplied here
Yeah sooo... neither Tradition nor Magisterium are claimed to be "clear" like the Scriptures are claimed by protestants to be. Thats the difference. You literally are making the strawman in the first portion mentioned in Joe's video "because catholics disagree the view is false" we dont claim both the learned and unlearned would understand the magisterial teaching. Thats why priests are spiritual fathers. To help the unlearned understand the magisterium and if a priest doesnt understand it, there is the Bishop, and if not the Bishop a council and if not a council the pope.
Nature can be clear about god, but not clearly perceived because the effects of sin cloud the intellect. That verse from romans condemns those people because they DID perceive the oneness of God and still chose to worship other gods. Its is possible others who did not perceive are less at fault
As per usual, I find myself deeply disheartened by the behavior in the comments section.
Most (not all) of the romanists in the comments section here are doing one of a few things, all of which have been predicted
1. Refusing to watch the video and just making slanderous, insulting statements without providing any substance
2. Misapplying/ misunderstanding what constitutes a Tu Quoque fallacy, and applying it incorrectly regardless.
3. Shifting the goalpost of premise 1 to say Javier hasn't addressed it *at length*, only then to say Javier is fighting a ghost argument that hasn't been made, which is verifiably false
4. A *disastrous* missing of the entire point. The amount of people who simply do not comprehend what is being put forward here is astounding... To those who don't actually get Javiers point, please remain silent until you do, lest you fall prey to slander, and misrepresentation.
At 17:48, I disagree with the reduction in this case for this reason. You aren’t comparing like for like. There’s a lot of ways to be a Christian within certain parameters. The Essentials are this parameters in Joe’s argument. So you can disagree about a lot of things but Dogmas for example are settled matters. Protestantism cannot by definition have settled matters because each Protestant is his own magisterium yet lacks it’s infallibility.
But that's what you failed to see, that after watching all the video snippets from Javier's original rebuttal, you notice that catholics also are their own magisterium as all have different positions and beliefs that are not supported by the central position of Rome
@@Rudeboy1703 An individual that disagrees with infallible pronouncements cannot be a Catholic.
I am not Catholic, but the made up names that Protestants attribute to them “Romanists”, “papists” and now “ecclesialists” are so smug and annoying. Call them what they call themselves. How hard is that?
Planning on going back any time soon to testimonies of folks who left ecclesial traditions for one sort or another of Protestant worldview?
@Blaisesongs I put one out just a month ago, and we'll have another one coming out in a couple of weeks -- Lord-willing, I'm not planning on stopping those any time soon!
However, I do have a wide variety of content on this channel along the lines of theology, church history, Reformation apologetics, and the Christian life. Hopefully, there's a lot of edifying stuff there to enjoy 🙂
You are twisting words.
How are people still not getting it in these comments? It’s the simplest argument imaginable. If your argument refutes your own position, it is an invalid argument. No refutation is even necessary.
I mean, the fact that you guys think a reductio ad absurdum against another reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argumentation is wild to me, but whatever.
@thejollyviking8083 what are you even saying? Lol.
@@junkim5853 Joe's argument is a reductio ad absurdum of the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura. In other words, the argument is utilizing the logic of Protestantism (which is the point of premise 1), applying said logic (which is premise 2), and then showing it leads to an absurd conclusion.
The reason the argument works is because Catholics (or """""""""ecclesialists""""""""") don't operate under the same authority system or definition of clarity as Protestants, and so trying to turn Joe's argument back on Catholics completely misses the point.
To use an analogy, those who adopt the position of what is called "scientism" argue that no statement can be considered true unless it can be verified by science. A simple reductio of this position is that scientism itself, being a philosophical rather than a scientific position, cannot be verified by science.
Now, I hope everyone reading this understands why it would be absurd for the advocate of scientism to attempt to turn the argument around and say, "well, your philosophical beliefs can't be verified by science either", and why it would be even more absurd to dedicate hours of video feed to demonstrating how no other philosophical position is verified by science rather than simply responding to the original argument by showing how scientism is verified by science (i.e. meeting its own burden of proof).
The same principle is operating here: it is the Protestant tradition which claims that there will be agreement on essentials due to the clarity of Scripture. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has never said that all of its statements are so clear that there will never be disagreement over doctrines.
Of course, it's fine to discuss what it has said about clarity and agreement over its doctrines when that's what's up for discussion, and if you want you can even try to create reductio ad absurdums for it as some Eastern Orthodox apologists will do, but it's not relevant to the discussion we're supposed to be having, which is whether or not the Protestant view of clarity and Sola Scripture meets its own test.
@@junkim5853 Joe Heschmeyer's argument is, itself, a reductio ad absurdum. He's using the claims and paradigm of Protestantism and showing how Protestantism doesn't measure up to its own claims. Catholics, however, do not operate under the same set of claims and paradigm, and therefore trying to turn Joe's reductio ad absurdum for Protestantism into a reductio ad absurdum for Catholicism fundamentally misses the point of the argument and is no different from an advocate for scientism attempting to rebut the reductio ad absurdum that his own worldview can't be demonstrated by science by turning to the theist and saying that his can't either
@@junkim5853 I've tried replying to your comment several times at this point but the replies don't seem to stay up. I'm hoping my fuller reply to the video does, so if you're interested please read that (or at least the TL;DR part)
And with this we are at a cumulative 4 hours and 45 minutes of “tu quoque” fallacy.
glory to God
I've listened to over 4 hours of your responses to Joe, and honestly, I don't think you have a gift for brevity.
I've drawn these "essential" conclusions from your replies:
- Sola Scriptura doesn't allow for the determination of essential concepts, at least not in a shared manner
- You argue that the issue raised by Joe is inappropriate, badly posed
your first point is a bit odd given that his whole argument is that the ecclesialist traditions can't provide a meaningful list of essential doctrines, or agree on the interpretation and application of the doctrines they do agree on.
@@tategarrett3042 you are missing the point. Whether other traditions can or cannot provide a meaningful list of essential doctrines is irrelevant to whether sola scriptura can provide for the determination of essential concepts. The question is whether sola scriptura works, not whether other traditions do not work.
@@bcarollo1 That's reframing the discussion out of the bounds that Joe and Javier were discussing it in. Joe's specific criticism of Sola Scriptura fails because it defeats his own position too. Javier does not need to offer a comprehensive defense of Sola Scriptura to demonstrate that this specific argument fails.
@@tategarrett3042Yes Javier does need to defend Sola Scriptura. I think you are missing what Catholics believe about Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. The Church defines and clarifies the teachings of Christianity through infallible councils and papal declarations (ex cathedra). There is debate among Scotism and Thomism about different interpretations and the like and you can hold to any of those that you like unless the Church has infallibly defined something. This is where the Javier’s “ecclesialism” fails because the EO, and OO reject infallibly defined dogma coming from councils and papal declarations (ex cathedra). For Protestants, sola scriptura is the only rule of faith and there is NO infallible interpreter. Catholics and EO argue about who is the correct interpreter just like how we Christians would argue about whether or not Muslims have an infallible text in the Quran(they don’t btw). The Catholics believe that the EO are in schism but can the Lutherans say the same about Baptists who reject infant baptism and if so, how can they do that if they are no infallible interpreters?
Sorry for the long message😅
The last 10min is where the rubber meets the road. Great response. Keep it up Javier.
So many ecclessialists are once again missing the point. They are saying “Look, Javier, the point of contention was the protestant use of sola scriptura and you have not touched on that!” But that is missing the point to an egregious extent. Javier is saying that Joe’s argument itself fails. He is not making a case for sola scriptura. He is saying that Joe’s argument can be used against ecclesialist traditions via reductio. Jaier is contending about the very foundation of Joe’s argument, which means that sola scriptura itself does not need to be defending *in this case*
Moreover, for Joe to act like because protestants agree on the 5 solae we all have the exact same interpretive method is an astonishingly bad misrepresentation. An ounce of critical comparison of different protestant traditions will prove that to be false. Take anabaptists and Lutherans, just as Javier said. It isn’t difficult.
Nailed it!
Hope Javier Pin this!
