Young Protestant Tries to School Joe Heschmeyer and Fails

Añadido: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]It is important to note that Joe made a fundamental error here. And hopefully some of you caught it. Don't let them try and bamboozle you with sophistry like they love to do and try to distinction and distinguish their way out of all sorts of stuff and get you all confused. No, the issue is the issue is, folks.

[00:00:19]I'm going to do my best tonight to to to remain mild. I'm going to try my best, folks.

[00:00:25]But I'm about at my wit's end with the sort of sola scriptura games that the sort of silliness that they love to just do as we're going to see here in a little bit.

[00:00:35]And then oh, like barking seals online.

[00:00:38]Oh, amazing.

[00:00:39]Oh, it was so good.

[00:00:41]You you just you fell prey to a bunch of rhetoric. Devastating, right?

[00:00:46]Your emotions are pulled as you worry that you might be in schism with the only way of escape being to submit to the Pope. The first is that Joe is again confusing the existence of disagreement with the insufficiency of the rule itself.

[00:01:03]They they love doing this. This just backfires so bad on them. I understand what he means.

[00:01:11]But the phrasing and the wording in a debate with a Roman Catholic as a Roman Catholic wet dream but it's mortal to the Protestant.

[00:01:23]>> to give props to new and upcoming Protestant Miles from Canon and Creed for trying to refute Joe Heschmeyer's arguments in his debate with Doug Wilson on sola scriptura.

[00:01:33]A for effort. However, there is a problem I've been noticing amongst young internet theologians.

[00:01:40]Excuse the poisoning of the well.

[00:01:43]But that when they read a few books from reputable theologians they just automatically think they can take on the entire online apologetics world.

[00:01:52]They rashly get in way over their heads with all due respect and this is a prime example. In this video, I will show why Miles, perhaps the most formidable and precise Protestant apologist, and as close as he is to Rome, that the argument for sola scriptura fails when Protestants have to dismiss its flaws while focusing their problem on Roman Catholic ecclesiology. So, please like and subscribe to help support me and this channel. Thank you.

[00:02:20]>> Like I said earlier, the sole issue on this discussion, when you really peel back all the layers and all the sophistry and all the blowviation, where does faith terminate?

[00:02:33]Does it terminate on the speech of God or on an ecclesiastical act by the church? The church told me so, ah, okay, I can believe now. I can trust now that it's correct. Ah. Yeah, you're taking solace in the church, not the speech of God when you do that.

[00:02:50]Now, I know the papists want to argue this, especially these Thomist online guys, but that's the debate.

[00:02:56]They can try and weasel out of it with all their distinctions and sophistry and spinning webs and all the silliness that they do. It doesn't change the facts.

[00:03:04]Every attempt to locate their tradition ultimately sends you back to the authority of the church, which is the very thing in dispute in the first place.

[00:03:15]So, instead of solving the problem, once again, it just relocates it. That's the gap in Joe's argument.

[00:03:22]>> Miles' reasoning is equivocating the formal object of faith with that which Christ instituted to preserve and propose the binding articles of faith on the faithful.

[00:03:32]In layman's terms, we as Catholics do not formally put our faith in the church or even the dogmas promulgated by the church.

[00:03:39]Dogmas do not save us. They point to the realities that do save us. The dogma of the resurrection doesn't save us. The resurrection itself is the instrumental cause for our salvation.

[00:03:52]The church created and nothing created can pertain to the motive of theological faith.

[00:03:57]Theological faith is established upon the authority of God who reveals, not the church.

[00:04:03]The church was instituted by Christ to propose, not to reveal, but to propose infallibly that which has already been revealed.

[00:04:12]The church is the proximate rule of faith. Scripture and tradition are the remote rule and are a deposit in which revelation has been placed. Without the proximate rule of faith, there's nothing to infallibly propose and bind your conscience to assent to because anything fallibly proposing to you something contrary to the deposit of revelation is heresy.

[00:04:34]The magisterium is only the organ of revelation bringing, proposing, articulating, safeguarding, etc. revelation from the deposit.

[00:04:43]Miles asks, quote, "Where does faith terminate? Does it terminate on the speech of God or an ecclesiastical act by the church?" End quote. Faith, being a theological virtue, it originates in the Holy Spirit, grows in the Holy Spirit, and terminates in beatific sight. I told this to Miles during his live stream, and he responded with this.

[00:05:06]>> Now, we've had somebody in chat, for example, say, "Yeah, but we don't say that the church is the object of faith."

[00:05:11]I understand that. We already covered this. We already covered this. I understand that's being said, but when the logic of the position is pressed, you can't actually rest in the speech of God in scripture until the church gives you an ecclesiastical, uh, identification, certification, whatever term you want to use. This is just playing fast and loose.

