Weaknesses of the Protestant Approach to Debate (Part 1)

(I'm sorry, but this article will be a bit longer than my standard ones – just so much to say on it.)

One of my main passions is pursuing truth.  I read, I study, I research, and I discuss theological ideas with some profound thinkers living today.  Most of the people I have these discussions with are Catholics because most Protestants I know are opposed to looking for answers and asking questions.  Personally, after years of research, I fall into a protesting Protestant non-Catholic category.  Protestantism is a “protest” against Catholicism.  I see no point in protesting the historical church, so right now I protest Protestantism.  As a former Bible study leader, missionary, and Bible school teacher I have come to realize that Protestantism suffers many flaws which leave the foundation faulty at best and probably more appropriately described as completely lacking.  However, I think that this mostly comes from Protestants embracing all sorts of weak positions, the rule of secularism within the Protestant church, and a lack of authority within the church, leaving the whole of Protestantism a giant gathering of relativism. 

This leaves me in a position where I can hardly stomach listening to Protestants debate, whether the debate is within a denomination, between denominations, or against the Catholic Church.  But the Protestant can reform their position and start to at least sound less ignorant when they approach debates.  Now, some might be offended by calling Protestants ignorant, but it truly is one of the things Protestants value.  Most Protestant churches will shun people that seek to be able to believe intelligently. Churches try to denigrate them by calling them “head thinkers.”  So rather than ignorance as insult, the Protestant embraces it openly (if not quite hypocritically, but that's a rant for another time).

After debating several times with Protestants, I've learned that there are several weaknesses with which they approach each debate with yet never address.  These weaknesses are so hindering that it makes most arguments with a protestant irrelevant.  In order to strengthen their argument a person would have to deviate from critical protestant thinking that is deeply embedded in the roots of Protestantism.  To help out those Protestants, not only will I explain the weaknesses, but I will offer solutions to strengthen not only the arguments but also the foundation for Protestantism. 

The first weakness is the most often encountered and debated topic: sola scriptura.  For those who don’t know what that is, go here for an explanation.  Essentially, the protestant has approached the argument from a weaker position because they claim that the Bible is authoritative objectively on its own.  Now the problem with this position is that the protestant at the same time claims interpretation is subjective (whether they do so explicitly or implicitly).  If the Bible talked then it could offer up and interpretation that was objective, it however does not talk so people must read it -and reading demands interpretation.  Because of this need to interpret, there is often differentiating opinions among Protestants on the meaning of different passages in the Bible.  So while a liberal Christian (who I must say is also a complete idiot) can argue that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual sex, a conservative Christian can say it does and they both are reading the same Bible.  Both parties will offer verses in support of their view, interpretation of those verses, and counter interpretations of the verses offered by their opponent.  What this means?  The Bible is only authoritative when accompanied by an authoritative interpretation. 

Why this is a weakness?

Scripture references become irrelevant because nobody agrees on the interpretation.  Therefore, using any Bible verse to support your view is meaningless because somebody else can interpret it differently.  Protestants disagree on grace, sin, salvation, baptism, communion, faith, works, Hell, Heaven, the nature of God, and just about everything else.  This leaves a real burden of proof on the protestant to demonstrate that somehow the Bible can be authoritative objectively without interpretation and yet have no uniform agreement across Protestantism on any important matter to the Christian faith.

Further definition of the weaknesses of sola scriptura:

The first major flaw, which James White as well as numerous other Protestants has tried so hard with no real success to overcome, is that there is no universal agreement among Protestants.  Despite there being a plethora of Greek scholars, Biblical New Testament scholars, archaeologists, scientists, theologians, historians, and many other great minds studying the Bible, there is not agreement on the meaning of most of the passages.  In fact, the number of divisions within Protestantism has grown exponentially from the time of Martin Luther.  Some people have said that it is God that interprets His Word and therefore those that listen to the Holy Spirit are the ones receiving the true interpretation.  Besides the obvious door to relativism that this opens up, this still stinks of error.  The problem is it opens the door to judging who is really hearing the Spirit of God and who isn’t based on who has an interpretation that lines up with your belief. 

So the idea is circular: I believe this because it’s what the Bible says.  This person was a good Christian and they said this is what the Bible says.  Therefore, I believe what I already decided I believed to begin with.