Yeah, it's just goalpost shifting. When Javier argues how Joe's argument fails, then a flood of RCs demand him to give a positive case for Sola Scriptura or else. As if that was the perview of this exchange, or as if Javier doesn't already have a list of videos doing just that. It's the same nauseating triumphalism that so many accuse the "orthobros" of.
@@TheOtherCaleb It'd be a fine response...if Perdomo knew what reductio ad absurdum was.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
@@HighKingTurgon He used a reductio. He is literally saying that, for Joe’s argument, p implies ~p, therefore ~p.
@@TheOtherCaleb serious question-what do you mean by "Heschmeyer's argument"?
Vamos!
@@AquaTomMovies ¡Asi es!
I also think Joe's protest against labeled as part of the Ecclesialist umbrella when the terms "Protestant", "Lutheran", "Calvinist" and many others are all labels that Roman Catholics put on them to describe them. It is especially unfounded for him to oppose this label given that it is consistent, relevant, and useful, as Javier shows.
It's not a relevant argument when this channel actively endorses all of them.
If Joe endorsed mormanism, than that would've been a valid argument.
@@KillerofGods What you said doesn't follow at all. "Ecclesialism" is a perfectly valid term because it describes those churches that subscribe to a certain series of beliefs. Just like "Protestant" is a valid term to describe those who hold to the 5 Solas, so too is "Ecclesialist" a valid term to describe those churches that hold to their respective understandings of authority, the church, and the rest.
@@tategarrett3042 And you side stepped the point entirely.
When you join hands with them, you're now forced to justify/defend their viewpoint.
Whereas when you just say they are wrong. You are under no obligation to defend those positions.
@@tategarrett3042 Whereas I don't have to defend mormanism or Catholicism to defend the church.
You however do have to justify certain beliefs when you take the ecumenical approach.
@@tategarrett3042 You're basically saying, you can't endorse one government without endorsing them all...
It's not a valid argument, you can say one group/authority is right without saying all groups are right.
I don't understand why you are attacking Catholicism in particular. The argument Joe makes could be made by a Muslim, an atheist, a Hindu, an agnostic, whoever. How does attacking Catholicism disprove Joe's argument? Why don't you try to disprove the argument with Protestantism's merits? (If such a thing even exists...)
If an atheist were to make exactly the same argument, how would you respond to them? Try and discredit atheism? Joe's argument isn't uniquely Catholic (""ecclesialist""), so attacking Catholicism doesn't help defend your position at all...
🫳
🎤
As someone getting sick of the smug tone that Catholic apologetics has been taking of late, you gave me like seven hours of homework to do, and my God, I must be really sick of that smugness because, by God, I did it. And now here I am. Conclude this brother!
Edit: after the fact: Well said, and well concluded and thanks again for calling out the tone of their videos. I've been looking for some solid long form Lutheran YT stuff. I believe I've found him. Bell icon and subbed.
Please do not take God's name in vain.
@@FirstnameLastname-qz9fr I didn't. But out of respect, and my desire to not become a stumbling block for you, I will not use my Lord's title, in speech while addressing you directly sir or madam.
@@centurion7398 Perhaps I misunderstand, but "my God" and "by God" are exclamations which take his name in vain.
*4 hours later* (you know the voice)
Not all scripture is equally unclear. It goes beyond the bounds of reductio ad absurdum to say that Catholics, let alone all “ecclesialists”, think scripture cannot be understood at all without church intervention.
The first problem I see with Joe Heschmeyer’s argument is he assumes something about sola scriptura that he shouldn’t: he believes that if scripture is clear that it follows that all those who believe in sola scriptura are going to automatically believe in the same essential doctrines from scripture, as well as understand scripture the same way.
But that’s like saying all Roman Catholics are going to all agree on what the magisterium teaches, including ecumenical councils, in terms of essential doctrines. But if that is true, then why do 70% of American Catholics not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? Why do Roman Catholics not all believe what happens to an unbaptized baby who dies? Why don’t all Catholics believe in evolution, or if the Earth is young or old? Why do all Catholics not believe in capital punishment? Using Joe’s own arguments against him, then Joe should reject Roman Catholicism for the same reasons he claims to reject sola scriptura.
And that’s because like most Roman Catholic apologists, Joe has an inaccurate understanding of what sola scriptura is, and what it leads to.
4:30 my guy, you took HOURS to play clips of him and you never even quoted a single part of the video you were allegedly responding too.
I'm all for charitable interpretation, but at the very least I think you ought to admit you didn't have good flow or reasonable citations. I can happily give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're new to this or you made a mistake, but to double down? Really??!!
I'ts absolutely ignoring the Catholic system and what we teach, i'ts just imposing that we have the same teaching as you guys and this is where the mistake lies.
It ignores what we teach about faith as a theological virtue, dogmatic faith, implicit faith. We acknowledge different levels of doctrinal knowledge and authority while maintaining a coherent system for preserving and transmitting truth through established institutional mechanisms rather than relying solely on individual interpretation of scripture. While the protestant position on the Church will be something semantically equivalent to "whoever reads and interprets the Bible just like I do, or at least pretty close to just like I do". And if you ask "Which creeds, confessions and historical theology are authoritative?", their ultimate answer is semantically equivalent to
"those creeds and confessions and historical theology that agree with me-and-my-own-interpretation-of-Scripture."
The Catholic position, in contrast, provides clear, objective criteria for delineation while maintaining the proper nature of faith as a theological virtue requiring true submission to divine authority.
The Church is part of the deposit of faith.
She is “something to BELIEVE in”, because she is the mystical body of Christ. She is tangible,
both historically AND in the here and now. She makes claims, she calls for a decision, she confronts the person with a choice - just as her founder, Jesus, did.
*The Protestant argument fails to distinguish between two fundamentally different types of submission:*
Mental submission (interpreting texts privately)
Extra-mental submission (submitting to a concrete, living authority)
As Aquinas explains, true faith requires adherence to the Church "as to an infallible and divine rule"
Merely choosing what to accept/reject based on personal interpretation is not submission but "following one's own will"
*Objective vs. Subjective Criteria:*
The Catholic Church offers objective, verifiable criteria:
Historical succession
Unity
Stability
Miracles
Prophecies
Fruitfulness
As Fenton notes, these are "objectively provable" and the Church's founding is "historically a miraculous phenomenon"
Faith is a stable disposition in the intellect
Requires:
Assent to the whole of revelation (even if virtually)
Submission to Church authority as the channel of revelation
Acceptance of the Church's teaching as infallible and divine
*The Formal Object of Faith:*
Aquinas establishes that faith's formal object is the First Truth (God)
This Truth is manifested through:
_Holy Scripture_
_Church Teaching_
Key point: The authority of the Church itself is a revealed truth
This creates an "epistemic hierarchical order" where Church authority must be accepted even before Scripture
*We have a Hierarchical Understanding of Doctrine*:
Not all doctrines require explicit knowledge by all believers
Basic doctrinal requirements (like the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds) apply to all
More complex dogmas (like detailed Christological definitions) are primarily required knowledge for theologians
*Institutional Teaching Framework:*
The Church established theological schools and manual systems
This provides an "ordinary means" for interpreting and teaching the deposit of faith
Creates a structured way to communicate magisterial teaching to those who need to know specific truths
*Practical Application:*
Laypeople can make an "implicit Act of Faith" by believing what God has revealed through Christ and His Church
This doesn't require explicit knowledge of every dogma
"The Catholic position, in contrast, provides *_clear_* , objective criteria for delineation while maintaining the proper nature of faith as a theological virtue requiring true submission to divine authority."
So you are saying the Church offers clarity? Would this clarity be such that any (not every) Catholic, sincerely seeking to learn about the faith, and properly using the resources provided by the Church through Tradition, Scriptures, and Magisterium, can come to understand the essentials needed to be saved? If you say yes (and I think that is correct), then Javier's parody argument applies. If you say no, then you actually deny the advantage claimed by Rome whenever she asks a Protestant "You disagree about this in your system - who decides what is right?" The whole point of the Roman case against Protestant Perspicuity is that Rome offers a clarity absent in Protestant Perspicuity. Claiming that she doesn't backfires against the Catholic position severely.