[00:05:35]Yes, I understand that the ground of faith in the Roman Catholic model is still said to be God. It's not said to be men. We know this. We know this. Our scholastics all recognize this. We're doing the same thing they do with us, folks, where they say, "But if I press your position, here's where it breaks down."

[00:05:54]So, I'm not straw manning. I'm saying that this is a problem for your system that you can't get out of. Miles' claim is this, quote, "You can't actually rest in the speech of God in scripture until the church gives you an ecclesiastical identification certification." End quote.

[00:06:09]Listen to this quote-unquote ecclesiastical certification, if you will. Quote, "For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets his children with great love and speaks with them. And the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life." End quote.

[00:06:33]Not only does the Roman Catholic Church articulate that she is not above sacred scripture, but serves it, she also promulgates that the Bible quote-unquote stands as the support and energy of the church. And all Miles could retort with to me is, quote, "I'm saying that this is a problem for your system that you cannot get out of." End quote.

[00:06:53]Our system doesn't have this problem.

[00:06:57]Quote, "There's no such thing as an ecclesiastical faith distinct from divine faith."

[00:07:02]>> You fall into an infinite regress or faith turns into human faith because it's resting on something human. It's not resting on the speech of God. And this is why I say, the central focus of of this whole thing is the unique nature of the speech of God. Because they'll try to tell you that the speech of God, I've at least had some of them tell me, the speech of God is found in the church speaking, being led infallibly. No, it isn't. It isn't. The church is not self-authenticating.

[00:07:32]>> Miles claims that we fall into an infinite regress because it's resting on something human rather than the speech of God.

[00:07:39]Not only did I tell Miles in the chat log that the formal object of faith is God and not the church, he said, quote, "Yes, I understand that the ground of faith in the Roman Catholic model is still said to be God. It's not said to be men." End quote. He does not like that answer because if he conceded that, his whole 3-hour stream is for nothing, no offense. Miles, in more or less words, is suggesting that lay Catholics are being duped into placing the object of their faith in the church rather than God himself.

[00:08:11]That the hierarchy of the church arrogates herself above the written word of God and that our theological faith doesn't tend towards its proper object, that is God, but is reduced to a human faith that terminates in the created organ of the magisterium.

[00:08:27]He is implying that Roman Catholics worship the ecclesia with human faith.

[00:08:33]The irony is that Miles is using the very organ he claims we terminate our faith in, the church, magisterium, the very thing that preserved and translated the scriptures for him, and then suggesting that we Catholics rest our faith in the church magisterium rather than in the speech of God.

[00:08:52]You critique the very proximate rule of faith that infallibly proposed to you that which is the inspired word of God, then you weaponize it as leverage to claim that we Catholics put the object of our faith in a created organ of revelation rather than the uncreated truth itself, the principle and end of our faith.

[00:09:12]Forgive me, but could it be that you are treating the Bible as your formal object of faith and not God, and that you're projecting that distortion and equivocation onto Roman Catholics?

[00:09:22]Because God is not sacred scripture.

[00:09:24]He's trying to get Joe to answer.

[00:09:27]When God speaks through his word, meaning scripture, does that word present itself with divine authority in such a way that faith can finally rest there.

[00:09:40]They hear it.

[00:09:42]They they I are able to recognize it as the word of God and believe and it it ends it terminates there.

[00:09:51]Or do they have to have some sort of whatever you want to call it.

[00:09:58]You can't actually know you're encountering the word of God until it's certified and verified for you that it is indeed the word of God. Oh, and then I can rest.

[00:10:07]>> I don't know if Miles was insinuating that our faith is meant to terminate or rest in the scriptures. Because that would be a fundamental error.

[00:10:14]St. Thomas says, quote, now the act of the believer does not terminate in a proposition, but in a thing, end quote.

[00:10:20]In other words, our faith is not tending towards terminating in dogmas, articles of faith, or channels of revelation, but God himself as seeing him face-to-face.

[00:10:29]Protestants say scripture is sufficient to function as such and you'll recall I said that that's because of the unique nature of the speech of God. Protestants say that scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith. That's just another way of saying that no other authority has that function.

[00:10:48]No other authority possesses that unique relation to the speech of God because God's speech by its very nature is self-authenticating and binding. Speech of God.

[00:10:59]Where God has spoken.

[00:11:02]And that that is a unique authority that is self-authenticating.

[00:11:06]>> This is the common Protestant notion that unique equals sole or only.

[00:11:12]Since God's inspired written word is unique, in which it is, it is therefore the sufficient and sole infallible rule of faith.

