Apologetics for the Masses #412: How to Use Blue Collar Apologetics

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

Taking what he learned from the Blue Collar Apologetics book, and putting it into action.

General Comments

Hey folks,

I hope all of you had wonderful Christmas and New Year celebrations! Between holidays, vacation, and all sorts of things going on at work the last 2-3 weeks, this is the first newsletter I've had the opportunity to get out in a month. Will try to make up for that in the next several weeks.

Even though I am not doing Open Line any more for EWTN Radio, I am on Johnnette Benkovic's show - Women of Grace - the last Tuesday of every month. Which means I'll be on this coming Tuesday, 10:00 - 11:00 AM (Central). Listen in if you have Catholic radio in your area, or you can listen by going to https://www.ewtn.com/radio/listen-live, or watch the program on EWTN's Facebook page. If you are able to listen to/watch the show, call in with a question...would love to hear from you! And, if you do call in, please make sure to mention that you're a subscriber to this newsletter.

Introduction

This week I am going to let another John M. take center stage in the newsletter. He ordered my book, Blue Collar Apologetics, read a couple of chapters, and then went online to use what he had learned. Afterwards he sent me a conversation that he had gotten into with a Protestant on Facebook.

Thought I would share it with you because it gives me great satisfaction, in doing what I do, when I see someone take what they've learned and use it to evangelize others. So awesome! Also, I wanted to let you see how easy it is to engage with non-Catholics - even non-Catholic pastors - even if you aren't a trained theologian or have a degree in Theology or any such thing. Common sense, folks, and simple logic - those are the two things Blue Collar Apologetics are built on. If you have even a modicum of common sense and can comprehend simple logic, then you, too, can be a Catholic apologist!

I'm going to print the whole dialogue first, then print it again with a few of my comments interspersed here and there. The first couple of paragraphs are John M. setting up the dialogue. The Protestant he's talking to on Facebook goes by Ernie Pastor, but in my comments I call him Pastor Ernie, just so no one gets confused.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Hi John!

I received your book today, Blue Collar Apologetics, and I am enjoying it immensely! Great work! After reading the chapter, "The Question of Authority", I decided to look at the FB group Catholic/Orthodox & Protestant Peaceful Dialogue. By the way... it's the least peaceful, most anti-Catholic place on the internet! I had a very interesting dialogue while using some of your examples and principles from your book.

I am bothered by people who call excellent short videos found on Youtube by the EWTN/Catholic Answers family, and others - such as Fr. MIke Schmitz - as "Catholic Propaganda". So, I had posted a comment earlier tonight saying: "Why is it that when Protestants use Scripture to defend their faith, it is seen as holy and good, but when a Catholic does the same, it's called 'Catholic propaganda'? A little hypocritical isn't it?" One guy named, "Ernie Pastor" responded to my post: "It's because most Catholic doctrine actually has no scriptural basis and when they do have a scripture to pull - the "interpretation" is so far from what it actually says it's almost laughable.

What followed was this:

Me: Gee.... that's quite an opinion. Like what?

Ernie Pastor: jeez, where to begin? The assumption of Mary, Mary's perpetual virginity, praying to Mary/Saints, papal infallibility. The list goes on.

Me: So because you don't agree with the Catholic position on these things, the Catholic Church has to be wrong, is that right? Are you infallible?

Ernie Pastor: it's not me that disagrees, it's scripture that disagrees. And the scripture is infallible.

Me: Sure.... the Scripture is infallible.... But what about your interpretation of Scripture? Are you infallible? Because the bible doesn't interpret itself. You draw conclusions that what the Catholic Church teaches is contrary to Scripture. That's an opinion. So... again.... are you infallible?

Ernie Pastor: nothing I said is based on interpretation. Half of what I mentioned isn't even in the scripture to begin with.

Me: That's your opinion. Are you infallible? I seem to be having a problem getting you to answer that question. Are you infallible? Could you be wrong in your interpretation?

Ernie Pastor: not my opinion, fact. Read the Bible, it's not there. 🤷‍♂️

Me: I didn't understand. Are you, "Pastor" Ernie, "infallible"?

Me: I read the Bible.... and nothing that the Catholic Church teaches is contrary to Scripture. In your opinion it is.... So I ask again: Are you infallible?

