The Problem of Evil for Atheists with Dr. Yujin Nagasawa | Coffee With Philosophers The Protestant Philosopher 2026-09-23 | The Problem of Evil for Atheists with Dr. Yujin Nagasawa | Coffee With Philosophers
37 Seconds: What Catholic Miracles Actually Prove The Protestant Philosopher 2026-09-09 | In Joe Schmid's ten hour case for Catholic miracles, Zeitoun gets an hour and forty six minutes of evidence and thirty seven seconds of doctrinal payoff. Fatima gets forty three minutes of evidence and two minutes of meaning. Two and a half hours on two big cases, with under two percent spent on what any of it shows.I don't think that ratio is laziness. I think it's telling us something true about how signs work, and I think Ethan Muse already noticed it before I did. Some things show and some things say. You can build an impressive case that something was show but not get closer to what it actually means. As you'll see, this line makes it possible to grant the impressive evidence and the sincerity of all involved yet argue that doesn't vindicate Catholicism in particular.THE OBJECT TEST - A MASTERCLASS (November 2026)Ten hours of miracle evidence. Thirty-seven seconds on what it means. This video is one piece of a longer argument about what a sign actually confirms, worked across four cases: Zeitoun, Lanciano, Fatima, and Lourdes.Founding students get it for $47, and it goes up after this cohort. No payment now. Just tell me you're interested: protestantacademy.com/the-object-testSOURCES - Joe Schmid, "Miracles PROVE Catholicism" (Majesty of Reason): youtu.be/-C-FiSqfKi8?si=yHid45TBqxC-fm2P- Ethan Muse, Motiva Credibilitatis: motivacredibilitatis.substack.com- Ethan Muse on the Pat Flynn's Channel (Philosophy for the People): youtu.be/bkvQTiCRh3o?si=s9tLdJgALT8mcYmA- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "The Message of Fatima" (2000), with Cardinal Ratzinger's theological commentary: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html- Travis Dumsday on Zeitoun: amazon.com/Marian-Apparitions-Evidential-Inquiry/dp/0881417610- F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, NICNT rev. ed. (Eerdmans, 1988), 273–76: amazon.com/Book-Acts-International-Commentary-Testament/dp/0802825052- Manfred Hauke, Introduction to Mariology: amazon.com/Introduction-Mariology-Manfred-Hauke/dp/0813233372- Acts 3, Acts 14, 1 Kings 18MUSICRoyalty Free Music: bensound.comLicense code: ZDZ3FPZIMXCRSO6BArtist: : Sound Of SilenceMusic I use: bensound.comLicense code: QHUWCKNW5EZMSXIQArtist: : Lunar Years
Show Me the Miracle! The Protestant Philosopher 2026-09-07 | I'm putting a falsifier on the table. Find me a Catholic miracle where the test was announced out loud, before the crowd, with the true claimant named in advance, and then it happened. That's Elijah on Carmel. I've looked and I haven't found the parallel yet. And when Paul's miracle got misread at Lystra, he didn't perform another one. He shouted. Words are the only thing that fixes a misreading.
Catholic Miracles Cant Prove the Church (And Rome Says So) The Protestant Philosopher 2026-09-02 | Ethan Muse and Joe Schmid call approved Catholic apparitions "vindicatory," which means Fatima and cases like it accredit one communion as the true church. In this short video, I go to Rome's own paperwork to see whether that weight can be carried.Working through the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith's norms, Ratzinger's Fatima commentary, Lambertini, and the Catechism, I show that the church files approved apparitions as private revelation. They don't belong to the deposit of faith, they don't complete Christ's revelation, and the assent they ask for is human faith proportioned to prudence, not divine faith resting on God. Approval means a message isn't contrary to faith and morals and may be published, not that the faithful are obligated to receive it.That's a different box than Vatican I's "most certain signs," which names Moses, Christ, and the apostles. So Protestants can grant the phenomena and still deny the conclusion. These events might adorn an argument already made from Christ and the notes of the church. But they can't replace it without becoming a second founding while remaining private revelation.Check out Ryan Mullins's podcast episode discussing these miracles: open.spotify.com/episode/0ND4C5yLh0oCGAJChSreej
Joe Schmid Converted Over Catholic Miracles: Should Protestants Panic? The Protestant Philosopher 2026-08-26 | Joe Schmid converted to Catholicism. I'm guessing you know that by now. Catholic miracles played a big role in his conversion. A lot of Protestants are rattled right now.In this video I want to speak to my fellow Protestants. I’m not trying to undermine Catholic miracle claims in this video. I’m trying to take the pressure off and help us think more clearly. The deeper work still needs to be done. Guess what? There’s no deadline.Resources mentioned:- Philippe Dalleur’s paper in Scientia et Fides (open access): https://apcz.umk.pl/SetF/article/view/SetF.2021.001- Ethan Muse’s articles (read the footnotes): motivacredibilitatis.substack.com/p/our-lady-of-fatima- Jacalyn Duffin’s Medical Miracles: amazon.com/dp/019533650XNo rush. Go look for yourself.#Fatima #CatholicMiracles #Apologetics
Gavin Ortlund: Why Christianity Makes Sense (Full Interview) The Protestant Philosopher 2026-08-26 | In this episode of the Protestant Philosopher Podcast, I sit down with Dr. Gavin Ortlund to talk about his new book Why Christianity Makes Sense. It's an accessible case for the Christian faith.We walk through the whole book: the ache in the human heart, Camus and the myth of Sisyphus, the contingency and fine-tuning arguments, Jesus’ claims to divinity, the resurrection, Old Testament prophecy, the hard moral objections (slavery and violence), divine hiddenness, and finally Pascal’s wager. GET THE BOOK Why Christianity Makes Sense: amazon.com/Why-Christianity-Makes-Sense-Mysteries/dp/0310182204 Watch more from Gavin at Truth Unites: youtube.com/@TruthUnitesTimestamps:0:00 Intro & connection story2:39 Deserted island books4:00 Why this book & how it relates to Why God Makes Sense11:00 The ache, distraction, and Pascal14:00 Camus, Sisyphus, and the absurd25:00 Lucy through the wardrobe & enchantment29:00 Contingency argument34:00 Fine-tuning & the multiverse40:00 Jesus’ divine self-understanding45:00 The resurrection case50:00 The cumulative force of prophecy58:00 Slavery in the Bible1:05:00 Violence, Canaan, and 1 Samuel 151:24:00 Divine hiddenness1:28:00 Pascal’s wager & the invitation to seekIf this conversation helped you, share it with someone who’s asking the same questions. #Christianity #Apologetics #GavinOrtlund #WhyChristianityMakesSense #Faith #Philosophy
John Owen: Scripture Alone Is the Formal Object of Faith The Protestant Philosopher 2026-08-19 | John Owen gives his answer in one paragraph: Scripture is the only immediate divine revelation, and our faith rests on God's own authority and truth evidencing itself there. It isn't based on the church's say so. This is his thesis from The Reason of Faith, chapter 2, section 6.
