Ultimate REFUTATION of Sola Scriptura

00:45:24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJhTnA0oAY4

概要

TLDRThis extensive discussion contrasts Catholic and Protestant views on scriptural inspiration and the canon. Catholics argue for the necessity of sacred tradition to determine the canon, claiming that inspiration is a divine revelation that cannot be deduced solely from scripture's attributes. Protestants believe inspiration can be inferred from the nature of the writings themselves. The discourse addresses the fallibility of human reasoning, the problem with self-attestation of books, and the fallacy of equivocation in arguments surrounding the lists of inspired texts.

収穫

  • 📖 Catholics root inspiration in sacred tradition.
  • ✝ Protestants rely on scripture alone for canonicity.
  • 🤔 Equivocation is a key flaw in some arguments.
  • 📜 Apostolic origin is important, but not sufficient alone.
  • 🎓 Scholastic discussions provide depth to the argument.
  • 🧐 Self-attestation of scripture is debated.
  • 🌟 Natural means cannot determine divine inspiration.
  • 🔍 Criteria of canonicity are insufficient without revelation.
  • 💬 Featured objections drive further discussion.
  • 🙏 The nature of divine faith contrasts with human reasoning.

タイムライン

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    Introduction to the debate between Catholic and Protestant views on scriptural authority and the legitimacy of a fallible list of infallible books.

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    Critique of the common Protestant argument against a fallible list of infallible books, stating that it misrepresents Catholic theology and creates confusion; introduces Catholic theologians who have approached the argument more effectively.

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:00

    The true issue is the fallacy of equivocation in the understanding of fallibility and infallibility; proposes an analogy to highlight this misunderstanding.

  • 00:15:00 - 00:20:00

    Outlines the traditional Catholic argument regarding inspiration of scripture, emphasizing that inspiration can only be known through Revelation, which is separate from criteria of canonicity.

  • 00:20:00 - 00:25:00

    Discusses the nature of inspiration and revelation, focusing on the necessity of divine testimony in understanding which texts are inspired scripture.

  • 00:25:00 - 00:30:00

    Explores three means by which one could know the fact that a book is inspired, emphasizing that divine faith is ultimately necessary to accept inspiration, which Protestant views lack due to their emphasis on scripture alone.

  • 00:30:00 - 00:35:00

    Examines historical Protestant arguments against the role of divine tradition in recognizing inspired scripture and critiques their inadequacies.

  • 00:35:00 - 00:40:00

    Introduces a syllogism to argue against Protestantism's inability to hold a valid view on the revelation of inspiration in scripture, asserting that it undermines their faith framework.

  • 00:40:00 - 00:45:24

    Addresses various objections to the Catholic position and clarifies the distinction between natural reasoning, opinion, and divine faith in recognizing inspiration of scripture.

もっと見る

マインドマップ

ビデオQ&A

  • What is the Catholic view on the inspiration of scripture?

    Catholics believe that the inspiration of scripture must be revealed through sacred tradition, as this is not directly shown in the scripture itself.

  • How do Protestants view canon and inspiration?

    Protestants typically believe that the inspiration and canonicity of scripture can be deduced from its attributes and by considering the apostles' writings.

  • What is the problem with a fallible list of infallible books?

    The problem is that such lists cannot adequately establish which books are canonically inspired without external revelation.

  • Why is sacred tradition essential in the Catholic perspective?

    Sacred tradition conveys the revelation of which books are inspired, giving a foundation for the canon that scripture alone cannot provide.

  • What is the fallacy of equivocation mentioned?

    This fallacy arises when the term 'fallible' refers to the subject's reasoning, but 'infallible' pertains to the nature of the scripture itself.

  • What is the significance of the apostolic origin of scriptures?

    While apostolic origin is important, it alone does not guarantee that a particular writing is inspired or canonical.

  • What do Catholics argue regarding the loftiness of scripture?

    Catholics argue that while lofty style and miraculous agreements can be observed in scripture, these attributes do not inherently confirm inspiration.

  • How do scholastic theologians approach the topic?

    Scholastic theologians outline nuanced categories regarding the divine inspiration of scripture and the necessity of revelation.

  • What is the debate around self-attestation of scripture?

    The debate centers on whether scripture's assertion of inspiration is sufficient to establish its canonicity without additional revelation.

  • Can facts of inspiration be known through natural means?

    Catholics argue that the facts of inspiration cannot be known through natural means but require supernatural revelation.

