Apologetics for the Masses #424: Refuting GotQuestions.org (Part 10)

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

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

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

Topic

The Protestant website - GotQuestions.org - and John 6:51 (Part 10)

Introduction

Okay, this will be my last go-round with Sally and GotQuestions.org. It took longer to get to this point then I thought it would, but, eventually, in pretty much every discussion with a Protestant, you will reach this point. What point is that? The point where they will not respond directly to the questions you ask (even though, in this instance, that's what their website is supposed to be all about) or to the arguments you make. Instead, they will start employing the doctrinal dance - just bouncing all over the place talking about Mary, or the Pope, or Purgatory, or Constantine, or Muslims, and on and on and on. Anything to avoid actually answering the questions you've asked and the arguments you've made.

Never, ever, never let them do that. It ends up being a complete waste of time if you let them drag you away from your questions/arguments because if you try to answer them on all these other topics they bring up - that they're using to avoid talking about your original topic - then should you make a cogent point on any of those topics, they will just switch to another subject. So, either bring them back to the original topic, if you are able, or, if not, just end the discussion. Take your sandals off and shake their dust from your feet.

So, if you remember, in the last issue, Sally went full bore doctrinal dance on me. In this issue, I'll give you the last questions I asked Sally, in response to her doctrinal dance, and then, instead of giving all of Sally's answer - which was rather long and included yet another round of the doctrinal dance (she talked about papal infallibility, Pope Francis' comments on atheists, Peter not being the head of the church, Emperor Constantine starting the Catholic Church, praying to saints, what the Catechism says about the Muslims...which she interprets as us saying all Muslims are saved...and on and on she goes - I'm going to give you excerpts from what Sally says to demonstrate the absolute absurdity of her position.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Question 1165417 - Asked by John

Dear Sally,

First, I would like to note that you did not address a single one of my responses that showed how you were "seriously misrepresenting" Catholic teaching.

Second, I would also like to note how you did not respond to a single one of the arguments I made in response to your "7 Convincing Reasons" why John 6:51-58 should be taken symbolically. Arguments which, by the way, gave convincing reasons why your convincing reasons make no sense - biblically or logically.

Third, all you gave me in response were your opinions, your interpretations of Scripture, and your very flawed interpretations of the Catechism. For all of your supposed "study" of Catholic doctrine, it is clear that you have very little actual understanding of Catholic doctrine. So, here's the thing - since this website is "Got Questions," I have some basic questions for you since you appear either unable or unwilling to answer the arguments I made that thoroughly undermine your anti-Catholic reasoning.

Here are those basic questions, just 3 of them:

1) Are you infallible in your interpretation of Scripture...yes or no? And, if not, will you admit that your interpretations of Scripture vis- a-vis Catholic doctrine could possibly be wrong?

2) You believe the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God. Well, what authority do you rely on for that belief? I.e., where in the Bible does it say, for example, that the Gospel of Mark is the "inspired inerrant Word of God"? Or the Book of Hebrews? Or Revelation? Etc.

3) For the Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth...is it the Bible?

Comments

Since she didn't want to engage my arguments in response to her "7 Convincing Reasons" for why John 6:51-58 is figurative, not literal, and started dancing all over the place, I decided to see if she would be willing to go back to basics - the Bible and authority. I got some response from her on these questions, but it was mixed in with all the other things I mentioned above. But, it was enough to demonstrate the contradictions in her beliefs, as I'll show below. I'll give excerpts from her answer and then comment on each of them.

Excerpt from Sally's Answer

"I apologize if you think I did not answer your question, and that I was ‘seriously misrepresenting Catholic teaching’ in my responses to your questions; however, to the best of my ability, I was simply attempting to explain what God’s word has to say, rather than giving man’s opinion."