John Owen: We Rest on Gods Speech The Protestant Philosopher 2026-08-17 | Why do we believe Scripture is God's word with infallible faith? Owen distinguishes the immediate formal object of our faith (God's actual revelation, 'Thus saith the Lord') from the ultimate authority it's resolved into (God's own truth and veracity). We don't rest on God's truth in some abstract, absolute sense. We rest on his revelation of himself. From The Reason of Faith, chapter 2. More to come.
Owens Rule: Never Let a Fallible Authority Stand Between You and Scripture The Protestant Philosopher 2026-08-16 | John Owen draws a sharp line between means and authority. Fallible means, like the church's ministry, can bring you Scripture without any harm to your faith. But if you believe on the authority of those means, rather than on God's own truth and authority speaking in Scripture, your faith becomes only as reliable as they are, merely human, not infallible. From The Reason of Faith, chapter 2. More to come.
John Owen: The Ground of Divine Faith That Scripture is Gods Word The Protestant Philosopher 2026-08-15 | What makes faith "divine" or "supernatural" rather than merely human? For Owen, it's the evidence it rests on. Human faith can rest on fallible grounds, like tradition or church testimony. Divine faith rests on the authority and veracity of God himself, revealed to us in Scripture. From The Reason of Faith, chapter 2. More to come.
John Owen: Divine Faith That Scripture is Gods Word? The Protestant Philosopher 2026-08-14 | In this video, I discuss John Owen's The Reason of Faith (1677). He offers a helpful distinction between the material and formal objection of our faith. This is the first video in a short series on Owen's The Reason of Faith.
The SSPX Private Judgment Dilemma | #solascriptura The Protestant Philosopher 2026-07-02 | Rome just excommunicated the SSPX bishops by external act alone. The consecrations happened, so the penalty followed. But the laity get a different test. Per the explanatory note, a layperson is excommunicated only if he formally adheres to the schism, and the 1996 norm Rome adopts defines formal adherence by an internal element first. His own verdict on whether papal authority still binds him decides whether he's in or out of the Catholic Church.That creates a dilemma for an objection to sola scriptura. If private judgment about religious authority disqualifies a rule of faith, Rome's own membership test disqualifies itself. If it doesn't, the objection was never an objection. There's no third option, and you can't split the horns.I didn't put private judgment inside Rome's system. Rome signed it into the boundary.Read the full argument at The Protestant Review: protestantreview.substack.com/p/the-sspx-private-judgment-dilemma#SolaScriptura #SSPX #CatholicProtestantDebate #Apologetics #PrivateJudgment
The SSPX Crisis Supports Sola Scriptura The Protestant Philosopher 2026-07-01 | Four SSPX priests just got consecrated as bishops without papal approval, in open defiance of Pope Leo XIV's heartfelt appeal to stand down. All six men involved are now automatically excommunicated under canon law. But here's what almost nobody's saying. These men swore obedience to the pope minutes before defying him. That's not a contradiction in their position. It's the Catholic apologetic argument for the magisterium collapsing. If having a living authority is supposed to end private judgment and settle disputed doctrine for you, then Econe just showed that it doesn't. Someone still has to judge whether the office holder is being faithful, and that someone is still you. I break down what this means for the Protestant vs. Catholic authority debate.#Catholicism #SSPX #PopeLeoXIV #Apologetics #ChurchHistory #Protestant #SolaScriptura
The Berean and Jerome Objections Are Half Right (and Half Wrong) | #solascriptura The Protestant Philosopher 2026-06-27 | Protestant apologists, watch for this common issue in Orthodox and Catholic responses to the Berean argument for sola scriptura and to the use of Jerome on the 66-book canon.Catholic and Orthodox interlocutors often argue that the Berean argument in support of sola scriptura, and the use of Jerome in support of the 66-book canon, are both problematic because they don't directly support the doctrine. That is, if you look at Acts 17, yes, the Berean Jews are being commended for searching the Scriptures to test what Paul was saying against them. But Paul was still alive. He's an apostle. So how could they be using sola scriptura when it was just oral teaching and the canon was still being created? That would be to mistake the way Protestants are using that argument for establishing the conclusion that sola scriptura is true.If some Protestants have used it that way, then I agree it's a bad argument. But properly stated, what that argument does is show that in Scripture we find the principle of being commendable, of noble character, for putting Scripture as the highest norm, the supreme norm, when evaluating the truths of Christian faith and practice. That's fine. That's a good argument, because you're using Scripture to support a principle that's a premise in the argument for sola scriptura.The confusion by the Catholic and Orthodox is to say the Berean argument's bad because it doesn't directly support sola scriptura. Properly formulated, we're not claiming it offers unmediated, direct support for the truth of the conclusion that sola scriptura is true.The same thing goes with the Jerome case. There's a confusion between a principle that supports a premise in the argument for the 66-book canon and the direct support of the truth of the conclusion. We're not arguing Jerome endorsed the 66-book canon, therefore the Protestant canon is true. Rather, we're saying that what you find, not just in Jerome but throughout the Hieronymian tradition, is a reduced or Jewish canon that excludes the Deuterocanonicals as not of the same caliber or status as the canonical text proper. So we're not arguing directly for the truth of the 66-book canon when we use Jerome. We're showing that there's a principle at work in Jerome's work that supports and underlies the Protestant canon, such that it's a principled basis for it.