ビデオをもっと見る

AIを活用したYouTubeの無料動画要約に即アクセス！
字幕
en
オートスクロール:
  • 00:00:00
    if you spent any time in Catholic versus
  • 00:00:02
    Protestant online apologetics I'm sure
  • 00:00:05
    you've heard some Catholic MAA
  • 00:00:07
    Protestant by bringing up the idea of a
  • 00:00:09
    fallible list of infallible books Let's
  • 00:00:12
    go back to scripture alone give me those
  • 00:00:15
    great gold and juicy passages where it
  • 00:00:18
    teaches even by implication that there's
  • 00:00:21
    going to be a shift in how Doctrine is
  • 00:00:25
    developed after the apostolic age and
  • 00:00:27
    we're only supposed to listen to
  • 00:00:28
    scripture alone there are no surviving
  • 00:00:31
    authoritative Traditions there is no
  • 00:00:34
    surviving authoritative magisterium
  • 00:00:36
    teaching infallibly show me the money
  • 00:00:38
    where are those great passages if you've
  • 00:00:40
    watched me for any time you would know
  • 00:00:42
    that I think the common way in which
  • 00:00:44
    this argument against a fallible list of
  • 00:00:46
    infallible books is stated is actually
  • 00:00:48
    very stupid and because it's very stupid
  • 00:00:51
    it actually does real harm to those
  • 00:00:53
    who've thought about the problem for
  • 00:00:54
    more than 5 Seconds the very people that
  • 00:00:56
    we are trying to convert and anytime I
  • 00:00:58
    bring up this fact I always get some
  • 00:01:00
    very angry comments anyways while I
  • 00:01:02
    think the common way of stting this
  • 00:01:04
    argument is quite stupid I do think
  • 00:01:06
    there is actually a right way of stating
  • 00:01:08
    this argument a way which Catholic
  • 00:01:09
    theologians have been formulating the
  • 00:01:11
    argument for a very long time this was a
  • 00:01:13
    traditional way of stating the argument
  • 00:01:15
    by figures like Thomas Stapleton
  • 00:01:17
    Christian pesh Cardinal franelm and Maas
  • 00:01:20
    Joseph shabin there is even a
  • 00:01:22
    contemporary Catholic apologist who gets
  • 00:01:24
    the way of stating this argument right
  • 00:01:26
    which is Gary Machuda as an olive branch
  • 00:01:28
    to my Protestant friends who are
  • 00:01:30
    listening to this video I will actually
  • 00:01:32
    give you the right way to refute this
  • 00:01:34
    argument in the beginning Protestants
  • 00:01:36
    will often just give some sort of
  • 00:01:37
    fallacious comeback to this argument
  • 00:01:39
    attempting to refute it with rhetorical
  • 00:01:41
    comebacks rather than actually trying to
  • 00:01:43
    show the fundamental equivocation that
  • 00:01:46
    takes place when one gives the common
  • 00:01:48
    form of the argument for example many
  • 00:01:50
    Protestants will try to respond and say
  • 00:01:52
    that we have a fallible list of
  • 00:01:53
    infallible papal statements and
  • 00:01:55
    therefore it's okay for them to have a
  • 00:01:56
    fallible list of infallible books in the
  • 00:01:59
    Canon this is not the proper way of
  • 00:02:01
    going about things what you've actually
  • 00:02:03
    done is simply give a rhetorical
  • 00:02:04
    comeback to the argument which actually
  • 00:02:06
    doesn't resolve the objection the
  • 00:02:09
    Catholic could simply respond that well
  • 00:02:11
    I guess both of our positions are wrong
  • 00:02:13
    since this is impossible in either case
  • 00:02:15
    the main issue with this argument is
  • 00:02:16
    that it actually suffers from the
  • 00:02:18
    fallacy of equivocation the first
  • 00:02:20
    fallible refers to the fallibility of
  • 00:02:22
    the subject that is the fallibility of
  • 00:02:24
    the one reasoning the infallible in
  • 00:02:26
    infallible book actually refers to the
  • 00:02:28
    infallibility of the object that is the
  • 00:02:31
    infallibility of the thing known if we
  • 00:02:33
    were to be consistent and refer to the
  • 00:02:34
    infallibility of the object then the
  • 00:02:37
    Protestant would agree that there
  • 00:02:38
    actually is an infallible list but on
  • 00:02:40
    the other hand if we were consistent
  • 00:02:41
    refer to the infallibility of the
  • 00:02:43
    subject then we wouldn't even be able to
  • 00:02:45
    call the books of scripture infallible
  • 00:02:47
    since any knowledge of scripture would
  • 00:02:49
    have to pass through the fallibility of
  • 00:02:51
    a certain subject I will give an analogy
  • 00:02:54
    to help highlight this let's say we were
  • 00:02:56
    discussing rather than the infallibility
  • 00:02:58
    of the Canon list we were referring to
  • 00:03:00
    the infallibility of the meaning of
  • 00:03:01
    scripture if I were to say fallible
  • 00:03:04
    meaning of infallible scripture the term
  • 00:03:06
    meaning could either refer to the
  • 00:03:08
    objective sense of the passage and then
  • 00:03:10
    obviously it would be infallible meaning
  • 00:03:13
    or it could refer to the subject who is
  • 00:03:15
    understanding scripture and then I would
  • 00:03:17
    refer to the fallible meaning of
  • 00:03:19
    scripture now if somebody tried to
  • 00:03:21
    berate me about the fallible or
  • 00:03:24
    infallible meaning of the infallible
  • 00:03:26
    books I would simply ask them whether
  • 00:03:28
    they mean the objective sense or whether
  • 00:03:30
    they mean the subjective understanding
  • 00:03:32
    if they meant the objective sense then
  • 00:03:34
    obviously it would be an infallible
  • 00:03:35
    meaning of the infallible scriptures if
  • 00:03:37
    they're talking about the subjective
  • 00:03:38
    sense then obviously it would be a
  • 00:03:40
    fallible meaning of the infallible
  • 00:03:42
    scriptures since it subsists in an
  • 00:03:44
    intellect which is fallible anyways now
  • 00:03:46
    that we have that objection out of the
  • 00:03:48
    way let's get into the actual argument
  • 00:03:49
    that's traditionally given by our
  • 00:03:51
    authors first I wanted to give you guys
  • 00:03:52
    a simple Lucid overview of the argument
  • 00:03:54
    before I go into all of the complicated
  • 00:03:56
    Scholastic stuff later let's say you are
  • 00:03:59
    a first Christian and you are an
  • 00:04:01
    assistant to St Paul St Paul writes down
  • 00:04:04
    his Sunday homy and he hands it over to
  • 00:04:06
    you you read it over and gives some
  • 00:04:08
    suggestions as to its style he then
  • 00:04:11
    replies and he asks you whether you
  • 00:04:12
    believe this is scripture or not whether
  • 00:04:14
    you believe this is canonical and you
  • 00:04:16
    have to think about it well it's from an
  • 00:04:18
    apostle but not everything an apostle
  • 00:04:20
    writes is necessarily scripture further
  • 00:04:23
    it's an agreement with the rest of the
  • 00:04:24
    teachings of the Apostle but we know
  • 00:04:27
    that Apostles have personal
  • 00:04:28
    infallibility so obviously this is the
  • 00:04:31
    case further there can be many things
  • 00:04:33
    that are in agreement with Apostolic
  • 00:04:34
    Doctrine but this does not necessarily
  • 00:04:36
    make them scripture also you can look at
  • 00:04:38
    the style and see that the style is
  • 00:04:40
    quite lofty but there are a lot of books
  • 00:04:42
    that are written that are lofty further
  • 00:04:45
    you know that there are certain books in
  • 00:04:46
    the Canon or certain parts of books in
  • 00:04:48
    the Canon that don't have the loftiest
  • 00:04:50
    style so you have to do is you have to
  • 00:04:52
    respond to the Apostle Paul by saying I
  • 00:04:54
    don't know you say that it shares many
  • 00:04:56
    attributes with books of scripture but
  • 00:04:58
    this does not necessarily get you to the
  • 00:05:00
    essence of a scriptural book in order
  • 00:05:03
    for you to know whether this book which
  • 00:05:06
    was written by St Paul is scripture or
  • 00:05:08
    not he would have to tell you whether
  • 00:05:10
    it's scripture or not now what's the
  • 00:05:12
    reason for this well the reason has to
  • 00:05:14
    do with the nature of inspiration
  • 00:05:16
    inspiration isn't something that you can
  • 00:05:18
    touch or feel you can see the effects of
  • 00:05:21
    inspiration but the effects of
  • 00:05:23
    inspiration actually share a lot of
  • 00:05:25
    similarities with other books
  • 00:05:27
    inspiration makes something correct
  • 00:05:30
    inspiration makes something spiritually
  • 00:05:32
    useful but there are a lot of correct
  • 00:05:34
    books and there are a lot of spiritually
  • 00:05:35
    useful books in fact inspiration is an
  • 00:05:38
    extraordinary Act of God and because
  • 00:05:40
    it's an extraordinary Act of God by
  • 00:05:42
    natural principles you could not know
  • 00:05:44
    what inspiration is unless of course God
  • 00:05:46
    revealed it to you this is what the
  • 00:05:48
    Scholastics call Supernatural according
  • 00:05:50
    to substance or Supernatural substan it
  • 00:05:54
    is something that must be presented to
  • 00:05:56
    us by Revelation It could only be
  • 00:05:58
    ascented to by the asent of Faith
  • 00:06:00
    Cardinal franelm puts it like this
  • 00:06:03
    inspiration is a supernatural
  • 00:06:04
    psychological fact in the mind of a man
  • 00:06:07
    which like other internal facts
  • 00:06:09
    immediately known to God is known only
