Apologetics for the Masses #447 - A Bone to Pick w/Catholic Apologist Trent Horn

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,

Two things:

1) I had a great time at the Fullness of Truth Conference in Houston this past weekend. It was an absolute pleasure to meet some of you there!

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

     This week I am responding to something written by Trent Horn - Catholic apologist of much renown - about me (probably not directly, but, at least, indirectly). Trent works for Catholic Answers, and they put out an "Insider's Newsletter" email on a frequent basis. I am on their distribution list for that newsletter. The one they sent out on March 29th had something in it where, it seemed to me, Trent was quite possibly talking about me, although he did not mention my name, rather, he just said, "Some Catholics say..."
   The newsletter was, essentially, an advertisement for Trent's book, When Protestants Argue Like Atheists: 12 Weird Ways That Anti-Catholics Mimic Secular Skeptics, which I now have to buy, since I'm talking about it. I imagine it's quite good, as pretty much most of his stuff I've seen is, so if you're interested, you can find it here: shop.catholic.com
     The newsletter contained, it seems, part of the discussion of one of the twelve ways anti-catholics mimic secular skeptics...aka atheists. Whether he has seen my materials and had me in mind when he was discussing this particular point or not, or he was referring to some other Catholics, what he said did indeed apply to what I do and how I do it. And I had to mostly disagree with what he said. So, it occurred to me, that responding to Trent's comments in that newsletter might make for good reading for this newsletter, especially since it gives me the opportunity to deal with a common reply Protestants make to one of my most common arguments against Protestantism, as you will see.
     Below is the portion of that newsletter Trent wrote to which I am responding. I'll print the whole section I'm responding to first, then break it up, as per my usual MO, and intersperse my comments between his.
     By the way, I just want to make sure it is clear, this is not a doctrinal dispute or any other such thing, it is a disagreement over tactics and the validity, or not, of a particular line of argumentation. He and I have a difference of opinion. Nothing more. But, more importantly for this newsletter, is my response to this particular Protestant counter-argument for one of the arguments I frequently make. You'll undertand what I'm referring to as we go through this.

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

     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.

My Comments
     Okay, the first part of what he says in this paragraph, is exactly what I hammer on when talking to Protestants - they do not believe in Sola Scriptura, instead they believe in Sola [Their Fallible Interpretation of] Scriptura. Big difference! However, I don't say they can never be certain they have the correct interpretation because of "the conflicting opinions Protestants have". I say they can never have "absolute assurance" of their interpretation because it is their own, private, non-authoritative, fallible interpretation. I know this because they deny even the possibility that any mere man could be infallible when interpreting the Bible. And, the only authority anyone has ever claimed to have is the authority of the Holy Spirit. Sorry, but I can claim the authority of the Holy Spirit just as easily as any Protestant can.
     However, I never say anything along the lines of the 2nd part of what he says in this paragraph - that an "authority structure" must be "built upon an infallible interpretation of God's Word". So, I don't know if he was reading Blue Collar Apologetics and simply misunderstood what I was saying and made an unwarranted extrapolation, or if there are indeed Catholics out there saying such a thing. If there are, I haven't seen them. Regardless, if you have an authority that can infallibly interpret the Word of God, then that authority could not have been "built upon" an infallible interpretation of the Word of God. You can't have even the first infallible interpretation upon which to build up an infallible authority, unless you already have an infallible authority in place that can make the first infallible interpretation. Kind of a chicken and the egg conundrum.

Trent Horn
     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?

My Response
     Okay, this is the part of the argument that is the main focus of this newsletter. First of all, Trent goes off track a bit with his summary of the argument: "An infallible text requires an infallible interpreter." A few things wrong with that statement: 1) A text is not, technically, infallible. Yes, it can't make a mistake. But, it can't make a decision, which is why it can't make a mistake. A text...a book...is "infallible" in the same way a tree is infallible or a rock is infallible - none of them can make a decision, so none of them can make a mistake. It is more proper to say that the text...the Bible...is inerrant. It contains no errors, not that it can't make any errors. So, my first issue is with the language he uses.
     Secondly, if he, by any chance, had Blue Collar Apologetics or any of my writings or talks in mind when he was making this point, then he missed the point. My point, with Strategy #4 of Blue Collar Apologetics - "But That's MY Interpretation!" - is not that the Protestant has to make an infallible interpretation of the Bible in order for it to be a valid interpretation; rather, the point I make is that because the best the Protestant can possibly do - given his own Protestant theology - IS to make a fallible interpretation of Scripture, then his fallible interpretation carries the exact same weight and authority as any other person's fallible interpretation of whatever Scripture verse or passage he is interpreting. The whole point is that under a Protestant theological framework, no one has the authority to say that their particular fallible interpretation of Scripture is better than anyone else's fallible interpretation of Scripture. Which results in there being absolutely no way to discern which of the conflicting interpretations, if any, is the right interpretation. Which is the point my argument is intended to drive home and which is why it is not a "self-defeating" argument as Trent believes.
     Given all of that, how dare a Protestant - any Protestant - tell a Catholic - any Catholic - that the Catholic's interpretation of Scripture, or the Catholic Church's interpretation of Scripture...is wrong?! You can say that you disagree with the Catholic interpretation, but, if you are being intellectually and theologically honest, you have to agree that the Catholic has as much right to his interpretation of Scripture as does the Protestant to his interpretation of Scripture, since there is no authority capable of definitively deciding between conflicting interpretations as to which one, if any, is correct. The end result being that Protestantism leads to nought but chaos. Which is exactly what we have in Protestantism today.
     The Protestant, going by the Bible alone, is left with nothing more than a theology that they think, hope, and pray is right...but can't really be sure because their theology, at its core, is based on nothing more than someone's personal opinion of what this or that verse or passage of Scripture means. Have you ever met a Protestant who says something along the lines of: "I used to believe such and such based on the Bible, but after more study, I was convinced that the Bible teaches this and that instead?" How crazy is that?! If their personal understanding of the Bible can, and does, change over time - which causes their doctrinal beliefs to change over time - how do they ever know when they've reached the endpoint of their theological wandering? Plus, even if they have reached their own personal endpoint in Bible study, other people have reached completey different endpoints. And one person's opinion is just as valid as another person's opinion.
     The final point, and the overarching reason for addressing this topic in this newsletter, is to address this argument from the Protestant: "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?" That is, essentially, the only half-way reasonable response I have gotten from Protestants when I start asking them, "Is your interpretation of the Bible infallible?" They reply, some of them, with something along the lines of, "Well, you rely on your fallible interpretation of the Catechism for what you believe, so if I can't rely on my understanding of Scripture, then you can't rely on your understanding of the Catechism or any other Catholic Church document!"
     Sounds almost reasonable at first glance, but there is a very important and fundamental difference between the Catholic way of coming to a particular belief and the Protestant way of coming to a particular belief. Even though fallible human beings are involved on both sides of the aisle - Protestant and Catholic - the process of discerning theological and moral truth is definitely not the same.

Homework Assignment
I am going to stop here this week, and give you several days to think about how you would answer the Protestant argument that Trent mentions in the Catholic Answers newsletter, which is, essentially: "Well, if my interpretation of the Bible is fallible, your interpretation of Church teaching is also fallible, so we can't know anything then about God and religious and moral truth, which means we're both in the same boat!"

I'll give you my thoughts on that in the next issue, along with my comments on the last two of Trent's paragraphs above.

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