I'm not just referring to formal debates, though they're part of the problem. The bigger problem is how Protestants in general handle certain debates in general, whether formal or informal ones.
There are a lot of issues that Protestants don't handle well, but two of the ones they handle the worst are baptismal regeneration and eternal security. It's about as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning that Roman Catholics and other critics of Protestantism will raise those issues over and over again, whether in formal debates, on their YouTube channels, or elsewhere. Protestants who reject baptismal regeneration or believe in eternal security should be prepared to address those subjects and to do so in a lot of depth. Given the circumstances, they and their forefathers should have been prepared better for centuries. They should have advanced their case far more than they have. Instead, if a Protestant participant in a debate is asked why Christians for 1500 years disagreed with his view on such a subject, a common response will be to cite some passage of scripture the questioner has already heard cited many times before, without making any effort to address the extrabiblical sources or even to develop a better Biblical argument. I'd estimate that more than 99% of Protestants I see addressing these issues act as if they're satisfied with citing only Biblical passages in support of their position, and it seems that the large majority of them have little, if any, interest in developing a better Biblical case, let alone getting better at addressing the extrabiblical evidence. They seem satisfied with whatever Biblical argument they started using decades ago, with little or no interest in learning and maturing.
When a participant in a formal debate, a YouTube host, or radio host behaves that way, we need to go beyond criticizing that individual and think about the bigger picture. Why is that debate participant being asked the question to begin with? Why is that radio host being asked that question by a caller to begin with? Probably largely because that questioner's parents, other relatives, friends, coworkers, attendees of his church, etc. failed to provide the information they should have provided in the years leading up to the asking of the question. Yes, people in higher positions of social influence, like the participants in formal debates and people hosting radio programs, are partly to blame, but they're far fewer in number, and they're doing much more than the average person is doing in contexts like theology and apologetics.
I get the impression that a lot of people like sola scriptura because they find it accommodating to their apathy and laziness about religious matters (however hard they may work in other areas of life). They arrive at an understanding of the Bible by whatever (often inadequate) means, and they like the idea that they don't have to do much, if any, work on the extrabiblical evidence. Similarly, it seems that many people like other rules of faith for similar reasons. They like a lazy appeal to what the church teaches, a supposed unbroken tradition that's been held for two thousand years, etc. Typically, both sides in a discussion of something like baptismal regeneration or eternal security haven't put much effort into researching the extrabiblical evidence pertaining to the subject (along with whatever problems there are with their understanding of the Bible).
I've written a lot about the Biblical and extrabiblical evidence relevant to these issues, like here on baptismal regeneration and here on eternal security. I've done the same on other issues as well (e.g., here on prayer to saints and angels). We need far more people doing the work and disseminating the work others have done.
Even if you only have a brief amount of time to address a subject in a debate, in a conversation, or in whatever other context, don't let false claims about the extrabiblical sources go unchallenged. Even in something like a ten-second or thirty-second comment, you can include a summary of one or more relevant extrabiblical sources, express the fact that you don't accept your opponent's view of the extrabiblical sources, etc. There needs to be much more of an effort to address these issues in a much better way.
No comments:
Post a Comment