Joe Heschmeyer Tried to Cook My Sola Scriptura Argument (Did He Get Burned?) The Protestant Philosopher 2026-05-28 | Joe Heschmeyer stepped into the kitchen to take on the Attribute Inscripturation Thesis (AIT). Did he get burned? Let's find out. The AIT is the metaphysical core of my case for sola scriptura. It grounds canonical normativity in God's communicative perfections, transmitted through exemplar causation, restricted by kind-correspondence. Joe (@shamelesspopery) came after it. My first video cleaned up five misunderstandings of the AIT (youtu.be/RT5MZiIKyx4). This is my second and final reply responding to all of Joe's objections.Here's what you'll learn:- How the AIT actually works (the engine, not the gloss)- Why exemplar causation plus kind-correspondence is the bridge from "God-breathed" to "uniquely authoritative"- Why Joe's sculpture analogy doesn't refute the AIT, it proves it- The material vs. formal sufficiency distinction Joe blurs, and why his examples attack the position most Catholics grant- What perspicuity actually claims, and why the eunuch, the parables, and 2 Peter 3.16 fit the doctrine instead of breaking it- Why "the Church is built by Christ" doesn't bestow sovereign authority on the Church- The two hits Joe genuinely landed and why the AIT's engine survives them- Why the turnip reductio dies on kind-correspondence- How to respond to five common objections to the AITCHAPTERS00:00 Introduction02:12 Part 1: What the AIT Is For03:59 Part 2: Why It Isn't Efficient or Formal Causality06:41 Part 3: A Specific Type of Causation (Exemplar Causation)11:18 Part 4: Kind-Correspondence16:50 Part 5: Joe Mischaracterizes the Mechanism21:09 Part 6: Joe’s Objection to ‘Sufficiency’ is Misguided29:37 Part 6*: Joe’s Objection to ‘Clarity’ is Confused41:30 Part 7: Joe's Objection to ‘Ultimate Authority’ Misfires48:10 Part 8: Joe's Objection to ‘Self-Authentication’ Asks Why a Vegetable Isn't a Sentence59:46 Part 9: Joe's Objection to 'The Diagnostic Question' Concedes the Premise01:09:32 Part 10: 5 Reoccurring Objections in the Comments*Typo in the video.RELATED VIDEOS1. Part 1 AIT: youtube.com/watch?v=iigt5TsREaU2. Joe Video: youtube.com/watch?v=qV1hPjq-bT0&t3. Part 2 Reply to Joe: youtu.be/ifti_9lGlTwRELATED ARTICLES (The Protestant Review)1. Part 1 Reply to Joe: protestantreview.substack.com/p/did-heschmeyer-misread-the-ait2. Part 2 Reply to Joe: protestantreview.substack.com/p/did-joe-heschmeyer-refute-the-ait3. "Part 1 AIT: The Attribute Inscripturation Thesis": protestantreview.substack.com/p/defending-sola-scriptura-part14. "Part 2 AIT: The Canon Takes Care of Itself": protestantreview.substack.com/p/why-hebrews-but-not-tobit5. The Hebrews vs. Tobit article: protestantreview.substack.com/p/defending-sola-scriptura-part-2Subscribe to The Protestant Philosopher for more videos offering a case for Protestantism.#Protestant #Catholic #Apologetics #SolaScriptura #AIT #Heschmeyer #ShamelessPopery #Philosophy #Theology
Why Catholic v. Protestant Debates Are Stuck (Its Not What You Think) The Protestant Philosopher 2026-05-13 | Why do Catholic v. Protestant debates seem to cycle endlessly without progress? People often blame one thing, such as different views on grace, on scripture, on the motives of credibility. Those are real things, but they aren't the source. The actual source is what philosophers, following Wittgenstein, call disagreement over hinge propositions. Hinges are the commitments your whole framework rests on. They determine what counts as evidence, how terms get defined, and what qualifies as progress. Until we engage at the hinge level, we're just rearranging the surface. My Attributive Inscripturation Thesis is an attempt to do that work.
Exemplar Causation & Divine Perfections The Protestant Philosopher 2026-05-10 | Exemplar causation transfers properties from agent to product along the dimensions appropriate to the kind of product it is. The architect's blueprint shapes the building's geometry, not the architect's biography. The composer's musical conception shapes the symphony's harmonic structure, not the composer's height. Turnips don't have a communicative dimension, so the communicative perfections don't apply to them. They bear other properties like biological order and organic integrity, but not sufficiency, perspicuity, self-authentication, or the other AIT properties. Those are properties of communicative acts. And given divine simplicity and the essentiality of God's perfections, God's communicative acts result from those essential divine perfections operating as a unified causal agency on the product that is Scripture.
Did Joe Heschmeyer Misread the AIT? (5 Key Distinctions) The Protestant Philosopher 2026-05-09 | Joe Heschmeyer put out a thoughtful video wrestling with my Attribute Inscripturation Thesis (AIT). It's the metaphysical core of my defense of Sola Scriptura. He calls it a "brand new" argument that surprised him.But here's what's missing from his reading. Most of the questions Joe raises are aimed at a simplified version of the AIT, not the actual one. The compression is understandable. But four features get lost in the compression, namely the modal precision, the causal mechanism, the scope-restriction, and the kind-correspondence principle. Once those features are back in view, the questions Joe raises start to find their answers.I'll focus on the setup of Joe's video here, and in the second video (link below) I'll use what I establish to engage his specific objections one by one.CHAPTERS00:00 Introduction01:44 Distinction 1: Logical Gap vs. Metaphysical Gap10:57 Distinction 2: Positive vs. Negative Argument16:57 Distinction 3: Wide vs. Narrow Scope Necessity22:59 Distinction 4: Generic Supervenience vs. Exemplar Causation31:46 Distinction 5: Kind-Correspondence vs. Literal Transcription37:33 Closing and the Diagnostic QuestionRELATED VIDEOS1. Part 1 AIT: youtube.com/watch?v=iigt5TsREaU2. Joe Video: youtube.com/watch?v=qV1hPjq-bT0&t3. Part 2 Reply to Joe: youtu.be/ifti_9lGlTwRELATED ARTICLES (The Protestant Review)1. Part 1 Reply to Joe://protestantreview.substack.com/p/did-heschmeyer-misread-the-ait2. Part 2 Reply to Joe: protestantreview.substack.com/p/did-joe-heschmeyer-refute-the-ait3. "Part 1 AIT: The Attribute Inscripturation Thesis": protestantreview.substack.com/p/defending-sola-scriptura-part14. "Part 2 AIT: The Canon Takes Care of Itself": protestantreview.substack.com/p/why-hebrews-but-not-tobit5. The Hebrews vs. Tobit article: protestantreview.substack.com/p/defending-sola-scriptura-part-2Subscribe to The Protestant Review for more videos defending Protestantism.#SolaScriptura #AttributeInscripturationThesis #JoeHeschmeyer
When Marian Dogmas Require the Impossible The Protestant Philosopher 2026-05-02 | What does the Catholic Church ask of the honest inquirer who, after sustained engagement with the evidence, finds her doubts about the Marian dogmas settled rather than dissolved? On the standard Catholic position, she still owes de fide assent, which is firm and irrevocable. I argue this demand is epistemically impossible to satisfy. De fide assent presupposes the absence of settled doubt, and dissolving settled doubt isn't within the inquirer's doxastic control. The demand therefore either projects onto her a power she doesn't have, or licenses a kind of manufactured assent that isn't belief at all, since belief is constitutively a response to what one takes to be true. The Church, in this scenario, prescribes an impossible state of mind.