  • 00:06:11
    to the inspired person therefore
  • 00:06:13
    inspiration cannot be made known to
  • 00:06:15
    other men except through its external
  • 00:06:17
    effects or by testimony worthy of Faith
  • 00:06:20
    the external effect of inspiration of
  • 00:06:22
    which we speak is none other than the
  • 00:06:24
    writing itself in the written book yet
  • 00:06:26
    there is no inherent Mark in it which of
  • 00:06:29
    itself manifest the inspiration as a
  • 00:06:31
    necessary cause therefore the fact of
  • 00:06:34
    inspiration cannot be known to others
  • 00:06:36
    except by testimony worthy of Faith end
  • 00:06:39
    quote now this of course is problematic
  • 00:06:41
    for Protestants who believe in the
  • 00:06:43
    sufficiency of scripture the fact that
  • 00:06:45
    such and such a book is inspired is not
  • 00:06:47
    something which is found in scripture
  • 00:06:50
    from this fact we have two Divergent
  • 00:06:51
    views on the one hand the Catholic view
  • 00:06:54
    states that the scriptural author
  • 00:06:56
    witnessed to the fact that the book was
  • 00:06:59
    inspired
  • 00:07:00
    but this fact was not written down in
  • 00:07:02
    the book but rather passed down through
  • 00:07:04
    sacred tradition so for example when we
  • 00:07:06
    think about second Timothy St Paul
  • 00:07:08
    revealed the fact that second Timothy
  • 00:07:10
    was inspired scripture on the other hand
  • 00:07:13
    there's the Protestant view since
  • 00:07:15
    Protestants do not believe in sacred
  • 00:07:17
    tradition in the same way that Catholics
  • 00:07:19
    believe as an infallible rule of Faith
  • 00:07:21
    they have to say that we have to look at
  • 00:07:23
    certain attributes in scripture and from
  • 00:07:25
    these attributes deduce the fact that
  • 00:07:28
    second Timothy is is a scriptural book
  • 00:07:31
    of course Catholics don't deny these
  • 00:07:32
    criteria of canonicity but we say that
  • 00:07:35
    they on their own are not sufficient to
  • 00:07:37
    tell us whether something is inspired or
  • 00:07:39
    not because no matter what the criteria
  • 00:07:42
    is each of these points of criteria are
  • 00:07:44
    necessarily going to be something that
  • 00:07:46
    is not unique to scripture because the
  • 00:07:49
    nature of inspiration is something which
  • 00:07:51
    is substantially Supernatural and
  • 00:07:53
    therefore cannot be known through
  • 00:07:55
    natural means it must be something which
  • 00:07:57
    is revealed to us it would be like for
  • 00:08:00
    example if I told you that there was a
  • 00:08:01
    6ft tall mammal one could somehow guess
  • 00:08:05
    that since it's 6 feet tall in a mammal
  • 00:08:07
    that it's a human but only if I told you
  • 00:08:11
    that it was rational would you be able
  • 00:08:12
    to necessarily know that it is a human
  • 00:08:15
    so the genuinely Catholic argument
  • 00:08:16
    doesn't have to do with the fallibility
  • 00:08:18
    of the subject but rather what point of
  • 00:08:20
    data we're ending up with the Catholic
  • 00:08:23
    says we end up with a point of
  • 00:08:26
    Revelation that is revealing to us that
  • 00:08:28
    this book is inspired
  • 00:08:30
    and we say from the nature of
  • 00:08:31
    inspiration that this is the only
  • 00:08:33
    sufficient way in order to Ascent to the
  • 00:08:36
    fact that such and such a book is
  • 00:08:37
    canonical on the other hand the
  • 00:08:39
    Protestants don't have that so what the
  • 00:08:42
    Protestants end up with is the
  • 00:08:44
    Protestants end up with a collection of
  • 00:08:46
    attributes that are shared by other
  • 00:08:48
    books this is not sufficient ultimately
  • 00:08:51
    the Protestant is in the position of the
  • 00:08:54
    first century assistant of St Paul
  • 00:08:56
    before St Paul revealed the fact whether
  • 00:08:58
    second Timothy y was revealed or not but
  • 00:09:01
    the Catholic stands in the position of
  • 00:09:04
    the assistant after St Paul has said
  • 00:09:06
    that this is an inspired book it doesn't
  • 00:09:08
    matter whether this is in the first
  • 00:09:10
    century or the fifth century or the 8th
  • 00:09:12
    Century or the 15th century we are
  • 00:09:14
    ending up at different places this has
  • 00:09:17
    nothing to do with the fallibility of
  • 00:09:19
    our reasoning skills this has to do with
  • 00:09:21
    whether something in principle can be
  • 00:09:23
    known in principle you cannot know the
  • 00:09:26
    fact of inspiration through certain
  • 00:09:28
    shared attributes in principle you can
  • 00:09:31
    know the fact of inspiration if it is
  • 00:09:33
    revealed to you now that we have this
  • 00:09:35
    out of the way let's go into the
  • 00:09:36
    complicated part the Scholastic section
  • 00:09:38
    of this to begin there are basically
  • 00:09:40
    three ways in which one could know the
  • 00:09:43
    fact that such a book is inspired first
  • 00:09:45
    the fact of Revelation is naturally
  • 00:09:47
    known second the fact of Revelation is
  • 00:09:50
    revealed in sacred scripture third the
  • 00:09:52
    fact of Revelation is known in sacred
  • 00:09:54
    tradition the third option is actually
  • 00:09:56
    not available for Protestants who
  • 00:09:58
    believe in the sufficient of scripture
  • 00:10:00
    since the sufficiency of scripture
  • 00:10:01
    teaches that everything which is to be
  • 00:10:04
    contained in the rule of faith is
  • 00:10:05
    revealed in scripture either explicitly
  • 00:10:08
    or implicitly the Westminster Confession
  • 00:10:10
    States quote the whole counsel of God
  • 00:10:13
    concerning all things necessary for his
  • 00:10:15
    own Glory man's salvation faith and life
  • 00:10:19
    is either expressly set down in
  • 00:10:20
    scripture or by good and necessary
  • 00:10:23
    consequence may be deduced from
  • 00:10:24
    scripture under which nothing at any
  • 00:10:26
    time is to be added whether by new
  • 00:10:28
    revelation of the spirit or traditions
  • 00:10:31
    of men end quote second we can quote a
  • 00:10:34
    different author Andrew Willet and I
  • 00:10:36
    really like the title of this book so
  • 00:10:37
    I'm going to read it in full here it
  • 00:10:38
    goes it's in his book synopsis papisi
  • 00:10:42
    that is a general view of papistry
  • 00:10:44
    wherein the whole mystery of iniquity
  • 00:10:46
    and some of anti-christian Doctrine is
  • 00:10:48
    set down which is maintained this day by
  • 00:10:50
    the synagogue of Rome against the Church
  • 00:10:52
    of Christ together with an antithesis of
  • 00:10:55
    the true Christian faith and an
  • 00:10:56
    antidotum or counter poison out of the
  • 00:10:59
    scriptures against the of
  • 00:11:01
    babylon's filthy cup of Abominations
  • 00:11:04
    divided into three books or centuries
  • 00:11:06
    that is so many hundreds of popish
  • 00:11:07
    heresies and errors again very epic
  • 00:11:10
    title but here's the quote quote we do
  • 00:11:12
    not affirm as our adversaries charge us
  • 00:11:15
    that all things necessary to Salvation
  • 00:11:17
    are expressly contained in Scripture
  • 00:11:19
    that is in so many words but this we
  • 00:11:22
    hold that all things which are necessary
  • 00:11:24
    to be known of us are either expressly
  • 00:11:26
    declared in scripture or necessarily
  • 00:11:28
    concluded out of scripture and so
  • 00:11:30
    contained in them we also grant that it
  • 00:11:33
    was not gospel only which was written
  • 00:11:36
    but all that Christ and his Apostles
  • 00:11:38
    taught by Lively voice the whole sum
  • 00:11:40
    whereof in substance is contained in the
  • 00:11:42
    written word and so we conclude that
  • 00:11:45
    nothing necessary to Salvation either
  • 00:11:47
    concerning Faith or manners is elsewhere
  • 00:11:50
    to be found but in the Holy scriptures
  • 00:11:52
    end quote further Robert Ric in his work
  • 00:11:55
    A Treatise of effectual calling states
  • 00:11:57
    that quote the scriptures is perfect
  • 00:11:59
    containing in it all things necessary
  • 00:12:01
    for Faith and manners not only
  • 00:12:03
    sufficiently but also abundantly for
  • 00:12:06
    this is the Perfection which here we do
  • 00:12:08
    aouch the sense then of the proposition
  • 00:12:10
    is this this kind of Revelation contains
  • 00:12:13
    all things necessary for Faith and
  • 00:12:15
    manners not only sufficiently but also
  • 00:12:17
    abundantly end quote so this leaves the
  • 00:12:20
    Protestants with basically two options
  • 00:12:22
    on the one hand they could say that the
  • 00:12:24
    fact of inspiration is somehow contained
  • 00:12:26
    in natural reason and we can naturally
  • 00:12:28
    reason to the fact that something is
  • 00:12:30
    inspired or on the other hand that it is
  • 00:12:32
    contained in scripture the idea that the
  • 00:12:34
    fact of inspiration is contained in
  • 00:12:36
    scripture either explicitly or
  • 00:12:38
    implicitly is obviously a ridiculous
  • 00:12:40
    notion there are many books of the Bible
  • 00:12:42
    which are not even spoken of as
  • 00:12:44
    contained in the scriptural Cannon but
  • 00:12:47
    this is actually the traditional
  • 00:12:48
    Protestant position David preus an early
  • 00:12:51
    17th century German Protestant
