Apologetics for the Masses #224 - Blue Collar Apologetics (cont'd)

How to Be Added To or Removed From This Newsletter

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. If you would like to be removed from this newsletter list, click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe and then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe." Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.

General Comments

Hey folks,

I want to start off by thanking all the folks involved with the Fullness of Truth conference in Tyler, Texas, this past weekend. I had a great time and met a lot of wonderful people, including Bishop Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler. If a Fullness of Truth Conference ever comes to your neck of the woods, make every effort to get to it. These guys put on a first class conference every time.

For any one in Birmingham, I will be speaking this Sunday morning, November 17th, at St. Peter the Apostle in Hoover. It will be at their Adult Ed class at 9:45 AM. Topic: Genesis and Evolution. Hope to see you there.

Introduction

This week I'm continuing with Chapter 1 of my book: Blue Collar Apologetics. Check out the last two issues to see what you have missed so far (www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter). I hope you enjoy...

Blue Collar Apologetics - Chapter 1, Authority (cont'd)

The Infallibility Question

I have talked with - either in person, over the phone, on the radio, or via the internet - probably a couple of thousand of Protestants in the last several years. Every single one I can remember talking to believed that his belief system...his theological system...was lifted straight from the pages of the Bible. Yet, I have talked with Protestants who believe in salvation by faith alone (sola fide) and those who do not. I have talked with Protestants who believe in once saved always saved (the doctrine of eternal security) and those who do not. I have talked with Protestants who believe in the rapture and those who do not. I have talked with Protestants who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, those who believe in a mid-tribulation rapture, and those who believe in a post-tribulation rapture. I have talked with Protestants who believe in one rapture and those who believe in more than one rapture. I have talked with Protestants who believe in infant Baptism and those who do not. I have talked with Protestants who believe that one is born again through Baptism and those who do not. I have talked with Protestants who believe Christians are obligated to follow the Ten Commandments and those who do not. I have talked with Protestants who believe you have to love God in order to get into Heaven and those who do not. And guess what? All of their beliefs come from the Bible!

I could go on and on and on here about Protestants who believe this or that doctrine vs. Protestants who do not believe this or that doctrine. But, suffice it to say, the thousands upon thousands of Protestant churches and denominations exist, in large measure, because of doctrinal differences. But how can that be if their beliefs all come from the Bible? How can all of these differing beliefs, all of these contradictory doctrines, all be coming from the one and same Bible? Well, the answer is, they can’t be. After all, God is not a God of contradiction. Truth cannot contradict truth. Which means, from a purely logical standpoint, that there is, at most - at most! - one Protestant denomination or church that is true. There is, at most, one Protestant denomination or church that could, theoretically, have a completely true Bible-based theological system.

I mean think about it - all these pastors in all these denominations and non-denominational churches - all of them claim to get their beliefs and teachings straight from the Bible. Yet, the beliefs of this denomination conflict with the beliefs of that denomination. The doctrines taught by this pastor conflict with the doctrines taught by that pastor, often even within the same denomination. Which has to mean there is, among Protestantism, at best only one Protestant denomination, or even just one Protestant church within or without a particular denomination, that can have a completely Bible-based theological system. Everyone else who disagrees with that denomination, or that particular church, has to be in error on one or more of its doctrines, and error cannot come from the Bible. If one church - just one - gets it completely right, then every other church has to be wrong at least some of the time. That is just basic logic.

So, theoretically, there is at most one Protestant denomination, or one Protestant church, that does not teach at least some error. All the other churches and denominations have to teach at least some error. There is no way around that. None. However, the fact of the matter is, that the chance of having even one Protestant church or denomination with a completely error-free theological system is pretty much zero. I say that because every Protestant that I’ve ever come across claims that no man is infallible (with one semi-exception that I’ll mention later). They all claim that no man is able to infallibly interpret the Bible and no man is able to infallibly teach on faith and morals. (This is, essentially, a reaction to Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the Pope.) Which means there is not a single Protestant minister who is infallible, so there is not a single Protestant minister who can be guaranteed to get it right every single time they teach and preach on the Bible. (If I were a Protestant minister, that thought would scare the bejeebers out of me.)

Essentially, every Protestant minister admits, theoretically, that they may be teaching error to the folks in their congregation whenever they get in the pulpit or whenever they teach Sunday school or whenever they lead a Bible study. Every single Protestant minister and Protestant apologist, by claiming that no man is infallible, are at the same time inherently admitting that they could be wrong in believing what they believe and teaching what they teach in one or more ways.