Having taken some time in the comments it seems to me the argument is basically this:
Joe's argument refutes Joe, therefore it's a bad argument.
If this is correct, I have to say that Javier you need to do some work in your presentation abilities because I've watched about 5 hours on this topic and I'm just now realizing what could be said in a single sentence.
Perhaps you find it very clear? But at the very least your Catholic audience does not. I will pray for you and I hope in the future you may be more clear so that we may have more fruitful dialogue.
Admittedly haven't watched entire thing but I hope this is actually a rebuttal video and not a lot of words entailing a reply video that side steps his core arguments.
Hey check out my comment I’ve catalogued the entire debate!
@@mitchellscott1843 In the first half of this video, I clearly lay out Joe's argument and reject the first premise by demonstrating how it leads to absurd conclusions when applied equally to other circumstances.
Hope that helps.
That’s the thing, Joe doesn’t make a valid argument. It’s a self refuting methodology that doesn’t even qualify as critique.
Seems the argument here is that as a Catholic Joe isn't allowed to criticise Sola Fide as foundation of "Protestantism" (whatever that is, seems it only includes trinitarian denominations, but I don't think an explanation is provided how Sola Fide can be used to exhaustively prove the Trinity) because not all Catholics agree on everything as well. Maybe am missing something, I don't have time to watch hours of this.
@@christophlindinger2267 yeah I guess the distinction is that Catholics don't agree on everything not so much because the dogma is unclear more like because they personally decide the church is wrong on xyz issue.
19:40, It would be a circular argument without scripture. The scripture which says that The Holy Spirit will head the church into all truth. Also, not just the Papacy. The Magisterium includes all Bishops.
You mean the unclear Scripture we can’t personally interpret without an infallible magisterium to guide us?
I think what Joe is saying that because no one can agree on anything sola scriptura or with the magisterium is his point. Also isn’t sola scriptura just meant to say scripture is Gods word therefore it’s the authority, doesn’t really say anything about understanding it, therefore if we don’t have someone, either ourselves, a pastor, a magisterium etc pick one or all then it’s irrelevant.
I am a Catholic who affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture. This means, I believe Scripture is THE authority. The question becomes, how do I know what the Scripture teaches/says? Protestantism says I can know that, at least when it comes to essential doctrines, through the due use of ordinary means. As a Catholic, I hold it requires the magisterium.
good stuff, i think a dialogue/debate would be helpful.
Love from Adam to Javier ❤️
I have a feeling a certain group of people are going to comment on this video while still not understanding the argument 🤭
We understand the argument. The argument is that Javier doesn't like Joe's argument. But that does nothing to rebute Joe's position on Sola Scriptura, and that's the problem. There is NO addressing of Sola Scriptura here. That's the problem. Javier is dancing around the issue.
@@Shirogarasu9 well if you watched the video you might realize that his entire point is that Joe hasn't made any real criticism of sola scriptura since his own arguments also debunk all the Ecclesialist traditions, including Rome. An argument that defeats your own position is worthless against your opponent's.
Yep, got that, understand it. He doesn't like Joe's argument. It didn't take 4 hours to get that point across and he still didn't do anything at all to present even a crumb or reasoning for anyone to believe in Sola Scriptura. He didn't defend it AT ALL. Period. He can hate Joe's argument all he wants, but if he doesn't defend his stance on Sola Scriptura specifically, he does nothing at all to move the needle.
@@Shirogarasu9 Javier doesn't have to defend Sola Scriptura to defeat Joe's argument, and all he was trying to do here was show the invalidity of Joe's argument. Criticizing Javier for not making an independent case for Sola Scriptura in this video is a complete red herring. He has already done that in other videos.
@@tategarrett3042 A red herring?? Bro, the entire subject of this back and forth is Sola Scriptura. Lol what the heck are you on about? Whatever. This has been a huge waste of my time and I'm not burning any more of it here. What a joke.
Javier, do you not know how to do basic logic?
Joe's argument is simple:
If p, then q. Not q. Therefore, not p.
You need to show that either premise 1 or premise 2 is not true. Its simple logic. Why can't you just respond to the syllogism?
There is absolutely nothing wrong or faulty with Joe's logic. It is both sound and valid. You are using sophistry to beat around the bush.
@user-hj8vd2od9h I object to Joe's 1st premise and demonstrate that the snuck premise underlying it leads to all sorts of absurd conclusions. Re-watch the video, then check the pinned comment.
@javierperd2604 You did not show that premise 1 is false. You said "faulty", why can't you say it is "false"?
@@user-hj8vd2od9h The snuck premise behind Joe's 1st Premise *is* false. That's why I'm objecting to his 1st Premise.
Once again, check the pinned comment. Hope that helps.
@@javierperd2604 Thanks, that pinned comment is more clear.
You stated:
"The reason Premise #1 is false is due to the snuck premise underlying it, namely: That 'approaching with sincerity' is a sufficient condition for understanding something that has been clearly set forth."
If premise 1 is false, then are you saying that God would allow sincere believers to passionately disagree on essential doctrines (those doctrines which a Christian needs to believe for salvation)? How could a loving God allow such a thing? It seems absurd to say that Christians can passionately disagree on essential doctrines.
@@user-hj8vd2od9h not to mention it completely concedes the whole premise. The whole argument is against the perspicuity of scripture along sola scriptura lines, that all essential doctrine is clearly defined in the bible. By admitting that sincere believers can come to different conclusions then begs the question... how? If scripture is 100% clear and perspicuity is correct, only those of bad faith would disagree, but if sincere believers can arrive to different conclusions, you absolutely need to concede that they are ignorant, if they are ignorant and 100% sincere, then scripture was insufficiently clear. You can't both have full sincerity and full clarity with several Protestant denominations that disagree on essential doctrines claiming full clarity.
Javier conceding sincere believers can arrive to different conclusions is simply the end of the argument and proves Joe's case, it doesn't matter if he gives a line of reasoning that supposedly debunks Catholicism afterwards, that wasn't the debate in the first place. At best, if we just take for granted Javier is correct and Catholicism is wrong, then both Protestantism and Catholicism are wrong. Regardless, the perspicuity of scripture is still ends up proven false in the end.
Why not save yourself some time and just admit that there is no way to resolve doctrinal disagreements in Protestantism? In fact there are no "official teachings". Only thing official is the unofficial. Since no one church has the infallible power to settle dogmatic matter or moral one then anything goes. No one church can call any other Christian or church heretics. There, I saved you some time. You're welcome.
"Why don't you just ignore all the points you've been making and just admit you're wrong about this totally unrelated point"
@@ScroopGroop did you see him ramble on again without just saying in protestantism we will and can never agree on essentials...period?
@@MrJayb76 You are just continuing to ignore the discussion, while trying to ram in a false ultimatum.
Engage in the subject at hand, or don't engage at all. This only obfuscates and muddies the water.
His *whole point* is that Protestant agree on the essentials *just as much* as ecclesialists do.
If you can't see that, you've missed the point entirely.
@ScroopGroop ok what exactly is his point? Try summing it up for me bc after 15mins it just felt like he was beating around the bush.
@@MrJayb76 That criticizing the "protestant understanding of scripture" is a false dilemma. Since all protestant traditions have a different interpretative lens. To apply the same standard to "Tradition" in the ecclesialist worldview creates the same problem. Holy Tradition doesn't fix the problems that those who hold to Sola Scriptura and therefore, Sola Scriptura isn't the problem. People are.
If you get to claim that all the people that don't believe in sola scriptura are ecclesialists, then unitarians are protestant.
In your example about cats, separating them based on number of legs is only dumb if all the cats have four legs. If one of them has three legs, then it suddenly isn't quite so dumb.
The map example doesn't help you. You gave three examples of people using the map, those that get there, those that don't want to get there, and those that get lost. If the map is so clear that no one can get lost, then there are only two people. Those that get there, and those that don't want to get there. If that is true, then I guess everyone that happens to disagree with you must not want to be saved. There is no good faith disagreement.
"If the roman catholic view of the magisterium is correct, sincere believers will all agree on the essential doctrines."
Why?
