Apologetics for the Masses #448 - A Bone to Pick w/Catholic Apologist Trent Horn (Part 2)

Bible Christian Society

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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

Topic

Is it a "self-defeating" argument to say that Protestants, because they are fallible, cannot infallibly interpret the Bible?  Trent says, "Yes".  John says, "No". 

General Comments

Hey folks,

2 things:

1) No newsletter last week because, instead of working on the newsletter, I was finishing up work on my 2nd book.  The book was sent off to the publisher last Friday afternoon. The title of the book is: Problems with Protestantism/Questions Protestants Can’t Answer (Applying Simple Logic and Common Sense to Protestant Teaching)  It's a two-fer.  12 "Problems with Protestantism" in the 1st half, and 30 "Questions Protestants Can't Answer" in the 2nd half.  I don't have any word on a publishing date, but I'm hoping maybe sometime in July or August.  I'll let you know once I know.


2) I will be back in Houston for a talk at the Church of the Annunciation on Thursday, June 8th, at 7:00 PM.  The title of the talk is: "Catholic Myth-Busters: Dispelling Anti-Catholic Myths".  The talk is free, but they are asking that you bring a baby item to donate to the Foundation for Life.  For more information: tinyurl.com/accspeakerseries

Introduction

In a relatively recent "Insider's Newsletter" email sent out by Catholic Answers, there was an excerpt from a book written by Trent Horn.  The book talks about how Protestants sometimes argue in the same manner as do atheists.  The particular excerpt from the book that was included in that newsletter, mentioned how Catholics can sometimes also argue like atheists.  This is particularly so when Catholics argue, as Trent put it, that "an infallible text [the Bible] requires an infallible interpreter".   He calls that a "self-defeating skepticism". 

Trent states: "For example, some Catholics say that Protestantism is fatally flawed because there is no way an infallible Scripture can be everyone’s ultimate authority.  Instead, one’s fallible interpretation of that Scripture will inevitably be the final authority."  Which is exactly what I claim.  In fact, I claim that the lack of the charism, or gift, of infallibility for any person or institution within Protestantism is the Achille's heel of Protestantism.  That's because without an infallibile authority, one can never know for certain what is or is not the truth regarding the doctrinal and moral teachings of Christianity.  In fact, without such an infallible authority, one cannot claim to have an "infallible" Bible, as Protestants do, since one needs an infallible witness in order to testify to the "infallibility" (or, more correctly, the inerrancy) of the Bible. And, without an infallible authority, Protestantism has to necessarily degenerate into chaos.   

So, did he have me in mind when he was writing that.  Don't know.  But, whether he did or not, he most definitely was arguing against my position.  So, in the last newsletter, I responded to what he said in that "Insider's Newsletter".  This is the 2nd part of my response.  If you missed the first part, you can find it here: https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/639-apologetics-for-the-masses-447-a-bone-to-pick-w-catholic-apologist-trent-horn

First, I'll print the entire section of the newsletter that I was responding to.  Last week I responded to the first 3 paragraphs.  This week I'll look at the final two paragraphs.  After my comments, I'll summarize and give you my answer to the homework assignment in the last newsletter.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Trent Horn

     When Protestants require scriptural proof before believing that something is divinely revealed, they act like atheists who require scientific proof before believing that something is an objective part of reality.  But Catholics can also act like atheists when it comes to knowledge about the world - when they embrace a kind of self-defeating skepticism.
     For example, some Catholics say that Protestantism is fatally flawed because there is no way an infallible Scripture can be everyone’s ultimate authority.  Instead, one’s fallible interpretation of that Scripture will inevitably be the final authority.  But, given the conflicting opinions that Protestants have about the meaning of Scripture, a Protestant can never be certain he has the correct interpretation of it. Since an authority structure can’t be built upon a fallible interpretation of God’s word, they say, it must instead be built upon an infallible interpretation of it.  And this is only found in the teaching office of the Catholic Church.
     You could summarize the argument this way: an infallible text requires an infallible interpreter.  But, just as it is self-defeating to require scientific proof for all truths, or biblical proof for all doctrines, it is self-defeating to require infallible certainty for all interpretative judgments.  After all, a Protestant can rightly ask a Catholic who makes this argument, “If I can’t trust my fallible judgment about what the Bible means, then how can you trust your fallible judgment about what various Church documents mean?  Do you need an infallible interpreter in order to understand what the infallible interpreter said?  Or, if you can fallibly recognize the Catholic Church’s authority then why can’t I fallibly arrive at the unique and sufficient authority of Scripture?
     No one can escape the need to make fallible judgments about what is true based on the nature of evidence.  Protestants look at the evidence and make a decision to trust a model rooted in sola scriptura, and Catholics look at the same evidence and make a decision to trust a model rooted in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the magisterium.
     This is why I prefer the more modest argument which avoids claims about “fallible judgments.”  Instead, it asks which of these judgments has the best chance of crossing the “gap” between the giving of divine revelation in the first century and the framework of Scripture and apostolic traditions that Christians use to understand that revelation.  Catholicism is simply in a much better position to cross that gap because it allows for God to transmit his revelation through Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the magisterium instead of relying on Scripture alone to determine its scope.