  • 00:12:53
    Scholastic wrote the traditional
  • 00:12:55
    disputation on this point in his
  • 00:12:57
    introduction to his commentary on Jose
  • 00:12:59
    isah he States quote the Dogma
  • 00:13:02
    concerning Divine and canonical
  • 00:13:03
    scriptures can be called an Article of
  • 00:13:05
    Faith generally in so far as it is
  • 00:13:07
    partly contained expressly in the Holy
  • 00:13:09
    scriptures partly evidently deduced from
  • 00:13:12
    them end quote now we obviously know
  • 00:13:13
    that this position is completely absurd
  • 00:13:16
    like where does the inspiration of
  • 00:13:18
    Esther come up in scripture or where
  • 00:13:20
    does the inspiration of phiman come up
  • 00:13:22
    in the scriptures the answer is
  • 00:13:24
    absolutely nowhere but for the sake of
  • 00:13:26
    fairness I will rehearse his arguments
  • 00:13:29
    the first argument is that scripture
  • 00:13:30
    speaks of scripture being inspired quote
  • 00:13:34
    First in general concerning the
  • 00:13:36
    scripture of Moses prophets and apostles
  • 00:13:39
    we have expressly written in the
  • 00:13:40
    scriptures themselves that all are
  • 00:13:43
    inspired by God all scripture inspired
  • 00:13:45
    of God is profitable to teach to reprove
  • 00:13:47
    to correct to instruct in Justice that
  • 00:13:50
    they are the most firm word shining like
  • 00:13:51
    a lamp in the dark place the human heart
  • 00:13:54
    and we have the more firm prophetical
  • 00:13:55
    word where unto you do well to attend as
  • 00:13:58
    to a light that shineth in the dark
  • 00:14:00
    place until the day Dawns and the day
  • 00:14:02
    star arise in your hearts they are not a
  • 00:14:04
    private invention or written by the whim
  • 00:14:06
    of man but inspired by the Holy Spirit
  • 00:14:08
    the holy men of God for prophecy came
  • 00:14:10
    not by the will of man at any time but
  • 00:14:13
    the holy men of God spoke inspired by
  • 00:14:15
    the Holy Ghost end quote now this
  • 00:14:17
    argument is obviously quite silly the
  • 00:14:19
    whole question is not whether scripture
  • 00:14:21
    has the note of inspiration everybody
  • 00:14:23
    agrees with that and that's what these
  • 00:14:24
    texts are teaching that scripture is
  • 00:14:26
    inspired the question is rather which
  • 00:14:29
    scriptural books are here I mean the
  • 00:14:30
    argument that he's making is basically
  • 00:14:32
    the same as saying the people of America
  • 00:14:35
    are rational and then saying well this
  • 00:14:37
    clearly shows that all of these
  • 00:14:40
    different individuals are the people of
  • 00:14:41
    America makes no sense it's clearly just
  • 00:14:44
    simply talking about a note of what it
  • 00:14:46
    means to be scriptural that is to be
  • 00:14:48
    inspired just as I would say that a note
  • 00:14:50
    of personhood is to be rational it's not
  • 00:14:53
    at all telling you which persons are in
  • 00:14:55
    America or which books are inspired
  • 00:14:57
    that's clearly ridiculous but this is
  • 00:14:59
    clear from an example let's say that God
  • 00:15:01
    decided not to inspire the book of
  • 00:15:03
    phiman would these citations of these
  • 00:15:05
    scriptural texts still be correct of
  • 00:15:07
    course God has the freedom to inspire
  • 00:15:09
    this book and not that book so none of
  • 00:15:11
    these citations even imply that this
  • 00:15:14
    book or that book is inspired or not
  • 00:15:16
    inspired but he actually goes on to give
  • 00:15:18
    an argument defending himself from this
  • 00:15:20
    objection he States quote but since the
  • 00:15:23
    adversaries are accustomed here to
  • 00:15:25
    object that it is not written in
  • 00:15:27
    particular which are those divine L
  • 00:15:29
    inspired scriptures therefore let
  • 00:15:31
    another proof be added in particular
  • 00:15:33
    through induction of the Sacred books as
  • 00:15:35
    many as exist all these expressly
  • 00:15:37
    testify that they are divinely inspired
  • 00:15:40
    in their vestibules or in their very
  • 00:15:41
    context and truly they testify this
  • 00:15:44
    about themselves bellerine admitting on
  • 00:15:46
    account of the reason said that we may
  • 00:15:48
    now be silent about others all therefore
  • 00:15:51
    are truly Divine themselves canonical is
  • 00:15:54
    evidently had from the sacred books
  • 00:15:56
    themselves the assumption is shown by
  • 00:15:58
    induction here he basically goes on to
  • 00:16:00
    show how every single book of the Canon
  • 00:16:03
    is actually somehow either expressly or
  • 00:16:06
    implicitly stated in the scriptures to
  • 00:16:09
    be inspired but he fails miserably he
  • 00:16:11
    first argues when it comes to the five
  • 00:16:13
    books of Moses that they are inspired
  • 00:16:16
    because their title is the five books of
  • 00:16:18
    Moses now obviously the title of the
  • 00:16:21
    five books of Moses was not original
  • 00:16:23
    Moses Moses didn't write the five books
  • 00:16:25
    sit down and write down five books of
  • 00:16:27
    Moses that's completely ridicul
  • 00:16:29
    ridiculous and the Catholic authors at
  • 00:16:31
    the time pointed this out to him and
  • 00:16:32
    said that this is actually a later
  • 00:16:34
    Edition calling this the pentiuk but you
  • 00:16:37
    know uh preus didn't listen I guess then
  • 00:16:40
    he does a uh based move and then he
  • 00:16:42
    skips the entirety of the rest of the
  • 00:16:44
    Old Testament and goes all the way to
  • 00:16:46
    the prophets the major and minor
  • 00:16:47
    prophets and here he actually does
  • 00:16:49
    succeed in listing from the major and
  • 00:16:50
    minor prophets where the book talks
  • 00:16:52
    about itself being inspired so I guess
  • 00:16:55
    that's a that's an A+ for preus for
  • 00:16:57
    these books the reason for this is
  • 00:16:59
    because if you know anything about the
  • 00:17:00
    major and minor prophets they always
  • 00:17:02
    begin with some sort of statement of
  • 00:17:04
    inspiration that you know Joel received
  • 00:17:06
    the word of the Lord and wrote it down
  • 00:17:08
    now technically speaking we could
  • 00:17:09
    quibble and say well it doesn't state
  • 00:17:11
    that the word of the Lord that Joel
  • 00:17:13
    received was contained in this book and
  • 00:17:15
    not contained in somewhere else but I
  • 00:17:18
    mean it could just be stating some sort
  • 00:17:19
    of historical fact but I mean I guess
  • 00:17:22
    this would kind of be enough for stating
  • 00:17:24
    an implicit argument so I I'll give him
  • 00:17:26
    the thumbs up on this one now after
  • 00:17:28
    skipping
  • 00:17:29
    uh you know most of the Old Testament he
  • 00:17:31
    moves on to the New Testament and his
  • 00:17:34
    listing of the New Testament books goes
  • 00:17:35
    about as well as you would imagine for
  • 00:17:37
    the gospels he argues on the basis of
  • 00:17:40
    the titles you know the the title page
  • 00:17:42
    the gospel says Gospel according to
  • 00:17:44
    Matthew so therefore um this is title is
  • 00:17:48
    scripture and that's stating the author
  • 00:17:51
    and the author obviously was inspired in
  • 00:17:54
    writing this book so yeah um that
  • 00:17:58
    follows apparently and he does the same
  • 00:18:00
    thing with the Epistles but the Epistles
  • 00:18:02
    are obviously different because the
  • 00:18:03
    Epistles explicitly State who their
  • 00:18:05
    authors are I mean I guess with the
  • 00:18:07
    gospels You could argue you know St John
  • 00:18:10
    uh he kind of does implicitly identify
  • 00:18:12
    himself and we know that he's an apostle
  • 00:18:14
    so therefore it would be an Apostolic
  • 00:18:15
    writing but there's a weird assumption
  • 00:18:18
    that's being made throughout all of
  • 00:18:19
    these arguments and this assumption is
  • 00:18:21
    that if something is written by an
  • 00:18:23
    apostle then it is inspired scripture
  • 00:18:26
    but this is just simply not true
  • 00:18:28
    inspiration differs from infallibility
  • 00:18:30
    inspiration is a transient movement
  • 00:18:32
    which moves the writer of scripture in
  • 00:18:34
    order to write the word of God this
  • 00:18:37
    differs from the gift of infallibility
  • 00:18:39
    which is a permanent habit and therefore
  • 00:18:41
    we could say that everything the
  • 00:18:42
    apostles write on faith and morals is
  • 00:18:44
    somehow infallible just like we would
  • 00:18:46
    say about uh the pope making an
  • 00:18:48
    extraordinary statement or an ecumenical
  • 00:18:50
    council making an extraordinary
  • 00:18:52
    statement these are things which are
  • 00:18:54
    infallible but this doesn't necessarily
  • 00:18:56
    mean that they're inspired if one were
  • 00:18:58
    to listen to a Sunday homy of St Paul
  • 00:19:01
    and jot it down this wouldn't somehow
  • 00:19:04
    make it inspired scripture and canonical
  • 00:19:06
    of course it would be infallible but it
  • 00:19:08
    wouldn't be anything that is canonical
  • 00:19:10
    this is an assumption that they make
  • 00:19:11
    that's simply not proved anyways this
  • 00:19:14
    leaves us with a lot of questions that
  • 00:19:16
    simply aren't answered like what about
  • 00:19:19