Even without the circular thinking, it STILL is flawed because we don't know who is the judge of whether or not somebody truly heard the Spirit of God.  What this means is that instead of the protestant being able to boldly claim that they “Know where they are going when they die,” the protestant is actually completely unsure because they cannot know whether or not they have the true meaning of scripture.  Who judges whether or not a person truly heard God? 

If God is the judge then none of us can know, leaving the true meaning of scripture ambiguous, making the Jesus’ life and death a waste, because nobody can have access to the truth and we could be led to believe a lie based on a feeling?  A good Christian answers this question with, “My sheep hear my voice.” 

To which I respond, “Well John Wesley, John Calvin, Martin Luther, St. Francis of Assisi also loved God and all drew different conclusions than you.  So why should I assume you are the sheep that is hearing God's voice and not them? “

To which the good Christian responds, “You’re just a head thinker.”

If it isn't God who judges who really was listening to the Spirit, then we either need an individual appointed by God to tell us who really heard God or we need somebody that is an authoritative voice of God on earth to offer a right interpretation of scripture.  Without that, man is left fending for themselves and it makes God look incompetent.  Why waste time leaving the entire eternal future of mankind so unguided?  As man continues to fend for himself, the divisions within Protestantism continue to multiply.  With over 33,000 different Protestant divisions today it seems there is a large burden of proof on the Protestant to demonstrate that sola scriptura is truly accurate and working.  Even if you can explain away 32,500 divisions as completely crazy, you still have to explain how an objective and authoritative source can create 500 different interpretations leading to disagreement – and all different interpretations even on the essentials of the Christian faith.

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

It seems to me, the above affirmation of sola scriptura is clearly false as demonstrated by the lack of unity on even the fundamentals of salvation.

The second major flaw flows naturally from the first.  The Bible must have an authoritative interpretation to be relevant to a Christian.  Without an interpretation that is infallible, then the individual is left with the chance of their conclusions being wrong.  So the infallible Bible MUST HAVE an infallible interpretation to be viable.

Simple example:

Bob killed Joe.

It's a simple sentence, right?  Reading it is simple enough and the meaning can easily be understood, right? Well sort of. The meaning is based on the context and setting so people really cannot know what it means unless they understand the entire context and setting in which the sentence was expressed.

If the sentence is in terms of a tennis match discussion, then a whole new meaning is interpreted.

If the sentence is about a Halo match, then the meaning is to be understood in a whole different light.  (Sorry if you're too good for video games to understand the reference – you're missing out.)

If the sentence is from a news broadcast then yet another meaning is interpreted.

But the twist is, even with an understanding of the context, the interpretation could be wrong.  Just take the first example to examine.  When we understand the setting of a tennis match most people automatically shift the meaning to describe an event where Bob defeated Joe in a tennis match by a very large margin.  However, it could still be that Bob and Joe were playing tennis, Bob got mad and pulled out a gun and killed Joe.  So unless we know specifically how it is to be interpreted we cannot be sure of the meaning.  This simple example exposes a major flaw of claiming that the Bible is authoritative and can solve all disputes because it demonstrates the need for an absolute interpretation of even a simple sentence in order to understand the real meaning.

The four simple flaws of sola scriptura are: 

•            First, obviously it cannot be objectively authoritative because the divisions in Protestantism continue to grow instead of contract.
• Second, without an absolute interpretation of the scriptures then there is room for each passage to be interpreted differently leading to a completely undefined religion with no boundaries (as demonstrated from the example above). 
•           Third, the Bible doesn't even affirm which books are to be included in the Bible so there must be another authority we look to in order to know which books to include in our “authoritative” book.  This is obviously true as the Bible is a compilation of books over a period of over 1500 years and never lists which books are to be included in the compilation.
•            Fourth, the Bible never claims to be the only authoritative and all inclusive source of all things pertaining to Christianity.  So sola scriptura itself is a tradition derived outside of scripture. 

I didn't really discuss the third or fourth points because they are self-evident. 

How to remedy this flaw?