My Comment

Do you recognize the inherent contradiction in what she says here? She was "attempting to explain" what God's word has to say, rather than giving man's opinion...really? In other words, Sally was giving me her opinion of what the Bible says "rather than giving man's opinion" - i.e. the Catholic Church's opinion - of what the Bible says. That is the epitome of the problem for Protestants. In any discussion of theology with a Protestant, the theological system of the Protestant - any and every Protestant - renders your discussion to be nothing more than your fallible interpretation of the Bible vs. the Protestant's fallible interpretation of the Bible. The Protestant has absolutely no authority - NONE! - by which they can definitively say you, the Catholic Church, Protestants who disagree with them, or anyone else - is wrong. Yet, the Protestant acts as if their interpretation of the Bible is, essentially, the Word of God itself.

The sad thing here is, that Sally - who is apparently the resident Catholic "expert" at GotQuestions.org - has absolutely no clue of the contradiction and the absurdity contained in that one sentence of hers. Not to mention the audacity - her explanation of what God's word says is, in essence, God's word. But, that is the situation you will face pretty much every time you get into such a discussion with a Protestant. Which is why I am all the time asking people I dialogue with: Should I believe the Word of God, or the Word of Sally? Or the Word of Jim? Or the Word of Mike? Or the Word of...(insert any Protestant's name)? Protestant's do not go by the Bible alone, they go by their fallible, non-authoritative, interpretation of the Bible alone. Always remember that.

Excerpt from Sally's Answer

First of all, I never claimed to be ‘infallible’ in any area of life; no human being can make such a claim, because there are no ‘infallible’ people, in fact, the Bible states, in Romans 3:23: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”. The only perfect human being was Jesus Christ, when He walked this earth as a man, and for the Catholic Church to make such a claim is blasphemous. This doctrine was concocted by men, and is defined as follows in the Catechism of The Catholic Church..."

My Comment

Here we have our "expert" on Catholic teaching mistaking "infallibility" - the charism of not being able to teach doctrinal or moral error to the entire church - with "impeccability" - the absence of sin. And what's crazy, is that the very next thing she does after what I've quoted above, is quote the Catechism on the infallibility of the Pope and what it means, but it seems to just not register with her at all.

The Catholic dogma of Infallibility has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Pope can sin - he can, he does, all of them have. Yet, again, even with her 12 years of Catholic schooling and her claim of extensive study of Catholic teaching, she makes this very basic mistake. Is it any wonder that so many people have so much misunderstanding regarding Catholic teaching when even so-called experts such as Sally can't read the very plain words of the Catechism without misinterpreting them so badly? And, if she can't accurately interpret the very plain words of men, how are we to rely on her to accurately interpret the quite often not-so-plain words of God in the Bible?

Excerpt from Sally's Answer

The entire Bible is ‘the inspired, inerrant word of God’, and not just the Gospel of Mark, or the Book of Hebrews, or the Book of Revelation, and this truth, on which I base my belief, is declared in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” To believe otherwise is to deny that there is an absolute truth upon which man can rely; thereby building a foundation that is in harmony with what is pleasing to God, rather than to man.

My Comment

She either doesn't fully comprehend the question I asked her (#2 above) or she is deliberately ignoring the implications of that question (or both) since she obviously can't give a logically and scripturally consistent answer given her system of beliefs. I asked: Where in the Bible does it say the various books of the Bible - for example, the Gospel of Mark, or Hebrews, or Revelation, etc. - are the "inspired, inerrant, Word of God," which she believes them to be? Her answer contains circular reasoning. She uses 2 Tim 3:16-17 as the basis for her belief that the "entire Bible" is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. The problem is, of course, that 2 Tim 3:16-17, which says, "All Scripture is inspired," doesn't tell you which books should or should not be considered Scripture. So: "Where in the Bible does it say the Gospel of Mark is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God?" "2 Tim 3:16-17, which says all Scripture is the inspired Word of God." "But 2 Tim 3:16-17 doesn't say the Gospel of Mark is part of Scripture." "Well, since the Gospel of Mark is part of Scripture, and 2 Tim 3:16-17 says all Scripture is inspired of God, then the Gospel of Mark is the inspired Word of God." Circular reasoning.