    Hebrews what about most of the books of
  • 00:19:21
    the Old Testament which you just skipped
  • 00:19:22
    over but he actually has an answer for
  • 00:19:24
    this he says quote a third proof must be
  • 00:19:27
    added that these are divine and
  • 00:19:29
    canonical is evidently deduced from
  • 00:19:31
    those very books or certainly from other
  • 00:19:33
    Divine testifying to it for either
  • 00:19:36
    elsewhere in the Holy scriptures they
  • 00:19:38
    are alleged as Divine books for example
  • 00:19:40
    First Kings or they themselves evidently
  • 00:19:43
    have in themselves the criteria of
  • 00:19:45
    divine scripture namely the Divine kind
  • 00:19:48
    of Doctrine prophetic and Apostolic
  • 00:19:50
    style evident agreement with prophetic
  • 00:19:52
    and Apostolic books true Miracles and
  • 00:19:54
    oracles finally all proper effects of
  • 00:19:56
    the Divine word end quote the first
  • 00:19:58
    thing he says is fine sure if you have
  • 00:20:00
    another book that you know is inspired
  • 00:20:03
    which is testifying that a different
  • 00:20:04
    book is inspired sure that would count
  • 00:20:07
    for some sort of explicit statement of a
  • 00:20:11
    book being inspired or if there was some
  • 00:20:12
    sort of quotation which mentioned it as
  • 00:20:14
    the word of the Lord sure but we have we
  • 00:20:17
    actually have a lot of books where this
  • 00:20:18
    just isn't the case like for example
  • 00:20:20
    Esther so this is what leads him to make
  • 00:20:22
    his second argument and his second
  • 00:20:24
    argument I mean to put it bluntly is
  • 00:20:26
    absolutely insane I've kind of already
  • 00:20:28
    went over this a bit earlier but and
  • 00:20:29
    I'll go into it a bit more later but
  • 00:20:32
    basically what he's saying is that there
  • 00:20:34
    is agreement with the book that there's
  • 00:20:36
    certain loftiness of style there's
  • 00:20:39
    certain other things spoken of Miracles
  • 00:20:41
    spoken of and therefore this must
  • 00:20:43
    somehow be an inspired book of scripture
  • 00:20:46
    there are many books which mention
  • 00:20:48
    Miracles there's many books which have
  • 00:20:49
    lofty Doctrine there's many books which
  • 00:20:51
    agree with the other books I mean by
  • 00:20:54
    this standard the Suma of St Thomas is
  • 00:20:56
    canonical the letters of St IGN Aus
  • 00:20:59
    canonical the letter of St Clement
  • 00:21:01
    canonical all these Works would be
  • 00:21:03
    canonical the confessions of St
  • 00:21:04
    Augustine I mean that has had a lot of
  • 00:21:06
    effects I mean that would be canonical
  • 00:21:08
    by this standard it's a very bad
  • 00:21:09
    standard these criteria of course are
  • 00:21:12
    used by Catholics these criteria have
  • 00:21:14
    always been used by Catholics but never
  • 00:21:16
    as some sort of necessary proof never to
  • 00:21:19
    sufficiently establish that a book is
  • 00:21:21
    canonical because we understand that
  • 00:21:23
    these are merely talking about
  • 00:21:25
    attributes that are happen to be common
  • 00:21:27
    to books of sacred scripture nothing
  • 00:21:29
    unique there are no unique attributes
  • 00:21:32
    here why because of what we're about to
  • 00:21:34
    say on the nature of inspiration now it
  • 00:21:36
    gets even crazier when he tries to
  • 00:21:38
    justify the book of Hebrews he basically
  • 00:21:39
    says there's similar language in the
  • 00:21:41
    book of Hebrews as is used by St Paul
  • 00:21:44
    therefore it must be written by St Paul
  • 00:21:47
    and therefore if it's written by St Paul
  • 00:21:49
    it must be something which is
  • 00:21:50
    inspired yeah th this these are the
  • 00:21:53
    arguments which are being used um yeah
  • 00:21:56
    so this is their best guy uh by the way
  • 00:21:58
    but let's continue anyways this is the
  • 00:22:00
    traditional response which is given by
  • 00:22:02
    Protestants on this point but there are
  • 00:22:04
    many other uh responses that end up
  • 00:22:06
    being given later by Protestants so we
  • 00:22:08
    obviously have to exclude the two
  • 00:22:10
    options that we've went over so far we
  • 00:22:12
    have to exclude the fact that this is
  • 00:22:14
    something which is revealed in sacred
  • 00:22:15
    tradition due to the sufficiency of
  • 00:22:16
    scripture we also have to exclude the
  • 00:22:18
    fact that this is something which is
  • 00:22:20
    either explicitly or implicitly stated
  • 00:22:22
    in scripture I mean this is just simply
  • 00:22:24
    absurd uh it's completely absurd so this
  • 00:22:26
    leaves us with the third option which I
  • 00:22:28
    don't know if this is more absurd or
  • 00:22:30
    less absurd this is the option that
  • 00:22:32
    somehow by some means scripture the fact
  • 00:22:35
    of inspiration of this book is known
  • 00:22:38
    through natural means rather than any
  • 00:22:40
    sort of Revelation from God here we can
  • 00:22:43
    divide this question on the basis of the
  • 00:22:44
    three ways in which we can naturally
  • 00:22:46
    know something first is by the way of
  • 00:22:48
    demonstration second is the way of
  • 00:22:50
    probability third is the way of the
  • 00:22:52
    ascent of Faith now if you want to know
  • 00:22:55
    more about these categories in detail
  • 00:22:57
    you can look at the the Academia paper
  • 00:22:59
    that I wrote on the natural knowledge of
  • 00:23:01
    the Trinity I have a section in there
  • 00:23:03
    going over these three species of
  • 00:23:05
    knowledge and how they relate to one
  • 00:23:06
    another and also interestingly enough
  • 00:23:08
    how they relate to Supernatural objects
  • 00:23:10
    so that's a fun thing so you should read
  • 00:23:12
    it anyways before we even get into any
  • 00:23:14
    of this we need to know a little bit
  • 00:23:15
    something about inspiration so what is
  • 00:23:18
    inspiration well inspiration is a
  • 00:23:20
    certain supernatural act of God whereby
  • 00:23:23
    he elevates a certain Man by a
  • 00:23:25
    transitory gift in order for him to be
  • 00:23:28
    able to speak the word of God it is
  • 00:23:30
    something that happens supernaturally
  • 00:23:32
    and it's also something which is a
  • 00:23:33
    psychological effect it's an effect that
  • 00:23:35
    takes place within a man and results in
  • 00:23:39
    scripture so by this act by this
  • 00:23:41
    transitory Act of God he is able to
  • 00:23:44
    produce the word of God he's able to
  • 00:23:46
    speak the very Words which God has
  • 00:23:48
    intended for him to speak we see this
  • 00:23:51
    contained in many verses in scripture
  • 00:23:53
    first we can look at 2 Timothy 3:16 all
  • 00:23:56
    scripture inspired of God is profitable
  • 00:23:58
    to teach to reprove to correct to
  • 00:24:00
    instruct Injustice further St Peter
  • 00:24:02
    talks about this in 2 Peter 1:20-21 he
  • 00:24:06
    States quote understanding this first
  • 00:24:08
    that no prophecy of scripture is made by
  • 00:24:10
    private interpretation for prophecy came
  • 00:24:13
    not by the will of man at any time but
  • 00:24:15
    the holy men of God spoke inspired by
  • 00:24:17
    the Holy Ghost a good overview of this
  • 00:24:20
    teaching a good explanation is actually
  • 00:24:22
    found very early on if you read St
  • 00:24:24
    Justin Martyr for example he writes
  • 00:24:27
    since therefore it is impossible to
  • 00:24:29
    learn anything true concerning religion
  • 00:24:31
    from your teachers who by their Mutual
  • 00:24:33
    disagreement have furnished you with
  • 00:24:34
    sufficient proof of their own ignorance
  • 00:24:36
    I consider it reasonable to recur to our
  • 00:24:39
    progenitors who both in point of time
  • 00:24:41
    have by a great way of Precedence of
  • 00:24:43
    your teachers and to have taught us
  • 00:24:45
    nothing from their own private fancy nor
  • 00:24:48
    differed with one another nor tempted to
  • 00:24:50
    overturn one another's positions but
  • 00:24:52
    without wrangling and contention receive
  • 00:24:54
    from God the knowledge which also they
  • 00:24:56
    taught to us for neither by nature nor
  • 00:24:59
    by human conception is it possible for
  • 00:25:01
    men to know things so great and divine
  • 00:25:04
    but by the gift which then descended
  • 00:25:06
    from above upon the holy men who had no
  • 00:25:09
    need of rhetorical art nor of uttering
  • 00:25:11
    anything in a contentious or quarrelsome
  • 00:25:13
    manner but to present themselves pure to
  • 00:25:16
    the energy of the Divine Spirit in order
  • 00:25:18
    that the Divine pleum itself descending
  • 00:25:21
    from heaven and using righteous men as
  • 00:25:23
    an instrument like a harp or liar might
  • 00:25:25
    reveal to us the knowledge of things
  • 00:25:27
    Divine and heavenly end quote now the
  • 00:25:29
    act of inspiration obviously since it is
  • 00:25:32
    a supernatural act on the part of God
  • 00:25:34
    some sort of transitory motion which
  • 00:25:36
    comes immediately and directly from God
  • 00:25:38
    to the intellect of men this is
  • 00:25:40
    obviously something which is completely
  • 00:25:42
    above utterly above any of the powers of
  • 00:25:45
    any creatures because you are speaking
  • 00:25:47