Protestants need to abandon sola scriptura and embrace the very essence that they imply in each argument: that the individual arguing somehow has encountered the absolute an authoritative truth in which every person that disagrees with them is in error.  When a protestant argues a certain view, they already believe they are right and that you are wrong because you disagree.  So instead of the mock humility trick, “Well, we’re just fallible men” statement, the protestant must insist on the infallibility of their belief.  Nobody believes you’re really humble when you sit there arguing about how another person is wrong because of such and such a verse or because the person “Obviously doesn’t understand” or the person is a “Head thinker.”  Save us from the pretend humility and instead blatantly shout, “I’m right because I’m infallible. All my views are 100% correct and if you disagree then you are wrong.”  This at least establishes something to debate against.  Otherwise all the time is spent trying to defend a position that has no foundation for objective truth.  At least claiming to be infallible is claiming to have access to objective truth – rather than menial fallible “truth” that could possibly wrong, but we're not 100% sure it is, so it could be right as well, even though history doesn't support it and it's irrational, but logic is evil and God hates it so it’s more likely that you're wrong because you're trying to be smart, and we should just agree to disagree.  (Was that a bit too much?)

If you insist on claiming fallibility, then I insist your fallibility is acting in full force right now and that you’re wrong; so quit telling me I'm wrong because you're, “. . .just a fallible man.”  If Protestants insist on sola scriptura they will exhaust all the debate trying to defend an indefensible position.  Yes, even though people like James White have tried really hard to defend sola scriptura, they have failed.  The reason is because the errors are so simple and obvious, that the foundation disintegrates quickly.

In spite of the glaring fractures in the foundation of sola scriptura, it is still the foundational belief of most Protestants.  It is perhaps the biggest weakness they approach arguments with and leads to an exhausting rabbit chase in debates.  Protestants will go off on a thousand bunny trails to try and defend sola scriptura.  My tip is to stop wasting everybody's time.  There is no illusion that you humbly believe that those beliefs opposed to yours could be right, so just step up and claim to be infallible on your interpretation and let the debate progress to the real issues.

A Need to Look Back

Upon the successful capture of the second Boston bombing suspect last week, some interesting questions were raised.  When the government put the whole city on lock-down the people of the United States said next to nothing.  Essentially, martial law was initiated and there wasn't even a complaint from the citizens – well nothing that drew any attention.  So one question arises, what kind of event is necessary or what level of intensity must an event create before the people will allow the government to lock-down a city?  Right now it was a bombing, will later it be a robbery of a gas station?  It's amazing that the freedoms and liberties that are forefathers cherished so much can so easily be tossed a side.  I still do not know whether or not I disagree with the government's actions, but it does press the issue as to when else the government might feel inclined to lock-down a city or neighborhood.

Anybody that followed the news through the week also noticed that there was a mountain of false information with only a little true information being passed through.  News media used to gather facts and then report facts.  Even though the information age has driven society to the point of demanding instant feedback, shouldn't there be a level of accuracy demanded before something is reported?  I know somebody will say that due to the chaos of the events the truth was hard to get at or due to the nature of the situation evolving there wasn't enough time to verify the information.  This however doesn't mean the news should not be held responsible.  Between the use of social media and the continuous river of rumors that were reported people not directly involved in the bombings were impacted – some in a negative way (like the original teenager that was reported as a suspect).  The ravenous people that were devouring all the media threw at them expected there to be some degree of truth in the reporting, when in fact there was very little.  Maybe the people should be held responsible for putting such a high demand on the media or for consuming the information without processing.  It should at least raise the questions, “Who is responsible?” and “What is a reasonable expectation of the media?”  At some level there has to be some sort of accountability to hold people to.  This isn't about a law or passing some new regulation, but about the people putting forth a demand of accountability.

Now that the excitement has settled and the suspect has been caught, it’s time to start looking at the ramifications of the week.  Questions need to be asked about the rights of all Americans, about our information gathering, about the media, about the role of government, and about accountability.  There is a danger that we will walk away from the situation just thankful to have captured the person who committed the crimes and not learn the lessons we need to as a country.  The last time I remember martial law was after hurricane Katrina and it was a mess.  People were not happy about it (I was doing work down there 3 days after the hurricane), but they made due because of the devastation that had just occurred.  Now we moved from natural disasters that incurred damage on a grand scale, to a bombing that was relatively small (it doesn't make it less tragic or the losses suffered any less important – those families still need support and prayer).  In the pursuit of justice it is possible to become unjust.  Sometimes the line becomes blurry the further down the path somebody goes and we as a nation have to be diligent to protect ourselves from a government blazing ahead in a quest for “justice.”  The greatest chance for a government to go astray is when people stand watching and cheering and it is our responsibility to make sure we hold them accountable. 