Which is why a Catholic should be very confident that whenever they engage in a discussion, dialogue, or debate with any Protestant on matters of faith and about the Bible and such, the worst they can do is, in a sense, a tie. This question of infallibility, or lack thereof, in Protestantism, is Protestantism’s Achilles heel. Whenever you engage in a conversation with a Protestant who is questioning or attacking the Catholic Faith, you should always ask this question very early on in the conversation: “Are you infallible?” When they answer, “No, I am not infallible. No man is infallible,” then you follow with, “So, since you are fallible, that means you could be making one or more mistakes in your interpretation and understanding of the Bible, right? Which means you could be telling me something that is wrong, right?”

Every Catholic who enters into a discussion or debate with any Protestant needs to keep in mind that the Protestant, by denying infallibility as a possibility for any man, has essentially admitted that whatever it is they are telling you, could be wrong. They could be wrong in their interpretation of the Bible that makes them believe we are saved by faith alone. They could be wrong in their interpretation of the Bible that makes them believe there is no Purgatory. They could be wrong about anything and everything they believe to be true about their faith, and they could be wrong about anything and everything they believe to be false about the Catholic Faith. You need to point this out to them early and often

Let me give you an example of what I’m saying here: I once debated an Evangelical who I would describe as rabidly anti-Catholic. He stated that Catholics are not Christian, that they worship a false God, a false Jesus Christ, and that there was nothing - not one single thing - that he, as a Christian, had in common with any Catholic, from a theological perspective. Early on in the debate, he made an issue of the Pope not being infallible - that no man was infallible. So, when it was my turn to speak, I said, “I hope my opponent will admit, since he stated that no man is infallible, that would include him and that he is indeed fallible, and that being fallible, he could be wrong in any interpretation of Scripture that he makes in regard to his beliefs or the beliefs of the Catholic Faith.”

Well, he admitted that he, of course, was fallible - he had to since he had already made the statement that, “No man is infallible.” So, after everything else he would say in the debate, I would lean into my microphone and say, “In your fallible opinion, right?” Which, didn’t make him too happy, but it drove home the point to everyone in the audience that this guy de facto admitted that everything he was saying could be wrong. Since he admitted to being fallible, then he inherently admitted to at least the possibility of making mistakes in his interpretation and understanding of Scripture. He inherently admitted that his belief system, the doctrines and dogmas he holds to, could be wrong either in part or in whole.

Now, while he admitted he was indeed fallible, he never once actually admitted that he could, just possibly, be wrong in his interpretation and understanding of Scripture. You see, while Protestants, especially Protestant ministers and apologists, might admit to being fallible (although it can sometimes be difficult to get them to even admit that), they actually act as if they are infallible. Fallible in theory, but infallible in practice, so to speak. Getting a Protestant who is in the process of telling you all that is wrong about the Catholic Faith to admit that, since they are fallible, they could actually be getting something wrong when it comes to their interpretation and understanding of the Bible in relation to the Catholic Faith, can be like pulling teeth. But, you’ve got to try to pull those teeth.

This is a very important point to keep in mind, because the question of infallibility is, I believe, the easiest place to poke a hole in their theological dam. As I said earlier, a Protestant’s entire theological system is not based on what they think it is based on. You see, they think their belief system is based directly on the Bible. It was lifted - with no changes, no alterations, nothing added or removed - straight from the pages of the Word of God. But, once you get them thinking about how they are not infallible - which means they are fallible - and plant the seed in their mind that since they are fallible, their interpretation of this or that passage of Scripture could be wrong, you have set the stage to show them their belief system is not based directly on the Bible as they thought, rather, it is actually based on their own private, fallible interpretation of the Bible. Or it is based on their minister’s private, fallible interpretation of the Bible. Their entire belief system is not based directly on the Word of God, but on someone’s fallible opinion about the Word of God.

That’s the Best You Can Do

I have had discussions about the Catholic Faith with numerous Protestant ministers. One in particular that I want to bring up here, was with a minister of a “Bible church.” Not five minutes into the conversation I asked him, “Are you infallible?” “Absolutely not,” he said, “no man can claim infallibility.” “So,” I continued, “that means, under your set of beliefs, our discussion here is basically your fallible opinion of Scripture vs. my fallible opinion of Scripture. That’s the best you can do, right?” Now, he never would admit to that directly, but he did finally admit to it indirectly when he said, “Well, by your own words, the best you can do is your fallible opinion of Scripture vs. my fallible opinion of Scripture.” “No,” I replied, “I never said anything of the sort. You see, the best that I can do in this conversation is the infallible teaching of the Church founded by Jesus Christ vs. your private, fallible opinion of Scripture.” Now, that of course, did not sit too well with him and he immediately starting talking about how the Catholic Church had contradicted itself at least a couple of times that he knew of during the last 2000 years and so it couldn’t be infallible and so on.

The point is, though, that I had him thinking about his fallibility.

[More to come next week...]

Summary

Again, this is just the first draft of the book, so what you see here may not end up exactly like this in the finished product, but it should be something along these general lines of thought. I hope all of you have a great week and I hope to get another newsletter out this coming Friday...