Fatima is NOT a Slam Dunk for Catholics: Responding to Heschmeyer | @shamelesspopery The Protestant Philosopher 2026-04-23 | Joe Heschmeyer called the Fatima debate "a slam dunk for Catholics." I'm going to show you why it's the opposite. Point by point, I go through Joe's review and show what Sean Luke didn't have time to offer in real time. This includes, but isn't limited to, the Vatican's own 2000 commentary, where a pope is quoted saying Catholic faith in Fatima "isn't even possible." Stanley Jaki, the Benedictine physicist and Templeton laureate who believed in Fatima, admitting no observatory on earth recorded anything unusual on October 13, 1917. John of the Cross describing the Fatima profile as "the penance of beasts" three hundred years before Fatima happened. The Dhanis distinction Ratzinger himself cites, which undercuts the evidential standing of everything Ethan's case depends on. And Mater Populi Fidelis, where Pope Leo XIV and the DDF formally correct the Coredemptrix trajectory Fatima helped launch. Heschmeyer never mentions any of this. His review is polished, calm, and confident, but it addresses a weaker version of Sean's argument than the one he presented and the one implied by what he presented. Once the full case is on the table, the Catholic case doesn't hold. Here's the full takedown.Video: Our Debate Review - youtube.com/watch?v=zphlNB9TN0EVideo: The Fatima Debate - youtube.com/live/nn8BYrFdMyY?si=KCwUT8KrDgiDIIMr#Christianity #Catholicism #Apologetics
The Question Every Catholic Objection to Sola Scriptura Has to Answer The Protestant Philosopher 2026-04-19 | ...
Gavin Ortlund Is Right About Sola Scriptura (But His Argument Has a Gap) The Protestant Philosopher 2026-03-06 | Gavin Ortlund offers a strong case for Sola Scriptura in his book What It Means to Be Protestant. But his argument has a gap. This video offers a friendly amendment to Gavin's work in an effort to close it. I introduce a new thesis called the Attribute Inscripturation Thesis (AIT) that fills the gap by building a bridge from the Doctrine of God to the Doctrine of Scripture. I also present the Canon Conundrum at full strength with all three of its fangs exposed, which the AIT will systematically respond to in Part 2 of this 5-part series.FULL SERIESThis is Part 1 of the "Defending Sola Scriptura" series. The rest of the series includes:- Part 2: "The Canon Takes Care of Itself" - Canonical epistemology and answering the Canon Conundrum's three fangs- Part 3: "Which Divine Perfection Failed?" - The full mapping, the definition of sola scriptura, and the response to Casey Chalk- Part 4: "The Right of Private Judgment" - A divine entailment, not a human invention- Part 5: "The Catholic Church Built the Bridge" - The internal contradictions of the Catholic system on its own termsFULL ARTICLEThis video is an overview. The full article develops every argument with greater detail, precision, and footnotes. Read it at The Protestant Review: protestantreview.substack.com/p/defending-sola-scriptura-part1FREE GUIDE"But who gave you the Bible?" Most Protestants freeze when they hear this. I wrote a free guide that shows you how to answer the Canon Objection to Sola Scriptura with philosophical precision. Get your free guide now: protestantacademy.comSUBSCRIBE Subscribe to The Protestant Review on Substack for the full written series and to not miss the articles when they drop: theprotestantreview.substack.comREFERENCES- Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to Be Protestant (Crossway, 2024)- Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (P&R Publishing, 1992-97)- John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God (Crossway, 2001)- Patrick Madrid, Robert Sungenis, Philip Blosser in Not by Scripture Alone (Catholic Apologetics International, 2013)- Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (Basilica Press, 1997)#SolaScriptura #ProtestantApologetics #GavinOrtlund #CanonOfScripture #ReformedTheology #AttributeInscripturationThesis
Trent Horn’s “Fatal Flaw” Has a Fatal Flaw | @TheCounselofTrent The Protestant Philosopher 2026-02-26 | Trent Horn says the Bible never calls a written text "the word of God." He's wrong. The Greek grammar, Jesus himself, and a passage Trent skips shows his error.I break down three levels of failure in Trent's argument. Level 1 is a grammatical error that undermines his case. Level 2 is a Mark 7 problem he still hasn't answered, and level 3 is the 2 Timothy 3:16 silence issue.This started at the TGT Conference debate with Anthony Rogers, continued in Trent's YouTube video, and landed on X when Trent replied to my article. I walk through his response and explain why it actually confirms the problem rather than solving it.READ THE FULL ARTICLE: open.substack.com/pub/protestantreview/p/trent-horns-fatal-flaw?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=webREFERENCED IN THIS VIDEO:Anthony Rogers vs. Trent Horn, "Is Sola Scriptura True?" (TGT Conference 2026)Trent Horn, "The Protestant 'Word of God' Fallacy" (YouTube)Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the BasicsDouglas K. Stuart, Exodus (New American Commentary)Glenn Zander, "An Investigation of Logos Tou Theou in the New Testament" (Concordia Seminary)SUBSCRIBE:Subscribe to The Protestant Philosopher for rigorous defenses of Protestant theology.#ProtestantApologetics #SolaScriptura #TrentHorn #CatholicProtestantDebate #BiblicalAuthority #WordOfGod #ReformedTheology #ChristianApologetics #ProtestantPhilosopher
3 Scenarios of Scriptural Interpretation The Protestant Philosopher 2026-02-09 | Let's look at three scenarios.Scenario one: someone casually reads Scripture and concludes the church's teaching is wrong. The church, through centuries of reflection, affirms P. But this person hasn't studied the question, hasn't engaged the church's reasoning, hasn't considered the weight of tradition.Scenario two: someone carefully studies the question and concludes Scripture teaches not-P. But the evidence is actually ambiguous. Competent interpreters can disagree and still be rational. They can't point to clear, compelling evidence.Scenario three: someone carefully studies the question, genuinely engages the church's teaching, and concludes Scripture teaches not-P. They can point to clear scriptural evidence, and the textual case is strong.Now, on Robinson's analysis, these are normatively equivalent. The church's judgment makes no difference. Casual dismissal is just as legitimate as careful, scripturally grounded dissent.