[00:11:20]Uniqueness proves distinction and not exclusivity. I could give you a million examples of why uniqueness does not automatically mean sole, alone, and or only. The Old Testament book Song of Solomon is radically unique. Does that mean it's the only book to be considered as authoritatively inspired and canonical? Also, how do you get from unique to self-authenticating when discussing the inspired writings?

[00:11:48]It is very circular to assume the very thing under question is self-authenticating when that thing doesn't tell you what it even is.

[00:11:56]It's analogous to saying the book of Hebrews is self-authenticating because it's in the Bible. Or like saying the book of Hebrews is unique, therefore it's self-authenticating.

[00:12:05]That doesn't mean it authenticates itself, especially when the letter doesn't have anything internally authenticating itself.

[00:12:12]>> They're trying to weasel in here that the church is in this supreme number one category. No, it's not.

[00:12:18]No, it's not.

[00:12:20]Get out of here.

[00:12:22]The church can make public determinations, pastors can teach, councils can rule, confessions can summarize doctrine, et cetera. And individual Christians still have to exercise private discretion. But none of that none of that proves that the church is the supreme and infallible judge from which there's no appeal. That's the leap. Rome can say scripture is a rule, but only a partial one.

[00:12:49]It's not sufficient in and of itself. No Catholic of right reason is {quote} trying to weasel in anything. Miles claims, {quote} Rome can say scripture is a rule, but only a partial one. {end quote} Ironically, Rome promulgates the following, {quote} she has always maintained the scriptures and continues to do so together with sacred tradition as the supreme rule of faith since as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God himself without change and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and the apostles. and quote.

[00:13:27]>> And this argument is scripture doesn't give you an inspired table of contents.

[00:13:32]Therefore, your knowledge of the canon has to come from outside of scripture.

[00:13:38]Now, the more sophisticated apologists note that faith in the fact of inspiration itself has to come from outside of scripture and that that is necessary.

[00:13:50]And if it does come from outside scripture, then sola scriptura collapses.

[00:13:56]Got it?

[00:13:58]This is probably the most persuasive popular level argument that Rome has against sola scriptura.

[00:14:05]Because it creates the impression that Protestants need an infallible Bible, but only have it a fallible table of contents.

[00:14:14]Or to put it more sharply, you need scripture to function as your sole infallible rule, but you need something outside of scripture to tell you what scripture even is.

[00:14:27]However, however, one has to investigate closely because like with almost all of their arguments, it rests on a key Roman Catholic assumption.

[00:14:42]An assumption that Protestants have to challenge.

[00:14:47]The assumption is that in order for scripture to function as the infallible rule of faith, we have to possess an infallible ecclesiastical act identifying every book in the canon.

[00:15:03]If you collapse recognition into authorization, you have changed the entire structure.

[00:15:11]Because at that point, the certainty of scripture's binding authority is grounded in the church's identification of where God speaks, rather than in God's speech itself. The Roman Catholic Church has never promulgated that she gives Scripture its authority.

[00:15:29]Miles is 100% correct. God's speech, that is in the sacred Scripture, is ontologically God's revealed written word independent of any created agent or institution.

[00:15:40]Miles says, quote, "The Church then recognize Scripture as Scripture, but doesn't authorize it as such. If you collapse recognition into authorization, you have changed the entire structure because at that point the certainty of Scripture's binding authority is grounded in the Church's identification of where God speaks, rather than in God's speech itself." End quote. Amen.

[00:16:03]Well said. Scripture's authority is grounded in the deposit of faith, not the Church's identification of where God speaks. Miles is confusing the organ of revelation with the channel of revelation. The Scriptures are not the magisterium, and the magisterium is not the Scriptures. So, Miles is shadowboxing, not even a straw man, but something that doesn't even exist at all in our teaching on revelation.

[00:16:27]>> So, now you're trapped in an infinite regress.

[00:16:31]Which remains a fatal problem with Joe's stronger canon argument.

[00:16:36]He says canon knowledge must come from some sort of divine revelation outside of Scripture.

[00:16:43]But how do you authenticate that revelation? And if it requires another revelation, you never actually reach certainty.

[00:16:53]You just keep pushing the problem back one step.

[00:16:57]>> of the canon does not require, quote unquote, another revelation. Just as any article of faith that is binding doesn't require another revelation.

[00:17:05]Miles treats our hierarchical ecclesiology as if it were claiming for itself some sort of private revelation outside of the positive faith that determines the the of the canon.

[00:17:16]The canon was transmitted through the channel of sacred tradition, as is evident, considering that neither the scriptures nor the magisterium produces the canon.

[00:17:26]The magisterium acts as a necessary condition and the proximate rule of faith, which proposes that which is a part of revelation contained in the deposit, in this case the canon of inspired scriptures. Now you have to ask, how do you interpret the interpreter? Exactly correct.