What is the "roman catholic view of the magisterium" that somehow necessitates everyone agree?
What does "sincere believers" mean?
"If you get to claim that all the people that don't believe in sola scriptura are ecclesialists, then unitarians are protestant."
He didn't, we don't, and they aren't.
"In your example about cats, separating them based on number of legs is only dumb if all the cats have four legs. If one of them has three legs, then it suddenly isn't quite so dumb."
In his scenario, no cat was mentioned as having three legs. This is not relevant.
"The map example doesn't help you. You gave three examples of people using the map, those that get there, those that don't want to get there, and those that get lost. If the map is so clear that no one can get lost, then there are only two people. Those that get there, and those that don't want to get there. If that is true, then I guess everyone that happens to disagree with you must not want to be saved. There is no good faith disagreement."
Joe's premise that anyone sincerely, with due of ordinary means, _will_ understand the essentials is not what Protestants claim. The claim is that we _can_ understand the essentials. We don't claim the map is so clear no one can get lost (which would probably violate free will). We claim the map is clear enough that anyone, using it rightly, _can_ use it without getting lost.
@@ottovonbaden6353 "He didn't, we don't, and they aren't."
He did, ---> he
@@_Gormakesh_ "He did, --> he
@@ottovonbaden6353 "he laid out a parody argument based on Joe's umbrella argument against Protestants by creating a fake label of Ecclesialist."
Right. But for the parody to hold, unitarians would have to be protestant. If you say that unitarians are NOT protestant, the parody fails, which was my point.
"Pointing out that three legged cats technically exist is just not relevant."
You do realize that the story with the cats is an analogy, right? He created a story where all the cats have four legs, and then says that Catholics and protestants are in the boat. But, they're not.
"After I respond, are you going to just ask me if another Prot disagrees on any of them?"
Nope. I don't have to ask if they disagree. They do. I was going to ask how you know those are the essentials. If another "Prot" is doing the same thing as you, but gets a different answer, how do you know that you found the right answer?
@ “for the parody to hold, Unitarians would have to be Protestant”
Maybe there is some blending of contexts here. In the land of JoeArgument, Protestantism includes every group that affirms Sola Scriptura. So, sure, Unitarians are Protestant according to Joe’s concept formally put forward as part of the framework for his premises. In that same land, Javier introduces his parody argument. Here, Ecclesialist refers to every group claiming a clear, infallible teaching authority combining Tradition and Magisterium. These umbrellas only act like this in the land of JoeArgument. In the real world, Unitarians aren’t Protestant, and Catholics and Orthodox aren’t really part of an Ecclesialist umbrella claiming the clarity of Tradition.
The parody holds because it demonstrates the absurdity of the entire premise of JoeArgument, and because it demonstrates that, it also shows that forcing umbrellas around both groups is absurd.
"He created a story where all the cats have four legs, and then says Catholics and Protestants are in the same boat. “
He only claims they are in the same boat in the land of JoeArgument, because Joe’s Premise 1 is false and, frankly, just an example of poor epistemology. What is more, its conclusions make it completely pointless to bring to conversation anyway.
Saying “If Umbrella group’s stance that X is clear means they will all say Y is true, they don’t all say Y, therefore stance is false” relies on the absurd idea that everyone who looks at a thing with a similar mindset will necessarily all agree on specific aspects of the thing. The Catholics in the comments who are protesting (ba dum ts) that the Catholic Church doesn’t claim that all Catholics will agree while the Protestants do claim this have it half right. The Protestants don’t claim we will all agree, because that claim is bunk.
“How do you know you found the right answer?”
Same way you know Christ is Risen, or that you concluded your own Church is the true Church. Faith.
ok. so … it just feels like youre just defining what is and isnt acceptable as an argument. i feels like youre saying: A + B = C , therefore when you use + in any argument it can be scrutinised since that shape is only a symbol that equals C in certain contexts.
At the core of my confusion, I don't understand why you exchanged the parties in Joe's syllogism when it is for Protestants alone and based on the argument for perspecuity, which only Protestants affirm. And, given that, neither do you ever address his argument for Protestantism.
You are still not addressing his simple syllogism.
@@amcasci I read his syllogism in the video a million times while showing why the first premise is faulty, given that it leads Joe to absurd conclusions in plenty of other areas.
You are creating other syllogisms. You are free to do so. Have at it but please answer his syllogism instead of listing others. It does not matter how many times you quote his syllogism what matters is addressing one simple syllogism
@@javierperd2604and you didn't address it. You talked about it a lot, and complained that you didn't like it, but you didn't address it, nor did you do anything at all to defend Sola Scriptura.
A long way to go and you never got to sola scriptura. Your discussion is interesting and has many good points but SOLA SCRIPTURA is the matter at hand.
If you want to demonstrate that his system is no better, have at it. That is a legit matter but you still have not addressed the failure of sola scriptura. I am a LCMS emeritus pastor and I can vouch for the fact that Ming us in this small relatively homogeneous enclave there is significant disagreement. Why? We say all our pastors subscribe to scripture and the Book Of Concord and yet we do not have concord. How do you answer that? To say Rome or East is no better is no help to a struggling LCMS.
What about theological differences between Missouri-Synod and ELCA? They come from the same tradition and have vastly differing interpretations of very important doctrines
They don't come from the same tradition. Their understanding of everything from Scripture to the Book of Concord are completely different.
The Missouri Synod holds that the Book of Concord is correct because it leads to a correct understanding of Scripture. The ELCA claims to support both "in so far as" as they conform to Scripture. To put it the classical way, the ELCA can affirm the Koran "in so far as" it conforms to Scripture. When you take this approach, everything becomes entirely subjective, and this is how the ELCA can affirm gay marriage, trans pastors, other religions, and any other nonsense that they come up.
My Pastor has put it this way: The ELCA isn't Evangelical, isn't Lutheran, and probably isn't Christian. They are correct to claim they live in America though.
@@mattnxtc1 wait but the ELCA spilt from the LCMS so they do come from the same tradition right? You can say that the LCMS upholds that tradition better but to say that the ELCA doesn’t stem from that tradition would be wrong, right?
@@ottoaero14 I don't understand your point? The groups that would eventually become the ELCA split BECAUSE they didn't want to follow the historical traditions, and would rather affirm new traditions.
Former ELCA here. Despite the presence of good congregations remaining in the denomination, the denominational leadership is teaching heresy. As much as it hurts to say it, the ELCA falls under Progressive Christianity, not Confessional Lutheranism.
If you want to contrast differences in Lutheran traditions, I'd suggest comparing LCMS with the North American Lutheran Church (NALC), or maybe the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod WELS. I think Jordan Cooper is AALC (forget what one of the A's stands for).
I don’t understand Joe’s definition of “essential doctrines.” I think all Protestants do agree on Sola Scriptura and Justification by Faith Alone. Those are essential doctrines, and are clearly taught in Scripture.
Essential would be anything you need to be saved. His whole point is that if perspecuity of scripture is true, then we would expect most protestants to agree on matters of faith and morals. We do not see agreement on matters of faith and morals. Therefore, the protestant view of scripture is incorrect.
The reason Javier keeps missing the whole point is that he is applying the doctrine of perspecuity to Catholic teaching. But that was never an argument made by Joe, or the Church.
@@sgtadhesive9044 The Catholic Church makes this argument about her own teaching any time she asks a Protestant "This issue is disputed in your system. Who decides? In ours, Rome decides. We offer clarity." Saying that Rome does not claim to be clear in teaching the essentials drastically backfires against the Catholic position.
Literally the only place in the bible that uses "justified by faith alone" says, "Man is not justified by faith alone". But sure, the thing explicitly denied by scripture is actually affirmed in scripture.
@ottovonbaden6353 An argument made by a lay person is not the same as "the Catholic Church teaches." The claim isn't that all Catholic teaching is clear in the way that protestants claim scripture to be.
There is a small subset of teaching that is infallible. All this means is that the Holy Spirit is protecting the magisterium from binding the faithful to error. You see infallible statements in councils and a few times directly from the pope. Look for language like "we declare and define that..." or "... let them be anathema."
