Filipino Philosopher Nationalist

Filipino Intellectual and Theist. Student of philosophy and history.
I have no enemies by race, religion, or gender - only enemies of reason.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@OleMissRebel90 A Great Relationship with God, not necessarily with a wife. I honestly don't understand why we worship romantic love so much, if the only reason you value romantic relationships over your other relationships because of sex, you probably don't deserve the others.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@thanksjackasss @ApexImperialist It's a Protestant project only, so that Evangelicals have a historical basis without having to cede to the Pope, if it were up to them, Jews would ban evangelicalism. They're literally eyeing to force Israel to become Christian one day.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@NikolaosJRC @Osarseph0 "That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery." - Nostra aetate

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@Osarseph0 @NikolaosJRC Jay Dyer bashes Catholicism just as much as he bashes Jews, you probably have work on that more, but essentially, Catholicism is Zionist in the sense that it recognizes the State of Israel and thinks Jews are still part of God's plan in a positive sense.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@Osarseph0 No? This is a strawman and you know it. The point is to demonstrate a reductio.
Premise 1, Jews are the unholy evil human race is.
Premise 2, Christianity is founded by Jews and in some ways more Jewish.
Premise 3, therefore Christianity is Jewish and must be destroyed.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

The argument isn't concerning Sola Scriptura itself, the argument is about ecumenism. If your worldview grants that you can have vastly different views on theology (what Protestants do) then your worldview is relativistic by necessity.

[adp512 @adp5121]

@orthofin @TheOtherPaul2 @evenevenshnn @gladioaires SS is about authority, not epistemology or the nature of truth. So, I don't think it's right to say that the foundation of SS is relativism. Similarly, the existence of a binding authority isn't needed to secure truth as such.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires He proved it. Protestants derive mutually incompatible doctrines from the same Bible while lacking a binding adjudicator. “Correct interpretation” just begs the question: who determines it? That’s the circularity and relativizing problem.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires So I’m not going to let the discussion become only “name Jay’s interaction with Field or Tillotson” Present the principle from Field or Tillotson that solves the problem, and then we can test it directly.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires That may be a fair bibliographical challenge, but it is not the same as refuting the authority critique.
If your point is simply “Jay has not engaged Anglicanism at its deepest level” then say that. But that does not answer whether Anglicanism has a non-arbitrary criterion.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires You've spent several replies arguing about Jay's reading habits, but you still haven't explained why the objection fails.

If Hooker, Field, Taylor, or another Anglican divine contains the answer, then present the answer. Quote the principle. Explain how it resolves the problem.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires Confusing 2 different claims between:

Claim A: Jay has thoroughly engaged the greatest Anglican divines.

Claim B: The Protestant paradigm faces an authority and adjudication problem.

Even if I granted Claim A is false, Claim B does not automatically become false.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires So the question is not "has Jay read my preferred authors?" the question is, what Anglican principle non arbitrarily settles contradiction inside and outside Anglicanism? If your answer is Hooker or Field ,state the principle, don't hide the argument in bibliography.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires That only follows if the critique depends on reconstructing every Anglican divine from the inside, it doesn't, a presuppositional critique targets the public criteria traditional uses, such as scripture, tradition, confession, councils, et.c

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires I already lifted the burden. Anglicanism has foundational contradictory theological positions inside the claimed communion, that's a common Jay attack. That's the relativizing problem. You even have Female Bishops now, nothing gets past that.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires The articulation of what Protestant Divines is irrelevant because Dyer attacks the presuppositions that their articulations rely on, the fact you can't even answer what adjudicates all these Protestant religions is proof you have nothing.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires So what is the non-circular Anglican criterion that adjudicates between Anglicanism, Rome, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Reformed Protestantism, Baptists, Restorationists, and Mormonism?

If the answer exists, state it. Naming Hooker or Field is not the same thing as giving criterion.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires If you had already given the answer, you could simply state the principle, instead you keep shifting to a reading-list challenge: "Which Anglican divines have you read?"
That may be relevant to whether someone has studied Anglicanism deeply, but it doesn’t answer the argument.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires Dyer addresses the foundational problem of Protestantism in general, which is that you are a schism of a schism, so you have to rely on some form of arbitrary relativism to justify , if the foundations that presuppose your writers are wrong, then he's already addressed them.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires Premise 1: Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist and any other traditions all appeal to Scripture while reaching contradictory conclusions.
Conclusion: Therefore relativism critique is a strong pressure if no non-circular answer can be provided.

Not an assertion.

[Filipino Philosopher Nationalist @evenevenshnn]

@TheOtherPaul2 @gladioaires See? You lost already, you changed the standard. The claim was whether Dyer addressed Protestantism, he did, now you're demanding individual engagement with every individual Anglican writer (as if that would be different), he is refuting the underlying principles.