The second major weakness that Protestants bring to a debate
is a rejection of history due to the fallibility of men. Now, normally a halfway intelligent Christian
will appeal to some historical figures and quotations to try and support their
personal view. However, as the real
context of the writings are revealed or as the opponent shows how those views
are shared and there is no real disagreement with history, then the Protestant
moves to a position of rejecting history because men are all fallible. All historical men are fallible and as such
could have got it wrong. These people
insist and that the Bible is clear and everybody else for the past 2000 years
missed it. In fact, when a Protestant is
pressed on their views might even claim that IT’S POSSIBLE that even the
disciples got it wrong because, after all, they were just fallible men.
Protestants often throw this argument out as the coup de
grâce, thinking that somehow by throwing history out they have created a
stronger argument. After all, if history
can be so easily rejected, then the historical support for the Catholic view, or
an opposing view, is made irrelevant.
(Mind you, actual intelligent
Protestants would never be so brazen in the rejection of history. William Lane Craig would not be seen throwing
out all of history to support some view, nor would C.S. Lewis. However, as
found in my other article, here, many Protestants shun logic and intelligence
and prefer to embrace ignorance.)
Why this rejection of
history is weak:
Now this is an extremely poor way to approach debates. It makes a protestant spend time trying to
defend some position historically and then mid argument, attempt to reverse course
and reject all historical people as simply fallible men. The argument isn't weakened because they
claim all men as fallible; it is weakened because by making this claim so
adamantly they are inadvertently claiming that they are the only infallible
man. I say inadvertently because the
protestant by laying claim to the errors of others is at the same time claiming
to be in a position to see the errors of others and is able to correctly
discern, without error, what the true meaning or true doctrine is. This produces a question though, “If I can't trust C.S. Lewis who spent most
of his life studying and researching (before and after his conversion), how can
I trust the ignorant Protestant who rejects intelligence, abhors people who
study, denies logic, and yet asserts his view as correct and mine as wrong?” Even more astounding is that the people that
paved the way for the church, secured the Biblical writings and assimilated
them, and were in agreement for 1500 years, oppose this Protestant's view and
the only defense offered is that they were fallible men. If those who should have known best, and were
trusted enough to determine which books were the inspired Word of God, defined
doctrines like the Trinity, and were responsible with other doctrines to defend against heresy, cannot be trusted, then why in
the world should the person who claims
to be ignorant and fallible be trusted?
The constant campaigning for ignorance and fallibility
should lead any rational individual to conclude that your view should also be
rejected, because you're ignorant and fallible and don't even attempt to
improve it. For those basking in the
fallibility of men and rejection of history, what reason is there to believe
that your conclusion is anymore correct than all the other people you claim to
have got it wrong?
How to remedy this
weakness:
There is no easy solution for this problem. The reason this weakness arises is because of
the weakness of the person debating. By
being so ignorant (or at least by trumpeting their ignorance as some sort of
desired trait) and opposed to rational thought they refuse to spend time
reading and researching. To remove this
weakness a person must be able to use history and the great minds from the past
(and present) to support their view. Achieving
this requires spending time researching and studying various writings
available. It isn't enough to just make sure
that one doesn't go down the path of history rejection, because if your
opponent knows more about Church history than you, then you will be in a weaker
position. A better historical
understanding can provide a better Biblical context, and that provides a way
for a better Biblical interpretation.
Those who attempt to understand the Bible apart from history, truly lack
the ability to offer solid Biblical understanding.
A Protestant needs to be able to argue history with history
- demonstrating why certain views should be accepted or why certain sources
should not be trusted. This is a problem
for a lot of Protestants because they insist that intelligence is evil. So rather than studying they criticize. Rather than learning they remain stagnant. And when the next debate arises, they will
repeat the same lines and walk away at the same point. Resolving the weakness of “They're all just
fallible men” really means the person must overcome their rejection of logic
and reason. It is not enough to simply
know history; one must build a foundation for their view that doesn't depend on
the denying of relevance of history.
Humanity is a chain of historical figures, and their accomplishments and
failures led us to where we are today.
Neglecting the people of history and refusing to understand even the
basic path to our current state is not only weak, but exceptionally dangerous
for the future of the church.