The advantage of this is that there is a process and authority for resolving disputes that are binding on the faithful. Not that all teaching will be clear.
Protestantism has no mechanism for this because, as Joe makes the argument, scripture is not clear enough that the learned and unlearned alike may agree on all they need to be saved. Luther even thought that scripture was clear enough that all would agree on every matter of doctrine, essentials, and non essentials alike.
@@sgtadhesive9044 "The claim isn't that all Catholic teaching is clear in the way that protestants claim scripture to be."
Then what, precisely, is the Catholic claim on the teachings of essentials in the Catholic Church? I understood it to be that Catholics _can_ correctly know essential doctrines sufficiently to attain salvation by submitting to the teachings of Tradition and the Magisterium.
"Luther even thought that scripture was clear enough that all would agree on every matter of doctrine, essentials, and non essentials alike."
I would like to see a citation on this particular matter from Luther, if you have one handy. From what I have seen, mainly in the Bondage of the Will section dealing with Perspicuity, Luther claimed Scripture is abundantly clear in all things, but that degrees of darkened hearts resulting from our lives of sin put obstacles in the way of understanding. These obstacles are removed in part or in total through the work of the Spirit in the believer who seeks to understand.
Javier, I wonder if what you should have said (and this is certainly in the same spirit of what you did say) is that a generalization of Joe's premise 1 is false; namely, that, _if a source of doctrinal essentials is perspicuous and authoritative, then sincere believers will all agree on the essential doctrines insofar as they are outlined by that source_. Since this generalization is clearly false (as Joe should admit), premise 1 is simply unmotivated. No one should accept it, let alone a protestant who believes in the perspicuity of scripture.
A comment unrelated to the Joe business, why does your audio sound so can-like? Is it the mic or something else? Sorry I just keep thinking about it every time I watch your videos 😂 great content though ❤️
Can you make a video refuting "Ultimate REFUTATION of Sola Scriptura" by Scholastic Answers. I'ts one of those videos that is not rhetoric bs, i'ts very systematic and in the end part you have syllogism you can work with.
You just don’t get it.
As a Pentecostal (The orthodox one), I do not consider Unitarians at all as Protestants. Once you deviate from at least one essential doctrine, you're out. Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, Baptists and Pentecostals all agree on the essentials (The Trinity, Jesus's divinity, The Virgin Birth, The Hypostatic Union, Holding only two sacraments, and the Five Solas.) I don't know why Romanists keep claiming we don't agree on the essentials.
So far, we do, that's why I get along with my Baptist friends despite some of them being cessationists. There was actually one time when a Free Evangelical Lutheran lady visited our church and gave a testimony before us. Moreover, our church was visited by an elderly Anglican man, he was married to one of my relatives, who herself is Pentecostal but when I asked him if he's Anglican, he confirmed he is. I don't hold any issue with that, I was even glad that we got visited by an Anglican. If I'd be given the chance to return the favour of visiting a Lutheran and an Anglican Church, I would certainly do that too.
I visited a Bible Baptist Church and attended there for about 3 or 4 Sundays straight and let me tell you despite arriving there hearing about disputing Pentecostal beliefs, I still continued being with them. I shared them my experiences as a Pentecostals and instead of saying that I should depart from Pentecostalism, one of them just said "Continue on your walk in Jesus Christ" which just prove the point that despite some differences (non-essentials) we see each other as fellow brethren in Christ.
Before you drop the Montanist and Nestorian bombs on me because I identify myself as a Pentecostal, here are some of my beliefs:
a.) I had renounced my old Nestorian sensibilities, acknowledging further that the Blessed Virgin is the Theotokos (God bearer or the Mother of God).
b.) Pentecostals (or at least the church I'm affiliated to) do not put received revelations above Scripture (Montanism), rather received revelation must confirm and conform to Scripture.
c.) I'm fine with calling the Lord's Supper as the "Eucharist" recognizing both memorial and spiritual properties in the sacrament (aye, I acknowledge spiritual presence as well).
d.) I now at least have a "relaxed" view of the apocrypha considering them as "ecclesial" because while they may not hold the same canonical status with the 66 books, they are however allowed to be read in the church for edificational purposes.
e.) We've been taught from childhood in our church that despite being separate from Rome, we have not lost our Catholic identity, it is still with us.
Finally, had not Pentecostalism existed, I'd either become an Anglican or Lutheran.
Thank you for your patience and God bless you
Didn't the montanist speak in tongues though while the orthodox Christians denied it
Thank you for affirming some essential doctrines!
@@Joshua12w2o Hello there,
I reckon I've not dived deep enough into Montanism, sadly it is one of the pervasive accusations out there concerning Pentecostalism. Of course, that does not mean it doesn't hold water at all. I admit that there are some Pentecostals out there that may display Montanist tendencies. Further, we do share a few similarities with them: (a.) Presence of spiritual gifts, (b.) bishops and presbyters open for women, (c.) ecstatic worship and (d.) Primilennialism.
However, when it comes to spiritual gifts especially, received revelations, we do not believe they supersede the apostles but rather as confirmation of the Holy Scriptures and must be in conformity to them otherwise we reject them.
Moreover, unlike Montanists, we do not forbid our women to wear ornaments, do not inherit the problem of Monarchianism (which some of them believed), do not subscribe to asceticism (though we have ocassional fasts), do not forbid those who had once renounced their faith to return to us, and even though we have ecstatic worship, we do give room for singing some hymns, do not have limited distinction between the laity and clergy (Heb. 13:17 has been used to obey our priests), do not only discouraged infant baptism but reject it for infant dedication instead.
So we're far enough from being Montanists.
Thank you for your patience and God bless you
I loved the point you brought up at around 19:00. The Roman Catholic claim ultimately requires a self-authenticating papacy. So then why not just accept a self-authenticating Bible, like Magisterial Protestantism does? When you get to the bottom of it, God’s words _have_ to be self-authenticating - you can’t have something higher than God’s words giving them a stamp of approval.
So how then did we receive the Scriptures? It’s called Divine Providence. _Of course_ God wouldn’t inspire the Scriptures only to then let them fall into oblivion.
36:50, the cat syllogism doesn’t work. It only appears to because you equate the opinion of laymen with church teaching. Also because one of the ancient churches is the correct tradition. Novel institutions that weren’t founded by Christ can’t be the church for that reason.
"Because one of the ancient traditions is correct"...bruh now just apply that to readings of Scripture.
I just always feel that the catholicism is ignoring glaring obvious truth of the gospel and always want to turn this into a sola scriptura is false conversation. : /
Seems odd he would take your personal criticisms personally, I wonder why that is?
Why would Joe take personal jabs personally? The nerve Joe.
Would you please time-stamp where Javier leveled personal jabs at Joe? I didn't see any, or maybe I just personally wouldn't have been offended. Having watched Joe for a number of years, it's something that's used as a dialogue tactic rather than actual hurt feelings. And being friend to two lawyers myself, they've confirmed as much. But I don't know Joe personally. And I'm not Joe. I was unable to locate anything that was personally insulting from Javier, but Javier's take on Joe's arguments could be vexing to Joe.
@@jmh7977I don't have the time to go through a three hour video again bro. I do remember the very personal tone of the video wrt Joe. Implying that the other person is dishonest is a very personal remark. He should have just stuck with "Joe is wrong here".
@Neil-g4g Fair enough, I wasn't trying to pin you down or expect you to comb through hours of material again, but I'd hoped maybe certain moments stood out to you that you could recall. Without actual time-stamps though, you realize anyone can make claims, myself included. I asked you because if I'm wrong, and Javier really did make purposeful and personal jabs at Joe, I'd sincerely like to know. I just didn't recall seeing anything which Joe, a very seasoned speaker, former lawyer, and intelligent person, should actually take real offense to.
@@jmh7977 Again, I don't remember things verbatim - but one example is when Javier implies Joe uses debate tricks intentionally to obfuscate the fact that the same argument will undercut his position - or something to this effect. That's a comment on Joes character now. If I remember well (and I likely don't) this happens in the first 30 mins.
If my memory is correct and the above observations are true - wouldn't you consider that as a personal jab?