Sola Scriptura: Not Flying Solo The Protestant Philosopher 2026-02-08 | Robinson asked whether Protestants are flying solo. The answer is no. Sola Scriptura provides co-pilots: the church's teaching, the confessions, the accumulated wisdom of tradition. These have real authority. They create duties, burdens, and presumptions. The Protestant isn't alone in the cockpit.But Robinson's critique never got off the ground. It's grounded due to structural failure. The argument requires a biconditional: that judgment is both necessary and sufficient for obligation. The evidence only establishes necessity. The sufficiency direction is assumed, not argued.To make the argument work, you need a hidden premise: that judgment constitutes authority if it determines what you believe is authoritative. But that premise is false.
Sola Scriptura Doesnt Collapse into Solo Scriptura | Contra Perry Robinson The Protestant Philosopher 2026-02-03 | Perry Robinson says you're flying solo.It doesn't matter how confessional you are. How much you respect tradition. How seriously you take the Church.If you're Protestant, you've made yourself the final authority. Sola Scriptura is just Solo Scriptura with extra steps.It's a clever argument. And it deserves a serious response.But here's what most people miss. Robinson's argument doesn't fail because he gets history wrong or misunderstands Protestant theology.It fails because of a structural flaw in the logic itself.Robinson needs to prove that your judgment both tracks and creates your obligations. His evidence only proves the first half. The second half? He just assumes it.That's called affirming the consequent. And it's a textbook fallacy.In this video, I break down exactly where Robinson's argument breaks, why defeasible authority is still real authority, and how the Sola/Solo distinction makes a practical difference in three concrete scenarios.The collapse happens in Robinson's argument, not in Protestant theology.📄 Read the full article at The Protestant Review: protestantreview.substack.com/p/protestants-are-not-flying-solo
The Best Objection to Protestantism Is Incoherent The Protestant Philosopher 2026-01-29 | What if the most powerful objection to Protestantism is actually impossible for anyone to meet?There's an argument against Protestant theology that seems devastating on the surface. If you can always appeal to your own reading of Scripture against the Church, then the Church has no real authority over you. An authority you can override whenever you disagree isn't authority. It's advice.I've been wrestling with this objection in an extended debate with a thoughtful interlocutor. And I've come to think he's onto something important.But not in the way he thinks.In this video, I show why this objection doesn't just fail. It's incoherent. And the reason has nothing to do with theology. It has to do with how belief itself works.Drawing on what philosophers call "the transparency of belief", I show:• The test case critics propose is something no one can pass, not Protestants, not Catholics, not anyone.• Real deference to authority works differently than critics imagine.• The Church's authority is real, but it must operate through evidential channels, because that's the only way authority over belief can operate.• This aligns with the deepest convictions of the Protestant tradition.This isn't about defending rebellious individualism. It's about understanding why Scripture must stand over the Church rather than the reverse, and why the Reformers weren't elevating private preference when they appealed to God's Word.The philosophical literature on the nature of belief reveals this isn't just one option among others. It's the only coherent account of interpretive authority available.Dialogue with ADP:• First Protestant Review Article: protestantreview.substack.com/p/the-right-of-private-judgment-defended• ADP Reply: adp5121.wordpress.com/2026/01/20/interpretive-authority-and-the-right-of-private-judgment• Final Protestant Review Article This Video Accompanies: protestantreview.substack.com/p/the-transparency-of-belief-vindicatesResources mentioned:• Shah & Velleman, "Doxastic Deliberation"• Kevin Vanhoozer, *The Drama of Doctrine*• John Webster on Scripture's authority• Keith Mathison on the canon question🔔 Subscribe for more rigorous Protestant apologetics that engages the best arguments from Catholic and Orthodox critics.💬 What do you think? Let me know in the comments.#protestant #apologetics #solascriptura
Is the Right of Private Judgment Just “Every Protestant is Their Own Pope”? The Protestant Philosopher 2026-01-19 | “Every Protestant is their own Pope.” That accusation is often treated as decisive. If an individual can remain unconvinced by church teaching, then the Church has no real authority. It only offers take it or leave it advice. In this lecture, I argue that this objection rests on a false dichotomy and a misunderstanding of what the Right of Private Judgment actually is.This video is a lecture companion to my article, "The Right of Private Judgment Defended", which you can find published on Substack at:Protestant Review: protestantreview.substack.com/p/the-right-of-private-judgment-defendedMy central claim is simple.The Right of Private Judgment is not a license for individual autonomy. It is a duty of discernment exercised under the supreme authority of Scripture. This is an account that preserves real, defeasible ecclesial authority without collapsing into individualism.Topics covered include:- Why private judgment is a duty, not a permission- The Berean model and reciprocal accountability- Defeasible vs. indefeasible authority- How church teaching creates genuine epistemic obligations- Why dissent does not make the individual “ultimate”- The difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo ScripturaThis lecture presents the core structure of the argument. The written article develops the analysis in greater detail and precision. Here's the link again: protestantreview.substack.com/p/the-right-of-private-judgment-defended