The correct answer is: There is nowhere in Scripture that states that the Gospel of Mark, or the Book of Hebrews, or the Book of Revelation, etc. are the "inspired, inerrant, Word of God". Which means, this Sola Scriptura believer, whether she realizes it or not, and whether she admits it or not, actually believes in some authority outside of Scripture to witness to her as to what books should and should not be considered the inspired Scripture. Which means her belief in Sola Scriptura is illogical and self-refuting.

Also, is she not aware that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is talking about the Old Testament? One can easily discern that by simply reading 2 Tim 3:14-15. It's speaking of the "sacred writings" that Timothy has known since "childhood" - i.e., the Old Testament.

One other thing to note is the fact that she mentions, "absolute truth upon which man can rely". Do you see any issues with that statement given what I have already quoted from her above? I'll expand on that in my next Comment section.

Excerpt from Sally's Answer

When a religion is steeped in apostasy (false teaching); based on man-created, man-centered ideas, as is the Roman Catholic Church, there is no firm root (Luke 8:13)...Without a firm foundation in truth, a person has nothing on which to base his/her principles. God gave Moses the 10 Commandments for a reason, and that was so that mankind would have a guide. God is the Creator and Owner of this property, and as such, He has requirements as to how we are to live and thrive, and He has chosen to compile them into a book, the Bible. He dictated His words to 40 men, over a period of about 1500 years, so that man would be able to come to a knowledge of Him, His character, and His attributes, and develop a relationship with Him unto salvation...

My Comment

When a religion is steeped in apostasy (false teaching); based on man-created, man-centered ideas..." Every Protestant religion is "based on man-created, man-centered ideas"! Every single one! Can you name one Protestant religion that is not based on the fallible, non-authoritative, private interpretations of the Bible of this or that man or group of men? No, you can't! Can you name one Protestant religion that can trace its roots all the way back to Jesus through the Apostles? No, you can't! I.e., every single Protestant religion is based on "man-created" and "man-centered" ideas. Period!

Furthermore, as I have quoted her above, "no human being" can claim to be infallible according to Protestant theology. Which, again, means that not a single uniquely Protestant doctrine and dogma, being based on the interpretations of the Bible made by human beings, can be said to be "absolute truth". They can't be absolute truth because, since they are based on the scriptural interpretations of fallible men, the truths they supposedly contain, are, by definition, possibly false. If something is "fallible" that means it could be wrong. Nothing can be said to be "absolute truth" if there is even the slightest possibility it isn't true! Once again, the foundation upon which Sally has built her entire theological system, is found to be nothing more than shifting sand. Contradiction built upon contradiction.

And, as Sally states above, "Without a firm foundation in truth, a person has nothing on which to base his/her principles." That is exactly true for Sally and for every single Protestant. They base their entire belief system on the Bible...the Word of God. Yet, they have no way of knowing for sure, based on their theology, as to what is or isn't the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. And, even if they did, then they would have no way of interpreting the Word of God in an absolutely infallible manner because there is no human being who is infallible and so there is no human being who could teach absolute truth in regard to anything that is based on an individual interpretation of the Bible. So, under a purely Protestant theological system, "a person has nothing on which to base his/her principles".

Furthermore, notice how Sally, without any reference to the Bible, states, rather unequivocally, that God gave us the Bible "that He dictated to 40 men" over 1500 years, so that through the Bible we could come to know Him and "develop a relationship with Him unto salvation". I pity those poor slobs in the Old Testament period, and the ones in the first 20 years or so after Christ - before a single book of the New Testament was written - who obviously had no way of developing a relationship with Christ unto salvation since they didn't have a complete Bible.

Where does the Bible say, Sally, that God gave us the Bible in order that we might be saved? Didn't, rather, He give us a Church through which we could "develop a relationship with Him unto salvation"? A Church whose leaders were instructed to go forth and "teach" (Matt 28:19-20) as opposed to go forth and write?