Again, I must emphasize that I'm not explicitly saying that the way the situation was handled was wrong.  My desire is to make sure people realize that we can't celebrate the capture and not analyze the rest of the events.  People need to be aware that sometimes by simply not asking questions it is looked at as a sign of approval.  I don't want the media to think they can continually feed me rumors and false information and I don't want the government to think that the next time something bad happens they can lock-down the city.   What seems to be lacking from people, or maybe it just hasn't been fierce enough to garner a response, is the outright questioning and analysis of the events from last week without attention to the bomber.  The best magicians use distraction to achieve their illusions.  While the eyes and ears are focused on one thing, something subtle is taking place somewhere else.  If we are not careful, we stand to suffer a greater loss than being tricked by a magician because the media and government will not be afraid to try the same things again in a different setting.   It's not about conspiracy, but about responsibility.  Complacency cannot be allowed to take over in the aftermath of events like the bombing last week.

In the Face of Tragedy, Unity

It has been a tough week for America.  Earlier in the week we had the Boston bombings and then we had the explosion of the fertilizer plant in Texas.  What amazes me about America is that it always seems to come together after tragedies.  Right now we have one of the most polarized divisions in the history of the United States and there doesn't seem to be an end to it in sight.  However, after the bombings there was a moment where you could see what makes this country so amazing.  It was in this moment where the people seemed to stand up and say, “We will not be defeated!”  And that is the mentality that seems to only come in the face of grave tragedies.

Now, I’m not going to take the liberal stance and say things should always be that way and that we should just hold hug and move on.  There is real division and it comes over a passion to drive this country toward continued greatness.  A true conservative doesn’t admire Europe and doesn’t look to the government to make the country better – a true conservative looks to the people living here.  Conservatives fight against liberal ideals with such aggression because they refuse to become something other than what this country is.  This country was not build on a defeatist attitude, but rather through drive and passion to never lie down until the battle was won.  When tragedies, like the ones from this week, happen, it seems there is a moment where the entire country remembers that drive and passion and unites – but it is only for a moment.

I wonder though how long this response will keep up.  When will the defeatist attitude of liberalism win out and leave our country surrendering after a tragedy rather than fighting?  The pursuit of liberalism weakens this nation.  President Obama is the weakest president to lead this country in years.  He is ignorant and dangerous because he is willing to surrender the United States.  Now, I don’t mean in the literal sense, but rather that with each bill, each tax, each agenda he fights for, the president demonstrates that he is willing to give away the rights and freedoms of the people to secure government power.  He holds to no values and instead is willing to compromise to make happy but with no ultimate goal in mind. I do have my doubts that he would be willing to fight on in the face of defeat, but that’s only speculation.  The point is, if we as people are willing to give up our money, our guns, our rights, and our freedoms, I wonder if we will still stand as a country in the face of tragedy and shout, “WE WILL NOT BE DEFEATED!”  Is the country at risk for becoming a country of surrender?

The divisions in this country and the strong beliefs need to keep empowering people to fight the battle.  It should drive people to fight on because they care so deeply about the future of the nation.  I fear that as we decide to make sacrifices in order to be united, this country will learn to give up rather than to fight on.  Passion, beliefs, and values need to continue to motivate people to be active and engaged in the shaping of this country.  In spite of the obvious corruption throughout government; in spite of the weakness of our president; in spite of the overwhelming feeling that this country is lost, people must fight on.  When we give up the fight for what we believe in, then we as a nation failed.  This current polarization being experienced is because there is still such a passion for this country and a desire to make it remain great.  However, because the vision for the future of this country comes from such a weak leader, there is a great schism that is created and the desire for a great country becomes something to divide on rather than to unite around.  Strong leaders unite people around a vision and weak leaders create rifts among the people, only drawing people that share their same values.  Unfortunately, it seems that the only time this country will unite under our current leader is under circumstances of tragedy because our president is a weak leader. 

The good news is I think these tragedies show that this country still can unite.  However, we face a crossroads now that will determine the future: do we continue down the path of surrender or do we stand together in the path of conquering.  This country is in desperate need of a good leader with a strong vision.  I do not see one coming any time soon though, from the liberals or the conservatives.  So now it is up to the people of this country to make sure we stay strong.  It is up to the people to fight on. 

Remember the fallen in these tragedies and pray for their families.