    the word of God this is especially
  • 00:25:49
    evident from the content of what is
  • 00:25:50
    revealed St Paul States quote but as it
  • 00:25:53
    is written that eye hath Not Seen Nor
  • 00:25:56
    Ear heard neither hath it entered into
  • 00:25:58
    the heart of man what things God hath
  • 00:26:00
    prepared for them that love him but to
  • 00:26:02
    us God hath revealed them by his spirit
  • 00:26:04
    for the spirit searcheth all things yay
  • 00:26:06
    the Deep things of God end qu it
  • 00:26:08
    actually even gets more interesting if
  • 00:26:10
    you continue reading in the chapter but
  • 00:26:12
    God hath revealed them unto us by his
  • 00:26:14
    spirit for the spirit searcheth all
  • 00:26:16
    things ye the Deep things of God for
  • 00:26:19
    what man knoweth the things of a man
  • 00:26:20
    save the spirit of a man which is in him
  • 00:26:23
    even so the things of God knoweth no man
  • 00:26:25
    but the spirit of God now we have
  • 00:26:27
    received not the spirit of the world but
  • 00:26:28
    the spirit which is of god so it's
  • 00:26:31
    simply evidence that in order to know
  • 00:26:33
    things like the fact of inspiration or
  • 00:26:36
    any other Supernatural object the spirit
  • 00:26:39
    of God has to reveal this where is this
  • 00:26:41
    revealed well there is no private
  • 00:26:44
    Revelation that comes to every single
  • 00:26:46
    individual so where is it revealed well
  • 00:26:48
    it's revealed to us in scripture and in
  • 00:26:51
    Tradition what are called the fonts of
  • 00:26:53
    Revelation but the theologians have some
  • 00:26:56
    special technical words for this I
  • 00:26:57
    mentioned it above Supernatural quad
  • 00:27:00
    substanti it is something which must
  • 00:27:02
    objectively be revealed in a font of
  • 00:27:04
    Revelation whether scripture or
  • 00:27:06
    tradition it is something that
  • 00:27:08
    subjectively requires the work of the
  • 00:27:10
    spirit within us for us to ascend to and
  • 00:27:13
    if we continue in the second chapter the
  • 00:27:15
    second point is actually brought up
  • 00:27:16
    carnal men do not discern these things
  • 00:27:18
    only those with the spirit of God this
  • 00:27:21
    means that it is above the knowledge and
  • 00:27:22
    power of any created thing up to the
  • 00:27:25
    highest angel that God could possibly
  • 00:27:27
    create because these things are in the
  • 00:27:29
    mind of God in order for the mind of God
  • 00:27:32
    to be revealed it needs to come down to
  • 00:27:34
    us by objective Revelation in order for
  • 00:27:37
    us to Ascent to it because the carnal
  • 00:27:39
    man does not discern these things but
  • 00:27:40
    only the spiritual man we need the
  • 00:27:42
    spirit of God in our hearts Illuminating
  • 00:27:44
    Us by the light of Faith this is very
  • 00:27:47
    clearly stated by what St Justin said he
  • 00:27:49
    said quote neither by Nature nor by
  • 00:27:52
    human conception is it possible for men
  • 00:27:54
    to know things so great and divine but
  • 00:27:56
    by the gift which then descend from
  • 00:27:58
    above upon the holy men end quote now
  • 00:28:01
    that we've gotten this all out of the
  • 00:28:02
    way we can actually go into the three
  • 00:28:04
    species of ascent first we can know
  • 00:28:06
    things through scientific knowledge
  • 00:28:09
    scientific knowledge depends on moving
  • 00:28:11
    from greater known things to lesser
  • 00:28:13
    known things in order to have scientific
  • 00:28:15
    knowledge we create certain forms of
  • 00:28:18
    reasoning called syllogisms now what's
  • 00:28:20
    important is that for scientific
  • 00:28:22
    knowledge the principle needs to be
  • 00:28:24
    better known to us than the conclusion
  • 00:28:26
    now when it comes to the act of
  • 00:28:28
    inspiration or rather the fact of
  • 00:28:30
    inspiration of a certain book very
  • 00:28:32
    clearly the principle of this is not
  • 00:28:35
    better known to us we don't have somehow
  • 00:28:38
    access to the mind of God in order to
  • 00:28:40
    naturally reason and say that this is
  • 00:28:43
    somehow an inspired book it would be
  • 00:28:45
    completely absurd to say that
  • 00:28:47
    Supernatural Revelation that the fact of
  • 00:28:50
    inspiration of a certain book that this
  • 00:28:52
    is somehow contained as in a principle
  • 00:28:56
    in some sort of natural truth that is
  • 00:28:58
    accessible to our intellects if this
  • 00:29:00
    were the case then evangelism would be
  • 00:29:02
    pretty easy all we would need to do is
  • 00:29:04
    give scientific demonstrations that this
  • 00:29:06
    book is inspired or that book is
  • 00:29:08
    inspired and from these scientific
  • 00:29:09
    Inspirations we' be able to have
  • 00:29:11
    everybody know that God has revealed
  • 00:29:14
    such a thing to such a person it would
  • 00:29:15
    be quite easy in that case but in order
  • 00:29:18
    to state that we can know this through
  • 00:29:20
    scientific demonstration you would have
  • 00:29:22
    to have some sort of fundamental
  • 00:29:24
    contradiction by saying that a
  • 00:29:26
    supernatural truth is ained in a natural
  • 00:29:29
    truth as in a principle that is
  • 00:29:31
    completely and utterly absurd second
  • 00:29:34
    rather than knowing something through
  • 00:29:36
    scientific demonstration we could know
  • 00:29:38
    it through the second species of
  • 00:29:39
    knowledge and the second species of
  • 00:29:41
    knowledge is knowing something through
  • 00:29:43
    opinion in opinion comes from probable
  • 00:29:45
    arguments but this one also doesn't work
  • 00:29:48
    why is this the case well probable
  • 00:29:50
    arguments don't depend on what is
  • 00:29:53
    essential to something for example if I
  • 00:29:55
    were to say that John is rational
  • 00:29:58
    therefore Jon is a man this would be
  • 00:30:00
    something essential to being a man
  • 00:30:02
    because rationality is a note of manhood
  • 00:30:04
    now if I were to say that John is 6 foot
  • 00:30:07
    therefore John is a man this would not
  • 00:30:09
    be describing something which is
  • 00:30:10
    necessary to man I mean you could have a
  • 00:30:13
    six foot tall moose which is named John
  • 00:30:17
    this could be the this could be the case
  • 00:30:19
    there is a certain attribute which we're
  • 00:30:21
    arguing from which is shared by other
  • 00:30:24
    things either in reality or
  • 00:30:26
    hypothetically speaking h hypothetically
  • 00:30:28
    speaking you can have something named
  • 00:30:29
    John you could have something that is
  • 00:30:31
    six foot tall that is not a man I mean
  • 00:30:33
    it could be a lot of different things
  • 00:30:34
    could be a tree you could name your tree
  • 00:30:35
    John if you wanted to so what is the
  • 00:30:38
    role of probable arguments well the role
  • 00:30:40
    of probable arguments is you have
  • 00:30:42
    something that is revealed to you that
  • 00:30:44
    you ascend to by faith and you use
  • 00:30:46
    probable arguments in order either to
  • 00:30:48
    dispose others to believe it or use
  • 00:30:51
    probable arguments in order to increase
  • 00:30:54
    the strength of your Ascent it
  • 00:30:56
    strengthens your faith to have all of
  • 00:30:57
    the probable arguments because of the
  • 00:30:59
    ways in which it makes sense so if you
  • 00:31:02
    wanted to tell somebody about the
  • 00:31:03
    Incarnation maybe using all of these
  • 00:31:05
    probable Arguments for why the
  • 00:31:06
    Incarnation would be fitting would
  • 00:31:08
    actually make them more disposed to
  • 00:31:10
    listen to the preaching about the
  • 00:31:12
    Incarnation now of course all of these
  • 00:31:14
    probable arguments are not a foundation
  • 00:31:16
    for your belief the reason you believe
  • 00:31:18
    is because God has revealed it but these
  • 00:31:20
    things are good to dispose you they're
  • 00:31:21
    good to strengthen your ascent and this
  • 00:31:24
    is why probable arguments or congruences
  • 00:31:27
    are are the bread and butter of mental
  • 00:31:29
    prayer so the point is that probable
  • 00:31:33
    arguments actually suppose something
  • 00:31:36
    else probable arguments suppose that
  • 00:31:39
    something is already revealed and if
  • 00:31:41
    it's something that's revealed then it's
  • 00:31:43
    going to suppose the ascent of Faith
  • 00:31:45
    which is the third point the third
  • 00:31:47
    option is this could be somehow by way
  • 00:31:50
    of the ascent of Faith now the ascent of
  • 00:31:52
    faith is probably not what you think the
  • 00:31:55
    ascent of faith is basically that you
  • 00:31:57
    Ascent to something on the basis of
  • 00:31:58
    somebody witnessing to it so if your
  • 00:32:01
    parents tell you that they're your
  • 00:32:02
    parents you don't have any sort of
  • 00:32:05
    intrinsic evidence that they are your
  • 00:32:07
    parents rather you have the ascent of
  • 00:32:09
    faith and that is on the basis of human
  • 00:32:11
    testimony and therefore this is called
  • 00:32:13
    human faith on the other hand you can
  • 00:32:15
    have the basis of divine testimony and
  • 00:32:17
    this Divine testimony is what we call
  • 00:32:20
    Revelation and this Ascent is called the