And this person is the Catholic expert for this website that supposedly has the answers to all questions theological?

Excerpt from Sally's Answer

I do not pretend to be an expert on anything, but I choose to believe that the Bible is the inerrant, God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God. That it is the only absolute truth that exists, and though there are errors in many of the more modern versions of the Bible, the red thread of the shed blood of Jesus still runs through it, because God protects it. I believe that it is His love letter to man; that it contains His roadmap to salvation in, by, and through His Son, Jesus; it is His story (history), and His guide through which man can seek Him, find Him, and be saved.

My Comment

Actually, in her past responses, she has indeed pretended to be an expert on the Catholic Church and its teachings. She has repeatedly trumpeted her 12 years of Catholic schooling and her extensive study of Catholic teaching. And now to claim that she isn't an expert on Catholic teaching? Well, if you're not an expert on Catholic teaching, then how is it you dare to tell me, a Catholic, all about how wrong the Catholic Church is in what it teaches?! How dare you!!! And since you are not an expert on Catholic teaching, or the Bible, or Jesus, or anything else, are you not in the least bit worried that you could be passing off bogus information as the truth to people who write in to your website looking for truth and clarity?! Are you not the least bit worried, since you are not expert in anything to do with Catholic teaching, that you could be passing off as truth things that are, in fact, misconceptions, half-truths, and outright lies about the Catholic Church and its teachings? Do you not know what the Bible says about those who lead others astray?

By the way, you "choose to believe that the Bible is the inerrant, God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God," but you can't really tell me why you believe that? Because the Bible says so? Where? Again, where does the Bible say the Gospel of Mark, for example, is the "inerrant, God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Word of God"? Or Hebrews? Or Revelation? Or...name your book?

And, again, how can you claim "absolute truth" for anything that amounts to no more than yours, or some other human being's, fallible interpretation of the Bible? And how can you claim there are "errors in many of the more modern versions of the Bible"? What infallible authority are you relying on for that? Oh, wait...there isn't any infallible authority you can rely on to back up that statement. So, is that simply your fallible opinion?

All in all, Sally's theology is founded on nothing more than her fallible interpretations of Scripture, which cause numerous contradictions in her beliefs, and flawed logic in her theology. As is true throughout Protestantism.

Response from Jeff, Associate Editor at GotQuestions.org

Whether Sally’s points were ironclad or not is not my point, rather it’s that you’re clearly not looking for understanding, just attention. In general, it’s best practice to approach someone’s arguments in their strongest form, with the most “good faith” effort, to discuss them. When someone does the exact opposite—when they make an obnoxiously obtuse effort to misunderstand what’s not such a complex idea—it’s a sign of a disingenuous approach. It’s like hearing a child say, “you told me to be done with my homework by bedtime, and I’m done; I just stopped when I felt I was done, since you never said I had to finish it.”

My Comment

Thought I would share this one excerpt from one other response I received from GotQuestions.org. Obviously, this was their way of telling me that they had had enough. First of all, who is "Jeff" to say that I am "clearly not looking for understanding"?! Did he read my questions? Understanding is exactly what I'm looking for and exactly what I hope they will come to. The problem is, I can't get it from Sally or anyone else at GotQuestions.org. But, look at what he says: "it’s best practice to approach someone’s arguments in their strongest form, with the most “good faith” effort, to discuss them...," which is exactly what I have done - and which no one at GotQuestions.org has done towards me. And then he proceeds to accuse me of making an, "obnoxiously obtuse effort to misunderstand what’s not such a complex idea," and goes on to pompously dismiss my questions and arguments without so much as a, "I'll pray for you." Essentially, he does exactly what he accuses me of doing.

Secondly, if Sally's points are not "ironclad," then could someone, anyone, have enough integrity to admit that they could...just possibly...be wrong? And this is supposed to be a Christian website?

GotQuestions.org? Should be GotNoAnswers.org.

Closing Comments

Next issue: TULIP - a look at Calvinist beliefs.

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!