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

Trent Horn
No one can escape the need to make fallible judgments about what is true based on the nature of evidence.  Protestants look at the evidence and make a decision to trust a model rooted in sola scriptura, and Catholics look at the same evidence and make a decision to trust a model rooted in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the magisterium.

My Response
First of all, I dispute his statement that, "No one can escape the need to make fallible judgments about what is true based on the nature of evidence."  Working from the assumption that we are not hooked up to a giant computer, a la The Matrix, or that we are not simply part of someone's fantastical dream - i.e., what is real can be definitively known - then I claim, given the "nature of evidence," all of the following are true: I can state, infallibly, that 2+2=4.  A forensic scientist can state, infallibly, if the blood sample he is analyzing under his microscope is from a male or a female.  I can state, infallibly, that a water molecule contains two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.  I can state, infallibly, that I am typing these words on my computer keyboard on Friday, May 19, 2023.  I can state, infallibly, that the Civil War began with the bombarding of Ft. Sumter by the Confederates.  I can state, infallibly, that God either exists, or that He does not exist - it can't be both.  In other words, I can make infallible statements about matters of math, science, history, philosophy, every day reality, etc., even though I am a fallible human being. 

Furthermore, I would re-frame his 2nd sentence in this manner: "Protestants look at the evidence and make a decision to trust a model rooted in sola scriptura, and Catholics look at the same evidence and make a decision to trust a model rooted in [the teachings of the Church]."  Which, when you frame it that way, as many Protestants do, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two perspectives.  Also, I would dispute his claim that Catholics and Protestants are looking at the same evidence.  We're not!  The "evidence" Protestants are looking at is nothing more than their private, non-authoritative, fallible interpretations of what the Bible is or is not saying on a particular doctrinal or moral issue.  The "evidence" Catholics are looking at has nothing to do with their personal fallible interpretations of the Bible.  It has to do with the authoritative teaching of the Church.  Now, Trent might come back and say, as Protestants often do, something along the lines of, "But, John, you're relying on your fallible interpretations of Church teaching, so what's the difference."  To which I would reply, "No, I am not relying on my fallible interpretations of anything." 

Here is an example of the difference between Catholic and Protestant methodology.  The Protestant believes the Bible teaches salvation by faith alone - Sola Fide.  Does the Bible, however, anywhere actually say, "We are saved by faith alone?"  No.  Which means, the Protestant is necessarily relying on their fallible interpretation of this or that verse of the Bible for their belief.  The Catholic believes the Church teaches that we are not saved by faith alone.  Does he have to interpret Church teaching to arrive at that conclusion?  No.  The Church just comes out and says it.  Look, for example, to the documents of the Council of Trent.  It states very clearly, and directly, that the Church does not believe that we are saved by faith alone.  Don't have to interpret anything. Now, the Protestant can still argue that his fallible interpretation of Scripture is right and that the Church's teaching is wrong, but he cannot say that my beliefs are based on my fallible interpretations of Church teaching.  No.  I can know, definitively, what the Church does or does not teach on matters of doctrine and morals.  I don't have to guess and I don't have to interpret. 

In addition, can a Protestant ask the Bible for help to better understand the Bible?  No.  Are there other documents, of equal authority to the Bible, which the Protestant can consult to know, definitively, what the Bible does or does not teach?  No.  Is there a teaching authority within Protestantism that can authoritatively declare, with absolute certainty, what the Bible does or does not teach?  No.  I can, however, ask the Church for help to better understand Church teachings should I have any doubts.  I can consult hundreds, if not thousands, of authoritative (magisterial) documents from the Church to clarify, if necessary, what the Church teaches on a given doctrinal or moral matter.  There is a teaching authority within Catholicism that can authoritatively declare, with absolute certainty, what the Church does or does not teach.

So, again, arguing that the lack of infallibility within Protestantism is a fatal flaw in Protestantism, is not a "self-defeating" argument.


Trent Horn
This is why I prefer the more modest argument which avoids claims about “fallible judgments.”  Instead, it asks which of these judgments has the best chance of crossing the “gap” between the giving of divine revelation in the first century and the framework of Scripture and apostolic traditions that Christians use to understand that revelation.  Catholicism is simply in a much better position to cross that gap because it allows for God to transmit his revelation through Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the magisterium instead of relying on Scripture alone to determine its scope.