@@jmh7977 I can't see your last reply but here is what I wrote:
Fair enough. If you think the assessment is true to Joes character - then it's not a jab as such - even though it's still personal. I am new to both these channels so I have limited data to work with than you. I don't find Joe dishonest at all so far, and I won't take your word for it (nor do I think you'd expect me too). I don't see a reason to make a personal remark (even if supposedly true) whilst trying to defeat an argument. I just don't see the point. And I cannot see this done in "good faith". But again, maybe Joe has done things in the past that may make you feel he simply asked for it. I can't say because I have not accessed that data.
(not sure if the channel or youtube is deleting my comments, so I'm splitting this up into multiple parts to see if that fixes the problem. I genuinely don't think Javier would simply delete attempted rebuttals of his video regardless of whether they gave him pause or not, so I'm going to blame youtube.)
Part 1: This, unfortunately, has to be a long post, because it's become clear to me (see what I did there) that you and several other commenters on this video are entangled in such a web of failures to understand what this discussion is even about that it's taken me a bit to unravel them.
The fundamental problem with your entire argument is that "ecclesialists" don't use the Protestant definition of clarity. That's the point. You can't foist your definition of clarity (which involves all sincere believers applying the due use of ordinary reason to the Scriptures as their only infallible source of authority coming to agreement on the essential doctrines) onto "ecclesialists" and say that they don't meet its requirements and pretend that proves some kind of double standard.
The difference between "ecclesialists" and Protestants is that one side specifically claims that sincere believers who follow their authority paradigm will arrive at essential doctrines and the other side specifically doesn't say that. "Ecclesialists" saying that no sincere reader of the tradition of the Church can come away thinking that Protestantism in particular is in line with the tradition of the Church (which, as it happens, most Catholic apologists don't say though some probably do for rhetorical purposes), doesn't mean that they're saying no sincere believer will have disagreement on the interpretation of Sacred Tradition.
Part 2: The reason people said that you spent three hours rambling and/or missing the point was because what you were saying was completely irrelevant to the argument*. The Catholic Church *doesn't say that Sacred Tradition, or the Magisterium for that matter, is so clear that no reasonable person could be Orthodox, or that Orthodox and Catholics won't disagree, or even that there will be no disagreement over the "essentials" (whatever that is supposed to mean in Catholicism) within our own tradition, which is why the reductio is completely and totally off base.
Of course, you try to anticipate this object with your second reductio concerning the Magisterium, but you still do the same thing as the first reductio: you put a Protestant burden onto "ecclesialists". Literally Joe's entire argument is that Protestant confessions specifically say that those who follow Scripture and apply the ordinary means of reason to it will arrive at the essentials.
The Catholic Church does not say that, it doesn't say that there will be no disagreement over essentials among her members because it doesn't talk about "essentials." It doesn't even say that what the Magisterium says will always be perfectly clear so that there will be no disagreement. Individual Catholics may say that, but this is not the claim of the Church itself. What it does say is that it has the authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition and to authoritatively bind the consciences of the faithful on matters of faith and morals, that it (and this is important) is CAPABLE (i.e., it can*, in principle, do this) of *continuing to clarify its teaching when there is a lack of clarity, and that those who knowingly (again, important) do not follow her judgments on the matter are guilty of the sin of heresy.
Part 3: You can say that there's still disagreement. We know. WE weren't the ones who said there wasn't going to be disagreement over "essentials" or non-"essentials", what we did say is that when there is a disagreement the authority of the Church is capable of settling said issues specifically because it is a living authority which is capable of clarifying and reclarifying itself and that Scripture because it is not a living authority is unable to do this. (As a side note, this is why the relevant apologetic argument here is about *capability*, in that the Magisterium has a capacity as a living authority which Scripture does not. The Magisterium is at least capable of settling these matters in a way that Scripture isn't, regardless of whether or not it succeeds in doing so at any particular period of time. You might not like this paradigm, but that doesn't make it a double standard.)
Now, you can object that we should have already settled issues over what anathemas are, whether or not NFP is immoral, etc. But these objections are either:
a) historical matters (what anathemas were considered to do in the 500s, 800s, 1300s, etc. obviously isn't a theological doctrine, but an historical dispute) and are therefore outside the claimed purview of the Church's authority, or
b) actually have been authoritatively settled by the Church, meaning that at least one side of those disputes are in open dissent to the teaching of the Church and therefore don't qualify as part of the discussion anymore than those who reject some part of Scripture apply to your end. I know that radtrads say that NFP is immoral. They're wrong, and they're (knowingly or unknowingly) dissenting from the Church's teaching.
Part 4: Similarly, you can object that we should have already settled issues over which theological school has predestination right, whether or not "hopeful" universalism is an orthodox position, etc. But the Church has decided not to make a judgment on the matter and to leave it open for dispute beyond the parameters of the discussion it has created, meaning that it is (by analogy) one of our "non-essential" doctrines.
Maybe you think these things are major enough that they should be "essential" (again, I'm using that term analogously), but even if I were to agree with that, it wouldn't constitute a double standard because, again, the Catholic Church doesn't define things in terms of the "essentials". Maybe you think that this means we have no "clarity" advantage over you guys, great, cool, the rhetorical apologetic argument of "come to the Catholic Church because we agree on everything" has been refuted! Good job! You know what hasn't been refuted though? The foundational claims of our authority paradigm, which says nothing about the total conformity of belief among all of its members over "essential" matters.
Part 5 (final) To summarize: Protestants are the ones who created the workload around needing to agree on "essential" doctrines, not "ecclesialists". It is because of *specifically this claim* and for no other reason that the "essentials" question is something which is even brought up in the first place. Scripture doesn't do what your confessions say it does, therefore, you're wrong about Scripture.
Even if Catholics were wrong about the Magisterium, you would still be wrong about Scripture until you can come up with a defense of your position which, for some reason, you guys still haven't done. I genuinely can't figure out why this is so difficult to understand, because it seems to only be Protestant apologists who are incapable of understanding it.
I don't know if there's a mental block here or if you guys are just going into an "automatic rebuttal mode" or something whenever the topic of Protestant disagreements come up, but you've now spent 5 hours simply dodging the actual criticism and even after Joe made two clarification videos you guys still missed the point. I genuinely don't get it. And what's hilarious about this is that you could just invalidate the argument with one simple statement: just say that people who apply the due use of ordinary reason won't necessarily agree on the essentials from Scripture. Or (better yet) simply show how Joe's interpretation of what "applying the due use of ordinary reason to the Scriptures" means is wrong and how what it actually meant in the creeds makes your creeds' statement on the matter so much more reasonable.
In other words, simply deny premise one of the argument and show how it fails. That's literally all Catholics are asking you to do and you refuse to do it. So, let's make this simple: which premise of Joe's argument do you deny, and why? At this point, you really ought to do that just for the sake of moving the discussion forward because it's clear that we Catholics simply don't get which premise you deny or why. So please, don't dance around the argument by giving parody arguments or reductio ad absurdums in response to a reductio ad absurdum. Which of the premises of the argument are false and why?
TL;DR
Catholics don't claim that they'll all agree on every "essential" doctrine or that all statements from the Magisterium are perfectly clear. I'm sorry if we've given you that impression with our apologetic arguments in other areas, but that's not what the Church teaches.
Joe's argument is that Protestants *are* the ones who claim that all true believers who apply the due use of ordinary reason will agree on the essentials, and yet they don't.
Because of this, you can't turn the argument back around onto Catholics for the very simple reason that we don't make the same claims you do. You don't hold up to your own claims, the fact that we don't hold up to your claims is completely irrelevant.
Therefore, in order to refute Joe's argument, rather than spending hours talking about how """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""ecclesialists""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" don't agree with each other on stuff you think is really important, you need to actually deny one of the premises or show how the conclusion doesn't follow. If you can't do that, then the argument holds and your understanding of Scripture is false.
"Rebutted" lol you can't make this stuff up 😂
You’re committing the tu quo que fallacy. Roman Catholics disagreeing on non essential doctrines (all of the doctrines you mentioned aren’t essential doctrines by far) does not fix the problem with sola scriptura.