Sola Scriptura Doesnt Collapse (Perry Robinsons Argument Has a Gap) The Protestant Philosopher 2026-01-14 | Does Sola Scriptura collapse into radical individualism? Orthodox apologist Perry Robinson argues that Protestants are committed to a "Doctrine of Private Judgment" that makes individual conscience the ultimate authority. But I think his argument contains a significant gap.Robinson establishes that judgment is necessary to access Scripture. Call this the conscience constraint. Protestants happily accept this. Of course we have to use our minds to understand what Scripture teaches.But then he assumes something further, namely that judgment is sufficient to generate obligation. Call this the generative thesis. And this he never argues for. He just smuggles it in through a biconditional formulation.Protestants accept the first claim and deny the second. Judgment is the means of access, not the source of obligation. Just as reading a speed limit sign doesn't make the law binding (the law does that), judging that Scripture teaches something doesn't make it obligatory. God's authorship does that.Full video and Substack article coming soon.#SolaScriptura #Protestantism #Apologetics #Theology #PerryRobinson #PrivateJudgment #Reformation
Does Justice Require Eternal Torment? The Protestant Philosopher 2025-12-19 | I held the traditional view of hell for decades. Then I started asking a question that traditionalists rarely ask. Does God's justice require eternal torment, or does it merely permit it?You might think that's a trivial distinction. It's not. Once you see the difference between justifying reasons and requiring reasons, the traditionalist argument shifts. If infinite dignity justifies severe punishment, it doesn't automatically follow that it demands one specific form of punishment. That's a logical gap, and it matters a lot.In this video, I walk you through key commitments underlying the traditionalist view. I also steelman their key argument. Then show you where I think it breaks down and ends up supporting annihilationism or conditionalism. The second death satisfies retributive justice completely. It's infinite in its consequences, irreversible, and fits the lex talionis principle better than eternal torment does.You don't have to agree with my conclusion. I just ask that you think carefully about whether the case for eternal conscious torment is as airtight as tradition suggests. I just ask that you think critically about your faith, while staying faithful to Scripture.
Kirk Cameron on Hell: A Thoughtful Response The Protestant Philosopher 2025-12-18 | In this video, I react to Kirk Cameron's clarification about his views on hell and the final judgment. Kirk has been wrestling with whether the unrepentant face eternal conscious torment (ECT) or annihilation, and his willingness to ask these questions has been helpful. Does Kirk (@KirkCameronOfficial) now embrace conditional immortality?Here's what I cover in the video:- Conditionalists believe in hell, judgment, and the seriousness of sin- This is a secondary theological issue - Christians can disagree charitably- Scripture should be our final authority, not tradition- Critical thinking strengthens faith rather than undermining it- We need safe spaces in the church to wrestle with hard questionsResources Mentioned:- "The Fire That Consumes" by Edward Fudge: amazon.com/Fire-That-Consumes-Historical-Punishment/dp/1608999300- Chris Date's debates on conditionalism: youtube.com/watch?v=ruNboVIEJlA- Gavin Ortlund on charitable theological discourse: youtube.com/watch?v=SN34MEHbxx8This is about more than just theology. It's about creating a culture where believers can think critically, ask hard questions, and develop a battle-tested faith rooted in Scripture.What do you think? Are you traditionalist or conditionalist? Let's discuss respectfully in the comments.🔔 Subscribe to Christian Philosophy Academy for more content on thinking critically about your Christian faith.#KirkCameron #Hell #Conditionalism #Theology #ChristianApologetics #BiblicalTheology #EternalConscousTorment #Annihilationism #ChristianPhilosophy
Annihilationism vs. Eternal Conscious Torment: Which View of Hell is Best? The Protestant Philosopher 2025-12-11 | Kirk Cameron recently announced he's become a conditionalist, and the evangelical internet erupted. Heresy accusations flew. Proof-texts were hurled back and forth. And almost nobody stopped to ask the question that actually matters: Which view of hell is best because it captures more of the explanatory virtues that good theories possess?That's what I want to explore with you in this video.I'm not interested in the typical approach where we trade proof-texts until someone surrenders. Instead, I want to invite you into a more rigorous methodology for adjudicating between theological theories. I lay out seven criteria for evaluating explanatory virtue, the same standards recognized across philosophy of science and rational inquiry, and then I characterize both positions with the precision they deserve before applying these criteria systematically.Here's what I discovered. When you go beyond the proof-text battles and ask which theory exhibits superior explanatory virtues, the results aren't particularly close. Watch to discover which view wins.Whether you agree with my take or not, I think you'll find this a more productive way to engage contested doctrines. It naturally lends itself to greater clarity and charity.Subscribe for more analysis of contested theological questions.Dr. Yang Interview - Related Video on Hell: youtu.be/T7HNhzWqRc4#Hell #Theology #Apologetics #KirkCameron #Conditionalism #BiblicalStudies
Catholicisms Infallible Circularity The Protestant Philosopher 2025-12-08 | Check out the full video here: youtu.be/I4TtaqL7gZI
The Catholic Trilemma: Every Path Leads to Epistemic Vice The Protestant Philosopher 2025-12-03 | What must a Catholic do if they find evidence against the Marian dogmas persuasive and fall into doubt as a result?When you see what the Church requires, you discover a trilemma:- Horn 1: Doxastic Coercion - Forcing belief against your better judgment.- Horn 2: Cognitive Dissonance - Maintaining certainty while finding contrary arguments more persuasive.- Horn 3: Suppression of Inquiry - Deliberately avoiding evidence that might generate doubt.Every path leads to epistemic vice. Every path demands corruption of the intellect from the perspective of pursuing the truth. Catholicism demands such vice as the price of staying in the club when you fall into doubt.#apologetics #catholicvsprotestant #epistemology #Mariology #christianphilosophy
The Catholic Escape Exposed The Protestant Philosopher 2025-12-01 | Catholics promise an escape from private judgment. Is this real? The decision to submit to Rome is itself a judgment. It's your judgment. You can't escape judgment by judging that you should submit. Both Protestants and Catholics rely on Spirit-enabled recognition. The difference? One is placing faith in divine speech. The other is placing faith in a human institution claiming divine protection. Only one can self-attest without circularity. Only one can ultimately offer a firm foundation.