  • 00:32:22
    ascent of divine Faith now let's say
  • 00:32:25
    somebody said well the fact of spiration
  • 00:32:28
    is known on the basis of human Faith
  • 00:32:31
    well this simply doesn't work because
  • 00:32:33
    how did that person figure it out
  • 00:32:35
    because they themselves in order to be a
  • 00:32:37
    reliable witness would have to figure
  • 00:32:39
    this out and the only ways they could
  • 00:32:40
    figure it out is either by human Faith
  • 00:32:42
    from another individual and this human
  • 00:32:45
    Faith would itself need to be uh
  • 00:32:46
    substantiated and we could have an
  • 00:32:48
    infinite regress of human Faith with no
  • 00:32:50
    Foundation or on the other hand this
  • 00:32:52
    person could somehow have access to it
  • 00:32:54
    by demonstration which we already showed
  • 00:32:56
    was impossible or by probabilities which
  • 00:32:59
    you already showed somehow supposes
  • 00:33:01
    Divine Faith so stating that this is by
  • 00:33:03
    human Faith simply does not work
  • 00:33:06
    therefore the only option which is left
  • 00:33:10
    is the ascent of divine Faith but the
  • 00:33:13
    ascent of divine Faith as we've already
  • 00:33:15
    mentioned on a number of occasions
  • 00:33:17
    supposes divine revelation because you
  • 00:33:20
    need some sort of witness so where is
  • 00:33:23
    this divine revelation of the fact of
  • 00:33:25
    inspiration of these books it's not in
  • 00:33:27
    Scripture as we already showed so where
  • 00:33:29
    is it the only option is that it's from
  • 00:33:32
    sacred tradition let me State this in a
  • 00:33:34
    bit more of a formal way you know give
  • 00:33:37
    one of the give one of the arguments
  • 00:33:39
    basically it would go like this to
  • 00:33:41
    believe in something with Divine Faith
  • 00:33:43
    assumes that such a thing is preached or
  • 00:33:45
    taught on the authority of God now the
  • 00:33:48
    inspiration of certain books is
  • 00:33:50
    something that must be believed with
  • 00:33:51
    Divine Faith therefore Etc the major is
  • 00:33:55
    very easily proven from the nature of
  • 00:33:56
    things for examp example in Romans 10e
  • 00:34:00
    how then shall they call on him in whom
  • 00:34:02
    they have not believed or how shall they
  • 00:34:04
    believe him of whom they have not heard
  • 00:34:07
    and how shall they hear without a
  • 00:34:08
    preacher and how shall they preach
  • 00:34:10
    unless they be sent as it is written how
  • 00:34:13
    beautiful are the feet of them that
  • 00:34:14
    preach the gospel of peace of them that
  • 00:34:17
    bring Glad Tidings of good things end
  • 00:34:20
    quote so very clearly if you're going to
  • 00:34:23
    have the fact of inspiration believed
  • 00:34:25
    there needs to be the original preacher
  • 00:34:28
    and this preacher has Mission from God
  • 00:34:31
    this preacher is somebody who is coming
  • 00:34:33
    to reveal certain things and therefore
  • 00:34:36
    there must be a revelation of the fact
  • 00:34:38
    of inspiration as I said before and the
  • 00:34:41
    minor is also evident and you guys may
  • 00:34:43
    not realize why the minor is so evident
  • 00:34:46
    the reason it's evident is that very
  • 00:34:49
    constantly throughout ecclesiastical
  • 00:34:51
    literature this even sneaks into the way
  • 00:34:53
    in which Protestant speaks about things
  • 00:34:55
    the fact of canonicity or rather the
  • 00:34:57
    fact of the inspiration of a certain
  • 00:34:59
    book this is always phrased under terms
  • 00:35:02
    of belief it's not that I know this it's
  • 00:35:06
    that I believe this it's not that I have
  • 00:35:08
    an opinion about this it's the fact that
  • 00:35:11
    I believe this so an early example is
  • 00:35:14
    from St apus he States quote for either
  • 00:35:17
    they do not believe that the Sacred
  • 00:35:19
    Scriptures were dictated by the Holy
  • 00:35:20
    Spirit and then they are unbelievers or
  • 00:35:23
    they think that they themselves are
  • 00:35:25
    wiser than the Holy Spirit end quote so
  • 00:35:27
    we see that this has nothing to do with
  • 00:35:29
    any sort of idea of epistemic skepticism
  • 00:35:32
    it has nothing to do with whether you
  • 00:35:34
    have a fallible mode of reasoning or an
  • 00:35:36
    infallible mode of reasoning that's not
  • 00:35:38
    what this traditional argument is based
  • 00:35:40
    off of rather the traditional argument
  • 00:35:43
    is based on the very nature of
  • 00:35:45
    inspiration as a supernatural thing that
  • 00:35:47
    is not accessible to Natural reason I
  • 00:35:50
    can know many things by natural reason I
  • 00:35:53
    cannot know Supernatural things by
  • 00:35:56
    reason that's very very important I
  • 00:35:58
    cannot know the fact of the Incarnation
  • 00:36:01
    I cannot know the Holy Trinity I cannot
  • 00:36:03
    know the nature of sanctifying Grace I
  • 00:36:05
    cannot know the nature of the sacraments
  • 00:36:07
    I cannot know any of these things by
  • 00:36:09
    reason these things must come from
  • 00:36:11
    Revelation in the act of the inspiration
  • 00:36:14
    of a certain Prophet or Apostle the very
  • 00:36:16
    fact that a certain book is inspired or
  • 00:36:18
    not these all come from Revelation not
  • 00:36:23
    from reason and this is the fundamental
  • 00:36:26
    axom upon on which this entire argument
  • 00:36:28
    is based let's pretend for a second that
  • 00:36:31
    somebody did have an infallible
  • 00:36:33
    knowledge of all of the criteria of
  • 00:36:36
    canonicity they infallibly knew it was
  • 00:36:38
    from an apostle they infallibly knew
  • 00:36:40
    that this book was in complete agreement
  • 00:36:42
    with all of the other books they
  • 00:36:43
    infallibly knew that this was lofty they
  • 00:36:45
    infallibly knew that it had great
  • 00:36:47
    effects with people if you infallibly
  • 00:36:49
    knew all of these things you would still
  • 00:36:51
    not have sufficient
  • 00:36:53
    justification for saying that this is an
  • 00:36:55
    inspired book you can make at most an
  • 00:36:58
    educated guess you could have a certain
  • 00:37:00
    opinion about it but you would have to
  • 00:37:02
    say simply I don't
  • 00:37:05
    know this is not at all about
  • 00:37:08
    infallibility versus fallibility in the
  • 00:37:11
    subject it's not at all about that it's
  • 00:37:13
    about whether we have sufficient
  • 00:37:15
    justification or Protestants have
  • 00:37:17
    sufficient justification Protestants do
  • 00:37:19
    not have sufficient justification that
  • 00:37:21
    this book is inspired because it's not
  • 00:37:23
    revealed to them on the other hand we
  • 00:37:26
    believe in sacred tradition
  • 00:37:28
    and sacred tradition does provide
  • 00:37:29
    sufficient justification because in
  • 00:37:31
    principle we state that this thing is
  • 00:37:33
    revealed the fact that all of these
  • 00:37:35
    books and each of these books is
  • 00:37:36
    inspired is something which is a
  • 00:37:38
    revealed fact passed down by sacred
  • 00:37:41
    tradition it's about in principle
  • 00:37:43
    whether we have sufficient justification
  • 00:37:46
    it's not about anything to do with our
  • 00:37:49
    subjective fallibility or infallibility
  • 00:37:51
    it's not at all about that now before we
  • 00:37:54
    get into all of the objections that I've
  • 00:37:56
    thought up and if you guys any other
  • 00:37:57
    objections I'd love to hear them I
  • 00:37:59
    wanted to State this in a very formal
  • 00:38:01
    syllogistic way to help anybody who
  • 00:38:04
    wants to think through this more clearly
  • 00:38:06
    so I'll put all the syllogism on the
  • 00:38:08
    screen here we go a theological system
  • 00:38:10
    that does not hold that the fact of
  • 00:38:12
    inspiration is revealed is a false
  • 00:38:13
    theological system protestantism is a
  • 00:38:16
    theological system that cannot hold that
  • 00:38:18
    the fact of inspiration is revealed
  • 00:38:20
    therefore protestantism is a false
  • 00:38:22
    theological system now first we can go
  • 00:38:24
    on to prove the minor premise showing
  • 00:38:27
    that prodct antism cannot hold this on
  • 00:38:28
    the basis of the sufficiency of
  • 00:38:30
    scripture which was the first section in
  • 00:38:31
    this video protestantism is a
  • 00:38:34
    theological system that states that all
  • 00:38:36
    things which are necessary to believe
  • 00:38:38
    are stated either expressly or
  • 00:38:40
    implicitly in scripture a theological
  • 00:38:42
    system that holds to the fact that all
  • 00:38:44
    things which are necessary to believe
  • 00:38:46
    are stated either expressly or
  • 00:38:47
    implicitly in scripture is a theological
  • 00:38:49
    system that cannot hold that the fact of
  • 00:38:52
    inspiration is revealed therefore
  • 00:38:54
    protestantism is a theological system
  • 00:38:56
    that cannot hold that the fact of
  • 00:38:58
    inspiration is revealed the minor
  • 00:39:00
    premise is evident in that the fact of
  • 00:39:01
    inspiration is in no way found in sacred
  • 00:39:04
    scripture for each and every book now
  • 00:39:06
    that we have established the minor
  • 00:39:07
    premise which states that protestantism
  • 00:39:09