Joe also never claimed that the Magisterium will always be clear, however there is the added benefit of the magisterium clarifying and giving us more clarity.
But let’s just say that your critiques work and this makes Catholicism bunk. That STILL doesn’t even address the issue that it seems that Protestants claim scripture to be sufficient and perspicuous and obviously isn’t.
I mean no offense, but at least at the point that I’m at in the video you aren’t actually addressing the argument Joe put forth. The argument is about the Protestant claim of perspicuity, not the perspicuity of anything.
for your second paragraph you're missing the point - Joe's argument fails because it refutes his own system. Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of scripture do not mean that everyone will arrive at the right interpretation. As Javier pointed out, at length, if this were true, it would mean everyone should become Christian because the evidence is so clear.
@sneakysnake2330 The problem is *precisely* that Joe's argument doesn't *just* apply to Sola Scriptura. Did you get to the part of the video where Joe's criticism would invalidate *Christianity* when applied to creation?
I thought the field of apologetics we are in (Joe being a Roman Catholic and myself being a Lutheran) is happening from the standpoint that we both at least agree *Christianity* is true. Any argument one of us tries to provide which leads to the absurd conclusion that Christianity is false, is obviously invalid and irrelevant given the context of the apologetics conversation we're both engaged in.
That is not tu quo que. the argument against Joe is that the methodology he uses against sola scriptura equally applies to his own position, and is therefore invalid. It is an internal critique.
@@javierperd2604that's not true. Your (incorrect) understanding of reductio ad absurdum would actually invalidate syllogistic reasoning itself. Which makes a hash of human reason; presumably not a tack you're willing to take.
That doesn’t make it an invalid criticism. At best, it makes it one that cuts both ways. That’s not how reductio arguments work. It could be the case then hypothetically that this therefore shows Catholicism to be false, but that doesn’t mean that Protestantism is suddenly true. It just means that neither Protestantism or Catholicism is true. In order to substantiate Protestant theology you can’t just critique Catholics, you have to do the work to prove your position as well.
Epic Fail.
🤦♂️
Buddy is onto nothing
If someone has the time, or Javier yourself, I have a couple questions to try and understand this better.
Does Sola Scriptura promise all sincere believers will agree on essential doctrines? (Premise 1) Is this premise false?
My understanding was that it meant the Bible was the only way to settle differences in doctrinal disputes.
Do Protestants agree on essential doctrines? (Premise 2) Is this premise false?
I mean maybe "Protestant" is the wrong category. Maybe it would be better to say "Sincere people who believe in Sola Scriptura"? More verbose, I know, but in my mind this connects the premises better.
@zekemiller9680 Thank you for your question! I'm happy to help clarify.
Sola Scriptura simply claims the following: "The Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the church." A separate, but related truth about Scripture is that it is perspicuous (i.e. - clear) in matters related to salvation. Technically speaking, these two are separate claims, as one could hypothetically uphold that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, without necessarily saying that they are abundantly clear in the essentials. However, as a Lutheran, I would affirm *both* Sola Scriptura and perspicuity.
Having said that, it is important to note: A given thing being clear doesn’t mean that everyone who approaches it in good faith *will* come to understand it correctly -- it simply means that they *can* do so, not simply by chance, but by having recourse to the clear thing in question and employing such proper means of study such as a proper hermeneutic, right reasoning, and diligent, attentive analysis. Unfortunately, not everyone who approaches the Scriptures "sincerely" employs those means of study well; someone can be "sincere" in their intent to understand them while employing a bad hermeneutic, or while not being as attentive in their analysis as they could be. Additionally, unregenerate man specifically has a darkened heart and understanding, so, without the aid of the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures are easily misunderstood by him, as they are spiritually discerned.
Having understood all of this, Premise 1 of Joe's argument is false and leads to absurd conclusions if applied consistently to other areas (as I demonstrate throughout the video). If something being clear, by necessity, implies that everyone who is "sincere" *WILL* understand it, then that would falsify the very concept of clarity itself -- since there is no such topic that we could think of where all human beings will be in agreement about how to understand it. The point of my parody arguments is to demonstrate this by showing that Joe's argument would debunk not just Ecclesialism broadly and Roman Catholicism particularly, but also Christianity as a whole. Hence, it is an absurd and worthless argument, especially for the discussion at hand.
@@javierperd2604How would I objectively know that you the Lutherans have employed the highest form of standards in applying Sola Scriptura i.e I guess that the Holy Spirit guided you correctly in interpreting Scriptures and not the other denominations who are using Sola Scriptura as well but have different theology than yours?
This is epic level talking past each other. And the main issue is precisely that one interlocutor believes in one church established by God. And the other believe that one church is of spirit and not matter. No amount of debate matters here until that point is resolved.
The too long, didn't watch remains:
Javier Perdomo still does not understand how argument works.
See 59:30-1:00:30 where Perdomo restates and agrees with Heschmeyer's entire argument.
Lol thank you so much for this
That is all I need to know. Thank you.
If you had actually listened to his argument you might realize why Joe has failed to even begin to address Javier's points.
@@tategarrett3042 Heschmeyer is under no obligation to rebut points irrelevant to his discussion. It isn't how debate works.
@@HighKingTurgon Well if you, or he, had listened to Javier's argument the two of you might realize that Javier destroyed the foundations of Joe's entire argument and exposed why it doesn't even begin to work as a criticism of Protestantism, making it entirely relevant to the discussion. That is in fact how debate works.
NFP and the death penalty are not essential Catholic doctrines 🤦♂️ dude you are wrong, but I am praying for u to see that. Please, if you are going to try to disprove Catholicism, research its teachings more thoroughly so you can make an honest argument.
NFP, sure, but the death penalty isn't an essential doctrine? It concerns a grave matter (the k1lling of another human) and whether that can be done without committing sin. Disagreement over that seems of paramount importance.
They may not be essential to the Catholic faith in the way the trinity is, but they are topics the Papacy has made dogmatic (although not infallible) claims on. So, to accept papal supremacy, you must accept these claims. Or at least not openly reject them. So, in some sense, they are essential doctrines because in denying them, you are denying the authority of the papacy (which is an essential doctrine).
@@npuritan6769 Respectfully, your argument is not a valid argument. Your claim is that "in some way" they are essential is really vague and you are also getting several facts wrong. Look it up, the death penalty and NFP are doctrinal, not dogmatic. The Papacy has not declared them dogmatic. There is a big difference between doctrines and dogmas, and even rejecting these teachings like calling up the Pope and saying "yo buddy you did not cook on this one" does not equate to denying the authority of the Pope. Catholics are encouraged to accept the Church's moral guidance, but some level of interior struggle or respectful questioning does not automatically separate a person from the Church, nor does it constitute a rejection of papal authority. What is essential is an overall respect for the Church’s teaching role and a willingness to approach these teachings with an open mind and heart. Usually Popes operate with pastoral care and forgiveness so you really have to go out of your way to separate yourself from the church on this one.
Furthermore, when we are talking about essential Christian beliefs, we are talking about those necessary to uphold. The Catholic Church teaches that essential truths, like belief in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Christ’s Resurrection, are part of the fullness of faith that leads to salvation. There is room where the Church recognizes that salvation is possible for non-Catholics and non-Christians who, through no fault of their own, do not fully know or accept these teachings but still seek God sincerely and live according to their conscience. But, to be considered a member of the Catholic Church, a person must accept the essential teachings, often referred to as dogmas, of the faith. Adherence to these essential beliefs is necessary for full communion with the Church.
Therefore, the counter example shown in the video and your statement right now I believe are not fruitful examples because of their errors. For concern of your soul, please examine your witness as to make sure you are not bearing false witness. Even though your heart is for God, a lie even if unintentional cannot only damage your relationship with God, but also your future arguments. If you are trying to win back my opinion as much as I would be honored to win back yours, use valid arguments. Maybe I am not right, but right now I am convinced you are wrong.
@ericleon9000 How would you draw a distinction between doctrine and dogma? And what are you basing that on? Either way, on rejecting the doctrines of the Magisterium, I don't see how you're not denying the authority of the papacy, much like when we sin, we implicitly deny the authority of God in our lives.