Sola Scriptura Defended Against the Canon Objection The Protestant Philosopher 2025-11-20 | Can the Church declare the canon of Scripture without being equal to Scripture?The canon objection goes like this: the church determined which books are Scripture and that make the church at least as authoritative as Scripture itself, so Scripture isn't the final boss norm of faith and practice?In this video, I break down the recent Wes Huff vs Trent Horn exchange on this issue. Horn argues that the church didn't just discover the canon. It declared it with real authority. So doesn't that declaration require infallibility?Not necessarily. I use a analogy to show why not. Imagine a parliamentary committee that researches lost lineages and discovers a man is actually a Duke. They have real authority to declare his status, but his dukeness comes from his bloodline, not their declaration. Once recognized, he has authority over them.Similarly, the church exercised genuine authority in recognizing and declaring the biblical canon. But Scripture's authority comes from its divine origin (inspiration), not from ecclesial declaration. The church can reliably identify inspired books without being infallible or equal to Scripture. Problem solved.#SolaScriptura #Canon #ProtestantApologetics #WesHuff #TrentHorn #ChristianPhilosophy
Does Protestantism Need Catholicism? A Response to Brian Holdsworth The Protestant Philosopher 2025-11-20 | "Protestantism cannot surpass Catholicism because it depends on it for its very existence." -Brian Holdsworth (@BrianHoldsworth)Is he right?Holdsworth claims Protestant identity is just negative, that denominational diversity shows incoherence, and that Jesus's prayer in John 17 requires the kind of institutional unity only Rome provides.But there are serious problems with each of these claims.In this video, I provide a detailed Protestant response, drawing on:- Gavin Ortlund's book What It Means to Be Protestant- J. Ramsey Michaels's commentary on John 17- The historical context of the ReformationBy the end, you'll see Holdsworth's argument doesn't hold water. It's countered!#protestant #catholictheology #Christianity #BrianHoldsworth #Theology #ChurchHistory #John17 #Reformation #GavinOrtlund
The Eastern Orthodox Paradox (A Theological Lottery Paradox) The Protestant Philosopher 2025-11-18 | In this short, I present the "Eastern Orthodox Paradox."I’ve been thinking about this after watching Ben from Cleave to Antiquity (@CleavetoAntiquity) react to his old Protestant videos. It reminded me of the "Lottery Paradox" in epistemology, but applied to Eastern Orthodox soteriology. Here's a rough sketch of the argument. The premise runs as follows. Given Eastern Orthodox theology (i.e., it's the one true Church with valid sacraments), the probability that a non-Orthodox person is not saved licenses a justified belief. You don't know for sure, but you are justified in believing they are not saved because they lack access to the normative means of salvation.The contradiction comes from two justified beliefs.A. You are justified in believing it is not the case that all 8.02 billion non-Orthodox people are not saved. Why? Because of exceptions like St. Gregory the Great praying someone out of hell. You can't bank on it, but exceptions exist.B. Of each particular person in that group, you are justified in believing that that specific person is not saved.You then agglomerate what you're justified in believing in B. If you're justified in believing this of each particular person, you're justified in believing it of the whole conjunction, namely that all 8.02 billion will not be saved. We can call this C.And we get the paradox. Given C, you are justified in believing that all non-Orthodox will not be saved. Yet you're also justified, via A, in believing that it is not the case that all will be lost.In sum, Eastern Orthodoxy commitments lead to a contradiction. And this contradiction has a real impact on the mind and spirit of Eastern Orthodox believers.
Catholics Use a Sola Scriptura Verse to Attack Sola Scriptura The Protestant Philosopher 2025-11-15 | Catholics often use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as a "flex" verse against Sola Scriptura. But Gordon Fee's commentary on Thessalonians undermines this completely. It shows the verse supports Sola Scriptura.Here's what Paul says, "Stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15).Catholics claim, "See! Oral tradition plus written Scripture!"But Fee shows what Paul actually means:- The "word of mouth" = Paul's teaching during his founding visit to Thessalonica. - The "letter" = 1 Thessalonians, which is the letter Paul had already written them.Fee writes, "That Paul intends the 'traditions' in this case to refer to his own teaching is made certain by his twofold reference to its source: 'whether by word of mouth,' thus referring to his own teaching when he was among them, 'or by letter,' now referring to our 1 Thessalonians." (Fee 2009: 305).This isn't about ongoing oral tradition. It's about what Paul personally taught them. It's about two forms that delivered the same content.And here's the kicker: Paul's purpose was to give them "the basis for such 'testing'" of false prophecy. He's telling them to test new teaching against what he'd already given them.The irony?Paul's "oral tradition" is now inscripturated in 1 & 2 Thessalonians.He told them to use it to test false teaching. That's literally what Sola Scriptura teaches. Catholics are using a Sola Scriptura verse to attack Sola Scriptura.---Ref: Fee, G. D. (2009). The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. Eerdmans.
What Does Sola Scriptura REALLY Mean? The Protestant Philosopher 2025-11-12 | There's massive confusion about what sola scriptura actually means. Catholics say it's self-refuting. Many Protestants can't articulate it clearly. And honestly? Most popular definitions are either too vague or apologetically weak.In this video, I give you a precise definition that actually works. It's one that handles the major objections and reflects what the Reformers actually taught, "Scripture alone is the church's infallible and sufficient rule, not the only authority, but the only authority that cannot err, containing all doctrine necessary for salvation and godliness, under which all other authorities are subordinate."What You'll Learn:- The complete definition with all seven components explained- Why this definition is better than simpler formulations- Why sufficiency MUST be in the definition itself (not just an implication)- Why "infallible" is in the definition but "inerrancy" isn't required- How to answer the "sola scriptura is self-refuting" objectionThis is what the Westminster Confession articulates. This is what serious Protestant apologetics requires. And this is what we should be teaching in our churches in my opinion.About Christian Philosophy Academy:Equipping believers with sophisticated theological and philosophical resources to defend Protestant doctrine against Catholic and Orthodox objections.