    must deny that the fact of inspiration
  • 00:39:11
    is revealed we must now move on to the
  • 00:39:13
    major premise which states that a
  • 00:39:15
    theological system that does not hold
  • 00:39:17
    that the fact of inspiration is revealed
  • 00:39:18
    is a false theological system this
  • 00:39:21
    thesis must be proven in part since
  • 00:39:22
    there are three species of knowledge
  • 00:39:24
    demonstration opinion and Faith first
  • 00:39:27
    way of demonstration the act of
  • 00:39:29
    inspiration is an entitativity
  • 00:39:31
    Supernatural object now no entitativity
  • 00:39:33
    Supernatural object can be known by the
  • 00:39:35
    first way that is we cannot demonstrate
  • 00:39:37
    the Trinity existence of Grace Etc
  • 00:39:39
    therefore the act of inspiration cannot
  • 00:39:41
    be known in the first way second the way
  • 00:39:44
    of opinion it must first be stated that
  • 00:39:46
    in theology opinion which is motivated
  • 00:39:48
    by certain probable arguments is
  • 00:39:50
    employed to show the fittingness of what
  • 00:39:52
    is revealed now that which is employed
  • 00:39:55
    to show the fittingness of that which is
  • 00:39:56
    revealed supposed the fact of Revelation
  • 00:39:59
    therefore opinion in theology supposes
  • 00:40:01
    the fact of Revelation Third the way of
  • 00:40:03
    faith if something is tively
  • 00:40:05
    Supernatural its existence is only
  • 00:40:07
    ascented to by faith since the motive of
  • 00:40:10
    ascent as to Faith is extrinsic to the
  • 00:40:12
    object ascented to now the fact of
  • 00:40:15
    inspiration is entitativity Supernatural
  • 00:40:17
    therefore Etc from this we see that the
  • 00:40:19
    object is revealed since faith is a
  • 00:40:21
    response to an antecedent Revelation now
  • 00:40:23
    that we have the more technical
  • 00:40:25
    statement of the argument out of the way
  • 00:40:26
    let's get to to all of those nice
  • 00:40:28
    objections that I've stated objection
  • 00:40:30
    one as it is stated by our Lord my sheep
  • 00:40:33
    hear my voice therefore the fact of
  • 00:40:35
    Revelation is self- authenticated reply
  • 00:40:37
    this text actually proves our position
  • 00:40:39
    not the Protestant position to hear the
  • 00:40:41
    voice of another assumes that there is
  • 00:40:43
    some sort of speech on the part of the
  • 00:40:44
    speaker in order for us to Ascent to
  • 00:40:46
    that speech but where there is no speech
  • 00:40:48
    confirming the act of inspiration there
  • 00:40:49
    is nothing to hear objection two it is
  • 00:40:52
    taught by the holy fathers that the
  • 00:40:54
    apostolic origin of books adequately
  • 00:40:56
    establishes Canon it reply first it must
  • 00:40:59
    be plainly denied that any of the Holy
  • 00:41:01
    fathers or that any other Criterion
  • 00:41:03
    adequately establishes canonicity they
  • 00:41:05
    use them as stated above that is as
  • 00:41:07
    confirming that such a book is canonical
  • 00:41:10
    in order to one dispose those who do not
  • 00:41:12
    believe in those books to the testimony
  • 00:41:13
    of sacred tradition in the church and
  • 00:41:15
    two to increase the vehemence whereby we
  • 00:41:17
    Ascent unto the truth second it is
  • 00:41:19
    simply evident from reason that even if
  • 00:41:21
    I were to concede that some of the
  • 00:41:22
    fathers taught this which I don't that
  • 00:41:24
    this position is completely absurd for
  • 00:41:26
    by this any book that was written by an
  • 00:41:28
    apostle was in scripture which isn't
  • 00:41:30
    true since the apostles wrote much more
  • 00:41:33
    than we have in the Canon objection
  • 00:41:35
    three the fact that there are secondary
  • 00:41:37
    objects of infallibility may be brought
  • 00:41:39
    forward reply secondary objects of
  • 00:41:41
    infallibility suppose the infallible
  • 00:41:43
    authority of the Catholic Church to
  • 00:41:45
    judge on those things that are related
  • 00:41:46
    to the deposit of Faith which doesn't
  • 00:41:48
    really help the Protestant position
  • 00:41:50
    objection four this seems to reduce to
  • 00:41:52
    the argument that there is a fallible
  • 00:41:54
    list of infallible books reply the
  • 00:41:57
    argument that an infallible list is
  • 00:41:59
    necessary is quite a different argument
  • 00:42:01
    than arguing for the necessity of the
  • 00:42:03
    fact of inspiration needing to be
  • 00:42:05
    revealed infallibility in the sense used
  • 00:42:08
    is an infallibility of the subject who
  • 00:42:09
    is knowing which is supplied as a direct
  • 00:42:12
    act by the light of faith and is
  • 00:42:14
    supplied as a reflex act by the Judgment
  • 00:42:16
    of the church the fact of Revelation is
  • 00:42:18
    in terms of the quality of the proposed
  • 00:42:21
    object it is the object proposed as
  • 00:42:23
    revealed that is ascented to by the
  • 00:42:26
    ascent of faith the question at hand is
  • 00:42:28
    whether such a proposition can be by way
  • 00:42:31
    of nature or by a supernatural act of
  • 00:42:33
    Revelation the entire argument rests on
  • 00:42:35
    the fact that the former is impossible
  • 00:42:37
    in an entitativity Supernatural object
  • 00:42:40
    the infallible list argument is wrong
  • 00:42:42
    and that it confuses this act of the
  • 00:42:44
    ascent of Faith whose infallibility is
  • 00:42:46
    gathered from the light of faith for the
  • 00:42:48
    reflex Act of considering one's own
  • 00:42:50
    subjective certainty of the thing
  • 00:42:53
    further we can see that the Protestant
  • 00:42:55
    idea of the self-attestation provides
  • 00:42:57
    another confusion it confuses the
  • 00:43:00
    necessary proposition of the object in a
  • 00:43:02
    revealed Manner and the light of Faith
  • 00:43:04
    given to the subject who infallibly
  • 00:43:06
    adheres to the revealed object this is
  • 00:43:08
    the major reason why our subjective
  • 00:43:10
    fallibility in investigating things does
  • 00:43:12
    not destroy the infallibility of the
  • 00:43:14
    ascent of Faith since investigation is a
  • 00:43:16
    reflex act and faith is a direct act
  • 00:43:18
    which is immediately given to us by God
  • 00:43:21
    to summarize the fact of inspiration is
  • 00:43:23
    revealed and passed down by Divine
  • 00:43:24
    tradition the individual with the light
  • 00:43:26
    of faith infallibly adheres to this
  • 00:43:28
    revealed object by the working of the
  • 00:43:29
    spirit and lastly the church makes an
  • 00:43:31
    infallible reflex judgment that these
  • 00:43:34
    books are inspired the normal Catholic
  • 00:43:36
    presentation confuses the third act with
  • 00:43:38
    the First Act which is absurd the
  • 00:43:40
    Protestant position of self- attestation
  • 00:43:43
    attempts to have the second act without
  • 00:43:44
    the First Act which is absurd for in
  • 00:43:47
    order for there to be an infallible
  • 00:43:48
    adherence of a certain subject to a
  • 00:43:50
    certain object by faith there must be an
  • 00:43:53
    object presented which is found in
  • 00:43:55
    Revelation objection five it seems that
  • 00:43:57
    there must be an infinite regress
  • 00:43:59
    requiring that the fact that such is
  • 00:44:00
    revealed needing to be revealed and so
  • 00:44:02
    on reply this is not the case due to the
  • 00:44:05
    fact that the witness of sacred
  • 00:44:07
    tradition saying that Mark is inspired
  • 00:44:09
    implicitly contains the fact that it is
  • 00:44:11
    revealed reply this is not the case
  • 00:44:13
    since the witness that such a book is
  • 00:44:15
    inspired is assumed to also be a witness
  • 00:44:18
    to the fact that one has received this
  • 00:44:19
    by way of Revelation yet it is not the
  • 00:44:21
    case that a book that never mentions
  • 00:44:23
    either explicitly or implicitly its own
  • 00:44:25
    inspiration contains such affirmation
  • 00:44:28
    that can be adhered to by faith implied
  • 00:44:30
    in the very statement from the Divine
  • 00:44:32
    legate that this is inspired is the
  • 00:44:34
    Divine authority of the statement itself
  • 00:44:37
    yet there is no necessary implication of
  • 00:44:39
    such in many of the books of scripture
  • 00:44:41
    objection six we would need a revealed
  • 00:44:43
    list of papal statements if this were
  • 00:44:45
    the case reply papal infallibility is
  • 00:44:48
    something that is a modally supernatural
  • 00:44:50
    charism that is merely negative it is
  • 00:44:57
    from the various criteria given for such
  • 00:44:59
    an infallible teaching so that's
  • 00:45:00
    basically everything before this video I
  • 00:45:03
    read everything that I could read on
  • 00:45:04
    this topic so I'm very interested to
  • 00:45:06
    hear your guys' thoughts any objections
  • 00:45:09
    that you think I might have missed any
  • 00:45:10
    points that were unclear and so on and
  • 00:45:12
    so forth I would love to hear some sort
  • 00:45:14
    of objections or replies so I can make
  • 00:45:17
    some sort of follow-up video which
  • 00:45:18
    addresses those objections and replies
  • 00:45:21
    but as always God bless
タグ
  • Catholicism
  • Protestantism
  • Scripture
  • Inspiration
  • Tradition
  • Authority
  • Canon
  • Fallibility
  • Revelation
  • Scholasticism