@@npuritan6769 Friend, I am just a regular guy, hopefully I am bringing value to your day. I would encourage you to look it up and examine my statements for yourself, I may be completely wrong, I may be misrepresenting Christianity as a whole, but we owe it to God to pursue truth. I have dedicated a fair bit of time searching to answer your questions so far, I expect you to do the same. :)
Distinction Between Doctrine and Dogma:
Dogma: Dogmas are doctrines that have been formally defined as divinely revealed truths by the Church’s Magisterium, and Catholics are required to give their full assent of faith to them. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that “dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure” (CCC 89). They are core teachings that have been revealed by God, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection, and are essential to Catholic identity.
Doctrine: Doctrines encompass all authoritative teachings on faith and morals given by the Magisterium, but not all doctrines reach the level of dogma. Doctrines are teachings the faithful are called to adhere to, though they may be developed, clarified, or even adapted over time as the Church grows in understanding. According to the CCC, “The Magisterium of the Church exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas” (CCC 88). Doctrines may not always carry the same level of irrevocability or universal binding as dogmas, but they are still teachings meant to guide Catholics toward the truth.
When Rejecting Doctrines Denies Papal Authority:
The rejection of Church doctrines can imply varying levels of dissent, depending on the nature of the doctrine and the level of authority with which it is taught. Here’s how these scenarios might play out:
Dogma Rejection: Rejecting a dogma (such as the Resurrection) is a direct denial of the Church’s authority because dogmas are divinely revealed truths that Catholics must accept. Denying a dogma equates to denying the Church’s role as the custodian of divine revelation.
Doctrinal Dissent: For non-dogmatic teachings, there’s more flexibility. However, dissent from authoritative doctrines, especially if done publicly and without respect for the Church’s teaching authority, can imply a rejection of the Church’s authority. Persistent rejection of these teachings may be a serious matter, depending on how central the doctrine is and how the dissent is expressed.
Private Struggle vs. Public Rejection: A private struggle with a doctrine, approached prayerfully and with a desire to understand, is not considered a denial of papal authority. The Catechism encourages openness to Church teachings even when struggling, noting that “faith seeks understanding” (CCC 158). Publicly rejecting a doctrine in a way that leads others away from the faith or challenges Church authority can border on rejecting the authority of the pope and Magisterium.
Key questions to guide this conversation: Does God value athority and or give athority? Does God desire unity among Christians? How often are our individual interpretations of scripture without scholarly basis, prayful experience and or thorough research more authoratative than the interpretations of those who have dedicated their lives to faithfully delivering the truth of the Gospel? / Should we approach our local non-denomonational church pastor or Catholic Pastor with humility in our disagreements with the ultimate goal being a desire for full reconcilation under what we can be certain is the absolute truth affirmed in Scripture?
These are intentionally loaded questions.
Just answer the question! Do you, as a Protestant, believe in the principles of sola scriptura and the perspecuity of Scripture? If you do, then your system DEMANDS that all faithful believers agree on the essentials. That is precisely what confessional documents like the Westminster Confession state. It is irrelevant if Catholics also cannot find agreement relying on Tradition (something which Javier never proves, and which betrays a deficient understanding of what Tradition is); the point is that the Protestant conception of Scripture is hopelessly contradictory.
Did you watch either of his videos? He showed with incredible thoroughness in the first one how deep the disagreements among the Ecclesialist traditions are, and even how great they are just among Roman Catholics. Joe's whole argument that "For sola Scriptura to be true everyone who practices it must agree on all essential doctrines" fails completely because of this - because it also refutes his own system.
"Stop making valid points and answer the fallacious question!"
@@tategarrett3042 You still haven't answered the question...
@@ScroopGroop The question isn't fallacious... tuquoque and strawman arguments are.
@@connorhurley9512 you’ve continued to miss the point, it seems we’re at an impasse
Wake up. You are NOT addressing the simple syllogism. You posit a different syllogism instead of answering his. Wake up. I have never heard him say Catholics agree on all things. No thoughtful catholic believes that.
And no protestant believes we agree on all things so what's your point.
In order for Protestantism to be self-coherent, you must accept that the Trinity is not an essential Christian doctrine.
@sergiolopez-s6s Apparently, Romanists are vampires. They have not reflections.
@@joabthejavelin5119 Twilight was onto something
He did.
If the "ecclisialist" 🤮 view of tradition is true, we would expect them to agree on doctrine.
Do you have anything from the Church that teaches the perspecuity of doctrine?
The reason this whole thing started is because martin luther and the westminster confession and wrapped up in sola scriptura is the idea that scripture is clear enough for the essentials to be worked out by anyone. That is the protestant claim.
That is not the Catholic claim outside of a very small number of infallible teachings. Catholics don't view tradition, scrioture, and the magisterium the same way protestants view scripture.
"Do you have anything from the Church that teaches the perspecuity of doctrine?...Catholics don't view tradition, scripture, and the magisterium the same way protestants view scripture."
I will agree that Catholics do not view Scripture the way Protestants do. But there is a problem with saying that Catholics do not view the whole of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial teaching as Protestants view Scripture. Hear me out.
The RCC posits that Scripture, while good and useful and divinely authored, is not clear in espousing the essential doctrines required for the believer to be saved. An authoritative interpreter is needed to correctly understand these essentials in Scripture. The RCC claims that the RCC is said interpreter. So, while Scripture is claimed not be clear for salvation, the RCC offers clarity in teaching about Scripture, as well as truths deemed necessary but outside of Scripture. This clarity is claimed to be enough for Catholics to understand the essentials of what they need to be saved. Not in an intellectual, comprehensive grasp of theology, but a minimum prescription of assent of thought and action (Prot Perspicuity claims this format as well, btw). The entire argument of the RCC against Sola Scriptura and the Perspicuity of Scripiture is that the RCC can provide the clarity that Scripture alone cannot, thus the Catholic has an advantage over the Protestant.
It seems as though you are claiming the parody argument Javier employs against the RCC is not valid because the RCC (or "ecclesialists" generally) don't think the totality of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium provide clarity on the essentials needed for salvation. This is new to me. Most Catholics I've engaged with claim that the minimum advantage offered by the Papacy and Magisterium _is_ clarity. They claim that in Protestantism, who decides? In Catholicism, Rome decides. Thus, clarity. If Rome actually doesn't provide clarity in teaching, then she has no basis to claim that she has a teaching advantage over Protestants. "You don't have clarity!" "Do you?" "...No." "Then so what?"
Now, the entire point of Javier's video was that this argument against "Ecclesialists" would be stupid. And by putting the argument forward, he compares it to Joe's argument against Protestant Perspicuity...revealing it to also be stupid. The greater context of this whole conversation is a defense of Protestant Perspicuity, not an attack on Catholic Clarity.
Sola Scriptura. The non interpretive method that leads to mass interpretations. Open a phone book dude. Look down your street. Open your eyes. See the local streets cluttered with denominational debris. But ok. But the solas aren’t…..
This same argument works against your own position. This is literally what this video is about.
@@bruhmingo where Peter is there is the Church. But what about some angry rad trads? If they are on the books then they are with Peter, kicking and screaming maybe but that’s a lot different than looking at your church’s (Protestantism) book of membership. Oh that’s right. It’s invisible along with the list of essentials. “Let’s make it authentic by making it a nothing”. Great job my invisibly listed non essential brethren.
Are those magisteriums in EO or OO in communion with Rome? No? So it isn’t just different hermeneutics. I hope that you notice that at multiple reconciliation councils between Catholics and EO that it was about reuniting under the Bishop of Rome and this led to some staunch Orthodox schismatics rejecting documents signed but their own bishops reuniting with the Pope
I'm shocked both at you and the people in the comments. He refuted this ecclesialist nonsense.
I didn't expect you to lump people who have different authorities and methodologies together. That's actually really dim
You mean, like lumping Presbyterians in with Lutherans and Methodists to form an argument that their authorities and methodologies are invalid because they disagree? Yeah, the dimness of that approach is a central part of Javier's argument.
The point around the 36m+ mark is excellent.
24:30 is a case of invincible ignorance. Doesn’t contradict scripture.