Ernie Pastor: no one but God is infallible, and by default his scriptures. The Catholic church adds a lot of things as truth that God didn't put in the scriptures so that's wrong. They also add as truth things that blatantly contradict scripture all together. You should direct your anger/questions to your church, not me

Ernie Pastor: You keep asking if I'm infallible though I don't know why. I never claimed to be.

Me: I have no anger. Just questions. And you seem to have trouble answering the first one, which is: Are you infallible?

Me: So then, you could be wrong?

Ernie Pastor: okay.

Ernie Pastor: I never said otherwise. But I do know what the Bible says, and what it doesn't. And a large chunk of Catholic doctrine falls into the latter. You can deny that all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Me: In other words..... you believe that the Catholic Church added things to the Christian faith because you don't see them reflected in the Bible, right? You've drawn a conclusion, then, that the Catholic Church is wrong. Yet, by your own admission, you could be wrong about your conclusion, then, right?

Me: You said that no one is infallible, right?

Ernie Pastor: OMG. Okay.

Me: How about the writers of Scripture? Were they infallible when they wrote the books that ultimately were included in the canon of Scripture?

Ernie Pastor: I'd like to say we're talking in circles, but you're not even doing that much. 🙋‍♂️ I'm done being trolled though. Have a good night.

Me: In other words you don't want to answer my question? Were the writers of the New Testament infallible when they wrote the Scriptures?

Me: Don't give up so easily, "Pastor"....

Me: I invite you to continue our discussion. My personal fallible opinion is that we are not talking in circles, as you said, but I don't want to move on in the discussion without getting straight answers from you, which takes some time since you don't want to answer them.

Ernie Pastor stopped communicating with me after this. Thank you, John! I don't think many of my debates will be quite this easy, but that's okay. I like the tools that you are providing in your book that help us be on the "Aw-fensive"!!! and able to take control of the dialogue! I wanted to share this with you so that you can see the fruit of your work in action! Thank you!

-------------------------------------------------------

The Dialogue

"Ernie Pastor" responded to my post: "It's because most Catholic doctrine actually has no scriptural basis and when they do have a scripture to pull - the "interpretation" is so far from what it actually says it's almost laughable.

What followed was this:

My Comments

Excellent beginning by John M.! Notice how all he's done so far is simply ask a few questions. And, by his questions, he's started framing the dialogue by immediately turning it into a question of authority and by asking Pastor Ernie if he is infallible.

Dialogue Cont'd
Ernie Pastor: it's not me that disagrees, it's scripture that disagrees. And the scripture is infallible.

Me: Sure.... the Scripture is infallible.... But what about your interpretation of Scripture? Are you infallible? Because the bible doesn't interpret itself. You draw conclusions that what the Catholic Church teaches is contrary to Scripture. That's an opinion. So... again.... are you infallible?

My Comments

Beautiful! Helping Pastor Ernie to understand that no, it's not the Scripture that disagrees with Catholic teaching, it's Pastor Ernie's interpretation of Scripture that disagrees with Catholic teaching. So, the important question is: Is Pastor Ernie's interpretation of Scripture infallible? And, implied in that question is: Does Pastor Ernie's interpretation of Scripture have any authority whatsoever?

Dialogue Cont'd
Ernie Pastor: nothing I said is based on interpretation. Half of what I mentioned isn't even in the scripture to begin with.

Me: That's your opinion. Are you infallible? I seem to be having a problem getting you to answer that question. Are you infallible? Could you be wrong in your interpretation?

Ernie Pastor: not my opinion, fact. Read the Bible, it's not there. 🤷‍♂️

Me: I didn't understand. Are you, "Pastor" Ernie, "infallible"?

Me: I read the Bible.... and nothing that the Catholic Church teaches is contrary to Scripture. In your opinion it is.... So I ask again: Are you infallible?

My Comments

Two things John M. did here that are spot on. First, he keeps asking the question, "Are you infallible," because he has yet to get a straight answer. He's not getting sidetracked by anything Pastor Ernie is saying to try to deflect the question. Keep asking the question until you get an answer.

Second, in response to Pastor Ernie saying the Bible is pretty plain in terms of it not supporting Catholic teaching, John M. states that he has read the Bible and there is nothing in Catholic teaching contrary to anything in the Bible. Very important to put that out there because now it becomes a question of one person's fallible interpretation vs. another person's fallible interpretation (at least, as far as Protestant theology is concerned). John M. is setting the stage to show Pastor Ernie the huge hole in the Pastor's logic and, therefore, the huge hole in his theology.

