Welcome back to James Popery. I'm Joe Heschmire, and many of you know I recently debated

Doug Wilson on Sola Scriptura. If you haven't seen that debate, you can check it out in the

description below. But the debate prompted a lot of good conversations from both sides, and one

person in particular caught my attention, because he offers a brand new argument for Sola Scriptera

and for the 66 book Protestant Bible. That person is

the Protestant philosopher, Dr. Christopher Kloos. Now, Kluz honestly recognizes that existing

Protestant arguments for Soliscriptora and for the canon have a logical gap. They tend to jump

from saying that scripture is God-breathed, inspired. That's a point that's taught by

Scripture. Catholics and Protestants agree upon that. But they jump from that to, therefore,

scripture alone is our ultimate norm. Scripture doesn't appear to teach that, at least not plainly.

Catholics and Protestants don't agree upon that. And Kloos's words,

Gavin Ortland, Keith Matheson, Michael Kruger, Herman Bavnik, and on and on and on.

I love all these theologians, and I've learned a ton from them, but none of them have filled this gap.

The inference from Scripture is God-Breat to Scripture alone is the ultimate norm, is asserted over and over

again, but it's never fully explained. Today, that changes. Now, when Cluze says, today, that changes,

what he means is that he is an argument that he thinks is going to finally fill that gap. It's going to

actually prove Soliscriptora true. Now, his argument isn't something that he is an argument that he thinks is going to finally fill that gap. It's going to actually

prove Soliscriptora true. Now, his argument isn't something from the Bible. That is, he's not

claiming to have found a biblical passage that teaches Soliscriptora or anything like that. Instead,

his argument is that there are certain things which must be true, given certain attributes of God's

nature.

So he calls this the attribute and scripturation thesis or AIT,

...