The Vatican Just Admitted I’m Right About Vatican II The Protestant Philosopher 2025-11-07 | The Vatican just released "Mater Populi Fidelis", discouraging the use of specific Marian titles because they are "not clearly grounded in Revelation," "require excessive explanation," and suggest improper "intermediation in grace."These are EXCELLENT epistemological standards!The problem? Vatican II made six specific claims about other Christian communities that violate these standards, and the contemporary Magisterium hasn't recognized the inconsistency.The six Vatican II claims include:• "Elements in varying degrees constitute the objective basis" (UUS 11)• "The Church of God is built up" through Orthodox liturgies (UUS 50)• "Bishops make outpourings in great abundance" (LG 26)• "Elements are forces impelling toward catholic unity" (LG 8)• "Spirit has not refrained from using them as means" (UR 3)• "Most certainly can engender grace in varying ways" (UR 3)Each one fails the Vatican's own Marian title test.This isn't me imposing external standards. It's the contemporary Catholic Magisterium establishing epistemological rigor that exposes Vatican II's overreach.The question: Will they apply their own standards consistently to Vatican II?To avoid confusion, I'm NOT arguing Catholics can't determine sacramental validity from historical evidence. I'm arguing Vatican II makes claims about invisible supernatural realities, such as measuring degrees, knowing divine action patterns, quantifying grace flows, that require impossible epistemic access. This clarifies and further supports my early argument concerning Rome's Impossible Knowledge. It supports the logical contradiction I derive from the exact contents of Vatican II assertions, reasonable epistemic principles, and facts concerning human nature.WATCH the Related Video Here: youtu.be/wxTPkHfQpLs#CatholicTheology #VaticanII #PhilosophicalTheology #Epistemology #ReformedTheology #Logic #Apologetics #ChristianPhilosophy
Romes Impossible Knowledge: A Contradiction in Catholic Ecclesiology The Protestant Philosopher 2025-11-05 | I'm going to show you a formal contradiction at the heart of Catholic ecclesiology. Once you see it, you can't unsee it either. I'm going to show that the Catholic Church makes definitive theological judgments that require epistemic access no human being could possibly have, not even popes or ecumenical councils.I'll show you exactly what Vatican II claims. And it's not what you think. These aren't pious hopes or charitable presumptions. They're present-tense, indicative mood assertions about objective metaphysical reality. You'll see the actual magisterial language.I'll walk you through what knowing these claims would actually require:- Access to invisible supernatural causation patterns- Knowledge of God's metaphysical boundaries across competing theological frameworks - The ability to measure "degrees of communion" objectivelyThen I'll show you why humans can't possibly have this access. Using standard logical form, I'll show that the Catholic position requires judgment capacity to both exist (J) and not exist (¬J) simultaneously. This isn't a practical tension. It's J ∧ ¬J, which is a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.I'll show you how Reformed epistemology maintains confessional confidence while acknowledging creaturely limits, without claiming impossible knowledge about framework-transcendent metaphysical realities.If you're Catholic, this isn't tribal polemic. I'm engaging your strongest arguments with philosophical rigor. If I'm wrong, I want you to show me where the logic fails. But you need to see what your Church actually claims and what knowing those claims would require.If you're Protestant, you'll get a sophisticated philosophical framework for understanding why sola scriptura isn't special pleading. I'll show you the principled asymmetry between Type 1 (framework-internal confession) and Type 3 (cross-framework metaphysical adjudication) claims.If you're genuinely seeking truth, you'll see how to think clearly about theological epistemology, the limits of human knowledge, and what intellectual integrity before God actually requires.This isn't about peripheral doctrines. I'm showing that the Catholic Church's central post-Vatican II ecclesiological commitments are logically incoherent. That's not a matter of interpretation or emphasis. It's a formal contradiction provable through valid inference from premises the Catholic Church affirms.I believe intellectual integrity before the God of truth requires us to acknowledge the limits of what we can know, confessing confidently what God has revealed, maintaining humble agnosticism about what exceeds our grasp.Soli Deo Gloria,Christopher#CatholicTheology #VaticanII #PhilosophicalTheology #Epistemology #ReformedTheology #Logic #Apologetics #ChristianPhilosophy
The Impossible Knowledge: What Catholic Epistemology Cannot Admit The Protestant Philosopher 2025-11-05 | I need to show you a philosophical problem that sits at the heart of Catholic ecclesiology. It's one that Rome cannot acknowledge without undermining post-Vatican II commitments.The Catholic Church makes definitive theological judgments about invisible supernatural realities, such as which sacraments metaphysically work across ecclesial boundaries, who possesses genuine communion, where divine causation actually operates. These aren't empirical observations. They're framework-transcendent adjudications that require epistemic access no human institution, including popes and councils, could possibly have.What Catholic apologists call Protestant "circular reasoning" is actually unavoidable epistemic circularity that every ultimate authority exhibits, including Rome itself. But when we look at the knowledge claims Vatican II requires, we discover something far more devastating. The Catholic Church claims impossible knowledge while Protestant epistemology maintains intellectual honesty about creaturely limitations.Once you see this distinction, you can't unsee it.Join me for a rigorous examination of why Protestant epistemology isn't just defensible. It's philosophically superior precisely because it acknowledges what we can and cannot know.Christian Philosophy Academy | Rigorous Protestant Philosophical Theology
Did Math Just Disprove the Pope? The Protestant Philosopher 2025-10-29 | What if mathematics could settle a 500-year theological debate?I want to show you something that might fundamentally challenge how we think about the papacy's historical claims. When Gavin Ortlund argued that early Christian sources are suspiciously silent about a pope in Rome, Catholic apologists pushed back hard. But here's what they didn't address: the probability theory behind that silence.Using rigorous Bayesian analysis from Jerry Walls' work, I walk you through a devastating mathematical argument. If a monarchical bishop existed in first-century Rome, there's an 87% probability that at least one of our four earliest sources would have mentioned him. Yet we have complete silence.When you factor in the probability these authors would notice such a figure, record it, and that it would survive. The math becomes brutal. We're looking at only a 13% chance this silence occurs if the papal office existed. Add Joshua Sijuwade's documentation of Rome's fractured house church structure, and the probabilities keep multiplying.The final calculation? 99.998% probability against the papal claims. That's one in 50,000 odds.Sometimes rigorous methodology reveals what centuries of debate obscured. Let me show you how the numbers expose the truth.#ReformedTheology #CatholicApologetics #ChurchHistory #BayesianAnalysis