[00:17:46]Yes, scripture comes to you in human language and you do have to interpret it.

[00:17:52]But if you say well, the church interprets it for me.

[00:17:58]The church also comes to you in human language.

[00:18:03]And you still have to interpret.

[00:18:07]You still have to decide, what does the church mean? Which voice represents the church? Which authority is binding and so forth?

[00:18:17]So the issue isn't really a matter of interpretation.

[00:18:20]That's unavoidable.

[00:18:22]The issue is what actually has the authority to bind the conscience.

[00:18:27]Okay?

[00:18:29]Where does interpretation finally terminate?

[00:18:34]Where does faith finally terminate?

[00:18:38]Don't let them try and bamboozle you with sophistry like they love to do and try to distinction and distinguish their way out of all sorts of stuff and get you all confused.

[00:18:48]>> This is perhaps the most common misconception about the magisterium acting as the authentic interpreter of sacred scripture, i.e. the church interprets it for me.

[00:18:59]First, the church has been entrusted to act as a guardian of divine revelation in written form, to hand it on and to teach it faithfully. She has never claimed that the laity cannot interpret the scriptures without the magisterium holding their hands.

[00:19:14]In fact, the magisterium employs lay theologians to help articulate and define revealed dogma. Such in the case with Pope Pius the IX and Ineffabilis Deus.

[00:19:26]You could in a sense argue that lay Catholic theologians interpret scripture for the vicar of Christ.

[00:19:32]Let's grant Miles' assumption regarding the church interpreting scripture for us. The irony of that is that Dei Verbum lays out five guiding principles for the laity interpreting scripture, giving them the tools and liberty to exegite scripture, appealing to and employing different schools of thought. Per Dei Filius, Catholic interpreters of scripture cannot go against the true sense of scripture and or the unanimous consent of the fathers. Is not the Protestant, on the other hand, such as Miles, ball and chain to one myopic and literalistic interpretation of scripture, such as the Westminster Confessions?

[00:20:08]With all due respect, so what Miles is projecting onto our magisterium is literally his own problem. As a former Protestant, I know Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz interpreted the scriptures for me.

[00:20:23]Likewise, Calvin and Le Blanc interpret the scriptures for Miles. This is where you run into problems with things such as literalistic view on the creation accounts, Seventh-day Adventist soul sleep, and a Calvinistic teaching that God the Father looked at Christ as a reprobate on the cross. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[00:20:42]Acts 2 simply shows that what Protestants are putting forward it shows what we are putting forward.

[00:20:48]So, my question always with that text is, why should I then accept your model, which is adding this extra step that wasn't necessary for them?

[00:20:58]If it was fine for the believers and hearers at Pentecost, it's fine for me.

[00:21:03]Okay?

[00:21:04]They didn't need your philosophical drivel that you're trying to work in here with all your confusion and whatever. No, it's simple. The word [snorts] is proclaimed. The spirit works with the word, works faith in people, their faith rests, and they recognize the speech of God for what it is. We're going to see another example of this later.

[00:21:21]Period.

[00:21:22]Scripture is proclaimed, Christ is preached, the spirit convicts, the hearers receive the word where their faith terminates.

[00:21:31]I'm sorry, the Roman Catholic Church and their theology just makes so many things complicated that don't need to be complicated.

[00:21:37]>> This is where I can sympathize with Miles and find common ground, regardless of what he thinks about my arguments.

[00:21:42]The Holy Spirit is not confined to an ecclesial box in which only those who belong to the visible bonds of the church can know they're encountering the word of God.

[00:21:52]The Holy Spirit is not the church, but rather the soul of the mystical body, who can act autonomously, blowing like the wind where he pleases. Quote, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now, when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" End quote.

[00:22:15]However, notice that these men of Judea were listening to the oral preaching of infallible and inspired men.

[00:22:22]They were not individually reading the scriptures apart from agents proposing the foundations of faith to assent to.

[00:22:28]And yes, I can see that which cut to the heart of the men of Israel by hearing the word of God can happen when someone is reading the inspired word of God. And Miles is right, it is not that complicated until heretics start to complicate things by distorting the deposit of faith and infecting the deposit with one drop of poison. And not only that, but some will even claim that tradition isn't even a channel of revelation, or that there's no need of a magisterial authority to preserve, safeguard, and authentically teach that which has been handed down by the apostles and their successors.

[00:23:03]If sola scriptura is enough and that the magisterium is unnecessary, then you need to provide a provision for the church to remain united in every age until Christ returns.

[00:23:14]Praise be Jesus and Mary.

[00:23:16]Thank you.