Dialogue Cont'd
Ernie Pastor: no one but God is infallible, and by default his scriptures. The Catholic church adds a lot of things as truth that God didn't put in the scriptures so that's wrong. They also add as truth things that blatantly contradict scripture all together. You should direct your anger/questions to your church, not me

Ernie Pastor: You keep asking if I'm infallible though I don't know why. I never claimed to be.

Me: I have no anger. Just questions. And you seem to have trouble answering the first one, which is: Are you infallible?

Me: So then, you could be wrong?

My Comments

Pastor Ernie finally admits that he is not infallible. John M. then asks the next logical question: "So then, you could be wrong?"

Dialogue Cont'd
Ernie Pastor: okay.

Ernie Pastor: I never said otherwise. But I do know what the Bible says, and what it doesn't. And a large chunk of Catholic doctrine falls into the latter. You can deny that all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Me: In other words..... you believe that the Catholic Church added things to the Christian faith because you don't see them reflected in the Bible, right? You've drawn a conclusion, then, that the Catholic Church is wrong. Yet, by your own admission, you could be wrong about your conclusion, then, right?

Me: You said that no one is infallible, right?

My Comments

The logic is irrefutable and it's obvious that, so far, Pastor Ernie doesn't have a clue where John M. is going with this because John M. is not getting in a hurry and trying to force the issue. He is simply taking it step-by-step as he attempts to sow some seeds of truth with Pastor Ernie.

Dialogue Cont'd
Ernie Pastor: OMG. Okay.

Me: How about the writers of Scripture? Were they infallible when they wrote the books that ultimately were included in the canon of Scripture?

Ernie Pastor: I'd like to say we're talking in circles, but you're not even doing that much. 🙋‍♂️ I'm done being trolled though. Have a good night.

My Comments

Boom! By asking the question about the writers of Scripture, John M. has just made Pastor Ernie realize that he has a theological problem. On the one hand, Pastor Ernie says that no one is infallible but God. But, on the other hand, Pastor Ernie also stated that the Bible is "infallible" - which means that the men who wrote the Bible had to be infallible when they were writing their parts of it. So, it seems that John M. has identified a logical inconsistency in Pastor Ernie's theology - it seems that infallibility can indeed apply to men, at least, in limited circumstances. And, that inconsistency in his theology leaves an opening for papal infallibility to be brought up later on in this line of argumentation. Pastor Ernie immediately realized what John M. had done, and wanted nothing more to do with this conversation. Which is rather cowardly, but not unexpected. He was not ready for a Catholic to point out problems with his Protestant theology.

Dialogue Cont'd
Me: In other words you don't want to answer my question? Were the writers of the New Testament infallible when they wrote the Scriptures?

Me: Don't give up so easily, "Pastor"....

Me: I invite you to continue our discussion. My personal fallible opinion is that we are not talking in circles, as you said, but I don't want to move on in the discussion without getting straight answers from you, which takes some time since you don't want to answer them.

My Comments

Now, you might be asking, "So, what good did this accomplish? All it did was get Pastor Ernie upset and he left the dialogue before it ever really got going." Don't ever underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit. What good did this accomplish? Well, for one thing, the fact that Pastor Ernie could not adequately deal with John M.'s questions, and his logic, is a seed planted with Pastor Ernie. Was the seed planted on good soil? Don't know. Will it eventually bear fruit? Don't know. But it was planted. I guarantee that this exchange will bother Pastor Ernie for a bit. John M. planted the seed, now it's up to the Holy Spirit to see what happens with it.

Secondly, you have no idea who was following this exchange. It might be that this whole exchange was not for Pastor Ernie's sake, but for the sake of one or more folks following the dialogue between the two of them, and those folks saw a Protestant pastor cut and run when he was asked a very simple question by a Catholic that he could not answer. At least, he couldn't answer it in a logically consistent manner. When people see things like that, it makes an impression on them.

Thirdly, this exchange has given John M. some measure of increased confidence in his ability to go out there and evangelize, which is a very important thing - confidence - for Catholics to have. And, it may have given a fellow Catholic who was a bystander to this conversation some measure of confidence as well. Pastor Ernie was certainly confident that the Catholic Church is adding and taking away from Scripture, and I'm sure he still is to some extent - but John M. put at least a chink in that confidence.

All of these are good outcomes from this dialogue. So, again, never dismiss a conversation like this as being fruitless, when we have no idea what manner of things might be happening as a result of it.

Kudos to John M.!

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!