My Response
Okay, I'm going to have to believe that there is more to this particular "modest argument" of his in his book. Catholicism has the "best chance" of "crossing the gap" between divine revelation as given in the 1st century and the "framework of Scripture and apostolic traditions" that are used by Christians to "understand that revelation"?  As it stands here, I don't know of a single Protestant I've ever talked to who would go for that argument.  A "better chance"?  Like I said, there has to be more to that argument that what he has here.  So, again, I'm going to get the book and see if there is indeed more to it than that.  Which means, if there is, then I'll be revisiting this particular topic in a future newsletter.

Summary/Homework Assignment
My argument that Protestantism has a fatal flaw in the fact that it relies on any given individual's fallible interpretation of Scripture as the final authority in matters of doctrine and morals, is not, as Trent Horn argues, a "self-defeating" argument, for these reasons:

1) It relies on the premise that what is actual and true - reality - can indeed be known, with certainty, in many situations.  In the areas of math, history, science, philosophy, personal experience, and other areas, as well - including theology - we can indeed know some things with certainty (i.e. infallibly) even though we are fallible human beings.  Fallible in general, infallible in particular. 

2) In matters of doctrine and morality, I do not make personal, fallible interpretions of Church teaching in the same manner as Protestants make personal, fallible interpretations of Scripture.  For one thing, the Church plainly states what it teaches in a myriad of different authoritative documents.  For another thing, the Church has a living teaching authority that can answer questions posed to it.  Plus, the Church is still issuing authoritative documents today that reinforce and reiterate its constant teaching. 

3) The difference between Catholic and Protestant methodology in the process of knowing doctrinal and moral truth is akin to the difference between signing up for a Calculus course where, when you show up to class, they hand you a calculus book and say, "Here's the book, read and study it for yourself and figure it out," as opposed to signing up for that same Calculus course but, when you show up to class, they not only hand you a calculus book for you to read and study, but you have a teacher who is the author of that calculus book, and they give you a list of other resource books that you can consult so as to better understand calculus. 

In the former scenario, you will be able to figure some things out for yourself, but there will be other things that you will think you might have right but can't be sure, and then there will still be other things that you have no clue about. In the latter scenario, you'll be able to figure some things out just by reading the book, and those things that you think you've got right but aren't quite sure, or that you have no clue about?  Well, you'll be able to ask the teacher.  There will be no need to guess.

4) My confidence in what the Church teaches is based on historical facts, archaeological evidence, the testimony of numerous witnesses throughout the ages as to which church it is that Jesus founded, the testimony of numerous miracles and healings, the testimony of the incorruptibles, as well as good ol' logic and common sense.  As Sherlock Holmes was wont to say, when you've ruled out all the other possibilities, then what you have left has to be the truth.  Having ruled out all the other possibilities, based just on logic and history, if the Catholic Church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ, then that church does not exist, and either, Jesus never founded a church, or the gates of Hell did indeed prevail against the church He founded.  If the former is true, then the Bible is wrong.  If the latter is true, then Jesus was wrong.  Which would mean, that Jesus isn't God.  Which would mean, that Christianity is, essentially, a sham.

5) The whole purpose of my argument is not to say that "an infallible text requires an infallible interpreter," rather, it is to simply show the illogic upon which Protestant theology is built.  For example, that Protestants believe, in theory, in the dogma of Sola Scriptura; however, they actually practice the dogma of Sola [My Fallible Interpretation of] Scriptura.  And, since there is no authority within Protestantism that can definitively decide anything in regard to disputes over doctrinal and moral teachings, then they have no right to say Catholics are wrong about anything.  They can say they disagree with Catholic teaching, but they cannot authoritatively pronounce it to be wrong.  Yet, they keep pronouncing us wrong. 

Anyway, for a much more thorough treatment of this topic, check out one of my newsletters from the not-too-distant past: Private Interpretation of the Bible vs. Church Teaching it goes into a bit more depth than what I've done here.


Finally, in regard to the homework assignment from the last newsletter, about Protestants who try to argue that their methodology of fallibly interpreting the Bible to arrive at their doctrinal and moral beliefs is, essentially, the same methodology as what they claim I use - fallibly interpreting Church teaching to arrive at my doctrinal and moral beliefs - the response I give to them is generally along the lines of #3 above.  No, it's not the same.  The difference between the two is much like the difference between taking a class where you're given a book and told to figure the subject matter out on your own, vs. taking a class where in addition to having a book, you have the author of the book as your teacher.  Just not the same thing.

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!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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

Apologetics for the Masses